So given the endless number of theories out there about language, about learning, about students and everything under the sun what has been a big influence on your teaching or approach to the classroom?
I teach GrapeSEED and I fully believe in the affective filter. GrapeSEED is not perfect but on this idea they are right.
“What is Affective Filter Hypothesis
The hypothesis credited to Stephen Krashen, an expert in linguistics, that declares that a student’s anxiety, low self esteem, or lack of motivation can serve to cause a mental block preventing the successful acquisition of a second language. If the “affective filter” is lowered by creating a learning environment in which students are more motivated and suffer from less anxiety and low self esteem, the possibility of success in achieving SLA is greatly improved. ” -[source](https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/affective-filter-hypothesis/790)
Trying to lead kids to positive outcomes through positive means is way more effective than others ways of teaching. I have had great success in teaching while always considering ways to encourage kids and trying to lower their affective filter.
Avoiding TENOR (Teaching English for No Obious Reason)
There are a couple of big name capital T theories that have been mentioned that a lot of my philosophy leans on (ZPD, the affective filter, input/output, etc) and these are pretty much what any modern language teacher’s education and training are based on. However, it’s the “small” research notes that have pushed me more in terms of practical day to day execution and justification for practices.
Things like mixing in CLIL methodology, understanding L1/L2 usage (not just the students’, but mine in the classroom as well), and being cognizant of research that shows the reality of acquisition and what’s “important” if the goal is to help students be genuinely good at the language. Understanding that acquisition of preposition usage is a 10+ year struggle that’s 50% logic 50% nuance, knowing why definite and indefinite articles are so difficult for Japanese learners, those are the bits of research I dig for and really try to consider now.
It depends on the level and age but:
Input Hypothesis (including TPR and TPRS), Communicative Approach (as CELTA teaches it), TBL, and CLIL (mostly science because science is cool).
[deleted]
“Theories” are bullsh*t because the situation differs from age to age, person to person, culture to culture, context to context
I would say the Natural Approach to language acquisition. My classes are full-on emersion based. Students have to use English with me.
The rest is heavily structured due to my workplace
Learning a second language against your will, as it is in Japan, is all about engagement and motivation. Therefore my best “theory” is to keep it relevant, realistic, usable,and interesting.
“This is a pen” will never be used by any human ever, but learning what to say at the airport when you’re checking your baggage, Ordering in a restaurant,or making plans with friends, will always be useful and therefore more likely to be retained by the students.
Honestly, regardless of theories or methodologies, no one is learning English at a pace of one hour a week. I don’t count formal schooling here because just, lol.
* Information processing theory * Social interaction theory * Selinker’s theory of interlanguage * The competition modal * The acquisition-learning hypothesis * The input hypothesis and output hypothesis * Automaticity and restructuring * Sapir–Whorf hypothesis * Contrastive analysis (controversial but sometimes useful) * Monitor modal * Focus on form vs. focus on forms * direct vs. indirect grammar teaching
There’s way too much to list here. These are just a few I find particularly important and interesting.
Zoltan Dornyei’s ideas about intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and direct motivational currents. Students motivated by passing a test or getting high marks will have no reason to continue learning a language after they get the score they aim for. Students that have a clear idea of what kind of person they can become if they continue to study a language (ie. international businessperson/scholar/actor/singer/ etc.) are more motivated in the long term. Aspiring for good tests and marks is still important because it provides structure and gauges growth along the way.
I take a sports skill acquisition perspective. There are times for block practice and there are times for randomized practice. I am a golfer and golf coach and it stems from helping student become better players and myself becoming a better Japanese speaker. It just morphed bit by bit into my lessons.
Block practice is the practice with predetermined outcomes.
Randomized practice is more open and free. Usually achieved from time outside the classroom and student guided.
15 comments
Swains output hypothesis is probably my favorite.
Job interview coming up?
Always Zygotsky’s zone of proximal development.
I teach GrapeSEED and I fully believe in the affective filter. GrapeSEED is not perfect but on this idea they are right.
“What is Affective Filter Hypothesis
The hypothesis credited to Stephen Krashen, an expert in linguistics, that declares that a student’s anxiety, low self esteem, or lack of motivation can serve to cause a mental block preventing the successful acquisition of a second language. If the “affective filter” is lowered by creating a learning environment in which students are more motivated and suffer from less anxiety and low self esteem, the possibility of success in achieving SLA is greatly improved. ”
-[source](https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/affective-filter-hypothesis/790)
Trying to lead kids to positive outcomes through positive means is way more effective than others ways of teaching. I have had great success in teaching while always considering ways to encourage kids and trying to lower their affective filter.
Avoiding TENOR (Teaching English for No Obious Reason)
There are a couple of big name capital T theories that have been mentioned that a lot of my philosophy leans on (ZPD, the affective filter, input/output, etc) and these are pretty much what any modern language teacher’s education and training are based on. However, it’s the “small” research notes that have pushed me more in terms of practical day to day execution and justification for practices.
Things like mixing in CLIL methodology, understanding L1/L2 usage (not just the students’, but mine in the classroom as well), and being cognizant of research that shows the reality of acquisition and what’s “important” if the goal is to help students be genuinely good at the language. Understanding that acquisition of preposition usage is a 10+ year struggle that’s 50% logic 50% nuance, knowing why definite and indefinite articles are so difficult for Japanese learners, those are the bits of research I dig for and really try to consider now.
It depends on the level and age but:
Input Hypothesis (including TPR and TPRS), Communicative Approach (as CELTA teaches it), TBL, and CLIL (mostly science because science is cool).
[deleted]
“Theories” are bullsh*t because the situation differs from age to age, person to person, culture to culture, context to context
I would say the Natural Approach to language acquisition. My classes are full-on emersion based. Students have to use English with me.
The rest is heavily structured due to my workplace
Learning a second language against your will, as it is in Japan, is all about engagement and motivation. Therefore my best “theory” is to keep it relevant, realistic, usable,and interesting.
“This is a pen” will never be used by any human ever, but learning what to say at the airport when you’re checking your baggage, Ordering in a restaurant,or making plans with friends, will always be useful and therefore more likely to be retained by the students.
Honestly, regardless of theories or methodologies, no one is learning English at a pace of one hour a week. I don’t count formal schooling here because just, lol.
* Information processing theory
* Social interaction theory
* Selinker’s theory of interlanguage
* The competition modal
* The acquisition-learning hypothesis
* The input hypothesis and output hypothesis
* Automaticity and restructuring
* Sapir–Whorf hypothesis
* Contrastive analysis (controversial but sometimes useful)
* Monitor modal
* Focus on form vs. focus on forms
* direct vs. indirect grammar teaching
There’s way too much to list here. These are just a few I find particularly important and interesting.
Zoltan Dornyei’s ideas about intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and direct motivational currents. Students motivated by passing a test or getting high marks will have no reason to continue learning a language after they get the score they aim for. Students that have a clear idea of what kind of person they can become if they continue to study a language (ie. international businessperson/scholar/actor/singer/ etc.) are more motivated in the long term. Aspiring for good tests and marks is still important because it provides structure and gauges growth along the way.
I take a sports skill acquisition perspective. There are times for block practice and there are times for randomized practice. I am a golfer and golf coach and it stems from helping student become better players and myself becoming a better Japanese speaker. It just morphed bit by bit into my lessons.
Block practice is the practice with predetermined outcomes.
Randomized practice is more open and free. Usually achieved from time outside the classroom and student guided.