COMPLEMENTOS PARA LA FORMACIN DISCIPLINAR

What aspects of these methods would you use in your

classroom today? Why? And what aspects would you leave
out? Why?
Nowadays teachers have to retrain themselves continually to be able to
respond to the great changes which take place in the knowledge society.
Moreover they have to observe their students and be very attentive to them
in order to know what the best way to teach them is. That is why we, as
future teachers, have to research different teaching methods to distinguish
what aspects are appropriate to be implemented in our classroom from
those which should be excluded because they are not appropriate to be
developed within the teaching and learning process.
As we have already seen, every teaching method and practical decision
must be based on a theoretical approach and a design and different
classroom techniques are also included. Teachers can not follow different
approaches at the same time but they can choose different practices of
each method according to the particular context (students characteristics
and needs, schools resources, available time...) they are dealing with since
there is no an ideal method to be implemented in all contexts. Advantages
and disadvantages of all the methods we have already seen are analysed in
the following paragraphs to determine what aspects I would practise when
teaching a second language. We also have to keep in mind that the present
demands of the educational system always need to be taken into account.
First of all, the early methods from 17th to 18th century focused on
language (basically Latin and Greek) as an intellectual discipline rather than
a tool for communication. In this way, grammar and written translation
together with rhetoric exercises were the main points and all of them were
learned by hard. In my opinion, today it is clear that we can not force our
students to learn without relating knowledge to its real meaning. Students
have to understand everything they learn to be able to apply their
knowledge and their own experiences to the practice. In this sense,
meaningful learning is completely necessary and our students will be able to
learn every content in an easier way because they can establish a

connection between these contents and previous knowledge or own

experiences.
Then, at the end of 18 th century, another teaching method emerged:
the grammar-translation method. It is obviously influenced by the previous
ones and its contents are also mainly grammar and translation and the only
skills which they worked on were reading (literary texts) and writing (highly
formal texts). Therefore, the second language was just the subject matter
but it was never used as a tool; English is not spoken and any interaction is
limited to Spanish language.

From my point of view, this method is not

suitable since it leaves any kind of oral production and interaction aside. The
second language must be used as far as possible during lessons because it
is the only way to make our students feel confident with it. Besides teachers
were considered instructors instead of mediators and students devoted all
their time to memorise texts and learn vocabulary lists which its
demonstrated that is not very productive.
Despite these negative aspects, we can still find some grammartranslation schools which follow these principles and emphasize only in
grammar. The followers find it easier to work only on grammar activities
which are similar to the ones which will appear in the final exam because
they do not have to make an effort to use the second language. The
problem is that students do not really learn how to use the language
properly because they usually complete activities automatically without
thinking in second language terms.
In that regard, I agree that grammar is an essential skill students have
to develop to be able to communicate themselves in writing and I would
teach it as well. But what happen with the other skills? Are they not equally
important? I would never use it against the other skills which are required
today in the same way or even more. Speaking and listening have to be
developed in order to help our student to communicate themselves not only
in writing but also orally.
The direct method gained importance from the end of the 19th century
to 1920s as the first natural method which emphasized that human beings
can acquire the second language in the same way they do with their mother
tongue. At that time people started to travel and they needed English for

real communication. Hence the purpose of learning a language changed and

then it was related to everyday vocabulary, pronunciation, phonology and
phonetics and also grammar, which is taught in an inductive way and orally,
that is, by using an oral approach.
As I have said, I think that it is quite important to use the second
language as far as possible in class to make our students get used to it.
Therefore from this method I would use English as the main tool for
communication as well and I would only turn to Spanish when it is strictly
necessary. In fact, that is one of the main problems we have always had with
English; we are shy to speak it because we have never done it and we are
afraid of making mistakes. In this way, we have to make our students aware
that the fact of making mistakes is not negative but positive for the learning
process. Besides, I also believe that using pictures, realia and other similar
resources is an excellent way to make knowledge more accessible to our
students and to help them to use their minds too.
The problem now is the opposite of what we have mentioned before
with previous methods: it does not take into account writing and reading
skills which are also really significant as communication tools. Moreover, in
my opinion, we have to be realistic and realise that it is impossible to
acquire the second language in the same way that the first one because we
do not have enough time (nearly three or four hours a week) to stimulate it
in secondary schools. As a result, teachers have to adapt what they are
going to teach to the limitation of time. Apart from the time, which is a
necessary requirement, we would also need native speakers for this
method.
Another teaching method is the oral/situational method, which was
mainly followed from 1930s to 1960s and was based on teaching a second
language first orally by repeating dialogs characteristic of different
situations

