А вот мои Assignments про подходы (писала для TESOL):
(P.S. прошу прощения, если загрязняю темку. Если что, мои сообщения можно потом удалить. Я просто подумала, кому-то это будет интересно.)
Мое сравнение Когнитивного и Эмотивно-Гуманистического подхода:
I find the Cognitive Approach interesting, and I believe that this approach helped the appearance of computer search engines, speech recognition technology, text-to-speech technology, etc. This approach was originally created to recognize the unique properties of the human mind, understand how languages work, to research the human brain functions and a language acquisition by the human mind, and to release some new research. Instead of techniques, linguists were focusing on the characteristics of the learner, and strategies learners could use to improve their language learning.
I adore the Affective Humanistic Approach a lot. The approach was originally created to respect the students' feelings as they learn a language, to remove barriers to language learning, as well as to make students feel confident and comfortable in the learning environment. Teachers, who applied this approach, used plays and costumes as well as stories and games which led to positive reinforcement because playing the games teachers suggest students to choose their own character to impersonate them which could ease students' tension in the classroom, or to play multiple concerts, helping spontaneous, creative thoughts to arise through dramatic interpretations, games, singing, and dancing.
Both approaches are curious and valuable.
Both of them are vitally essential and useful for the specific goal they were created for.
I cannot say that I can apply any techniques from the Cognitive Approach because it mostly explains some grammar rules and peculiarities, but this approach can be indispensable for the artificial mind.
The Affective Humanistic Approach is not fully applicable to the classroom because not every student would agree to eat or dance in the classroom, and this approach is not fully suitable for the Online Classroom environment.
However, both methods have their best and cutting-edge aspects and essential points, which can be effective in any classroom, online or offline.
Мое сравнение Аудиолингвистического подхода и Подхода с упором на чтение:
The Reading approach was originally used by teachers who were not native speakers, to teach students who will most likely never leave the country in order to help them to get practical skills to take and pass school, university, and college tests.
The texts, used for the purposes of providing lessons, were of the appropriate level, vocabulary was gathered from these texts as well as grammar constructions for students to easily pick up some words and grammar.
The basic technique, which was used in this method, was the following: grammar explained deductively, vocabulary memorized through reading special texts aimed at the students' levels, translation of these texts helped to learn the necessary grammar and vocabulary, and the results of the end of semester tests were emphasized, which led to speaking practice being avoided and deductive learning of grammar constructions.
The Audio-Lingual Approach was created for preparing soldiers to communicate with allies and enemies, and for this purpose it was highly necessary to be able to speak and understand spoken speech.
The main content which was used for that goal were dialogues and language mimicry without focusing on the meaning. The special technique which the army generals applied, were the following: habit formation drills, backward build-up, chain, single and multislot substitution, as well as transformation, dialogue memorization, use of minimal pairs, and overlearning, which led to intuitive understanding of grammar and emphasis on speaking and aural ability.
I would personally like to apply both approaches in my classroomI dislike memorization of dialogues without deep understanding of their meaning, nevertheless, I like the emphatisation on pronunciation and helping students to reproduce grammar patterns automatically, without thinking and spending too much effort on the detail of their conversations.Combining both of these approaches can help students to pick up grammar and vocabulary quickly, improve their pronunciation and speaking, as well as listening skills and the skills needed to pass the tests.We should use these methods depending on the needs of our class or the students, depending on what is more essential at the time.I believe, needs analysis and a good combination of the best aspects can lead to success.
Мое сравнение "Прямого метода" и Грамматико-переводного метода.
The Grammar Translation Approach was originally used to teach culture and morality to young wealthy men from rich families which was created to teach the language for its own sake as an intellectual exercise.
Materials, which were suitable for that, were the following: classical books such as Homer, Chaucer, and the Bible, long passages of text, different genres: plays poetry, short stories, and some novels.The technique, which was appropriate for that goal is always the same: upfront and back translation, reading comprehension questions, memorization of vocabulary, and writing compositions on the topic students read before.As we understand from these notes, this method used deductive grammar and avoided a lot of speaking activity in the language students learn.The Direct Approach was originally teaching students to experience culture: not just classic literature, but traditions, habits, landscape, history, which is more suitable for students who are going to travel around the world, communicate with native speakers and learn from them.The language they learn is easily picked up by communication through dialogues and passages on how other cultures live - about geography, history, and politics.Teachers, who used such a kind of approach, apply different techniques, as conversation practice, drawing maps and information gaps, question and answer sessions, reading out loud, inductive grammar instruction and self-correction, when it is possible. As we see from these notes, grammar was supposed to be learned intuitively, whereas speaking activity was given the strongest emphasis.
I, personally, rather prefer to combine these approaches, using role-playing games, oral upfront, and back translation, reading passages out loud, students' self-correction, information gaps, as well as reading comprehension questions which can help to activate the schemata of students, turning on their bottom-up and top-down processing of the text.I like the Grammar Translation Approach a lot because only reading, in my opinion, can drastically improve students' knowledge and skills.Skimming, Scanning, Pre-Reading and After-Reading Activities, Reading for Gist and Reading for Details, Reading for Specific Information, Reading and Interpreting the text, as well as the Scaffolding Technique are very useful activities which may be already included in the Grammar Translation Approach, and I personally use them.I strongly believe that any teacher should choose the best, brightest, and smartest of each approach and use that in their classroom. I do the same.
Мое сравнение Коммуникативного подхода и Метода отсроченной устной практики.
Comparing the differences between the Comprehension Approach and the Communicative Approach, I am going to discuss the main points of Purpose, Content, and Technique.
Both approaches were created in the 1980th, but the Purpose of the Comprehension Approach was to make input comprehensive, and to help learners gain confidence so they are willing to produce the language, whereas the Purpose of the Communicative Approach was to help learners love other cultures and places, to connect people together in order to create opportunities and awareness as well as help learners use a language for meaningful communication.
The Content used in the Comprehension Approach was mostly involved classroom objects: a door, a clock, a chair, etc., as well as visual aids, such as pictures, realia, chunks of language in novel combinations and observable actions, which the teacher could produce, like to jump, to sit, to walk, to run, etc., whereas the Content used in the Communicative Approach was carefully leveled books with high-interest themes, specially tailored for each skills textbooks (Listening Practice Textbook, Improving Writing Skills, etc) and all these textbooks contained excerpts on grammar, culture, pronunciation, learner strategies, etc.
If we look at the differences and similarities of the Technique of the two methods, we could say the following: the Comprehension Approach applied the use of commands, action sequences, role reversal, whereas the Communicative Approach applied the use of authentic materials, information gap exercises, language games, role plays, and different other activities which create opportunities to communicate in the target language.
As far as I am concerned, each approach is highly essential, valuable, helpful and effective.
At the moment I cannot say which approach is better for my classroom.
When I studied the language, I was taught by teachers who preferred the Comprehension Approach.
This approach is frequently used in state institutions, such as kindergartens, schools, and universities.
Over time, the Communicative Approach has been becoming more and more fashionable and popular.