MASARYK UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND

LITERATURE

FINAL WORK

Written by: Dana Shejbalová

Supervisor: Mgr. Naděžda Vojtková
June , 2006
I declare that I worked on the following thesis on my own and that I
used all the sources mentioned in the bibliography.
Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mgr. Naděžda Vojtková, who commented on

my work, for her kind help and valuable advice she provides me.
 CONTENTS

Introduction

THEORETICAL PART

1. The development in language teaching methodology

1.1. Dilemma in language teaching process 1
1.2. Linguistic research 2

2. Modern techniques in language teaching

2.1. Grammar translation vs. communicative approach 4
2.2. Grammar translation method 4
2.3. Communicative approach 8

3. Teaching vocabulary
3.1. Principles of learning and teaching vocabulary 10
3.2. How words are remembered 11
3.3 Other important factors in language learning process 13

P R A C T I C A L P A R T

4.1. Set of lesson plans – group A 15

4.2. Set of lesson plans – group B 24
4.3. Testing phase 31
4.3.1. Test – commentary 31
4.3.2. Tests results 34
Conclusion 37
Bibliography
Appendices
Résumé
 INTRODUCTION

“Vocabulary acquisition is the largest and most important task facing the
language learner.” (Swan and Walter 1984)

The aim of this thesis is to present two main streams in language

teaching approaches and their influence on students’ acquisition. By
confrontation grammar translation method vs. communicative approach I
summarized their principles, both advantages and disadvantages, and tried to
show how to make profit out of both to get the best possible result. The
measurable result in this case is acquired knowledge which was tested in a real
classroom.

The first part concerns the historical and theoretical backgrounds of both
methods and their characteristics. It also devoted in general principles of
vocabulary learning process.

The second part is based on practical work within a classroom. It consists of

different lesson plans of the same topic dealt with two considered methods
and leads to testing and evaluating stage in each group.
 History of teaching English language reaches to Middle Ages. Over such a
long period of time linguistic methodology faced to reforms many times. The
aim of these papers is not to map development of all methods used within
the history but I focused on two, commonly used in today’s conditions:
grammarItranslation method and communicative approach.

! " #$ %&'# ((

As the titles of pedagogically oriented papers have changed markedly over

the years, we can hardly get an idea of what is the best method by a survey of
them. While in the past the focus was laid on grammatical description, and
procedures of drilling, modern methods reflect on promoting real
communication in the classroom, help students understand spoken and written
language, and participate in conversations. The primary goal of modern
methodology is the lowering of students’ anxiety.

David Wilkins summed up the importance of vocabulary for language

learning: “Without grammar very little can be conveyed, without vocabulary
'"$ can be conveyed.” This point of view is echoed in the advice to
students from a recent course book (Dellar H and Hocking D, Innovation, LTP):
“If you spend most of your time studying grammar, your English will not
improve very much . You will see most improvement if you learn more words
and expressions. You can say very little with grammar, but you can say almost
anything with words!” (Thornbury 2002, p. 13)
When language teachers try to decide which view of the language
learning process should be adopted as most suitable for meeting the needs of
their students they often face a major source of problems. Reading opposing
views, language teachers face a dilemma in trying to decide how to organize
their lessons as well as choose the most effective method.
Teaching of grammatical structures was given for a long time a greater
priority over the communicative function itself. The number of words
introduced in such courses was kept fairly low. Those words which were taught
were often chosen either because they were easily demonstrated, or
translation even used to be the only way of demonstration. The access of the
communicative approach set era for reconsidering the role of vocabulary, as
well as debates about effectiveness and optimisation of teaching process.

) ! (" #( & ( &#$

The common definition of linguistic as the “ scientific study of language”

and of language as a “ rule governed system” should be treated as serious
statements concerning both analytic methodology and the nature of the object
under investigation.( Krashen, 1987)
An example that is important consists of experiments that compare teaching
methods. Quite simply a group of students is taught a foreign language using
method A (grammar translation in this case) and another group is taught the
same language using method B (communicative). The result of such an
experiment is certainly of interest to theoreticians since a particular theory
might predict that students using one method would do better than students
using another. The experiment itself, however, is designed for practical ends,
i.e. to decide which method should be used for the students to optimise the
effectiveness.

Linguistic and communicative competence

“The relation between linguistic and communicative competence is also

important. At the foundation stage, linguistic competence is the spontaneous,
flexible, and correct manipulation of the language system. Communicative
competence involves principles of appropriateness and a readiness on the part
of the learner to use relevant strategies in coping with certain language
situations. Linguistic competence, then, is the basis of communicative
competence. But communicative competence does not automatically result from
linguistic competence. Forms of classroom activities such as role playing,
simulations, and realIlife interactions should be used to provide as much
practice as possible for students to develop communicative competence while
practicing linguistic competence.” (Rao Zhenhui, 1999)

(www.exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no3/p27.htm, from 9 April)

)

In modern methodology two main tendencies set apart: methods in which

the teacher has the most important role and chooses the items students will
learn opposing the one where focus shifts away from the teacher to the
students. This makes students more responsible for their own learning and
allows to meet individual needs of each student. (Gairns,Redman 1986)

) & &*"& ( " ' +( #' ! # "+ %%&' #$

In recent years , there has been a major shift in perspective within the
language teaching profession concerning the nature of what is to be taught. In
simple terms, there has been a change of emphasis from presenting language
as a set of forms (grammatical , phonological, lexical) which have to be
learned and practised, to presenting language as a functional system which is
used to fulfil a range of communicative purposes, which is described as
communicative competence. The aim of this thesis is to present both
attitudes, which are still widely used in foreign language education area. Each
method is introduced concerning its principles and the advantageous place for
practical application is elicit.

