The Applicabilty of Teaching Methods in English Language Teaching

i

Table of contentsAcknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iii

Dedication..................................................................................................................................... iv

Abstract .........................................................................................................................................v

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1

I The Theoretical Part .....................................................................................................................3

1. Conceptual Approach to Teaching Methods..........................................................................3

1.1. Anthony’s Framework: Approach, Method and Technique .............................................3

1.2. Richard’s and Rodgers’ Framework: Approach, Design and Procedure ............................4

2. Historical Approach to Teaching Methods.............................................................................5

2.1. The Grammar-Translation Method.................................................................................6

2.2. The Direct Method ........................................................................................................7

2.3. The Audio-Lingual Method.............................................................................................9

2.4. The Silent Way ............................................................................................................10

2.5. Desuggestopedia .........................................................................................................12

2.6. Community Language Learning ....................................................................................13

2.7. Total Physical Response............................................................................................... 14

2.8. Communicative Language Teaching .............................................................................16

3. Comparative Approach to Teaching Methods .....................................................................17

II The Practical Part ...................................................................................................................... 19

1. Methodology .....................................................................................................................19

2. Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 19

3. Aim ....................................................................................................................................19

4. Informants ......................................................................................................................... 20

5. Procedures......................................................................................................................... 20

6. Data collection ...................................................................................................................21

7. Data analysis ...................................................................................................................... 22

7.1. The findings of the questionnaires with English students .............................................22

7.2. The findings of the interview with teachers of English..................................................39

7.3. The findings of the observational instruments in English classes...................................41

8. Conclusions and discussion of the results............................................................................42

8.1. The applicability of the traditional teaching methods...................................................43

ii

8.2. The applied teaching methods .....................................................................................43

8.3. The reasons behind the application of each teaching method ......................................44

8.4. Recommendations.......................................................................................................45

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................46

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................47

Appendices...................................................................................................................................48

Appendix 1 Questionnaire, interview, and observational instrument .........................................48

Appendix 2 Consent Form .........................................................................................................62

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to devote this section mainly to express my deep appreciation andgratefulness to all who contributed directly or indirectly in the completion of this humbleresearch project.

First of all, I would like to express my very deep appreciation to the supervisor of myresearch, Prof. and Doc. Redouan Saïdi for his persistent guidance, consistent help, keenencouragement and valuable contribution to the accomplishment of this paper.

I would like also to seize this opportunity in order to acknowledge mygratitude and respectfulness to the English department teachers for their consistenthelp and guidance during the time I spent at the Faculty of Letters andHumanities in Beni Mellal Department of English Studies.

I would also like to thank the staff and teachers of the following institutions forplaying a facilitative role in the current research:

Amhamed Khalfi, the director of the Regional Academy of Education and Formation; Abdelaziz Chegraoui, the director of Hassan the Second High School; Mustapha Zanzoun, English teacher at Hassan the Second High School as well as

Sultan Moulay Slimane University; Hamid Ghidoud, the schoolmaster of Hassan the Second High School.

And finally special thanks to all the English teachers at Hassan the Second High School whoparticipated in the present survey.

iv

Dedication

I dedicate the fruit of this humble monograph mainly to my supervisor Prof.Redouan Saïdi who provided me with valuable methodological guidance, keen interest andcontinuous encouragement during all the phases of carrying out this research.

I also dedicate this survey to my mother, who has committed her life to sustain andsupport me, and to my father, who is still alive in my thoughts and feelings, and also to mybrother.

I also wish to dedicate this research paper to all the people that encouraged me to carryout this research generally and to Yessica Mendoza especially.

v

Abstract

The present research is primarily concerned with judging the extent to which someteaching methods are applicable in instructional contexts. In this respect, the teachingmethods under scrutiny are theoretically approached from multiple perspectives. Firstly,a conceptual approach is adopted to introduce the technical terms that are commonlyused in the field of ELT, namely Antony’s framework (approach, method, andtechnique), Richards and Rodgers’ framework (approach, design, and procedure).Secondly, a historical look at some teaching methods is taken as a way to understand thetheories of language and the theories of language learning that underlie the theoreticalbackgrounds of their emergence. Finally, the salient features of each teaching methodare revealed from a comparative perspective. In the second part which is practical, theapplicability of the teaching methods is judged on empirical basis by implementingthree research instruments, namely questionnaires, observational instruments and semi-structured interviews. In short, the findings of each research tool are presented andanalyzed from both descriptive as well as analytic perspectives.

~ 1 ~

Introduction

The process of teaching any language, in general, does not take place arbitrarily.

There is always a philosophy that characterizes any language teaching operation.

Although the type of this philosophy may differ from one situation to another through

the implementation of different techniques and principles, there is always a paradigm

that frames the act of teaching. However, the implicit knowledge of this philosophy is

what should be brought into consciousness by means of a technical study of the

different teaching methods that have been theorized through history.

In principle, teachers of foreign languages may apply some teaching methods or at

least some features of those teaching methods without knowing about them. This can

be, of course, accounted for simplistically by different reasons. That is, those teachers,

before being teachers, were students; certainly, they were exposed to different teaching

methods that their teachers were using at that time. Hence, they may be influenced by

those teaching methods, and they can even try to apply them when they become

teachers without a formal knowledge of the kinds of those teaching methods or their

underlying philosophy. Another reason that accounts for teachers being well-versed in

teaching methods can be exclusively attributed to teachers’ training. That is, teachers

were trained on teaching methods during their process of information in different

schools, for example, ENS, CPR and CFI in Morocco.

Furthermore, this knowledge about the way teaching can be conducted may, in

fact, come from several everyday activities. Obviously, having the opportunity to teach

in some schools can be considered a good experience from which teachers could have a

prior knowledge about teaching. Another way of systematically knowing about the ways

of teaching is through reading books about pedagogy. Last but not least, media can also

be seen as a fruitful source of information from which teachers can gain insights into

teaching methods. All these sources of knowing about how the process of instruction

should take place vary considerably from formal to informal sources.

~ 2 ~

The discussion carried so far about the sources of knowing about teaching methods

are briefly summarized by Donald Freeman (1998, p.10), “These traces of activity that

teachers accumulate through the doing of teaching are not seen as knowledge; they are

referred to as experience. Experience is the only real reference point teachers share:

experiences as students that influence their views of teaching, experiences in

professional preparation, and experience as members of society. This motley and

diverse base of experience unites people who teach, but it does not constitute a

disciplinary community.”(Freeman, 1998, p.10)

It is of paramount importance to indicate the motives behind opting for the

application of teaching methods in ELT as a topic for the current research. Generally

speaking, there are two major motives behind this choice, namely the direct relation of

the topic to linguistic studies as well as the practicality of this topic in language teaching

profession. As students of linguistics, it would be irrelevant to choose topics which are

far from the domain of linguistics. Besides, given the fact that many of us aspire to

become English teachers, it is very practical to explore the field of language teaching

through writing about its diverse components.

This paper is divided into two major parts, namely theoretical part and practical

part. In the theoretical part, the teaching methods in question will be tackled from a

multi-approach perspective. First, we will adopt a conceptual approach to teaching

methods in the sense that a distinction between Anthony’s framework and Rodgers’

framework is made to disambiguate the term method; then, a summary of the different

teaching methods that have been known from the 19th century up till now will be given

using a historical approach in order to finally determine the similarities and differences

among these teaching methods from a comparative perspective. As regards the practical

part of the present research, we will present the empirical basis on which those teaching

methods will be judged which is composed of the following sections: Methodology,

assumptions, informants, procedures, data-collection, data-analysis, conclusions and

discussion of the results. Last but not least, we will suggest some recommendations to

English teachers based on the findings of the survey.

~ 3 ~

I The Theoretical Part

1. Conceptual Approach to Teaching MethodsMost of the students in the language teaching course hear and use the term method so much and

so often that they hardly pause to think about its meaning. In this regard, I devoted this section mainly

to discuss the meaning of method. The discussion is in two parts. In the first part, I will define the term

method according to Anthony’s framework. In the second part, I will provide a reformulation of this

ambiguous concept in the light of Richard’s and Rodgers’ framework.

1.1. Anthony’s Framework: Approach, Method and Technique

Language teachers have adopted different terminology to describe the activities in which they

engage and the beliefs which they hold. In fact, language teaching jargon is full of highly controversial

terms that more or less reflect the conflicting perspectives of this relatively new growing discipline.

Although the term method is widely used to describe the way teaching takes place, it is still not really

adequate to refer to this complex process. The inadequacy of the term method can be clearly seen from

the continuous refinement of its various definitions over the period extending from the mid 20th

century up till now. The term method can, thus, be differently defined according to the perspectives

from which it is viewed.

One of the first attempts to define the term method was on the part of Edward Anthony (1963)

who was the first one to design a conceptual framework in order to disambiguate the concept of

method. This framework is based on a three-way distinction: approach, method, and technique.

According to him approach is “a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language

and the nature of language teaching and learning. It describes the nature of the subject matter to be

taught. It states a point of view, a philosophy, an article of faith, etc.” (Anthony, 1963, pp. 63–64).

Thus, an approach is the theoretical paradigm that explicitly states the nature of language, language

teaching and language learning. A method, on the other hand, can be defined as “an overall plan for

the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based

upon, the selected approach. An approach is axiomatic, a method is procedural” (p. 65). In other

words, a method can be metaphorically described as a branch that stems from an approach that can be

symbolized by a tree. Thus, a single approach can include several methods within its folds. However,

methods are not the ultimate constituents of the tree. One method can be realized by different

techniques that are the leaves of the branch (method) of the tree (approach). In short, a technique,

~ 4 ~

according to Anthony, is defined as “a particular trick, stratagem, or contrivance used to accomplish an

immediate objective” (p.66). Thus, a technique simply refers to what is practically done by the teacher

in the classroom. The picture that we have painted above clearly shows the hierarchical nature of

Anthony’s tripartite framework in the sense that techniques stem from method, and method stems from

approach.

Although the definitions that were proposed by, Anthony, in his conceptual framework (1963)

were adopted by so many teachers for a long time, they did not completely eliminate the long-term

confusion that surrenders those concepts. Anthony’s conceptual model is flawed for numerous reasons

that were categorized by Kumaravadivelu (2006, p. 85) as follows: “The way approach and method are

used interchangeably in some of the literature on L2 teaching testifies to the blurred boundaries

between the two. Secondly, the inclusion of specific items within a constituent is sometimes based on

subjective judgments. For instance, Antony considered pattern practice a method, and imitation a

technique when, in fact, both of them can be classified as classroom techniques because they both refer

to a sequence of classroom activities performed in the classroom environment, prompted by the

teacher and practiced by the learner.” These and other reasons call for an immediate refinement of

Anthony’s framework.

1.2. Richard’s and Rodgers’ Framework: Approach, Design and Procedure

As was stated above, Anthony’s framework was heavily criticized due to its inadequacy of

clearly defining the notion of method. And one of the highly critical reactions against this framework

was indirectly manifested in a reformulation of an alternative framework which was commonly known

as Richard’s and Rodgers’ framework (1982). The latter consisted of more or less different terms,

namely, approach, design and procedure. Apparently, the first term, approach, was maintained in this

new model. According to Richard and Rodgers, an approach defines those assumptions, beliefs, and

theories about the nature of language and the nature of language learning which operate as axiomatic

constructs or reference points and provide a theoretical foundation for what language teachers

ultimately do with learners in classrooms. The second notion in the model, design, specifies the

relationship of theories of language and learning to both the form and function of instructional

materials and activities in instructional settings. The third concept, procedure, comprises the

classroom techniques and practices which are consequences of particular approaches and designs.

(Richards & Rodgers, 1982, p. 154)

As can be clearly seen from the above definitions, the three concepts that were introduced by

Richards and Rodgers in their framework as compared to those used by Anthony are the same, but they

are different in their sameness. That is, the same definition of approach as was initially given in

~ 5 ~

Anthony’s framework is replicated in Richards and Rodgers’ framework. However, the definitions of

design and procedure were obviously broader than the ones ascribed to method and technique,

respectively. As Kumaravadivelu (2006, p. 86) rightly stated “design is broader than Antony’s method

as it includes specifications of (a) the content of instruction, that is, the syllabus, (b) learner roles, (c)

teacher roles, and (d) instructional materials and their types and functions. Procedure, like technique in

the Antony framework, refers to the actual moment-to-moment classroom activity. It includes a

specification of context of use and a description of precisely what is expected in terms of execution

and outcome for each exercise type. Procedure, then, is concerned with issues such as the following:

the types of teaching and learning techniques, the types of exercises and practice activities, and the

resources—time, space, equipment—required to implement recommended activities.”

