DEA PUTERI INDRA

176310222
6D
TEFL
LANGUAGE TEACHING
While most bachelor’s theses aim to uncover, solve problems, or answer questions, this does not. My
impression is that, because of size constraints and small data samples, bachelor’s theses often fail to
generalize. Consequently, they often come short of figuring out what they initially set out to do. For
this reason, I wish to do my thesis, not with the intent of uncovering, solving, or answering, but with
the intent of satisfying my curiosity. I want to become more informed in the field of language teaching.
My interest for the subject has developed over the years; when I was a student, the teaching of English
from primary to upper secondary school seemed random. Specifically in the sense that lessons,
regardless of content, by one teacher were perceived as different from lessons by another. While one
teacher emphasized oral skills, another ignored it. Some teachers acted as helpers while we did tasks
and activities, while others were controllers, directing how learning happened. In some classrooms,
use of our native language was avoided consistently, while in others we used it frequently. Such
experience eventually led me to study teaching, with English as one of my subjects. In my didactics
course, I have learned of several language teaching methods. And while I have learned much of their
history and characteristics, I am curious to see which of these methods are discernible in some
teachers’ practices.

I consider such curiosity to be at the core of language teaching. That is, to not limit ourselves to
written theory, but to see it in practice. Furthermore, it is insightful to observe and analyse other
teachers’ practices. Doing so not only gives us insight into techniques and principles behind the
methods, but might also help us uncover the thoughts that guide our own actions as teachers. It is
an important topic, not just for the knowledge of several language teaching methods, but for the
understanding, and perhaps appreciation, of the skill of reflection. That is, possessing the
vocabulary and knowing the discourse which enables one to rename experiences – the type of
professionalism in which implicit actions are replaced by informed decision-making. By studying
methods one might see which methods one does and does not identify with one’s own thinking,
which in turn helps in uncovering one’s implicit thoughts and beliefs about teaching. Ultimately,
is that not what we really want from teachers? Particularly, the ability “to make choices that are
informed, not conditioned” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2013, p. xi).
The purpose of this thesis is to identify which, if any, of the most influential language
teaching methods are discernible in some teachers’ practices. My intentions are based on my
curiosity. Some might consider such a background unfit for research; most theses are meant
to contribute to
research society. However, I hope, and believe, that whoever reads this will become more informed
and broad-minded in the field of language teaching.

1.1 Limiting the thesis

Despite mentioning the importance of reflection this is not a research questioning whether
teachers are, or to which degree they are, aware of their own choices as professionals. My
intent is to observe how they teach. Whether they are conscious of their choices is outside the
scope of this thesis.

Furthermore, I do not aim to find a language teaching trend. Mapping out trends would be
more fitting for a master’s or doctoral thesis, as doing such would require a much larger
amount of data. My inability to generalize (because the data sample is too small) ultimately
means I cannot conclude that there is a trend.

Finally, it is not my aim to evaluate, neither methods to be mentioned, nor the teachers’ ability
to teach. Questioning what the best method is, might be considered the easiest way to stray
from the intentions of the thesis.

1.2 Structure
Following the introductory part of this thesis, I give an outline of the qualitative method. I
make considerations such as: what grade level to observe at, how structured the
observations should be, and degree of interaction with the participants. I also justify my
choice of method. Furthermore, I address the reliability and validity of the data and how to
secure these.

Afterwards, in chapter three, I give a theoretical background. In this chapter, I give an

overview of the characteristics of four language teaching methods. I also justify why I
have specifically picked those methods. They are presented in chronological order.
Additionally, one might notice that the theoretical chapter comes after the chapter on
research method. This is not the norm for writing
theses. I have done this because I find it important that an overview of the four methods is
‘fresh’ in
the mind of the reader, especially for the chapters where I analyse the observations.

In the next chapter, I present the data. Observations from three English lessons are presented
in the form of narratives.
In chapter five, I analyse the data. Using the theoretical background given in chapter three,
I try to see if the lessons observed are typical of a certain method.
Finally, in the conclusion, I tie up all the main points from chapter five. In addition, I
comment on possible further research.