)) & &*"& ( "' "$',

The grammarItranslation method of foreign language teaching is one of the

most traditional methods, dating back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. It was originally used to teach 'dead' languages (and literatures) such
as Latin and Greek. (Thuleen,1996) However, conscious learning of grammar is
no longer the leading strategy in language educating area.

The principal characteristic of the grammarItranslation method is a focus on

learning the grammar rules and their application in translating texts from one
language into the other. Most of the teaching is provided in students’ first
language. Vocabulary is presented mainly through direct translation from the
native language and memorization, using bilingual word list:

e.g. the house – dům

the mouse I myš

The basic unit of a teaching process is a sentence. Students spend most of

the lesson time completing grammar exercises, where the main emphasis is
laid on accuracy and following given structure. The grammar is presented
systematically, in students native language and practiced through translation
from one language to the other, e.g.
Do you have my book? = Máš moji knihu?
Nevím kde je tvoje kniha. = I don't know where your book is.
Do you have my book? = Máš moji knihu?
Nevím kde je tvoje kniha. = I don't know where your book is.

In regard to language skills reading and writing are distinctively preferred

to speaking and listening. Little time is spent on oral practice and students
have not enough opportunities to produce sentences on their own.
(based on www.nthuleen.com/papers/720report.html)

Krashen, 1987 analysed linguistic output of students from grammar

translation class. He noticed the fact that many students make errors in rules
that are easy to describe, which means that this technique can not lead to
acquisition. He also emphasizes the importance in balance between
grammatical accuracy and communication. Though utilizing grammar rules
raise students correctness, when speaking they incline to have a hesitant style
that is often difficult to listen to . They plan their utterance while their
conversational partner is talking. Their output may be accurate, but they all too
often do not pay enough attention to what the other person is saying. Students
often have difficulties "relating" to the language, because the classroom
experience keeps them from personalizing it or developing their own style.

GrammarItranslation method should be tempered with other approaches to

create a more flexible and conducive methodology. Nancy Thuleen, in his
website article criticises the harmful effect on students’ interest: “The worst
effect of this method is on students´ motivation. Because (s)he cannot succeed
I leads to frustration and lack of confidence in language usage. On the other
hand, for students who respond well to rules, structure and correction, the
grammarItranslation method can provide a challenging and even appealing
classroom environment.“ ( Thuleen, 1996)

The list of linguistics attitudes to grammar translation method could be

finished by Barnhouse, 1981: “In English teaching dominated by the grammarI
translation method, accuracy is emphasized more than fluency. Students in
such classrooms are extremely particular about linguistic details. They never
feel satisfied with their language productions until the correct answers are
provided. They are keenly interested in the exact words, have a low tolerance
of ambiguity, and tend to focus on discrete grammar points and specific
syntactic constructions.”
(www.exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no3/p27.html)
 Considering the aim of this thesis we must admit a great deal of grammar
translation method for generations of people educated in such a way. It would
not be fair to condemn it for being oldIfashioned and worthless. On the other
side, it would be of no value to insist on outIdated methods. As shown in the
experiment later, the progress in language teaching method can significantly
influence students’ motivation as well as their linguistic and communicative
competence.

The role of grammar

Despite all of the drawbacks mentioned above, there are several positive
aspects to be found in this approach The supporter of grammar translation
method, Rao Zhenhui, emphasizes the importance of the language structure
as a fundamental element which allows us to generate sentences. Only correct
grammar structure can assure comprehensible communication. Appropriate
grammar analysis helps students acquire linguistic competence better.
(based on www.exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no3/p27.html)

Conscious utilizing of grammar rules improve students grammatical

accuracy, nevertheless this should not interfere with communication. For that
it is essential to take into account the time necessary for new structure
acquisition. In classroom conditions it is advantageous to apply this approach
for activities such as writing and prepared speech, when students must be
thinking about correctness or focus on form. Within these terms, given a
reasonable time students are able to use obtained skills to great benefit.

The role of translation

“Translation seems to be a useful tool if used sparingly, but it should be
used with caution.” (Harmer 1993, p. 86 )
 If teachers rely on the use of translation to excess , students are loosing
some of the essential spirit of being in a language learning classroom. This
often cause listening skills decline. Furthermore, Harmer points to the
difficulties of translation, which requires an efficient speaker of both languages
to translate well.
“Sometimes it is worth giving the mother tongue equivalent rather than to
pending valuable time trying to define or show the meaning. It is of great
value when no easy alternative suggests itself or highlight the danger of false
cognates.” (Harmer 1993, p. 86 )

)- ' ! # "+ %%&' #$

The communicative approach is an umbrella term to describe the

methodology which teaches students how to communicate efficiently . It also
lays emphasis on students responsibility for their own learning. It involves
cooperation within group, selfIactivity, dictionary work.
The first concern of communicative approach is language acquisition rather
than conscious learning. According to Krashen, “ acquisition is a natural
process, similar to the way children develop ability in their first language. It is
subconscious process when students are not aware of the fact they are
acquiring language but are using the language for communication (Krashen,
1987, p. 10)

The principles of communicative approach:

(based on www.aber.ac.uk website, from 11 April, 2006)

classroom environment provide opportunities for rehearsal of realIlife

situations and provide opportunity for real communication. Emphasis on
creative roleIplays/ simulations/ surveys/ projects/ I all produce spontaneity
 and improvisation
within lessons students have to cope with a variety of everyday situations
more emphasis on active modes of learning, including pair work and groupI
work
it offers communicative activity to students from early stage
errors are a natural part of learning process
communicative approach is studentIorientated, as it follows students'
needs and interests
!
" # $
teaching grammar is set in context, students are awarded of connection
between communication and grammar
use of idiomatic/ everyday language (even slang words )
use of topical items with which students are already familiar in their own
language I arouses students’ interest and leads to more active participation
usage of authentic resources, such as newspaper and magazine articles,
poems, manuals, recipes, telephone directories, videos, news…etc.

