FP006 – METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

ASSIGNMENT
General information

This assignment has to be done in groups of 3 or 4 students and has to fulfil the
following conditions:

 Length: between 5 and 6 pages (without including cover, index or appendices –if
there are any-).
 Font type: Arial or Times New Roman.
 Font size: 11.
 Spacing: 1.5.
 Alignment: Justified.

The assignment has to be done in this Word document and has to fulfil the rules of
presentation and edition, as for quotes and bibliographical references which are detailed
in the Study Guide.

Also, it has to be submitted following the procedure specified in the “Subject Evaluation”
document. Sending it to the tutor’s e-mail is not permitted.

In addition to this, it is very important to read the assessment criteria, which can be
found in the “Subject Evaluation” document.

1
ASSIGNMENT:

Look at the classroom activity suggested in the Assignment materials section (at the
same place where you can find this paper), and answer the following questions:

1. There are various statements in this text which are extremely questionable, depending
on your own personal view of language learning. For example, the text says, “...the
chart...can serve as a basis for lively questions and discussions....” Why might this be
‘questionable’?

2. Criticise the approach suggested here from the point of view of a “strong”
communicative teacher.

3. Say what is good about the approach, from the point of view of a teacher more
focused on form and a step-by-step, linear approach.

Important: you have to write your personal details and the subject name on the
cover (see the next page). The assignment that does not fulfil these conditions will
not be corrected.

2
Name and surnames: Alejandra María Arita Pérez; Ana Virginia Amador; César
Augusto de Oliveira da Fonseca; Deustar Augusto Carvalho Alves.
Group: Methodological Approaches
Date: March 23erd, 2023

1. There are various statements in this text which are extremely questionable,
depending on your own personal view of language learning. For example,
the text says, “...the chart...can serve as a basis for lively questions and
discussions....” Why might this be ‘questionable’?

Currently, English is the most popular language spoken around the world, so it can be
considered universal. As teachers, we have the challenge of ensuring that our students
are capable of communicating in this target language (English), and therefore, speaking
skills hold great importance in this process. While the use of charts and tables may be
useful, the students are unable to freely discuss or speak on assigned topics as they only
ask questions about the information provided on the chart.
As teachers, we believe that communication is an important objective in language
learning. However, can we truly achieve communication when we only focus on grammar?
According to Widdowson (1990)& Stern (1983), their communicative approach focuses on
using language to express and create meaning, where students participate in and
experiment with communication. While the linguistic or structural aspects of language are
accepted as an integral part of it, they should not be the sole focus.
Richards & Rodgers (1986) mentioned some of the theoretical underpinnings of CLT:
 Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
 The primary function of language is for interaction and communication.
 The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative uses.
 The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and structural
features but categories of functional and communicative meaning as exemplified in
discourse (p.64).
Regarding the task using charts and tables, students are required to recall specific
information from their classmates, with the objective of practicing the simple present tense
and the correct use of 's' or 'es' in the third person verb. While this may be functional for
students at the basic level, it may not be efficient for advanced level learners who require
more complex questions and expressions. However, the information provided on the
charts and tables is insufficient to increase the level of conversation, and this will
ultimately depend on the students' internal motivation to move on to higher levels of
communication. As Prabhu believed, "language, including both communicative and

3
linguistic competence, is acquired through engagement with meaning, not through
focusing learners on structure" (p.76).
Systems containing tables of information or charts with prompts can be criticized for their
inability to provide discussions and lively questions that prepare learners for real-life
situations. This approach involves the teacher presenting a chart to students that contains
simple prompts, often requiring only one-word or short answers. While this approach may
be useful for beginners, it fails to adequately challenge intermediate or advanced learners,
who require more complex and engaging activities to develop their language skills.
One of the primary criticisms of the structuralist method is that it does not encourage
students to engage in meaningful conversations. According to Thornbury (2005), "The
structuralist approach tends to be centered around the form of the language rather than its
use in context" (p. 37). This means that students are not encouraged to think critically
about the language they are learning, nor are they given the opportunity to use it in a real-
life context. Instead, they are simply asked to provide short, formulaic responses that do
not require any real thought or creativity.
Furthermore, this method does not prepare students for real-life situations in which they
will need to use English. In the real world, people do not communicate solely through
short, one-word answers. Rather, they engage in conversations that require them to use a
range of language skills, including listening, speaking, and critical thinking. By focusing
solely on the present simple and providing prompts that require only one-word or short
answers, the structuralist method fails to adequately prepare learners for these real-life
situations.
Another criticism of this resource is that it can be boring and unengaging for students.
According to Harmer (2007), "A typical structuralist lesson often involves the teacher
presenting a chart, drilling some exercises, and then moving on to the next chart" (p. 86).
This approach can quickly become repetitive and dull for students, who may become
disengaged and lose interest in learning English altogether. As a result, teachers should
look for more engaging and interactive approaches to language teaching that allow
students to use their critical thinking and creative skills.
In conclusion, while charts may be useful for beginners, they are not an effective
approach for teaching intermediate or advanced learners. This approach does not
encourage students to engage in meaningful conversations or prepare them for real-life
situations in which they will need to make use of their creativity to express themselves in
English. Moreover, it can be boring and unengaging for students, leading to a lack of
interest in learning. Instead, teachers should look for more engaging and interactive
approaches to language teaching that allow students to use their critical thinking and
creative skills to develop their language proficiency.

