TEACHING ENGLISH IN A LANGUAGE CENTER VERSUS A TRADITIONAL CLASSROOM: EVIDENCE FROM THE AMERICAN SHELF, THE ENGLISH LABORATORY OF UNIKIS, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

Author: Kawayu Moseka Béatrice

ABSTRACT

This study undertakes a comparative analysis of English language teaching practices across three distinct pedagogical environments in Kisangani: the American Shelf, the English Laboratory of the University of Kisangani, and the Department of English within the same institution. Each of these environments embodies a different conception of language education, reflecting broader debates in applied linguistics regarding the balance between communicative competence, practical training, and theoretical grounding.

The American Shelf, functioning as a language center, positions itself as an informal yet dynamic learning space where communicative approaches and resource-based learning predominate. The English Laboratory, by contrast, represents a semi-specialized environment that combines structured exercises with modest technological tools, offering learners opportunities for practice though often constrained by infrastructural limitations. Meanwhile, the Department of English reflects the traditional academic classroom model, emphasizing theoretical knowledge, linguistic analysis, and formal examinations as the cornerstone of language mastery.

Using a cross-case analysis framework, the article explores these contexts through key comparative dimensions such as teaching methodologies, resource availability, technological integration, learner motivation, and learning outcomes. The findings reveal that while the American Shelf fosters learner autonomy and prioritizes oral communication skills, the English Laboratory provides an intermediary model that seeks to merge practice with controlled instruction, though hindered by insufficient digital resources. The Department of English, despite its academic rigor, tends to privilege knowledge transmission and evaluation over interactive or experiential learning, which may reduce learner motivation in multilingual settings where practical communication is highly valued.

The comparative insights suggest that no single environment is entirely sufficient in addressing the complex needs of English learners in Kisangani, a city characterized by linguistic diversity and growing demands for global communication skills. Rather, the study advocates for hybrid or blended approaches that integrate the strengths of each model: the communicative dynamism of the American Shelf, the structured practice of the English Laboratory, and the analytical rigor of the Department of English. Such an integrated framework may lead to more comprehensive language acquisition, better learner engagement, and improved educational outcomes in multilingual African contexts.

Keywords: English teaching, American Shelf, English Laboratory, Department of English.

REFERENCES

  1. Aryal, M. (2024). Blended learning approaches in English language teaching pedagogy. NELTA Journal, 29(1), 156–160. Retrieved from https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NELTA/article/view/72643/57472
  2. Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Routledge.
  3. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Longman.
  4. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
  5. Coleman, H. (2006). English Language Teaching in Development. British Council.
  6. Crystal, D. (2012). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom. Cambridge University Press.
  8. Harmer, J. (2015). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Education.
  9. Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Penguin.
  10. Jenkins, J. (2015). Global Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. Routledge.
  11. Kabuya, P. (2019). “Challenges of English Language Teaching in Congolese Universities.” Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(3), 509–517.
  12. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
  13. Little, D. (2007). “Language Learner Autonomy: Some Fundamental Considerations Revisited.” Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29.
  14. Muganga, R. (2020). “English as a Gateway to Higher Education and Employment in Francophone Africa.” African Studies Review, 63(4), 78–96.
  15. Nunan, D. (2004). Task-Based Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  16. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  17. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge University Press.
  18. Seidlhofer, B. (2011). Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford University Press.
  19. Lumanda, L. T. (2025). The lack of the English lab and its effects on students’ listening skills: The case of the second-year students from English departments in Kinshasa. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359716536_The_Lack_of_the_English_Lab_and_Its_Effects_on_ Students%27_Listening_Skills_The_Case_of_the_Second-Year_Students_from_English_Departments_in_Kinshasa
  20. Toko Lumanda, L. (2025). Application of hybrid teaching method in English teaching. ResearchGate. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334423283_Application_of_Hybrid_Teaching_Method_in_English _Teaching
  21. S. Department of State. (n.d.). American English resources. Retrieved from https://americanenglish.state.gov/resources
  22. S. Department of State. (n.d.). The Monster Book of Language Teaching Activities. Retrieved from https://americanenglish.state.gov/resources/monster-book-language-teaching-activities