Current developments in ELT

Learner-centered Teaching: Most approaches and methods have assumed for

convenience that all learners are more or less the same. But teachers know this is
not true. Research is showing how different successful language learners can be.
The new awareness among teachers of learner differences has led to a number of
important developments in English teaching. Many teachers now try to find out
about individual learners' motivations, needs, interests, and learning styles and then
prepare their lesson plans accordingly. However, some learners seem to be
unsuccessful because their learning styles and strategies are simply not very
effective. Many teachers now spend time on learner training, helping learners to be
more aware of themselves as learners, and how they can develop whatever
strengths they have and overcome their weaknesses. Overcoming weaknesses
usually means adopting strategies used by successful learners. A characteristic of
highly successful learners is that they are autonomous. They do not depend much
on teachers. They themselves decide how to study outside class and even how to
work in class. They do not constantly depend on teacher feedback and approval.
Teachers who organize a lot of free work in class, whether in groups or individual,
promote learner autonomy.

Task-based learning:
The idea of getting learners to acquire English in the process of doing other tasks
was developed in India by Prabhu in the 1980s. That led to a general proposal for
task-based learning, suitable for use in most English teaching situations.

In 1976, Wilkins distinguished between two types of syllabi—synthetic syllabi

and analytic syllabi. Synthetic syllabi comprise linguistic units: grammar
structures, vocabulary items, functions, etc. The units are usually ordered logically,
in a sequence from linguistic simplicity to linguistic complexity. It is the learners'
responsibility to synthesize the linguistic units for the purpose of communication.
Analytic syllabi, on the other hand, are organized in terms of the purposes for
which people are learning language and the kinds of language performance that are
necessary to meet those purposes. Second language acquisition (SLA) research
supports the use of analytic syllabi because such research shows that learners do
not learn linguistic items one at a time. Instead, they acquire language items only
when they are ready to do so. A task-based syllabus falls into the category of an

1
analytic syllabus. The syllabus is composed of tasks, not a sequence of linguistic
items.

Tasks are meaningful, and in doing them, students need to communicate. Tasks
have a clear outcome so that the teacher and students know whether or not the
communication has been successful.

An example of a task in a task-based syllabus is for students to plan an itinerary

for a trip. Students work in small groups with a train schedule. They are given
certain destinations to include, and they have to decide on the most direct route to
travel by train; the one that will take the least amount of travel time. As the students
seek to complete the task, they have to work in tandem to understand each other
and to express their own thoughts. By so doing, they have to check to see if they
have comprehended correctly and, at times, they have to seek clarification. This
interaction and checking is thought to facilitate language acquisition. The central
purpose we are concerned with is language learning, and tasks present this in the
form of a problem-solving negotiation between knowledge that the learner holds
and new knowledge.

Task-based Language Teaching (TBLT) is another example of the strong version

of the communicative approach, where language is acquired through use. In other
words, students acquire the language they need when they need it in order to
accomplish the task that has been set before them. In TBLT the students are given
a task to perform, and only when the task has been completed does the teacher
discuss the language that was used, making corrections and adjustments which the
students’ performance of the task has shown to be desirable.

As Jane Willis made clear, task-based methodology consist of three basic stages:
the pre-task, the task cycle and the language focus.

The pre-task stage: In this stage, the teacher explores the topic with the class and
may highlight useful words and phrases, helping the students to understand the task
instructions. The students may hear a recording of other people doing the same
task.

The task cycle stage: During this stage, the students perform the task in pairs or
small groups while the teacher monitors from a distance. The students plan how
they will tell the rest of the class what they did and how it went, and they then
report on the task, either orally or in writing, and/or compare notes on what has
happened.

2
The language focus stage: In this stage, the students examine and discuss specific
features of any listening or reading text which they have looked at for the task
and/or the teacher may conduct some form of practice of specific language features
which the task has provoked and offer ‘offline correction’.

Task-based syllabi have been criticized for the absence of grammatical items
(Sheen 2003; Swan 2005). For instance, Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993) see
value in engaging students in structure-based communicative tasks, which are
designed to have students automatize the use of a structure that they have already
internalized.

A structure-based communicative task might involve making inferences about

the identity of someone whose briefcase has been left in the back of a taxi
(Riggenbach, Samuda, and Wisniewska 2007). Completing such a task by
identifying the owner is likely to necessitate the use of certain modal verbs and/or
adverbs of probability ('It might be a woman.' 'She is probably a businesswoman.').

Other communicative tasks can be designed in such a way that they encourage
students to notice a particular target language feature, possibly by means of input
enhancement, such as using boldface type for a particular structure in a reading
passage or input flooding, which means using particular vocabulary items or
grammar structures with great frequency in the input. Such input enhancement
techniques are thought to work well for structures that are not easily perceived.
Then, too, Ellis (2003) suggests that there are a number of ways in which grammar
can be addressed as a follow-up to a communicative task. Willis (1996) has also
proposed a variety of such options for the post-task phase.

John Dewey (1913) is generally considered to be the founder of constructivism,

which provides theoretical support for the efficacy of task-based learning. He
rejected approaches that viewed learners as receptacles of the teacher's knowledge
and favored ones where students are actively involved in constructing their own
knowledge through experience and problem solving.