To sum up, communicative approach refers to classroom activities in which

students use language as a vehicle of communication, and the main purpose
is to complete some kind of task. Students are required to use any and/or all
the language that they know, and they gradually develop their strategies in
communication. There is a place for both controlled presentation and semiI
controlled language practice, which brings optimal development of students’
language skills.
-

- & # % ( '. & ," #$ +'# /! &0

However many theories about vocabulary learning process were written , it

still remains the matter of memory. Thus, there are several general principles
for successful teaching , which are valid for any method. According to Wallace,
1988 the principles are:
aim – what is to be taught, which words, how many
need – target vocabulary should respond students’ real needs and
interests
frequent exposure and repetition
meaningful presentation – clear and unambiguous denotation or
reference should be assured

Learning vocabulary is a complex process. The students’ aim to be reached

in learning vocabulary process is primarily their ability to recall the word at
will and to recognize it in its spoken and written form.
Generally, knowing a word involves knowing its form and its meaning at the
basic level. In deeper aspects it means the abilities to know its (Harmer 1993):

1) Meaning, i.e. relate the word to an appropriate object or context

2) Usage, i.e. knowledge of its collocations, metaphors and idioms, as well as
style and register (the appropriate level of formality), to be aware of
any connotations and associations the word might have
3) Word formation, i.e. ability to spell and pronounce the word correctly, to
know any derivations (acceptable prefixes and suffixes),
4) Grammar, i.e. to use it in the appropriate grammatical form

%
-) '1 1'&,( & & / & ,

Unlike the learning of grammar, which is essentially a rule based system,

vocabulary knowledge is largely a question of accumulating individual items.
The general rule seems to be a question of memory. And during the process of
teaching and learning vocabulary an important problem occurs: How does
memory work? Researchers into the workings of memory distinguish between
the following systems ( Thornbury, 2002)
− short– term store
– working memory
– long– term memory

Short I term store

ShortIterm store is the brain capacity to hold a limited number of items of
information for periods of time up to a few seconds. It is the kind of memory
that is involved in repeating a word that you have just heard the teacher
modelling. But successful vocabulary learning involves more than holding words
for a few seconds. To integrate words into long I term memory they need to be
subjected to different kinds of operations.

Working memory
Working memory means focussing on word long enough to perform
operations on them. It means the information is manipulated via the senses
from external sources and/or can be downloaded from the longI term memory.
Material remains in working memory for about twenty seconds. The existence
of articulator loop enables this new material processing. It works a bit like
audiotape going round a round again. It assures the shortI term store to be
kept refreshed. The ability to hold a word in working memory is a good
predictor of language learning aptitude. The better ability to hold words in
working memory the smoother the process of learning foreign languages is.

Long –term memory

LongIterm memory can be seen as kind of filling system. Unlike working
memory, which has a limited capacity and no permanent content, this kind of
memory has an enormous capacity and its contents are durable over time.
However, to ensure moving new materials into permanent longIterm memory,
requires number of principles to be followed, described by Thornbury, 2002:
• Repetition – repetition of encounters with a word is very important, useful
and effective. If the word is met several times over space interval during
reading activities, students have a very good chance to remember it for
a long time.
• Retrieval I another kind of repetition. Activities, which require retrieval,
such as using the new items in written tasks, help students to be able to
recall it again in the future.
• Spacing I it is useful to split memory work over a period of time rather than
to mass it together in a single block.
• Pacing – to respect different learning styles and pace, students should be
ideally given the opportunity to do memory work individually.
• Use I putting words to use, preferably in an interesting way, is the best way
of ensuring they are added to long – term memory. This is so called “Use
it or lose it” principle.
• Cognitive depth I the more decisions students make about the word and the
more cognitively demanding these decisions are, the better the word is
remembered.
• Personal organising I personalisation significantly increased the probability
that students will remember new items. It is achieved mainly through
 conversation and roleIplaying activities.
• Imaging – easily visualised words are better memorable than those that do
not evoke with any pictures. Even abstract words can be associated with
some mental image.
• Mnemonics – tricks to help retrieve items or rules that are stored in
memory. The best kinds of mnemonics are visuals and keyword
techniques.
• Motivation I strong motivation itself does not ensure that words will be
remembered. Even unmotivated students remember words if they have
to face appropriate tasks.
• Attention I it is not possible to improve vocabulary without a certain degree
of conscious attention.

-- "$ & %'&" " . #"'&( ! & %&'# ((

Perhaps it is useful to think in terms of methods to the extent that some of

them will be better suited than others to particular learning styles, or particular
cultural and educational traditions, but at the same time it is vital to remember
that there are much more fundamental factors that determine success in
language learning:

1. motivation

2. data (samples of the language, plus I maybe I information about the

language)

3. opportunities to experiment with the data

4. feedback – to confirm that you are heading in the right direction, or to

reIdirect you if you are not

(www.onestopenglish.com/teacher support/ask/methodology/method5.htm)
 For purposes of this thesis I determined two groups of adult students at
pre–intermediate level. Both courses took place in the evenings, consisted of
10 people with comparable social status, motivation and other factors , which
could be of any influence on language learning process.
The target topic was food, in both groups set in the context of restaurant.
In group A I used the grammarItranslation method, mostly grounded on
Angličtina pro jazykové školy (Peprník, 1981), while the plan in group B was
based on the communicative approach. The experiment consisted of three
45Iminutes lessons, following with a test.
In the testing phase I tried to verify an appropriate usage of target
vocabulary throughout the language skills – reading, writing and listening. I
focused on all aspects of the word knowledge mentioned in part 1.3., i.e.
meaning, usage, formation and grammar.

2 &'!%

All texts and exercises come from Peprník , Angličtina pro jazykové školy I.,
1981. I decided to use this textbook exclusively, as its methodology is a great
representative of grammarItranslation method as well as the selection of
sentences and vocabulary throughout the exercises shows the important
relation between individual linguistic section.

