Vìsnik Unìversitetu ìmenì Alʹfreda Nobelâ: Serìâ Pedagogìka ì Psihologiâ (Jun 2019)
CHANGES OF PARADIGMS IN THE HISTORY OF METHODS OF TEACHING FOREIGN LANGUAGES: FROM THE 19TH CENTURY UNTIL TODAY
Abstract
The article is devoted to considering the leading paradigms that were replacing one another in the history of methods of foreign language teaching beginning from the 19th century and until today: the conscious (comparative) paradigm which was followed by the direct paradigm and later by the neodirect one,the latter beingreplaced, in its turn, by the communicative paradigm. Radical changes of the communicative paradigm in our time are shown as happening under new influences and leading to the emergence of a new paradigm of language teaching/learning with its roots in all the preceding ones. It is proved that in the period when one of the paradigms dominates, other paradigms also exist, including some obviously outdated ones, but they seem to be “on the periphery,” without considerably influencing the modifications of the leading paradigm. The causes of replacement and “absorption” of the preceding paradigms by a dominating one and the development of the dominating paradigm itself are discussed with demonstrating the inevitability of substantial modifications of the dominating paradigm leading to the necessity of replacing it with a new paradigm. The conclusion is made that none of the earlier paradigms is fully discarded by the methods of foreign language teaching as a science and as a pedagogical practice; elements from earlier paradigms are used in different manners in the following paradigms. The prospects of replacing the now dominating communicative paradigm of teaching and learning foreign languages are analyzed. It is shown that nowadays two new paradigms are competing with it for the role of the leading (dominating) paradigm: the culture-oriented and the principled-pragmatic ones. It is proved that the culture-oriented paradigm cannot in any way become the new (next) dominating paradigm because it not only does not oppose the communicative paradigm but has already been actually absorbed by the latter, which, in its turn, has become modified due to such absorption. But the principled-pragmatic paradigm has chances of becoming a new dominating paradigm. Not in opposition to the communicative paradigm either, it is capable of absorbing that last paradigm together with the culture-oriented one. It is so because the principled-pragmatic paradigm is better adapted to the latest requirements and demands than the communicative one. In accordance with that, the possible new dominating paradigm analyzed in the article should become the subject matter of further studies.
Keywords
