ACADEMIC REPORT ON LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

Submitted by:

Ahmad, Rashida A.
Dragon, Jesselle S.
Galvez, Deo J.

Submitted to:

Dr. Julieta B. Tendero

December 5, 2020
 Introduction (Ma’am Jesselle)

 Background of the topic (with citations)

Objective 1: determine the learning styles and needs of high school students in an
online education utilizing the language teaching methods; and
Objective 2: identify characteristics that can be incorporated in designing effective
online instruction when utilizing the language teaching methods.

Methods (Ma’am Rash)

The academic report sought to understand how the beliefs of the different language

teaching methods can be incorporated in designing effective online instruction and the

expected learning styles and needs of the students by utilizing comparative-descriptive

analysis. The target population for this report was high school students that are taught via

online classes. The data were collected through secondary data based from theoretical

propositions in literature reviews of studies looking in the individual cases of language

teaching methods for references of beliefs about the title aforementioned.

Results and Discussion (Sir Deo)

Table 1.1 The comparative analysis on learning styles and characteristics of language

teaching methods.

Language teaching methods Learning styles and needs of Characteristics that can be incorporated in
high school students in an online education designing effective online instruction
1. content instruction (Brinton, Snow and 1. language learning must occur in
Wesche, 2003, p. 15), but more emphasis is context (passive) rather than through
Content-based Instruction put on adjunct language instruction direct instruction (active) (Met 1991,
(Richard and Rodgers, 2001, p. 216). Crandall 1993, Lightbrown and Spada
1993)
2. scaffolding linguistic content learning 2. immersive language teaching
3. learner centered classrooms (Stryker (Genesse 1994, Snow 2001)
and Leaver, 1993) 3. use language in a purposeful and
4. authentic materials are identified and meaningful way (Littlewood 1981)
 utilized like media materials (Brinton et 4. provide authentic, meaningful
al., 1989) academic contexts
5. CBI requires better language teachers 5. provide different kinds of linguistic and
cognitive help (Met, 1998, cited in Butlor,
2005)
Content and Language 1. Active, strategic and self-directed 1. to scaffold learners’ content knowledge
Integrated Learning (CLIL) learning (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008, p. 17). and foreign language acquisition (Lyster
2. Students are encouraged to take 2007)
responsibility for their own learning 2. Proactive form-focused instruction
process (Lyster, 2007, pp. 44-45).
3. Personalized learning is enhanced. 3. promote the acquisition of “content-
4. online self-directed study obligatory language (Lyster, 2007, p. 28).
5. feedback-oriented learning environment 4. learner autonomy and agency (Marsh,
Mehisto, Wolff, and Frigols Martín, 2010)
5. online tools and activities are tailored to
learners’ CLIL course materials.
Whole language 1.Self-directed learning 1. Can integrate literacy into other areas of
2. Integration of language skills the curriculum
3. Real-world reading and writing 2. Teaching phonics in context
rather than for pedagogical purpose 3. Flexibility and structure
4 contextualize skills
4. Authentic assessment
5. Acceptance for learners
5. students experience the language in
authentic situations
Competency-based 1. Use of language in situations likely to 1. Assessment through training
Language Teaching be encountered outside the classroom 2. Task or performance-centered
2. Lessons expressly focus on what orientation
learners can do rather than what they 3. Modularized instruction
4. Individualized, student-centered
know (Smith&Petterson 1998)
instruction
3. Connect language to social context 5. Focus on life skill
rather than being isolated
4. Integrate, produce and extend
knowledge (Jones et al.,1994)
5. Learning objectives are broken into
sub-objectives
Task-based Language 1. Engaging learners in real language 1. Students are encouraged to use
Teaching use” through teacher designed tasks language creatively and spontaneously
that “require learners to use the through tasks and problem solving
language for themselves” (Willis 2012, 2. Students focus on a relationship that
p. 1). is comparable to real world activities
2. “Learning involves a progression 3. The conveyance of some sort of
from the inter- to intra-mental as meaning is central to this method
learners shift from object and other 4. Assessment is primarily based on task
regulation to self-regulation” (Ellis, outcome
2003, p. 24). 5. TBLT is student-centered
3. learners are required to actively
participate in the class.
4.The focus of activity is more on
student-tasks.
5. learners are engaged correcting
errors.
 1. Arimbawa (2012) learning to use 1. Teaching explicitly about the
English is improved when teachers structures and grammatical features of
Text-based Language introduce learners to complete spoken spoken and written texts.
Teaching and written texts within an appropriate 2. Linking spoken and written texts to
situation. the cultural context of their use.
2. Mohlabi-Tlaka (2016) “the teaching 3. Designing units of work which focus
of language built on the exposure to, on developing skills in relation to whole
and the handling and manipulation of texts
different text types.” 4. Providing students with guided
practice as they develop language skills
3. Learners in text-based approach for meaningful communication through
becomes more interactive in the text whole texts.
analysis. 5. Integrates reading, writing and oral
4. The style is centered on discourse communication and which teaches
analysis. grammar through the mastery of texts
5. Tingting (2011) develop learners’ rather than in isolation.
communicative competence through
mastering different types of texts, as
being applied I the classroom context.