Task-based learning or TBL is the realization of CLT philosophy. Task-based

learning makes the performance of meaningful tasks central to the learning process.
In other words, the basis for language development is the learner’s attempt to
deploy language for meaning.

Let's review the three stages:

3
1 Pre-task
- Introduction to the topic and task
- Provision of useful input (listening, reading, brainstorming, etc.)
- If necessary, reactivation or provision of essential language
- Definition of the task (objectives, procedures, time limits, etc.)

2 Task cycle
- Planning the task
- Doing the task
- Reporting on the task or presenting the product of the task [teacher monitoring
and guiding as necessary all the time]

3 Post-task
- Focus on the language used
- Practice of the language as necessary
- Retrospective discussion of the task — awareness-raising

It is important to emphasize that tasks in Task-based Learning should have very

clear objectives and conclude with a very tangible sense of achievement for the
learners. It is not generally suggested by those who have developed Task-based
Learning that courses should consist entirely of tasks. That could become tedious
for both learners and teachers.

The Limits of Method

The new millennium has brought new challenges as well as new opportunities for
the profession to venture beyond methods. In recent times, the profession has
witnessed a steady stream of critical thoughts on the nature and scope of method.
Scholars such as Allwright (1991), Pennycook (1989), and Prabhu (1990) have not
only cautioned language-teaching practitioners against the uncritical acceptance of
untested methods but they have also counseled them against the very concept of
method itself.

The language teaching profession seems to have reached a state of heightened

awareness. This renewed awareness coupled with a resolve to respond has created
the postmethod condition (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).

4
Postmethod and learning culture
Perhaps teachers are doubtful about methods because sticking to only one set of
prescribed procedures is no longer relevant. That is because, in the thinking of
many, we have reached a ‘post-method’ phase. Looked at this way, taking a method
into class (say, task-based learning), is actually limiting since it gets in the way of
teachers and students learning how to learn together. What is needed is not
alternative methods, but ‘an alternative to method’ (Kumaravadivelu 2006:
67). Instead of one method, Kumaravadivelu suggests ten ‘macrostrategies’,
amongst which are ‘maximize learning opportunities, facilitate negotiation, foster
language awareness, contextualize linguistic input, integrate language skills,
promote learner autonomy and ensure social relevance’ (Kumaravadivelu 2001,
2006). Good teachers examine methods (and the history of methods) to see how
far these agree with their own beliefs. Perhaps these beliefs are reflected in the
macrostrategies of Kumaravadivelu, or the ‘principles of instructed second
language learning’ which Rod Ellis advocates (2014).

The most important thing for any teacher is to know why they are doing things in
lessons. Classroom activity that we initiate should be based on the fact that we
believe the procedure we are using will achieve a certain outcome because, with
the benefit of our theoretical knowledge and our observation and experience, it
agrees with how we think people learn languages best.

Many teachers and methodologists talk about principled eclecticism. This means,
having theories about how people learn, and transforming these theories into
beliefs about which elements from the methods that have been suggested teachers
should incorporate into their classroom practice. However, what determines a lot
of classroom practice, in many institutions, is the coursebook.

Macrostrategies
Macrostrategies are general plans derived from currently available theoretical,
empirical, and pedagogical knowledge related to L2 learning and teaching. A
macrostrategy is a broad guideline based on which teachers can generate their
own location-specific, need-based microstrategies or classroom procedures. In
other words, macrostrategies are made operational in the classroom through
microstrategies. Macrostrategies are considered theory-neutral, because they are
not confined to underlying assumptions of any one specific theory of language,
learning, and teaching. They are also considered method-neutral because they are

5
not conditioned by a single set of principles or procedures associated with language
teaching methods.

The strategic framework comprises 10 macrostrategies that are couched in

operational terms:

1. Maximize learning opportunities;

2. facilitate negotiated interaction;
3. minimize perceptual mismatches;
4. activate intuitive heuristics;
5. foster language awareness;
6. contextualize linguistic input;
7. integrate language skills;
8. promote learner autonomy;
9. ensure social relevance; and
10. raise cultural consciousness.

What works best?

To conclude this survey of approaches and methods, a general point should be
made. The Grammar-translation Method, the Direct Method, the Audiolingual
Method, TPR, the Silent Way, Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia, the
Natural Approach, and Communicative Language Teaching have all contributed
potentially useful ideas to English teaching. At a minimum, we have learnt that an
approach on the general lines of Communicative Language Teaching is much more
likely to work in the majority of teaching-learning situations than the Grammar-
translation Method or the Audiolingual Method.

One reason for the plethora of methods is that we still do not know everything there
is to know about how people learn languages. The study of second language
acquisition (SLA) is a relatively new field. While we are much better informed
than we were half a century ago, there are still some key questions over which there
is a great deal of debate.

How, then, is the teacher to choose?

Sometimes teachers have no choice: the institution or education authority that they
work for tries to impose a method. Some teachers reject the method concept

6
entirely, holding the view that methods are prescriptive, inflexible and insensitive
to local conditions. They may subscribe to what has been called the ‘post-method
condition’ which, in turn, is associated with postmodernism and its rejection of the
idea of universalist, objective knowledge and of ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions to
complex problems. On the other hand, even postmodern teachers need to make
decisions about syllabus, materials and classroom procedures.

……………..