WEEK 8 - METHODS & APPROACHES

 

We’ve now reached the midpoint of the semester — that moment when tiredness and excitement coexist. The workload is growing with deadlines, projects, and the TFG on the horizon, but at the same time, the subjects are becoming more engaging and connected with our future profession. This week we explored the different methods and approaches in language teaching, which helped us understand not only the theory behind them, but also how to adapt each one to real contexts.

Both sessions were very practical and dynamic, and our group had to present the Audiolingual Method — which we decided to stage in a military style. It was surprisingly fun and effective, and it made me realise how important motivation and creativity are when applying any method in the classroom.

SESSION 1

We started by exploring several traditional and alternative methods: the Direct Method, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response (TPR), and Communicative Language Learning. Each approach offered a different perspective on how to teach and learn languages, from focusing on pronunciation and immersion (Direct Method), to relaxation and emotional openness (Suggestopedia), to physical engagement and movement (TPR).

The TPR method was the one that resonated most with me. It reminded me a lot of my practicum experience, where I saw how powerful movement can be in learning — especially for younger children. During my placement, we used songs, games, and small physical actions to help students remember vocabulary and instructions. It not only made learning more fun but also helped students who struggled with concentration or traditional methods to feel successful. We also have watched our video; click here.

This session helped me connect theory with real classroom moments. It’s not about memorizing what each method says, but about understanding when and how to use them according to students’ needs and the context. Every method has something valuable to offer, but none works alone. The teacher’s job is to take the best of each — the communicative spirit, the kinaesthetic learning, the emotional connection — and create a balanced, inclusive environment. That’s what I tried to apply during my practicum and what I hope to continue improving.

SESSION 2

In the second session, we continued exploring: CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), Content-Based Instruction, Grammar Translation, Task-Based Language Teaching, Learning Strategy Training, and Multiple Intelligences.

CLIL and TBLT were especially interesting because they connect language learning with real content and tasks — a very practical approach that reflects how languages are used in real life. Although Content-Based Instruction didn’t fully convince me, I see its potential when it’s adapted to the students’ level and interests. Sometimes, focusing too much on the content can make the language aspect lose visibility, which can be frustrating for learners.

On the other hand, Task-Based Language Teaching fits very well with my view of teaching: learning by doing, by solving problems, by interacting. I saw this approach in action during my practicum, especially through project-based work where students created posters, songs, or roleplays using English as a tool rather than a goal.

Finally, the method and theory of Multiple Intelligences reminded me how different each learner is. It’s something I experienced clearly in my practicum: some students expressed themselves through art, others through movement or logical reasoning. It’s our job as teachers to recognize and nurture those different strengths. 

To finish the session, we participated in a short Guy Fawkes quiz, which was both entertaining and culturally enriching. It reminded me how engaging it can be to integrate cultural celebrations into language lessons — not just to practise vocabulary or grammar, but to connect learning with real-world traditions. Although the lecturer seemed to demonize most of the methods discussed throughout the session, I personally believe that each one has its strengths when properly adapted. Rather than rejecting them altogether, I think it is wiser to take the best from each approach and apply it according to the students’ needs and the classroom context. After all, good teaching is not about following one strict method, but about knowing when and how to combine different strategies to inspire genuine learning.

This session reaffirmed the importance of being flexible and eclectic. No single method fits all students or all contexts. As teachers, we must blend theory with empathy — adapting methods creatively, just as we did with our military-style Audiolingual presentation. The key is to keep students engaged and active in their own learning process.

REFERENCES

Azañón Cabeza, M. (2022, octubre). Desafíos del sistema educativo en España. Portafolio Digital María Azañón Cabeza. https://portafoliodigitalmariaazanoncabeza.blogspot.com/2022/10/desafios-del-sistema-educativo-en.html

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education.

anva: Design for everyone. https://www.canva.com (our video).

Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge University Press.

Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. (s.f.). Facultad de Educación. Toledo. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. https://www.uclm.es/toledo/educacion

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books.

Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Longman.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Some images included in this post are my own (Images by the author).

Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha. (n.d.). Campus Virtual. https://www.uclm.es/campusvirtual