In the present research, Anthony’s framework will be adopted as it is a uniformed plan, which

doesn’t contain any contradiction, in order to empirically judge the applications of some teaching

methods in high school English. But, first, a brief summary of the different teaching methods that were

known through history will be given in the following section.

2. Historical Approach to Teaching MethodsThe history of language teaching methods may be said to have begun in the late 1800s when

different methods and approaches emerged due to development in different fields. In fact, the

emergence and the development of the domain of teaching was mainly attributed to rapid progress in

psychology, the initial appearance of linguistics and the increasing interest in human sciences in

general. All what is going on in those disciplines have repercussions in language teaching. Thus, the

different approaches and methods that alternated through the history of language teaching were heavily

influenced by the changes that took place in the aforementioned fields as will be seen in this section.

Another characteristic of teaching methods, which can be considered as a problem for their

categorization, can be historically accounted for. Obviously, some teaching methods share more or less

the same features that make the boundaries between them somehow blurred. This is mainly because of

the sequenced alternation of those teaching methods through history. That is to say, any new method is

built on the debris of the previous methods in the sense that it maintains some characteristics and

abandons others of the preceding methods. Hence, the characteristics of some teaching methods are

significantly overlapping, which makes the distinction between them quite difficult, especially for

those who wish to observe their individual implementation in instructional settings. In the next

subsections, each teaching method will be presented individually based on historical backgrounds.

~ 6 ~

2.1. The Grammar-Translation Method

In some literature, the Grammar-Translation Method is also called the Classical Method or the

Prussian Method. It is the oldest method in foreign language teaching in that it was commonly used in

teaching Greek and Latin from the beginning of the 16s century in Europe since those languages were

dominating in several fields, such as politics, business and religion. However, there was a gradual shift

from Latin to the different vernaculars that were rapidly growing in Europe, namely, English, German,

and French. Consequently, the Grammar-Translation Method was applied for teaching foreign

languages in general, especially from the 1840s to the 1940s in Europe and more specifically in

Germany.

The Grammar-Translation Method, as its name indicates, is primarily based on teaching

grammar and vocabulary. The former is taught deductively in the sense that rules are provided firstly,

and then they are practiced in examples which should be memorized by students later on. The latter is

learnt through reading foreign language literature and translating literary texts into the target language.

In short, Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979, p. 3) listed the major characteristics of the Grammar-

Translation Method:

1. Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language.

2. Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists and isolated words.

3. Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given.

4. Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the

form and inflection of words.

5. Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early.

6. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical

exercises.

7. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target

language into the mother tongue.

8. Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

As can be seen from the above characteristics, the Grammar Translation Method emphasized

reading and writing skills in foreign languages more than listening and speaking skills. That’s why the

Grammar-Translation Method is sometimes called the Reading Approach in some literature. Besides,

the aim of this method is geared toward making students more familiar with the target language

grammar through extensive use of grammar exercises that are derived from literary texts. Likewise,

vocabulary which is also extracted from literary passages is presented in the form of isolated words

that should be memorized by means of rote learning. Thus, this method provides students with de-

contextualized linguistic input presented in isolated words that must be mindlessly memorized. Last

~ 7 ~

but not least, translating some sentences in the literary texts from the target language into the mother

tongue is a direct way to associate words in the target language with their equivalents in the mother

tongue.

During its implementation in the 19th century, educators, psychologists and even students heavily

criticized the Grammar-Translation Method. First of all, The GTM does not have any theoretical

backgrounds. In fact, “It is a method for which there is no theory” (Richards and Rodgers, p. 5).

Moreover, the GTM does not take into consideration the learners’ affective sides in that it gives the

full authority to the teacher. Other reasons such as rote learning and de-contextualized linguistic input

make the GTM dislikeable by many students. ‘This resulted in the type of Grammar-Translation

courses remembered with distaste by thousands of school learners, for whom foreign language

learning meant a tedious experience of memorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and

vocabulary and attempting to produce perfect translations of stilted or literary prose”(Richards and

Rodgers 1982, p.6).

2.2. The Direct Method

With the gradual decline of the GTM, we have the rise of a new teaching method, namely The

Direct Method. As a reaction to the intended negligence of preparing students to use the target language

communicatively, the Direct Method became widely known and practiced. As opposed to the GTM,

the Direct Method, as its name suggests, strongly advocates the fact that meaning in the target

language should be conveyed directly without recourse to translation.

There were several factors that led to the practice of this new method of teaching. In his book,

The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages (1880), Francois Gouin came up with new

findings in the field of foreign language teaching. These findings were purely derived from the French

Latin teacher, Francois Gouin’s personal experience of learning German based on grammars and

dictionaries. Although he lived in Hamburg for one year, Gouin was isolated in his room trying to

memorize a German grammar book and a list of the 248 irregular German verbs, instead of having

conversations with German native speakers. This initial attempt took him only ten days; later on, he

went to university in order to practice what he had memorized, but he was shocked when he could not

understand anything in German. His failure in understanding German was wrongly attributed to the

fact that he did not memorize enough grammar and vocabulary books. Accordingly, he memorized a

lot of grammar books and a huge number of words; again, what he memorized did not make him

successful in understanding or speaking German.

While Gouin was in Germany seeking to learn German through memorization of vocabulary and

grammar books, his three-year-old nephew had gone through the rapid process of child language

~ 8 ~

acquisition. A fact that was quite remarkable for Gouin upon his arrival to France. How come that this

child had moved from knowing absolutely nothing in the French language to being “chatterbox of

French”? In contrast to Gouin who spent much time in Germany trying to learn the German language

in vain. These and other questions led Gouin to conclude, “Language learning is a matter of

transforming perceptions into conceptions and then using language to represent these conceptions.

Based on this conclusion, the Series Method was designed,” which taught learners directly (without

translation) and conceptually (without explanation of grammatical rules) a "series" of connected

sentences that are easy to understand.”(Brown 2000, p. 20)

The series method was the first ground upon which Berlitz method (the Direct Method) was

established in Germany and France around 1900 as a reaction to the GTM and traditional approaches

to teaching. In this method, it is assumed that foreign language learning should be similar, if not

identical, to first language acquisition. In this respect, there should be an exclusive and spontaneous

use of the target language, intensive use of oral drilling and little or no teaching of grammar. Richards

and Rodgers summarized the basic principles and procedures of the Direct Method (1986, pp. 9-10) as

follows:

1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.

3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully traded progression organized around

question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small intensive classes.

4. Grammar was taught inductively.

5. New teaching points were taught through modeling and practice.

6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract

vocabulary was taught through the association of ideas.

7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.

8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

Despite its popularity in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the

twentieth, the Direct Method gradually declined at the first quarter of the 20th century due to several

factors. The Direct Method requires native teachers of foreign languages to teach foreign language

learners, which can make the communication between them very difficult, if not impossible.

Moreover, the small classroom size that is needed for the application of the Direct Method can hardly

be found in some schools, especially in public schools. Like the Grammar-Translation Method, the

Direct Method is not based on purely theoretical backgrounds. Consequently, there was a need for a

new teaching method that goes hand in hand with what is required in the international scene in the

beginning of the 20th century, which witnessed the two world wars. Subsequent developments in the

~ 9 ~

field of foreign language teaching gave birth to the Audio-Lingual Method in the United States and the

Oral Approach or Situational Language Teaching in Britain.

2.3. The Audio-Lingual MethodThe Audio-lingual Method, Army Method, or New Key is a new method that was established on

the bricks of the Direct Method in the mid of the 20th century due to numerous factors. The eruption of

the Second World War in 1939 was the first spark that rekindled the search for a new language

teaching method that could meet the immediate needs of the American soldiers so as to communicate

with their allies and their enemies. The Army Method was, thus, introduced to train American soldiers

on being communicatively competent in foreign languages through very intensive language courses

focusing on oral/ aural skills. The lessons to be taught to these soldiers were put in the form of Army

Specialized Training Program.

Unlike the GTM and the DM, the Audio-Lingual Method or Situational Language Teaching was

firmly based on theoretical backgrounds. According to Brown 1974, “the ALM is firmly grounded on

linguistic and psychological theory” (Brown, 1974, p.54). Obviously, the sudden emergence of

behavioral psychology in the early twentieth century was the main stone upon which Audiolingualism

was based. In general, Behaviorism can be seen in its modern interpretation as follows: any human

behavior is based on stimulus-response-reinforcement chain. Behaviorists developed conditioning and

habit formation that were in harmony with repetition drills and pattern practice which were the main

techniques of the Audio-Lingual methodology. Furthermore, Structuralists redefined language as being

purely structure; thus, language consists of several substructures, phonetics, phonology, morphology,

and syntax. For them, learning a language is learning those substructures. These structuralist findings

were directly manifested in the type of syllabus of Audio-Lingualism which was highly structural. This

inherent features of the method at hand, can be summarized by Prator and Celce-Murcia (op. cit.) as

follows:

1. New material is presented in dialogue form.

2. There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases and over learning.

3. Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis and taught one at a time.

4. Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills.

5. There is a little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive analogy rather

than by deductive explanation.

6. Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context.

7. There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids.

8. Great importance is attached to pronunciation.

9. Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted.

~ 10 ~

10. Successful responses are immediately reinforced.

11. There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances.

12. There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard context.

The Audio-Lingual Method continued to be widely used in teaching foreign languages in Europe

and America up till 1960. At that time, Audio-Lingual method’s theoretical background was strongly

refuted at all levels. Firstly, at the level of language theory, the Generative Transformational Grammar

theory rejected the Sructuralist view to language. For Chomsky, language consists of a set of finite

number of rules that generate an infinite number of sentences. Secondly, at the level of language

learning theory, Behaviorism was harshly criticized by the Mentalist theory in the form of what is

called Cognitive Psychology which proved that learning a language is a rule internalizing process

rather than habit formation process. Cognitive psychologists, based on the Chomskyan view to

language, argued that children acquire language through the fact that they internalize a limited number

of rules which help them produce an unlimited number of sentences creatively. Their making of

analogy can prove the fact that children internalize a finite number of rules. For example, some

children are observed to make generalizations on the basis of a very finite set of regular rules by

saying, for example, “I goed with my daddy yesterday”. This evidence clearly shows that children

internalize rather than imitate the rules of their language. These two theories of language and language

learning led to the emergence of new teaching methods.

2.4. The Silent Way

The period extending from the 1960s to 2000s was characterized by an utter inconsistency in the

generation of new teaching methods, especially when there was no alternate to Audio-Lingual Method.

According to Richards and Rodgers “The lack of an alternative to Audiolingualism in language

teaching in the United States has led to a period of adaptation, innovation, experimentation, and some

confusion. On the one hand, there are new methods that have been developed independently of

current linguistic and second language acquisition theory (e.g., Total Physical Response, Silent Way,

Counseling-Learning); on the other hand, there are competing approaches that are derived, it is

claimed, from contemporary theories of language and second language acquisition (e.g., The Natural

Approach, Communicative Language Teaching).”(Richards and Rodgers, 1986, p. 60) However, in

this historical tracing of teaching methods, we will continue to present different teaching methods

according to their chronological sequencing.

Gattegno's book Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: the Silent Way in 1963 was the womb

from which the silent method came into existence. The period in which the Silent Way appeared was

dominated by a new educational trend called Discovery Learning. This trend empirically argued that

students can learn more by discovering new facts by themselves rather than being told about them by

~ 11 ~

teachers. Learning by discovering enables students to activate their minds and makes them active self-

dependent students. In contrast, students may not activate their minds if they are passively listening to

the teacher. More than that, they will be completely dependent on the teacher. Hence, the Silent

Method aims primarily at activating students’ minds and developing their self-reliance.

In the Silent Way classrooms, teachers try to be silent as much as possible so as to allow learners

to learn by themselves. Different teaching materials, such as Cuisenaire Rods, Fidel Charts and a series

of colorful wall charts are used to engage students into problem solving tasks. The teacher who utilizes

the Silent Method works with students, and students work on language. One of the principles of the

Silent Way is that teaching should be subordinated to learning in order to make students completely

self-dependent and actively engaged in learning the target language. Based on a review of (Larsen-

Freeman, 1986, pp. 51-72), the salient features of the silent way can be represented as follows:

1. The teacher should be silent as much as possible.

2. Different charts are used as instructional materials to teach sounds, sentences and spelling.

3. Vocabulary is restricted at first.

4. Errors are tolerated, and the teacher uses student errors as a basis for deciding where further

work is necessary.

