First Impressions: Observations of teaching approaches – by Gifty Edna Anani
Reflections from a Teaching Experience in Karlsruhe
My teaching experience at the University of Education in Karlsruhe (KUE), Germany, gave me a lot to think about how effective language teaching is actually done. I am Dr Gifty Edna Anani from the Institute of Education, University of Cape Coast (UCC), Ghana, and I participated in the DAAD Get Ready for Global Teaching programme as a guest lecturer in November-December 2025.
Working with Prof. Isabel Martin (Head of the Institute of Multilingualism) and her colleagues in the English Department exposed me to teaching that is carefully planned, grounded in theory, and focused on the learners. It also made me reflect on my own teaching choices and whether I rely too much on habit or intuition.
To make sense of what I observed, it helps to explain some key terms. In language teaching, there is a difference between an approach (e.g. instructivist or constructivist), a method (e.g. audio-lingual, grammar-translation, task-based, or intercultural/-communicative), and a technique (e.g. artistic ones like storytelling, language games, or songs). An approach is a set of beliefs about language and how it is learned. A method is how those beliefs are put into practice, a plan for the lesson, including objectives and roles for teachers and students. A technique is the actual classroom activity (Richards & Rodgers, 2014; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). One approach can lead to different methods, and one technique can be used in many ways. This is why good teachers often mix and match what works best for their learners (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). This also reflects the idea that teaching is not fixed but depends on the teacher’s ability to reflect and adapt to different classroom situations (Schön, 1983).
Another distinction is between tasks, activities, and exercises. A task is meaning-focused: learners use language to achieve something, like solving a problem or creating a product (Nunan, 2004; Ellis, 2003). An activity is any planned classroom engagement that may or may not involve communication. An exercise usually focuses on practising a particular grammar point or vocabulary item, often with a right answer (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). In reality, teaching involves all three. Exercises can consolidate learning, homework extends practice, and class time is best used for interaction and communication (Vygotsky, 1978; Kolb, 1984).
In addition, language teaching today is influenced by the idea that English is overwhelmingly used globally in different contexts by many speaker groups, not just by “native speakers“. This means learners need to be able to communicate effectively in diverse situations, not just focus on accuracy (Galloway & Rose, 2015). Overall, teaching should support both understanding and use of language in real-life situations, which is why a balance of different approaches and practices is important.
At Karlsruhe, I noticed that lessons were mostly task-based with class activities and exercises. Students worked together, discussed ideas, and presented their findings. The class activities allowed them to explore topics, negotiate meaning, and learn from one another; also, the exercises helped them notice and practise language forms accurately.
For example, in a session on “Conditional and Relative Clauses & the Present Perfect Algorithm” in Prof. Martin’s course Aspects of English Grammar, students first analysed short texts to see how conditional and relative clauses were used. In groups, they discussed meaning, use, and purpose, then presented their findings. This was followed by exercises where they practised forming the structures. Finally, they analysed their own essays to apply what they learnt. Moving between tasks, activities, and exercises like this helped students understand both meaning and form, and kept them engaged.
The learning environment in Karlsruhe generally supported participation. Classes started and ended on time, lecturers and students respected one another, and relationships were professional but approachable.
Technology made learning smoother. Materials were uploaded to Stud.IP, a Content Management System, so students could access them anytime and go back to them when needed. This made it easier for them to follow the lessons even outside class hours. Consultations with the course instructor to help student groups prepare their presentations also took place (twice) outside class hours.
Back home in Ghana, I also used Google Drive to upload notes, scores, and other teaching materials, which helped with sharing and keeping everything in one place; however, Stud.IP has more uses than Google Drive since it supports not just file sharing, but also other course activities and organizational functions like announcements, a forum, wikis, superwikis, surveys, courseware, etc.
These experiences reminded me that the teacher’s role is not just delivering content. With task-based methods and exercises, students can think critically, take responsibility for their learning, and use language meaningfully. Some teachers in Ghana already do this, but it needs to happen more deliberately. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Isabel Martin, as well as the lecturers and students of the English Department, for their support in making my purpose in Karlsruhe possible.
My time at KUE sharpened my thinking about teaching methods and pushed me to reflect more carefully on my own classroom practice. The lessons I observed are not just experiences I am leaving behind; they are experiences I will carry into my work at the University of Cape Coast, especially within the Institute of Education.
It also made clear the value of working across institutions. This experience strengthens the link between the University of Cape Coast and the University of Education Karlsruhe – we already have a University Cooperation Agreement in place – and demonstrates the potential of sustained international collaboration.
In my next article, I will reflect on the Integrated Semester Practicum (ISP) of teacher trainees at KUE, as I observed their teaching in KUE’s practice schools.
Text by Gifty Edna Anani
Photos by Gifty Edna Anani , Isabel Martin & Ernest Nyamekye
References
Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique. ELT Journal, 17(2), 63–67.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Galloway, N., & Rose, H. (2015). Introducing global Englishes. Routledge.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Heinle.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
You must be logged in to post a comment.