La importancia de la documentación de arquitectura con características modernas.

With the emergence of English as an international language, English education continues to be a common source of debate amongst language researchers and educators all over the world. Richards (2001, p. 3) chronologizes the most popular methods of English language teaching: Grammar- Translation Method (1800-1900), Direct Method (1890-1930), Reading Method (1920-1950), Structural Method (1930-1960), Audiolingual Method (1950-1970), Situational Method (1950-1970)

and Communicative Approach (1970-present). It is widely held that there is no one single method

strongly recommended in the teaching of English, given the differences in learners’ English levels, their needs, the teaching facilities available and the characteristics of each methodology (Appendix 3). Therefore, it becomes inevitable for a teacher to know the different methods of teaching to select the most relevant. The following sections will review the existing literature about the methods of English language teaching popular in the Vietnamese context.

(1) Grammar-Translation Method (GTM)

Attempts to trace the origins of GTM have found that this method is rooted in the formal teaching of Latin and Greek which prevailed in Europe for many centuries. This method emphasizes the learning of explicit grammar rules and vocabulary items. Learners then use the linguistic knowledge of grammar and vocabulary to translate sentences from the first language to the second language and

vice versa. Reading and writing are seen as more important than speaking and listening. GTM also focuses on accuracy which helps students pass required written examinations (Richards & Rodgers, 1990, p. 3). GTM is deemed ineffective in developing learners’ communicative ability. Students taught with the GTM have been criticized as having limited oral expressive ability and relying too much on translating everything into their mother language.

(2) Direct Method (DM)

This method was developed in the 1900s as a reaction to the grammar-translation approach in an attempt to integrate more use of the target language in instruction. The DM considers that language learning can only be achieved through demonstration. Instead of studying grammatical rules, learners should be encouraged to use the target language naturally and spontaneously and then induce grammar. This method emphasizes the direct associations the learner makes between objects and concepts and the corresponding words in the target language. Any use of the mother tongue and translation, as in the GTM, is avoided and the use of the target language is emphasized at all times. The teacher and textbook, therefore, use exclusively the foreign language, whether spoken or written. After a short popularity at the beginning of the twentieth century, the DM began to lose its appeal because it was considered a difficult method to use in public schools, given the constraints of budget, classroom size, time and teacher background (Brown, 1994, p. 56).

(3) Audio-Lingual Method (ALM)

This method of language instruction, also known as the aural-oral method, was first developed in the 1960s based on behaviourist principles of learning or behaviourism, “a theory and method of psychological investigation based on the objective study of behavior” (Onions, 1973, p. 176). Audiolingualism focuses primarily on speaking and listening and views language learning as a process of repetition, imitation and habit formation. It involves learners in mechanical drills to repeat numerous sentences and language patterns.

Audiolingualism was derived from research on learning associated with behaviorist psychology [….] Translated into a teaching method, this led to the Audiolingual Method, in which language learning was seen as a process of habit formation and in which target language patterns were presented for memorization and learning through dialogue and drills. (Richards, 2002, p. 20) Typical techniques closely associated with the ALM are dialogue memorization, repetition drill, transformation drill, use of minimal pairs and dialogue completion. Despite its aim to improve learners’ communicative competence, the use of extensive mimicry, memorization and “over- learning” of language patterns may lead to boredom and result in students’ repetition of the drills without understanding them.

(4) Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

Arguing against Chomsky’s (1965) concept of “linguistic competence”, Hymes (1972) coined the term “communicative competence” which implied that speakers of a language needed more than grammatical or syntactical knowledge in order to communicate effectively. They need to know what to say as well as when to say it and how to say it. From the moment of its introduction half a century ago, the definition of communicative competence has been constantly modified, adapted and expanded by various theorists and researchers such as Canale and Swain (1980) and Bachman and Palmer (1996).

Despite various opinions about what constitutes communicative competence, there is almost unanimous agreement among researchers that communicative competence involves the learner’s linguistic resources and the ability to use them appropriately for communicative purposes in different social contexts, bringing a focus on both a learner’s linguistic knowledge and his or her sociolinguistic ability. In short, CLT was promoted in response to the dissatisfaction with traditional grammar instruction, which often resulted in learners with considerable grammatical knowledge but with limited ability to use a foreign language in authentic communication. In the language class, communication is emphasized over grammar and translation because students have to “use the language, productively and receptively in unrehearsed contexts” (Brown, 1994, p. 245).

(5) Intercultural Communicative Language Teaching (ICLT)

The globalization of English has particularly called for the reconsideration of a long-established goal of language teaching. The traditional model of communicative competence, which strictly adheres to native speaker norms and the target language cultures, fails to address the growing use of English in today’s world. An intercultural approach to English language teaching has increasingly gained more popularity and acceptance in the field of ELT. The main reason for this upsurge of interest is the dissatisfaction with the neglecting of cultural elements in CLT, which sees language as a culture- boundless phenomenon and emphasizes merely developing communicative competence. As Corbett (2003) notes, intercultural language education has gained popularity in parts of Eastern Europe, such as Bulgaria, which have witnessed major political and social transformations since 1989.

