Columns 
| 53 - Dealing with discord 3 |
|
|
In this column Rose Senior explains why certain teaching techniques and class management strategies are effective, and identifies specific issues that can assist all language teachers in improving the quality of their teaching. In Issue 51of ETp I discussed ways of restoring the self-esteem of individuals who have been hurt by the thoughtless words or behaviour of others, while in Issue 52 I looked at how best to handle students whose behaviour has upset the social equilibrium of the class. In this issue I’m going to discuss an area of discord in language classrooms that is less commonly recognised but nevertheless equally important: the discord that can develop between ourselves and our students. I’m not talking here about personality clashes (although these can undoubtedly occur), but about something more fundamental: discord that results from a mismatch between our teaching approach and the expectations of our students. Our beliefs about what constitutes effective educational practice are culturally embedded. We seldom realise how deeply they influence our classroom behaviour. Teachers trained in the communicative tradition tend to share the following assumptions about classroom language learning: the key role of the teacher is to facilitate learning; speaking is a fundamental linguistic skill that should be prioritised and practised regularly in class; communicative practice with classmates will lead to improved fluency; making mistakes is a natural part of the learning process; improved fluency will eventually lead to improved accuracy; learning tasks should be exciting and engaging; the classroom atmosphere should be relaxed and friendly; encouragement and praise should be regularly used. Young adults from countries with traditional educational systems, together with older adults who completed their formal education some time ago, are often bewildered when they first enter communicative classrooms. The kinds of activities they find themselves required to do – ranging from ‘fun’ warmers to competitive communicative games – often confound their expectations about what effective teaching and learning is all about. Such students tend to share the following assumptions about language teaching and learning: teachers are linguistic experts, their role being to supply information, to explain things, and to provide appropriate models of language-in-use; students learn by internalising linguistic structures and by practising them in connected speech or writing; the teacher should direct, control and monitor classroom interaction so that opportunities for error-making are minimised; learning involves hard work and sustained effort; enjoyment relates to satisfaction derived from achievement (rather than from having fun); learning tasks that are exciting and engaging are not essential for learning; critical feedback should be offered on a regular basis. Many students adapt quickly and easily to the communicative approach, engaging readily in whatever activities their teachers set up for them. Other students remain unconvinced that the ways that their teachers want them to learn are appropriate, effective or efficient in terms of available class hours. If they are dissatisfied with the individual style of a particular teacher, such students tend to remember the good aspects of how they were taught in the past, and wish they could be taught differently now. Although certain outspoken individuals may make their views known, most language students are reticent. They tend to keep their views hidden from their teachers because they find themselves in an unfamiliar educational environment and are unsure whether or not it is appropriate to voice their concerns. Other considerations, such as natural politeness, liking for their teacher, respect for authority, limited levels of English, fear of reprisals or a general feeling of powerlessness, make it even less likely that students will articulate their views. There are two vital things that all communicative language teachers can do to allay as far as possible the fears and concerns of students from traditional educational backgrounds, and we should do these things even if there is no tangible evidence of student dissatisfaction. The first is to explain to our students why we teach and organise our classes in the ways that we do – and how precisely each task or activity will benefit their learning. Once students understand the rationale behind what we do, and realise that our teaching is based on sound educational foundations, they will be more accepting of our teaching approach. Our teaching programmes must have coherence and direction, with students able to see how each classroom activity further develops their linguistic knowledge or skills. The second vital action we must take involves being prepared to negotiate when there appears to be a potential clash between how we teach and how our students expect us to teach. As is so often the case, openness is the key: finding out what our students want, and reaching a compromise. Clearly we are not going to abandon the communicative approach in favour of, say, the grammar-translation method. To do so would mean acting against our beliefs about how classroom language learning most effectively occurs. What we can do, however, is to meet our students halfway. If, for example, our students request more grammar, we can organise our usual speaking or writing activities, but make doubly sure that we note their errors and then devote a section of the present or following lesson to dealing with them. In this way our students will perceive that their needs are being met, while we have not compromised our pedagogic position. We can never know, of course, what goes on inside the heads of our students. Even students who behave in lively, animated ways may not be as satisfied with our teaching approach as we assume them to be. This is an area of potential discord that we cannot afford to ignore. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
