Patricia Ershelle L.

Feliciano Critical Paper #2

BLL 122 - P

An Evaluation of a Free Online ESL Class by Languistic.ca

The unexpected global outbreak of COVID-19 had repercussions beyond people’s health

and livelihoods. In particular, the abrupt closure of learning institutions brought about by the

pandemic has caused English as second language (ESL) learners to face significant challenges in

progressing with their language skills. Because language learning is a complex task that requires

thorough and constant practice, language educators could not rely solely on output-based

teaching that sets aside students’ regular interaction with individuals who speak, or are learning

to speak, the same target language. Thus, language educators —and educators in general—had to

be innovative, resulting in a global switch from face-to-face learning to the e-learning model, a

type of learning conducted digitally (True Education n.d.). Language classes began to be held via

online video conferencing platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, and the like. There was also an

emergence of free online courses for a variety of subject areas, including ESL.

I believe that accessible language education is very important in an increasingly globalized

world. Thus, for this paper, I chose to evaluate a free ESL class offered by Languistic.ca, an

online language school based in Canada. I aim to see which language teaching methods are

applied in the class and examine how effectively they work in a remote learning environment

with non-native English speakers from different cultures. For organization, the paper will be

divided into three sections: a summarization of the class, an analysis of the language teaching
methods and techniques used by the instructor, and lastly, a short recommendation for future

ESL classes.

The Class

After a short exchange of pleasantries with the students, the instructor, Professor Monty,

wastes no time and proceeds to their agendas for the day. Within the span of 40 minutes, the

class is expected to review the basic rules of the simple past tense, do an activity together using

what has been learned, and finally, have a natural conversation in the simple past tense. As a

learner of a new language (Nihongo) myself, I appreciate the instructor’s effort to list down the

expected tasks for the session before delving into the formal lesson. I believe that this will give

the students a chance to mentally prepare themselves for what is coming next, and therefore help

lessen their anxiety.

It can be assumed that Professor Monty has discussed the structure of the simple past tense

with the same set of students in the last session, so he simply goes over the discussed grammar

rules, i.e. adding “-d” and “-ed” to the base form of verbs, using “was” and “were” for to-be

verbs, and adding the word “not” to transform affirmative verbs into negative, very quickly. He

also gives an example sentence after each rule to demonstrate it.

Professor Monty simultaneously types his key points on a shared document as he speaks to

provide the students the chance to learn visually. It is expected that the students will memorize

the structure of the simple past during the review part of the class so that they will be able to

construct their own sentences using the same structure later on.

After the review, Professor Monty explains the activity to the class. It is a group reading of a

shortened version of the Cinderella story, but with all the verbs missing. It is the students’ job to
supply the sentences with contextually appropriate verbs in the simple past tense, and then

transform the sentences into simple past questions. This activity, although fairly simple, is

designed to hit two birds with one stone. Vocabulary is to be enhanced alongside the learning of

grammatical structures.

The class is henceforth broken up into three groups, each one placed in a separate breakout

room for a more focused discussion. Professor Monty makes it clear that the students are

grouped so that they can “help each other, correct each other, [and] take turns” (Languistic.ca

2020, 6:22). This means that the instructor will take on a more passive role. Still, he will

circulate around the breakout rooms to monitor how each group is doing, as well as to guide

them with parts of the lessons that they may find challenging.

It is noticeable that there is a certain level of awkwardness in the breakout rooms, particularly

the first one. This awkwardness may be stemming from the fact that the students have never met,

and have not worked together long enough to be familiarized with each other’s levels of English

proficiency. Turn-taking is thus initially difficult but becomes increasingly natural as more and

more students speak up.

After the students orally dictate their answers for the activity, Professor Monty asks them for

alternative verbs that are also applicable to the context. For example, in the Cinderella story,

there is a sentence that goes “She (blank) at 6 in the morning” (Languistic.ca 2020, 13:58).

Professor Monty encourages the student to think of other likewise contextually appropriate and

idiomatic verbs, like “got up” for “woke up” or “made” for “cooked.” Afterward, he skillfully

segues questions using these alternatives to encourage natural conversation using the new words.

Finally, for the third part of the class, he gives a set of conversation questions, e.g. “What

did you do for your last birthday?”, “Who was your first crush?”, “What did you eat for your last
meal?”, etc. for the learned structure to be applied in a natural conversation. In this part, the

students discuss the questions amongst themselves, with Professor Monty asking follow-up

questions here and there to deepen the conversation. Humor is used and idiomatic expressions

are taught. To sum up, the structure of the class goes: a review of the key structures > practice >

communicative application.

Methods

Although the Audiolingual Method and Communicative Language Teaching contrast in

most of their distinctive features, Professor Monty is able to interweave the two and carry out a

structured and communicative style of language teaching.

