University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68-15, 361 MURPHY, Joseph Anthony, 1937- THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL STUDIES METHODOLOGY TO FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING. The Ohio State University, Ph. D ., 1968 Education, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan ' Copyright by Joseph Anthony Murphy 1968 THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF SOCIAL STUDIES METHODOLOGY TO FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joseph Anthony Murphy, B.A. ****** The Ohio State University • 1968 Approved by Adviser Department of Education ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Parts of the following study involved collecting reports from many sources including national leaders in foreign language education, state and local supervisors, college professors, and high school teachers. To all those outside the university who took time to help, I extend sincere thanks. Special recognition is due to my reading committee consisting of my program adviser, Dr. Edward D. Allen, Dr. Frank Otto, and Dr. Robert Jewett. My position as an uninformed "outsider" looking into the implications of social studies methodology for foreign language teaching would have been unbearable without the warm support and the guidance of Dr. Jewett. VITA March 27, 1937 Born - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1958 .................. B.A. , La Salle College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1961-1963 . Teacher of French and Social Studies, Holy Cross High School, Riverside, New Jersey 1963-1965 . Teacher of French, Palmyra High School, Palmyra, New Jersey 1965-1968 . National Defense Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1968 .................. Methods and Demonstration Teacher, NDEA French Summer In stitu te, Colorado State U niversity, Fort C ollins, Colorado 1968 .................. Coordinator of Teaching A ssistants, Romance Language Department, Michigan State University PUBLICATIONS "The Ph.D. Foreign Language Requirement," Voice. The Ohio State University, January, 1968. (Co-author with Walter Meiden) "The Use of the Language Laboratory to Teach the Reading Lesson," The Modern Language Journal. January, 1968. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Foreign Language Education Studies in Foreign Language Education. Professors Edward D. Allen, Paul Pirnsleur, and Frank Otto Studies in Curriculum and Supervision. Professors Paul R. Klohr, Jack Frymier, Alexander Frazier, and E lsie Alberty Studies in Teacher Education. Professor Leonard 0. Andrews Studies in French Literature. Professors Charles Carlut and Pierre Astier i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................................... i i VITA................................................................................... i i i CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1 Background Scope Limitations Review of the Literature Statement of the Problem II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON FOREIGN LANGUAGE CORE PROGRAMS...................................................................................................... 14 III. FOREIGN LANGUAGE STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES............................ 37 Foreign Language Teaching Strategies Foreign Language Teaching Techniques An Observation from Child Growth and Development IV. THE SOCIAL STUDIES CONTRIBUTION...................................................... 59 The R eflective Method The Structure of the Discipline The Role of the Teacher in the In itia l Stages of Reflection Specific Strategies and Techniques Organizational Strategies V. TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES: APPLICATION.......................................... 104 EXHIBIT A Notetaking in An Advanced Foreign Language Class EXHIBIT B Directed Discussion in a Foreign Language Class EXHIBIT C An Open-textboolc Lesson: Fact versus Opinion EXHIBIT D From Dialogue to Role-Playing EXHIBIT E The Carnegie Format EXHIBIT F A Multi-text Approach EXHIBIT G A Taxonomy of Foreign Language Questions / iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX A ............................................................. 185 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................207 BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................. 219 v CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. 'Background Since the early 1950's the foreign language profession has been officially committed tro the task of self-improvement. This commitment has resulted in organizational changes like the establishment of a Department of Foreign Languages within the larger organizational structure of the National Education Association, and more recently, the creation of a new organization (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) to unify and coordinate the effo rts of the many individual foreign language organizations. It has caused the revision of outdated materials and methods of teaching foreign language at the elementary levels. It has made possible, a new linguistic orientation for the teaching of foreign languages. It has pleaded for, and in many instances, earned a longer sequence within which to accomplish its expanded objectives. It has produced a widespread interest in audio-visual aids for the foreign language class. Each improvement, however, has been accompanied by a sense of incompleteness as foreign language educators gradually realized that language learning must contain both a mechanical and a cognitive component, and that the language profession must draw upon several related d iscip lin es like linguistics, psychology, anthropology, and literature in order to 1 2 present a balanced program for students. In fact, the need to select and use knowledge from so many sources has become both a problem and an opportunity for the foreign language teacher: It is so many-sided that, in the hands of a sk illfu l teacher, i t easily becomes a genuine 'core su b ject1 through which the fields'of English, art, architecture, music, literature, history, and geography can be correlated. The study of a foreign language then becomes a course in civili zation and the humanities.1 One of the basic assumptions of this study stems from the b elief that advanced foreign language courses with their substantial content orientation are in fact examples of a core curriculum. The teacher who knows only how to conduct elementary language d r ills finds himself baffled by the demands of knowing literature, anthropology, sociology, political science, and economics once he is assigned to a Level III, IV, or V class. Moreover, even i f his knowledge in these areas is extensive, there remains the unstudied question of how to present it to students in a pedagogically useful form. Teaching a social studies or cultural unit in an advanced foreign language class amounts to nothing less than an integration of language learning and social science, and carries with it all the advantages and problems of a core curriculum: In setting up as it s ultimate aim the better understanding of a foreign people and its culture, the study of foreign languages belongs essentially to the social sciences.2 It might be useful at this point to recall some of the charac teristics, advantages, and criticisms of the core curriculum, since this information will undoubtedly have implications for advanced foreign language classes. Although such classes are not usually core 3 curricula in the administrative sense because they are not conducted in block time, their objectives and activities share the problems and the promise of correlated classes. Among the characteristics and advantages of core curricula we might include: 1. Large blocks .of time. A group of pupils usually meets with one teacher for 1-1/2 hours a day or more, almost always in consecutive periods. This gives the teacher fewer pupils to handle and a chance to know them better . From the standpoint of the pupils, it gives them one person they can know well. Furthermore, integration of subjects can be carried on in such large blocks of time better than in separate classes. When well done, the pupils can see the relationships between the different field s. 2. Content organized around problems, themes, topics. The work in core classes is ordinarily organized around themes, problems, or topics. Often these topics are selected by the pupils, under the guidance of the teacher, in teacher- pupil planning . 3. Integration of subject matter. Proponents of the core curriculum emphasize that i t permits greater integration of "content" than other types of curriculum organization. 4. Provision for individual differences. In the core curric ulum much of the work is done in committees, with a wide range of materials used, thereby providing for greater attention to individual differences in ability and in interests. 5. Emphasis on a wide variety of methods. The larger blocks of time make it possible for a teacher to employ a wider variety of methods. More research can be carried on and at different levels. The skills of research, reporting, discussion, and group work can be stressed . .3 Some of the criticisms of the core curriculum are: 1. Teachers are not trained for this work. Critics of core point out that today's teachers were trained in.a subject field and that literature and social studies, for example, are each broad enough, without requiring teachers to know both fields well . 2. One subject is likely to be ignored