3-лекция. Тақырыбы: History of Trends in Foreign Language Teaching 2.

Лекция жоспары:
1. A Functional Approach: Communicative Language Teaching
2. Total Physical Response
3.The Natural Approach
Лекция мақсаты:
To provide an overview of foreign language teaching strategies based upon theory, practicum,
and creativity.
To allow for full discussion and analysis of past and current thinking in second language
acquisition in principle and in application.
To prepare the foreign language teacher with the necessary know-how, dexterity, and confidence
to be a capable teacher of foreign languages.
Лекцияның мәтіні:

Functional Approach: Communicative Language Teaching

More recently, with an increase in constructivist approaches to the study of language,
there has been a shift in patterns of research. The shift has not been so much away from the
generative/cognitive side of the continuum, but perhaps better described as a move even more
deeply into the essence of language.
Two emphases have emerged:
a. Researchers began to see that language was one manifestation of the cognitive and
affective ability to deal with the world, with others, and with the self.
b. Moreover, the generative rules that were proposed under the nativistic framework were
abstract, formal, explicit, and quite logical, yet they dealt specifically with the forms of language
and not with the deeper functional levels of meaning constructed from social interaction.
The origins of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are to be found in the changes
in the British language teaching tradition dating from the late 1960s. Until then, Situational
Language represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign language. In
Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by practicing basic structures in meaningful
situation-based activities. British applied linguists emphasized another fundamental dimension of
language that was inadequately addressed in current approaches to language teaching at that time
- the functional and communicative potential of language. They saw the need to focus in
language teaching on communicative proficiency rather than on mere mastery of structures.
Another impetus for different approaches to foreign language teaching came from changing
educational realities in Europe. With the increasing interdependence of European countries came
the need for greater efforts to teach adults the major languages of the European Common Market
and the Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and educational cooperation.
Education was one of the Council of Europe's major areas of activity. It sponsored international
conferences on language teaching, published monographs and books about language teaching.
The need to articulate and develop alternative methods of language teaching was considered a
high priority. In 1971 a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of developing
language courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which learning tasks are broken down into
"portions or units, each of which corresponds to a component of a learner's needs and is
systematically related to all the other portions" (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The group used
studies of the needs of European language learners, and in particular a preliminary document
prepared by a British linguist, D. A. Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or
communicative definition of language that could serve as a basis for developing communicative
syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins's contribution was an analysis of the communicative
meanings that a language learner needs to understand and express. Rather than describe the core
of language through traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary, Wilkins attempted to
demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative uses of language. The
work of the Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Widdowson, Candlin, Christopher
Brumfit, Keith Johnson, and other British applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a
communicative or functional approach to language teaching; the rapid application of these ideas
by textbook writers; and the equally rapid acceptance of these new principles by British language
teaching specialists, curriculum development centers, and even governments gave prominence
nationally and internationally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative Approach, or
simply Communicative Language Teaching. (The terms notional-functional approach and
functional approach are also sometimes used.) Although the movement began as a largely British
innovation, focusing on alternative conceptions of a syllabus, since the mid-1970s the scope of
Communicative Language Teaching has expanded. Both American and British proponents now
see it as an approach (and not a method) that aims to (a) make communicative competence the
goal of language teaching and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills
that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication.

