Perceptions of that veleeteally bradges the g and teachin [Link] Theorwand ‘tsApplicatiomtothes LearningrofeEnglish Chinta Praveen Kumar” Soovtate Prafesor aE Fags BY is Pojese oF nis paper is Uke a Hew ok at an Stith tur etc phen nga ac Pach nde ions tating npn eet 2 apr H this is 10) discuss some research results first, talk bout existing fing th “aboot ising snetady next andthe thet aie ile for ‘Of His paper 4s, in fact, devoted to tate of rural area people learning cree it. H ssoutd ke to day some ‘and aspications, Mos. uF te tearners Mimar rules, sentence pattems, 6 by resonting 10 grammar leazeage shill as 1 pe seorthusions trom ruth of in fend ww practice vocabulirs, nd word phrase ists nds Te praporeatetcr is The proper mehod ores ea Claneytatn the ingle he Site te of wing. into py 1» that many English euckers whe wee ithout aware ot any objective of teaching. The His) iy a very important aspect ths i why: bi w) af learning aye thats be shen but «personal bounds avy te be Wanguage. It needs to ia cultural Sle oth especially in rine) richoraune there is 4 wide 4s Bot just La PThersectiometioa orleurning me wigeURET Ihe eelsetic wicthod — Theory and ks Application (0 the retin lie. The parts af use teaching 6 nor dng sin not be sefurated nts pronunciation, vest sas abubirs The eleeiicll theory point out that « lyweusye eeeu's through’ constant practice of see ts iosuage whote, This paper introduees popular method (0) leasing Enatsh:eclecically. However, if someone had asked fnettio the muse effective woy of Karning aed teaching sa it gould axe Been a difficult end f come to 0 ray tnvestigates important and fle realise approxe dines Terms mettiod F letting, Reetnigues ilish fanguage emeesrawouerioy T: ie of Syeabing skill hay Inherent difficulties, most eatlles lave sepanad thus methodology, in particular 0 be ‘hus eo adcctely lappa for any level of teaching, The asics! appioacl or -methad of tcaching aml bearning hing of English based or on lesening, theoreieal roots of be lish is pelated tw fewcving and te x inodely However, tl atshurn Culege 0 gineering anhahnd. Hyena learning can be more precisely tread to th expericive movements Hildoth (1965) desctibe! ducatoes experimenting wih the natural meta of teaching ae 2 prostss where reading and sritiny are used simulaneously 10 reiafince an supplement each otier This fs bow the process of listening and speaking are 19. use) simultangvusly whigh fs alsn included eolaporated with rh Thete is med for eonsiderabhe amount of effon requleed to rea an iniovative ypu for learning English, Nevertheless eclectic way of learning Engl speakiry primarily involves the four Shits Several thesries have Been embraced more catfusiatically By FFL teasers for several years one of hem is Gardener's thsory of wihiple intlligerces 1 ore af the major Acuries relevant to the present teaching methodology Sraesies aii! matin of Instruction are steed within the Furometes of sle angasse caring and selects method of earing ines that ody have the same fntures as areuierem ofural ond Language components: Wastan de the persinal and professional histories ofthe auth ia 1.1 The framework and ens Study: The ecloctic methad of learning w2s advocsted ithe begmning of 1970's and became feshionsbly poplar these days. Isser Preeman(2000) nad Mellow (2000) bork have ysed the {crm principle celecticim to describe a desirable, coherent isurastis approach wo language learning teaching Pelestieism altos the use ofa variety of angunge leaming activities, ex ‘of which may Have very different characteristics and objectives The different comporenss of longaaye (pronunciation, grammar and Vocabulary, et.) have no meaning wen they are fled from each other (Freeman, iage should not be separated into chunks he. pronuneiacion, grammar and vecaniiary Tig gelscte method is mostly usel method becaise every thor theiry fas sirength and limitations of Ms own. Learn this metkod benefits trom teaching The eclecle methed is « combination of ifiereat method ef ssaching and learn approaches, This mothod effectively works: fer any kind learners" iespegtive of age and standard, Leaming fin 3mm innovative due to the unique nature of tearing pricass Mung learners o English ean use English asa subjectto pas the objective examination, especialy. in rural areas because the, fare nol exposed to the Innguage in common wie communivavive purpose. tis no wonder that sueeesstl le ‘can uve English as a way of everyday communication and the can develop thsir ability of speaking regularly, te this reg Canale and Swain rightly said about the four dimensions communicative competence, ~ grammar competence, soe Tinguistic competence, discourse competence, and “strate www ierAnnée (1999) 2 ‘Structural apps . ige Teaming sural approaches te foreiga | 2 Surety Ka Foreign