and

learning

vocabulary;

and

then,

when

grammar

and

vocabulary were assimilated, teachers focused their attention on reading

and writing which were graded in terms of difficulty. Therefore this method
involves not only speaking and listening but also grammar and writing.
Nonetheless, personally I do not consider repetition technique as an
effective way of teaching since it can be really monotonous and does not let
students to create new expectations as everything is controlled. Besides I

believe that all skills have to be taught gradually at the same time in order
to be able to combine all of them in real life.
On the other hand, the reading method is previous to the last one, from
1920s to 2930s. It is opposite to the direct method and the language
acquisition is made though a systematic process of reading comprehension.
Personally, I agree that reading is really helpful when learning a second
language since it enriches your vocabulary and makes you able to
assimilate unconsciously many linguistic patterns but, as I have mentioned
above, we can not forget the other skills because in one way or another they
are essential to complete the learning process satisfactorily. For that
reasons, I would encourage my students to read in English and probably if
time allow us, we would make similar activities in class, but it would be
always together with the other skills.
The audiolingual method emerged in the USA from the Second World
War to 1960s and it is considered a natural method since it supposed people
to learn second language as the first one and consequently it also followed
the same order when teaching skills: listening, speaking, reading and
writing, that is, the natural order of language acquisition. At that time,
audiolingualism was implemented to make soldiers fluent speakers. It is
based on structuralism and behaviourism and it follows a formula which is
called operant conditioning: teachers present stimuli that the students
respond and if they are correct it means that they have acquired good
habits and teachers give them a reward in order to increase their motivation
(reinforcement). From my point of view, this reinforcement can be
appropriate at first stages in order to stimulate and motivate students.
However, it can be adverse: if they get used to these rewards, they can
lose interest to do activities in which they are not going to receive this
reinforcement and they can also feel disoriented when nobody tell them that
they are doing it well. On the other hand, I would never use drills as a
teaching technique because it can make our students get bored after many
repetitions and it can also work against students creativity as they only
limit themselves to imitate what teachers do. However, I think that its
important for the teacher to repeat the contents in different ways so that
the students can catch them unconsciously.

Despite not being a method, the cognitive code as guidelines which was
developed in the 1970s is also really relevant because it pays attention to
the cognitive process that leads to a deductive and conscious learning. In
this way, today it is demonstrated that students need to understand what
they learn to develop their competences. That is why it should be really
significant for teachers to make a great effort to achieve the comprehension
of all the students in class.
Regarding the most recent methods, it was J. Asher who in the late
1960s developed the Total Physical Response. Its based again in the fact
that the second language can be acquired as children do with the first
language. It relies on behaviourism, cognitivism and tracing theory of
memory. Besides, for the first time one of these methods is interested in
humanism when looking for low stress levels and feelings of success and
fun. I agree that humanism has to be taken into account because we are not
machines and we have to know our abilities and limitations in order to
improve faster. Nonetheless, this method does not pay attention to writing
and reading skills. Besides, I do not think that teachers have to wait until the
students are ready to produce the language because in this case it is also
possible that if teachers do not force students in a way, they may not
produce anything. Only by producing and making mistakes they can feel
more comfortable and secure with the language.
Suggestopedia is another recent method developed in the 1970s by G.
Lozanov. It integrates skills all mixed up as in real communication. Therefore
the main objective here is to prepare students for everyday communication.
It is also characterised by humanism and it gives a lot of importance to
relaxation and fun. In fact, it is also related to yoga. Personally I do not think
it is possible to develop this method in a secondary school but maybe it can
be appropriate to be developed for any other purpose. I agree about the
idea that learning process has to be fun when working with children in order
to catch their attention but we can not forget that we are in an academic
environment and our objectives and contents are limited and have to be
achieved.
Once I have gone through all these methods, I realised that the best
way to take them into account is trying to balance them. Its not appropriate
to follow only one method because it is probably that there are some

aspects which can be less appropriate for our classroom apart from those
which are convenient aspects. In that way, we have to select every aspect
we are interest in according to our particular context: our school and its
guideline, the students and their personal needs, our resources, etc.