I I|GSF hr tt.l.rt!.t tn.!. tr tlltbi - Higher Education Commission

fte way to ihe suggested approach. From this course it is hop€d
<strong>tt</strong>ur deeply rooted misconceptiors about language ud lat$age
leaming and of the roles of the teacher ahd lemers, will be
conect€d. Wnght (1887: 6l) confirms ths in the fouowing word!
Tudor(1992:37)adds,
Il is wonn co6id.rins whahcr *e m mdiry ou
ldenaftiB ro en did.mr circurui,lc. We q olt
do this if @ h.rc gdtd !rc'of the sial,.nd
pcltbolrgi:l ralnlx ollh c|4son
tf,aftE' idslv.e4r in pbgrm dereloplk.t ti.Fdds
b a lage enei't upon. ltoeth it Ldm' a*.I!l6 ol
rh.n omuicatirc neds dd i.tdrio6, of the
Lsrins oplbN.vcibD. and ofthe s<strong>tt</strong>uire oflh€ TL
2.lramer-centeredness ca be looked at a! a continum Al one
exrene is the tm id@l appro&h of lernl€r-cerlftdBs, which is
mther dificult to apply in Y€Dcn a! in l]@y other countries. Here
lhe leatrr nas ltis tull auonomy and he is in a position lo
detennine the di@tioq naturE, contenl, rethod, and obj€ctives of
hjs oer leamin& Or dE other extEme, thde ;s tld approach
which is th€ t aditioml teacherccntercd approacll Between the$
two exteres is somethinS one can think of8 a middle aPprosct\
which is still lemer-centered but has some featu€s of fte teachercentered
or t-aditional approaches. At the s6m tine thjs middle
approach is pnctical md suibble to the poor envimtunent of the
couney. F om iris me @ und€Erard that therc should be gradual
development ftom the t€acher-ce ered 10 lhat of ledl€Fcentered
approach and thi,, tu be in Diokinsool wod! " By ene sp€cfic
iEovatioB tbar @uld b€ introduc.d into larguage chssroom and
into the acdvities in il|e clarsrooD'(DickiEon-1987: 132), For rhis
realon one should not bolher loo mu.h abod dE so{alled idealisn
of lesrner-centErcdi€ss.
3. Closely comected with the pr€vious point is the fear of lhe
nec€ss;ty thst lemeFcent€red approaches inpose like rcducing the
number of th€ studentr in th€ classrcom th€ man€r thll is &lmost