Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

Maya Pentcheva Todor Shopov

Whole Language, Whole Person A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

Viseu, 2003 Passagem Editores ISBN 972-98770-0-9

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

1

Contents Foreword

3

Chapter 1: Principles of Teaching 1.1. Cognitive Principles 1.2. Social Principles 20 1.3. Linguistic Principles

6 7 25

Chapter 2: Exploring Language Teaching Methods 35 2.1. Period I: Direct Language Teaching 35 2.2. Period II: Audio-lingual Teaching and the Innovative Methods of the 1970s 37 2.3. Period III: Communicative Language Teaching 41 Chapter 3: Paradigm Shift in Education 47 3.1. Changing the Focus of Education 47 3.2. A Teaching Paradigm to Meet Psychosocial Needs 3.3. Factors of Cooperative Learning 53 3.4. Cooperative Language Learning 56

50

Chapter 4: The Language Curriculum 59 4.1. Constructivism 60 4.2. The General versus Specific Course Conjecture 63 4.3. Random Access Instruction in Complex and Ill-structured Domains 65 4.4. Language Curriculum as a Knowledge Strategic Hypertext 66 4.5. Instead of a Conclusion 70 References

71

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

2

Foreword This book is written within the framework of the Exchange to Change Project. We have been trying the find out what the methodological implications of the awareness resulting from reflective mobility are. Is there any “methodological value” added in result of the visiting and welcoming experiences of language teachers and learners in mobility? Our aim is to offer some orientation into the general educational concerns of the Project. The task is formidable. It is the focus of many different lines of exploration. In his poem “Little Gidding”, No. 4 of Four Quarters, T. S. Eliot puts it in this way: We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Yet, this is an optimistic book. At some moments in history, professional spheres are susceptible to important change. We believe that we want and can cross the threshold of “exchange to change” and step into the realm of educational promises fulfilled. The title indicates our holistic approach to the analysis and synthesis of the concepts of language, personality, methodology, communication and intercomprehension, etc. This approach emphasizes the priority of the whole over its parts. We hold that language teaching and learning is a complex knowledge domain, characterized by network of relationships in a social and cultural context. In addition, we believe that methodology is an interdisciplinary field, which cannot be understood in isolation. Our perspective sees it in terms of its relations to other knowledge domains. We shall look into a range of issues, which are not only interesting themselves, but also relevant to the objectives of the Project and, hopefully, to the Reader. The nature and extent of the relevance is difficult, if not impossible, to determine a priori. However, the book supplements the Project Modules and serves as a concise reference material on the theory of the teaching and learning of modern foreign languages. Methodological literature is of course extensive, so we shall be pointing out some of the good books on the topics presented.

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

3

We have just mentioned the term “foreign language”; throughout the book we shall use it interchangeably with the term “second language”. Here, we shall consider them synonymous albeit we realize that they can be easily distinguished. In the literature, “second language” usually refers to a target language that is being taught in the country where it is the dominant language, whereas “foreign language” usually refers to a target language that is being taught in the country where it is not the dominant language. However, we do not find this distinction quite relevant for the focus of this book. A decade ago, N. S. Prabhu, the famous Indian methodologist, pointed out that language teaching faced three major problems, “(1) the measurement of language competence involves elicitation (in some form) of specific language behaviour but the relationship between such elicited behaviour and language competence which manifests itself in natural use is unclear, (2) given the view that the development of linguistic competence is a holistic process, there is not enough knowledge available either to identify and assess different intermediate stages of that development or to relate those stages to some table of norms which can be said to represent expectations, and (3) there is, ultimately, no way of attributing with any certainty any specific piece of learning to any specific teaching: language learning can take place independently of teaching intentions and it is impossible to tell what has been learnt because of some teaching, and what in spite of it” (Prabhu 1987, 8). Many things have happened in the field of language teaching methodology since then. For example, the Common European Framework of Reference (Council of Europe 1996 and 1998) was published, European Language Council (http://www.fu-berlin.de/elc) was founded, European Language Portfolio (Scharer 1999) was launched and so on. Nonetheless, Prabhu‟s claims are still valid. We shall focus on a range of questions in the light of modern methodological developments trying to state the scientific facts. Our own opinion emerges in the discussion now and then, though. We hope our fortuitous academic bias will be understood. The book is written in English and our examples come from English but we do not intend to promote a lingua Adamica restituta. We believe in plurilingualism and pluriculturalism and our inadequacy is only because of our teleological prudence. The book is a collaborative effort but the responsibility of the authors is individual. Maya Pencheva wrote Chapter 1 and Todor Shopov prepared Chapters 2, 3 and 4. Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