language leatning produce structurally compe municatively incompetent fe Dieu Ful seerawetycnns boring the ve e : past decade, considerable changes have taken place In the fietéof Language teaching, Out to 1e rapid developments witnessed, the need for farming freien onguagestas Leen increasingly higher sunlore, numior af teacing meihedologes have been propoxed By larguree schalars and iivane British and American structuralst sh the Oratand Audielinguabmetnads wh sesaians of fareige language teaching (FET) Becarre corn especially, aterworidvvartl. these Structural Approachesstressthe rmportance of atianghg the sre ra ters ore into a suitable sto reinforce the languagelters AUN dee Theteacher gives choral group and individual orale is Structures and patterns ofEnglish poucaters ich correspond wi ss suctorlly competent and hove develoBed them the ences. One might say that once the finguisticcompetence is iy fallow ata more of lessaueematic canseauenes nc hiss notte case-The aequistion of nguls¥¢ i acquisition of communicative compress ina ges for tho production and receptton shnson andMorrow nce the basis of teaching i Hhieseet 1 approaches have made thelear ne ability toproduce grammatically correct sent sane, the cemmianizat 1e competence WI eeetet, Widdowson's evidence (1978) suamests th ‘nea eee ied not seem to guaranteetive consequent ahentence ie ean overemphasis on drills and exerci (i581) angus nat teinh - the development of communicative competence a ‘students coming out of the traditional class#00M5 arelikely te become incompetent." ihout which the rules of csitturally competent bat communicatively aeners. argued thatihere are contmunic yall as fluent These Vea ules of use wit atively incompetent Ie jners know the ules inthis sense, [Link] (1973) had, also, lar would be [Link] structurally competent BUY y robe appropriste ass" 1e rules of ‘use’ of the languase explained the incapabiltyofstcuctoralsrto Students who have received several years of communication fan essential sy tack gram knuw the of grammar burt do not reallyknow the tie Structure (1957), has clearly uaee. ‘of language In normal of different acts o! todo, notbecause the) grammar but lack the abllit Chomsky in his Boos, Syntac junclamentaicharacteristicsof fang inthe use to perform a variety eally want 10 far how and when these jgmmunicate and tase wntoaccountthel ternal English teachingoften remain deficient vahetherin spoken or written form of sentences gocial nature. Students mostly fal to communicate what they 1 ideas, thoughts and feélings but because they have not beentaught communicative tasks and acts are performed. Consequently, they ae nat able te ct Tever theycommunicate enOuEn proof that their communicate ‘competence needs to afining, asi fgnored the approaches became Mare rs need to BE wi bedeveloped a'set of structures WS regarded as [Link] ve of new ed, the appearanc scholars and educate Since the view of language 35 con mmunicative purposes for which language § US ity as Witham Littlewood (aggn), asserts that anewa6e Jrto wach tearniershow 10 manipulate the structures of the sinactures to the't communicate than a necess ongly aware that ranguage. They must als situations and real itis nor enou} develop stratesies time. more st for relating these jonsin real tuneAnnée (1999) we learning produce structurally competent but "Struc a j ,Seewctural approaches to foreign lang municatively incompetent learners”. Diseusy full During the past decade, considerable changes have taken place in the fieldof Language teaching. Que to the rapid developments witnessed, the need for learning foreign languageshas been increasingly higher. Therefore, a number of teaching methodologies have been proposed by language scholars and equcators, ‘Oat and Audiohngual methods which correspand with the British and American structuralist pecially, afterWorldwarll. these ural items orpatterns into a suitable force the languageitems taught Beth the traditions of foreign language teaching (FLT) became dominant, es Structurst Approachesstressthe importance of arranging the struct rier. Theteacher gives choral, group and individual oral drills to rein ince the basis of teaching is Structures and patterns offnglish. eseFLF approaches have made thelearners structurally competent and have developed in them the atiity tonroduce grammatically correct sentences, One might say that once the linguisticcompetence fs aoquired, the communicative competence will follow as a more or fessautomatic consequence 1e acquisition of linguistic however, Widdowson's evidence (197 ests that thisis not the case, idence (1978) suggests that thisi 3 hi . jent acquisition of communicative competence in a rguage Or este the Contrary, overemphasis on drills and exercises for the production and reception pee ice tends to inhibit