A Critical Evaluation of of Current Pedagogical Approaches in TESOL Clsss

CHEN Jun

[Abstract：Due to the enormous educational researches on English language teaching， and the growing understanding of language learning process， pedagogical approaches of teaching English as a second language， guided participation and collective argumentation for instance， have been gradually improved， revised and developed. Three welcomed pedagogical approaches – group collaboration， scaffolding and explicit instruction –are critically analyzed in this essay， along with the underpinning theories. After the evaluation， learners differences and cultural influence are mentioned in order to alert teachers when they make their choices of what and which pedagogies. It is obvious that no approach is the best or the most appropriate for teaching second language. Thereafter， teachers should monitor the class regularly and adjust what they use accordingly， to guarantee that it is the most suitable for his/her class.

Key Words：Evaluation;Pedagogical Approaches;TESOL]

Group Collaboration

Group collaboration is believed to be one of the most effective and useful ways of learning a second language. It is also the fact that in language teaching， group collaboration can frequently be found in forms of peer learning， group discussion，peer review or group activities. In this approach， learning takes place through interaction which is the central idea of the socio-cultural theory. Socio-cultural theorists regard learning as essentially social and entangled in use and interaction （Mitchell & Myles， 2004）.

Moreover， collaborative group work combines the elements of input and output which are considered as the main conditions for language learning to take place. The basic claim of the input hypothesis presents that “the availability of input which is comprehensible to the learner is the only necessary condition of language learning to take place” （Mitchell & Myles， 2004：159）. And Swain believes that only second language production， namely output， really forces learners to undertake complete language learning process and thus drives forward most effectively the development of second language learning （cited from Mitchell & Myles， 2004）. All these theories serve as a strong basis and solid support for group interaction.

The implication of these theories in classroom teaching can be reflected in collaborative group work， where teachers main work is to encourage， sometimes to force students to interact， to communicate and to produce. In practice， Harmer suggests that grouping students is not necessarily restricted into small groups; instead， whole-class grouping， buzz grouping， snowball grouping， crossover grouping， horseshoe grouping and pair work are all the alternative ways （Harmer， 2001）.

As a prevalent pedagogy， group interaction demonstrates plentiful strengths. Ohta （2001） advocates that “l(fā)earning English in group interaction and co-construction provides learners with increased opportunities for noticing， selective attention to different aspects of target language production” （cited in Mitchell & Myles， 2004：221）. Similarly， Mitchell and Myles state clearly that group learning establishes a platform for learners to make use of conversational tactics such as repetitions or clarification requests to struggle to maximize comprehension and negotiate meaning （Mitchell & Myles， 2004）. In negotiation of meaning， learners can become aware of gaps and problems in their current language system yet are forced to try to produce more comprehensible， coherent and accurate discourse. This is also their chance to practice and experiment their revised language. Thus input， intake and output are all involved and work jointly to assist language learning.

Furthermore， group work allows students “to learn ways of communicating their thoughts， and occasionally feelings， and of gauging their understanding of language firstly by expressing it and secondly by comparing it with other group members” （Jaques， 1991：70）. Learners autonomy is also promoted. Additionally， in group interaction， feedback， be it positive or negative， plays a significant role in developing language learning. It confirms students gaining in language leaning， which will promote learning motivation and confidence. On the other hand， it also amends students problems and mistakes to make it right.

As for teachers， they can discover what students know as well as their problems and misunderstanding by listening to students discussion so that direct help and instruction can be given to the exact problems. Groups like buzz group and crossover group are simple and practical to organize. What is more， group work allows teachers to have flexibility of walking around the classroom and talking to students， which will ease teachers stress and burden. In group work， the learning atmosphere is more relaxing， happy and comfortable. Last but not the least， group work provides the opportunity for students “not merely to engage in intellectual discourse but also to create a social family to which they can belong and become identified with” （Jaques， 1991：70）.

Of course， group collaboration is not perfect. It has many weaknesses， too. It is likely to be noisy， chaotic and time consuming， such as whole-class groups and snowball groups. Some teachers feel that “they lose control， and the whole-class feeling which has been painstakingly built up may dissipate when the class is split into smaller entities” （Harmer， 2001：117）. Another concern is that it is impossible to satisfy every students need within group works. Some students may not enjoy learning or even refuse to engage themselves into learning because they prefer to be the focus of teachers attention rather than working with their peers. Or they are simply in an uncongenial group or with group members they are not keen on. Some students are pushed to be in a passive position whereas others are dominant the group.

