Language Teaching: State of the Art

Mohammad Ali Salmani Nodoushan*
English Department, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran.
Periodicity:April - June'2006
DOI : https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.3.1.1008

Abstract

In its life-time, the profession of language teaching has undergone many changes. Early attempts at language teaching almost entirely lacked a theory base. In the 20 century, however, two sets of language teaching methods emerged; the first set borrowed theories from psychology, linguistics, and sociolinguistics whereas the second set was based on individual philosophies of method developers. Late in the twentieth century, an attempt on the part of some pedagogists to evaluate the different methods of language teaching resulted in the validity of language teaching methods being called into question. As a result, the question of how the profession of language pedagogy should be approached called into attention such notions as teacher plausibility, autonomy, and reflectivity as well as learner plausibility and autonomy. The result of such an expanded perspective was the introduction of effective and reflective teaching ideologies of the seventies and eighties. In 1994, an attempt at finding an alternative to methods instead of an alternative method culminated in the introduction of the post method era. The present paper tries to provide the reader with a brief account of these trends.

Keywords

Method, Reflective Teaching, Effective Teaching, Post-method Condition, Language Teaching, Methodology, Language Pedagogy.

How to Cite this Article?

Mohammad Ali Salmani-Nodoushan (2006). Language Teaching: State of the Art. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 3(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.26634/jet.3.1.1008

References

[1]. Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher's guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
[2]. Bartlett, L. (1990). Teacher development through reflective teaching. In J. C. Richards and D. Nunan (Eds.). Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[3]. Blum, R. E. (1984). Effective schooling practices: a research synthesis. Portland, Ore.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
[4]. Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal behavior. Language. 35 (1), 26-58.
[5]. Cruickshank, D. R. (1984). Helping teachers achieve wisdom. Manuscript. College of Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
[6]. Curran, C. A. (1976). Counseling-learning in second languages. Apple River, Ill.: Apple River Press.
[7]. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. In W. B. Kolesnick, 1958, Mental discipline in modern education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
[8]. Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms of research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.): Review of research in education. Vol. 5. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock.
[9]. Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. Washington D.C.: University Press of America.
[10]. Faucette, L., West, M., Palmer, H. E., & Thorndike, E. L. (1936). The interim report on vocabulary selection for the teaching of English as a foreign language. London: P. S. King.
[11]. Freeman, D. (1991). Mistaken constructs: Reexamining the nature and assumptions of language teacher education. In J. E. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
[12]. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
[13]. Fries, C. C., & Fries, A. C. (1961). Foundations for English teaching. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
[14]. Gattegno, C. (1976). The common sense of teaching foreign languages. New York: Educational Solutions.
[15]. Good, T. L. (1979). Teaching effectiveness in the elementary school. Journal of teacher education. 30 (2), 52-64.
[16]. Hornby, A. S. (1950). The situational approach in language teaching. A series of three articles in English language teaching. 4, 98-104, 121-8, 150-6.
[17]. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 26 (1), 27-50.
[18]. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly. 35(4), 537-560.
[19]. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, C.T.: Yale University Press.
[20]. Long, M. H. (1983). Training the second language teacher as a classroom researcher. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern and P. Strevens (Eds.). GURT '83: Applied linguistics and the preparation of second language teachers. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
[21]. Mackey, W. F. (1950). The meaning of method. English language teaching. 5, 4-10.
[22]. Mackey, W. F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. London: Longman.
[23]. Ogden, C. K. (1930). Basic English. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
[24]. Oxford, R. (1985). A new taxonomy of second language learning strategies. Washington D. C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
[25]. Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, M.A.: Heinle &Heinle.
[26]. Palmer, H. E., & Blandford, F. G. (1939). A grammar of spoken English on a strictly phonetic basis. Cambridge: Heffer.
[27]. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly. 23 (4), 589-618.
[28]. Richards, J. C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly. 18 (1), 7-21.
[29]. Richards, J. C. (1989). Beyond method: Alternative approaches to instructional design. Prospect. 3(1), 11-30.
[30]. Richards, J. C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[31]. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[32]. Robinson, P. (1980). ESP (English for Specific Purposes). Oxford: Pergamon.
[33]. Swaffar, L. K., Arens, K., & Morgan, M. (1982). Teacher classroom practice: redefining method as task hierarchy. Modern language journal. 66, 24-33.
[34]. Tajeddin, Z. (2005). A critique of the inception and premises of the postmethod paradigm. ILI Language Teaching Journal. 1(1), 1-14.
[35]. Tikunoff, W. J. (1983). Utility of the SBIF features for the instruction of limited English proficiency students. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.
[36]. Van Ek, J., & Alexander, L. G. (1980). Threshold level English. Oxford: Pergamon.
[37]. Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum inquiry. 6, 205-28.
[38]. Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[39]. Wenden, A. L. (1985). Learner strategies. TESOL Newsletter. 19, 1-17.
[40]. West, M. (1953). The teaching of English: a guide to new method series. London: Longman.
[41]. Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[42]. Wilkins, D. A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses: A taxonomy of its relevance to foreign language curriculum development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[43]. Willing, K. (1987). Learner strategies as information management. Prospect. 2 (3), 273-92.
[44]. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1985). An inquiryoriented approach to student teaching. Paper presented at the Practicum Conference, Geelong, Australia, January 1985.
If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
USD EUR INR USD-ROW
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.