4

Chapter 1 offers a theoretical orientation into the philosophical foundations of methodology. Cognitive and other principles of language teaching and learning are discussed. It is claimed that the Picture of the World, which we all keep in our minds, determines the way we speak. This relativistic perspective and other ideas have found different applications in teaching. They are explored in Chapter 2. It is a brief historical overview of teaching methods. The three major periods of the development of methodology in the twentieth century are presented. Chapter 3 discusses the more specific theme of the approach level of teaching methods. The authors argue that educational paradigm shift has had a pronounced impact on language methodology. Particular plans for a language curriculum, which constitutes the relatively concrete design level of teaching methods, are made in Chapter 4. The question of modern curriculum design and development is examined in it. The book functions as a whole text. We recommend that the reader speed-read the book first. Then, the appropriate readings can be selected easily. However, the reader can approach it as a compendium, browsing only through the relevant sections. We want to acknowledge the encouragement and support extended to us by many people. We have had the good fortune to work with Filomena Capucho of Universidade Catolica Portuguesa – Centro Regional das Beiras Polo de Viseu, PT, Project General Coordinator, and our Partners from Hogskolan Kalmar, SE, Centro de Professores y Recursos de Salamanca, ES, Centro de Professores y Recursos de Vitigudino, ES, Institut Universaire de Formation des Maitres d‟Auvergne, FR, Skarup Statsseminarium, DK and Universitat Salzburg, AT. We also wish to acknowledge our deep sense of indebtedness to our colleagues at the Faculty of Classical and Modern Philology, Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski, BG. Our work would have hardly been possible without the order introduced in the system by Alex Fedotoff. We are especially grateful to Peter Hanenberg of Universidade Catolica Portuguesa – Centro Regional das Beiras Polo de Viseu, PT, who had the idea of this book first, for his example and help. To all these people, many thanks. Sofia, December 1999

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

5

Chapter 1: Principles of Teaching In his Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, H. Douglas Brown notes that there are “…best of times and worst of times” in the language teaching profession (Brown 1994a). We can safely say that this is the best of times for the foreign language teacher. Today, we know much about foreign language acquisition, about child acquisition of language, about cognitive processes, etc. It is also very important that we have come to an appreciation of the extreme complexity of this field. This gives us cautious optimism to plunge even deeper into the problems. Foreign language teachers and educators are often confronted with the question "What method or what system do you use in teaching a foreign language?" Most often the answer does not come easily or if one gives a straightforward answer, he risks to be subjected to criticism. Teachers always have to make choices. These choices are motivated by the fact that they rest on certain principles of language learning and teaching. Now that we know much more about human language and its various aspects, we can make the next step and formulate at least some of these principles, which are based on what we know about language itself. Often, swept by fashionable theories or a desire to sound “scholarly”, we forget a simple truth – we, as human beings, teach a human language to human beings. “Students and teachers of language”, says Osgood, “will discover the principles of their science in the universalities of humanness” (Osgood et al. 1957, 301). A concise but true definition of man will probably include three major characteristics: (i) one who can reflect and interpret the world around him; (ii) one who can express feelings; and (iii) one who can use language. These characteristics underlie three major principles of language teaching and learning. Well known and novice teaching techniques can be subsumed under these three headings. Multiplicity of techniques can be brought down to a number of methods and the methods reduced to a number of principles. Mastering a great number of teaching techniques will not save you in new situations, “not predicted” by the theory but predictable. It will not give you the all-important ability to rationalize what you are doing and why are you doing it. To do that one must be aware of deeper principles of language acquisition and use, stemming from the foundations of human language as such.

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

6

1.1.

Cognitive Principles

We shall call the first set of principles “cognitive” because they relate to mental, intellectual and psychological faculties in operating with language. It should be made clear, however, that the three types of principles described in this chapter, cognitive, social and linguistic principles, do not exist as if in three watertight compartments but rather spill across each other to make up the most remarkable ability of man – the linguistic ability. It is no wonder that the achievements of modern cognitive science have found such a warm and fast response in linguistics. Some of the postulates of cognitive science today are crucial to our understanding of how language operates and how we acquire this ability, respectively. Because one of the most difficult questions in foreign language acquisition and child acquisition of language is, How is it possible that children at an early age and adults, late in their life, can master a system of such immense complexity? Is it only a matter of memory capacity and automatic reproduction or is there something else that helps us acquire a language? Let us begin with some long established postulates of foreign language acquisition and see what cognitive theory has to say about them. (1) Automaticity of Acquisition No one can dispute the fact that children acquire a foreign language quickly and successfully. This ease is commonly attributed to children‟s ability to acquire language structures automatically and subconsciously, that is, without actually analyzing the forms of language themselves. They appear to learn languages without “thinking” about them. This has been called by B. McLaughlin “automatic processing” (McLaughlin 1990). In order to operate with the incredible complexity of language both children and adult learners do not process language “unit by unit” but employ operations in which language structures and forms (words, affixes, endings, word order, grammatical rules, etc.) are peripheral. The Principle of Automaticity, as stated above, aims at an “automatic processing of a relatively unlimited number of language forms”. Overanalyzing language, thinking too much about its forms tend to impede the acquisition process. This leads to the recommendation to teachers to focus on the use of language and its functional aspects. But focus on use and functionality presupposes Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

