Download - Search

in128 ZAKIA SARWARPeople lcarn even the same material ~ different ways (this implies acceptingdifferent learning styles).People can lcarn from a varicty of sour , cvcn if the final goals arc thc same ~implying that the instructional matcrials can vary.Direct teaching liy a tcachcr is not essential for lcarning; it is only one of many possibleexpericnccs ~ which mcans that a tcachcr can be a facilitator instead of a preacher.A variety of learning activities can take place simultaneously referring to integrativelanguage-learning activities.Pcoplc may have a variety of goals or objectives lor learning a second language ~implying that learners learn lor tliftcrcnt reasons.Another pcrspcctive is addctl I>\ Altman (1 98O), who clcarl) talks of three liasic tenetsthat charactcri7c Individuali/ctl language teaching:a syllabus that meets the nccds, aliilitics, and interests of cach lcarncrpersonalized goals, mcans, antl expectations for learnersteaching methods tailored to thc ncds of the learnersLogan’s assumptions and Altman’s tcncts \vcrc cxamincd for my research in gcneral,and lor the sclf-learning programme in particular, to dctcrmine how the conccpt ofindividualization could be exploited for lar-gc classes, \\.here learners needed (u) exposureto language learning, (h) activities for confidcncc building, and (c) a lcarner-centredapproach to build rapport bctween the tcachcr and the learners. Obviously, a tailor-madesyllabus antl teaching methodology for cach learner was out of the question for my largeclasses of 1 OO+. All the same, the learners \vcrc still considered to be the focal point of thelearning programme, with realistic appraisal that they \nm~ld all Ihllow their own pace oflearning and reach achicvcmcnt levels congrucnt with the goals they set for thcmsclvcs. Itwas also accepted that if Logan’s five assumptions lvcrc applicable in small classes, they couldvery well be applied to large classes, so long as thc lcarning programme offered thc learnersa variety of optional actil ities.The four Rs of individualizationThe \\.orking definition that emerged from these deliberations was the acceptance ofAltman’s “Thrcc Rs of Individualization: Reeducation, Responsibility, and Relevance” (Williamsand Williams 1979) ~ but mith thc addition of one more R, signifying Rapport, which canlie taken for granted in one-to-one instruction or in a small class. This rapport is difficult,though just as (if not more) essential, to achieve in a large class. In the context of myresearch, the meaning of thcse four lis of indivitlualization arc as follows.ReeducationThis means reconstructing thc role of the teacher as facilitator and the lcarncr as the activeagent in the process of learning. In the Pakistani context, this change nccds to be emphasizedall the more, since the teacher and the taught are both used to the lecture pattern oftcachingin which thc student is a passive learner as the teacher “talks” without any interaction orIireak for the whole teaching period.