5. All four skills are worked on from the beginning.

6. Pronunciation is worked on from the beginning.

7. There is no fixed linear, structural syllabus, instead the teacher starts with what the students

know and builds from one structure to the next; the previously introduced structures are

continually being recycled.

8. The teacher uses no formal testing.

9. The native language is used to give instruction.

10. There is no fixed linear, structural syllabus that the teacher can follow in the teaching process.

11. Structures of language may be emphasized; however, explicit grammar rules may never be

supplied.

As can be seen from the above summary, the Silent Method has given a new outlook to the way

of teaching a foreign language. The courses where the Silent Method is implemented are not only

teaching courses but also social training courses in that they train students to be autonomous.

Furthermore, students can activate their minds to effectively practice and use the language in order to

learn it. The numerous advantages of the silent method can be briefly summarized by Richards and

Rodgers (1986, p. 99) as follows:

~ 12 ~

1. Learners should discover and create rather than remember and repeat so as to facilitate

learning.

2. Accompanying (mediating) physical objects facilitates learning.

3. Problem solving involving the material to be learned facilitates learning.

However, some of the techniques that are prescribed by this method are remarkably deficient.

It is often argued that struggling for a word instead of saying it directly is a waste of time.

Moreover, the sheer silence of the teacher can sometimes discourage students rather than

encourage them. The learning activities of the silent method are very limited and cannot target all

the four skills of students mainly listening and speaking due to the complete focus on visual

teaching materials with no speaking on the part of the teacher. These and other problems have

called for an immediate reformulation of the silent method.

2.5. Desuggestopedia

Since the development in the field of language teaching and learning is much more influenced by

the development of psychology, the emergence of the affective psychology had, apparently, deep

reverberations in the appearance of a new method of teaching in 1979. The Bulgarian psychologist

Georgi Lozanov argued that some affective factors, such as the learner’s feelings and motivations can

to a larger extent influence the process of learning. To explain, students can learn effectively if they

are highly motivated and very relaxed in the classroom. By deriving insights from the soviet

psychology of extrasensory perception, Lozanov concluded that feelings of people have a direct effect

on the state of the brain. For instance, when we are angry, nervous or stressed, we lose concentration

because our brain cannot process regularly. On the other hand, if we are relaxed, we tend to

concentrate more, and our brain operates regularly and effectively. Thus, all these findings led

Lozanov to develop a new method of teaching called Desuggestopedia which strongly advocates the

fact that students can learn effectively if they dessuggest limitations to learning. An effective learning

cannot take place only if a comfortable, secure, motivating environment is provided.

In Suggestopedic classrooms, one can make the following observations: first of all, the

classroom is full of pictures containing grammatical information that students can learn attention even

if their attention is not directed to them (peripheral learning). Moreover, students adopt a new identity

by choosing new names and different personalities in order to feel secure while learning a language.

One of the blatant features of Suggestopedia is the use of music to create a cheerful atmosphere which

is quite facilitative to learning. The teacher through two phases can do reading dialogues. “The first

phase of this presentation is the receptive phase. In the first concert, the teacher reads the dialogue

matching her or his voice to the rhythm and pitch of the music. In this way, the “whole brain” of

students becomes activated. The learners follow the target language dialogue as the teacher reads it out

~ 13 ~

loud. They can also check the translation. In the second concert, the students simply relax while the

teacher reads the dialogue at a normal rate of speed. After this phase, the students read over the

dialogue again before they go to sleep and after they get up in the morning. In the activation phase,

students engage in various activities including dramatizations, games, songs and question-and-

answer exercises.”

According to Sarosdy, et al. (2006, p. 17), the dark sides of this method can be summed up as

follows:

1. Environmental limitations; (the unavailability of music and comfortable chairs, ˙no advanced

comprehension technique)

2. Ignores mechanical activities in internalizing the grammar rules or the vocabulary items.

3. The techniques may not work well in all the learners and cultures(cognitive differences of the

people)

4. No homework

2.6. Community Language Learning

If Suggestopedia is grounded on purely psychological approach to language learning,

Community Language Learning, on the other hand, is based on social approach to teaching and

learning. This method was developed by Charles A. Curran 1972 who developed Counselling-

Learning approach to language teaching where teachers play the role of counselors and students

play the role of clients. Curran’s new method was influenced by Rogers’ humanistic psycholgy

which advocates the fact that students should feel secure while learning a language, and that they

should be involved in postive social interaction with their peers and their teacher to achieve this

security . ”Counseling, as Rogerians see it, consists of one individual (the counselor) assuming

"insofar as he is able the internal frame of reference [of the client], perceiving the world as that

person sees it and communicating something of this empathetic understanding" (Rogers 1951).

(Richards and Rodgers, p.113).

The techniques and principles that were theorized by this method were affectively and

interactionally oriented. İn CLL classrooms, students sit in a circle while the teacher is outside the

circle. Students initiate conversation which are sometimes recorded and later on transcribed. Then

the teacher helps studends providing translation to the words, phrases, sentences that they do not

understand. İn this case, the teacher is like a Translation Machine that students can use while

making their conversations. This makes students feel more secure and not inhibited in using the

target language. İnteraction among students is strongly encouraged in the classroom community.

~ 14 ~

The types of learning and teaching activities of CLL combines innovative learning tasks and

activities with conventoional ones. As sumarized by Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. 120):

1. Translation. Learners form a small circle. A learner whispers a message or meaning he or she

wants to express, the teacher translates it into (and may interpret it in) the target language, and

the learner repeats the teacher's translation.

2. Group Work. Learners may engage in various group tasks, such as small discussion of a topic,

preparing a conversation, preparing a summary of a topic for presentation to another group,

preparing a story that will be presented to the teacher and the rest of the class.

3. Recording. Students record conversations in the target language.

4. Transcription. Students transcribe utterances and conversations they have recorded for practice

and analysis of linguistic forms.

5. Analysis. Students analyze and study transcriptions of target language sentences in order to

focus on particular lexical usage or on the application of particular grammar rules.

6. Reflection and observation. Learners reflect and report on their experience of the class, as a

class or in groups. This usually consists of expressions of feelings - sense of one another,

reactions to silence, concern for something to say, etc.

7. Listening. Students listen to a monologue by the teacher involving elements they might have

elicited or overheard in class interactions.

8. Free conversation. Students engage in free conversation with the teacher or with other learners.

This might include discussion of what they learned as well as feelings they had about how they

learned.

Like any method of teaching, CLL still suffers from several drawbacks. First of all, the

techniques and principles advocated by CLL are too restrictive to be put into practice given the

institutional and the curricular constraints. İt is quite paradoxiacal to make students speak

spontaneously in classroom situation which requires a high degree of unspontaneity that is rienforced

by the use of tape recording. CLL requires the teacher not only to be profecient in the target language

but also to have “emotional and intellectual sensitivity” in order for this method to be applied

effectively.

2.7. Total Physical Response

In 1977, James Asher, a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University

developed Total Physical Response based on extensive experimental research that was conducted in

the 60s of the same century. TPR was mainly derived from the findings of psychology and first

language acquisition. Asher observed that children respond physically to verbal stimulus that are

exposed to during the process of language acquisition, and that children do a lot of listening before

~ 15 ~

they speak. Subsequently, psychologists developed the “trace theory” of learning which strongly

advocated the fact that the capacity of our memory increases if it is traced or stimulated. Following

these observations; Asher came up with three main hypotheses:

1. In their developmental process, children listen in order to be able to speak. Hence, language is

primarily learnt through listening.

2. In the human brain, the right hemisphere is more active while we learn a language. Since

actions stimulate this very area of the brain, it is said to correlate with learning.

3. As was advocated by many affective or humanistic approaches to language learning, Asher

concludes that a high affective filter can negatively influence learning.

Based on these theoretical principles, TPR classrooms are, accordingly, conducted following

well-organized procedures. Richards and Rodgers summarize the latter based on a review of Asher’s

method as follows:

1. Review. This was a fast-moving warm-up in which individual students were moved with

commands.

2. Role reversal. Students readily volunteered to utter commands that manipulated the behavior of

the instructor and other students.

3. Reading and writing. The instructor wrote on the chalkboard each new vocabulary item and a

sentence to illustrate the item. Then she spoke each item and acted out the sentence. The

students listened as she read the material. Some copied the information in their

notebooks.(Asher, 1977, pp. 54-6)

Implementing TPR in classroom instructions has fruitful outcomes for the teacher and the

learner. More importantly, since TPR can introduce some scenes of humor, students find it very

enjoyable in that it breaks the monotony of the traditional teaching. Moreover, kinesthetic learners can

find various physical activities in total physical response that go hand in hand with their educational

needs for an effective learning. Due to the simplicity of its activities, TPR does not require much

preparation on the part of the teacher.

On the other hand, TPR has serious drawbacks. Due to its limited activities, TPR can be used to

teach only elementary school students. What is more, this method cannot really cover all the areas of

language, since it focuses only on vocabulary which is not enough for students to be able speak. Worst

of all, not all the words of the language can be explained through action; it is impossible to make

associations between abstract words and actions.

~ 16 ~

2.8. Communicative Language Teaching

The period extending from 1970s to 1980s has witnessed a revolution of communication

especially with the development of pragmatics and the appearance of several communication theories.

As was stated earlier, the field of language teaching is heavily influenced by all what is going on in

linguistics, psychology and human sciences at large. Generally, learning just rules cannot result in

“communicative competence” (Dell Hymes, 1972). Language is not only rules but it is also

communication. When we know a language, we do not know only how to make grammatical

sentences, but we know also how to communicate appropriately in a given situation of communication.

In fact, the traditional methods focus only on grammatical competence which is just one of the

components of communicative competence. That is, those teaching methods discussed so far focus

only on lexical items and the rules of morphology, syntax, sentence-grammar semantics, and

phonology. However, there are other components that need to be the focus of any enlightened

language teaching method, namely discourse competence, strategic competence and sociolinguistic

competence. Each of these types of competence is going to be defined separately.

Discourse competence: the complement of grammatical competence in many ways. It is the

ability we have to connect sentences in stretches of discourse and to form a meaningful whole out of a

series of utterances. Discourse means everything from simple spoken conversation to lengthy written

texts (articles, books, and the like). While grammatical competence focuses on sentence-level

grammar, discourse competence is concerned with intersentential relationships.

Strategic competence, a construct that is exceedingly complex. Canale and Swain (1980, p. 30)

described strategic competence as “the verbal and nonverbal communication strategies that may be

called into action to compensate for breakdowns in communication due to performance variables or

due to insufficient competence." Savignon (1983, p. 40) paraphrases this as "the strategies that one

uses to compensate for imperfect knowledge of rules-or limiting factors in their application such as

fatigue, distraction, and inattention." In short, it is the competence underlying our ability to make

repairs, to cope with imperfect knowledge, and to sustain communication through "paraphrase,

circumlocution, repetition, hesitation, avoidance, and guessing, as well as shifts in register and style"

(Savignon, 1983, pp. 40-41).

Sociolinguistic competence is the knowledge of the socio-cultural rules of language and of

discourse. This type of competence “requires an understanding of the social context in which language

is used: the roles of the participants, the information they share, and the function of the interaction.

Only in a full context of this kind can judgments be made on the appropriateness of a particular

utterance” (Savignon, 1983, p. 37)

~ 17 ~

The communicative approach aims exclusively at developing students’ communicative

competence and its different components through implementing the following major principles: a) the

language introduced to students should be authentic (language as it is used in a context). b)

Opportunities in which students express their ideas and opinions should be frequently given. c)

Linguistic input should be contextualized. For example, the grammar and vocabulary that students

learn should be derived from the functional, situational context and the role of the interlocutor. Finally,

it should be noted that the communicative approach enjoys a huge popularity given that the theory of

language and language learning on which this approach is grounded are still up-to-date.

3. Comparative Approach to Teaching Methods

Perhaps, the most frightening work to do in ELT methodology is to make a comparison between

the above discussed teaching methods. Even the famous educationalists, such as Larsen and Freeman,

acknowledged the difficulty of this task. As a result, they put this heavy burden on the shoulders of the

reader who helplessly remains confused as to how he or she can distinguish each method from the

other given the overlapping nature that blatantly characterizes the features of those teaching methods.

Hence, in this section, we will approach some teaching methods from a comparative perspective in

order to facilitate for the reader the tiring labor of conceptualizing the similarities and differences that

inherently mark those teaching methods. In fact, this comparison that is done in this monograph is

primarily intended to clarify the salient teaching method features that were inserted into the research

instruments as a way to detect the application of the teaching methods under consideration in high

school English.

