To start with, I haven't read Joanna's or Alexis's answers yet, because I wanted
this response to be my own ideas, undiluted, but when I finish I will look at
theirs and see how I feel about them. I imagine we'll be thinking fairly
similarly, in any case.
I think I'm going to choose to talk about the secondary level in my response;
I have more personal experience with novice-level courses at this level, and I
also feel that this level mandates interesting teaching in a way that post-
secondary teaching does not. Unlike their usually well-behaved college counter-
parts, high school students will rebel and refuse to learn in an environment
that they see as boring or irrelevant. I think this student behavior actually
makes choice of a teaching method more important at the secondary level.
Of the theorists that we studied, I agree most with Alice Omaggio Hadley; unlike
Krashen, Kramsch, and the more "extreme" methods such as Suggestopedia, her
ideas seemed most tied to the "real world," to the actual limitations of the
classroom environment. This is not to say, however, that I found nothing of
value in the other methods. Thus my own attempts at teaching a foreign language
would be informed by many perspectives; I would not accept the work of any one
theorist exclusively.
I agree with Stephen Krashen's affective filter theory, and so I would try to make
my classroom a place where students felt comfortable and ready to learn. This
does not mean, however, that I would let them continue indefinitely without
speaking in class, however - but any speaking activities would be designed to be
as non-threatening as possible. Except in cases of incomprehensibility, I would
try not to correct any student's errors in speaking in front of other students.
I also like a lot of what Krashen had to say about reading. Although his ideal
library of texts is probably not feasible, especially at badly-funded public
schools, I would try to supply my students with as much reading material as
possible. Material originally intended for native speakers, such as magazines
and newspapers, would be most important in this effort. I would try to include
time for free-choice reading several times each week, and I would encourage
informal oral or written reports on what was read.
As for Claire Kramsch, I agree with her main point: culture must be an integrated
part of the curriculum, not something to be relegated to "culture day" and not
something treated, as Hadley says, entirely by the "4 Fs" of "folk dances,
festivals, fairs, and food" or the "Frankenstein approach" of "a taco from here,
a flamenco dancer from here." However, as I've mentioned in previous postings,
I think Kramsch expects too much from the foreign language teacher, assuming
a cultural knowledge and an ability to overlook the teacher's own native attitudes
that may not actually be present. I think culture is best taught by direct
experience: meeting people from the country being studied (either in "real life"
or via letters or e-mail), watching films, or at the very least using realia
as tools for learning the other skills. Kramsch's methods, which concentrate
on interpretations of literature and minute dissections of diction, might,
because they rely on the teacher's knowledge and not deductions from the students,
not be as engaging.
Some of the other methods we looked at briefly also have good points, especially
Total Physical Response. Though a curriculum based entirely on TPR would ignore
reading and writing skills, this method could be used for improving listening
ability; perhaps each class period could include a game of "Simon Says."
Hadley's methods appealed to me because they seemed well-rounded. She tied the
"four skills" together in a method also related closely to the study of the
language's native culture. I also liked the way Hadley emphasized
that the four skills must be taught differently; writing, for example, requires
a very different process than speaking or reading. This way of thinking made
a lot of sense to me.
One of Hadley's ideas that I especially liked was the use of a dialogue journal
to encourage writing skills. Such a journal, containing informal writing by the
student paired with comments and reactions from the teacher, seems as if it would
be a wonderful way to lower the affective filter and have enjoyable writing
practice. Because a student could write about anything that interested her,
writing practice would become much less regimented and routine.
Some of Hadley's ideas could have become dull after a while (she repeatedly
advocated dictation, which doesn't strike me as particularly enjoyable), but others
seemed full of fun, and more importantly, directly tied to "real life" through
their use of realia and accessible situations. She advocated using materials
such as menus, personal advertisements, and travel brochures not only for reading
activities but also for practicing the other skills. This would keep the native
culture fresh in the minds of students at all times, without being overbearing.
I think the method that I just described, based on a combination of the theories
and suggestions of the "experts," is very similar to the methods used by my
teachers as I was learning French; this is not necessarily a bad thing, as I
feel that I successfully reached the Intermediate Level through my high school
French classes. But this similarity might suggest that everyone creating an
educational theory is influenced by his or her own educational background;
some might rebel against it (is Krashen a reaction to grammar/translation and
audio-lingual?) while others, like me, continue to use the "tried and true."
This would have been on time, but my boyfriend called me. Sigh.