the development af communicative competence. Johnson andMorrow (1981) argue that the students coming out of the traditional classrooms arelikely to become siructurally competent but communicatively incompetent.” tn chis sense, [Link] (2971) had, also, argued thatthere are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless These structurally competent butcammunicatively incompetent learners know the grammar but lack the ability tobe appropriate as well as [Link] learners know the rules of grammar but do not reallyknow the rules of ‘use’ of the language. tic Structure (1957), has clearly explained the incapabilityofstructuralismto tho have received several years of nication fan essentially Chomsky in his book, Syntac jaccountthefundamentalcharacteristicsof [Link] w taae int inal English teachingoften remain deficient in the use of language in normal commu 1 written form of sentences to perform variety of different acts of fail to communicate what they really want todo, notbecause they lack s, thoughts and feelings but because they have not beentaught so far how and when these formed Consequently, they are not able to communicate ané ypetence needs to fe whetherin spoken o1 social [Link] mostly idea communicative tasks and acts are pe communicate is enough proof that their communicative com whatever they bedeveloped ignored the ecame more ed to be as regarded as too confining, as i e appearance of new approaches bi nguage scholars and educators ne nipulate the structures gf the to their communicatts Since the view of language as a’ set of structures Wi communicative purposes for which language is used, th than a necessity as William Littlewood (1981), asserts that la re that it is not enough to teach learnershow to mal Semen ee heme ongly aw pooreAlgiers 2-291] Se “To Irner-c¢; leache: The Dhra a nered” Ts not in control In the light of your r makes it sound as if the of the classroom, eadings, discuss fully the no learner centere - __ ‘ner center edness and its application in Algeria, \hen considerin acher ina student ne 1 approaches tu teaching, the debate over the role of the ‘ntered environment comes in the forefront Though the phrase “leame the elasstoom, Shader ih , tered” makes it sound as ifthe teacher is net in control of Sut in such kind of instruction. both the student and the teacher share the focus snd teachers interact equally. Group work is encouraved, and students fetrn 0 collaborate and communicate with one another. AS opposed Io leacher-centered approaches where instruction is direet, deductive and expository, leamer cuntered approziches (sometimes referred tous discovery learning, inductive teaming. or inquiry learning) place much a stronger emphasis on the learner's role in the learning process. The teacher is no longer a filter through which all information must pass hefore reaching the learner, roles that In the most traditional and classical modes af teaching, there are two ma teachers perform: + Knower: the téacher is the source of knowledge, + Activity organizer: the teacher sets up and steers learning activities in the right direction. motivates and encourages students, and provides authoritative feedback on Students! perform In aleamer-centered approach teachers huve more functions than is thought to be, These 1 be summarized as information-gatherers, decision-makers, motivators, counselors, nd Providers of opportunities for communicative and authentic group dynamite rerian content is concerned, a certain unreadiness for implementing leames certeredaess has been [Link] still consider the English teacher as the first and the mest responsible in their learning, This teasherdepeident eharicteristic ts due to pupils? lack bY motivation, their negative attitudes. Besides, the absence of autonomy oriented training, fur them and teachers to accept the change easily . We might say that the development of leaner autonomy is hardly a reality in ie Feachers without any training may experience difficulties in creating such action shure anmucive teachers are made aware of the importance an © flence. the earlier language teachers are made aware 0 tl n ao err ge e autonatiie vp the morg easily they will be In addition to that, other sity of learner autonomy in their initial teacher taining iy anplement this approach in their own future classrooms,Constantine 2015 The process of foreign language learning can be affected b a ed by several factors, Discuss. If we take a look a relen language lea 1s i vee ae kat foreign language leamers. it is quite obvious that not all of them t is sir ay. There are students who obtain very good results while others achie octyl cconerous attempts to elassily the factors that affect the process of foreign eee ss ign language learning have been presented. Among these is P. Martinez representation