Communicative Approach to Language Teaching
PART ONE
JOURNAL
Source: Puspalata C Suppiah, Sathiyaperba Subramaniam, & Angelina Subrayan @ Michael. (2011). From trash to treasure: grammar practice for the Malaysian ESL learners. Canadian Social Science, 5, 167-175.
[pic]
SECTION A
INTRODUCTION
The changes of method and methodological approach to teaching language in the West have also influenced the language teaching approach in Malaysia. In Malaysia, The English Language Program for the primary school is aimed at equipping students with basic language skills to enable them to use the language and communicate effectively in any situation. This aim is clearly stipulated in the English Language Syllabus. In an effort to “ to equip pupils with basic skills and knowledge of the English language so as to enable them to communicate, both orally and in writing, in and out of school” (Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran KBSR, Bahasa Inggeris Tahun 2, 1998), English language teaching is based on the Communicative Approach. As communication can be achieved by means of grammatical sentences or series of sentences logically related, then the importance of grammatical competency in communication cannot be undermined. Hence, English language teachers are entrusted with a task of helping learners to acquire grammatical competency apart from communicative competency and proficiency if the aim of English Language Program is to be achieved. The implication is, English language teachers have the responsibility to develop in learners the knowledge and skills of grammar. Within the Communicative Approach to language teaching, these teachers need to adopt ‘appropriate’ and ‘effective’ methods and strategies to teach grammar in English language classrooms. But what is considered ‘appropriate’ and ‘effective’ remains elusive as teachers are not given well-defined guidelines in the English Curriculum Specifications on how to approach grammar teaching, whether it should be done
JOURNAL
Source: Puspalata C Suppiah, Sathiyaperba Subramaniam, & Angelina Subrayan @ Michael. (2011). From trash to treasure: grammar practice for the Malaysian ESL learners. Canadian Social Science, 5, 167-175.
[pic]
SECTION A
INTRODUCTION
The changes of method and methodological approach to teaching language in the West have also influenced the language teaching approach in Malaysia. In Malaysia, The English Language Program for the primary school is aimed at equipping students with basic language skills to enable them to use the language and communicate effectively in any situation. This aim is clearly stipulated in the English Language Syllabus. In an effort to “ to equip pupils with basic skills and knowledge of the English language so as to enable them to communicate, both orally and in writing, in and out of school” (Huraian Sukatan Pelajaran KBSR, Bahasa Inggeris Tahun 2, 1998), English language teaching is based on the Communicative Approach. As communication can be achieved by means of grammatical sentences or series of sentences logically related, then the importance of grammatical competency in communication cannot be undermined. Hence, English language teachers are entrusted with a task of helping learners to acquire grammatical competency apart from communicative competency and proficiency if the aim of English Language Program is to be achieved. The implication is, English language teachers have the responsibility to develop in learners the knowledge and skills of grammar. Within the Communicative Approach to language teaching, these teachers need to adopt ‘appropriate’ and ‘effective’ methods and strategies to teach grammar in English language classrooms. But what is considered ‘appropriate’ and ‘effective’ remains elusive as teachers are not given well-defined guidelines in the English Curriculum Specifications on how to approach grammar teaching, whether it should be done
References: Asmah Haji Omar. (1992), “The Linguistic Scenery in Malaysia”, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka. Kuala Lumpur. Felder, R. M, & Henriques, E. R. (1995), “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second Language education”. Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 21-31. Griggs, S. A., & Dunn, R. S. (1984), “Selected Case Studies of the Learning Style Preferences of Gifted Students”, Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 115-119. Hadley, O. A. (1992). “Teaching Language in Context”, Heinle & Heinle. Boston. Honigsfeld, A., & Dunn, R. (2006), “Learning-Style Characteristics of Adult Learners”, The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, Vol. 72, Issue 2, pp. 14–31. Krashen, S. D. (1981). “Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning”, Pergamon. Oxford. Malaysian Examination Council. (2006). “Malaysian University English Test (MUET)”, Kuala Lumpur. Oxford, R., Ehrman, M., & Lavine, R. (1991), “Style Wars: Teacher-student Style Conflicts in the Language Classroom”. In S. Magnan (Ed.), “Challenges in the 1990’s for College Foreign Language Programs”, Heinle & Heinle. Boston. Oxford, R. L., Hollaway, M. E., & Horton-Murillo, D. (1992), “Language Learning Styles: Research and Practical Considerations for Teaching in the Multicultural Tertiary ESL/EFL Classroom”, System, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 439-456. Peacock, M. (2001), “Match or Mismatch? Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in EFL”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 1, Issue 2, pp. 1-20. Puspalata C Suppiah, Sathiyaperba Subramaniam, Angelina Subrayan @ Micheal (2011). “From Trash to Treasure: Grammar Practice for the Malaysian ESL Learners”. Canadian social Science, 7(5), 165-175. Smith, L. H., & Renzulli, J. S. (1984), “Learning Style Preferences: A Practical Approach for Classroom Teachers”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 23, pp. 44-50. Wallace, B., & Oxford, R. L. (1992), “Disparity in Learning Styles and Teaching Styles in the ESL Classroom: Does This Mean War?” TESOL Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 45-68. Zou, L. (2006), “Teaching in the Light of Learning Styles”, Sino-US English Teaching, Vol. 3, Issue 7, pp. 52-57.