|
271
WHEN AND HOW TO USE THE COMMUNICATIVE METHOD
(WORKING ON OUR OWN MISTAKES)
Raimjanov Ilkhom Ikramjanovich
Gulistan State University
Nowadays we can see that learning foreign language is essential part of our
life. Particularly learning English which known as global language. Uzbekistan
follows on the way of developing in every sphere and we need to learn foreign
languages for communicating with foreign specialists and scientists. This article
is about one of the teaching methods of English language as foreign language. A
student of any age, from any background, should be encouraged to use a foreign
language in a number of situations, make errors in grammaror pronunciation, and
learn from those mistakes to improve speech in the future. Perhaps the most
intrinsic way of promoting this trial and error type instruction is through
thecommunicative method. Although obvious, we sometimes have to remind
ourselves of themost basic reason for language, communication – the ability to
relay a thought, idea or request. However, for all the debate and enthusiasm
the communicative method has brought EFL instruction in the past few
decades, we should remain critical and question how to use this method
effectively.
As educators, we sometimes place too much emphasis on accuracy. We
often forget that mistakes aren‘t just red marks, sub-par errors that should
be condemned, but also signs that we have room to improve. No student
is perfect, and, often times, even the teacher is still learning. The
communicative method (CM) is unique in its treatment of mistakes. When using
the CM, teachers should pay attention not only to how they correcterrors in
student‘s speech, but also how much they emphasize accuracy. The CM should
encourage fluent speech and expressing meaning rather than accuracy.
Instructors shouldoften forgo correcting mistakes in favor of allowing a
student to continue speaking.According to Krashen‘s affective filter
hypothesis, when a student is corrected during speech, he or she will often
raise the affective filter, become anxious, or lose the ability tosuccessfully
express ideas. This is part of the reason Krashen believes individuals acquirethe
structure and grammar rules of a first language so quickly, as they are not
hindered bythe correction of others.
Rather than making corrections during speech, a teacher should give
suggestions discretely: either after the student has expressed his or her
thought, or by the instructor simply correctly repeating the sentence again after
the student has finished speaking. The instructor should act as a source of
support, ―not evaluating the student‘s contribution but commenting on it and
subtly helping the learner construct what he [or she] wants to say‖ The focus of
the CM is meaning, and students must be given opportunities to speak without
fear or hesitance that they might make an error in their usage.
Theseopportunities are given in order to increase fluency and raise
confidence, making the student more likely to speak in real-world situations.
Although the CM encourages speech, there are times when corrections, and
evennative language instruction, are necessary. When learning another language,
we naturallytend to take the rules and semantics from our first language and try to
272
fit these guidelinesinto the second language. In the instance of a negative transfer
of rules from one language to the other, it may be necessary for students to
receive explanation in their native language. Once aware of these common
mistakes, students will be more aware of such discrepancies, able to understand
these problems, and more apt to avoiding mistakes in the future. There is also the
dangerous situation that a mistake, if repeated often, will be learned and may
―seriously affect the communicative purposes. Thiskind of practice may lead
to fossilization of learner‘s errors‖. Common mistakes should be corrected
before students learn and internalize these errors.
Perhaps the main reason the CM has become so popular is the extent to
which it can mirror real-life situations, natural speech without scripts or pre-
planned phrases. Although set phrases might be appropriate for students in
the first few lessons learning a new language, they should strive for practice
that allows them to be creative with the language, morphing it to fit their
needs for expression in any situation. Students should remain flexible,
prepared to use a language in everyday settings. When students are
presented with speaking situations they cannot prepare for (situations present in
CM activities) there is a better chance they will develop an automated use of that
language. Herein lies the crux of the CM – preparing students to respond in
any situation when speaking with a native speaker, reading a variety of texts,
or writing a composition in another language. Just as in normal life, language is
spontaneous and speakers respond appropriately with each other. As Rivera
concludes, for ―oral communication to be authentic there need to bea
considerable degree of spontaneity and a true exchange of meaning to
which theinteracting parties are oriented and in which they are interested‖.
Authentic material must be spontaneous and meaningful, and these criteria
are crucial when introducing the CM into the classroom.
There are definitely some setbacks that accompany the communicative
method. First, it is easy for a native speaker to laud the advantages of the CM, as
he or she has the language skills to respond to any questions a student might
ask. In the case of an instructor teaching English as a non-native
language, the CM might be as beneficial a learning opportunity for the
teacher as it is to the student. Also, with new technologies such as Skype‘s
educational components and native speakers working in foreign countries,there
are an increasing amount of opportunities for EFL learners and teachers to
speak with native-speakers.
Secondly, many teachers dismiss the CM for its inability to deliver
affective grammar instruction to students. While some students might learn
grammar structure and syntax rules through conversation, there are some benefits
to the more tradition grammar-translation method of teaching. Chuan tested two
university groups over the course of a semester: one receiving the traditional
grammar-translation method of instruction, and the other being taught in the
CM method. At the conclusion of the semester, Chuandiscovered that,
―learners with the Grammar Translation Method… made more progress in
grammar learning than those who used the Communicative Approach‖ Although
the CM may better prepare students for authentic situations, the grammar-
translation method proved more affective in teaching grammar rules, the
blue print that holds thewords of a language together.
273
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
