The difference between these gauges of success is significant. For example, extensive research evidence supports the
use of a number of methods of increasing vocabulary development in an absolute sense. However, there is no evidence that any single method or comprehensive program seriously decreases the vocabulary gap that exists between students with poor vocabularies and those with rich vocabularies. The crucial issue, then, is whether implementation of a program designed to enhance vocabulary development significantly reduces the vocabulary gap between groups of students without restricting the vocabulary development of average- and high-achieving students.
All references were coded on three dimensions: (a) general conclusions, (b) learner characteristics, and (c) instructional implications. Convergence within the dimensions was achieved through a multiple-step process. Reliability was attained by combining independent reviews, inter-coder comparisons of data categorization, coding clarification, and refinement with reliability checks on all sources. To derive general areas of convergence, the primary author of this chapter used the convergent responses from the review and coding process in concert with a second examination of each source.
1. Method, techniques and research tools. The word method has been used by various authors in various senses, all connected with some aspects of teaching. Approach is one of the senses attributed to the word method in a rather confusing manner. It is in the sense that such words have been used as “psychological method”, “phonetic method”, “reading method”, where what was actually meant was the approach underlying the principles of selecting, and grading teaching materials often embodied in one method. In connection with techniques, there has been some terminological confusion as well. Such teaching techniques as laboratory use, translation, informant drill sessions, etc., have been referred to as “methods”.
When different methods are considered, it is necessary to be aware of the reasons, which account for these
differences. The differences between methods may be due to:
a. different language descriptions, resulting from different linguistic theories;
b. different ideas on language learning.
Differences falling under point (a) account for minor differences between methods and can be considered as distinguishing variants of methods rather than methods themselves. Consider as an example a language description, which recognizes wh-questions and yes/no questions as entirely different patterns, as opposed to a description, which treats these two types of questions as transformationally or otherwise related. Each stand will accordingly be reflected in the method. In the first instance, the two kinds of questions will be treated as separate teaching items, whereas the second description will provide grounds for treating the two types of questions as a single teaching point. The issue in question does not, however, go beyond a single method, whatever that method may be.
Different ideas on language learning (b) account for most distinctions between various methods. There are methods, which aim at reproducing the natural conditions under which the first language is acquired (little or no grading). Other methods are not based on any specific set of assumptions save the teaching experience and the talent of the teacher. Still other methods have their foundation in the belief that the interference of the native language is the factor, which should be primarily considered in the process of teaching.
All means employed in presenting, fixing and testing the linguistic materials constitute teaching techniques. In the process of teaching, it is rather important to keep the three aspects of teaching apart, even if certain techniques (films, tapes, some types of drills and exercises) can be employed in all three. Thus, even if some of the means overlap, in each aspect similar media is used for different purposes.