((' %
Warmer3 Students look at the picture (appendix 1), a teacher asks the
question : “Where are the Prokops now?” to elicit a word “ restaurant”.
Emphasize resemblance with Czech, and ask for more words students have
already known from their mother language i.e. juice, beer, ice cream,
chocolate, coffee, tea, steak,…etc.
Presentation: Students take turns to read the text (appendix 1) aloud. They
translate it using a bilingual vocabulary list, joined to the text. Then, they go
through the vocabulary and phrase pattern list, item by item, drilling
pronunciation. Finally the teacher tests students´ memory calling a word in
Czech arousing students’ translation into English.
e.g. teacher: “souhlasit s někým”
students: “agree with somebody”
teacher: “ souhlasím s tebou”
students: “I agree with you”

Grammar presentation: Lesson continues with grammatical part. Students’

attention is drawn to irregular comparative and superlative form of adjectives
“good” and “bad” in the text. They already know the meanings from the
vocabulary list, so they copy the table from their textbooks:

good better the best

dobrý lepší nejlepší
bad worse the worst
špatný horší nejhorší

Practice: Cvičení 1. Odpovězte podle obrázku ( appendix 2):

Is the first car better than the third car?
Is the second car better than the third car?
Is the third car worse than the second car?
Is the third car the worst?
Is the second car as bad as the third car?
Which is the worst car?
 Cvičení 2. Namítejte: (vzor: I have got a good memory. – But he has got
even better memory.)
My pronunciation is good.
I make bad mistakes.
I´ve got good schoolmates.
I had a bad accident.
I have got a good job.

Cvičení 3. Přeložte: I Jsou horší věci než tohle.

Které jídlo bylo nejlepší a které bylo nejhorší?
Horší místo mi nevadí.
Je to trochu lepší, že?
Maso mám nejraději s různou zeleninou.

My notes: The warmer activity students found encouraging, as there are

many household items in Czech. However I, noticed a problem in a part when
I tried to elicit a word “restaurant” in a contextI it would sound more naturally
with a preposition. This problem became appreciable in drilling exercise when I
test students’ memory of vocabulary list. Though they obviously did not have
problems to produce a base form of any word from the list, they spent rather
long time transferring the items into the correct form within a context.
In grammatical part I felt a pity that student were just given a ‘final
product’. Though it saved lesson time as ready to use, ‘discovering’ role on
their own is always a challenging activity for students, as well as significant
help in language acquisition. Exercise 1 is a good drilling exercise, useful to
test the grammar rules mastering. It helps students at this level analyse
particular language area. However, vocabulary cover too narrow range and is
completely set apart of the unit topic. It makes the exercise boring for
students and useless in regard of vocabulary acquisition work.
 Exercise 2 simulates personalization. Students do not speak about
themselves, but they use a given pattern to produce correct structures. I
noticed they sometimes do it automatically without thinking about the
meaning .
In translation exercise students proved very low ability to work with a
language itself. They treated language as a set of individual words which could
be simply put together to create a sentence. They had evident problems with
differences between Czech and English syntax, and no student was able to
create absolutely correct sentence for the first try. It naturally increases their
anxiety and stress in language usage.
During all the exercises students were extremely attentive about the
linguistic details. Many grammatical rules were used in a short time, which
makes students stressed and worried about mistakes. On the other side, they
show no interest in content – it could be caused by too much emphasis on
grammar, as well as missing opportunity to personalize the topic in any way
and absence of cognitive task. Students had no opportunity to create
sentences on their own or developed their own style.
In general, grammar translation method gives students the wrong idea of
what language is and of the relationship between languages. Language is seen
as a collection or words which are isolated and independent and there must be
a corresponding word in the native tongue for each foreign word students
learn.
 ((' % )

Warmer: 1.vyjmenujte: I výrazy z oblasti podávání jídla v restauraci

I výrazy z jídelního lístku
I různé způsoby poděkování
2. přeložte: I vařit dobře x vařit čaj
I mám hlad x nemám čas

Grammar presentation: Students look at the table with irregular verbs,

which appeared in the text:

bring brought brought

přinést

drink drank drunk

pít

give gave given

dát

put put put

položit, dát

take took taken

vzít, brát

sit sat sat

sedět

We drilled all the forms and pronunciation, then students worked in pairs,
testing each other’s memory.

Practice: Cvičení 1. Odpovězte:

(vzor: What did you bring? A present? I Yes, I brought a present.)
What did you give him? A camera?
 Where did you put it? On the desk?
Why did you take it? Because you needed it?
Where did you sit? At the back?
Who did you bring with you ? Another friend?
What did you drink? Grapefruit juice?
Where did he speak about it? At the meeting?
Who did you tell? Jack?
When did you come home? At five?
What did he say? Help me?

Cvičení 2. Odpovězte: (vzor: When did they bring it?I It was brought an
hour ago)
When did she put it here?
When did they take it away?
When did they give it to him?
When did they bring these things?
When did they leave it here?

Cvičení 3. Přeložte: Kdo to sem položil? Vzal si s sebou spoustu jídla. Sedl si
a nic neříkal. Bylo to sem přineseno včera večer. Dal jsem mu dvacet korun.
Dal knihu na psací stůl. Včera večer hodně pil. Seděl u stolu s námi. Vzal si to,
třebaže to nepotřeboval. Brzy jsem mu to vrátil (=dal zpět).

Finally students go back to the text, find and underline the new irregular
verbs and within the class they answer the questions according to the text:

1. Why were Mr. And Mrs. Prokop alone at home on Sunday? 2. Why did Mrs.
Prokop’s husband agree to the dinner at a restaurant?3. Did they go to their
favourite restaurant? Why not? 4. Was the other restaurant as cheap as the
first one?5. What did Mr. Prokop like about the dinner?6. When did another
couple join them? 7. Why couldn’t the American visitors choose their meal? 8.
How did they choose it when thee was no translation on the menu? 9. What do
Americans put on steak? 9.Did the American lady have beer too?

