The field of second and foreign language teaching has now matured to the point where a shift in approach or methodology no longer automati cally entails the rejection of all that went before. The field still, however, manifests a marked tendency to propose and accept the implementation of new approaches without the necessary support of trialling and empirical evidence. A shift presently being mooted is related to consciousness raising. Although its advocates, Rutherford & Sharwood Smith (1988), have advised caution before the implementation of the principles thereof, Ellis (1991) has proposed that consciousness raising in the form of prob lem-solving should be used in the Japanese school system without offer ing any empirical support for the efficacy thereof. The study reported herein attempts to evaluate the efficacy of problem-solving as compared to an orthodox deductive approach. The results indicate that although both approaches enable the students to understand the grammatical rules, the time-consuming problem-solving procedure results in little time being available for practice and a consequent lack in oral proficiency. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Asher, J.J.1977. Learning another language through actions: the complete teacher's guidebook. Los Gatos, CA.: Sky Oaks Productions, Inc.
2.
Beretta, A.1986. A case for field-experimentation in program evaluation . Language Learning36:3. 295-309.
3.
.......... 1989Attention to form or meaning? Error treatment in the Bangalore Project. TESOL Quarterly23:2. 283-303.
4.
.......... 1991Theory construction in SLA: complementarity and opposition ." Studies in Second Language Acquisition13 PAGES
5.
Bourque, J.1989. The grammar gap. English Teaching Forum , 27:3. 20-23.
6.
Carlsson, I.1969. Implicit and explicit: an experiment in applied psycholinguistics, assessing different methods of teaching grammatical structures in English as a foreign language. GUME Report No. 2, GothenburgSchool of Education.
7.
Chastain, K.D. & Woerdehoff, F.J.A.1968. A methodological study comparing the audio-lingual habit theory and the cognitive code-learning theory - a continuation. Modem Language Journal52. 268-279.
8.
Curran, C.1976. Counselling-learning in second language. Apple River Ill.: AppleRiver Press.
9.
Davidson, J., Driscoll, M. & Hymas, C. (1992) The great betrayal. The Sunday Times No. 8736. p. 9.
10.
Doff, A., Jones, C. & Mitchell, K.1983. Meaning into words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Ellis, R.1990. The case for consciousness raising in grammar teaching . Paper presented at the Japanese Association of Language Teachers annual conference in Tokyo, Japan.
12.
.......... 1991. Communicative competence and the Japanese learner. JALT Journal13:2. 103-130.
13.
Ernst, G.W. & Newell, A.1969. GPS: A case study in problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
14.
Fotos, S. & Poel, C.J.1991. Investigating grammar consciousness raising tasks. Paper given at the Japanese Association of Language Teachers annual conference in Kobe, Japan.
15.
Garcia, P.A.1981. Comprehension training in a high school setting. The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction, ed. by H. Winitz, 181-197. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
16.
Hammerly, H.1974. The teaching of oral grammar. Second Language Training74:172-193.
17.
.......... 1989. French immersion (Does it work?) and Development of Bilingual Proficiency report. The Canadian Modem Language Review45:3.560-567.
18.
.......... 1991. Fluency and accuracy. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters.
19.
Hill, J. & Lewis, M.1982. Flexicourse. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
20.
Hutchins, E.L. & Levin, J.A.1981. Point of view in problem solving. (Report CHIP)La Jolla, CA: Center for Human Information Processing .
21.
Gattegno, C.1972. The teaching of foreign languages in schools. New York: Educational Solutions.
22.
Krashen, S.1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning . Oxford: Pergamon Press.
23.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D.1983. The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom . Oxford: Pergamon.
24.
Levin, L.1972. Comparative studies in foreign language teaching. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
25.
Linbald, T.1969. Implicit and explicit: an experiment in applied psycholinguistics, assessing different methods of teaching grammatical structures in English as a foreign language. GUME Report No. 1, GothenburgSchool of Education.
26.
Long, M.H.1980. Inside the "black box": Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. Language Learning30:1. 1-42.
27.
.......... 1988. Instructed interlanguage development. Issues in second language acquisition, ed. by L.M. Beebe, 115-141. New York: Newbury House.
28.
Lozanov, G.1978. Suggestology and outlines of suggestopoedy. New York: Gordon & Breach.
29.
Marton, W.1988. Methods in English language teaching: Frameworks and options . London: Prentice Hall International .
30.
Miyake, N.1986. Constructive interaction and the iterative process of understanding. Cognitive Science10.
31.
Mueller, T.H.1971. The effectiveness of two learning models: the audio lingual theory and the cognitive code-learning theory. The psychology of second language learning. Ed. by P. Pimsleur and T. Quinn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Nunan, D.1989. Designing tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Olsson, M.1969. Implicit and explicit: an experiment in applied psycholinguistics, assessing different methods of teaching grammatical structures in English as a foreign language. GUME Report No. 3, GothenburgSchool of Education, 1969.
34.
Ochsner, R.1979. A poetics of second language acquisition. Language Learning29: 53-80.
35.
Plowden, Lady.1991. Three men in the same boat. Times Educational Supplement No. 3937. p. 17.
36.
Prabhu, N.S.1987. Second language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
Richards, J.C.1984. The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly18:1. 7-23.
38.
Richards, J.C. & Rodgers, T.S.1986. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
39.
Rutherford, W. & Sharwood Smith, M. (Eds.) 1988. Grammar and second language teaching: a book ofreadings. New York: Harper & Row.
40.
Scherer, G.A.C. & Wertheimer, M.A.1964. A psycholinguistic experiment in language teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
41.
Scott, V.M.1989. An empirical study of explicit and implicit teaching strategies in French. Modem Language Journal73:1. 14-21.
42.
Shaffer, C.1989. A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. Modem Language Journal73:4. 395-402.
43.
Sharwood Smith, M.1991. Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of the different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research7:2.
44.
Sheen, R.1990. The applied Linguistics gap. English Teaching Forum28:3. 47-48.
45.
.......... 1990. The advantage of using mother tongue-related teaching materials. Nagoya University of Commerce and Business Administration Bulletin30:1. 401-422.
46.
.......... (forthcoming) A response to Ellis. Japanese Association of Language Teachers Journal.
47.
Smith. P.D. Jr. 1970. A comparison of the cognitive and audio-lingual approaches to foreign language instruction. The Pennsylvania foreign language project. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development.
48.
Stern. H.H.1983. Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
Stevick, E.W.1980. A way and ways. Cambridge, Mass: Newbury House.
50.
Widdowson, H.G.1989. Knowledge of language and ability to use. Applied Linguistics10:2. 128-137.
51.
Willing, K.1988. Learning styles in adult migrant education. Adelaide: National Curriculum Resource Centre.
52.
Wilkins, D.A.1974. Second language learning and teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
53.
Winitz, H. & Reeds, J.1975. Comprehension and problem solving as strategies for language training. Mouton: The Hague.
54.
Von Elek, T. & Oskarsson, M.1973. Teaching foreign language grammar to adults: a comparative study. Almquist & Wiksell:Stockholm.
55.
Xiem, N.V.1969. The role of explanation in the teaching of the grammar of a foreign language: an experimental study of two techniques. Unpublished thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
