How Do We Teach English Productive Skills？

【Abstract】This essay discussed two main dominant methods in speaking， namely， audiolingualism and communicative approach and anther two prevailing approaches in writing， namely product approach and process approach and exemplified possibilities on how stimulus， purpose and feedback are exploited in these methods. The interactions in betweens these factors value essentially important in effective teaching and learning.

【Key words】English Teaching； Teaching Methods； Productive Skills

【中图分类号】H31 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】2095-3089（2016）07-0088-02

Introduction

The productive skills， opposite to its counterpart known as receptive skills of listening and reading， mean speaking and writing in language teaching （Harmer，2007，275）. This essay shall examine three of the key elements in the productive skills teaching.

1. Speaking

1.1 Audiolingualism

In accuracy？鄄based speaking lesson， teacher may adopt aduiolingualism approach. In audiolingualism， teaching is more teacher？鄄centered， materials？鄄controlled. In this case， drilling has become a stimulus for students to imitate what they heard and gain confidence gradually. In another case， learning alphabetic letters from a tape recorder or doing choral work in class is often seen in beginners class. Likewise， the teacher uses tape recorder or choral work as stimuli instead of leaving students to practise alone. Therefore， stimulus exists as long as it facilitates teaching.

In achieving the big aim of the class， teacher may divide the target aim into several objectives and then set stimulus for each of them in helping reaching that objective respectively. Stimulus can be anything that initiates students learning. They can be flash cards （stimulus） with purpose of attracting and providing more appealing visual effects. They can be songs （stimulus） with purpose of leading into the topic or task， board writing （stimulus） for learners to take note， or positive feedback which encourages learning （both stimulus and purpose）.

1.2 Communicative approach

While in fluency？鄄based speaking class， communicative approach is popular. In communicative activities， teaching is more learner？鄄centred， free and less teacher？鄄intervened in the aim of improving students communication abilities （Harmer，2007，70）. After all， “the most important function of language is to facilitate communication with others （Littlewood，1992，9）. He stresses that the need to use the language for communication is of vitally important （Littlewood，1992，55）. Childs first tongues acquisition is a good example in terms of communication need as Bruner and Haste conclude （cited in Littlewood，1992，55）. Whereas， the purpose of communication is crucial. “A key to the enhancement of communicative purpose and desire to communicate is the information gap” （Harmer，2007， 70）. This was also mentioned by Jim Scrivener. One person has the information that others do not have. Through exchanging information or viewpoints， learners can use what they learned to interact with others in a practical and meaningful ways （Scrivener，2005，201）. Here information gap functions as an essential stimulus to stimulate students to talk and learn. There are other ways to stimulate learning to occur. If students worry about public failure and are just reluctant to talk， the teacher may arrange them to do some individual preparation， then share to his/her partner， then get into small group discussion and finally big groups （Harmer，2007，345-346）.The whole process is purposed on building up the students fluency and confidence but using quite a few of stimuli which might be the chance of preparing the speech in writing， rehearsal opportunity with partners， and the sense of achievement by giving refined speech to more audiences or perhaps teachers positive comments associated with the outstanding work.

1.3 Feedback on oral work

“Feedback is a major source of motivation in any form of learning.” Because people would like to know what they have done wrong and generally welcome useful suggestions on improvements （Nolasco and Arthur，1995，120）. Though it is useful， good feedback requires techniques. “Teacher should not necessarily deal with all oral production in the same way. Decisions about how to react to performance will depend upon the stage of the lesson， the activity， the type of mistake made and the particular student who is making that mistake” （Harmer，2007，142）. For accuracy？鄄based drills， teacher may correct mistakes immediately upon hearing， but for fluency？鄄based conversation， teacher may jot down the errors while the dialogue persists and raise up later to avoid intervening the flow.

According to Harmer， correction on oral work consists of two obvious stages for accuracy work. The teacher first show that there are mistakes made by students. Then if necessary， the students were helped if they have difficulties. The teacher should mind their techniques in showing incorrectness which should be aiming to make students to correct themselves after the mistakes are indicated （Harmer，2007，142-143）. Why？ Because uptake tends to be higher and more successful in student？鄄initiated focus on form than in teacher？鄄initiated focus on form as Ellis et al study shows （Ellis et al，2001，281）. In Elliss article， he referred to Lyster and Rantas research which categorizes feedbacks into six types： explicit correction， recasts， clarification requests， metalinguistic feedback， elicitation， repetition （Ellis et al，2001，293）. Among all these six types of feedback， elicitation and clarification request are listed the most effective types of correction but recast accounts for the less effective in promoting repair （Ellis et al，2001，293）. Though the research did not cover all types of classes and all learners of L2 and the results may not be one hundred percent true， they can be useful reference in our classroom teaching.

In fluency？鄄based work， a teacher responds to the content rather than just form. The correction may be delayed until the communicative activity ends to avoid intervention into the fluency activity. Teacher walks around the class taking notes while students are busy at pair？鄄work or group work and later giving feedbacks to the whole class. Since positive feedbacks are effective in building？鄄up learners confidence， Harmer even suggests teacher to use recorder not only record mistakes that learners made but also record good points emerged from time to time（Harmer，2007，145）. Another alternative is to write personal feedback notes to individuals which the learners often appreciate the teachers careful thoughts put in it and the results may be better.