In this comparison, the system of binarism that has proven its efficiency in generative phonology

and semantic analysis will be creatively used in the field of ELT for the first time. As a brief revision

of how the system of binarism will operate in describing the componential features of some teaching

methods, a perpetual insistence will be put on the binary nature of teaching method components; that is

to say, components have one of the two values, “+” or “-”. On this system, features are associated

together in pairs. Due to the abbreviation adequacy of this model of analysis, we would need only one

component that could have one of the two values. For example, the way of teaching grammar across

methods, especially between the Grammar Translation Method and the Audio-Lingual method varies

radically from deductive into inductive teaching, this fact can be accounted for in terms of this system

as follows: [+/- deductive] and [+/- inductive]. Following the convention of phonology, it is the

marked term of a binary contrast, which should bear the positive sign while the unmarked term should

bear the negative sign. One reason which can obviously account for maintaining that deductive

teaching is the marked term is that in many cases language teachers refer to the positive opposite of

deductive teaching of grammar or the explicit way as the inductive or the implicit way of teaching

~ 18 ~

grammar. Thus, GTM has [+ deductive] while ALM has [- deductive]. In short, the basic teaching

method features are going to be practically visualized in the following table according to the binarist

principle.

Table1: The distinctive features of the discussed teaching methods:

GTM DM ALM SW LM CLL TPR CLTTeachinggrammar

[+deductive] [-deductive] [-deductive] [-deductive] - - - -

Tranlation [+ frequent] [-frequent] [-frequent] - - [+frequent] - [+ frequent]

TG [-English] [+English] [+English] - - - [+English] [+English]

LanguageForm

[-spoken] [+spoken] [+spoken] - - - - [+spoken]

Vocabulary [-context] [+context] [+context] [+context] - - [+context] [+context]

Memorization

[+memo] [+memo] [+memo] [+memo] [-memo] - - [-memo]

Repetition [-repetetion] [-repetetion] [+repetetion]

- - - - -

Mistakestoleration

[-tolerance] [-tolerance] [-tolerance] - - - - [+tolerance]

Reinforcement

[-reinforce] [-reinforce] [+reinforce] [+reinforce] - - - -

Silence - - - - - - [+silence] -

Classroomdecoration

- - - - [+deco] - - -

Student‘sfeelings

- - - - [-focused] [+focused] [+focused] -

Music - - - - [+used] - - -

Cooperativelearning

- - - - - [+coop.] - -

Imperative - - - - - - [+used] -

Reading [+focused] - - - - - - -

Writing [+focused] - - - - - - -

Listening - [+focused] [+focused] [+focused] - - - -

Speaking - [+focused] [+focused] - - - - [+focused]

Authenticmaterials

- - - - - - - [+used]

Note: the mark (–) indicates that the feature is not really distinctive in the above teaching methods.

The above table confirms the overlapping nature of the teaching methods in that sometimes the

same aspects of language teaching are shared by several teaching methods.

~ 19 ~

II The Practical Part

1. MethodologyIt is of wide significance to start this part with a brief description of the methodology being

followed. The present survey has been conducted in Beni-Mellal city and more specifically in Hassan

the Second High School. The methods of data gathering that were adopted in this investigation consist

mainly of questionnaires with one hundred students, semi-structured interviews with five English

teachers and observational instrument in five English classes. The data obtained from each of those

research methods will be analyzed separately in the subsequent sections.

2. AssumptionsBased on the previous discussion in the first part about the various teaching methods that have

been theorized through history, we come up with the following assumptions that can be presented in

the form of questions as follows:

To what extent are the teaching methods that were discussed in the theoretical part applicable

in high school English?

What are the teaching methods and approaches that are actually used by the English teachers at

the high school level?

What are the reasons behind the use of any teaching method?

3. AimThe major aim behind conducting this survey is, in fact, to judge the applicability of the teaching

methods that were theoretically presented in the first part of this research on empirical backgrounds.

To make this aim achievable, three research tools are used with almost one hundred and five

informants. The goals behind designing each research tool are summarized as follows:

The questionnaires with students in the same class, which contain the most basic features of

each teaching method, are used to detect which teaching method or approach the English

teachers may use.

The oral semi-structured interviews with English teachers about their professional training as

well as the teaching methods they use in the English class are employed to generate qualitative

~ 20 ~

data about the teaching methods that the English teachers actually use in teaching the English

language. The same interviews included a set of questions adopted from Brown (2000, p 41) to

determine those English teachers who claim to be eclectic.

The observational instruments are added to confirm the data that is derived from the findings of

the questionnaires by observing moment-to-moment teachers’ behavior in the English class.

4. InformantsThe type of informants of the present study varies considerably depending crucially on the type

of the employed research method. For the questionnaires, all the informants are students whosebackground information is visually displayed in the table below:

Table1. Background information of students:

The informants of the interviews, however, are all teachers. The socio-professional status of thelatter can be depicted in the table below:

Table2. Background information of teachers:

Gender Training Places of training Number of years oftraining

Male Female Yes No ENS CPR Others 1 year 2 years80% 20% 60% 40% 20% 20% 20% 60% 0%

5. ProceduresThe procedures that were followed in this inquiry can be summarized as follows: firstly,

questionnaires were administrated to one hundred students while they were taking their English classes

in Hassan the Second High School. All those students are studying in the Baccalaureate grade, but they

are following different tracks. A number of 20 questionnaires have been distributed to each English

class out of five classes that have different English teachers. The proportion of this distribution is as

follows: 17% of Human Sciences, 19% of Arts, 24% of Natural Sciences, 20% of Physical Sciences,

20% of Mathematics. The surveyed English classes have different English teachers. The latter were

interviewed about their training as well as the teaching methods that they use in teaching English to

Speakers of other Languages by means of a semi-structured oral interview. Last but not least, five

observational instruments were used to observe the teachers’ behavior and the methods that they use in

the five English classrooms of the same five English teachers who are interviewed. Those sessions

were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Gender Age Grade TrackMale Female 16 17 18 19 20 Baccalauréat

levelHuman

SciencesArts Natural

SciencesPhysicalSciences

Mathematics

45% 55% 3% 15% 63% 15% 3% 100% 17% 19% 24% 20% 20%

~ 21 ~

6. Data collectionTwo types of data are opted for in the current study, namely self-reported data and observational

data. The former was derived by means of the questionnaires along with the semi-structured

interviews, while the latter was derived by means of the observational instruments (attached in

Appendix 1). The objective behind this diversification in terms of research methods is primarily

intended to generate confirmatory as well as explanatory data. What is more, it is widely common

among researchers that mixed-method research or triangulation allows for a high degree of reliability

that can be tested by what is called cross-method agreement or inter-method agreement. This very

basic principle constitutes the methodological spirit of the present inquiry. In short, the process of data

gathering that was followed with each research tool can be summarized as follows:

Before the actual administration of the questionnaire, guidelines inspired from Saïdi (2001, p.

59) based on Churchill (197 8) were strictly followed in designing the current questionnaire. These

guidelines can be summarized as follows: “avoidance of complicated structures and terminology;

diversification of question formats (i.e. direct-indirect questions and close-open questions); precise

specification of the content of the question and the appropriate choice of the questionnaire’s

language.” Based on the last criterion, the questionnaire for students was translated into Standard

Arabic, which is considered the most comprehensible language due to its similarity to Moroccan

Arabic in contrast to English or French (see Appendix 1 for the translated version of the

questionnaire). Then, the questionnaire was tried out with four students who provided us with

insightful remarks about the form as well as the content of the questionnaire in question. As was

already stated, the size of the sample of the questionnaire covers one hundred students who study in

the Baccalaureate level (the last year of the Moroccan high school educational system). However, the

present research did not include all the questions that are used in the instruments, as there are cases of

non-response as well as irrelevant answers. Generally speaking, the rate of answering ranges from 80%

to 85%.

As for the oral pre-structured questionnaire based interviews with the five English teachers, a lot

of tiresome work has been done in the process of data collection. Given the fact that some English

teachers were conducting quizzes, while others were absent, we resorted to the high school

administration that is, especially, incarnated in the schoolmaster who provided us with the schedules of

the English teachers who were teaching on the days of the investigation. The same person provided us

also with a list of the English teachers that were teaching the Baccalaureate level, which greatly

facilitated the process of data gathering at that stage. Later on, the five English teachers were

interviewed about their professional training and the teaching methods that they use (for more

information see the example of the interview in Appendix 1).

~ 22 ~

Concerning the observational instrument, the researcher informed the five English teachers that

the former would attend some sessions with the Baccalaureate students. Accordingly, they allowed for

the researcher to attend some sessions, preserving the last sits for the researcher in the classrooms

based on his request so as to facilitate classroom observation. Some of the teachers of English

provided the researcher with the textbooks of English that are entitled “Gateway to English” and

“Insights into English” in addition to some handouts containing grammatical exercises. The reasons

behind incorporating supporting materials is justified, according to some teachers, by the fact that

several English students have the exercises in their textbooks answered previously; thus, the assigned

exercises which are presented in those kinds of textbooks will not be answered by those students using

personal efforts. Generally, all the five sessions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim in

order to precise the number of minutes that were allotted to each feature of the aforementioned

teaching methods.

7. Data analysis

7.1. The findings of the questionnaires with English students

In this section, the findings of the questionnaires will be presented and analyzed mainly from a

descriptive point of view. The questionnaires under analysis fall into the following headings, namely

questions related to GTM, questions related to Berlitz Method, questions related to ALM, questions

related the Silent Way, questions related to Suggestopedia, questions related to CLL, questions related

to TPR, and questions related to CLT.

7.1.1. Questions related to Grammar-Translation Method

Question 1: How often does your teacher of English teach you grammar?

Figure1: The frequency of teaching grammar (in %)

~ 23 ~

As can be seen from the above graph, English teachers at Hassan the Second High School often

teach grammar as 55% of the students pointed out. The latter is one of the basic components of the

English syllabus that the teachers are provided with. So, the first feature of Grammar-Translation

Method is realized. However, this is not an adequate evidence to claim that this method is practically

used in the current teaching of English.

Question 2: How often does your English teacher translate?

Figure 2: The frequency of translation (in %)

The above graph shows in a clear fashion the frequency of using translation as a pedagogical

technique in the surveyed English classes. A number of 44% students stated that their English teachers

often translate while just very few students who think that their English teachers never translate. It is

worth noting that translation facilitates for English teachers to explain some difficult words and

especially abstract words to Moroccan students. Moreover, given the factor of age in language

learning, Moroccan Baccalaureate students keep asking about the Arabic equivalents. Further to this,

some English teachers are influenced by the French language, which unconsciously pushes them to

translate from English into French as well as to make contrastive analysis between the two languages

in question.

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Very often

~ 23 ~
















in question.

42%

55%

2% 1%

Very often

Often

Rarely

Never

17%

44%37%

Very often Often Rarely Never

~ 23 ~
















in question.

Very often

1%

Never

~ 24 ~

Question 3: From which and into which of the following languages does your English teacher

translate?

Figure 3: The source language and the target language of translation

With respect to the target and the source language of translation, it can be seen from the above

graph that English teachers were reported by 41% of their students to translate from English into

French. Besides, 35% observe that their English teachers also translate from English into Standard

Arabic. The translation from and into these two languages incredibly dates back to 1950. This fact is

pointed out by Ennaji, “In morocco, for instance, students of English in the 1950’s and even in the early

1960’s learned English mainly through translating texts from English into French or Standard Arabic or vice

versa.” (Ennaji, 1994, p. 158). However, the only difference between now and that time is that now translation is

done orally, which automatically excludes the application of GTM in which translation is done in the written

form. What is also quite remarkable in the above graph is the fact that the translation from English into

Tamazight and vice-versa is very infrequent, if not infrequent at all. This shows that English teachers

do not really pay attention to the language ethnicity of their students.

7.1.2. Questions related to Berlitz Method

Question 4: How often does your English teacher use the target language exclusively?

Figure 4: The exclusive use of the target language

0%

50%

100%

35%

18%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

From Enginto SA

From Enginto MA

~ 24 ~


translate?
















0%

50%

100%


83%

10% 5% 2%

18%

3% 1%

41%

2% 0% 1%

From Enginto MA

From SAinto Eng

From MAinto Eng

From Enginto Fr

From Frinto Eng

From Enginto

Tzght

FromTzght

into Eng

~ 24 ~


translate?
















Never

2%

1%

FromTzght

into Eng

~ 25 ~

It goes without saying that the figures which are visually represented in the above graph prove

the very frequent exclusive use of the target language with the big majority of students. Nearly 83% of

the surveyed students answered the question that embodies one of the distinctive features of DM,

which is the exclusive use of the target language, with confirming its high frequency of use. However,

this mere fact does not fully account for the implementation of this method in the surveyed English

classrooms. Thus, a further investigation into other features will be undertaken in order to confirm or

not to confirm the application of this natural approach to teaching.