of the variables in foreign language learni According to him there are three independent [actors (teaching, Icamerand contex} ex nwo dependent ones (leaming and outcome) which are determined and conditioned i con ve s ones. Each of these factors need also to be subdivided further as they are affected tyoverdt factors or elements. The first element, teaching. makes references to the teaching conditions under which instruction is being conducted. Factors such as the type of methodology w ced, the sy Habus Selected, the teacher profile and the resources available play a relevant role. The second factor is centered on the learers themselves and on all the variables that may “These ean be cognitive, such as intelligence. cognitive style and aptitude for Hine physical and psy chologival factors such as ae and personality also affect directly affect them ve learning. jung learners. language learning takes f vary considerably thus ed to the contextual conditions where The third variable is relat guage use and practic place, [tis quite clear that the opportunities for lan aifecting the process of learning IH because it is influenced by the unconscious and conscious. The former fhe learnerbecause itis determined (0 6 high degree by the trategies, are monitored by the earner and ioe different types: cognitive, ht the most comples of thent @ The fourth point js no doul kinds of processes: Ir consists of two able directly by ¢ we (LE), The latter, Jearning st 5 used by learners. They 8 previous thre being uncontroll jgarners first langua include mechanisms that are and social. avained by proficiency level eral as errors and ext sents- metacognitive he results of Fearming process °F the anguage performances such ualture that the target language repre’ Finally. outcome. SHO’ everal aspects oll the learner as well as > people and the € o the language. the reaction tAdrar 2016 ) eli Do you believe that language learning/te fo ing should focus on function rather than During the past decade, c seach, "i he pars t decade, considerable changes lhive wiken place in the field of Language testing ue 10 the rapid developments avitnesseU. the need for leafuing foreign languages ha been “asiny! ivher. Theres proposed b increasingly higher. Therefore, a number of teaching methodologies have been proposed by scholars and educators, lang Diterene from the structuralis, tradition of language teaching which was established in the early twentieth century and which stresses the importance of teaching language structure, new approaches emerged. ‘The new view of language teaching emphasized the study oF language in 2, participants and their relationship. relation to its sett Krashen (1982) argued that the process of langue uequisitian is achieved by focusing on ming rather than form and that formal instruction in grammatical paterns and rules fn no process. For hin, the traditional F1-T approaches have made leamers nativally correct m partto play inthe seturully competent and have developed in them the ability te produce gram Widdowson's ev idence (1978) suggested that the acquisition of Tnatui-tie competence does tot seem to guarantee the consequent aequisition of communistive competence ina language. That's why Johnson aid Morrow (1981) argue that the students fassieal traditional classrooms are likely to become "structurally competent nyrences. In this sen: coining out ofthe ) incompetent.” but communicativel teaching methodsfucus on teaching meaning rather than greeting ...cle, language lyorutes of new communicative F1l some communicative functions like requesting ‘on and practice to rephice grammatical ar seas to ful jn these methods uses functional units organizati teaching ver this view was eriticized., The writings of Rutherford (1987) and other have emphasized uwareness of grammatical form, For Al-Humaidi mportance of rising the learner's conscious i ading and the in (2013) the stress on function rather than me writing skills. That's why, Hughes (1983) says that stich a communicative approach proce tion of fluent but inaccurate learne s since the focus Is put on Mueney rather than asses} 1 generates an ignorance towards Fe h Veads to the in grammar, need to moke language classrooms & [believe that we er emphasis on ase both under-and © fom all these contradicting views ningful eommunication be place where genuine and mear urammnatical structures Lead to language learning problems.UNIVERSITY OF ALGIERS ENGLISH DEPARTMENT MAGISTER IN ENGLISH PUD 2008 w - I inseparable ingredients in the 1? Give reasans. and practising ar Do you agree with this statemet | Van 1 ier stated that theorising, researchin, professional conduet ofa language educator, al model report and pedago heory /practice dichotomy has an Licr’s combination of theoretical discussion, empirical research fory