His use of the Audiolingual Method is most apparent in the review part of the class. The

structure of the simple past tense is primarily taught “through the practice of patterns of sound,

order, and form, rather than by explanation” (Brooks 1964 in Richards & Rodgers 1999, 58).

Although he still provides explanations (which is vital for second language learners), more time

is spent on patterns and examples. His simple and easy-to-follow example sentences that

demonstrate each rule is particularly effective in an ESL class, as they serve as model dialogues

for the students to pattern their sentences after. The logic behind this is that a second language

learner who has not yet mastered the target language is more likely to learn from a pattern, which

can be universally understood, than by being given a lengthy and detailed explanation that they

may not fully understand yet due to vocabulary constraints.

Another characteristic of the Audiolingual Method manifested in the class is the use of the

target language as the language of the classroom. This may be due to the mixed demographic of

the class. The mother tongue cannot be used as the language of instruction because it varies from
student to student; hence, English, the class lingua franca, is used for the entirety of the session.

In turn, language is expected to become an automatic “habit” due to constant practice and

exposure to the target language. There is also a use of positive reinforcement via praise

e.g.“Perfect!”, “Great job!” and nonverbal communication, e.g. a thumbs up, a nod, or a simple

smile, which aims to perpetuate the mentioned habit.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), on the other hand, is applied in the activity and

conversation parts of the class. In the Cinderella story activity, Professor Monty’s

encouragement of the students to think of alternative verbs helps them develop a more

communicative vocabulary—that is, one that can be used for everyday life. He also constantly

asks questions related to the topic to get the students to engage in what he refers to as a “natural

conversation.” Finally, in the last part of the class, he gives the students a list of conversation

questions to discuss amongst themselves. This gives them the freedom to talk about their own

lives and interests using the structures and new words learned. The application of language

learning is done through an authentic communicative activity that encourages collaboration,

sharing, and bouncing ideas.

It appears that the primary goal of the class is to help students to become “communicative[ly]

competent” (Richards & Rodgers 1999, 70) English speakers. More focus is therefore given to

language fluency than accuracy. Grammatical mistakes made by the students are gently

corrected; however, the corrections are not reiterated. Differing pronunciations are also accepted

as long as it is understandable. What is important is that the student is able to interact with both

their classmates and the instructor and freely express what they mean, while also being able to

comprehend what others mean.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The review part of the class is done very quickly and leaves no time for the students to

interact with the instructor. Since grammatical structures are being retaught in this part, it is

important that participation from the students is encouraged for a more active learning

experience. I believe that a better understanding of the lesson is possible if the students are given

the opportunity to construct their own sentences patterned after each example given by the

instructor. On top of that, I think that establishing a frequent turn-taking relationship early on in

the class would lessen the awkwardness as the class progresses and build deeper trust between

the instructor and the students. Games and drills would also be useful in this part to break the ice,

as well as to practice the reviewed structures.

Next, I appreciate the activity’s collaborative nature. It is commendable that although it

could have easily been given as an individual written worksheet, it is instead given as an oral

group activity. Peer learning is an incredibly important tool for second language learners to

develop their oral communication and social interaction skills. However, it is noticeable that

because the activity is presented as more “casual” and communicative, the fact that the lesson is

first and foremost grammatical is sometimes overlooked. For instance, when one student says “I

went and buy ice cream” (Langustic.ca 2020, 31:42), Professor Monty does not correct her.

While the sentence is understandable, the lesson for the day is the simple past, thus it is

important that the student’s learning of it is reflected in her sentences. Speaking is encouraged in

class particularly so they can apply the grammatical structure learned.

Overall, Professor Monty’s engaging and communicative teaching style appears to be

effective. The students who are shy and awkward at first have become more confident and vocal

by the end of the session. Professor Monty is also able to meet all three class agendas within a
40-minute class, demonstrating his skills in time management. Finally, his combination of two

seemingly clashing language teaching methods, i.e. the Audiolingual Method and CLT, is

praiseworthy, although I recommend that he leans more towards the former when the lesson is

grammatical, and towards the latter when it is conversational.

References:

Languistic.ca. “ONLINE STUDENTS Past Simple Lesson | Free Zoom Classes Learning and
Speaking Online.” YouTube. April 25, 2022. Zoom class recording, 39:57.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRrurCh4Wf0.

True Education. n.d. “What is E-Learning?” Accessed April 9, 2022.

https://www.trueeducationpartnerships.com/schools/what-is-e-learning/#:~:text=E
%2Dlearning%20is%20a%20type,to%20learn%20wherever%20they%20are.

Richards, Jack and Theodore Rodgers. 1999. Approaches and methods to language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.