Focus On Grammar 3 Audio Free Download
Desiderato Merriwether
The audio-lingual method or Army Method is a method used in teaching foreign languages. It is based on behaviorist theory, which postulates that certain traits of living things, and in this case humans, could be trained through a system of reinforcement. The correct use of a trait would receive positive feedback while incorrect use of that trait would receive negative feedback.[1]
This approach to language learning was similar to another, earlier method called the direct method.[2] Like the direct method, the audio-lingual method advised that students should be taught a language directly, without using the students' native language to explain new words or grammar in target language. However, unlike the direct method, the audio-lingual method did not focus on teaching vocabulary. Rather, the teacher drilled students in the use of grammar.
Applied to language instruction, and often within the context of the language lab, it means that the instructor would present the correct model of a sentence and the students would have to repeat it. The teacher would then continue by presenting new words for the students to sample in the same structure. In audio-lingualism, there is no explicit grammar instruction: everything is simply memorized in form.
The idea is for the students to practice the particular construct until they can use it spontaneously. The lessons are built on static drills in which the students have little or no control on their own output; the teacher is expecting a particular response and not providing the desired response will result in a student receiving negative feedback. This type of activity, for the foundation of language learning, is in direct opposition with communicative language teaching.
The method is the product of three historical circumstances. For its views on language, it drew on the work of American linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield. The prime concern of American linguists in the early decades of the 20th century had been to document all the indigenous languages spoken in the US. However, because of the dearth of trained native teachers who would provide a theoretical description of the native languages, linguists had to rely on observation. For the same reason, a strong focus on oral language was developed.
As mentioned, lessons in the classroom focus on the correct imitation of the teacher by the students[citation needed]. The students are expected to produce the correct output, but attention is also paid to correct pronunciation. Although correct grammar is expected in usage, no explicit grammatical instruction is given. Furthermore, the target language is the only language to be used in the classroom.[4] Modern implementations are more lax on this last requirement.
In the late 1950s, the theoretical underpinnings of the method were questioned by linguists, such as Noam Chomsky, who pointed out the limitations of structural linguistics. The relevance of behaviorist psychology to language learning was also questioned, most famously by Chomsky's review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior in 1959. The audio-lingual method was thus deprived of its scientific credibility and it was only a matter of time before the effectiveness of the method itself was questioned.
In 1964, Wilga Rivers released a critique of the method in her book, The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher. Some of the critique, namely its contention that audiolingual methods originated from Skinnerian radical behaviorism, was shown by Peter J. Castagnaro in 2006 to be misinformed.[5]
Philip Smith's study from 1965-1969, termed the Pennsylvania Project, provided significant proof that audio-lingual methods were less effective than a more traditional cognitive approach involving the learner's first language.[6]
Butzkamm and Caldwell have tried to revive traditional pattern practice in the form of bilingual semi-communicative drills. For them, the theoretical basis, and sufficient justification, of pattern drills is the generative principle, which refers to the human capacity to generate an infinite number of sentences from a finite grammatical competence.[7]
Skills are taught in the following order: listening, speaking, reading, writing. Language is taught through dialogues with useful vocabulary and common structures of communication. Students are made to memorize the dialogue line by line. Learners mimic the teacher or a tape listening carefully to all features of the spoken target language. Pronunciation like that of native speaker is important in presenting the model. Through repetition of phrases and sentences, a dialogue is learned by the first whole class, then smaller groups and finally individual learners.
Reading and writing are introduced in the next stage. The oral lesson learned in previous class is the reading material to establish a relationship between speech and writing. All reading material is introduced as orally first. Writing, in the early stages, is confined to transcriptions of the structures and dialogues learned earlier. Once learners mastered the basic structure, they were asked to write composition reports based on the oral lesson.[8]
Listening is important in developing speaking proficiency and so receives particular emphasis. There are strong arguments, both physiological and psychological, for combining speaking practice with training in listening comprehension.
Speaking is effective through listening. By hearing the sounds, articulation is more accurate, with differentiation of sounds, memorization and internalization of proper auditory sounds images. Development of a feel for the new language gains interest for the language.
Listening comprehension is most neglected in language learning. It is generally treated as incidental to speaking rather than as a foundation for it. Texts, guides and course of study contain tests for evaluating progress in listening comprehension, but they rarely contain specific learning materials designed for the systematic development of this skill.
study or recorded materials that contain most of the language that has previously been learned by the students. The speaking practice would begin after listening comprehension. The students will be ready to speak at this time. Speaking practice can proceed according to sequence.
Memorization of techniques suggested represent an approach that will enable student to memorize larger segments at a time and perform dialogues as a whole with more confidence. In the meantime, if teachers are willing to use their imagination and experiment with new techniques, many ways can be found to emphasize the audio in the method.[9]
One of the main reasons why so many education systems around the world are failing to produce students who can speak a foreign language properly (even at an elementary level) is their strong emphasis on learning grammar as a foundation to speaking.
Well before the age of 5 (around the time you begin studying grammar in school) you were already a fluent speaker of your native language. You knew how to use verbs in different tenses before you even knew what a verb was. Toddlers start using complex sentences on their own without ever receiving explicit instruction or memorizing grammar rules.
Consider for a moment that during this process of language development the child is obviously unable to read and learns all of this vocabulary and structure simply by listening to people around him/her.
Modern analyses of real data suggest that we are much less original in using language than we like to believe. Much of what we say, and a significant proportion of what we write, consists of prefabricated multi-word items. Fully fixed expressions must be acquired as wholes in precisely the same way as individual words or very strong collocations.
I totally agree with you about grammar. Listening is the most important aspect of language learning. Grammar is great for educating yourself in a language but speaking and educating are two different things.
Jeez ... amazing how this statement of yours can motivate the frustrated eggheads to post their nonsense and completely missing the point.
It is due to this ingrained resistance and closed mindset that formal school language learning is complete BS for most students.
This article is very useful for me as a foreign language teacher. I invite my colleagues to read it carefully and try harder to incorporate these amazing ideas when planning, monitoring and evaluating students learning, because what really matters is what they can communicate using the target language and not how correct they are in terms of structures and gramma, at least not at the beginning stages.
Hello, Donovan. I find your blog very useful. The part about students learning grammar for years and reading advanced texts is exactly about me, but I want to change this and explore ways to find people to practice conversational skills.
You can learn a language through studying grammar. I did with English. Lots of classes studying verb tenses, parts of speech, the morphology of the language etc. The difference was that my English teachers taught grammar little by little and provided us with lots, lots of speaking practice - in addition to listening exercises, writing tasks, games etc. And yet, I know plenty of people who acquired a language by simply being immersed in it. At the end of the day, it seems to me that people may have different learning styles. Some students, like me and other adults, may not develop accuracy without studying grammar, while others may successfully speak a language without knowing what an adjective is. My point is: the problem may not be whether we should study grammar or not, but who might need it and how we should study it.
Hello,
I would like to ask if you have any materials to learn English through chunks. Any short dialogues or videos which I could listen and also I think it is important that would be helpful if someone could explain particular chunks. Because I can find some dialogues on Youtube but for me where English is my second language it is difficult to find out which phrases are actually chunks. Do you have materials like that? Made by you or someone else?