research and practice 3s age leachers and educators rejects the ubiquitous U ades, He regards thes Ly intended primarily for been mile stone around the neck of language teachers for dec inseparable inucedient in the professional coxiduct of a language educator “The research done ia classrooms should alvays serve to celine and improve teaching practices. It must accounts of language learning, provide usefull description crates hypatheses and research questions that fuel further also contribute meaningfully to-debates on theore about wha! happens in the classroom and ths, gen studies Laucators should carry out both qualitative and quantitative studies, Through comparing and contrasting ad language assessments, studies of such a kind will questionnaires classroom observations, interview, certain{y help in trackiny progress, analyzing Ueficiencies, and providing solutions.Ouargla 2013 “Applied Li is is i heey i nguist is a field in which collaboration cuts a ss d isciplines and where theories and methods are involved in the search for an understanding of problems relating to language and language discourse.” Discuss. ned from being restricted to the Over time. the term Applied linguistics has broade tion and to the teaching and leaming of application of linguistic research to mother tongue edu and second languages to the much brouder interpretation given by Gunnarsson (1995) in Jd in which collaharation cuts across disciplines and where tanding of problems relating to for which he sees that AL theories and methods are involved in the search for an unders\ rig fc trends at that time (structuratism and ragmatics, discourse analysis, semiotics, s and many other new disciplines, AL ler units of words and sentences has yielded Early AL studies and works reflect the Linguist sm), as linguistics has expanded to include pi ics. psycholinguistics, conversation ana ndergone some changes. The study of si 1s ail discourse. function soviolingui has also sind to studies of larger units of te and psycholinguisties, for instance, have brought a multidiseiplingry “and discourse. This collaboration across disciplines has f problems related to gender and language, medical Disciplines like socio approach to the study of fa evolved being able to solve new types 0 and education in munilingual settings...ete. discourse. lan tween general and for Linguistic research has blurted the borderline bi ‘istic theory and This new situation f pplied linguistics where the methods latter plays a role in the development of ‘¢ and an expansive character. The research has acquired a dynam ; sith the application of linguistic theories es ag un area dealing inly no longer valid Applied linguis narrower view of applied linguisti teaching is most certal to laoO . um El Bouaghi One ofa 1 stics main objectives is » soly ppl ed Ingut ‘sma J Sis t t bject s solve - langua i - guage teaching problems. Discuss. In contrast with general linguisti contra: twit general linguistics or theoretical linguistic: world problems in which lang r ian guage teachin s. applied linguistics tackles real- age is a central issue. One of its main Objectives is to solve roblems, From difficulties learning @ new language to assessing the validity and reliability of language. applied linguistics covers an interdisciplinary domain af probléms, According to "The Oxtord Handbook of Applied Linguistics” by Robert B. Kaplan, “The key point is to recognize that it is the language-based problems in the world that drive applied linguistics.” - One such caumple comes in the form of language teaching problems wherein scholars try tu determine which resources, training, practice, and interaction techniques best solve the Uilficulties of teaching a person a new lar Using their research in the fields: of teaching and English grammar. linguistic experts attempt to create a temporary-to-permanent solution to this issue. [A teacher of English as foreignlangwage might wonder why groups of learners sharing the same First language revularly make a particular grammatical problem that learners from other pao ave backyrounds do not, A recourse to applied Linguisties might be helpful so as to resolve tis problem. -yen small variations Tike dialects and registers off modem ‘vemaculars present problems shat can only be solved through applied linguistics. fiecting translation and interpretations a8 ave usage and style. well as [an . come a key concept. This uistics, today the term “language problem has become a key concept. This al answer to a language problem. In applied fir : discipline is primarily devoted to seeking “a pracTlemcen 2015 ing is largely dueto the fact that Harmey i T believes {h Sthat failure in EF EFL teachi TY Western idea of what Many approae fi ) vache: PProaches and methods are based on 1 aver Constitutes good learning