7

meaningful learning, which is in strong contradiction with automaticity. What is more, one major characteristic both of child acquisition and adult learning of foreign languages is the phenomenon called hypercorrection. Again hypercorrection cannot exist without meaningful analysis of language structures and their “classification” into “regular patterns” and “exceptions” with respect to a language function. (2) Meaningful Learning Meaningful learning “subsumes” new information into existing structures and memory systems. The resulting associative links create stronger retention. “Children are good meaningful acquirers of language because they associate…words, structures and discourse elements with that which is relevant and important in their daily quest for knowledge and survival” (Brown 1994b, 18). We must pay special attention to this sentence of H. D. Brown, especially the last words, underlined here. It will be relevant in our argument in favor of the cognitive principles of language acquisition. One of the recommendations for classroom application of Meaningful Learning is also of relevance to our further argument in this direction. It states “Whenever a new topic or concept is introduced, attempt to anchor it in students‟ existing knowledge and background so that it gets associated with something they already know”. Some thirty-five years ago, a new science was born. Now called “Cognitive Science”, it combines tools from psychology, computer science, linguistics, philosophy, child psychology, and neurobiology to explain the workings of human intelligence. Linguistics, in particular, has seen spectacular advances in the years since. There are many phenomena of language that we are coming to understand. Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell the time. Instead, it is a distinct characteristic of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child. For that reason cognitive scientists have described language as a psychological and mental faculty. The idea that thought is the same thing as language is an example of what can be called a conventional absurdity. Now that cognitive scientists know how to think about thinking, there is less of a temptation to equate it with language and we are in a better position to understand how language works.

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

8

In essence, to reason is to deduce new pieces of knowledge from old ones. But “knowledge” is something complex, the product of social and cultural experience from living in a particular “world”. In his Philosophy of Language, Wilhelm von Humboldt claims that speaking a language means living in a specific conceptual domain. Acquiring a foreign language means entering a new conceptual domain. This statement poses a major problem or perhaps the major problem of acquiring a foreign language – are these conceptual domains so different that they are incompatible? Or there are certain mechanisms by which we can make transitions from the one into the other? We shall present arguments in support of the second decision. The pivotal question is how we interpret Humboldt‟s conceptual domains. We will refer to them by the term Picture of the World, initially used in analyzing mythology and today employed by cognitive science. The word “picture”, though usually used metaphorically, expresses truly the essence of the phenomenon – it is a picture, not a mirror reflection, or a snapshot of the world around us. Like any other picture, it presupposes a definite point of view or the attitude of its creator. It involves interpretation, representations of the world from various angles (the so- called “facet viewing”). This of course implies the possibility to have a number of different pictures of one object. What is important here is that our conceptualization of the world is not “an objective reflection of reality”, but a subjective picture, which reflects our views, beliefs, and attitudes. “Subjective” in the sense of the collective interpretation or point of view of a society or cultural and linguistic community. This picture explicates the relativity of human cognition. In semiotics it goes under the name of “passive” cultural memory. Cognitive science, however, rejects the qualification “passive” and claims that Pictures of the World are actively and currently structured by common cognitive models. In connection with Humboldt‟s statement, it is possible to pass from one picture of the world into another by means of a set of universal cognitive mechanisms. This is crucial for explaining foreign language acquisition. But what are those mechanisms? And what is the nature of the evidence? Our conceptual system or Picture of the World is not something that we are normally aware of. But human language is an important source of evidence for what a picture of the world is like. On the basis of linguistic evidence we can say that most of our everyday conceptual system is metaphorical in nature. Cognitive science explains the essence of metaphor as understanding Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

