Assignment 1: Analysis of Two Teaching Methods

ECUR 393 (X02): Advanced Methods of TESL

Rena De Coursey

Ali Pravda

11081138

February 9, 2016
 Teaching a second language can be effective if using proper techniques and

strategies. Using improper techniques can significantly slow a learners progress,

leave gaps in their knowledge, cause student frustrations, and concrete student

errors and failures (e.g. incomprehensible pronunciation, informal language use, and

fragile self-esteem). A language teacher must have a rounded knowledge of

techniques to guide them in each diverse situation. As well, an instructors own

personal teaching style will influence these choices; therefore, a self-reflection is

necessary to know which methods are utilizable and adaptable. More often, a

hybridization of methods is needed to ensure student needs are met. The Whole

Language Approach (WLA) is one method that attempts to unify these methods in

order to create a holistic learning situation; although, it still has its disadvantages.

The Audiolingual Method (ALM), despite some irrational aspects, does compensate

for some flaws of the WLA. Depending on student context, each method has its

purpose in the area of language teaching but WLA is the superior method overall.

The Audiolingual Method focuses on spoken skills first and foremost.

Historically, this concept rings true, particularly considering that all languages

originated in an oral form while the written forms came much lateronly created

when needed. The ALM bases itself off of the theories of behaviorism: a behavior is

a result of a stimulus, response, and reinforcement (Richards et al., 56). Therefore,

language mastery is only possible if the appropriate stimulus and reinforcement,

each done by the teacher, occurs. Because of this phenomenon, the Audiolingual

Method is strictly teacher-led. The ALM aims to build the learners usage of

phonemes, morphemes, words, phrases, and sentencesconsecutivelywhile

having proper use of pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation (Richards et al.,

55, 59). Reading and writing is introduced last; only language that can be produced
orally is prioritized (Richards et al., 59). Through drills and dialogues, which are

repeated and memorized, grammatical functions and vocabulary are learnt and

contextualized (Richards et al., 59). Because of the nature of these types of

activities, this learning process is inductive (Richards et al., 57).

The Whole Language Approach is a holistic way to develop language through

interactions, both socially and internally (i.e. knowledge) (Richards et al., 108-9). A

curriculum is not the main objective, but instead, the learners needs (i.e. reading

and writing) and interests are prioritized. Unlike ALM, speaking is a means to the

goal, not the ultimate goal. The WLA is student-centered, uses student-produced

texts and authentic literature, integrates all four skills, and encourages exploration

of language use while seeing mistakes as part of learning (Richards et al., 110),

each of these characteristics are vastly different from the ALM approach.

There are additional differences of these methods to account for. The

teachers role of the ALM is predominate, an alternative to WLAs facilitator focus.

The ALMs lack of student choice leaves sparse intrinsic motivation (Brown, 68, 91)

outside of comprehensible interactionopposite of WLA, as it is driven by high

interest texts, reading with purpose, writing for a real audience, and aiming for

relatable input by associating it with past experiences (Richards et al., 110). It

should also be noted that WLAs tolerance of errorswhich is seen as an attempt

and process of learningis the opposite of the ALMs strict disapproval of

inaccuracies, which can lead to a lack of student motivation, low self-esteem, and

poor student-teacher relations. A con of the ALM, since new material is presented

in dialogue form (Brown, 23), is that this technique does not contextualize

information for studentsa distinguishing factor in WLAs technique. Without

rooting students in a theme first means that a student may be confused for the
majority of a conversation. An additional con is rooted in the natural progression of

second language acquisition; the actual stage of speech emergence (i.e.

producing simple sentences) often does not happen until one year of being

immersed (Hill et al, 15). Producing a few words does happen earlier, but is moot if

using a teaching method that relies on students verbally communicating as part of

its instruction. The only similarities include: practicing speaking, interacting, and

using a stimulus.