4
References:

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. Pearson Education.

Prabhu, N.S. (1983). Procedural Syllabuses. Paper presented at the RELC Seminar,
Singapore.
Richards, J.& Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Stern, H. H (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford University
Press. Oxford.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Pearson Education.
Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University.

2. Criticise the approach suggested here from the point of view of a “strong”
communicative teacher.

The structural view in English Language Teaching (ELT) can be easily criticized as it
prioritizes form over function and does not adequately prepare learners for real-life
communication situations. As a "strong" communicative teacher, we believe that language
should be taught in context and that communication skills should be emphasized over
grammatical accuracy.
One criticism of the structural view is that it does not take into account the communicative
needs of learners. As Nunan (1991) notes, "the structural approach has been criticized for
its overemphasis on grammar and structure at the expense of communicative
competence" (p. 14). In other words, learners may become proficient in the rules of the
language but lack the ability to use language effectively in real-life situations.
It could be argued that while the structural view of language has its merits, it is not the
only way to approach language teaching and learning. The structural view is based on the
idea that language consists of a set of rules that govern its structure and use. This
approach focuses on teaching grammar, syntax, and vocabulary in a structured and
systematic way. Albeit, grammar and syntax are important components of language
learning, a "strong" communicative teacher must recognize that language is ultimately a
means of communication.
This leads us to recognize that language learners need to be able to use language in real-
life situations, rather than just memorizing rules and structures, and that is the reason why
Communicative language teaching (CLT) can be considered as an alternative to
Structuralism. It is an approach that prioritizes the development of communicative
competence, which includes the ability to use language effectively in various contexts.
This alternative approach has considered the learner as a participant in interactive
communication who has different needs which must be contemplated by the teacher
whereas the Structural view refers to the learner as an individual capable of producing
correct responses by absorbing information supplied by the teacher. Because of this, it

5
can be stated that the teacher’s role can be considered central from a structural point of
view, while the learner adopts a more passive role. As a communicative teacher, it is
essential to recognize the importance of a student-centered class.
The role of the learner as a negotiator emerges from and interacts with the role of joint
negotiator within the group and the class procedure and activities which the group
undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he
gains, and learns in an independent way”. (Breen& Candlin, 1980:110)

3. Say what is good about the approach, from the point of view of a teacher
more focused on form and a step-by-step, linear approach.

The structural view in English Language Teaching (ELT) emphasizes the importance of
teaching language as a system of rules and structures that can be learned through a step-
by-step, linear approach. This approach is beneficial for teachers who are more focused
on form, as it provides a clear framework for teaching and learning grammar and
vocabulary.
One of the main advantages of the structural view is that it provides a systematic and
organized approach to language teaching, which helps learners understand the underlying
rules and structures of the language. As Ellis (2003) notes, "learning a language involves
mastering the rules that govern its use" (p. 1), and the structural view provides a clear and
logical way of presenting these rules to learners.
Furthermore, the step-by-step approach of the structural view allows teachers to break
down complex grammar structures into smaller, more manageable parts. This makes it
easier for learners to understand and apply these structures in their own writing and
speaking. As Larsen-Freeman (2014) explains, "the structural view emphasizes the need
for a clear presentation of the language points to be learned, with careful attention to the
order in which they are presented and the complexity of the structures involved" (p. 57).
Another advantage of the structural view is that it allows teachers to focus on accuracy in
language use. By teaching grammar and vocabulary in a systematic and organized way,
teachers can help learners develop a strong foundation in the language and avoid
common errors. This is particularly important for learners who need to use English for
academic or professional purposes.
In addition to this, as the Structuralist view states that language is a combination of
different linguistic systems with their own sub-systems, the phonemic and morphologic
formation of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences can be effortlessly interpreted and
utilized by learners. For instance, students can notice all the different variations in
language that can be produced by using affixation.

6
In conclusion, the structural view provides a clear and organized approach to language
teaching, which is beneficial for teachers who are more focused on form and a step-by-
step, linear approach. By emphasizing the underlying rules and structures of the
language, this approach can help learners develop a strong foundation in English and
improve their accuracy in language use.

Sources:
Breen, M. & Candlin, C.N. (1980). The Essentials of a Communicative Curriculum in
Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2), 89-112.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford
University Press.
Nunan, D. Language Teaching Methodology - A textbook for teachers.