Roy's Blog

When I was a student in secondary school, my teacher always used the PPP method. They presented the form and the usage of the target grammar item and then we would do lots of drilling, finishing all the exercises in the grammar book, and also had some quizzes. They always told us some vague grammar rules like the difference between using present continuous tense, simple future tense, and be going to. Therefore, I didn't really enjoy the process. I think this way of teaching makes students (at least it is boring for me) lose interest in learning grammar. However, when I am a teacher now, I found it difficult to strike a balance between getting the correct form and conveying the meaning.

I think L2 teaching methodologies are not entirely science. First, I do agree that the researches of L2 teaching methodologies adopt a rather scientific approach. the selection of participants, a controlled group, and even the analysis of data are very much like a science experiment. Moreover, the design of the research methodology and the analysis require meticulous mind. For this reason, I think L2 teaching methodologies are the results of "scientific" research. However, I believe science is indisputable truth, at least not yet refuted until now. If we are looking at whether or not L2 teaching methodologies are science or not, i think we ought to be looking at whether or not it is indisputable. Of course, we cannot say the methodology doesn't exist. Yet, I don't think there is any way to prove the methodology wrong. I believe there's no one methodology that is better than the other. Thus, I don't think L2 methodologies are science.