2 Method
I chose to collect data through a qualitative method of observation. To this end, I inspected
three English lessons at lower secondary schools. I picked the lower secondary level because
the students, at that point, should be proficient enough in English to convey meaning; both
orally and written (Ministry of Education and Research, 2013). It was important that students
were able and willing to express themselves using English, as it supplements the analysis. For
example, it would be hard to say anything about which language skills are emphasized, or
how teachers deal with student errors, if the students rarely express themselves in the target
language.

Furthermore, there was a question of how structured the observations should be. More
specifically, whether there were to be any use of lists or forms to aid me during the
observations. I chose not to, because of (1) an overwhelming amount of potential factors
worth taking note of, (2) the possibility of such a list making me blind to aspects which are
not on it, and (3) the chance of becoming too preoccupied with waiting for specific
preselected behaviours.

2.1 Choice of Method

A central question to ask when choosing a method is: what do I want to get a picture of?
Wanting to grasp which language teaching methods exist in English lessons, implies
understanding people’s actions, roles, and behaviours. In that case, observation seemed
suitable. The most straightforward way to find out what people do in certain circumstances is
sometimes to simply watch them under those circumstances.

During the outlining of this thesis, both interviews and observations seemed appropriate; why
did I abstain from doing interviews? This was due to the fact that, teachers will tell you what
they think in interviews, which is not necessarily the same as what they do. What they say
can be coloured by their perception of what the interviewer wants to hear, or what they think
they should say.

2.2 Reliability
One question that was central concerning the reliability of the data, was whether to interact
with the students and teachers. As with most observational research, reactivity is a concern.
Reactivity occurs when someone alters their behaviour due to the awareness that they are
being observed (Grønmo,
2016, p. 21). In an attempt to avoid such, I chose not to interact. I also placed myself at the
back of the room. My hope was that, by interfering as little as possible, the students and
teachers would forget that they were being observed. Doing such helps in securing the
reliability of the data. Some classroom observations have been left out because of reactivity.
For example, during one lesson the teacher kept looking in my direction. Moreover, her body
language expressed nervousness and her meticulous attention to detail signified a want to
avoid mistakes. As a result, the observation was deemed unreliable.

2.3 Validity
A concern regarding the validity of the data, is that observational research is susceptible to
observer bias. Although one does not control what happens during an observation, one is still
going to select what one notices. Furthermore, my social background and personal
experiences can affect my perception and understanding of the conditions studied (p. 21).
For example, if I grew up with positive experiences of grammatical approaches to language
teaching, I might unconsciously discard methods that are more communicative.

Observer bias might be the most significant source of error when using observation; it can
occur at any stage of the research. That is, during background reading, selection of data
samples, execution of observations, data analysis, and discussion. Moreover, bias is usually
reduced when the sample size is larger because tendencies are seen more clearly. As such,
observer bias is particularly important in this research, since the sample size is only three
English lessons.

What can I do to prevent bias? First, I can be aware of my own biases. I know that,
personally, I am sceptical to communicative approaches to language teaching. To me, they
appear uncontrolled and erratic. I need to be aware of this impression, so it does not affect
how the data is presented, analysed, interpreted, and discussed. Doing so compromises
validity. Letting bias occur in the mentioned case could result in me either (a) neglecting
communicative characteristics of language teaching, or (b) heavily criticise its use. Since
this thesis aims to describe and not evaluate, (a) would be more likely.

Second, I can have others look over my thesis. Though they might have biases of their
own, they might not have the same as me. Consequently, they might see what I do not.
Maybe I disregard certain aspects, get off topic, or overly emphasize certain points.
2.4 Ethics
Dealing with ethical considerations, E-mails were sent out to the principals of each school,
and forms were signed to get informed consent (see appendix A and B). Consent was
dependent on anonymity and no use of video or sound recording. It also confirmed voluntary
participation.

3 Theory
In this chapter, we look at four language teaching methods: the Grammar-Translation
method, the Direct Method, Audiolingualism, and Communicative Language Teaching.
There are many more methods. Among some of them: Desuggestopedia, Task-based
Language Teaching, Content-based Instruction, Total Physical Response, and The Silent
Way. I specifically choose to go through these four methods because they have been the
most prominent and influential over the years.
Additionally, some methods can be regarded as sub-categories of others. For example,
according to Richards & Rodgers (2014, p. 174), some see Task-based Language Teaching
as another type of Communicative Language Teaching. In that case, I want to cover those
methods that are more distinct from one another. That way, when I later analyse the lessons,
I do so with a broad perspective on methods.

