Reflection 4

Reflected on "Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching" by Geoff Thompson, "How should CLIL work in practice?" by Alex Mackenzie, "Neuro Linguistic Programming in ELT" in Teaching English/ British Council webside and "Using NLP in ELT" in eltblogspot.com

                                                  Current ELT Methods

In this paper, I will reflect my own view on the topics discussed in the articles named “Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching” by Geoff Thompson, “How should CLIL work in practice?” by Alex Mackenzie, “Neuro Linguistic Programming in ELT” by Steve Dorn and “Using NLP İN ELT” on ELT blog.

            Firstly, when I look at the article in which misconceptions about communicative language teaching are discussed, I see that even I, myself believed some of those misconceptions as a prospective teacher. In the article, it was stated that generally when it is said communicative language teaching, it is thought that grammar is not taught because it is too complex to teach; just speaking is taught due to communicative purposes, job of the teachers who are using communicative approach is really hard because their speaking should be fluent and accurate just like natives and lastly communicative language teaching is mostly based on pair work/ role plays. All these things are called misconceptions in the article and I am certainly agree with the writer. Since the very beginning of our methodology courses, we were said that because of the requirements of the modern age, we must use communicative language teaching in our courses because it is the basis for language teaching/ learning. So in this sensei I really internalized this approach to the language teaching because I, myself, as a language learner, could know all grammar rules in the English language but could not speak the language fluently and accurately, I was thinking that only if I would be taught with communicative approach, I would most probably good at speaking. So, in this sense, I always thought that grammar must not be taught in classrooms and just speaking should be focused in communicative approach. However, now, after I went to METU College, I saw how to teach grammar, how to make our students learn/ internalize it unconsciously without explicit instruction in the classroom. The students there were speaking the language fluently and accurately but of course the teachers were giving importance to, were teaching Grammar, as well. So now I think that, as it is proposed in the article, with retrospective approach, we can both make our students speak communicatively as Communicative approach suggests and learn language rules by discovering them.

            Secondly, another thing I want to mention is that while we were preparing lesson plans which were mostly speaking focused with other skills integrated, we were always putting a role play/ peer work activity in the post stage. We were thinking that lesson is getting over, so in order to fill the time, let’s have the students do role plays. I was seeing role plays as time fillers or like contingency plans, so I was thinking that they are coat/ cover/ polish for the topic. However, after reading the article, I also saw my own false logic, and now think that role plays are not end but beginning for lessons. We can use role plays and peer works for creative activities, problem solving things, developing lessons. In this sense, I currently think that role plays and peer works must actually be backbones of communicative language teaching. Apart from these, I also want to say that I was always seeing the job of technician teachers are much more easier than those using communicative language teaching since second group have to speak fluent and accurate, have to use different techniques than we were all taught when we were students. However, now I see that communicative language teaching is more demanding than conventional methods like grammar translation, or things which technician teachers do, but still it can be achieved successfully with some effort.

            Talking about the second education method/ approach, Content and Language Integrated Learning, actually I liken this method to what we see at METU. In other words, at METU, language is just a medium to reach the main aim which is the course taken such as Calculus, Child education etc. In this sense, the students are required to learn the content by just using the language. So, also, as far as I know, in some of private high schools, teachers use language to teach literature. Students are asked to learn literature pieces by using the language. So they are both learning literature and the language itself at the same time: it is like killing two birds with one stone. In this context, I should say that I really like the view behind this Content and Language Integrated Method since it proposes teacher to be a facilitator rather than instructor with constructivist role, it gives importance to fluency and suggests that communication and accuracy comes with time. When I regard of the syllabus of this method, actually I liken it to task based and theme based syllabuses and think that students’ general knowledge will enlarge with this method while they are learning the language. Another thing that I like about this method is that I think that students will entertain, and learn much more than they are doing with other methods since topics are important goals in this method and these topics will be more variable than normal coursebook topics.

            Talking about the third and fourth articles, “Neuro Linguistics Programming in ELT” and “Using NLP in ELT”, I again want to state that I am absolutely fond of this method in ELT field since I think that a learning process cannot be thought without the role of brain. In this method, as far as other things discussed in other methods, brain and learning styles are seen as important issues to attach importance. Regarding of my own view, I think that our brain certainly affects what we learn, how we learn, in which pace we learn. So in this sense, I believe that we, teachers should regard our students’ brain process in our teaching experience. Also, coming to learning styles, we all know that everybody learns differently and this method see differences as specialties and states that different activities can be prepared to involve different learning styles so that teachers can reach/access all students. In this modern era, with technology, I also think that it is highly important to involve all the students actively in learning process at the same time and this can only be achieved by this catering different learning style with different classroom activities.

            In NLP, it is also stated that rapport, creating positive states in the classroom, nonverbal communication are also important issues to give importance in our teaching environments. As for me, I also think that in addition to our brain, cognitive process, we should also think about social things like rapport, nonverbal communication and positive states because we are all human beings with emotions and students cannot be thought without their social, humanistic aspects. So, in this way I think that this method is taking into consideration both cognitive and social aspects of the students, and I like this way of it.

            All in all, I must accept that I like the methods, learn a lot about them, especially communicative language teaching. Still, I must state that in my own teaching, I will probably use communicative approach with NLP activities but do not think that CLIL can be possible in our school contexts today since it seems a bit out of context in our present syllabus unfortunately. So, in this sense, apart from postmethod, these methods, some techniques from these methods could be used according to different aims, goals and situations in our EFL classrooms. Thanks.