2. Writing

2.1 Product Approach

The aim of improving students writing quality is achieved through four phases， ranging from familiarization， controlled writing， guided writing and free writing. This approach is often referred as bottom？鄄up since usually students are provided with a fine example of writing so they can identify some aspects of the writing. For example， the lesson is aiming to teach the use of linking words. The teacher can point out one or two connectors and explain the meanings. Then he elicits students to pick out others from the text （Familiarization）. During the process， the teachers leading？鄄in acts as stimulus， introducing connectors functions as purpose. Moving into controlled phase， the teacher may ask learners to join words， sentences and paragraphs （stimuli） using relative linking words. Mistakes are impossible because the structures are restricted or controlled. During such phase， the teachers purpose would be let the learners try on these connectors. Next， when learning is in guided writing period， students may be asked to fill in blanks with all connectors missing. The students may make mistakes but they can refer back to the given text and be given cues from the teacher as well （Stimuli）. During this phase， practical usage under guidance serves as the purpose. Finally， the students are given a writing assignment using connectors learned on a picture （stimulus）. They can make their own stories （stimulus） they like freely. As such， students use what they learned at class in the final product which is also the purpose of the class.

2.2 Process Approach

On the other hand， when teaching is focused on fluency work， process approach may be in place if the purpose is to look for quantity with less accuracy requirement. Because this process approach attends more time on phases of pre？鄄writing phases， editing， re？鄄drafting and so on. In contrast with bottom-up approach， it is often known as top？鄄down where editing and redrafting are considered more important when we write in L2 than we do in L1 （Harmer，2007，325-326）. As Harmer continues to point out that the final purpose is to finally produce a finished writing work in which the various skills that most writers employ are expected to be included. A successful writing class can be led by product approach in a process approach style， staging from more controlled one to less or no controlled. To give writing a good reason can motivate people to put care into their work （Scrivener，2005，201）. So making the writing purpose more realistic and interesting in class is of importance. Good practice includes writing a business report. Students are considered themselves as staff who report reasons why business sales dropped. At first， they may be given a good model report and the teacher analyzes and explains both the form and vocabulary （purpose for familiarisation， report and teachers analysis are stimuli）. Then， they can work in groups to draft a business report of their own （brainstorming， purpose for collecting ideas， and stimulus for exchanging ideas） but addressing to different issues. After the work has been done， each group can present their final work to the class for sharing （purpose for sharing and feeling of achievement）. Teacher may give some feedback and praise the good job （purpose to summarize learning and encourage the students）. Last， the teacher might assign the students to finish their own individual report work as homework and promise a top winner prize to be given. （purpose is to reinforce what have been learned， stimuli are the prize and the homework）. The teacher successfully not only adopts different approaches， integrating reading， speaking and writing skills together， but also uses different stimuli for various purposes to achieve the final learning objective.

2.3 Feedback on written work

Feedback on written work tends to be delayed compared with feedback on spoken work unless the writing piece is short and the correction can be possibly done in class in short time. The way of feedback may rely on the types of task and effects that teacher wish to create （Harmer，2007，147）. In terms of task type， teacher may just pencil the wrong answers in controlled testing exercises while responding to prudent and creative works， the feedback should be focused on the content. Harmer persuades teachers to cite more successful points before suggesting improvement advices. Both Harmer and Scrivener remind teacher to use correction symbols or codes to replace long threatening comments. Both mentioned selective marking is better than marking all mistakes and errors （Scrivener，2005，203）（Harmer，2007，149-151）. Harmer further suggests students pair review and not to mark all students work since “… the sight of their work covered in corrections can cause anxiety. For teachers， making and correcting take up an enormous amount of time” as studied by Icy Lee （cited in Harmer，2007，151）.

Conclusion

This essay discussed two main dominant methods in speaking， namely， audiolingualism and communicative approach and anther two prevailing approaches in writing， namely product approach and process approach and exemplified possibilities on how stimulus， purpose and feedback are exploited in these methods. There has been substantial research in L2 teaching classroom. The interactions in betweens these factors value essentially important in effective teaching and learning. According to Jim Scrivener （Scrivener，2005，166）， “Successful speaking involves fluently communicating information or opinions in a clear unambiguous manner in an appropriate way for a particular context.” Likewise， Martin Bygate believes speaking processing requests accuracy， complexity and fluency （edited by Carter & Nunan，2001，18）. As regard to writing， though parallel criteria of accuracy and fluency may be levied upon it， people judge writing was successful by whether it served what they want them to serve （Scrivener，2005， 201）. As a result， it is expected that all teaching methods or activities are mainly centering on how to improve accuracy and fluency. In order to attain the final goal and objective of each step， teacher may implement a variety of methods， put into necessary elements involved， carefully and technically design and carry out each activity.

作者简介：

唐丽兰（1971.4-），女，汉族，辽宁沈阳人，英国斯特灵大学硕士，讲师，研究方向：英语教学理论、策略。