[Diane_Larsen-Freeman]_Techniques_and_Principles_i(BookFi).pdf

Diane Larsen-Freeman

SECOND EDITION

1/1//1

Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching D IA NE LA RSEN -FREEMAN

Second Edition

OXFORD UNIV ERSI TY I'R ESS

OXFORD UN1"~"SlTY

I'R"ss

Gr.a' CJar.~don 511""', Oxford OU GoP Oxford Un;wNiry Pr. " i. a depa rtment orlb. UnlV for the sake of simplicity; howl'vrr, I mean for thoughts helief" ;ltt ;tllde" v.,I1,es, and awarene" as well.

to

inrllll.le

2

lntrodnc tion

As an exam ple-, lcr me relate a n a necdote abo ut a teac her with who m I was work ing a few yea rs ago. I will ca ll her H eather, alt ho ugh th at is no t her real nam e. h om her st udy o f method " in Stevick ( 1980), I leat her became very iureresred in how ro work with teac her co ntrol and st uden t init iative in her teach ing. Heat her determ ined tha t during her student reachin g internship she would exe rcise less co ntrol o f th e- lesso n in orde r ro enco urage her stu dents to rak e mo re init iative. She- deci ded ro na rro w t he goal down to having stu dents take initiat ive in posing the q uest io ns in the classroom, recog nizing t hat so o ften it is th e reacher who asks all the q uestions, not the st ude nts. r was Heath er's teaching supe rviso r. When I ca me to observe her, she was very d iscou raged. She felt that th e stu dents we re not taking the initia tive that she was trying to get them to take, bur she did nor know what was wrong. When I visited her class, I obse-rve-d the following: H EA T H ER

JUAN ANNA II E ATl I ER

ANNA .\-l UR I E I.

Juan, ask Anna what she is wearing. What a re you wearing? I am wearing ,1 dr ess. Anna, as k Muriel wha t she is writ ing. Wha t a re yo u w riting? I am wr iting a letter;.

Th is pattern co nt inued fo r so me time. It was d ea r to see that Heat her had successfu lly avoided the commo n problem o f th e teacher as king a ll t he qu est ion s in the cla ss. The teacher did not ask the qu estion s- the SUl dents d id. Ho wever, Heath er had no t rea lized her asp ira tion o f enco uraging student initiative since it was she who took t he in itiative by pro mp ting the st udents rc ask the qu estions. Heath er an d I d iscussed the mat ter in the po st-o bservation conference. Hea ther came to sec that if she tru ly wa nted student s to take mor e initiative, then she wo u ld ha ve to set up th e situation in a wa y th at her par ticipatio n in an activity was not essen tia l. We ta lked a bout severa l wa ys o f her do ing th is. Du ring this discussion, Heather ca me to a no ther imporrunt awa reness. She rea lized t hat since she wa s a fairly inexp erienced reach er; she felt insecu re a bout having th e stu dent s mak e rhc decision s abou t who says what to wh o m wh en. Wha t if the stu dents were ro usk her man y q uestions that she co uld not answe r? Wh ile having st udents ta ke in itiative in the cla ssroom was co nso na nt with her values, Heat her rea lized tha t she should t hink furt her abou t rhc level of st ude n t init iative with which she co uld be com fo rta ble at th is po int in her ca reer as a teacher. Wt' talked a bo ut oth er opt io ns she coul d pursu e as well. Th e poi nt wa s tha t it

Introdu ction

3

was no t necess ar ily sim ply a matt er of H eat her imp roving her techniqu e; she co uld sec th at th at W,}S one possi bility. Another was to rethink the wa y in which she t ho ught a bo ut her teac hing (Larsen -freema n 199 3 ). Th e lin ks between tho ught a nd action were very impo rt ant in Hea ther's teaching . She came to rea lize tha t when so met hing was no t going as she had intended, she co uld change o ne or she cou ld cha nge the ot her. Heat her had a n idea o f what she wanted to acco mplis h- but the action she chose to carry o ut her idea did not accomplish her purpose. When she exa mined her intentions mo re clea rly, she saw that she was no t yet ready to h aw her stu de nts' ta ke complete init iative in the lesson.

