The Development of English Language Teaching Methods

2.2. Language education in the EU and the US: Paradoxes and parallels
Across the globe, linguistically heterogeneous populations increasingly define school systems at the same time that developing the ability to communicate cross-culturally is becoming essential for internationalized economies. While these trends seem complimentary, they often appear in paradoxical opposition as represented in the content and execution of nationwide education policies. Given the differing geopolitical contexts within which school systems function, wide variation exists with regard to how policymakers address the challenges of providing language education, including how they frame goals and design programs to align with those goals. Here we present a cross-continental examination of this variation, which reveals parallel tensions among aims for integrating immigrant populations, closing historic achievement gaps, fostering intercultural understanding, and developing multilingual competencies. To consider implications of such paradoxes and parallels in policy foundations, we compare language education in the US and in the EU, focusing on the Netherlands as an illustrative case study. Internationally, language education has taken center stage in policy debates about the need to integrate students of immigrant background in preparing all young people to participate in globalized economies. Especially in contexts such as the EU and the US, defined by dynamic immigration patterns and global economies, education systems are increasingly re-thinking their goals of preparing culturally and linguistically diverse populations for international work and education environments (with a focus on mobility). . their intercultural competence (focusing on inclusiveness). The “whys”, “whats” and “hows” of language education in these dynamic educational contexts have been approached quite differently, with changes in approaches to national policy development and implementation less explored. Accordingly, in this article we compare how the US and the EU have structured their language policies; then we trace the relationship between policy and practice in one EU country known for its high level of multilingualism, the Netherlands. The purpose of this contextual analysis is to inform the design of language education policies and programs that are more appropriate to meet the needs of all students in a multilingual global context.
A fundamental difference between approaches to language education in the EU and the US is the extent to which multiple languages are included in specified outcomes. While EU frameworks include both “mother tongue” (L1) and foreign language (L2 and L3) targets, US policies have not emphasized development of languages other than English, despite increasing globalization. In one EU policy document this foundational difference is highlighted as linguistic heterogeneity is positioned in contrast with the clichéd melting pot metaphor for American assimilation. “The EU appears to be approaching this vision of a trilingual citizenry: currently more than half of its citizens are able to converse in at least two languages. However, it is doubtful that this goal has been achieved as a result of EU policy based in valuing language diversity; this outcome has, arguably, resulted largely from the growth of English, the most widely spoken FL in the EU (European Commission 2012). Further, even the high rates of English competence cannot be directly traced to educational programs designed to achieve policy goals, since the extent to which English learning can be attributed to formal education—as compared to population mobility, media exposure, or other factors—remains unclear” [8,77].
In the US, a majority of states (31/50) currently have language policies that grant official status to English in domains such as education and law. On the federal level, although English is not the official language of the US, attempts have been made to make it so and also to limit the use of languages other than English. The most recent attempt, the English Language Unity Act, seeks “to declare English as the official language of the United States, to establish a uniform English language rule for naturalization, and to avoid misconstructions of the English language texts of the laws of the United States” (US Congress 2017). Introduced in the US House of Representatives in February 2017, it is not currently federal law; and, should it become law, it would not officially apply to language education, although it would lend support to statewide policies that limit access to multilingual education. In an echo of the EU bridge metaphor, the Act is framed in positive, inclusive terms by presenting English as a common thread binding individuals rather than as a vehicle for exclusion.
Interviews and observations in live classes were conducted where data collected is focused. Live class room learning and teaching at degree colleges of public sector have been selected along with private sector colleges. Through research conducted at the sampled colleges, it is found that at public sector colleges, the system for ESL teaching is over all grammar and translation method. Teachers have hardly any idea about Direct Method or so far any other method that has to be used for language teaching in natural way. Teachers reported in interview form that after qualifying public service commission, they have not been trained or taught any technique so far. Furthermore, conventional or traditional translation method is easy, working, and productive as for as ESL is concerned. They also pointed out a surprising notion that there is no technique or arrangement to evaluate language proficiency through testing system. That is why grammar learning is focused because students are asked grammar in their exams. Hence, we find a dormant picture in ESL classroom. Similarly, private sector colleges were also taken for sample and the same process was followed, a chaotic data is collected from such institutes, students and teachers ascribe and depend upon mixed methods rather than a single system or method, anyway, teachers called it Direct method, and data mentioned here also confirms that method is somewhat mixed, though teachers always introduced ESL planning in DM and all activities and learning took place in DM.
