BLOG 1—Why Foreign Language Programs Must Be Comprehensive

          “Let’s agree to disagree,” is a great phrase to avoid further argument, further discussion, and also further work.  Prabu’s message states that the phrase “there is no best method for teaching language classes” prevents further research and advancement in the field.  Prabu investigates the three major reasons why people support the opinion that there are no best methods.  On page 161, he states why many people support this theory: different methods are best for different teaching contexts, all methods are partially true or valid, and that the notion of good and bad methods is itself misguided.  Prabu spends the rest of his article displaying how these rationales do not necessarily justify the statement that “there is no best method for teaching language classes.”  While I agree with the statement that different methods fit different contexts, I agree with Prabu’s assertion in the middle of page 163 about how some methods are clearly superior to others in certain situations.  For example, privately reprimanding a student’s behavior is more appropriate and a superior method to publicly humiliating that student in front of the whole class.  I also agree with Prabu that the claim all methods are partially valid does NOT justify the use of dozens of different strategies just because they all have “merit.”  Similar to Prabu’s point about context, some methods are used more commonly than others because they are generally considered superior. 

           

            I wholeheartedly agree that it is very difficult to define and measure a “best” method.  It does not make much sense to measure a subjective thing such as teaching methods with an objective test.  I think a more important way in determining the best teaching methods for particular teachers is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of those respective teachers.  Facilitating class discussions is not the best strategy for a closed teacher that is considered a weak communicator. 

           

            Although learning about vocabulary terms and acronyms in the field was helpful, the most interesting part of the Brown reading was viewing how language teaching evolved based off of society’s goals.  The language-teaching methods being used reflected what was going on in the world at that time.  When most communication and schoolwork was done through reading and writing, the grammar translation method dominated the 19^th century.  When the United States went to war in the middle of the 20^th century, the army method reflected the United States’ desire to further communicate with both its allies and enemies.  This fascinates me.  Today we live in a society where reading, writing, listening, and speaking are all considered important skills.  Thankfully most of the foreign language programs that I have participated in have been comprehensive programs designed to increase all skills.  As someone interested in shaping foreign language policy for future students, I like the recent (relatively) changes to make language studies more comprehensive.  All elements of communication are essential in today’s world.   For example, an American man meets the woman of his dreams while vacationing in Spain.  They have a great conversation and then exchange e-mails.  If he can’t effectively respond to her e-mails, he is facing a life of loneliness.  Thankfully his comprehensive language programmed focused on written communication, and they lived happily ever after.