Additional activities to the text:

1. Reagujte: 1. What will you have? 2. If you like I can help you. 3.Let’s
wash the dishes now. 4. Is this table free? 5. I’m afraid I don’t understand it.

2. Uveďte věty, jež by mohly předcházet: 1.The same for me. 2. It was,
wasn’t it? 3. I’ll bring it in a minute. 4. I’m much obliged to you. 5. What a pity.

3. Doplňte: 1 .If you don’t mind,…. 2. I’m afraid… 3. She decided…4.

Let’s…. 5.Excuse me,…6. Why don’t …? 7. They went for… 8. He had an
opportunity… 9. I’m no better… 10. We sat down at a table near the window,
with…

My notes: Students proved very good knowledge of target vocabulary.

Neatly arranged bilingual word list seems to be beneficial help for home work.
There is good feedback to the previous lesson, students work with the text
they have already known. They either work with vocabulary they learnt in
advance. I would consider disadvantage that students were able to predict
the questions and prepare their correct answer. Moreover, as the gap between
lessons was a week, in some cases it turned into memory test rather than
anything else. In grammatical part I realised that students did very good
work, when they were given appropriate pattern. In case the pattern was
changed, it took them time to get used to another one to produce fitting
structures. Again, they often did it automatically without showing any
interest in content.

%
 Additional activities are similar to those we know from communicative
approach. They are probably used to create feelings of real communication for
students, but actually they are far from it. I would definitely denounce the
exercise where students should think out the preceding sentence. First, it is
not natural in any way to think about language in reverse order, and second it
makes students to use phrases from previous text instead of trying to create
some on their own.

((' % -

Warmer: Zeptejte se spolužáka:

I vaříIli se u nich doma každou neděli
I která je jeho oblíbená restaurace a proč
I umíIli si vybrat jídlo rychle
sedíIli u stolu v restauraci sám nebo se k někomu připoj
umíI li přeložit jídelní lístek do angličtiny
I jaký nápoj si dává po obědě dáIli si totéž co jeho společník, nebo něco
jiného
dostaneIli vždy všechna jídla podle jídelního lístku
co má raději: kuře s bramborem nebo s rýží
vaříIli se v restauraci hůř než u nich doma

Naučte se dialogy zpaměti a ve dvojici předveďte :

a) How did you enjoy the trip to the Jeseníky * Mountains?
It was very nice trip**. The weather was excellent.
Those’re my favourite mountains. There’re so few people there.
Yes, you’re right.
 (*Beskydy, ** weekend)
b) You look rather worried. What’s the problem?
I can’t find my watch*. And the worst thing is that I’m leaving tomorrow.
I can help you . You can take my watch*.
That’s very kind of you **. But won’t you miss your watch?
(*blue tie, **you’re very kind)
c) Excuse me, do you mind if I join you? No other table* is free, I’m afraid.
Please do. These two places are free.
The restaurant* is rather full today, isn’t it?
There ‘re a lot of foreign visitors in the town in the winter months.
(*place)

Přeložte:
Minulou neděli paní Prokopová nemusela vařit a pan Prokop nemusel
umývat nádobí. Prokopovi šli na oběd do restaurace. Byl volný jeden dobrý stůl
u okna; odtamtud byl pěkný výhled na střechy starého města. Brzy se k nim
připojila další dvojice (druhá dvě místa u stolu byla volná). Pro pana Prokopa to
byla první příležitost promluvit si anglicky s Američanem. Přeložil mu názvy jídel
na jídelním lístku a pomohl mu vybrat jídlo: zeleninovou polévku, biftek s
bramborem jako hlavní chod, pivo pro něj a grapefruitový džus pro jeho
společnici. Američané mu byli velmi zavázáni. Prokopovi byli v této restauraci
poprvé. Pan Prokop viděl, že to tam nebylo horší (a jídlo tam bylo podáváno
dokonce rychleji) než v jeho oblíbené restauraci na rohu ulice Svornosti. Tam
nemohli jít, bylo tam plno.

Topic is closed with a text comparing Czech, English and American eating
habits (appendix 3). The text should introduce foreign culture to Czech
students, and is contributed with bilingual word list.
My notes: Students utilize both grammar and vocabulary introduced in the
teaching unit. It seems very effective way to use well organized structure,
neatly built exercises and tables to show how does the language work. Most
of the last lesson is based on memorizing and translation, which give students
clear idea and feelings of safety in English language world. They mostly
proved very high level at stored vocabulary items, as well as sentence pattern.
On the other side, when a word already known was presented in a different
context or form, students were not able to recognize it. The evidence for it is
shown in testing chapter.

2) &'!%

((' %
Warmer: I wrote on the board : ‘What do you find on the table in
restaurants?’ and students in pairs got a time limit to list all the items they
know in English. As feedback students´ words were put on the board in two
groups: ‘Food’ and ‘Others’.

Vocabulary presentation
Instructions: ‘Look at the pictures (appendix 4) and try to remember as
many things as possible. You have 5 minutes, then turn the sheet over and
write as many things from the list as you can. Check your list with the partner
and put your notes together’.
Feedback: ‘How many things did you manage to remember as a pair?’
Then within a class we managed matching all the words and pictures and
drilled their pronunciation. Students added other words from warmer to the
word bank.
Then we focused on ‘Ways of cooking’ (appendix 5). Students were able to
elicit the meaning of the five adjectives from the pictures. After copying the
basic map into their vocabulary file, they thought of another food for each
category, and added it to the map, e.g / 4 ,: bread, biscuits, apples, /' ,:
spaghetti, peas…

(This activity is taken from English File 2, Clive, 1997)

Practice:
Instructions: ‘On the walls of the classroom there are several lines. In pairs,
one of you is a scriber and one is a messenger. The messenger go round the
classroom to find the order of jumbled texts, remember what is written there,
and dictate it to the scriber. You will find a recipe for mushroom salad. You
have a time limit 5minutes.’
Sentences spread over the classroom:

Wash mushrooms and pat dry. (Do not peel.) Cut of most of stalk. Slice
the rest thinly and put in salad bowl.