Question 5: As regards communication in the class, what form of the English language does your

English teacher focus on?

Figure 5: Language form

According to the above graph, the second basic feature of the Direct Method is realized. Among

the English students who answered the current question, 56% stated that the spoken form of the target

language is emphasized on the part of their English teachers, while 32% saw that it is rather the written

form which is emphasized. For the rest of the students, just 12% thought that there are other forms

which are focused on by their English teachers.

Question 6: If the focus is on the spoken form, could you specify how?

Figure 6: Specifications

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

the spoken form

~ 25 ~


















the spoken form the written form others

56%

32%

12%

~ 25 ~


















others

12%

~ 26 ~

Concerning specifications on how this focus on the spoken form takes place, 55% of the students

who said that their English teachers focus on the spoken form, they also precised their answer by

adding that their English teachers emphasize the spoken form by question answer exchange between

the teacher and students. In contrast, 25% reported that their English teachers do that by practicing

reading. For 16%, however, they stated that this focus is done through practicing reading. Finally, just

5% of the students specified that there are other ways of focusing on the spoken form by the English

language teachers.

Question 7: How does your English teacher teach you grammar?

Figure 7: Inductive or deductive teaching of grammar

With respect to this question which was, in fact, formulated for the students in a clear way as it

contains two highly technical terms (see the questionnaire attached in Appendix 1), it is obvious that

the deductive way of teaching grammar is dominant in that students are firstly given rules, and then

they apply them to examples. Since the majority of the English students observe the deductive teaching

of grammar. This fact contradicts the third feature of the Direct Method and the Audio-Lingual

Method within which grammar is taught implicitly, that is, inductively.

16%

25%

46%

47%

48%

49%

50%

51%

~ 26 ~







language teachers.









55%

5%By question answerexchange between theteacher and the studentsBy practicing dialogues

By practicing reading

Others

Deductively Inductively

51%

48%

~ 26 ~







language teachers.









By question answerexchange between theteacher and the studentsBy practicing dialogues

By practicing reading

~ 27 ~

Question 8: Concerning vocabulary, how does your teacher of English teach you new words?

Figure 8: Teaching vocabulary

As can be derived from the findings of the above graph, teaching new words is blatantly done

through using them in sentences. The majority of students prove this fact as 77% of students reported

that their English teachers teach new words by illustrating them in sentences. Technically speaking,

this is called contextualized linguistic input which stands in marked contrast with de-contextualized

linguistic input; that is, vocabulary is not presented in isolated lists which should be memorized by

students as is the case with GTM, and the fact that vocabulary is contextualized goes in correlation

with the principles of the Direct Method. As regards the use of the dictionary, pictures and drawing, it

is apparently a scarce use as just few students opted for those choices.

Question 9: What does your English teacher emphasize in his teaching?

Figure 9: Focus

It is graphically evident that much focus is intentionally placed on correct grammar when it

comes to teaching the English language to Baccalaureate students at the high school level. A relatively

large majority of 40% of the Baccalaureate students confirms that their teachers of English stress the

correctness of grammar. Correct pronunciation, which makes the feature of the Direct Method,

By using them in sentences

By using the dictionary

By using pictures

By drawing

Correct pronunciation

Correct grammar

Correct writing

Correct reading

Others

~ 27 ~












Figure 9: Focus





0% 20% 40% 60%

By using them in sentences

By using the dictionary

By using pictures

By drawing

Others

12%

7%

1%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Correct pronunciation

Correct grammar

Correct writing

Correct reading

Others

23%

40%

21%

14%

2%

~ 27 ~












Figure 9: Focus





80%

77%

40% 50%

40%

~ 28 ~

receives the second rank according to 23% of the surveyed students. The emphasis on the correctness

of writing has received the third rank as 21% of the targeted students have opted for this choice, while

the emphasis on correct reading and other things has received a small percentage ranging from 14% to

2%, respectively.

Question 10: How does your English teacher require you to answer in the English class?

Figure 10: The way of answering

According to the figures of the above graph, students of English at the Baccalaureate level are

required to answer in full sentences rather than to just give chunks in English. A large majority of 86%

students declared that their English teachers really require them to answer in complete sentences,

which constitutes one of the necessary techniques of the Direct Method. Other ways of answering,

such as in incomplete sentences, by yes/no and others have attained the following percentages: 8%, 3%

and 2%, respectively.

Question 11: How often does your English teacher ask you to write?

Figure 11: The frequency of writing

Last but not least, the quasi-absence of writing in the Direct Method is set in contradistinction

with justifiably claiming that the Direct Method is implemented in the surveyed English classes.

0%

50%

100%

In completesentences

86%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very often

~ 28 ~




2%, respectively.













In completesentences In incomplete

sentences By yes/noOthers

86%

8%3%

2%

37%

55%

6%


~ 28 ~




2%, respectively.













Others

2%

2%

Never

~ 29 ~

According to 55% of students, English teachers often ask their students to write, while a very small

minority which is manifested in 2% of students claimed that their English teachers never ask them to

write. Thus, this fact negates the pure application of the Direct Method as the latter duplicates the

natural way children acquire their mother tongue in teaching foreign languages. We never expect

children to write; in contrast, they just listen and later on speak.

7.1.3. Questions related to the Audio-Lingual Method

Question 12: At the level of language, what does your English teacher focus on?

Figure 12: Language focus

It becomes clear from the figures of this graph that language structures are the focal elements

which are taught to students at the Baccalaureate grade. 43% of the sampled students stated that their

English teachers mainly focus on structure. This emphasis on language structure relates directly to the

type of syllabus. As for words and meaning, they are more or less accorded the same percentage in that

28% of students have opted for words, while 27% have reported that meaning is also of paramount

importance. In contrast, the focus is, by the small minority, on pronunciation. The latter is the main

language area that should be developed in a typical Audio-Lingual classroom.

Question 13: How often does your English teacher ask you to memorize?

Figure 13: The frequency of memorization

Meaning; 27%

0%

20%

40%

Very often

4%

~ 29 ~


















Sounds; 2%Words; 28%

Structure;43%

Meaning; 27%Sounds

Words

Structure

Meaning

Very oftenOften

RarelyNever

4%

38% 39%

20%

~ 29 ~


















Sounds

Words

Structure

Meaning

Never

20%

~ 30 ~

Relatively, the frequency of memorization is rare according to the majority of students. Although

the difference between the answers provided for the second and the third choices is very small, 39% of

the students said that their teachers rarely ask students to memorize, and also 20% of them reported

that their teachers never ask students to memorize compared with 4% of the students who also added

that their English teachers very often ask them to memorize. However, 38% stated that their English

teachers often require them to memorize. Due to this blurred difference among the proportions of

answering among students’ answers, mainly between the second scale and the third scale, we come up

with the conclusion that teachers rarely to never ask students to memorize based on the comparison

between the first two answers and the second two answers. This derived fact negates the presence of

the ALM as the latter employs memorization as a major technique.

Question 14: In case the English teacher asks you to memorize, what would he want you to memorize?

Figure 14: The content of memorization

From the above graph, the surveyed students specify the content of memorization differently.

27% of the students say that grammatical rules constitute the content of the required memorization.

37%, on the other hand, saw that conjugation is, in fact, what is the most required to be memorized.

Functional expressions occupy the third position in students’ ranking of the content of memorization

by a proportion of 22%, while dialogues which are the basic features of Audiolingualism takes only

13% of validation on the part of students, a fact which makes the possibility of the implementation of

the Audio-Lingual Method highly skeptical. A further observation that can be made as regards this

graph is that grammatical rules, conjugation and functional expressions mostly constitute the syllabus

that is officially prescribed to Baccalaureate students in Morocco.

Question 15: How often does your English teacher keep repeating what he teaches you?

0%

20%

40%27%

~ 30 ~























27%37%

22%

13%

1%

~ 30 ~























1%

~ 31 ~

Figure 15: Repetition

In the above graph, it is blindly obvious that English teachers often repeat what they teach. This

is numerically justified by 52% of the students confirming that English teachers often repeat what they

teach. This technique of repetition is the practical manifestation of behaviorism on which also the

Audio-Lingual Method is theoretically founded.

Question 16: How often does your English teacher tolerate mistakes?

Figure 17: Tolerating mistakes

This graph reveals yet another basic feature of Audiolingualism. According to the surveyed

sample of students, 44% of them observed that their teacher of English very often tolerate mistakes.

This remark automatically refutes the second principle of behaviorism that strongly advocates the fact

that errors should not be tolerated, because they may be undesirably developed into habits.

Question 18: How often does your English teacher encourage the correct answers?

Figure 18: The frequency of encouraging the right answers

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

Very often

22%

0%

Very often

Often

Rarely

Never 0%

~ 31 ~















22%

52%

22%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

44%

42%

14%

0%

~ 31 ~














50%

44%

42%

~ 32 ~

Surprisingly, encouraging the right answers is very frequent in the surveyed English classrooms.

81% of the target students proved this fact. As was already shown, the reinforcement of good habits

constructs the theoretical underpinnings of the behavioral theory in general and the Audio-Lingual

Method in particular.

Question 19: What does your English teacher use to teach you the English language?

Figure19: Teaching materials

As regards the teaching materials that are made use of by the English teachers at the high school

level, it is highly observational that the textbooks which are prescribed by the Ministry of Education

are the prominent instructional materials. This fact can be proven empirically by the findings of the

questionnaires that are pictorially represented in the above graph in that 67% of the surveyed students

observed that the textbooks are the common instructional materials of teaching the English language.

7.1.4. Questions related to Gattegno’s Method

Question 20: How does your English teacher explain the lesson?

Figure 20: The way of explaining

0%

Very often

Often

Rarely

Never

2%

0%

MultimediaCD recordings

18%

~ 32 ~















0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

81%

16%

2%

0%

CD recordingsText books

Data showOthers

2%

67%

9%5%

~ 32 ~















100%

81%

Others

5%

~ 33 ~

Within this graph, the salient feature of the Silent Way that is manifested in the teacher being

silent most of the time is obviously not present in the surveyed classes. Just 5% of the students said

that their English teachers remain silent while explaining. Instead, English teachers may use gestures

as was clarified by 35% of the students. However, there are other ways that English teachers follow,

such as explaining by writing on the blackboard, asking students to look at their textbooks, etc.

Question 21: How often does your English teacher use charts?

Figure 21: Using charts

The above graph makes it quite obvious that charts are often added to the teaching process.

According to 51% of the students who answered this question, they went further to state that their

English teachers use charts in instruction -this is a good initiative on the part of English teachers to

help visual learners-. It should also be noted that this technique of implementing charts pertains mainly

to the Silent Way of teaching in which charts speak louder than the teacher. The latter should be silent

most of the time. However, as the teacher of the targeted students does not remain silent as was proven

By using gestures

35%

0%

Very often

Often

Rarely

Never

~ 33 ~














By using gestures By remaining silent Others

35%

5%

59%

29%

51%

13%

7%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

~ 33 ~














51%

50% 60%

~ 34 ~

by the majority of students in the previous graph, we cannot justifiably claim that the Silent Way is

really adopted by the English teachers.

Question 22: What kind(s) of vocabulary does your English teacher focus on?

Figure 22: Types of vocabulary

Generally speaking, functional vocabulary is, according to 37% of the students, emphasized. The

major reasons behind this emphasis on functional expressions are mainly attributed to the type of

syllabus which is apparently an amalgamation of functional, notional and structural syllabuses. Thus, it

principally includes functional expressions, such as complaining, apologizing, and requesting, etc.

7.1.5. Questions Related to Lozanov’s Method

Question 23: Does your English teacher focus on the decoration of the classroom?

Figure 23: Classroom decoration

Functionalvocabulary;

37%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

~ 34 ~












Semi luxuryvocabulary;

20%

Luxuryvocabulary;

31%

Functionalvocabulary;

37%

Others; 12%

Semi luxury vocabulary

Luxury vocabulary

Functional vocabulary

Others

YesNo

36%

64%

~ 34 ~












Semi luxury vocabulary

Luxury vocabulary

Functional vocabulary

Others

~ 35 ~

A proof that runs counter to the implementation of Suggestopedia can be derived from the

figures of the above graph. The classroom decoration that should be taken care of by the English

teachers is, in fact, disregarded as the majority of students have pointed out. This, in turn, minimizes

the possibility of applying Suggestopedia, since the latter presupposes the presence of cheerful

environment where students feel comfortable.

Question 24: What is your feeling in the English classroom?

