Segregated Skills vs. Integrated Skills

Itzel Velazquez Cuevas

Segregated Skills vs. Integrated Skills

English language teaching can be approached in various ways, and two fundamental methods are segregated skills and integrated skills. Both approaches aim to develop students' communicative competence, but they do so in different ways. Below is a comparison of these two methods in the context of English teaching.

A Comparative Analysis

2. Easier Assessment

Since the skills are separate, it is easier to assess students' progress in each area independently.

3. Targeted Practice:

Students can focus on improving a specific skill without being distracted by others.

The segregated skills approach is based on teaching language skills in isolation. This means that each skill (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) is taught and practiced separately, without necessarily integrating them.

1. Specialized Focus

Segregated Skills

Each skill is addressed with its own methodology. For example, listening classes focus solely on listening activities, while writing classes are dedicated only to writing production.

Evaluating progress in integrated skills can be more complex since activities combine several skills and cannot be measured in isolation.

Challenges in Assessment

The goal is to prepare students to communicate effectively in real contexts, where, for example, one needs to listen and then speak about what was heard, or read a text and then write about it.

By integrating multiple skills into a single activity, students develop more comprehensive and functional communicative competence..

Using authentic communication situations makes learning more meaningful, as students can directly see the utility of what they are learning.

Contextualized Learning

Development of Overall Communicative Competence

Simulating Real-Life Situations

Integrated Skills

Segregated Approach

Integrated Approach

Conclusion Disadvantages and Advantages

• Clear and direct focus on each skill; easier to assess individually.

• Closer to real communication; fosters complete communicative competence.

• Does not reflect real language use; may be less motivating due to its repetitive nature.

• More difficult to assess and plan; some skills may be underdeveloped.

Both approaches have their merits, and the choice between segregated and integrated skills will depend on the specific goals of the course, students' needs, and the teaching context. A combined approach, using the best elements of both models, could be an effective option to ensure the comprehensive development of students' language skills.