史的観点にたつ現代のLL考察
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
I As early as 1880, a laboratory was already used in modern language instruction. Since then about 90 years have passed, during which the A-V equipment used or installed in it has become complex and remarkably sophisticated, even though its chief aim, "to teach languages effectively," has not changed. It is reasonable to expect that the "hardware" of the LL will develop at an even more unprecedented rate ; but, what about the "software?" For example, do we have enough theory, or any theory, to teach foreign languages in an LL? As might have been predicted, the use of an LL in the instruction of foreign languages has passed through stages of zealous acceptance and outright rejection. Moreover, as J. B. Carroll stated in 1963, there has been little experimental research on the contribution that an LL makes to a course of instruction. Unfortunately, Carroll's statement is just as true today as it was then. When we consider the fundamental problems of an LL: the value, the theory, etc., not only are "experimental studies" needed, but also a survey and evaluation of the achievements of the LL to date. II As the world progressed from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th, modern languages acquired a more crucical position than previously. In addition, the phonological side of languages gained in importance because of advances in linguistics and phonetics. With regard to teaching method, an earnest protest was beginning to be made against G-T instruction, which in turn gave rise to a new method for teaching languages : the "Laboratory Method." This type of instruction aimed at promoting language learning by means of extensive drills and various aids. A special room with equipment (e.g. charts, maps, realia, etc.) was used and sometimes a primitive phonograph. In this method we find the influence of the Natural Method, the Phonetic Method and the Direct Method. Moreover, it owed much to the psychological theories developed from the 19th century to the 20th : Pavlov's "conditioning" and Watson's "behaviorism." That is, the Laboratory Method was consistent with the theories and the results of the science of those days. When we consider the present-day LL, do we have such a theory? Do we have any theory which is related organically with English teaching in Japan and backed up by science, which justifies the value of an LL, or which provides a rationale for its use and the preparation of effective materials? The first step toward formulating a theory for LL instruction in Japan is to identify the specific objectives, as opposed to vague aims and goals, of English teaching in Japan. Not until this has been done can one determine the suitable role of the LL in foreign language instruction and how it can be used most effectively. III Since its advent, the laboratory has had the role of supplementing regular lessons, and the notion of it as a supplementary aid remains unchanged to this day. However, as Morton stated in 1960, it is important to recognize that the LL can also function as a TM; that is, without the limitations set by current notions. In other words, we need to discover what con be expected of the LL as a potential TM, as a way of providing situations in which a student can learn according to his ability. IV About half a century ago, an adequate theory for using a laboratory existed, but since that time no attention has been paid to the theoretical side. As a consequence, advances in technology have so greatly surpassed advances in theory that it is essential to reassess the role of the LL without further delay and to formulate a theory that is not only supported by such sciences as psycholinguistics and educational psychology, but also cognizant of the potentialities of a laboratory, learning with aids, and the function, materials, and administration of an LL.
- 外国語教育メディア学会の論文
- 1969-07-05