4. Proceso estratégico: conducción estratégica
4.4. Control estratégico
The preceding section has described the principles of English language curriculum and the following section will suggest that a suitable ELT methodology is required for an effective implementation of curriculum goals. In addition, to reiterate the previous statement, students experience language learning problems because methodology needs adaptation in accordance with the specific classroom situations.
Mackey (1965, p.151) comments that although there has been a preference for par- ticular methods at different times, methods often continue in some form long after they have fallen out of favour; this observation is still true with grammar translation method that is still alive in Pakistan and many other parts of the world. Nunan (2006) offers the following principles as a basis for ELT methodology in higher education:
83 a needs-based approach to content selection
an emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target lan- guage.
the introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
the provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning process itself.
an enhancement of the learner's own personal experiences as important con- tributing elements to classroom learning.
the linking of classroom language learning with language use outside the classroom.
Warsi (1994) views that ELT methodology in Pakistan is not based on a needs based approach in the classroom as it does not utilise authentic materials to develop stu- dents’ reflective and communicative skills. It is noted that teachers in Pakistani uni- versities deliver lectures using bilingual instructional methods. Communication be- tween teachers and students occurs in Urdu or in their regional language, Sindhi, Pun- jabi, etc. In bilingual education, the students learn through two languages in the class- room (Cummins, 2006). Hornberger (2003, cited in Canagarajah, 2005) argues that bilingual education through the bilingual textbooks, expressive writing from students in mixed codes, and oral code switching between teachers and students in the class- room, can develop important communicative and thinking skills. Ferguson (2009, p. 231) also explains the utility of code switching (CS) as a communicative and peda- gogic resource in bilingual contexts, especially where ‘pupils struggle to understand difficult subject matter whilst simultaneously learning a foreign language, one that is nominally the official medium of instruction’. It is postulated that CS in a classroom where English medium of instruction is used can be helpful for construction and transmission of knowledge, classroom management and development of interpersonal relations to humanise the classroom climate (Ferguson, 2003). Although, for utilising CS in bilingual instructional medium, it is essential to consider the methodological question of whether language instruction in language subject lessons best proceeds monolingually or interlingually (Macaro, 2001).
84
4.3.1 Teaching methodology in Pakistan
Nunan (2006) believes that the dominant approach to language teaching in Asia has been, and remains, a synthetic one which is unnatural as it does not take into account the fact that L2 should be taught naturally like L1 acquisition. Teachers, who have learned their own languages through a synthetic approach, see this as the normal and logical way of learning language. It is observed that ‘teachers tend to revert to meth- ods they know to be effective in rendering the situation manageable’ (Doyle, 1977, cited in Baumfield and Oberski, 1998, p.48). They teach, as Siddiqui (2007, p.164) reflects:
‘The way they were taught by their own teachers and...the teacher in Paki-
stan is not convinced about the strategies or methods s/he is exposed to but uses them because the experts say so’.
In a typical Pakistani English classroom, we see that:
‘The translation method (GTM) is used to teach English language. It is in- effective in that communicative and creative skills are ignored and a great deal of stress is laid on rules and exceptions of English language. The practice of GTM in classroom has the stultifying effect on learners as it is not honed towards the linguistic needs of learners’ (Warsi, 2004, p.4).
Regarding academic writing, for example, it is observed that ‘English is taught as a second language and writing is a compulsory skill, during the whole period of educa- tion, students face great difficulty to express themselves’ (Khan, 2011, p.101). The teachers in Pakistan do not think that critical thinking and synthesis are important as- pects of academic writing. Similarly, critical reading is not encouraged in a Pakistani English classroom. It is argued, critical reading should be incorporated fully in the language curriculum as a vital component of a second language learning (Green, 2005).
The Pakistani teachers confront tensions generated by the competing demands of learners’ requirements, contextual constraints, syllabus specifications and their own theories of best practice (Banegas, 2011; Wettle, 2011)
.
The foregoing discussion suggests that what is required in a Pakistani context is a communicative, action-based, learner-centred view of language learning, based as far as practical, on needs analysis, learner autonomy and self-assessment (Heyworth, 2006). Bourke’s (2006) view is that85
the underlying rationale of a second language methodology should reflect the world of the pupil and facilitate the bringing of acquisition into the classroom. Quite realisti- cally, Howatt (2004, p.313) refutes ELT theories:
‘... there is a world of difference between a language teaching method which derives ultimately from a theory of language learning and a na- tional education policy which reflects a particular array of cultural and socio-political priorities’.
This quote fits appropriately into Pakistani educational context. In Pakistan, many above mentioned constraints (see 4.1) such as inadequate resources, overcrowded classes and unenthusiastic teachers restrict the adoption of teaching methodology de- rived from language learning theories. Moreover, language policy is hinged on by re- ligious, cultural, social and political circumstances (see Chapter 2). Thus, as the back- drop of these challenges, the national education policy decides curriculum, methodol- ogy and assessment.