Although feedback in group interaction is very helpful， it is only one side of the story. It can hurt students by pointing out the problematic areas or result in an over-satisfied illusion if positive feedback is given too much. Besides， group work can operate in a rather low effectiveness because students in the group can easily be distracted by chatting， texting and other irrelevant activities. And once a group finish their work， it is likely to influence other groups. It is attentive to prevent the group work from becoming bored. Or the negative results can affect all the group members instead of only an individual student.

Scaffolding

Another commonly used pedagogy is scaffolding. It is a metaphorical sense from constructing a building， temporary but essential. Gibbons describes scaffolding as “the steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom in carrying out some tasks so that learners can concentrate on the difficult skills in the process of acquiring” （Gibbons， 2002：10）. Scaffolding is more than just a help to learners. It is a guide and an instructor that assists students to move forward into a new language point， learning skill， concept or understanding level.

According to socio-cultural theorists， scaffolding is a “process of supportive dialogue which directs the attention of the learner to key features of the language， and which prompts them through successive steps of a problem” （Mitchell & Myles， 2004：195）. As Donato （1944， p.41） puts it， “scaffold performance is a dialogically constituted inter-psychological mechanism that promotes the novices internalization of knowledge co-constructed in shared activity.” From the socio-cultural perspectives， students can appropriate the necessary concepts and should be more capable of regulating their own performance on another similar occasion through scaffolded help （Mitchell &Myles， 2004）.

Scaffolding students is of great value and advantages. First of all， it can recruit students interest in the task. By controlling frustration during problem solving， and maintaining pursuit of the goal， students are less likely to be bored and they know clearly about their purposes and expectations. In addition， scaffolding provides an opportunity for students to carry out the task and to be engaged with authentic and cognitively challenging learning environment， which is very crucial for the success of learning （Gibbons， 2002）. Scaffolding is also helpful and beneficial in “making critical features and discrepancies between what has been produced and the ideal solution” （Mitchell & Myles， 2004：197）. Thus， students can be aware of the gaps and differences in their imperfect language as well as learning skills. When next time they encounter a similar situation， scaffoled help they have received before can then be recalled as a guide. What is more， Gibbons claims that scaffolding assists learners development in the way of allowing them to bring their experience and understandings as a basis of building into a new skill （Gibbons， 2002）. This schematic or in-the-head knowledge is contributable to a more thorough comprehension of the new knowledge.

However， it is easy to notice that what scaffolding does not fulfill is the need for learners to produce enough comprehensible output and interaction （Gibbons， 2002）. Sometimes， in scaffolding， students are lead to single-word or single-clause responses; there are very few chances for them to stretch their languages， or to interact with other students. Too much scaffolding may diminish the learning autonomy of students since they are accustomed to relying on teachers help and assistant. Other passive influence can be found in the possibility that scaffolding is likely to become a lecture if teachers are too much involved in it or if students are not reluctant to respond. Thus， it is the teacher who will suffer great pressure and worry. The last disadvantage of scaffolding is that it is hard to decide when to scaffold students and when to stop because individual learning differences of each student are so different， such as their cognitive ability， language level， and background knowledge and so on. Some difficult tasks may not be difficult at all to others. Scaffold will be a waste of time to those students.

Explicit Instruction

It is not surprising to find that explicit instruction is adopted as part of the teaching approach in almost all the ESL/EFL classroom， whether it is in the form of presenting rules or giving informal instruction. The popularity of explicit instruction is the result of the developing understanding of second language learning theories. Information-processing theorists， such as McLaughlin and Anderson， view second language learning as a process of declarative knowledge becoming procedural and automatized （Mitchell & Myles， 2004）. Johnson （1996） has pursued the application of Andersons model to explicit classroom instruction （cited form Mitchell & Myles， 2004：105）. On the other hand， connectionists also believe that second language learning takes place through “explicit learning in well-understood， constrained， and controllable environment” （cited from Mitchell & Myles， 2004）.

On the basis of the cognitive perspective， Harmer argues that one of the teachers main tasks is to make students aware of the language （Harmer， 2001）. This awareness-raising may guarantee the procedure of information-processing. One way of doing this is to give explicit instruction in classroom teaching. As Schmidt suggests， second language learners “notice a language construction if they come across it often and one way of coming across it is through instruction – that is， if teachers draw their attention to it” （cited from Harmer， 2001：73）.

