Some myths of modern Ukrainian methodology of foreign language teaching as a science

O. Tarnopolsky
{"title":"Some myths of modern Ukrainian methodology of foreign language teaching as a science","authors":"O. Tarnopolsky","doi":"10.32589/1817-8510.2021.3.241153","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \nThe paper gives evidence that the modern Ukrainian theory and methodology of foreign language teaching is quite rapidly developing as a science; however, its onward progress is somewhat “braked” by certain ungrounded convictions (“myths”), some of which originate from the times of the former Soviet Union. Three such myths were analyzed in the article as the ones that to the greatest extent retard the progressive development of the Ukrainian methodology: the myth that “methodology is exercises,” this is why every methodological research must necessarily be completed with elaborating a system (or subsystem) of relevant exercises; the myth that whatever is developed in a methodological study should be within the borders of one, and only one, broad, substantiated, and more or less universally recognized methodological approach; and the myth that only the most recent professional literature should be quoted and serve as the foundation for whatever methodological research. In the paper the distinction is drawn between learning activities in language learning and exercises as standardized and auxiliary components in the relevant teaching / learning system, and it is proven that every methodological research has to be completed with some practical result to be used in this system but that result may not necessarily be a system of exercises or even of learning activities. It is also demonstrated that the approaches elaborated in a methodological study do not obligatorily have to be within the framework of only one broad and recognized approach but, on the contrary, may combine the features of different approaches, even opposing each other, as long as they meet the principles of the principled pragmatism theory - those principles that allow to combine such features harmoniously. Finally, it is proven that the theory and methodology of language teaching is a science in which new knowledge does not abolish the preceding knowledge as obsolete. New knowledge is “built into” the preceding knowledge, thus creating a new system together with it. That is why in all the methodological studies it is impossible to use as the foundation only the recent research. The works published even decades ago must be taken into account (and quoted). The conclusion is made that getting rid of the existing “methodological myths” will considerably accelerate and improve the development of the Ukrainian system of language education. \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":32907,"journal":{"name":"Inozemni movi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inozemni movi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32589/1817-8510.2021.3.241153","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The paper gives evidence that the modern Ukrainian theory and methodology of foreign language teaching is quite rapidly developing as a science; however, its onward progress is somewhat “braked” by certain ungrounded convictions (“myths”), some of which originate from the times of the former Soviet Union. Three such myths were analyzed in the article as the ones that to the greatest extent retard the progressive development of the Ukrainian methodology: the myth that “methodology is exercises,” this is why every methodological research must necessarily be completed with elaborating a system (or subsystem) of relevant exercises; the myth that whatever is developed in a methodological study should be within the borders of one, and only one, broad, substantiated, and more or less universally recognized methodological approach; and the myth that only the most recent professional literature should be quoted and serve as the foundation for whatever methodological research. In the paper the distinction is drawn between learning activities in language learning and exercises as standardized and auxiliary components in the relevant teaching / learning system, and it is proven that every methodological research has to be completed with some practical result to be used in this system but that result may not necessarily be a system of exercises or even of learning activities. It is also demonstrated that the approaches elaborated in a methodological study do not obligatorily have to be within the framework of only one broad and recognized approach but, on the contrary, may combine the features of different approaches, even opposing each other, as long as they meet the principles of the principled pragmatism theory - those principles that allow to combine such features harmoniously. Finally, it is proven that the theory and methodology of language teaching is a science in which new knowledge does not abolish the preceding knowledge as obsolete. New knowledge is “built into” the preceding knowledge, thus creating a new system together with it. That is why in all the methodological studies it is impossible to use as the foundation only the recent research. The works published even decades ago must be taken into account (and quoted). The conclusion is made that getting rid of the existing “methodological myths” will considerably accelerate and improve the development of the Ukrainian system of language education.
现代乌克兰外语教学方法论的一些误区
现代乌克兰外语教学理论和方法论作为一门科学正在迅速发展;然而,它的前进多少受到某些毫无根据的信念(“神话”)的“阻碍”,其中一些信念源自前苏联时代。本文分析了三个这样的神话,认为它们在很大程度上阻碍了乌克兰方法论的进步发展:“方法论就是练习”的神话,这就是为什么每一个方法论研究都必须通过详细阐述相关练习的系统(或子系统)来完成;在方法论研究中发展的任何东西都应该在一种,而且只有一种,广泛的,有根据的,或多或少被普遍认可的方法论方法的范围内;以及只有最新的专业文献才应该被引用,并作为任何方法学研究的基础的神话。本文将语言学习中的学习活动与相关教/学系统中作为标准化和辅助组成部分的练习进行了区分,并证明了每一种方法研究都必须完成一些实际结果,以用于该系统,但该结果不一定是练习系统,甚至不一定是学习活动。它还表明,在方法论研究中阐述的方法不一定必须在一个广泛和公认的方法的框架内,相反,只要它们符合原则实用主义理论的原则-这些原则允许这些特征和谐地结合起来,就可以结合不同方法的特点,甚至是相互对立的。最后,证明了语言教学的理论和方法是一门新知识不会使旧知识过时的科学。新知识被“内置”到先前的知识中,从而与它一起创建一个新的系统。这就是为什么在所有的方法论研究中,不可能只以最近的研究作为基础。即使是几十年前出版的作品也必须被考虑在内(并被引用)。结论是,摆脱现存的“方法论迷思”将大大促进和改善乌克兰语言教育体系的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信