Approaches to EFL

Introduction 

English has emerged as one of the most widely spoken languages across the globe. As many as 339 million individuals across the globe have embraced it as their first language (Ethnologue, n.d). This language has spread and is now spoken by those for whom it is not the primary language. Several factors can be credited with the emergence of English as the primary tool for communication among communities. One of these factors is the education that is offered to those who wish to speak the language. There are many institutions across the globe that offer training on various aspects of the English language. To facilitate the teaching of this language, different approaches and models have been developed. Each approach has unique features that allow it to meet the needs of both students and teachers. The approaches that are used in the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) are the focus of this paper. The paper explores the rationale behind these approaches and offers a discussion on their impacts on teachers and students. 

EFL Methods and Approaches

As mentioned above, different approaches are used in the teaching of English. This means that there are many different approaches as different facilities adopt the approaches that deliver the best result. However, there are still some approaches that are commonly used. These approaches can be found in almost all institutions where EFL training is offered. The three most common approaches are Grammar Translation Method (GTM), Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Total Physical Response (TPR) (Intarapanich, 2013). In the discussion below, a brief overview and the rationale for each of these approaches is offered. 

Grammar Translation Method

The GTM is one of the most commonly used method for teaching not just English but other languages as well. Essentially, when this method is used, focus in placed on translation. The instructors advise students on how to translate phrases, sentences and other word formations from their native language to another language (Natsir and Sanjaya, 2014). This method relies on deductive learning. Basically, students rely on what they already know to understand what is unfamiliar. This is the basic rationale for this method. Memorization is also emphasized when this method is used. Learners need to remember what the translations for certain words and phrases in their native language are if they are to learn the foreign language (Natsir and Sanjaya, 2014). It should be noted that this method is falling out of use as it has been shown to be ineffective. 

Accuracy in translation and the use of native language are some of the defining features of the GTM method (ISU, n.d). This method seeks to provide learners with the skills that enable them to borrow from their native languages and provide accurate translations for words in a foreign language. The other objective that this teaching method seeks to attain is to enable learners to read and write content in a foreign language (ISU, n.d). The primary rationale for this method is that learners do not necessarily need to learn a new language from scratch. Once they have mastered the rules that govern the foreign language, they can simply borrow from their native language in their effort to learn the foreign language. 

Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative Language Teaching is yet another method used in teaching English as a foreign language. When this method is used, the primary purpose is to promote interactions (Richards and Rodgers, 2014). The rationale for this method is based on the functions that language performs. Among other roles, language plays an instrumental function where it is used to acquire items. Language also executes a regulatory function as individuals can use it to manipulate the behavior of other individuals (Richards and Rodgers, 2014). The other basis for this method’s rationale lies in the fact that language plays an interactional function. Through language, individuals are able to create and maintain interactions with others. Language also performs a personal function, a heuristic function, an imaginative function and a representational function (Richards and Rodgers, 2014). Overall, the rationale for the use of this method is based on the fact that language plays different functions. This method leverages on these functions to facilitate learning and allow learners to create interactions with others. 

Total Physical Response

As the name suggests, this method involves physical response. Learners use their bodies to learn a new language. Instructors issue commands that students respond to by moving their bodies (Bowen, n.d). For example, an instructor may ask the learners to raise their hands in a foreign language. The students respond by physically raising their hands. The rationale for this method lies in how the human memory works. It has been established that memory is retained with ease when the brain creates associations with physical movement (Bowen, n.d). In this method, little focus is placed on grammar. The instructors just hope that the learners will understand the rules of grammar from the physical movements. This method makes heavy use of active listening which allows students to understand the meaning of words and phrases in the foreign language. 

Impacts on Students and Teachers

Unless they enhance learning and allow teachers to be productive, the three methods discussed above perform no meaningful purpose. In the following discussion, a comparison is offered on the impacts that each of the three methods has on teachers and learners. 

Grammar Translation Method

This method has been studied extensively in a bid to understand its impacts on students. Results from studies indicate that they facilitate the mastery of new languages (Aqel, 2013). In one particular study, it was observed that learners gained skills in a new language when this method was used. It was also observed that female students are better placed than their male counterparts to derive the most benefit from the grammar translation method (Aqel, 2013). 

Apart from enabling students to acquire mastery of the English language, the grammar translation method has also been linked to improved levels of self confidence (Aqel, 2013). Usually, students who are trying to learn a new language face challenges. These challenges are likely to present adverse impacts for their confidence levels. The GTM overcomes this challenge by enabling the learners to borrow from their native language (Aqel, 2013). 

Despite the positive impacts that it has on learners, the grammar translation method also presents some negative impacts. One of the negative impacts is that it denies students the freedom to use language flexibly and straight away (Asl, 2015). Since this method matches words in the native language to those in the foreign language, students must learn the words in both languages and this makes it difficult for students to begin speaking the foreign language straight away (Asl, 2015). A student must learn all the words and rules if they are to start using the foreign language. A mention has been made above of the fact that the GTM method boosts the self-confidence of learners. It should be noted that this is not always true. This method encourages teachers to correct learners. As they do this, teachers risk adversely affecting the confidence of students that they correct (Natsir and Sanjaya, 2014). 

