“Teacher educators argued that no single method is appropriate for all situations and that, in any case, teachers never simply implement the blueprint specified by a particular method, but rather ‘construct’ teaching fluidly in accordance with their understanding of what works for the particular students they are teaching on particular occasions.” Ellis & Shintani (2013: 36-37)
As I said in the previous entry, in my opinion, one method is not enough and it is the teacher’s job to identify which ideas of X method he or she can apply in a given context. And that is when the post-method began with types of approaches like the focus on form/formS/meaning:
Focusing on meaning may be the most realistic environment that a teacher can create but I feel that it seems insufficient because students may get lost if they do not know the grammar rules of the language. On the contrary, focusing on formS requires splitting the language in strings and learning, for example, first the present simple and then the past simple separately does not follow any natural context. However, as all the methods before, we can take advantage of these approaches and turn disadvantages into strengths such as focusing more on meaning in groups that have a higher level of the language, and more on formS for lower levels.
As for other procedures, PPP (presentation > practice > production) happens to slice up the language too and gives the illusion of mastery, but when the students find themselves in a real communicative situation they will struggle to understand and interact due to the fact that they have only studied pieces of the language. Last but not least, that is why if a real communicative situation is given as input, students will be able to create output and through their interactions and the ones of their schoolmates they will notice how language works without any need to splice it up like slices of bread.
No comments:
Post a Comment