View Content #20662

From https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com

Gianfranco Conti and Steve Smith provide background and definitions of two prominent methods of language teaching: grammar translation and communicative language teaching. While grammar translation is often set up as a straw man full of problems that communicative language teaching is meant to solve, in this lengthy blog post asserts that while “the bias should still be on communication,” in fact both approaches are called for; grammar translation can improve accuracy especially in situations where students receive little overall exposure to the target language. Here is Conti’s conclusion:

“Unlike students learning the L2 in an L2-speaking country, learners receiving instruction in acquisition-poor environments (i.e. with little contact with the L2) do not have many opportunities to internalize grammar subconsciously through frequent exposure; for the latter type of learners error correction and focus on L2 morphemes are crucial in order to learn accurate syntax.

“Moreover, current theories of second language acquisition posit that Noticing is often crucial to L2 learning (Schmidt, 1990). Noticing refers to the process whereby the learners realize that a structure works differently in the L2 system compared to its L1 equivalent. This realization, which often marks the beginning of L2 acquisition, is not fostered by strong meaning-based methods like CLT. Explicit grammar instruction on the other hands promotes Noticing, especially when it presents students with bilingual input illustrating the usage of the target L2 structures.

“Thus, I believe that CLT and GT should be integrated within an eclectic syllabus with a variable focus where functions and notions are still prioritised over form.”

Read the full article here: https://gianfrancoconti.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/grammar-translation-and-communicative-language-teaching-compared/