Multiple Intelligences as Strategy for Teaching EFL to high school graduates

Looking back from the vantage point of 1990’s we can see that the Direct Method, Audio-Lingual and Communicative Methods have their rationale and supporters, yet they are not equally efficient for all learners, and for all teachers, and for all situations.The methodology must be flexible and electric, based on a careful selection of facets of various methods and their integration into a cohesive, coherent procedure. Of central importance are positive attitudes of learners and teachers; they should permeate all stages of teaching/learning process, make every learning hour a stimulating, motivating experience leading to pleasure and success in language acquisition.

The teacher’s pivotal responsibility is to imbue students with confidence and self-esteem, emotional security and a well-integrated personality that will make them life-long learners.

The emerging “paradigm shift” in teaching strategies needs new generalizations which will lead to improved attitudes, and better results in teaching/learning process, which will be beneficial both for learners and teachers alike.

It is difficult to predict whether the Communicative Method will last any longer than its predecessors but it can’t be denied that the work of the innovators constitutes a challenge to convention thinking about language teaching, which is unfortunately “stubbornly” adhered by many classroom teachers and teacher-practitioners.

Current Trends

What is current methodology? Do we have to abandon all we have learned of the Audio-Lingual method, the Direct Method (DM), and start anew? Thus far, the suggestions for change have been gentle, but we have not been left with a vacuum to be filed. Judging from techniques and trends of the past few years, we can see that current thinking methodology seems to be in the direction of: – relaxation of some extreme restrictions of A-LM and DM; – development of techniques requiring a more active use of the students mental detail.

Let us examine these two trends in some detail.

Teachers have found that a close adherence to the listening-speaking-reading-writing order has not always been effective and brought the desired results.

On the other hand a lack of such adherence has not proved harmful. They has also called into question the theory that speech is primary and reading and writing are secondary manifestations. Such theoretical and experimental rethinking has resulted in the current trend toward teaching and testing the various language skills in more integrated way. The close procedure provides an interesting and thought-provoking exercise, which trains the students to look carefully at all structural clues and to range around within a semantic field for related concerts. It is a good preparation for careful reading and a useful overall written test.

The teachers no longer feel the need to defer or widely separate reading and writing lessons from listening and speaking activities.

Similarly the prohibition against using the student’s native language has been considerably relaxed. It is just more efficient to give explanations and instructions in the native language because it affords more time for really meaningful practice in English.

Notable among current trends is the more practical recognition of the varying needs of learners. If, for instance, a learner needs a reading knowledge of English above all else, then reading must have priority, and the learner must learn this skill through specific guided practice in reading.

Another question is whether the teacher should polish learner’s structure so as to exclude a change of making a mistake. That “prohibition” of errors way largely due to the fear that mistakes would contribute to the creation of a bad habit. Now that the “habit theory” of language acquisition has been challenged and creative aspects of language learning emphasised, the teacher is freed from this fear. Student’s creative involvement is more important to the learning process than the mere avoiding of errors (this doesn’t mean that the teacher should not correct the student and provide necessary drill when appropriate).

Teachers for some time have felt a need of moving from A-LM (with its rigid structure pattern) to a less controlled situation in which the student can communicate his own ideas. Classroom activities may be grouped into four categories:

completely manipulative;

predominantly manipulative;

predominantly communicative;

completely communicative.