Figure 25: Students’ feelings

As regards the affective side of the surveyed English students, most of the students feel relaxed

in the English classes. This was expressed by 40% who said that they generally feel relaxed inside the

English classes. More than that, 37% stated that they feel very relaxed. When asked about the reasons

behind this relaxation, the English students gave different answers, such as being intrinsically and

extrinsically motivated to learn the English language, etc. Generally speaking, the reasons behind

being relaxed are rarely attributed to the classroom environment, which automatically excludes the

application of Suggestopedia as an affective approach to language teaching. Also, there are students

who do not feel relaxed, relating the reasons behind this mainly to being unconfident to speak in the

English class; others are discouraged by their peers and even bored to learn this language.

Question 25: How often does your English teacher teach, using music?

Figure 25: The frequency of using music

Very relaxed

Relaxed

A bit relaxed

Not relaxed

Not relaxed at all

~ 35 ~



















0% 10% 20% 30%

Very relaxed

Relaxed

A bit relaxed

Not relaxed

Not relaxed at all

13%

6%

4%

~ 35 ~



















40%

37%

40%

~ 36 ~

It is quite conspicuous that teaching English is never accompanied by music. The latter, as was

discussed in the theoretical part, constitutes one of the distinctive features of the application of

Suggestopedia. The majority of students in this survey reported with the percentage of 67% that their

English teachers never integrate music in teaching the English language. This fact alone certainly

denies the application of Dessugestopedia.

7.1.6. Questions Related to Curran’s Method

Question 26: What are the activities that you practice in the English class?

Figure 26: Teaching activities

The types of activities that are represented in the above graph go against the activities practiced

in Community Language Learning classes. Making conversations, which is one of the distinctive

features of CLL, is said to be used by the English teachers according to only 4%, which constitutes the

minority of the total number of the surveyed students. The latter reported by the majority of 51% that

working in groups is taken as an activity that is organized by their English teachers. In different vein,

playing games is also used as a teaching activity according to 17% of the students. Surprisingly, 0% of

the students chose the choice of role plays, which is, in fact, the activity that is normally practiced in

classes where Suggestopedia is practiced. Finally, 29% of the students precised that there are other

0%

Very often

Often

Rarely

Never

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

4%

~ 36 ~

















0% 20% 40% 60%

Very often

Often

Rarely

Never

3%

12%

17%

4%

51%

17%

0%

29%

~ 36 ~

















80%

67%

29%

~ 37 ~

activities that are conducted in their English classes, such as organizing a free hour on Friday in which

students can practice their English freely.

7.1.7. Questions Related to Asher’s Method

Question 27: How often does your English teacher give you commands in English?

Figure 27: The frequency of using the imperative

In relation to the figures that are pictured in the above graph, English teachers are witnessed, by

the majority of 51% of their students, often making use of the imperative. The latter is, as was seen

earlier, a pedagogical technique within Total Physical Response. Nevertheless, those commands are

not to be performed physically. Rather, they are given during the English classes as instructions to

demand from students to copy the lessons to their copybooks, to read certain passages from the

textbooks or to do exercises, etc.

7.1.8. Questions Related to CLT

Question 28: Which of the following language skills does your English teacher focus on?

Figure 28: language skills

~ 37 ~















Very often28%

Often51%

Rarely9%

Never12%

~ 37 ~















~ 38 ~

As for the language skills that are emphasized by the English teachers, the productive skills

receive relatively a great emphasis as compared to the receptive skills. According to 40% of the

students, speaking is what their English teachers emphasize. On the other hand, writing, for 25% of the

students, is equally focused on. With respect to the receptive skills, 20% of the students report that

much emphasis is placed on listening, while just 15% of the students see that reading is also focused

on. The emphasis on the skill of speaking goes in correlation with the principles of the Communicative

Approach to teaching.

Question 29: What does your English teacher incorporate in addition to the textbook?

Figure 29: The integration of authentic teaching materials

It is highly evident that the use of authentic materials is not frequent based on the figures of the

above graph. Among the students who answered this question, 7% declared that their English teachers

use English magazines in addition to the textbooks. For English newspapers, 3% of the English

students maintained that their teachers of English integrate English newspapers into the syllabus. On

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Listening

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

English magazine

~ 38 ~














20%

40%

15%

Listening Speaking Reading

7%3%

50%

41%

English magazine Englishnewspapers

English books Others

~ 38 ~














25%

Writing

41%

Others

~ 39 ~

the other hand, 50% of them notice that their teachers of English, in fact, include English books as

supporting teaching materials in the syllabus. In a different vein, 41% of students declare that there are

other materials that may be additionally used next to the textbooks. Thus, the lack of authentic

materials, such as magazines and newspapers, in the surveyed classes makes the application of

Communicative Approach unrealizable.

7.2. The findings of the interview with teachers of English

In order to generate qualitative data about teachers’ training, five semi-structured interviews

were conducted with five English teachers whose students answered the questionnaires. In general,

three of these teachers received training in three different places, namely ENS, CPR and the Faculty of

Sciences of Education from 1991 till 1992; that is, they spent one year in the training schools. And two

of those teachers did not receive any training at all, which can be simply explained by the fact that in

the past teachers and professional employees at large were enrolled directly in given professions. Thus,

the only training that they could receive is in-service training.

The difference among the answers of those English teachers is, in fact, not big. When the five

English teachers were asked about what methods of teaching they know, all of them proved their

familiarity with the following teaching methods: The Grammar-Translation Method, The Direct

Method, The Audio-Lingual Method, the Silent Way, Desuggestopedia, Community Language

Learning, Total Physical Response, and Communicative Language Teaching. They also added several

methods, namely Project Based Learning; Competency Based Learning, Standards-Based Language

Teaching, Lexical Approach, Multiple Intelligences and Eclectic Approach.

Practically, the interviewed English teachers use mainly three teaching methods and approaches.

Three English teachers implement Competency Based Approach in their teaching. Two of these three

English teachers use Standards-Based Approach in addition to Competency Based Approach, while

just one of those three English teachers opts for an Eclectic Approach in addition to Competency

Based Approach. The other two English teachers adopt the Communicative Approach. One of the two

English teachers adopts an Eclectic approach, while the other one uses Project Based Approach in

addition to the Communicative Approach. The implemented methods can be easily seen in the

following graph:

Figure 30: The applied teaching methods and approaches

~ 40 ~

The reasons behind opting for any approach or method vary considerably from one teacher to

another as is clearly shown in the graph below.

Figure 31: The reasons behind the application of the teaching methods and approaches

When the English teachers who received training were asked to rank the extent to which those

teaching methods are applicable, they provided more or less coherent answers which are represented in

the following graph as follows:

Figure 32: The extent to which the trained on teaching methods are applicable

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

CBA

36%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Appropriate

38%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

0% to 20%

0%

~ 40 ~








CBA SBA CA EA PBA

36%

18% 18% 18%

9%

Appropriate Imposed My personalchoice

Others

38%

13%

38%

13%

0% to 20% 20%to 40% 40%to 60% 60% to 80% 80% to100%

0%

67%

0%

33%

0%

~ 40 ~








PBA

9%

13%

80% to100%

0%

~ 41 ~

The above graph makes it clear that the teaching methods and approaches that the English

teachers were trained on are 20% to 40% applicable in their current classroom instruction. This rating

can be justified, according to respondent 3, by the fact that the theoretical assumptions on which the

teaching methods or approaches are based do not take into account some other variables related to the

daily classroom practice. For the other English teachers who said that the trained on teaching methods

are 20% to 40% applicable, they justified this rating by several reasons, such as dealing with the new

curriculum and fulfilling the Official Ministry Specifications. As for those who rated the applicability

of these teaching methods in their case as 60% to 80%, they convincingly argued that knowledge of

most teaching methods are of invaluable help to them in that they facilitate their classroom practices.

7.3. The findings of the observational instruments in English classes

In the current survey, five observational instruments took place in five English classes of the

same interviewed English teachers whose students filled in the questionnaires in Hassan the Second

High School. Before physically attending the sessions, the researcher had informally trained on

detecting the teaching method(s) that may be used in practical instructional settings by watching some

videos on YouTube in which the following teaching methods: GTM, DM, ALM, SW, TPR,

Suggetopedia, CCL and CLT were virtually practiced. Moreover, the observational instruments that

were utilized in this inquiry contain the basic features of the teaching methods under inquiry in order

to clearly see how much time is allotted to each feature. More than that, given the nature of the

observational instruments that is more particularly semi-structured, further observations were made

concerning the performance of each English teacher.

Each English class was observed one time during the whole survey. Each observation session

lasted 40 minutes. The total number of minutes was, thus, 200 minutes. For a precise account of the

number of minutes and seconds that were allotted to each feature, all the observational sessions were

recorded and transcribed verbatim after a few days of their recording. No participation in the English

classes was permitted in order not to affect the chosen samples in a biased way. Generally, the

surveyed English teachers apparently did not pay much attention to the presence of the researcher as

they were informed about the pure academic purpose of the current research.

Table7.3.1 Amount of time spent on some features of the teaching methods (in minutes)

Teaching methods Their characteristics Total of time in minutes %

GTM

Focus on grammarDeductive teaching of grammar

Translation

110452

55231

DM

The exclusive use of EnglishInductive teaching of grammar

Making direct associations

194657

97334

~ 42 ~

ALM

The use of repetitionMotivating reactions

Using gesturesFocusing on linguistic structures

Assigning homework

125

45203

6323102

NOTE: It should be noted that two or more features can be realized simultaneously; thus, they may be accorded more or less thesame time. Also, the other teaching methods features received no time; hence, they were automatically excluded.

It is a striking fact that the features of just three traditional teaching methods received much time

in the surveyed English classes. This mere fact, however, cannot prove the application of these

teaching methods as the researcher observed the absence of the following complementary features of

each teaching method: for GTM, the English teachers, although they focused on grammar, did base

their teaching on textbooks as well as other supporting materials, such as hand-outs containing

grammar exercises rather than extracting those grammatical rules from literary passages as was

traditionally done; as for DM, the exclusive use of the target language was very dominant in the five

English classes, which automatically contradicts the features of the GTM. Further to this, inductive

teaching of grammar was obviously an alternative to deductive teaching of grammar. Also, making

direct associations between words and their meanings instead of translation received relatively little

time, but those facts alone are not sufficient to claim that the DM is implemented. Finally, the

characteristics of ALM, in turn, had their share of the instructional time. The principles of behaviorism

that underlie the ALM receive 6% of the instructional time. Those principles are embodied in

reinforcement through repetition and motivating reactions toward students. Again, claiming that ALM

is applied in the English classes cannot be justifiably proven given the lack of oral drills which can be

portrayed in memorizing dialogues. The conclusion that we can draw from these findings is that some

features of the three traditional methods, namely GTM, DM, and ALM recursively overlap, which can

be historically accounted for as follows: those teaching methods, especially DM and ALM, were more

or less slight modifications of each others. In fact, they are two labels which synonymously refer to the

same thing.

8. Conclusions and discussion of the resultsThe findings of the three research tools have empirically enlightened our dark conception as

regards the applicability of the traditional methods of foreign language teaching, the current teaching

approaches that are adopted by some English teachers at the level of high school as well as the reasons

behind the implementation of each teaching method or approach. The last three question-like

statements are the focal issues of the present research. Discussion and conclusions of each research

question are provided separately in the following subsections.

~ 43 ~

8.1. The applicability of the traditional teaching methods

After what the research findings have revealed, the title of this subsection should be renamed the

inapplicability of the traditional teaching methods. As a matter of fact, the findings of the interviews,

as compared to those of the questionnaires, exhibit a startling paradox between what teachers know in

theory, and what they actually do in practice. All the interviewed English teachers showed their

familiarity with the following teaching methods, namely GTM, DM, ALM, SW, Desuggestopedia,

CLL, TPR, and CLT. However, they, simultaneously, reported that they follow different approaches

and methods. Besides, they rated the application of those traditional teaching methods as 20% to 40%

in the sense that they could borrow some features of those teaching methods and creatively integrate

them in their own situations. This fact was illustrated by the findings of the questionnaires which

reflect the presence of some traditional techniques in the surveyed English classes. Because of the

overlapping recursivity in terms of the underpinnings of each teaching method, a great deal of

contradiction was remarkable in students’ replies in that some features which mutually exclude each

others were equally chosen by students; an apparent example of this is the fact that the majority of

students reported that their teachers translate, and contradictorily almost the same majority reported

that their English teachers use the target language exclusively, which automatically excludes the

application of GTM and DM as the exclusive use of the target language is not allowed in the former,

while translation is prohibited in the latter. Finally, the extent to which those teaching methods are

applicable ranges from 20% to 40%. Then if those teaching methods are not applied in the surveyed

English classes, what are the teaching methods and approaches that are applied?