Mix oil with lemon juice, salt and pepper, and beat well.

Pour about 200ml of this dressing over mushrooms, stir gently and put
aside for an hour.

Add rest of dressing and put aside again until most of dressing is
absorbed, about half an hour.

Meanwhile, chop chives or parsley. Sprinkle this over salad, and serve.

(This activity is introduced by Swan and Walter in The Cambridge English

Course 1, 1984)

Personalization
Instructions: 1.’Now , you are going to invite your mother in law for the
next week, and need to built up a menu for her. Think about what kind of
person she is to ingratiate with her (i.e. how much money you want to spend
for it, if she prefers sweets or is on a diet, probably she does not like a
particular food … etc.). Do not forget to use your special mushroom salad
from 1!’
2. ‘Find your mother in law within the class, invite her and show off what
you have prepared for her (start with: “Oh, I am really happy to be with you
the following week! I was just thinking how to please you….”).

My notes: The warmer activity helped me elicit the knowledge students

already had. Pair work at the beginning allowed them to pull their ideas as
well as refresh ‘forgotten’ lexis stored in their longIterm memory. It also
facilitated me to determine their extent in this area as well as to follow the
presentation principles from acquired matters to the new ones.
The challenging activity from vocabulary presentation part motivated
students to absorb the maximum items into their memory. Neatly arranged
word bank allowed to sort the load of lexis, fix them and thus spread
students’ current knowledge.
An effective way of visual presentation is used here. The context is
evident for students, and the principle of interfacing old and new information is
observed.
Practical part, based on communication, works like a small project. Involves
a preparatory part, where students have to practise their language skills:
reading and speaking for messengers and writing and listening for scribers.
Personalization is supposed to be the most important phase of learning
process, which allows students to practise new grammar construction and
lexis in concrete situation. When speaking, students were made to use all
language they knew as well as to integrate new lexis to work out a task.
Throughout the lesson we can follow the shift from receiving skills
development to productive skills area, while main focus was laid on eliciting
meaning, spelling and pronunciation.
 ((' % )

Presentation:
Reading a menu: Teacher set the scene, introduce Pieter who is meeting
two old friends, Benni and Hana, for dinner in a restaurant in Stockholm.
Students quickly read the menu (appendix 6) and answer the questions:
1.‘How many meat dishes are there?’
2. ‘Is there anything for vegetarians?’

Ordering a meal: a/ Students listen to the tape ( transcript – appendix 7),

ticking on the menu the food that they hear. Check answers by writing these
chart on the board, student should be able to say what each person
ordered:

Starter Main couse

Pieter

Benni

Hana

b/ Students read quickly through incorrect phrases, trying to find the error.
Then listen the tape again, noting the missing words and their position in each
sentence. Check answers.
 Phrases to read and check: A table three, please.
Are you ready order?
What you recommend?
I have the pepper steak.
Rare , medium, wellIdone?
The roast chicken me, please.
What you like to drink?
I like some mineral water too, please.

c/ Students read the sentences again and decide who says them. They
write # (customer) or 1 (waiter). Finally they find and underline expressions
to order food.

Personalization: Roleplay
Students in groups of three roleplay ordering a meal. A is a waiter, B and C
are customers. Teacher could demonstrate with strong student, taking more
difficult role – the waiter. Then class continue in their groups. Teacher
monitors the activity, providing help if necessary.

(This activities are taken from English File 2, Clive, 1997)

My notes :
Students utilized the vocabulary from previous class and learned how to
use them in context. The main focus shifted from recognizing the target
words in their both written and spoken form to active production within the
context. Students are taught to use them in common phrases with appropriate
level of formality. Topic is a part of so called ‘survival language’, students at
this level has already gone through this situation in real, so they are naturally
highly motivated to acquire it.
 ((' % -

Warmer: students are working in pairs, their task is to complete food

crossword puzzle (Appendix 8) . They take turns to give definitions to their
partner.

Presentation: Questions on the board: “Which food and drink comes

from our country?” “Which foreign food and drink is popular in our country?
Students pull their ideas to builtIup two lists.

Now, focus on the pictures (appendix 9). ‘Can you identify any places or
nationalities in the photographs?’ ‘What else can you see?’
Then students read the text quickly to match the correct heading for each
paragraph. Headings: WHERE DOES OUR FOOD COME FROM?
WHAT DO WE EAT?
HOW DO WE EAT?

After checking the answers let students to read the text again, more
carefully and answer the questions bellow the text.

FollowIup: In small groups students discuss the questions about eating

habits in their country: ‘What is a typical breakfast?’ ‘What does your family
have for breakfast?’ ‘Is lunch or dinner the main meal of the day?’ ‘What is a
typical main meal?’

(This activity is taken from New Headway English Course, Soars, 2000)
 True or false game: one person says a sentence about eating habits in
Britain or America, the others decide whether it is true or false. For example:
English people drink tea with milk. – true
The Americans do not use knives and forks. – false

Teacher start this activity, regulates it a bit in the course and provides
students with factual information about real habits and culture of eating in
English speaking countries.

My notes:
During warmer activity students revise new vocabulary meaning and
spelling. For this purposes crosswords puzzle is more enjoyable form than a
test dictated by the teacher. As students had to create definitions on their own,
it works as speaking and listening exercise as well.