The goal of language learning from an intercultural stance is not to reach native-speaker proficiency in English. Instead, English learners not only learn the language but also develop their intercultural understanding and the ability to mediate between the culture of English-speaking countries and their own culture (Corbett, 2003, p. 2). This also means there is no perfect native speaker model for learners to imitate. Nor is it realistic to expect learners to acquire a native speaker’s cultural identity. Instead, learners are encouraged to become linguistically and interculturally competent or to acquire the “intercultural communicative competence” by finding a third space between their own culture and that of the target language speakers. The language classroom, therefore, has become a place where

one can reflect on one’s own culture and explore that of others through language learning activities. In this approach, learners are encouraged to observe, make comparisons and reflect on culture through learning language so as to enhance the knowledge of their own culture and the culture of others while the teacher supports the learners with the means to gain insight into their culture and to compare and reflect it to the target language culture. In a sense, the teacher also becomes a learner of culture, knowing how to access and identify the cultural factors and teach them explicitly from the beginning to facilitate students’ learning (Crozet & Liddicoat, 1999).

In the context of English language education in Vietnam, different types of teaching methods have been in use for teaching English depending on the teaching contexts and students’ needs. For instance, the ALM was introduced in Vietnam around two decades ago but it requires expensive teaching resources, which are only available in some schools. There used to be a time back in the 1990s when language laboratories began to mushroom, and students were required to listen to audiotapes and repeat dialogues that captured aspects of daily living. In comparison, the DM is mostly used in schools for gifted students or specialized schools with students majoring in English while the GTM is the main method used in the others. Hence, English teaching is associated with translating, learning lists of bilingual vocabulary and studying grammatical structures to prepare for English examinations. CLT was first implemented in Vietnam in the early 1990s and attracted great interest with two major encouraging factors, namely, the government’s supportive policy and the positive attitude of Vietnamese teachers toward this approach (Nguyen, 2004; Pham, 2004). The new English language curriculum was implemented nation-wide from grades 6 to 12 in 2006 based on the CLT tenets, with a new set of textbooks formally approved in 2002. As far as English curricular and textbooks are concerned in Vietnam - from primary school to tertiary EFL teacher education - CLT is well established. However, Nguyen (2004) and Pham (2004) specifically point out that some of the constraints on the implementation of CLT in Vietnam include teachers’ limited teaching ability and low language proficiency, the traditional examination system, the EFL context with little need for real communication, low learner motivation, lack of teaching facilities, poor teaching materials and large class size.

Most Vietnamese teachers of English believe that CLT facilitates the learning process by focusing on learners, taking learners’ communicative needs as the basis for elaborating instructional goals (Savignon, 1997). However, adopting CLT would challenge the traditional views of the teacher- learner role in the Vietnamese context where students are expected to respect their teacher as the master of knowledge. Pham’s study (2004) revealed that many Vietnamese teachers were conflicted to use communicative practices because they had to prepare students in large classes of around 50 to 60 for a grammar-based examination. Students were more concerned about passing exams and getting

high marks rather than developing communicative competence. It is thus common for teachers to teach grammar and reading at the expense of teaching communication.

In addition, there is little need for Vietnamese learners to use English outside the classrooms, leading to their lack of motivation to develop communicative competence (Do, 2006). Without the real need to communicate in an English-speaking environment, motivation becomes more a product of the teacher’s initiative on the one hand, and the student’s will to succeed or fear of failure on the other (Ellis, 1996). Moreover, large-size classes are typical at lower secondary and high schools in Vietnam with an average of 42-52 students (Le V. C, 1999). Due to such institutional constraints and the limited time allocated to English instruction, communicative activities are often reduced to adhere to the prescribed curriculum. The consequence is that despite learning English for a long period, most Vietnamese learners still cannot use it to communicate effectively. Therefore, the GTM is still a dominant teaching approach in Vietnam although some teachers are inclined to make changes to activities, practices and materials to embrace CLT tenets (Pham, 2004).

In an attempt to address the drawbacks of CLT and emphasize the merits of ICLT, over the past five years there has been a strong interest in investigating the teaching and learning of language and culture in Vietnam. A study by Nguyen (2011) evaluated the pragmatic content of English textbooks used in Vietnamese high schools in developing learners’ intercultural communicative competence. Findings indicated a number of drawbacks in the textbooks such as unrealistic provision of pragmatic models, limited explanations of rules to develop learners’ pragmatic awareness and insufficient inclusion of pragmatic norms used in L1.

Research conducted by Nguyen T. L (2013) regarding the integration of culture into language teaching among 15 EFL teachers at a university in the north of Vietnam revealed that despite their profound knowledge of culture, they tended to provide cultural knowledge rather than emphasizing the development of intercultural awareness and intercultural skills. With limited goals in teaching culture and language, coupled with the lack of professional support and pedagogical content knowledge in evaluating intercultural competence, the teachers in this study stuck to the instructional materials for conducting activities related to intercultural content.

The common voice from these studies was that in spite of the government’s espousal of ICLT, the adoption of ICLT could not be achieved exclusively through written policies. Although there has been an emphasis on developing intercultural competence along with linguistic proficiency in an era of rapid regionalization and globalization, researchers have found that there is still a long way to go to achieve the successful implementation of the ICLT in English teaching and learning at tertiary level. There needs to be more research into ICLT and the implementations of this approach in teacher education in the Vietnamese EFL context. In fact, the cultural context of the classroom plays a key role for educators and researchers in trying to interpret the pedagogical approaches adopted by the

Vietnamese teachers of the English language. For example, while the CLT views the teacher as a facilitator, the teacher of English in a Vietnamese classroom is described more as a "moral guide" rather than just being a transmitter of knowledge (Phan, 2004). Hence, there are many aspects of Western ideas of English language teaching that should be understood appropriately based on cultural expectations