8.2. The applied teaching methods

As was plainly stated by the five English teachers, mainly five teaching approaches are

practically implemented in the English classes under study, such as Standards Based Approach,

Competency Based Approach, Project Learning Approach, Communicative Approach, and Eclectic

Approach. The percentage of the implementation of each teaching approach varies considerably

depending on the teacher. Competency Based Approach is implemented by 37%; CBA and CA are

equally implemented by 19%, while Project Based Approach is adopted by a percentage of 9%.

Generally speaking, each of those teaching approaches, except for CA (see the first part), will be

discussed separately.

Competency Based Approach is a modern approach to teaching and learning which emerged in

USA in 1970. CBA aims fundamentally at achieving a specific learning outcome by the end of the

teaching session. As its name may suggest, this approach focuses on developing each skill or

competency individually. As a concrete example of this, the Moroccan English textbooks are founded

upon the principles of this approach in that each unit has several standards which should be achieved

~ 44 ~

by the end of each course or unit. For instance, “At the end of the course, the learner must be able to

write without too many grammatical mistakes, converse fluently with a native speaker, etc.” (Corder,

1973, p. 30) Then, the degree of achieving the competency is tested by means of formative testing. The

latter is used to get feedback on the learning process as is illustrated by Black and William (1998) who

defined formative testing as "all those activities undertaken by teachers, and/or by students, which

provide information to be used as feedback to modify the teaching and learning activities in which they

are engaged."

The other teaching approach that is adopted by several teachers is Eclecticism. The latter,

according to Rivers (1968), allows language teachers "to absorb the best techniques of all the well-

known language-teaching methods into their classroom procedures, using them for the purposes for

which they are most appropriate". Etymologically speaking, the term eclecticism means choosing the

best. Eclecticism is highly inconsistent approach as it allows for the teachers to choose from any

methodology that suits their teaching situation depending on certain circumstances. Thus, teachers who

are eclectic choose the best way that goes hand in hand with students’ needs. However, the use of

eclecticism should not be taken as a random mixture of different approaches. This choice must always

have some philosophical backgrounds and some systematic relations among different activities. It is

often recommended to mix structural approaches with communicative use of language.

Project Based Approach is a student-centered approach to language pedagogy that was planted in

the work of Dewey, 1897 and has watered by the work of Marx et al., 2004, then flourished later on in

the book of Markham (2011, p.39). This approach for the latter, "integrates knowing and doing.

Students learn knowledge and elements of the core curriculum, but also apply what they know to solve

authentic problems and produce results that matter. PBL students take advantage of digital tools to

produce high quality, collaborative products. PBL refocuses education on the student, not the

curriculum--a shift mandated by the global world, which rewards intangible assets such as drive,

passion, creativity, empathy, and resiliency. These cannot be taught out of a textbook, but must be

activated through experience." It is relatively a recent approach to teaching foreign languages.

8.3. The reasons behind the application of each teaching method

In principle, opting for any teaching approach is centered primarily on two reasons. Normally,

the English teachers’ choice of any teaching approach is because of the appropriateness of this given

approach to their contexts of instruction as there are many variables that shape this choice. The first

variable is, obviously, finishing the textbooks that are handed out to the English teachers in the

prescribed time. Moreover, Baccalaureate students are supposed to take the national exam by the end

of the academic year. The other reason behind the implementation of each teaching approach refers

exclusively to the teachers’ being comfortable with them. That is, it is completely up to the teacher to

~ 45 ~

choose which teaching approach he or she feels comfortable with. Concerning the instructions of the

ministry of education, two teaching methods are advisable, namely Competency-Based Approach and

Standards-Based Approach as they go hand in hand with the policy of integration that the Moroccan

government has adopted since 2007.

8.4. RecommendationsAfter what the findings of the undertaken fieldwork study have revealed, some English teachers

teaching EFL to Baccalaureate students at the high school level in Morocco make use of different

modern methods and approaches of teaching, such as CBA, EA and PBA. However, these teachers

seem, in fact, to follow a similar approach in that all of them stick to the textbooks that are prescribed

to them by the Ministry of Education. The content of the latter tacitly imposes some particular teaching

approaches and methods on the teachers of English, such as the Communicative Approach given the

fact that the latter is an amalgamation of notional, functional and even structural syllabuses, etc. Thus,

teaching in Morocco is still neither student-centered nor teacher-centered, but rather textbook-centered

teaching and even textbook-based learning as teaching and learning are two sides of the same coin. For

a more integrative approach to teaching, we briefly recommend from the English teachers teaching the

Baccalaureate students at the level of high school the following:

To diversify the teaching materials, maintaining the essence of the textbooks that they are

officially prescribed.

To update their teaching approaches and methods in order not to miss the rapid progress

in the field of language teaching.

Not to be totally divorced from the traditional teaching methods; although the latter were

limited in time and scope, some of their techniques can be creatively employed.

~ 46 ~

Conclusion

In the first part of the present research, we attempted to dive deeply in the pool of language

teaching in order to explore the components of the latter by tackling the teaching methods under study

from a multi-approach perspective. Firstly, a conceptual approach to language teaching was adopted in

that Anthony’s framework as well as Richards and Rodgers’ framework were initially dealt with.

Secondly, a historical approach was employed so as to widen our knowledge as regards the teaching

methods under consideration, namely the Grammar-Translation Method, the Direct Method, the

Audio-Lingual Method, the Silent Way, Desuggestopedia, Community Language Learning, Total

Physical Response, and Communicative Language Teaching. Adopting this historical approach has

really resulted in insightful results, such as enabling us to understand the overlapping nature of those

teaching methods and to discover the theory of language, language learning and language teaching that

underlie the underpinnings of those teaching methods. In the last few papers of the first part, we tried

to analyze the teaching methods in question from a linguistically comparative perspective. The binarist

principle that has proven its efficiency in generative phonology and semantics was innovatively

utilized in the field of language teaching in order to visually depict the salient features of each teaching

method that were inserted into the questionnaire as well as the observational instrument of the present

survey.

In the second part of this monograph, we practically tested the application of the aforementioned

teaching methods on empirical backgrounds by implementing three research instruments. These

instruments as described in the section of methodology constitute mainly of questionnaire, semi-

structured interview and observational instrument. The findings of these three research tools have to a

larger extent confirmed the assumptions we set at the beginning which are as follows: the extent to

which the traditional teaching methods discussed earlier are applicable in high school English is not

really that big; there are probably other teaching methods that are currently implemented at the high

school level; finally, we inquired about the reasons behind the application of each teaching method or

approach, hypothesizing three major reasons, namely the teaching methods’ appropriateness, the

teachers’ choice, the curriculum specifications. After carrying out the survey, we discovered that the

teaching methods in question are, by the majority, 20% to 40% applicable at the high school level.

With respect to the other teaching methods and approaches that are actually applied, we explored the

application of the following teaching methods and approaches that go hand in hand with the

curriculum, namely Competency Based Approach, Communicative Language Teaching, Eclecticism

and Project Based Approach. As regards the reasons behind the application of each teaching method or

approach, the teachers’ choice and the curriculum specifications are by and large the major reasons

behind the application of each teaching method or approach.

~ 47 ~

BibliographyBlack, P & Wiliam, D (1998), Assessment and Classroom Learning, Education: Principles, Policy andPractice, March, vol 5, no 1.

Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second languageteaching and testing. Applied Linguistics.

Corder, S.P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth : Penguin.

Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Larsen-Freeman, Dianne, (2000): Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2ndEdition), New York: Oxford University Press.

Douglas Brown, H. (2000). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy(3rd Edition). San Francisco: San Francisco State University.

Ennaji, M. & Sadiqi, F. (1994). Applications of Modern Linguistics. Afrique-Orient.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale UniversityPress.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah,NJ. : 84-86. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Krashen S.D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Univirsity of SouthernCalifornia. Prentice-Hall International Press.

Ouakrime, M. (1986). English Language Teaching in Higher Education in Morocco : an Evaluation ofthe Fes Experience. Doctoral Dissertation. Universty of London. Institute of Education.

Prator, Clifford H. & Celce-Murcia, Marianne, (1979): An outline of language teaching approaches.In Celce-Murcia, Marianne & McIntosh, Lois (Ed.), "Teaching English as a Second or ForeignLanguage," Newbury House.

Richards, J.; Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Saïdi, R. (2001). The Teaching of Modern Standard Arabic to Moroccan Pupils in Elementary Schoolsin the Netherlands: A study on proficiency status and input. Doctoral Dissertation. Universiteit vanTilburg.

Sárosdy, Farczádi, Zoltán, et al. (2006). APPLIED LINGUISTICS I for BA Students in English.Bölcsész Konzorcium

Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Reading, Mass.:Addison-Wesley.

Wilga M. River (1968). Teaching Foreign-language Skills. University of Chicago Press.

~ 48 ~

Appendices

Appendix 1 Questionnaire, interview, and observational instrument

This questionnaire is designed as part of a monograph research on the “Application of TeachingMethods in English Language Teaching”. This research is required for purely academic purposes.Thus, the information that you provide will not side from this academic purpose.

The filling in of this questionnaire may take you 10 to 15 minutes. I would like to express my fullgratitude for everyone who will fill in this questionnaire in order to achieve the goal for which it isdesigned. Please, respond to the statements below by filling in the appropriate box with x.

I. Background information:1. Gender: male female2. Age: ………………………………3. Grade: …………………………....4. Track: …………………………….

II. Questions related to GTM:

1. How often does your teacher of English teach you grammar?

□ Very often□ Often□ Rarely□ Never

2. How often does your English teacher translate?


Sultan MoulaySliman University

Beni Mellal

FacultyofLetters andHumanities

Department of English StudiesOption: Linguistics

Questionnaire about TeachingMethods

~ 48 ~

Appendices











Beni Mellal




~ 48 ~

Appendices











Beni Mellal




~ 49 ~

3. From which and into which of the following languages, does your English teacher translate?□ From English into Standard Arabic□ From English into Moroccan Arabic□ From Standard Arabic into English□ From Moroccan Arabic into English□ From English into French□ From French into English□ From English into Tamazight□ From Tamazight into English

III. Questions related to Berlitz method:

1. How often does your English teacher use the English language exclusively?


2. As regards communication in the class, what form of the English language does your Englishteacher focus on?

□ The spoken form□ The written form□ Others, namely …………………………………

3. If the focus is on the spoken form, could you specify how?

□ By question answer exchange between the teacher and the students□ By practicing dialogues□ By practicing reading□ By yes/no□ Others, namely ………………………………

4. How does your English teacher teach you grammar?

□ By explaining grammatical rules firstly, and applying them to exercises secondly□ By giving examples firstly, and explaining grammatical rules secondly□ Others, namely …………………..……………

5. Concerning vocabulary, how does your teacher of English teach you new words?

□ By using them in sentences□ By using the dictionary□ By using pictures□ By drawing□ Others, namely ……………………………

6. What does your English teacher emphasize in his teaching?

□ Correct pronunciation

~ 50 ~

□ Correct grammar□ Correct writing□ Correct reading□ Others, namely ……………………………

7. How does your English teacher require you to answer in the English class?

□ In complete sentences□ In incomplete sentences□ By yes/no□ Others, namely………………………………

8. How often does your English teacher ask you to write?


IV. Questions related to ALM:

1. At the level of language, what does your English teacher focus on?

□ Sounds□ Words□ Structure□ Meaning

2. How often does your English teacher ask you to memorize?


3. In case the English teacher asks you to memorize, what would he want you to memorize?

□ Grammatical rules□ Conjugation□ Functional expressions, apologizing, complaining, making request etc.□ Dialogues□ Others, namely………………………………

4. How often does your English teacher keep repeating what he teaches you?


~ 51 ~

5. How often does your English teacher tolerate mistakes?


6. How often does your English teacher encourage the correct answers?


7. What does your English teacher use to teach you the English language?

□ Multimedia□ CD recordings□ Textbooks□ Data show□ Others. Namely …………………………………

V. Questions related to Gattegno’s Method:

1. How does your English teacher explain the lesson?

□ By using gestures□ By remaining silent (go to the next question)□ Others, namely ………………………………

2. How often does your English teacher use charts?


3. What kind(s) of vocabulary does your English teacher focus on?

□ Food, clothing, family, life, etc.□ Politics, philosophy, education, economy, etc.□ Expressions of complaining, apologizing, expressing regret, happiness or sadness etc.□ Others, namely …………………………………..