Presentation part provides students with very similar information to those

given in lesson plan 3 for group A, based on different implementation. In this
lesson students were made to participate in creating the text, although in
minimum extent. For comprehension they were not given a bilingual dictionary
but a set of questions, they were able to answer.
Similar approach was chosen in giving specific information about eating
habits in English speaking countries. The last activity involves many cognitive
tasks. First, students have to think about what they already know, then create
or listen to sentences in a class and think about them to decide if they are right
or not. This effort works as a strong motivational factor arousing adequate
attention to listen and absorb the maximum information.
 2- (" %$ (

Testing provide a form of feedback both for learners and teachers.

Vocabulary tests involve the aspects of word knowledge mentioned earlier, i.e.
the word’s form, meaning, connotations, register or style, common collocations,
derivations and grammatical characteristic.
Each of them can be realized receptively (in listening and reading) or
productively (in speaking and writing). Words can be tested in and/or out of
context. In general the important attitude to tests is to strike a balance
between validity, practicality and reliability
For purposes of this thesis I tried to built up the test suitable for both
groups of students. It could be said, each group was in some respect in
favourable position within particular exercise. To avoid this I used exercises
from independent sources regarding both communicative as well as grammarI
translation approaches.

4.3.1. Test I commentary

(full version of the test I appendix 8)
exercise 1: Students are simply dictated the list of words involved in the
topic.
exercise 2: Teacher asks students to write the English word that means: i.e.
a place where you go to buy meat.

Both exercises focus on spelling and meaning. No context is provided and

students’ only task is to produce the correct form.
Evaluating: I one point for correctly written word in exercise 1 I maximum
5%"(
I in exercise 2 – one point for correct meaning and one point
for correct spelling – maximum ) %"(

%
 exercise 3: Use the words from exercise 2 and write a short text including
the items. If you need you can change the word form.

This task tests productive vocabulary knowledge as well as students’ ability

to put acquired vocabulary into context. Students here can but do not need
to prove further aspects of word knowledge – collocations, derivations,
register…
Evaluating: one point for correct form and appropriate use of a word
– maximum 6%"(

Exercise 4: Read the text below and decide which answer A,B,C or D best
fits each space. Example: Would you 1. C some more carrots?
1. a)go b)want c)like d)can

This is an example of a multiple choice test. It is quite easy to score fair.

Multiple choice format can be used with isolated words, words in a sentence
context, or words in whole texts. It focuses on word recognition, not the ability
to produce the word. On the negative side, learners may choose the answer by
process of elimination, which does not necessary correspond to knowledge the
right answer.
Evaluating: one point for each correct answer, maximum ) %"(

Exercise 5: Read the text and complete the gaps with exactly one word.
Example: The kind of food we eat depends on country we live in.

GapIfilling exercise is an alternative to multiply choice. It requires students

to recall the word from memory in order to complete a sentence or a text.
Thus they test the ability to produce a word rather than recognize it. It could
be used for testing knowledge of a wide range of words, including grammar
as well as content words. The ability to complete the gaps depends on
understanding the context.
Evaluating: 3 points for each correct answer, one for fitting the context,
one for proper grammar form and one for proper spelling. Maximum -5%"(

Exercise 6a): Look at the picture and write down the items you find there.
What else you can find in the shop?
Exercise 6b): Look at Barry’s shopping list. Listen and tick the things he
buys. Why doesn’t he buy the other things?

THINGS TO BUY
Orange juice Bread
Milk Apples
Cheese
Coffee
Pizza

The first part of this task requires students’ active production of topic
vocabulary, the second part tests listening comprehension. Students listen to
the tape twice, first they focus on recognizing the items, for the second time
they listen for more details.
Evaluating: Ione point for each item produced in the first part, no maximum
limited
I in the second partI one point for correctly ticked item, and one point for
appropriate detail – maximum 2%"(

Exercise 7: You are going to the restaurant for a lunch with your English
friend, who is a vegetarian. Suggest a starter, main course and dessert for you
and your friend.

This is an opportunity for students to actively produce and utilize all the
vocabulary topic. Evaluating of this kind of exercise is rather objective,
reliability of the test could be improved by providing more explicit criteria for
marking. In this case I marked the range of words, proper collocations and
forms and ability to categorize the target words, which is essential to complete
the task. Maximum )5%"(

4.3.2. Results of the test

7 7 + & (#'& & # + ,

%' "( &'!% &'!%
10 9 5

) 12 11 8

- 6 5 3

2 12 9 10

8 30 13 19

6 No max limit 16 25

6/ 14 5 9

9 20 14 18

'" (#'& :) ;9

Though the exercises were intentionally chosen so that superiority of any

group was eliminated or minimised at least, partial results show slight
directivity to one or another approach, which is not possible to avoid.
While the first three exercises suit better to group from the grammarI
translation class, the second half of the test meets the needs of
communicative approach group better. Some phenomena are not displayed in
scoring, but different attitude to language is evident in both groups.
Students taught through grammar translation method generally proved
very good knowledge of lexis covered in current unit, especially when they
should produce or recognize them in their base form, and when they did not
have to work with the context. Therefore they achieved relatively high score in
the first two exercises. Communicative students, as distinct from those of
grammarItranslation, often do not care a lot about the form and spelling
mistakes, which lowered their grades within the whole test.
GrammarItranslation students’ good results in ex.3 were reached mainly
due to memorization the phrases from the textbook, rather than producing
sentences on their own. This is not reflected in final evaluation but in
comparison with the second group the range of sentences patterns was rather
narrow. In communicative group, students created sentences on their own,
which was evident from wide scale of structures and common occurrence of
mistakes.
In multiIchoice exercise, grammar translation students again proved
excellent knowledge of lexis from textbook, almost all of them chose correct
answer in phrases taught in the course. However, it seems valid only on
condition the sentence is not modified in any way. Expectedly, gapIfilling
exercise was the most complicated one for both groups. Each group tend to
confront different sort of problems. Communicative students seem to
understand the context and they usually put the word in more or less correct
form with spelling mistakes. On the other hand, grammarItranslation students
often did not get the context, so they inclined to use wrong word at all. In case
they understood the context and use the proper word, they wrote it more or
less without spelling mistakes but often in wrong form.
A marked difference in results reached in exercise 6 could be explained by
wider utilization of acquired vocabulary by communicative students: while
grammar translation students simply refreshed the vocabulary items from the
current unit and then just selected those related to the category,
communicative students integrated items learned before. In listening part,
the fact they do not understand all recording clearly, took grammarI
translation students by surprise and they failed to recognize even the words
they already know. Communicative students are obviously used to this
situation and did not hesitate to experiment even with the context they were
not sure about.
The same attitude is indicated in the last creative writing exercise. Rather
narrow range of vocabulary, no awareness of word formation or collocations
and usage of fixed expressions only are the most distinctive features of
grammarItranslation students.
CONCLUSION