2. Total Physical Response

Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching method built around the
coordination of speech and action; it attempts to teach language through physical (motor)
activity. Developed by James Asher, a professor of psychology at San Jose State University,
California, it draws on several traditions, including developmental psychology, learning theory,
and humanistic pedagogy, as well as on language teaching procedures proposed by Harold and
Dorothy Palmer in 1925. Let us briefly consider these precedents to Total Physical Response.
Total Physical Response is linked to the “trace theory” of memory in psychology, which holds
that the more often or the more intensively a memory connection is traced, the stronger the
memory association will be and the more likely it will be recalled. Retracing can be done
verbally (e.g., by rote repetition) and/or in association with motor activity. Combined tracing
activities, such as verbal rehearsal accompanied by motor activity, hence increase the probability
of successful recall.
In a developmental sense, Asher sees successful adult second language learning as a
parallel process to child first language acquisition. He claims that speech directed to young
children consists primarily of commands, which children respond to physically before they begin
to produce verbal responses. Asher feels adults should recapitulate the processes by which
children acquire their mother tongue.
Asher shares with the school of humanistic psychology a concern for the role of affective
(emotional) factors in language learning. A method that is undemanding in terms of linguistic
production and that involves gamelike movements reduces learner stress, he believes, and creates
a positive mood in the learner, which facilitates learning.
Asher's emphasis on developing comprehension skills before the learner is taught to
speak links him to a movement in foreign language teaching sometimes referred to as the
Comprehension Approach (Winitz 1981). This refers to several different comprehension-based
language teaching proposals, which share the belief that (a) comprehension abilities precede
productive skills in learning a language; (b) the teaching of speaking should be delayed until
comprehension skills are established; (c) skills acquired through listening transfer to other skills;
(d) teaching should emphasize meaning rather than form; and (e) teaching should minimize
learner stress.
The emphasis on comprehension and the use of physical actions to teach a foreign
language at an introductory level has a long tradition in language teaching. Asher does not
directly discuss the nature of language or how languages are organized. However, the labeling
and ordering of TPR classroom drills seem to be built on assumptions that owe much to
structuralist or grammar-based views of language. Asher states that "most of the grammatical
structure of the target language and hundreds of vocabulary items can be learned from the
skillful use of the imperative by the instructor" (1977: 4). He views the verb, and particularly the
verb in the imperative, as the central linguistic motif around which language use and learning are
organized.
Asher sees language as being composed of abstractions and non-abstractions, with non-
abstractions being most specifically represented by concrete nouns and imperative verbs. He
believes that learners can acquire a "detailed cognitive map" as well as "the grammatical
structure of a language" without recourse to abstractions.
Abstractions should be delayed until students have internalized a detailed cognitive map
of the target language. Abstractions are not necessary for people to decode the grammatical
structure of a language. Once students have internalized the code, abstractions can be introduced
and explained in the target language.
This is an interesting claim about language but one that is insufficiently detailed to test.
For example, are tense, aspect, articles, and so forth, abstractions, and if so, what sort of
"detailed cognitive map" could be constructed without them?
Despite Asher's belief in the central role of comprehension in language learning, he does
not elaborate on the relation between comprehension, production, and communication (he has no
theory of speech acts or their equivalents, for example), although in advanced TPR lessons
imperatives are used to initiate different speech acts, such as requests ("John, ask Mary to walk
to the door"), and apologies ("Ned, tell Jack you're sorry").
Asher also refers in passing to the fact that language can be internalized as wholes or
chunks, rather than as single lexical items, and, as such, links are possible to more theoretical
proposals of this kind, as well as to work on the role of prefabricated patterns in language
learning and language use Asher does not elaborate on his view of chunking, however, nor on
other aspects of the theory of language underlying Total Physical Response. We have only clues
to what a more fully developed language theory might resemble when spelled out by Asher and
his supporters.
Asher's language learning theories are reminiscent of the views of other behavioral
psychologists. For example, the psychologist Arthur Jensen proposed a seven-stage model to
describe the development of verbal learning in children. The first stage he calls Sv-R type
learning , which the educational psychologist John DeCecco interprets as follows:
In Jensen's notation, Sv refers to a verbal stimulus—a syllable, a word, a phrase, and so on. R
refers to the physical movements the child makes in response to the verbal stimulus (or Sv). The
movement may involve touching, grasping, or otherwise manipulating some object. For example,
mother may tell Percival (age 1) to get the ball, and Percival, distinguishing the sound "ball"
from the clatter of other household noises, responds by fetching the ball and bringing it to his
mother. Ball is the Sv (verbal stimulus), and Percival's action is the response. At Percival's age,
children respond to words about four times faster than they respond to other sounds in their
environment. It is not clear why this is so, but it is possible that the reinforcing effects of making
proper responses to verbal stimuli are sufficiently strong to cause a rapid development of this
behavior. Sv-R learning represents, then, the simplest form of verbal behavior.
3. The Natural Approach
In 1977, Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in California, outlined "a proposal for a 'new'
philosophy of language teaching which [he] called the Natural Approach" (Terrell 1977; 1982:
121). This was an attempt to develop a language teaching proposal that incorporated the
"naturalistic" principles researchers had identified in studies of second language acquisition. The
Natural Approach grew out of Terrell's experiences teaching Spanish classes. Since that time
Terrell and others have experimented with implementing the Natural Approach in elementary- to
advanced-level classes and with several other languages. At the same time he has joined forces
with Stephen Krashen, an applied linguist at the University of Southern California, in elaborating
a theoretical rationale for the Natural Approach, drawing on Krashen's influential theory of
second language acquisition. Krashen and Terrell's combined statement of the principles and
practices of the Natural Approach appeared in their book, The Natural Approach, published in
1983. The Natural Approach has attracted a wider interest than some of the other innovative
language teaching proposals discussed in this book, largely because of its support by Krashen.
Krashen and Terrell's book contains theoretical sections prepared by Krashen that outline his
views on second language acquisition (Krashen 1981; 1982), and sections on implementation
and classroom procedures, prepared largely by Terrell.
Krashen and Terrell have identified the Natural Approach with what they call
"traditional" approaches to language teaching. Traditional approaches are defined as "based on
the use of language in communicative situations without recourse to the native language" - and,
perhaps, needless to say, without reference to grammatical analysis, grammatical drilling, or to a
particular theory of grammar. Krashen and Terrell note that such "approaches have been called
natural, psychological, phonetic, new, reform, direct, analytic, imitative and so forth" (Krashen
and Terrell 1983: 9). The fact that the authors of the Natural Approach relate their approach to
the Natural Method has led some to assume chat Natural Approach and Natural Method are
synonymous terms. Although the tradition is a common one, there are important differences
between the Natural Approach and the older Natural Method, which it will be useful to consider
at the outset.
The Natural Method is another term for what by the turn of the century had become
known as the Direct Method.. It is described in a report on the state of the art in language
teaching commissioned by the Modern Language Association in 1901 (the report of the
"Committee of 12"):
The term natural , used in reference to the Direct Method, merely emphasized that the principles
underlying the method were believed to conform to the principles of naturalistic language
learning in young children. Similarly, the Natural Approach, as defined by Krashen and Terrell,
is believed to conform to the naturalistic principles found in successful second language
acquisition. Unlike the Direct Method, however, it places less emphasis on teacher monologues,
direct repetition, and formal questions and answers, and less focus on accurate production of
target language sentences. In the Natural Approach there is an emphasis on exposure, or input,
rather than practice; optimizing emotional preparedness for learning; a prolonged period of
attention to what the language learners hear before they try to produce language; and a will-
ingness to use written and other materials as a source of comprehensible input. The emphasis on
the central role of comprehension in the Natural Approach links it to other comprehension-based
approaches in language teaching.
Krashen and Terrell see communication as the primary function of language, and since
their approach focuses on teaching communicative abilities, they refer to the Natural Approach
as an example of a communicative approach. The Natural Approach "is similar to other com
municative approaches being developed today" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17). They reject
earlier methods of language teaching, such as the Audiolingual Method, which viewed grammar
as the central component of language. According to Krashen and Terrell, the major problem with
these methods was that they were built not around "actual theories of language acquisition, but
theories of something else; for example, the structure of language" (1983: 1). Unlike proponents
of Communicative Language Teaching, however, Krashen and Terrell give little attention to a
theory of language. Indeed, a recent critic of Krashen suggests he has no theory of language at all
(Gregg 1984). What Krashen and Terrell do describe about the nature of language emphasizes
the primacy of meaning. The importance of the vocabulary is stressed, for example, suggesting
the view that a language is essentially its lexicon and only inconsequently the grammar that
determines how the lexicon is exploited to produce messages. Terrell quotes Dwight Bolinger to
support this view:
Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meanings and messages. Hence
Krashen and Terrell state that "acquisition can take place only when people understand messages
in the target language (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 19). Yet despite their avowed communicative
approach to language, they view language learning, as do audiolingualists, as mastery of
structures by stages. "The input hypothesis states that in order for acquirers to progress to the
next stage in the acquisition of the target language, they need to understand input language that
includes a structure that is part of the next stage" (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32). Krashen refers
to this with the formula "I + 1" (i.e., input that contains structures slightly above the learner's
present level). We assume that Krashen means by structures something at least in the tradition of
what such linguists as Leonard Bloomfield and Charles Fries meant by structures. The Natural
Approach thus assumes a linguistic hierarchy of structural complexity that one masters through
encounters with "input" containing structures at the "1 + 1" level.
We are left then with a view of language that consists of lexical items, structures, and
messages. Obviously, there is no particular novelty in this view as such, except that messages are
considered of primary importance in the Natural Approach. The lexicon for both perception and
production is considered critical in the construction and interpretation of messages. Lexical items
in messages arc necessarily grammatically structured, and more complex messages involve more
complex grammatical structure. Although they acknowledge such grammatical structuring,
Krashen and Terrell feel that grammatical structure does not require explicit analysis or attention
by the language teacher, by the language learner, or in language teaching materials.