me The fiel forei: 5 mn: ly by Western d of foreign ta . Me language teachi views. While somone ne! gc teaching has been dominated mostly by West a pt OF these views can indeed be implemented, many others ae iy £r problems when implemented on non-westem societies due to their with local constraints, stumble incompatibility These western-ba area s : Western-based approaches and methods where sometimes the students are aske Fiche ‘ i are asked to talk about themselves and their lives in a potentially revealing way, or : he Te the students are asked to take charge of the class and the teacher is just a helper and guide rather than the only source of knowledge an authority, seem to tall flat or fly in the face of an educational tradition of a different culture. On a more concrete level, for instance, the implementation of community Janguage learning (CLL) in our country seems to bring tremendous amount of some countries the luxury of one teacher to one student is possible, in many other communities, it would be a dream to have a class in public schools of less than 30 practical problems. The ratio between students and the teacher is unrealistic. If in students. Another example deals with one big practical problem that arises with the implementation of total physical response(TPR) in an astern society where class setups in public schools cannot be modified very easily to accommodate just for suave classes. Schools teach many other subjects, not just Janguage, Demanding class to be set up differently would create envies among other teachers. a violation of accepted cultural norm not to age In some other cultures, it would be s the authoritative figure. Thus, integrating a learner-centered oth teachers and students see the teacher pproach to language teaching would be impossible still believe in the traditional relation between them, Toledo (1998) lamented the fact that some teachers who try dramaand role- at on their faces in secondary ated to theatre and are nol playing and other communicative techniques fall fh are not used to all what is rel classes because students ted and merely wish for good grades. interesAnnée 1998: h) Lingivisties provi ) Linguistics provides us with large part of the theoretical basis of | good feacher one has to have a thoraugh taimaae ainin ne that to by then ass It has beer ; {ee shee nargued that every teacher should go through a training in lingu best Sa ee rciiinoniersoauppen s ule ratguefunitemittea eee nt assroom a She morte teen ; ream and beyond. So, to what extent knowledge about langue an rs needs both in wercks. 1 5 OF its structures, systems, anc na The * Sebi is syst il users deemed tobe imporant Mf ieielie sein 11 the fact that linguistics not so important as it thought t hats pense 0 be for teachers? 2 As Halliday (1981) writes, “ y arias i hte ‘A child doesn't need to knowany linguistics to use lan; en now some linguist n eer \e linguistics if fe veanistaundettapd how tha proces tk vaaan 5 place—or what teache js goingwrong when it doesn't.” Accord i a ing to him, teachers armed with lit 5 th linguistics knowled ge canheip alitheir students learn language, Ona more concrete level, undet fing more abi nature of lan vel, understanding more about the e core of onan ie ture of language, which is th guistics, enables teachers to understand the relationship between cral language and ‘se ritten ntation. This might be useful to the understanding of why some students have an easier time . Linguistics doesn’t necessarily provide direct answers to pres@ mastering the written language than others. but it does provide an additional way of thinking about them. f basic language structures and processes, the easier itis for that grammar. Themore teachers such questions, The greater a teacher's understanding o| acher ty make good decisions on toug effective h topics like phonics, spelling, and inlerstand language, the more ly they can help their students develop their knowledge of anguage and Lamendella (1969) expressed their disagreement to the me linguists like Johnson (1967 a good teacher one has to have a thorough training in linguistics. For ‘ak to transformational grammar or a0Y ‘other theory of linguistic basis for second language pedagogy What is neededin the field ¢ sts but rather applied psychologists. Yet, so assumption that lo be (1969) itisa mistake to lo Lamendella 1 nto provide the theoretical descriptio are not applied lingui Janguage teaching theory and language teaching ha eachers, one hip between linguistic Hicit knowles tsabout the importan tics to the field of te2e .ce of linguistics to tl essment of the relations Shing in using EXP! of two distinet viewpoin at contributions of linguist al classroom work. Even though the reass| shown the emergence ss to recognize the ere ha anguage for practic about I