In the realm of ESL instruction, given the diversity of learners and the evolving landscape of language acquisition research, which methodology is currently regarded as the most effective, and how can empirical evidence guide educators in selecting an approach that optimally fosters language proficiency among ESL learners? Do you think the grammatical theory is still relavant or should be switched to another more updated?
This question is surely a Holy Grail question in TEFL/SLA research, and an underlying thread across all of TEFL/SLA research. The 2020s are the decade of the (first and larger) meta-studies that summarize findings across earlier studies into the efficiency/efficacy of teaching methods, so that we can expect more conclusive answers to this question in this decade. - What we know is that full immersion, as in stays abroad or living abroad, which maximizes L2 input and forces L2 output on a daily basis, is the most effective way to make progress in any foreign language. Technically, every day, every conversation etc. becomes a language lesson. Of course, this is not very helpful for the TEFL classroom.
In the realm of ESL instruction, I believe there is no single methodology that is universally accepted as the most effective for all students. Various methodologies have emerged over time, each with its own set of strengths and limitations. The methodology selected is determined by a variety of factors, including the learners' needs and goals, proficiency level, learning context, and available resources.
Hello. Amongst scholars, it is generally argued that learners must feel involved in the lessons and their interest should be raised. In practice, the teaching materials should let them feel part of the learning process. They should also become "drivers" of the learning process, more than simply being guided. There are several ways that are claimed to be effective: waching films (with subtitled) or watching films in the students' L2 and then in their dubbed versions (if available); use corpora to help learners reflect on collocations, uses of words in contexts and so on. Try to always use "real" or "authentic"materials, that is, not materials that are used for language learners, but that are read/used by native speakers. Examples could be advertisements with catch phrases; extracts from movies/talk shows/animated sitcoms and so on.
This is a timely question. It has been many years since language learning started and we have met many language teaching and learning theories. They have evolved with the time and need. The old methods are still being used. Therefore, it is safe to say that every method is significant in terms of needs of the environment and audience.
Grammar is definitely the LAST place to start.
Communicative activities, real-life situations, lexical approach, focus on meaning before form, can-do approach, etc. all this combined with encouraging and positive classroom environment while using gamification techniques to keep students motivated.
I wish I knew the answer for that. I'd say ther is no such thing.
Context dear Victor, context. No class, no group of sutdents is the same and responds the same given equal stimuli!
Seems like this question is still questioning through out the decades. We do have many good teaching methods with their own many advantages for us as practicioners and our students/learners. From those good methods, in my case, there is no the best one. I think I usually apply more than one methods everytime I teach. I tried to choose the methods that can suits my students and the materials.
Actually, an authoritative method fitting all contexts hardly exists. The advocates of post-method pedagogy tried to put an end to seeking a best method and steer the path of ELT towards what Kumaravadivelu (2003) dubbed beyond method.
There are some interesting comments above. I agree that one would be hard-pressed to identify a one-fits-all method. The latest meta-analyses that Andreas Wirag mentioned do point in one direction: a consensus seems to be forming around the facilitative effect of "focus on form", i.e., primarily meaning-focused interaction with brief attention to linguistic forms when necessary. I agree with Avraham Roos that grammar is usually a bad place to start. However, there is also evidence that grammar-focused instruction also yields positive results for accuracy-based tests. I guess it all depends on who you're teaching and what the course objective is.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing