Play and games in foreign language learning have also been advanced by

many educationalists, and a lot of material thereof are at teachers’ disposal. Being

probably an effective way of teaching primary-schoolers, the efficacy of such

methods is called into question when senior schoolers are involved. It all, however,

is contingent upon the types of games involved: while with preschoolers physical

activity as a game type could be exploited, linguistic games varying in

sophistication are recommended with more mature learners.

A teacher’s involvement is another issue that is being re-negotiated. By

“involvement” here we mean not only the teacher’s role - be it the traditionally

instructive or the progressively facilitatory - but also the degree of internalization

and responsiveness to learners’ needs, as well as the emotional and mental alacrity

to change. Putting it differently, should a teacher be an unbiased observer of

learners’ progress and, consequently, should every student be assessed without

regard for his individual progress, or should one take into account the individual

development curve and be more tolerant of underachievers’ errors? It seems that

the number of debatable issues is inexhaustible, and as with many “imprecise”

sciences moral as well as academic issues are at stake.

One of the problematic aspects of teaching a foreign language (or, indeed, a

native tongue as well) is that for all the regularity of language rules they are not

always fixed, rigid or stable, many are negotiable or are in flux, but the teaching of

languages must be done in such a way that students are provided with a stable

base, therefore it is unnecessary and, indeed, detrimental to learners’ progress to

introduce a lot of riders, exceptions or examples that do not fit the general pattern.

The frequency principle should be the guiding principle according to which the

most recurrent patterns and items are to be introduced and practiced ahead of the

least recurring. Unavoidable or obvious exceptions to the rule, apparently, should

be engrafted in such a way, though, that the knowledge thereof should be trained

and checked on a regular basis. Micro-variations and register differences are to be

introduced at more advanced stages of language acquisition, if at all, the ultimate

2

decision-maker should be the teacher, who, depending on whether it is deemed

crucial, desirable or optional, may or may not get the learners familiar with

numerous exceptions. This idea is reflected in Ch. Brumfit’s “Individual Freedom

in Language Teaching” [1]: “The rules of language use, and much of the language

system, are inherently fluid and negotiable, but the teaching of languages has to act

as if they are stable and unnegotiable in order to offer a supportive base for

learners...” [1, XI]. The number of exceptions a teacher deems indispensible to

introduce is also contingent on learners’ capacity, command of the language and,

perhaps, surprisingly, on their willingness and capacity to embrace multiple

language variation.

Despite the general lamentation that it is an almost insurmountable task to

teach somebody to be fluent and accurate in their second language, many

advantages of second language acquisition have been pointed out, among which

are: making use of strategies for the native tongue acquisition, knowledge of

probable language systems, knowledge of how language operates socially [1].

Another advantage is the predictably higher motivation with adult learners, who

need a foreign language for some specific purposes.

The ultimate end of foreign language teaching is generating the desired

behaviour, or performance. From this perspective, teaching descriptive rules does

not equate with generating performance, which is another stumbling block for

language instructors. Interestingly, the latter term (“language instructor”), along

with “language guidance”, was apparently created as a euphemism - it seems

easier to instruct somebody what to do or how to do it than engrafting a particular

mode of behavior or the appropriate level of performance in students.

Given that we all agree on the ultimate aim of foreign language teaching and

learning, the next question that logically follows from the above is what model of

student-teacher interaction could be regarded if not the best, at least one of the

most efficient and least traumatic both for the teacher and learners. Some of the

options are: teachers could be colleagues, friends, instructors, facilitators,

3

moderators, mediators, impassive recorders of students’ progress, the ultimate

authority on linguistic issues. The list could be continued ad infinitum, making it

all the more baffling and confusing. It is always tempting to give a personal

opinion of how things ought to be or at least how they look from one’s vantage

point. Trying as hard as one can to resist this temptation, let me venture a modest

and, in all probability, quite a hackneyed opinion that a teacher should be a little of

everything, and no matter how unpopular or outdated the concept of teachers as

instructors may sound, it can’t be discarded, for who else but teachers are to

instruct language learners in language matters? The bottom-line here is that

instruction should not be didactic, overtly authoritarian, arbitrary or inconsistent.

Apparently, it is these types of instruction that led to the reconsideration of

teachers’ role in language acquisition. If an instructor does more harm than good,

than what is left for him is to become a recorder, without probably trying to

become friends with one’s your audience not to spoil it all. A friendly relationship,

however, rarely ends in a tragedy, so it would not come amiss to maintain it in

one’s teaching practice, without overstepping the line, however, by turning into an

obsequious servant ready to satisfy your students’ slightest whim.

The two key qualities a teacher should have or learn in the case of its dearth,

is flexibility and responsiveness to change: “Good teaching will be reflexive,

sensitive to the possibility of different kinds of understanding” [3, 167]. If the

course of action, no matter how minutely prepared and elaborated upon, does not

work with one’s particular audience, the ability to modify it, both after careful

reconsideration and reappraisal as well as spontaneously, is highly praised by the

audience and is more productive than not. Flexibility seems to go hand in hand

with reflection, the latter allowing room for improvement: “Much of the process of

education consists of being able to distance oneself in some way from what one

knows by being able to reflect on one’s own knowledge” [2, 127].

While not necessarily a problem with university courses, simplification is

something that is expected of school teachers, especially trainee ones. Student-

4

teachers having their first teaching practice at school often complain about having

difficulty in adjusting their language both to schoolers’ needs and level. In an

attempt to demonstrate to their supervisor how well they know the language, the

rules and the exceptions thereof, they launch into a long and tedious soliloquy that

at first may seem awesome (in all senses of the adjective) to learners, but that later

gives a lot of room for pranks, lack of discipline and in the worst scenario - to the

explicitly impertinent conduct. Giving clear instructions about the tasks and the

results that one expects to receive, simultaneously maintaining a friendly rather

than a hostile attitude, is the safe initial ground on which a temple could be built

later on. Demonstrating a sense of humour and authority in the classroom is

indispensible, although some cannot understand how these two seemingly opposed

traits could be in synchrony. Humour is a quality unique to humankind, it is one of

the simplest and the most efficient ways to dispel any tension or hostility, it is the

common denominator, which is egalitarian and not selective. Therefore, students

are usually very appreciative of some subtle, witty jokes that, first, enable the

teacher to demonstrate his/her intellect, second, to show the students that they are

welcome and accepted by the “authority”, that their teacher is not indifferent to

them, and third, because of its playful nature to give students a little burst of

energy to carry on (at least until the end of the lesson). Given the above,

“developing a capacity to distinguish between necessary simplification and

necessary problematization of accepted categories is an important aim for

education <…> the adaptation of the plan according to learner characteristics

reflects the relationship between choices about the code and the nature of the

addressee” [1, 33-34]. Simplification results from a delicate balance between

quantity and quality and inevitably leads to generalization, sometimes to

stereotyping if one is not too careful, which is potentially detrimental to country

studies, because it is based on some typical associations one group has with

another, which may not necessarily be true: “simplification is a process that

enables us to concentrate on what is currently irrelevant. It prevents clutter in the

5

mind, but risks introducing irrelevant clutter of its own. The reason for this is that

generalizations always need to be contextually justified, and when contexts change

the justification changes or disappears. Yesterday’s generalizations become today’s

stereotypes and tomorrow’s caricatures” [1, 36].

The communicative approach mentioned above is the bane of modern

methodology, because, firstly, no one is absolutely sure what it is and, secondly,

there seems to be some disagreement among scholars whether the previous

centuries of foreign language teaching can justly be branded as noncommunicative, and, the implication seems to be, ineffective. According to Ch.

Brumfit, the principles of communicative language teaching could be summed up

as follows: the identification of and the focus on learners’ needs, tolerance of

mother-tongue in classroom setting, a tailor-made approach, a supportive

environment, in which the teacher acts as a mediator rather than an arbiter, the

treatment of errors as an inevitable part of the language acquisition process,

presentation of language items in context rather than in isolation, the usage of

authentic materials, which are not originally constructed for language teaching

purposes, encouragement of such oral activities, such as group-work, pair-work,

role-play, information-gap exercises, etc. Apparently, the one true aspect of

communicative approach lies with the teacher implementing activities that are

imitative of natural ones and ones that the speaker is more likely to encounter in

real life. It does not, however, repudiate the practical value of drilling exercises,

which are meant to develop in students the skillful application of some

indispensible clichés and grammar structures.

Finally, it is worthy of note that a successful interaction between the teacher

and his students to a great extent depends not only on accountability, but also on

honesty, because accountability rarely comes from within, as a rule, it is imposed

from without; honesty, in contradistinction, does not and cannot be contingent on

the outward authority: if a teacher believes in the methods he/she uses, then part of

the teaching process is correct; checking whether the methods do work is another

6

matter, in which in-depth experimental and “action” (experimental) research is

invaluable.

References

1. Brumfit Ch. Individual Freedom in Language Teaching. - Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2001. - 207 p.

2. Bruner J.S. Actual minds, possible Worlds. - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press.

3. Edwards D., Mercer N. Common Knowledge. - London: Methuen, 1987. -193 p.

7