Vocabulary is an important part of the English teaching process. It is

supposed to be a very effective communicative device as it carries the highest
level of importance within peoples´ verbal interaction. However, language
itself is not only individual lexemes put together, but it is necessary to follow
a set of grammar rules to assure correct comprehension of speaker’s
intention. Therefore, vocabulary together with grammar rules acquisition plays
significant role in foreign language teaching.

The purpose of this thesis is to compare two different attitudes to

language teaching methodology, which are widely used in current conditions:
the grammarItranslation method and communicative approach, with their
reasons what is to be taught and how they influence final students’
acquisition.

The first part is devoted to the theoretical background of vocabulary

teaching. It also resumes the principles of both examined approaches and
monitors the development in language teaching area I the shift from
focusing on grammatical forms which have to be memorized to the
communicative function of language.

Practical part was realized as an experiment in the classroom. I presented

the same target language for two groups of students, using different approach
for each. Experiment consists of three lesson plans for each group, followed
with a test. Final results are directly confronted, and benefits of each method
for students’ development are specified. The main goal is to assess the
relationship between teaching approach and students’ final knowledge,
focusing on vocabulary load.

Phenomena proved during the practical part could be summed up in short:

grammarItranslation students tend to use rather narrow range of

language with problems to integrate it within context

conscious learning of rules does not lead to language acquisition

I communicative approach prepares students for real communication,

students are not anxious about experiments with language and they are
able to respond the context well
 &'&(')* +,-.

Breen, J., and D. Candlin. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum

in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1, 2, pp. 89–112

Collins English Dictionary for Advanced learners, third edition, 2001

Gairns, Ruth, Redman, Stuart: Working with Words, A guide to teaching and
learning vocabulary, Cambridge University Press, 1986

Harmer, Jeremy: The Practise of English Language teaching, Longman, 1993

Howatt A.P.R. (1984) A History of English Language Teaching (OUP)

Hymes, D. H. 1981. On communicative competence. In The communicative

approach to language teaching. (ed.) C. J. Brumfit and K.
Johnson. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Krashen, Stephen: Principles and Practice in second language acquisition

Logman,1993

Nunan David: Language Teaching Methodology, a textbook for teachers

Longman ,2000

Oxenden Clive, Seligson Paul, Latham Coenig Christina: Enlish File 2, Oxford
University Press, 1997

Peprník J., Nangonová S., Zábojová E.: Angličtina pro jazykové školy 1, Státní
pedagogické nakladatelsví Praha, 1981

Rossner, RichardI Bolitho, Rod: Curents of Change in English Language

Teaching, Oxford University Press,1990
Soars Liz and John: New Headway English Course, Oxford University Press,
2000

Swan Michael, Walter Catherine: The Cambridge English Course 1, Cambridge

University Press, 1984

Thornbury, Scott: How to teach Vocabulary, Longman, 2002

Ur Penny: A Course in Language Teaching , Cambridge University Press, 1999

Vince Michael: Elementary Language Practice, Macmillan Publishers Lim. 2003

Wallace Michael: Practical Language Teaching, Teaching Vocabulary,

Heinemann, 1988

websites
www.exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol37/no3/p27.html (from 9 April)
www.nthuleen.com/papers/720report.htm (from 3 May 2006)
www.aber.ac.uk (from 11 April 2006)
www.onestopenglish.com/teacher/support/ask/methodology/method5.htm
RESUMÉ

Cílem bakalářské práce bylo co možná nejobjektivnější posouzení vývoje v oblasti

jazykového vzdělávání. Práce sleduje dva nejvýznamnější trendy, které jsou
v současnosti uplatňovány při výuce cizích jazyků.
První část shrnuje teorii učení jazyků, historické a teoretické pozadí obou metod,
jejich metodické postupy, aplikaci a přístup k procesu učení jako takový tak aby
využitím jejich předností bylo dosaženo optimálního výsledku. Stěžejním úkolem je
zkoumání souvislosti vlivu jednotlivých výukových metod na dosaženou slovní
zásobu studentů a jejich schopnosti využití získaných dovedností.
Praktická část obsahuje metodické plány konkrétního zaměření zastupující různé
výukové techniky. V závěru práce je zařazen test umožňující přímou konfrontaci
výsledků s vysvětlením opakujících se jazykových tendencí v souvislosti s aplikovaným
metodickým postupem.

RÉSUMÉ

The aim of the thesis is to present the development in language teaching area.
The thesis focus on two main streams applied in this area currently.
The first part resumes the theory of language acquisition, historical and
theoretical background of different approaches, their methodology and application so
that the optimal results could be achieved. The relationship between teaching method
and students’ acquisition is the crucial function of this thesis.
The practical part involves lesson plans of the same topic dealt with two
considered methods. Final test allows direct confrontation of achieved results as well
as explanation of common language tendencies accompanied by applied

%
methodology.