“The main objective of this work was to establish the most appropriate methodological guidance for the teaching of English in Primary Education. To carry out this objective, information was sought first to create a theoretical framework. We focused on finding the current knowledge of English in Spain, the importance of this language in science, the world of new technologies, the evolution of teaching and the legal framework of English in teaching Spanish. From this theoretical framework, different steps related to the specific objectives were followed” [8,90]. Our first specific objective was to identify existing methods, and to do a literature search to gather information from some of these methods for teaching a foreign language, in this case, English. This search prioritized the main features of the methods, pointing out the advantages and disadvantages: the latter point corresponds to the second objective. Once sufficient bibliographic information of the methods was obtained, we conducted a process of comparison: some important variables were chosen to take into account while evaluating their features. Once the comparative study and final work process was done, we reached certain conclusions. Initially, the main idea of this work was to choose the method that would most appropriate for teaching English in primary. “Following the literature search it was decided that the best option is the idea of globalization teaching English. This idea of globalization has been associated with the idea of an eclectic method. This involved avoiding the selection of a single method and the consequent need to select the specific advantages of each of the existing individual methods, leading to a customized method to suit the needs of group and teacher alike. Thus, the procedure performed met the overall goal of this work, namely, to find the most appropriate methodological guidance for the teaching of English in primary education, which in this case would be, an eclectic and globalizing methodological guidance. I would like to conclude by adding that this work has been very interesting and helped me grow as a future primary school teacher. English has always fascinated me as a foreign language, and for many years I have been trying to improve my knowledge D. The effort made to carry out this study has helped me to become much better-informed about the methodologies for the teaching of English in primary education and this knowledge will help me in my background as a future teacher. In spite of the virulent attacks that reformers made, the grammar –translation or traditional method has maintained itself remarkably well. The first language as a reference system is indeed very important for the second language learner. Therefore, translation is one form or another or other cross lingual techniques can play a certain part in language learning. Moreover, some learners endeavor to understand the grammatical system of the second language and translation as a practice technique put the learner into active problem-solving situation. In the terms of basic strategies already set out it forms part of the ‘academic’ explicit learning strategy. Finally, grammar translation appears didactically relatively easy to apply” [10,22]. The major defect of grammar translation lies in the over emphasis on the language as a mass of rules and exceptions and in the limitations of practice techniques which never emancipate the learner from the dominance of the first language. In addition, the sheer size of the task of memorization and the lack of coherence with which the language facts have been presented to the learner invalidate the claim made in the nineteenth century that this method provides a safe, easy and practical entry into a second language. It is also discovered that direct method works more better than Translation, however, a mix sort of method is found in the best functional approach and productivity in Pakistan as for as ESL is concerned. Students and teachers are advised to follow a synthesis of methods that may be planned keeping in view the level, background knowledge and specific purpose in ESL teaching. Following suggestions are made for achieving better handling and autonomy ESL. Direct method must be introduced along with some other communicative approaches. Teachers should be trained for more than one teaching methods in ESL. There must skill development of teachers who may understand and evaluate the needs of learners in their class rooms. So, they should be taught how to form or design the material in ESL.
It must be noticed by the Government that before handing over the responsibility of teaching, the teachers must be told or explained the challenges of the learners. Language focused evaluation should be made, hence to achieve this students/ learner should be give live test (realia) and dialogue speaking being examined by the teachers. Total Passing marks should be reserved for speaking skills testing system at the colleges and the universities coordinated with written exams by boards of Colleges and universities.
“Structured methodologies use a formal process of eliciting system requirements, both to reduce the possibility of the requirements being misunderstood and to ensure that all of the requirements are known before the system is developed. They also introduce rigorous techniques to the analysis and design process. The EU appears to be approaching this vision of a trilingual citizenry: currently more than half of its citizens are able to converse in at least two languages. However, it is doubtful that this goal has been achieved as a result of EU policy based in valuing language diversity; this outcome has, arguably, resulted largely from the growth of English, the most widely spoken FL in the EU. Further, even the high rates of English competence cannot be directly traced to educational programs designed to achieve policy goals, since the extent to which English learning can be attributed to formal education—as compared to population mobility, media exposure, or other factors—remains unclear” [16,78].