CC BY
130
ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
HISTORY OF TEACHING METHODS IN TEFL (TEACHING ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE) Zakirova N.A. Email: [email protected]
Zakirova Nigora Alimdjanovna - Teacher, DEPARTMENT OF METHODS OF TEACHING ENGLISH, UZBEK STATE WORLD LANGUAGES UNIVERSITY, TASHKENT, REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
Abstract: this article illustrates the use of teaching methods during the classes. Grammar instruction has played a vital role in classroom second language teaching for many years, and these approaches have espoused a range of attitudes concerning the importance of grammar instruction. This tradition has been maintained and is apparent in the grammar explanations that are present in many of the foreign language textbooks used in language classrooms today. The author proposes the history of teaching methods in her article mentioning to the historical roots of TEFL.
Keywords: grammar, metalanguage, grammar-translation method, audio-lingual method, language acquisition, communicative approaches.
ИСТОРИЯ ОБУЧЕНИЯ МЕТОДИКИ TEFL (ОБУЧЕНИЕ АНГЛИЙСКОМУ КАК ИНОСТРАННОМУ ЯЗЫКУ)
Закирова Н.А.
Закирова Нигора Алимджановна - преподаватель, кафедра методики преподавания английского языка, Узбекский государственный университет мировых языков, г. Ташкент, Республика Узбекистан
Аннотация: в этой статье показано использование методов обучения во время занятий. Обучение грамматике сыграло важную роль в преподавании второго языка в классе на протяжении многих лет и эти подходы содержали ряд установок относительно важности обучения грамматике. Эта традиция сохраняется и очевидна в объяснениях грамматики, которые присутствуют во многих учебниках по иностранному языку, используемых сегодня в языковых классах. Автор предлагает историю методов обучения в своей статье, посвященной историческим корням (Обучение английскому как иностранному языку). Ключевые слова: грамматика, метаязык, метод грамматического перевода, аудио-лингуаульный метод, приобретение языков, коммуникативные подходы.
УДК 81-139
Grammar instruction has played a vital role in classroom second language teaching for many years. This tradition has been maintained and is apparent in the grammar explanations that are present in many of the foreign language textbooks used in language classrooms today. Many language textbooks have maintained a traditional approach to presenting grammar, including using metalinguistic, or grammatical, terminology in explaining grammatical features of the target language. All the while, however, it appears that students in the Uzbekistan are entering language classrooms with little or no knowledge of the meaning of these terms, which may make these grammar explanations difficult to comprehend.
What then is the relationship between the metalinguistic terminology that many foreign language textbooks employ in presenting grammar and the extent to which students understand the meaning of those metalinguistic terms? Furthermore, what is the effect of instruction of metalinguistic terminology on students' comprehension of L2 grammar? These questions will be addressed by exploring whether instruction aimed at increasing students' knowledge of grammatical metalanguage helps students in learning L2 grammar.
One of the central questions in the sphere of language education has been the question surrounding the role of grammar within language teaching. A variety of approaches to foreign language teaching have been developed and applied for use within language classrooms, and these approaches have espoused a range of attitudes concerning the importance of grammar instruction [1].
One of the first documented approaches to foreign language grammar instruction was the grammar-translation method. This method was the preferred method of instruction through the early twentieth century. The approach was first employed in the teaching of both Greek and Latin and was later used in modern language instruction. The main goals of the grammar translation method were: (1) to help learners read and understand classic foreign language texts and (2) to improve learners' grasp of their own language by examining the grammatical structure of the foreign language.
The grammar-translation method stressed translation, the study of grammar rules, and rote learning of vocabulary terms. The development of grammatical proficiency and accuracy was a central focus of this method. Grammar was taught deductively with detailed descriptions of the language's grammatical structure expressed using grammatical terminology. Lengthy translation exercises then followed in order to assess students' understanding of the grammar. In summary, the grammar-translation method strove to teach language by focusing on the linguistic system, translation from the foreign language to the native language and vice versa, and the memorization of conjugations, rules, and vocabulary terms. Oral communication in the foreign language was not stressed in this method. In the late 1800s, the focus of language instruction began to shift with the introduction of the direct method. While the grammar-translation method did not provide opportunities for learners to practice listening and speaking in the foreign language, the direct method promoted the development of learners' listening and speaking skills through a learn-by-doing approach. That is, students learned to communicate in the foreign language by listening and speaking in the classroom.