VI. Questions related to Lozanov’s Method:

1. Does your English teacher focus on the decoration of the classroom?

YES NO

2. Could you describe the atmosphere in your English classroom? (answer bycircling the appropriatechoice)

~ 52 ~

a. Very relaxedb. Relaxedc. A bit relaxedd. Not relaxed at all

3. If a or b, could you please state the reasons of this relaxation?..............................................................................................................................…

4. If c or d, could you please state the reasons of this atmosphere?

………………………………………………………………………………………

5. How often does your English teacher teach using music?


VII. Questions related to Curran’s method:

1. What are the activities that you practice in the English class?

□ Making conversations with the help of the teacher□ Working in groups□ Playing games□ Role plays□ Others, namely ……………………………

VIII. Questions related to Asher’s method:1. How often does your English teacher give you commands in English?


IX. Questions related to CLT:1. Which of the following language skills does your English teacher focus on?

□ Listening□ Speaking□ Reading□ Writing

2. What does your English teacher incorporate in addition to the text book?

□ English magazines□ English newspapers□ English books□ Others, namely……………………………………

~ 53 ~

اللغة اإلنجلیزیة على المستوى الثانوي أساتذةتدریس المستعملة من طرف الأسالیب "ضمن مشروع بحث حول االستمارةتندرج ھذه لن تخرج عن االستمارةبھا في ھذه اإلیفادم ة ثمعلومبالتالي أيو ،محضةأكادیمیة أھدافمطلوب من أجل ھذا البحث. "ألتأھیلي

.ھذا اإلطار األكادیمي في أي شكل من األشكال

لتحقیق أالستمارةھذه ءأشكر كل من سیساھم في ملأنأود .قیقةد15إلى 10ما بین االستمارةیتراوح الوقت المقدر لملء ھذه .xعالمةوضع بجابةالمرجو اإل،االستمارةھذه أسئلةكتعلیمات حول كیفیة اإلجابة على و .الھدف الذي صممت ألجلھ

I.معلومات عامة:

أنثى ذكر : الجنس

..............: السن

: .....................................المستوى الدراسي

...................................................:المسلك

II.أسئلة مرتبطة بقواعد اللغة و الترجمة:

إلنجلیزیة قواعد اللغة؟اأستاذ اللغة كم مرة یدرسكم .1دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

إلنجلیزیة؟ایترجم أستاذ اللغة كم مرة.2دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

إلنجلیزیة؟االتالیة یترجم أستاذ اللغةاللغاتمن و إلى أي من .3

ىحصإلنجلیزیة إلى اللغة العربیة الفامن □من اإلنجلیزیة إلى اللغة العربیة العامیة□إلنجلیزیةاإلىىحصمن اللغة العربیة الف□إلنجلیزیةاالعامیة إلىمن اللغة العربیة□

امعة السلطان موالي سلیمانجبني مالل

كلیة اآلداب والعلوم اإلنسانیة

مسلك الدراسات اإلنجلیزية

استمارة حول طرق التدريس

~ 54 ~

من الفرنسیة إلى اإلنجلیزیة□الفرنسیةإلنجلیزیة إلىامن□من اإلنجلیزیة إلى األمازیغیة□من األمازیغیة إلى اإلنجلیزیة□

III.أسئلة مرتبطة بطریقة بیرلیتز:

اللغة أإلنجلیزیة حصریا؟باستخدامیقو م أستاذ اللغة أإلنجلیزیة كم مرة.1دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

اللغة أإلنجلیزیة یركز أستاذ اللغة أإلنجلیزیة؟شكالأشكل من أيى، علفي ما یخص التواصل في القسم.2على النطق□على الكتابة□)..........................................................تحدد: ( أشكال أخرى□

إذا كان التركیز على النطق، كیف یتم ذالك؟.3بین األستاذ و التالمیذةواألجوباألسئلةتبادلعن طریق □عن طریق التمرن على حوارات□ممارسة القراءةعن طریق □)...........................................................تحدد(:طرق أخرى□

إلنجلیزیة قواعد اللغة ؟اأستاذ اللغة كمیدرسكیف .4

یاثانأمثلةثم تطبیقھا على أوالشرح القواعد □

ثانیاالقواعداستنتاجثم أوالأمثلةتقدیم □

.....)......................................................تحدد(:طرق أخرى□إلنجلیزیة المصطلحات الجدیدة؟ا، كیف یدرسكم أستاذ اللغة تالمفر ذافي ما یخص تدریس .5

في جملاستعمالھمعن طریق □المعجماستخدامعن طریق □صورعن طریق□الرسمعن طریق□)...........................................................تحدد(:أخرىطرق □

؟في القسم إلنجلیزیة ایركز أستاذ اللغة ماذاعلى.6على نطق سلیم□على قواعد اللغة سلیمة□على كتابة سلیمة□على قراءة سلیمة□).................................................تحدد(:أشیاء أخرىعلى□

ما ھو شكل اإلجابة الذي یطلبھ منكم أستاذ اللغة أإلنجلیزیة في ما یخص المشاركة داخل القسم؟.7في شكل جملاإلجابة□

~ 55 ~

اإلجابة في شكل كلمات فقط□ال/بنعماإلجابة□....................).................................تحدد(:أشكال أخرى□

إلنجلیزیة بالكتابة؟اكم أستاذ اللغة فكم مرة یكل.8دائما□أحیانا□انادر□أبدا□

IV. اللغویة السمعیةأسئلة مرتبطة بالطریقة:

إلنجلیزیة؟اعلى مستوى اللغة، على ماذا یركز أستاذ اللغة .1األصوات□الكلمات□تركیب الجمل□المعنى□

أستاذ اللغة اإلنجلیزیة بالحفظ؟یكلفكمكم مرة .2دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

؟اتحفظوبأن یكلفكمماذا بالحفظألستاذ كلفكم افي حالة إذا .3قواعد اللغة□تصریف األفعال□الشكوىأو الندم أوالحزنأواألسفاالعتذار أونالتعبیر ععبارات □محادثات□)..............................................................تحدد(:أشیاء أخرى□

نجلیزیة بتكرار ما یدرسكم؟كم مرة یقوم أستاذ اللغة اإل.4دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

؟التالمیذمن طرف ءارتكاب أخطاإلنجلیزیة اكم مرة یقبل أستاذ اللغة .5دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

اللغة اإلنجلیزیة اإلجابات الصحیحة؟كم مرة یشجع أستاذ.6

~ 56 ~

دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

خالل الدرس بماذا یستعین أستاذ اللغة اإلنجلیزیة عند الشرح؟.7المرئیة السمعیةالوسائل□تسجیل صوتي□يالمقرر المدرس□الباوربوینت□)............................................................تحدد(:أشیاء أخرى□

V.أسئلة متعلقة بطریقة كاتیكنو:

اللغة اإلنجلیزیة بشرح الدرس؟أستاذكیف یقوم.1باإلشارة□)2سؤال رقم إلىنتقل إ(بالبقاء صامتا□)......................................................تحدد(:أخرىطرق □

خطاطات لشرح الدرس؟اللغة اإلنجلیزیةیستعمل أستاذكم مرة.2دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

؟المفرداتألنواع التالیة من اھل یركز األستاذ على .3األطعمةأوالمالبسمفردات□التعلیمأوالفلسفةأوالسیاسةمفردات□األسف الحزن الندم الشكوىاالعتذارارات التعبیر عن عب□)......................................................تحدد(:مفردات أخرى□

VI.أسئلة متعلقة بطریقة لوزانوف:

اللغة اإلنجلیزیة بدیكور القسم؟أستاذھل یبالي .1ال نعم

)بالجواب المناسعلىأجب بوضع دائرة(ما ھو شعورك العام في قسم اللغة اإلنجلیزیة ؟.2مرتاح كثیرا.أ

مرتاح.بمرتاح قلیال.تغیر مرتاح.ثغیر مرتاح مطلقا.ج...........................................في قسم اللغة اإلنجلیزیة ؟ت، ماھیة أسباب شعورك بالراحة-ذا كانت إجابتك أإ.3...............................................................................الشعور؟ج، ماھیة أسباب ھذا - ذا كانت إجابتك ثإ.4الموسیقى؟باستعمالنجلیزیة اللغة االأستاذكم مرة یدرسكم .5

دائما□

~ 57 ~

أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

VII.أسئلة متعلقة بطریقة كوران:

في قسم اللغة اإلنجلیزیة ؟ماھیة األنشطة التي تقومون بھا .1للتحاورطاولة مستدیرة □العمل في شكل مجموعات□ألعاب□......)..................................................تحدد(:أشیاء أخرى□

VIII. آشرمتعلقة بطریقة أسئلة:

اإلنجلیزیة أوامر باللغة اإلنجلیزیة ؟ةأستاذا للغكم مرة یعطیكم .1دائما□أحیانا□نادرا□أبدا□

IX. تدریس اللغة التواصلیةأسئلة متعلقة بطریقة:

؟نجلیزیةاللغة االعلى ماذا یركز أستاذ.1االستماع□التكلم□الكتابة□القراءة□

باإلضافة إلى المقرر المدرسي؟إلنجلیزیةاأستاذ اللغة بماذا یستعین .2مجالت إنجلیزیة□صحف إنجلیزیة□كتب إنجلیزیة□)...............................................................تحدد(:أخرىوسائل □

~ 58 ~

1. Did you receive training?

□ Yes□ No

2. If yes, could you specify where?

□ ENS□ CPR□ CFI□ Others, namely……………….…………………………….

3. When? ………………………………………………………4. For how long? ………………………………………………5. Are you teaching currently?

□ Yes□ No

6. Where? …………………………………………………….7. For how long have you been teaching? ……………………8. What subject(s)?

□ English□ Others, namely.................................................................…………

9. What are some of the teaching methods that you know?

□ The Grammar-Translation Method□ The Direct Method□ The Audio-Lingual Method□ The Silent Way□ Desuggestopedia□ Community Language Learning□ Total Physical Response□ Communicative Language Learning□ Others, namely..........................................................................................

10. What are the method(s) that you are using at English classes?................................................................................................................................

11. Could you state the major steps which you follow with the method(s) that you work with?................................................................................................................................

12. Could you state the reason(s) behind choosing any particular method?

□ Because it/they is/are more appropriate to my situation□ Because it/they is/are imposed on me by the curriculum□ Because I feel comfortable using it/them□ Other reasons, namely ……………………………………………...

13. To what extent are the teaching methods that you trained on applicable in the class(es) that youare teaching?

Teachers’ Training

~ 59 ~

□ 80% to 100%□ 60% to 80%□ 40% to 60%□ 20% to 40%□ 0% to 20%

14. Could you please justify the extent to which teaching methods are applicable in your case?................................................................................................................................

15. Language classes should focus on:

□ Meaning□ Grammar□ It depends

16. Students learn best by using:

□ Analysis□ Intuition□ It depends

17. It is important for students:

□ To think directly in the L2□ To use translation from L1□ It depends

18. language learners need:

□ Immediate rewards□ long term rewards□ It depends

19. With new language learners, teachers need to be:

□ Tough and demanding□ Gentle and empathetic□ It depends

20. Teacher’s feedback to the student should be given:

□ Frequently□ Infrequently, so students will develop autonomy□ It depends

~ 60 ~

School code: ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Date: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Starting time: …………………………………… Ending time: ………………………………………

1. Focus on grammar

2. Deductive teaching of grammar

3. Translation

4. Teaching other subjects in English

5. Using realia

6. The exclusive use of the target language

7. Focus on situations or topics

8. Inductive teaching of grammar

9. Direct associations

10. The use of repetition

11. The communicative use of language in drills

12. Motivating reactions towards students

13. The use of spoken cues

14. The use of picture cues

15. Teaching language along with teaching culture

16. Starting from an already known point

17. Using gestures and facial expressions

18. Remaining silent

19. Focusing on linguistic structures

20. Assigning homework

21. Bright and colorful classroom environment

22. Using games

23. Using repetition

24. Holding group discussion

25. Using music

26. Having students work together in groups

Minutes: Seconds:

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

Observational Instrument

~ 61 ~

27. Using the Human Computer activity

28. Conveying meaning through action

29. Giving commands in the target language

30. The authentic use of language

31. Teaching vocabulary in situational context

32. The use of communication activities

33. The use of content for language teaching purposes

34. Authentic tasks for language teaching purposes

35. Teaching through real-life activities

36. Teaching how to learn a language

37. Working cooperatively in groups

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

............. ………...

~ 62 ~

Appendix 2 Consent Form

Documents

The Applicabilty of Teaching Methods in English Language Teaching