In this analysis based on table 1.1 to which shows significant difference and interchanges

when it is employed in the classroom context. Further, to explain the objective 1 of this

study, it is very clear as enumerated on the table 1.1. This implies that those students,

especially younger students, do not know or recognize their learning styles and therefore it is

the educator's job to find those preferred styles and help accommodate their teaching to those

styles (VanKlaveren, K., Buckland, T., & Williamson, J. (2002). The teachers are required to

conduct a diagnostic assessment which will serve his/her basis in addressing learners needs.

Once students realize their learning style and know how to make things fit their needs, they

will become more proficient learners. Hence, for objective 2, to which we are navigating the

different characteristics of language teaching methods. Based on table 1.1 it implies that the

teachers should also evaluate the characteristics of each language methods wether it is suited

and applicable on the needs and learning styles among students. The teachers should also be

flexible enough in designing instructional activities in respect to the learning needs among

students.
Conclusion (Sir Deo)

Finally, it is well known to most applied linguists that most language teaching methods come

and go; however, even though one method usually replaces another, it is relevant to know

that the latter can take many strategies and techniques from the former, and even from other

previous methods. As a result, what one may assume is new in the field of second language

teaching, may have already been used before in other previous methods. In addition, as was

stated at the beginning, every single person has a different purpose for learning a second or

foreign language. One can find a learner who worries more about developing proficiency in

two skills, such as listening and speaking. It is common sense that this learner wants to use

the language as an instrument for oral communication; therefore, his or her goal will be to

achieve oral communication. On other hand, there are learners who want to achieve

proficiency in the four skills, therefore, they will need to dedicate more time to learn the

target language and use different methods, approaches, strategies, and techniques to develop

full proficiency in the target language. As the linguist, Henry Sweet (1899) mentioned, a

good method must, be comprehensive and eclectic. It must be based on a thorough

knowledge of the science of language phonetics, sound-notation, the grammatical structure of

a variety of representative languages, and linguistic problems generally. Taking this

statement into account, one can clearly observe how Sweet had a vision that language

teachers had to be eclectic and not expose themselves to one method only. It is logical that

the best way to learn a foreign language is by applying the different methods, strategies and

approaches available, and not just limiting oneself to one method.

Brinton, D. M., M. A. Snow & M. B. Wesche. (2003). Content-based second language instruction. Ann

Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Genesee, F. (1994). Integrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Educational Practice

Report 11. National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning.

Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. NY: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Met, M. (1991). Learning language through content: Learning content through language. Foreign

Language Annals, 24(4), 281-295. Snow, M.A.(2001). Content-based and immersion models for

second and foreign language teaching. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or

Foreign Language (3rd ed.) (pp. 303–318). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Richard, J. C. & T. S. Rodgers. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deo references

Azar, B., Folse, K. & Swan, M. AzarGrammar. (Oct. 30, 2012). Teaching Grammar in

Today’s Classroom.

Brown, Douglas. H. (1994). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy.

Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The Functional-Notional Approach:From theory to

practice