9

and experiencing one thing in terms of another. The first thing is called Target Domain (what we want to express) and the second one is called Source Domain (by means of which we express the first). We can use, as an example, the way we conceive of time in our everyday life. Let us have the following linguistic expressions: You are wasting my time. This gadget will save you hours. How do you spend your time? That flat tyre will cost me an hour. I’m running out of time. The central postulate of cognitive science is that metaphorical transfer is not just a matter of language, of mere words. Human thought processes are largely metaphorical. Metaphor means metaphorical concepts. And these are specifically structured. If we generalize the examples above, we come up with the metaphor /TIME IS MONEY/. This metaphor entails the treatment of time as a limited resource and a valuable commodity. The examples demonstrate one type of metaphorical transfer – structural metaphor. On the more linguistic side of the problem, when metaphorical concepts become lexicalized, they help a variety of people understand what the concepts mean. In other words, they have a certain didactic role. Metaphors in computer terminology, for example, aid users speaking different languages but using English to understand and remember new concepts. At the same time they allow users to associate unfamiliar concepts with old ones, thereby helping to palliate technostress. “User friendliness” of computer metaphorical terms can be illustrated by the numerous examples found in the vocabulary of user interfaces – e.g. desktop, wallpaper, and menu, to mention just a few. It appears that conceptual domains are shaped by several themes. The domain of the Internet features several conceptual themes. Most of these are based on the functions that the Internet is perceived to have: (1) helping people “move” across vast distances; (2) facilitate communication; and (3) send and store data. The following metaphorical domains can present these themes:

1. Transportation Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

10

The theme of transportation dominates Internet terminology, specified sometimes as marine navigation, highway transportation: to navigate/cruise/surf the Internet (or the Web) internaut cybersurfer anchor information highway, data highway to ride/get on the Internet router ramp/on-ramp, access ramp infobahn cyberspace 2. Mail and Postal Services e-mail snailmail mailbox virtual postcard envelope 3. Architecture site gateway bridge frame 4. The Printed Medium Web page bookmark White pages to browse e-magazine carbon copy Some metaphorical terms have spawned numerous conceptually related ones by metaphorical extension. Gopher, for example, has given rise to Gopherspace, Gopher hole. The famous desktop metaphor has given rise to files, folders, trash cans. The mouse metaphor has generated mouse trails and so on.

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

11

A different type of metaphorical model is the second one, which organizes a whole system of concepts with respect to one another – the so-called orientation metaphor. They rely on bodily experience: up-down, in-out, front-back, deep-shallow, center-periphery, etc. Such orientation metaphors are grounded in physical perception and hence universal. For example: Up

vs.

Down

happy I’m feeling up. I’m in high spirits. Thinking about her gives me a lift.

sad I’m down today. My spirits sank. I’m depressed.

good health He is in top shape. He is at the peak of health.

sickness He fell ill. He came down with a flue.

have control over He is in a superior position. I have control over the situation.

be subject to control He is my social inferior. He is under my control.

high status He’s climbing the social ladder fast.

low status He is at the bottom of the social hierarchy.

virtue He is an upstanding citizen. She is high-minded.

depravity I wouldn’t stoop to that. That’s beneath me.

rational His arguments rose above emotions.

emotional Discussion fell to the emotional level.

The third type of metaphor is called ontological. Cognitive science has it that we understand our experience in terms of objects and substances. This allows us to pick fragments of our experience and treat them as discrete entities or substances. Thus, we interpret the human mind as a material object with specific properties - the /MIND IS A MACHINE/ metaphor:

Whole Language, Whole Person: A Handbook of Language Teaching Methodology

12

My mind just isn’t operating today. I’m a little rusty today. The experience shattered her. He is easily crushed. He broke under cross-examination. The conception of /MIND IS A MACHINE/ also enables us to view mind as having an off-state, a level of efficiency, productive capacity, internal mechanisms, etc. What is more, and it is very important, we view both conceptual domains (The Mind and The Machine) as internally structured, so that we can make transfers not only between the domains as a whole but also between parts of these domains. This process is known as “metaphorical mapping”. In this way, when we use a metaphorical model, we can also use elements of that model with the same effect. Let‟s illustrate this with an example: /LIFE IS A JOURNEY/. The mapping between the two domains is not simple. The structure of Journey includes, for example, point of departure, path to destination, means of transportation, co-travelers, obstacles along the way to destination, crossroads, etc. It is amazing how our concept of life repeats all the details of our concept of journeys. What is much more amazing, however, is not that we have many metaphors for life, but that we have just a few. They are among the basic metaphors we live by. Basic metaphors are limited in number. Among them are: /STATES ARE LOCATIONS/ /EVENTS ARE ACTIONS/ /PEOPLE ARE PLANTS/ /PEOPLE ARE CONTAINERS/ /LIFE IS A JOURNEY/ By means of them we can interpret all existing metaphorical models: /LIFE IS A JOURNEY/