Despite these differences, and an inclination towards using the WLA, the

ALMs focus on oral communication is valuable. Teaching phonemes and phrases

can immensely aid in successful communication, particularly if a native language is

interfering. For example, during class vocabulary review, a student may say pond;

instead, a common issue for Filipino students, a /b/ phoneme is produced instead

of /p/, and /t/ rather than /d/; producing a lexeme closer to bunt. These two words

are different in both sound and meaning, and, without context, one may never

connect one word to the other. Particular instruction could target these

pronunciation errors, as the Audiolingual Method suggests, but with context, and in

a real-time scenariowhere techniques can be used, such as rephrasing,

enunciating, and spellingthe speaker is still able to communicate their idea. The

problem only arose when a word was used singularly and, seemingly, at random.

Therefore, students can be verbally understood despite misusing verb tense, being

negligent to rhythm and stress, and being unaware of grammatical phenomena.

Their meaning can still be interpreted, particularly if their listening skills allow them

to answer questions from their audience. The opposite holds true for written

language. A text is likely to be reviewed without the author present; there cannot be

further questioning about their ideas. Instead, the reader is left to guess, assume,
and make conclusions about the writers message. The lack of body language and

sociolinguistic aspectssuch as tonecan construe a texts meaning, as can be

seen in text messaging conversations. Therefore, a speakers comprehension only

needs extensive instruction if there is nearly zero proper pronunciation (i.e. as seen

with some contrasting accents, such as Vietnamese to English).

An aspect that the WLA cannot neglect is that although strategies can aid in

interaction, interaction can only take place if a student is comfortable producing

language orally. If a learner is left to focus primarily on written skills they may

become paralyzed during interaction because of the fear of making errorsif a

speaker knows that they are about to make an error (e.g. they do not know the

proper verb tense) then they may be unwilling to speak because of their affective

filter (Brown, 324). Thus, a welcoming environment needs to be cultivated. Also,

speaking needs to be used often and by each learner. Language is primarily what is

spoken and only secondarily what is written (Richards et al., 55); therefore,

speaking skills need to advance simultaneously with the other skills.

While implementing the WLA, students would be a part of the planning and

instruction processes. First, the teacher must create a bank of themes that the

students are interested in. Then, the students could each create their own idea

banks (i.e. student generated lists, accumulated from prompted questions) which

would be used for writing activities later in instruction. When students create texts

these are then used as one source of reading materials. Authentic texts would also

be accumulated by the teacher based off of the students interests. Activities would

include: journals, portfolios, and group reading and writing tasks (Richards et al.,

111). Students would then use these activities to connect to during their speaking

exercises; those of which would include: role plays, discussions, debates, interviews,
and storytelling. These activities have a stimulus, as noted in ALMs theory of

learning (Richards et al., 56), but do not share the same objectives; that is, the

goal is not to sound like a native English speaker, but rather, to communicate. One

unit may include a class reading of a high-interest novel, followed by a writing

activity, such as using a paragraph from the novel as a mentor paragraph (i.e.

students use the same structure but substitute their own content words and ideas).

Lastly, students perform mock interviews in which they answer questions while

pretending to be a character from the book. Stress, rhythm, and other speaking

components would be then addressed as issues arise.

Despite the responsive approach to skill development, rather than a proactive

one, the WLA ensures that students are being instructed on only skills that they do

not already have; as such, teachers would need to be educated in phonology and

pronunciation errors in order to analyze what errors students are making. Once that

students are closer to approaching an advanced level, then it would be more fitting

to instruct and practice the finer details of their skills.

In an English as an additional language classroom, in which there is

instruction for academic purposes, the Whole Language Approach could be

implemented while the Audiolingual Method supplements when needed. Each

method has disadvantages, but the WLA is more fitting for academic purposes and

for the learners well-being. Reading authentic texts and for purpose ensures that

the learner is not only ready for the classroom but also for real-life. Using students

interests will aid in motivation which will also encourage students to become life-

long learners. Encouraging students to cooperatively learn amongst each other

(Richards et al., 111) will also give them social skills for real-life scenarios outside of

the classroom. A classroom cannot prepare students for every possible situation
that they may face. Therefore, students should be taught strategies regarding

handling reading, writing, speaking, and listening issues rather than instruction on

each individual issue. The Whole Language Approach satisfies this theory with

respect to each these four general skills.

Works Cited Page:

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching

(2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H.D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. NYL Addision Wesley Longman.

Hill, J. D. & Flynn, K.M. (2006). Classroom instruction that works with English

language learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.