Teachers and learners are the main active players in the teaching of foreign languages. Since the GTM method presents impacts for learners, it follows that teachers are also affected. One of the impacts of this method on teachers is that it enables instructors who are not necessarily fluent in the foreign language to teach (Asl, 2015). All that the instructor is required to do is offer students the translation of words from one language to the other. This is fairly easy and even individuals who are not well versed with the foreign language can teach. The other impact on teachers is that it is time saving (Asl, 2015). As mentioned above, this method involves merely translating words between two languages. This allows teachers to save time. Additionally, this method spares teachers of challenges raised by students since it facilitates understanding and enables learners to respond to questions with ease (Asl, 2015). 

Communicative Language Teaching

It has been mentioned above that the CLT method achieves its goals by promoting interaction. As opposed to the GTM which involves mere translations, the CLT method enables learners to engage with the learning process (Asl, 2015). This method shifts focus from acquiring mastery of new languages. Focus is instead placed on the learning process. The chief desire of the instructors is to provide learners with authentic experiences that allow them to appreciate the learning process. Furthermore, this method exploits the experiences of learners (Asl, 2015). These experiences are used to offer learners sessions that are more engaging. The fact that the CLT method incorporates the experiences of learners sets it apart from the GTM and the TPR methods. The other methods are mainly concerned with helping students learn words and the grammar rules used in the foreign language. 

The learning process for foreign languages usually involves classroom instruction. This is the primary technique used in all the three methods. However, as opposed to the other two methods, the CLT method incorporates learning outside the classroom (Asl, 2015). This is done in an effort to offer students an engaging and comprehensive learning experience. The other impact of this method on learners is that it encourages students to use the foreign language more as they reduce their usage of their native language. It is advised that students should not use more than 5% of their native languages when this method is used (Asl, 2015). This recommendation facilitates the mastery of the English language by students who are learning it as their second language. 

The communicative learning teaching method also affects teachers. One of the impacts is that it forces teachers to develop techniques to complete the conventional delivery of learning. These techniques include interviews, games and role playing activities (Asl, 2015). Teachers also need to incorporate items and strategies that the learners can relate to. This enhances the learning process. The impacts of this method on teachers are largely positive. This is not to say that there are no negative impacts. One of the negative effects is that this method places all burden on the teacher (Asl, 2015). The teacher needs to come up with methods to ensure that sessions are lively. This can be a daunting task. 

Total Physical Response

The main impact of the total physical response is that it enables students to learn a new language. This impact is shared by the GTM and the CLT methods. This method sets itself apart from the two by incorporating physical activities that excite students (Teaching English, n.d). Students who best respond to kinesthetic learning are best positioned to benefit from this teaching method. This method has been shown to be fun for students as it breaks the monotony of conventional delivery (Teaching English, n.d). The other effect is that it enables students to remember words and phrases in the English language. The GTM and the CLT methods work best when the learners do not suffer any disability. The TPM method is superior as it can be used even when students are disabled (Teaching English, n.d). This ensures that disabled students who would like to learn English are able to do so despite their disability. 

The TPM method presents benefits mostly for students. Teachers also experience the positive impacts of this method. One of the features of this method is that it is fairly easy to implement. Little preparation is needed and there is no requirement for complex tools (Teaching English, n.d). This means that teachers are able to adopt this method without much difficulty. The TPM approach is particularly effective for teaching young learners. These learners are often active and an approach that encourages active participation is therefore the most suitable. The TPM method is also quite effective thus allowing teachers to achieve their set goals. Overall, this method enhances learning through interactive and fun activities.

Conclusion

English language continues to be widely spoken by millions of individuals and communities across the globe. There are even individuals who are abandoning their native languages entirely as they embrace the English language. The spread of the English language is the result of the efforts of the teaching community. This community has committed immense effort to offer instruction to individuals who desire to master the English language. This paper has explored three different approaches that are used in the teaching of the English language. Each of the approaches has its own distinct features and advantages. Teachers need to examine their situations and select the approach that they believe will be most effective. 

References

Asl, E. H. (2015). Comparative Study of Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and 

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Language Teaching Methodology.

International Journal of Science and Research Methodology. Vol. 1 (3), 16-25. 

Aqel, I. M. (2013). The Effect of Using Grammar Translation Method on Acquiring English

As a Foreign Language. International Journal of Asian Social Science. Vol. 3 (12),

2469-2476. 

Bowen, T. (n.d). Teaching Approaches: Total Physical Response. Retrieved 8th September 

2016 from http://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology/methodology/teaching-approaches/teaching-approaches-total-physical-response/146503.article  

Ethnologue. (n.d). Summary by Language Size. Retrieved 8th September 2016 from

https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size  

Idaho State University (ISU). (n.d). Teaching Approaches. Retrieved 8th September 2016

http://spaces.isu.edu.tw/upload/18518/9601/TEFL/teaching%20approaches.ppt  

Intarapanich, C. (2013). Teaching Methods, Approaches and Strategies found in EFL 

Classrooms: A Case Study in Lao PDR. Procedia- Social and Behavioral 

Sciences. Vol. 88 (10), 306-311. 

Natsir, M., and Sanjaya, D. (2014). Grammar Translation Method (GTM) Versus

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); A Review of Literature. International

Journal of Education & Literacy Studies. Vol. 2 (1), 58-62. 

Richards, J. C., and Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Training.

Cambridge University Press. 

Teaching English. (n.d). Total Physical Response-TPR. Retrieved 8th September 2016 from

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/total-physical-response-tpr