Оқытудың техникалық құралдары: интерактивті тақта, проектор, сызба– кестелер

Оқытудың әдістері мен түрлері: баяндау, сұрақ–жауап, түсіндіру, кіріспе лекция, пікір-
талас.
Деңгейлік тапсырмалар
:І-ші деңгей:
What is communicative language teaching?
ІІ-ші деңгей:
What is the background of total physical response?
ІІІ-ші деңгей:
How do you understand the “1+1 level”?
ОБӨЖ тапсырмалары :
Write an essay on the Natural Approach
БӨЖ тапсырмалары:
5-minute Speaking (Listening, Reading, Writing) Activity
Пайдаланылған әдебиеттер:
Негізгі әдебиеттер:
1. Selected lectures on Methodology of Teaching a Foreign Language for advanced
students. Turkestan. Turan, 2011. G. T. Segizova, D. T. Dadashov.
2. The TKT.: Teaching knowledge test. Course. Modules 1, 2 and 3. Cambridge University
Press, 2014. M. Spratt, A. Pulverness, M. Williams.
3. Planning lessons and Courses. Cambridge Handbooks for Language Teachers.
Cambridge 2012. Tessa Woodward.
4. Task-Based Language Teaching. A comprehensively revised edition of Designing Tasks
for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge 2011. David Nunan.
5. Classroom Observation Tasks. Cambridge, 2011. Ruth Wajnryb.
Қосымша әдебиеттер:
1. The Effect of the EPOSTL on the Self-Evaluation of the StudentTeachers of English.
Монография. Шымкент, 2020. М.Е.Сейтова.