Though there are many more methods, because of constraints like the size of the thesis, we
cannot look at every one of them. I choose these four methods because they have been the
most prominent and influential.

Most of the content is written using Harmer (2007), Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011),
and Richards and Rodgers (2014). All three discuss the same key points, but Larsen-Freeman
and Anderson (2011) distinguishes themselves by drawing more attention to the methods’
ways of dealing with student errors and how culture is viewed. For each method I will, after a
brief overview, using the specified subject literature, compose a list of characteristics
associated with it.

3.1 The Grammar-Translation Method

The main purpose of Grammar-Translation is to enable students to read and translate
literature in the target language. In addition, there are two other functions: Firstly, by studying
the grammar of the target language, students will become more aware of grammar in their
native language, which ultimately makes them better at speaking and writing in their native
language. Secondly, it is thought that the studying of a foreign language will help students
grow intellectually (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 13). Though there are similar
methods, Grammar-Translation distinguishes itself
from others for its reliance on the students’ native language and focus on memorization of
grammar and vocabulary.

The following characteristics can be associated with the Grammar-Translation Method:

1. The learning process consists of translating into and out of the target language, a task
viewed as requiring extensive and thorough examination of grammar rules. With such
focus on
translation, “the first language is maintained as the reference system in the acquisition of the
second language” (Stern, 1983, p. 455).
2. There is emphasis on reading and writing. Little attention, if any at all, is paid to
speaking and
listening.
3. Vocabulary is taught through memorization, with use of bilingual word lists and
dictionaries.
4. “Accuracy is emphasized. Students are expected to attain high standards in translation”
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 6).
5. Students are taught grammar deductively. That is, first, the grammar is presented,
then, they must apply those rules to examples, tasks and/or exercises.
6. In a classroom using the Grammar-Translation Method, the teacher is an authority
and in control of the classroom. The students learn from what she knows. They are
passive learners who do not ‘explore’ and ‘discover’, but rather study and examine
what is already known.

3.2 The Direct Method

The Direct Method was developed as a reaction to the Grammar-Translation Method, in an
attempt to integrate more use of the target language. In this method, accuracy is still
important, but it is, in contrast to Grammar-Translation, “considered vitally important that only
the target language should be used in the classroom” (Harmer, 2007, p. 63). The goal was now
to prepare students to use the language communicatively, something which Grammar-
Translation failed to do. Instead of studying the target language analytically, meaning
deductive applications of explicit grammar rules, students learn by teachers encouraging
direct and spontaneous use of the target language, consequently meaning, that students learn
grammar inductively (Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 11). That is not to say they are taught
grammar rules afterwards, for according to Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), explicit
grammar rules may never be given.

Some characteristics of the Direct Method are as follows:

1. When the teacher gives instructions, she does so in the target language.
1. Typically, oral communication is practiced by the teacher asking questions to which
students are to answer in a full sentence. For example, in a lesson about animals, if
the teacher asks, “Are lions taller than giraffes?” an acceptable answer would be,
“No, lions are not taller than giraffes,” rather than just “No,” (Larsen-Freeman &
Anderson, 2011, p. 27).
2. Concrete vocabulary is explained through demonstration and visualization. For
example, if a
student asks what the word ‘elbow’ means, the teacher will not simply translate the
word into the student’s native language, but rather demonstrate by pointing to his
elbow and perhaps supplement by saying, “This is an elbow.”
3. Grammar is taught inductively.
4. Correct pronunciation and grammar is emphasized. Let us look at an example from
a class observation by Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011, p. 27). A student asks,
“What is the ocean in the West Coast?” The teacher interrupts the class before they are
able to answer, turns to the student and asks, “What is the ocean in the West Coast?
… or on the West Coast?” The student hesitates, then says, “On the West Coast.”
(This situation is also an elaboration of the next point.)
5. Students are encouraged to self-correct.

Although there is emphasis on speaking and listening, it is important to understand that the
Direct Method does not discard reading and writing skills. It simply perceives oral
communication as a basic skill. Whatever reading and writing exercises they do, are based on
what the students have first practiced orally (p. 31).

