Advertisement

The Appeal of the Teaching Method in the Postmethod Era: The Motivation of Adult EFL Course Participants

  • Anna NiżegorodcewEmail author
Chapter
  • 1.8k Downloads
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

This chapter describes a small scale survey study on the motivation of adult ELT course participants. The motivation of two groups of course participants of two private language schools was compared as far as three considerations are concerned: why the participants had joined ELT courses, why they had chosen School A or B, and why they continued their courses in those schools. On the basis of the results of the survey, it seems that the decisive factor in the success of the courses in School A is a high level of motivation of those who join them, combined with a well-advertised method of EFL teaching based on the Audio-Lingual Method and having very little to do with authentic communication in English. The paradox is that the course participants approved of the method. The conclusion reached on the basis of the survey makes us realise that in spite of the disillusionment with foreign language teaching methods, including the Communicative Approach, a well-advertised and implemented teaching method may be appealing because it does not require much cognitive effort from course participants, giving them an impression that they will be able to speak real English very soon.

Keywords

Teaching Technique Communicative Approach Demonstration Class Foreign Language Teaching English Language Fluency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Jodłowiec, M. and A. Niżegorodcew, A. 2008. W stronę post-metodycznej dydaktyki języków obcych. In W stronę nowoczesnego nau-czania języków obcych, eds. M. Jodłowiec and A. Niżegorodcew, 15-21. Kraków: Tertium. Google Scholar
  2. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2001. Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly 35: 537-560. Google Scholar
  3. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2003. Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 40: 59-81.Google Scholar
  5. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching. (second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Lipińska-Derlikowska, M. 2008. A glottodidactic evaluation of the Callan method, an alternative method of teaching English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Institute of English, Warsaw University. Google Scholar
  7. Marton, W. 1972. Nowe horyzonty nauczania języków obcych.. Warszawa: Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych.Google Scholar
  8. Niżegorodcew, A. 1995. The communicative approach in the Polish context: Strengths and weaknesses. In Studies in English and American literature and language, eds. I. Przemecka and Z. Mazur, 271-278. Kraków: Universitas.Google Scholar
  9. O’Neill, R. 1991. The plausible myth of learner-centredness: or the importance of doing ordinary things well. ELT Journal 45: 293-304.Google Scholar
  10. Richards, J. and T. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. (second edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Rokita, J. 2007. L2 lexical development in early L2 acquisition. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Akademii Pedagogicznej.Google Scholar
  12. Swan, M. 1985a. A critical look at the Communicative Approach (1). ELT Journal 39: 2-12.Google Scholar
  13. Swan, M. 1985b. A critical look at the Communicative Approach (2). ELT Journal 39: 76-87.Google Scholar
  14. Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching language as communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jagiellonian UniversityKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations