The Celce-Murcia article was a nice, easy read and a good introduction to the 9 different 20th century teaching approaches. It was useful the way the described the difference between approach, method, and technique as well. Before, I thought there were words that could be used interchangeably. As far as the nine different approaches go, I found some to be unrealistic and couldn't imagine using them myself in the classroom. Others I found to be more useful and effective. I will probably be using multiple approaches for my students because, after all, they do not all learn the same, right?
The Kuma article was very dense and harder to read. Yet, it was still interesting to see how different methods and approaches have developed and changed over time. It's kind of like science and medicine; people are always researching it and discovering something new and supposedly "more effective." I've noticed a trend in teaching these days, people are continually unsatisfied with the different methods and approaches out there and continually look to find something better. Is the grass really always green on the other side though?
As I was reading, I mentally noted that some of these very methods had been used while I was studying Spanish. We had days in class where we could only speak Spanish, used pictures to define vocabulary, analyzed texts and so forth. Was my teacher really following a specific method? I don't really think so. I'm not really sure why.
No comments:
Post a Comment