A CO H EREN T SET Returning to th e methods in thi s hook, we will see th at it is the link between tho ught s and actions that is common to them all. But t here is anot her way in which links arc made in methods, and that is the con nection between one thought-in-action link and another. A method is a coherent set of such links in the sense tha t there sho uld be some theoren calor philosophical compa tibility among the links. If a teac her believes tha t language is made up of 3 set o f fixed pa trc ms, it mak es little sense for him o r her to use tech niqu es which help lea rner s discover the abs tract ru les underly ing a lan guage to enable them to create no vel patterns. To sa)' th ere is a coherence amo ng th e links do es not mea n, ho wever, that t he techniques o f on e met hod ca nnot be used with a no ther. T he techniqu es ma y loo k very different in practice th ough, if the tho ughts behind t hem d iffer. Fo r exa mple, Stevick ( 1993) has sho wn th at the simpl e technique o f teaching student s a di alog using a pict ure to p ro vide a context ca n lead to very di fferent con clusions about teaching and learni ng de pend ing on how the technique is managed . If t he stu dent s first loo k at the pictu re, d ose th eir eyes w hile the teach er reads th e dia log, and th en repeat t he d ia log hit by bit a fte r the teacher, repeating until they have learn ed it fluently and flawl essly, the st udents co uld infer th at it is th e teache r who is the provider o f a ll language and its mean ing in th e cla ssroom. Th ey co uld further infer th at th ey sho uld use that 'part of their bra ins that co pies bur not the pa n th at crea tes' ( 1993 : 432) , If, on the ot her han d , befo re they listen to or rend th e d ialog, t hey look at the p ict ure and describe it usin g wo rds a nd phrases they ca n sup ply, a nd then they guess wha t till' people in th e pictu re might be saying to eac h o ther befo re they hear the dialog, they m ight infer that th eir initiat ive is welcomed , and that it is a ll right to be wrong. If th ey then pract ice the dielog in pairs witho ut str iving fo r perfec t recall, th ey migh t a lso in fer th at

4

Introdu ction

they sho uld 'usc the par t of their bra ins that creates' and that guessing and app rox imatio n arc acceptable ( 1993 : 432 ). We can see from this exa mple how a pa rticular technique rnigbr look very different (and might lead students to very di fferent conclusions a bou t the ir learni ng), depend ing on how it is managed. Thi s may, in turn , be a prod uct of the tho ughts and beliefs of the reacher who is putting the techn iq ue into practice . It is not my pur pose to have you sift through the met hods presented here in ord er to choose the one with wh ich yo u feel the mos t philos op hicallv in rune. Instead, I hope that you will use what is here as a foil to make exp licit yo ur own beliefs about the teaching/learning process, beliefs based upon your experience and your professiona l tra ining, the research you know about, and even your social values. It is not a question of choosing between intact methods; nor should the presence of any method in this boo k be construed as an endorsement by me. Further, this book is not a substitute for actual trainin g in a particular method, and specific training is adv ised for some of them. Final ly, Tdid not set o ut to be comprehensive and deal with all la nguage teaching methods. Th e rncrhods - included in this book represent methods whi ch are pract iced tod ay an d w hich reflect a diversity of views on the reaching and learn ing pro cesses. By co nfro nt ing such diversity, an d by viewing the thought-inaction link s that ot hers ha ve made , I ho pe that yo u will arrive at your own perso nal conceptual izatio ns of how th o ughts lead to actions in your teaching and how, in turn , your teaching leads to learn ing in your st udents (Prabhu 1992). Ultim ately, the choice am ong techniques and prin ciples depends on learning o utcom es, a theme to which I will return in the final chapter of this book.

DOUBTING GAME AND BELIEVING GAME Some of wh at yo u encounter here will no doubt con firm what you do or believe alr ead y; other things you read a bou t may challenge your notions. When ou r fundamenta l beliefs are cha llenged, we arc often q uick to dismiss the idea . It is too threa tenin g to am well-estab lished beliefs. I will never fo rget o ne of the first times I heard Caleb Ca tregno discuss the Silent Way, a method presented in this hook (sec Chapter 5). It wa s at a language reach ing con vention in New York City in 1976. Several th ings Garrcgno tal ked a bo ut that day were contrary to Illy own beliefs at the l it ,hOI,ld be acknowledged rh.ir not .\11 01 rhc or igin'lwr, "I the tlIeth,,,ls presented in thi, book would call their contribution 'I 'method' bn:au se they note that the term is son"'li"", >ass,.>