Second Language Learning and Language Teaching


Box 10.7 The Bilingual Method, C.J. Dodson, 1967


Download 1.11 Mb.
Pdf ko'rish
bet166/255
Sana24.04.2023
Hajmi1.11 Mb.
#1394532
1   ...   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   ...   255
Bog'liq
cook vivian second language learning and language teaching

Box 10.7 The Bilingual Method, C.J. Dodson, 1967
Step 1. Imitation. Pupils learn to speak basic L2 sentences by imitating the
teacher; listen to the teacher give L1 meaning
Step 2. Interpretation. The teacher says L1 equivalent of L2 sentence; the pupil
replies with L2 sentence, the teacher repeats L1
Step 3. Substitution and extension. Same technique as (1) and (2) but varying the
vocabulary within existing patterns
Step 4. Independent speaking of sentences
Step 5. Reverse interpretation (optional)
Step 6. Consolidation of question patterns
More relevant to most language teaching situations are methods that actively
create links between the first and the second language; some of these are discussed
further in Chapter 13. The New Concurrent Method, for example, allows systematic
codeswitching under the teacher’s control. Community language learning (CLL)
is an interesting variant which uses translation as a means of allowing genuine L2


use; the second language is learnt in continual conjunction with the first. The most
developed is perhaps the Bilingual Method used in Wales, outlined in Box 10.7.
Here, the teacher reads an L2 sentence and gives its meaning in the first language,
called ‘interpreting’ rather than ‘translating’, after which the students repeat in
chorus and individually (Dodson, 1967). The teacher tests the students’ under-
standing by saying the L1 sentence and pointing to a picture, though the students
have to answer in the second language. The two languages are tied together in the
students’ minds through the meaning.
Some of the ways that teachers have found the first language useful in the class-
room (always provided that they know the first language of the students) are:

Explaining grammar to the students. The FonF approach, curiously, has not dis-
cussed which language should be used for explaining grammar; Catherine
Doughty’s influential article on ‘the cognitive underpinning of focus on form’
(Doughty, 2001) does not once mention that a choice exists. If a French begin-
ners’ course such as Panorama (Girardet and Cridlig, 1996) includes in Lesson 2
‘La conjugaison pronominale’, ‘Construction avec l’infinitif’ and ‘Les adjectifs
possessifs et demonstratifs’, what else are the students supposed to do but use
the first language, say via translation? The elementary course New English File
(Oxenden et al., 2004) includes in its first unit the terms ‘pronouns’, ‘possessive
adjectives’, ‘plurals’ and ‘prepositions’. Without translation, this is going to
make little sense, particularly when the grammar of the student’s own culture
differs from the English school tradition, as is the case with Japanese students,
who do not have a concept of grammatical plural.

Explaining tasks and exercises to the students. If the task is crucial, then whichever
language is used, the important thing is to get the students carrying out the
task successfully as soon as possible. Atlas 1 (Nunan, 1995), for example, in
Unit 3 has a task chain ‘talking about occupations’, involving the steps ‘1
Listen and circle the occupations you hear… 2 Listen again and check [
冑] the
questions you hear…’ If the students can understand these instructions in the
second language, they probably do not need the exercise. The teacher may find
it highly convenient to fall back on the first language for explaining tasks.

Students using the first language within classroom activities. Teachers are often told
to discourage students from using their first language in pair and group activi-
ties: ‘If they are talking in small groups it can be quite difficult to get some
classes – particularly the less disciplined or motivated ones – to keep to the tar-
get language’ (Ur, 1996: 121). Yet codeswitching is a normal part of bilingual
life in the world outside the classroom; it is the natural recourse of L2 users
when they are with people who share the same languages; stopping codeswitch-
ing in the classroom, which is what a ban on the L1 actually amounts to, is
denying a central feature of many L2 situations. The students should not be
made uncomfortable with a normal part of L2 use. Those working within the
sociocultural framework discussed in Chapter 12 have stressed how learning is
a collaborative dialogue (Anton and DiCamilla, 1998); the first language can
provide part of the scaffolding that goes with this dialogue.
Many other uses of the first language arise naturally in the classroom – keeping
discipline, using bilingual dictionaries, administering tests, and many others. If
there is no principled reason for avoiding the first language other than allowing
the students to hear as much second language as possible, it may be more effective
to resort to the first language in the classroom when needed.
The L2 user and the native speaker

Download 1.11 Mb.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:
1   ...   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   ...   255




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling