Personal Reflection on Teaching Methodology in EFL Classrooms

*Anu Upadhaya

Since the beginning of language learning as an academic discipline, there have been gradual shifts in language teaching methodology from Grammar Translation, to Audiolingualism, and those applied in more recent and well known Communicative Language Teaching. However, ELT practitioners have put forward an array of opinions, arguments and concerns over the issue that which of the suggested methodologies works best in language teaching. But, a variety of factors, such as official language policies, the role of L2 in a distinct speech community, learners’ need and their linguistic background, cultural and economic contexts of institutions, teachers’ background, and students’ previous linguistic competence affect the selection of methodology. This is why a single methodology was not effective enough to quench the thirst of language learning of all the time and circumstances. Consequently, different theorists came up with different schools of thought which influenced the beliefs of language teaching of the given time and context.

For me, the most relevant experience is that a method should no longer be a prescription made from a linguist, rather it should be a pattern of activities made by a distinct language teacher in an account of his/her classroom scenario. Moreover, all the methods are best for their corresponding situations, as Prabhu (1990, p.161) states “different methods are best for different teaching contexts; that all methods are partially true or valid; and that the notion of good and bad methods is itself misguided.” The reflection will not delve into different methodologies of language teaching but is intended to account for my personal teaching approaches and criteria in implementing methodology based on my personal teaching and learning experiences.

Starting from my own learning experience, learning English was merely a subject to pass in the examinations. Emphasizing the different skills and aspects of language, for example, reading meant the teacher rendering the English texts into our L1, and we used to enjoy the literary texts with near comprehension. On the other hand, for writing skill, we were given a set of sentences in L1 and were asked to translate them in English and vice-versa. Sometimes, a topic was given to write on but only a few of us would write, and answers were hardly checked. Furthermore, we were rarely given any chance for speaking or listening; the only opportunity was to listen to the teacher while reading the English texts for us. A further aspect of our learning was being expected to memorize English lexicons, chosen from the reading texts, with their corresponding L1 meanings; in case of failure to learn those words, we were physically punished mostly with bamboo sticks. As a result, this often drove us either to bunk the class or to avoid going to school. Another task was to learn grammatical rules, then recall them without a single word alteration. Such a practice of teaching in ELF classroom, on the one hand, created fear among students that they don’t even want to attend classes. On the other hand, I was extrinsically motivated to learn English, meaning to pass English exams and avoid being punished. In this regard, the teacher could have followed Hull’s (1943) “Devine Theory,” of motivation; for example, creating desire for earning money, gaining prestige in society as the speaker of English language, means to communicate globally, etc., might have motivated us towards learning English instead of taking it as a mere subject to pass in the exams.

Similarly, when I was in my school, I was also interested in reading English stories, and I always learnt a chunk of new language items from the texts, which helped me know some language items with their situational meanings. This experience, as I recall, means that if the teacher had tried to teach language items from literary texts with contextual meanings, we would have better learned the meaning of those lexis or chunks. Therefore, in my own teaching of English, I always attempt to teach lexis/chunks in their contexts, rather than providing isolated definitions.

Later, when I joined my 10+2 majoring in English language teaching, I came to realize that my school teacher’s way of teaching was more alike to GT method, which, in fact, did not much help us in building English communicative competence but to pass English exams. I was not able to understand the lectures in English medium, nor was I able to express myself fluently in English. This, I assume was probably because of the absence of real exposure in English. As, the ultimate goal of learning English language, for the majority of students, is to communicate in English, I now believe that the language classroom should provide maximum opportunities for natural interaction in the target language, as well as authentic materials should be exposed to them. On the top of this, I think that L2 should maximally be taught in L2, though we can’t undermine the potential of L1 in its own right, if natural acquisition of language is sought.

I feel that in my English classes, an ‘Integrated method’ would also have proved beneficial. If a teacher acts as a role model while reading some sort of texts, it provides exposure for listening; additionally, getting the students to discuss the text, or getting them to dramatize the story provides chance for speaking. Writing, on the other hand, can be developed through assigning them a topic around the text, doing correction, giving feedback and getting them to rewrite concurrently. Reading skills could have been developed via the use of a range of comprehension questions, which would also have allowed the teacher to check our understanding of the text.

My learning experience indicates that learning the rules of grammar without applying them in real life situation results in no actual language learning. For instance, we knew the structure of the Simple Present Tense but were unable to express our daily present habits in English. Moreover, the way of vocabulary learning was another relevant issue for me in that we were given a set of English words with their translation in L1 that we were supposed to commit to memory even without knowing the use of those lexical items. Surprisingly, when we tried to use the English word based on our L1 translation, we were pragmatically incorrect. For example, the L1 translation of ‘sit’, ‘stay’, ‘live’, ‘dwell’ is the same as ‘basnu ’in Nepali that misled us to form the sentences like, ‘I sit in this house’, ‘They are staying on this bench’, etc. When teaching new lexis, I now realize the importance of teaching not only the meaning but also the usage in context, amongst other factors such as connotations and pronunciation of those lexical words. Students should, then, be provided with opportunities to practice the lexis in order to ensure they have understood.

Having experienced this learning scenario, I now feel that GT method is only useful “to know everything about something rather than the things itself” (W. H. D. Rouse, quoted in Kelly, 1969, p. 53). Further with learning in my B. Ed courses, I discovered that I preferred communicative language teaching (CLT) more, due to the underlying fact that it focuses on functional and structural aspects of language. As Littlewood (1981, p.1) states, “One of the most characteristic features of communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic attention to function as well as structural aspects of language.” When I first began teaching in Nepal, I followed textbooks and attempted to teach via a typical communicative approach, with maximum student interaction, inductive learning and maximum use of the L2.

I quickly found, however, that this was not effective. Students were unable to understand large chunks speech or instructions in English. Moreover, the cultural differences between Eastern and Western learning meant that students did not participate to the extent required for the lesson to be successful. In Nepal, making an error in the classroom is culturally assumed as embarrassing. Furthermore, the financial restraints of the institution meant that the use of authentic materials was not always possible. I had to adapt my methodology for my students. This meant that I used techniques which were not typically communicative, such as L1 translation and drilling to enhance the overall learning experience. Group drilling for example, allowed shyer students to comfortably practice new lexis before contributing to group work. This experience led me to discover that in order for effective learning to take place I had to teach with an integrated methodology. Literally, I have never used a single method but a composition of methods.

To sum up, although it is very significant for a language teacher to remain aware of scientific principles of language learning or acquisition, they are more importantly free to make their own personal methodology based on their distinct context, which Prabhu (1990) calls as teachers’ “sense of plausibility.” It is also worth suggesting that a language teacher needs to choose various activities or techniques from a certain method, not because of the faith in the underlying method but because that is suitable in their own unique contexts.

Bibliography

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kelly, L. (1969). Centuries of language teaching. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, S. L. (2002). Teaching English as an international language: rethinking goals and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prabhu, N. (1990). There is no best method – why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2),161-176.

Rechard, J. (n.d.). 30 years of TEFL/TESL: a personal reflection available online. http.//professorjackrichard.com/pdfs/30-years-of-TEFL.pdf [Accessed 25 October 2013].

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2^ndedition), Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W.A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: an anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

(Anu Upadhaya is a graduate student at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Previously, she has completed an MPhil from the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, India, and an MED from Tribhuvan University, Nepal. She has taught English in a public school in Nepal and instructed different courses to MED students at an affliated college of Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu. She has also published research papers in international journals and presented papers at national and international conferences.)