1.2 Audiolingualism
Audiolingualism bases language learning on behaviourism. As such, one views the
language learner as an organism capable of picking up habits, which are acquired through
reoccurring behaviours.
Occurrence of such behaviours is dependent on three elements: stimulus, response, and
reinforcement. According to Richards and Rodgers (2014), to apply this theory to language
learning is to,

” … identify the organism as the foreign language learner, the behaviour as verbal
behaviour,
the stimulus as what is taught or presented of the foreign language, the response as the
learner’s reaction to the stimulus, and the reinforcement as the extrinsic approval and
praise
of the teacher …” (p. 64)
 As such, it is thought that the way to acquire sentence patterns of the target language is
through conditioning. In practice, this means drilling of such patterns through repetition and
memorization. Correct pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are emphasized. Moreover,
drilling is there to combat the fact that the native language is viewed as an obstacle, and the cause for
most of a student’s difficulties in learning a new language.

Some key characteristics Audiolingualism are:

1. “Foreign language learning is basically a process of mechanical habit formation. Good

habits are formed by giving correct responses rather than by making mistakes”
(Richards & Rodgers, 2014, p. 64).
2. Since it is considered a major difficulty for students to overcome habits of their
native language, the teacher is aware of the areas in which students will experience
difficulty (p. 44). For example, students might exchange /w/ for /v/. The teacher,
being aware of this, can conduct drill exercises using sentences containing those
sounds.
3. The teacher uses only the target language in the classroom, so that the students’ native
language does not interfere with the acquisition of the target language (p. 42).
4. The teacher gives the students positive feedback when they answer correctly, to make
them develop correct habits.

1.3 Communicative Language Teaching

In the methods we have gone through so far, we see that the goals of language teaching have
changed. Earlier, the goal was to enable students to read literature in the target language,
whereas now, the goal had become to enable students to use the language communicatively.
However, in the 1970s, some observed students not being able to communicate naturally,
despite being able to produce sentences accurately in the classroom. For this reason,
educators started questioning if they were going about reaching the goal in the right way
(Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 115).
Thus, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emerged, and there was a shift in
the field of language teaching, from focus on form to focus on meaning.

Harmer (2007) mentions that “a major strand of CLT centres around the essential belief that if
students are involved in meaning-focused communicative tasks, then language learning will
take care of itself” (p. 69). But, what do we really mean by a task being meaning-focused and
communicative? According to Morrow (Johnson & Morrow, 1981, as cited in Larsen-
Freeman & Anderson, 2011, pp. 122-123), activites that are truly communicative include:
choice, feedback, and information gap. First, the speaker should have a choice of what to say
and how to say it. Second, the speaker should be able to evaluate whether she has expressed
meaning succesfully from the feedback she receives from the listener. Third, in an exchange,
one person needs to know something the other person does not. To elaborate, if the teacher
asks, “How many windows are there in this room?” and the students answer, “There are five
windows in this room,” the exchange is not really meaningful. Both the teacher and the
students know the answer, the students simply get to show that they know it. Such questions
are called display questions. If the students were to ask each other what they got for
Christmas however, the exchange would be considered meaningful.

Furthermore, I list the following characteristics of CLT:

1. Everything that happens in the classroom, happens with communicative intent. An

important factor in making communication authentic is meaningfulness.
2. There is focus on conveying meaning, not form. Furthermore, many different forms
can serve similar functions, as such, students should be able to express themselves in a
variety of linguistic forms. The teacher or the activities she sets up do not dictate what
language forms students are to use. For example, saying, “It might rain tomorrow,” “It
will likely rain
tomorrow,” or “Tomorrow it will probably rain,” is all the same.
3. In oral activities, errors are tolerated and seen as a natural outcome in trying to make
oneself understood. “Students can have limited linguistic knowledge and still be
successful communicators” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011, p. 125).
4. In CLT, the teacher is not an authoritarian controller of correctness who checks for
students error. Instead, she serves as a guide, whose job is to set up activities likely
to promote authentic communicative situations. During activities, she acts as an
adviser who monitors the students’ performance, and helps them if need be (p. 122).
5. Use of the students’ native language is not to be avoided in the same degree as, for
example, the Direct Method. In CLT, it should be used thoughtfully, meaning students
may use their native language if they feel stuck in their attempt to communicate.
Additionally, if the teacher senses that the students do not understand the explanation
 to a certain activity, she might use their native language (p. 125).

2 Data
In this chapter, I present the data. Three lessons by different English teachers are presented
as narratives. The way the observations are described might make students perceive as
uncommonly data.