Ellis also claims that explicit instruction has a positive effect on L2 learning and teaching （Ellis， 1990）. First and foremost， it raises learners awareness of certain features of the language. This awareness will “help learners acquisition of the language so that when they need to use it， the knowledge thus gained will help them to produce it accurately and fluently” （Harmer， 2001：73）. Formal instruction also increases the opportunities of language learning since it exposes learners to more comprehensible input， which may assist language learning. In addition， explicit instruction can answer some learning problems and questions. It can direct and facilitate learning， too. As for teachers， they can keep the pace of teaching and obtain a feeling that everything is under control. Undoubtedly， teachers are the performer in this approach. They dominate the pace of teaching， the atmosphere of classroom and even learners， which guarantees their feeling of safety. Another merit of this approach is that it is beneficial for all learners， whether they are children or adults， beginners or advanced students， in acquisition – rich environments or in acquisition – poor environments （Ellis， 1990）.

The most obvious drawback of explicit instruction is that it is very much likely to be teacher oriented. Teachers are the controller in this approach， which makes learners in a passive position. Students can easily get bored and distracted because they dont have the opportunity to be actively involved into the new language. This may result in the reduction of learners passion， motivation and even autonomy of learning second language. The limited interaction between teachers and students is another disadvantage of this approach. By doing so， the purpose of learning language focuses mostly on its form rather than on its use. Then learning language tends to become meaningless. Another serious problem concerns the explicit instruction is that it is hard to evaluate if the instruction works. Sometimes the effect can be quite obvious and then it can be delayed. So there is still no effective ways for teachers to know whether or to what extent the instruction has an effect on students.

Which Pedagogy？

In the paragraphs above， three key teaching approaches are mentioned in terms of their usefulness. However， they are just tips of the iceberg. With so many different approaches and methods available， many teachers hesitate in making a decision of which to choose and how to choose. No matter what criteria on which teachers based to decide their pedagogies， there are some aspects worthy to be noticed and bear in mind.

The most disturbing and unpredictable factor in choosing pedagogy is the learner differences. As Harmer suggests， the age of students is a “major factor in teachers decisions about how and what to teach” （Harmer， 2001：37）. Students of different ages have different needs， academic competence， cognitive process and learning skills. Secondly， students aptitude of learning a second language complicates the situation. It is a generally held view that girls are better language learner than boys. Even in the same class， some students learn language faster and better than others. Moreover， learner styles have to be considered when teachers are making choice of pedagogical approaches. Students are of their own personalities and learning styles. If teachers can use the suitable approaches， students will be highly motivated thus the learning outcome can be improved. For example， some students are conformists who prefer to emphasize learning language forms rather than its use; others are communicative learners who are use orientated. Then teachers can adopt a combined approach of explicit instruction and group work.

Another factor to be warned is the educational and cultural background. Students attitudes to second language itself， second language learning and how it is taught are influenced by their educational biases and beliefs as well as their own culture. For example， in western culture， students are expected to participate actively in class. They are also encouraged to challenge teachers and to express their own thoughts. Here， collaborative work may be more effective than simply presenting language rules. Nevertheless， in some Asian countries， students are taught to behave in class. They are told that it is forbidden to challenge teachers because they are the authority. Under such circumstance， explicit instruction may work better than group discussion.

Teaching and learning is a contract between two parties for which they both need to agree the terms， like what Harmer claims （Harmer， 2001）. Some adjusts and accommodations between those two parties， like individual differences and culture， is part of what all teachers have to do to some extent. When considering the methodologies， these elements are better to be noticed.

It is extremely stressful to judge which approaches are the best or the most appropriate for teaching second language. What really matters is that practices should be checked， revised or changed now and again to see if they are working. One more thing to do is that teachers should monitor the class regularly and adjust what they use accordingly， to guarantee that it is the most suitable method for the class they teach.

Bibliography

[1]Carter，R.，& Nunan，D.2001. The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

[2]Ellis，R.1990. Instructed Second Language Acquisition： Learning in the Classroom.Oxford： Blackwell.

[3]Gibbons，P.2002.Scaffolding Language，Scaffolding Learning：Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth， NH： Heinemann.

[4]Harmer，J.2001.The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition， Essex： Longman.

[5]Harmer，J.2007.How to Teach English. New Edition. Harlow： Pearson Longman.

[6]Jaques， D. 1991. Learning in Groups. 2nd Edition. London： Kogan Page.

[7]Mitchell，M.，& Myles， F.2004. Second Language Learning Theories. 2nd Edition，London：HODDER EDUCATION.

作者簡介

陳鋆（1985.10—），女，講師，碩士，籍貫：甘肅平?jīng)觯瑔挝唬簩幭拇髮W，研究方向：二語習得。

基金項目：本文系寧夏高等教育教學改革研究與實踐項目資助

項目批準號：18NXBYY01

項目名稱：基于微信平臺的過程教學法在大學英語寫作中的應用創(chuàng)新

Ningxia University， Yinchuan， 750021， China