Read the following article by Scott Thornbury, a world-recognized ESL writer and researcher, and answer the following two questions:
1. How is Thornbury's view different or similar to Larsen-Freeman's?
2. What do you think about the suggestions he gives in the final section of the article? Could you apply them to your own teaching context(s)?
Suscribirse a:
Enviar comentarios (Atom)
QUESTION 1
ResponderEliminarBoth views are very similar in the the following issues:
1. GRAMMAR HAS BEEN OVERRATED
They point out that grammar has been viewed in language syllabi as the language itself, which has been promoted by teacher trainers, teachers, language school administrators and EFL/ESL authors.
2. GRAMMAR IS ¨DISSECTED¨
There is a misconception of teaching grammar as just chunks of language taken away from the context. The only change that has happened lately is that lexical sequences such as collocations, idioms, mixed conditionals and so on, have been added to the teaching repertoire.
3. GRAMMAR SHOULD BE PERSONALIZED
Thornbury states that an extra P, which stands for personalization, should be added to the PPP paradigm. On the other hand, Larsen-Freeman says that the teacher should take into account students´ background, experiences, and wishes when teaching grammar.
4. GRAMMAR GOES BEYOND LEARNING THE LANGUAGE SYSTEM
Even though a student might know grammar rules, that does not ensure that he or she can use the language in the correct instances because of the lack of opportunities to use the language meaningfully and communicately.
Thornbury and Larsen-Freeman differ in the following aspects:
L1 vs. L2 grammar learning
Larsen-Freeman states that even though there has been some evidence of language learners picking up grammar on their own, grammar learning should be accelerated by explicit instruction.
Conversely, Thornbury states that formal instruction has not be proven to be the best for grammar learning, even in the classroom setting.
QUESTION 2
I think that the suggestions that he gives are actually part of one the most recent teaching approaches, which is the Task-based approach.
Some characteristics that he points out are
1. personalisation (background knowledge and experiences)
2. student-centeredness
3. communicativeness (participation and interactions)
4. fluency-type activities
5. authentic input (teacher talk and other resources)
6. postponing presentation techniques
Using this approach as the core of a syllabus would be excellent; however, there are some students who are more into being explicitely taught. In fact this is mirrored by Larsen-freeman and Thornury´s opinions about grammar being learned implicitely or explicitely.
In order to fulfill the needs of evey student in the class, the teacher should know what they like and need before getting hooked up with just one way of teaching.
There might also be constrains that limit the teachers´decision of implementing Thornbury´s suggestions. Teachers are already given a syllabus, a textbook, and in some cases, even the exams are pre-made by the administration. In addition, designing a syllabus is time-consuming, as well as designing activities out of authentic materials.
All in all, authentic materials and opportunities to use grammar communicately must an essential part of teaching.