Talk:Language pedagogy

[Untitled]
This article is in serious need of revision in order to make it readable. I've listed some points which need consideration:

The opening claim omits alternative learning arrangements such as private tuition. The remainder of the paragraph offers unspecified generalizations.

The three terms, "approach," "method" and "technique" are initially cited. A brief outline is then given of the first term, but this should be placed in a new paragraph. Later, the description of "technique" is tacked onto the end of the definition of "method" instead of being placed in a separate paragraph. It would be best to use the three terms as headings and write an explanation under each.

The concept of an "approach" is referred to as "a set of correlative assumptions" but the details of what the assumptions are or what they correlate with or what the "set" may be are omitted. Likewise, the statement that it "does not involve procedure" lacks specificity - what does "procedure" imply here? The writer needs to explain the explanation. It follows that the remainder of the argument is opaque. In the closing sentence, "Such can be related to second language acquisition theory," it is impossible to say with any certainty what "Such" actually refers to, since both the assumptions and procedure cited earlier are undefined.

The three principal views cited in par 3 contain several stylistic errors:

A verb, e.g. 'used,' is omitted in the first point: "elements [used] to code meaning." The parenthesized phrase, "(e.g. grammar)" should be written out in prose or the final section of the second point (..."such as requesting something.") should be placed in parentheses. The article should deploy a single method of citation to give the text consistency. The alternative use of "treats" and "sees" is an instance of artful variation. Under the section "Structural methods" subsection "Grammar-translation method" par 2:

The opening phrase, "At school," is imprecise. Next, "the teaching of grammar consists of a process," the writer asserts, "of training in the rules of a language." This is an odd construction that should be rephrased. The continuation, "which must make it possible to all the students to correctly express their opinion," also needs revision: "...make it possible [for] all the students..." The next assertion, "to understand the remarks which are addressed to them," appears to contradict the argument that grammar translation-based learning is text-based.

More later... Ironiclogic (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ironiclogic, and thank you for your thoughts. I agree completely. I moved the text of this article from language education basically to free up space, and I'm afraid to say it has been pretty much unaltered despite its elevation to the status of stand-alone article. I don't think it had been edited for a long time before the split either. If you want to revise it, you should go right ahead and edit the article. This is a textbook case where it would pay to be WP:BOLD. I would go even further and say have no qualms about deleting material that is unsourced or doing major restructuring. Personally I think we could better structure the article to give the most weight to the most popular methods in use today (communicative approach, task-based learning, audio-lingual, grammar-translation, and PPP), and a lot less to the rest. For example, the Proprioceptive language learning method gets a big mention but I had never heard of it before reading this article (and yes, I'm a language teacher). Go for it. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 13:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So what do you see as the difference between language pedagogy and language education? I was going to suggest merger, and see here that you split them on purpose so you must have had some intention? -- Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language pedagogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090112010049/http://webh01.ua.ac.be/didascalia/mortality.htm to http://webh01.ua.ac.be/didascalia/mortality.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language pedagogy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214165144/http://www2.aashe.org/conf2008/ to http://www.aashe.org/conf2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Title - Language teaching?
Why is the title such an ungainly phrase, "Language pedagogy"? The phrase is used once in the text: in the intro's first line. "Language teaching" is used 37 times. Can we please change it? Malick78 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a Language education page, as well. Arguably that page is (or should be) about language teaching in general, while Language pedagogy is (or should be) specifically about theories or methods of language education. On the other hand, maybe these two pages should be merged, or reorganised in some other way. RW Dutton (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)