Let's see. A few leftovers from last night!
I realize that I probably overdid the history. I'm afraid that many of our teachers think that methodology is NOTHING but communicative methodology or else they think of the list of methods that you sometimes get tested on for the 임영고사, you know, TPR, suggestopaedia, the silent way, community language learning, etc.
I think that REAL methodology is not like that. The "communicative" method DID introduce some new ideas, but they were never SERIOUSLY implemented and they were soon lost in a kind of "McCommunicative" method popularized by the Americans where you just learn a lot of comprehensible input and this miraculously (subconciously, painlessly) results in grammatical acquisition.
The REAL history of English language teaching is not really about English at all. It's about teaching. And in teaching things change a little, but a lot remains the same, year after year and even century after century. That is why it's interesting. It's not just history; it's OUR history. The past is NOT dead; it's not even past.
Let me PROVE it to you. In your homework article, "Teaching Talk as a Game of Catch", there's a very interesting big of classroom data on p. 337. This data is actually from 2004, that is, it's five years old.
Now, have a look at NEXT month's issue of Mind Culture and Activity, an interdisciplinary teaching journal based in America. You'll see this SAME bit of data is STILL being discussed--by professors in America (Iowa) and Singapore!
Hwang 2009.pdf
For those of you who didn't buy the book, here's the article we are reading:
Kwon and Kellogg.pdf
dk