57
the books therefore have received favorable considerations and positive comments
from teachers who have been using them.
Despites the strengths, however, the books also show several limitations. For
example, many of their speaking activities are found non-communicative, failing to
elicit negotiation of meaning and presenting unrealistic and unnatural discourse. Also,
guidance is not always available for students to complete
tasks and socio-cultural
information is not included for learning the rules of speaking in the target language.
Writing tasks sometimes do not specify readership and text types, thus confusing
students and teachers. In receptive skills practice, emphasis tends to be placed more
on literal processing than deep processing of information, thus unrealistically
reflecting real world communication. Finally, the teaching of language contents does
not correspond with current theories of second language acquisition. In most
instances, forms are taught mechanically but not via tasks and consciousness-raising
activities, making it hard for rule internalization. Unfortunately, these shortcomings
might have made the books less communicative than they would have been expected
and intended to be. Other limitations
as reported by teachers, for example,
overloaded contents for the student population in disadvantaged areas and unhelpful
teacher’s manuals, also tend to impact on the effective application of the books.
Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: