Date Posted:15:30:47 06/18/07 Mon Author:Martinelly Martins Subject: Pier editing to Eliel In reply to:
Eliel Soares
's message, "Eliel's text task 4" on 14:41:45 06/18/07 Mon
>Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
>Faculdade de Letras
>Text production
>Adriana Tenuta
>Eliel Soares de Jesus
>
>Task 4
>
>Communicative and Structuralist approaches: What are
>the routes for productive language learning, and what
>is the best of them?
>
>One day(P)a Linguistics Professor told his students how
>he had learnt English. He said the classes he used to
>attend (V) would always be too boring, since the students
>were supposed to know the word lists from the previous
>classes all by heart and they were asked to repeat
>them at the end of the class. That story caused such a
>surprise in the class that students could say nothing
>for a while. It was true that the professor did not
>have such a good English, but all those students liked
>him, he was not an English professor as well.
> “How is it possible to learn to speak a language like
>a parrot?” Said one of those students somewhere in the
>classroom, referring to the drills the professor had
>mentioned.
> “What is the best way to learn a language?” Calmly
>asked the professor with no air of discomfort.
>Actually, that question was made to whoever in the
>classroom wanted to give an answer… Nobody did…
>
>But that question still resounds through those
>students` minds…
>
> Since the 1950’s there has been too much discussion
>on Linguistic, as a consequence, substantial changes
>have happened to the way experts perceive and treat
>knowledge in the field of language studies and its
>teaching. Meanwhile by observing the routes of English
>teaching throughout the world some evidences point to
>the conclusion that Communicative approach, in
>contrast to Structuralist approach, is the best
>alternative to successful Language teaching.
> Activity proposals in the Structuralist approach are
>based on drills, full of repetition, and detached of
>reality. That kind of activity stimulates memory, but
>that is not sufficient to achieve a deeper level of
>assimilation. Evidence can be given by people which (Ww)
>return to English courses nowadays and who had studied
>the language during the 50’s and 60’s. Those people
>may be able to repeat entire lists of words, but
>usually they tend to present difficulties to formulate
>spontaneous utterances. Yet, activities on
>communicative approach are based on contextualized
>learning, less repetitive due to real context
>simulations are often present and there is always a
>relation established with students’ reality too.
>Activities like those make students feel themselves as
>part of what they are learning. The point is that,
>both approaches contrasted in this text have their
>specific aims. That is why their activities follow
>such specific models. Automatism and autonomy, what
>contrast one to the other, and self-commitment, what
>they have in common, are the aims of each one.
> If in one hand Structuralist approach aim is that by
>the end the students have automatism (even though
>Structuralist approach presumes that repetition brings
>proficiency), but one of the final aims is automatism.
>Another target proposed by the approach is
>self-commitment, hence all activities demand time to
>be done, by that way students are instructed to look
>for their own improvement, once the practice is
>charged to them alone most of the time. If doubts are
>found, there is always a grammar book as a reference.
>Yet, on the other hand, communicative approach affords
>students to learn by themselves. But this happens in a
>way that students are taught how to think about their
>knowledge construction and also how to criticize it.
>This conjunct of factors generates autonomy. Similar
>to the Structuralist approach, it is mandatory that
>students research and try to overcome their
>difficulties. That is self-commitment. It is true
>that, if they need, the teacher will be a reference to
>help them to solve their doubts and, teachers may not
>only correct their mistakes or give the answer, but
>also they will lead them to other ways of thinking on
>the problems they find. After all, an important remark
>on this point is required. It is necessary to let
>students walk but they will often need a support. In
>other words, the teacher cannot take a stand as if
>he/she possessed all the knowledge, on the contrary,
>he/ she will serve as a facilitator in the process.
>As the third point to be mentioned, considering
>Structuralist approach, the results obtained with the
>kind of teaching in this approach are that students
>may have the contents in their memories. Once memory
>needs exercise, if those students may have problems if
>they stay a long time without contact with the
>language. So it is possible to conclude the final
>result to this approach is reproduction. Students are
>able to copy patterns of sentences with no deep
>reflection at first. The cases in which people who
>learned from this approach acquire skillful language
>are those in which people spend (Wv) some time in intense
>contact with the language, when they assimilate the
>features of the language learnt during the course with
>their use in real situation. And on the other side,
>the results obtained from communicative approach are
>stronger. Students are put in contact with language
>the same way of language acquisition process since the
>beginning of their courses. This approach enables
>students to acquire language in a more natural way, so
>it is harder to have it forgotten and if they stay
>long times without contact with the language, they can
>still understand it and its recuperation occur easier.
>The result obtained from reflection on the practice of
>the language is construction of knowledge, which
>remains for the entire life of people.
>To sum up, to teach someone to speak a foreign
>language is not an easy task and contrasting those two
>approaches, the differences between both of them are
>remarkable. So it is necessary to choose the best
>tools available in order not to have the work lost.
>The contrast proposed in this essay took in to (Sp) (into)
>consideration the main conflicting factors between the
>two methodologies. And finally, it is noticeable that
>Communicative approach resembles natural language
>acquisition, what is a clear evidence of its
>possibility of success.
COMMENT:
Eliel, congratulations! I've really liked your essay, even though there are few mistakes and you haven't put a bibliography for reference. But your ideas were well organized and you managed to discuss them clearly. I have also liked the beginning when you started the essay telling a story, it was very interesting. Was it a turnabout introduction, wasn't it? To conclude, I don't think you will have to do many changes in your essay. See you, Martinelly.