Direct method was that translation into the learners' native language was not permitted. Instead, meaning was expressed directly in the foreign language by way of actions, illustrations, and pictures. Very little explicit grammar instruction was provided under the direct method. However, in those instances in which explicit grammar instruction was provided, explanations were provided solely in the foreign language. Nevertheless, it was thought that students would learn the grammatical structure of the foreign language simply by using the language. As a result, instead of devoting class time to a systematic study of the language's rules, foreign language educators were encouraged to help students practice using the language to communicate. In this way, the direct method fostered an inductive approach to the teaching of grammar.
In the 1940s, the audio-lingual method was introduced. Similar to the direct method, the audiolingual method is centered on developing students' listening and speaking skills. Yet unlike the direct method, the audio-lingual method aimed to develop students' proficiency in the areas of listening and speaking through the use of "stimulus-response learning: repetition, dialogue memorization, and manipulation of grammatical pattern drills".
This new method was founded on theories in structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. Brown H. Douglas in his work Principles of language learning and teaching explains how these theories affected foreign language education during this period:
Structural linguists of the 1940s and 1950s had been engaged in what they claimed was a 'scientific descriptive analysis' of various languages, and teaching methodologists saw a direct application of such analysis to teaching linguistic patterns. At the same time, behavioristic psychologists advocated conditioning and habit-formation models of learning. The classical and operant conditioning models provided the perfect foundation for the mimicry drills and pattern practices so typical of audio-lingual methodology.
By the early 1960s, the notion that conditioning and habit formation would lead to language acquisition was highly contested, and theories of learning shifted away from behaviorist interpretations of learning. Not surprisingly, practices in language education also changed, and the cognitive approach was introduced. This approach encouraged "more meaningful language use and
48
creativity". The approach was informed by Chomsky's notion of universal grammar as well as the subsequent prominence of syntax in second language acquisition research. Chomsky claimed that language was not acquired through the development of various habits, in view of the fact that people have the ability to generate and comprehend utterances they have never heard: "Lang uage is not a habit structure. Ordinary linguistic behavior characteristically involves innovation, formation of new sentences and patterns in accordance with rules of great abstractness and intricacy".
If, as Chomsky argued, language is created according to a set of rules, it follows, then, that a language can be acquired by learning the rules that govern that language. Accordingly, and in contrast to the audio-lingual method, two key notions were central to the cognitive approach: "meaningful learning was essential to language acquisition," and "conscious knowledge of grammar was important. In the cognitive approach, it was thought that students ought to become familiar with the grammatical rules of the target language before trying to converse in that language. As a result, this approach placed a heavy emphasis on the teaching of grammar.
Finally, in the 1970s language education shifted to an emphasis on improving students' ability to effectively communicate in the target language. Communicative approaches to language learning and teaching stressed the importance of being able to use the target language to communicate in authentic contexts. Reflecting more on the social function of language, Michael Halliday in his work "The functional basis of language" [2], argued that learning a language involves more than learning the grammar of that language. According to Halliday, one must also understand the various purposes for which language is used: "language acquisition...needs to be seen as the mastery of linguistic functions.
Learning one's mother tongue is learning the uses of language, and the meanings, or rather the meaning potential, associated with them. The structures, the words and the sounds are the realization of this meaning potential. Similarly, in 1971th Hymes argued that the development of communicative proficiency in a language involves more than linguistic competence [3]. Communicative competence, or understanding the appropriate way in which to express oneself in a particular situation, is also a necessary component: "There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless".
The ideas of Halliday and Hymes, among others, influenced language teaching in the 1970s, and as a result, communicative approaches grew in popularity during this period. The primary objective of communicative language teaching is to help learners develop communicative competence in the target language. Rather than considering language as merely an object to be studied, communicative approaches consider language above all as a means to communicate in interaction with others. In short, one of the fundamental underlying characteristics of these approaches is to build students' ability to communicate.
References / Список литературы
1. Brown H. Douglas, 2007. Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains: Pearson.
2. Halliday Michael, 1973. "The functional basis of language" in Bernstein, Basil ed. Class, codes and control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. P. 343-366.
3. Hymes Dell., 1971. "Competence and performance in linguistic theory", in Huxley, Renira and Elisabeth Ingram eds. Language acquisition: Models and methods. London: Academic Press. P. 3-28.
