An Overview of Second Language Teaching Methods and Approaches(Eugene McKendry)

Debate and developments around the methods of language teaching and learning have been ongoing since the time of Comenius in the 17 th century, if not before. The complexity of contexts and the greater appreciation of the issues lead us to the conclusion that the panacea of a single, universal optimum method for teaching and learning modern languages does not exist, but rather the need for teachers to adopt an informed eclectic approach, incorporating elements from the range of methods available. Most language teaching today aims to achieve oral communication, although some CRAMLAP questionnaire respondents place greater emphasis upon grammatical mastery and reading.

In attempting to define what ‘method’ is, we can consider Edward Anthony’s tripartite distinction of Approach, Method and Technique (Anthony: 1963).

This distinction was developed and recast by Richards and Rodgers (1982, 1985) as Approach, Design and Procedure encompassed within the overall concept of Method, “an umbrella term for the specification and interrelation of theory and practice” (Richards & Rodgers 1985: 16) where

Approach refers to the beliefs and theories about language, language learning and teaching that underlie a method

Design specifies how theories of language and learning are implemented in a syllabus model and teaching and learning activities and materials in the classroom

Procedure concerns the techniques and practices employed in the classroom as consequences of particular approaches and designs.

(Richards & Rodgers 1985:17)

There are many publications available discussing the various methods. We have drawn here, inter alia, upon Chapter Two of H. Douglas Brown’s Teaching by

METHOD

Procedure

Approach Design

Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (Longman/ Pearson Education, White Plains, New York, 2nd edition 2001).

Brown draws a distinction between methods as “specific, identifiable clusters of theoretically compatible classroom techniques” (p15), and methodology as “pedagogical practices in general…Whatever considerations are involved in ‘how to teach’ are methodological” (ibid.).

A glance through the past century or so of language teaching will give an interesting picture of how varied the interpretations have been of the best way to teach a foreign language. As disciplinary schools of thought – psychology, linguistics, and education, for example – have come and gone, so have language-teaching methods waxed and waned in popularity. Teaching methods, as “approaches in action,” are of course the practical application of theoretical findings and positions. In a field such as ours that is relatively young, it should come as no surprise to discover a wide variety of these applications over the last hundred years, some in total philosophical opposition to others.

Albert Marckwardt (1972:5) saw these “changing winds and shifting sands” as a cyclical pattern in which a new method emerged about every quarter of a century. Each new method broke from the old but took with it some of the positive aspects of the previous practices

Brown 2001: 17-18

The Grammar-Translation MethodThe Classical or Grammar-Translation method represents the tradition of language teaching adopted in western society and developed over centuries of teaching not only the classical languages such as Latin and Greek, but also foreign languages. The focus was on studying grammatical rules and morphology, study, doing written exercices, memorizing vocabulary, translating texts from and prose passages into the language. It remained popular in modern language pedagogy, even after the introduction of newer methods. In America, the Coleman Report in 1929 recommended an emphasis on the skill of reading in schools and colleges as it was felt at that time that there would be few opportunities to practise the spoken language. Internationally, the Grammar-Translation method is still practised today, not only in courses, including CRAMLAP respondents, teaching the older forms of languages (Latin, Greek, Old Irish etc.) where its validity can still be argued in light of expected learning outcomes, but also, with less justification, in some institutions for modern language courses. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979:3) listed the major characteristics of Grammar-Translation:

Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language;

Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words; Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given; Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often

focuses on the form and inflection of words;

Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early; Little attention is paid to the context of texts, which are treated as exercices in

grammatical analysis; Often the only drills are exercices in translating disconnected sentences from

the target language into the mother tongue; Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

The Direct MethodWhile Henri Gouin’s The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages, published in 1880, can be seen as the precursor of modern language teaching methods with its ‘naturalistic’ approach, the credit for popularising the Direct Method usually goes to Charles Berlitz, although he marketed it as the Berlitz Method.

The basic premise of the Direct Method was that one should attempt to learn a second language in much the same way as children learn their first language. The method emphasised oral interaction, spontaneous use of language, no translation between first and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammar rules.

Richards and Rodgers summarized the principles of the Direct method as follows (2001: 12)

Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language; Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught;

Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully traded progression organized around questions-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small intensive classes;

Grammar was taught inductively;

New teaching points were taught through modelling and practice;

Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, pictures; Abstract vocabulary was taught through association of ideas;

Both speech and listening comprehension were taught;

Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

The Audiolingual MethodThe Audiolingual Method is derived from "The Army Method," so called because it was developed through a U.S. Army programme devised after World War II to produce speakers proficient in the languages of friend and foes. In this method, grounded in the habit formation model of behaviourist psychology and on a Structural

Linguistics theory of language, the emphasis was on memorisation through pattern drills and conversation practices rather than promoting communicative ability.

Characteristics of the Audiolingual Method: New material is presented in dialogue form; There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and

overlearning Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis taught one at a time; Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills; There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive

analogy rather than by deductive explanation; Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context; There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids; Great importance is attached to pronunciation; Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted; Successful responses are immediately reinforced; There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances; There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.

(adapted from Prator & Celce-Murcia 1979)

Cognitive Code LearningWith the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics, attention of linguists and language teachers was drawn towards the ‘deep structure’ of language and a more cognitive psychology. Chomsky’s theory of Transformational-generative Grammar focused attention again on the rule-governed nature of language and language acquisition rather than habit formation. This gave rise in the 1960s to Cognitive Code Learning where learners were encouraged to work out grammar rules deductively for themselves.

This method had limited success as the cognitive emphasis on rules and paradigms proved as unattractive as behaviourist rote drilling. There is also confusion for practitioners, with Nunan (2003: 6) ascribing inductive reasoning to it, while Brown (2001: 24) notes that proponents of a cognitive code learning methodology injected more deductive rule learning into language classes

Deductive Learning Grammatical explanations or rules are presented and then applied through practice in exercices.The learner works from rules/ principles to examples

Inductive Learning Learners are presented with examples. They then discover or induce language rules and principles on their own

Alternative or ‘Designer’ methodsThe 1970s saw the emergence of some alternative, less-commonly used methods and approaches, such as Suggestopedia; The Silent Way; Total Physical Response. An overview table of these ‘Designer’ methods is provided by Nunan (1989: 194-195) and Brown (2001: chapter 2).

The Natural ApproachThe Natural Approach, with echoes of the ‘naturalistic’ approach of the Direct Method, was developed by Krashen and Terrell (1983). It emphasised “Comprehensible Input”, distinguishing between ‘acquisition’ – a natural subconscious process, and ‘learning’ – a conscious process. They argued that learning cannot lead to acquisition. The focus is on meaning, not form (structure, grammar).

Nunan’s overview of the Natural Approach (1989, 194-195), adapted here, outlines its characteristics:

Theory of language Theory of Learning Objectives SyllabusThe essence of language is meaning. Vocabulary not grammar is the heart of language

There are 2 ways of L2 language development:Acquisition a natural sub-conscious process;Learning a conscious process. Learning cannot lead to acquisition

Designed to give beginners/ intermediate learner communicative skills. Four broad areas; basic personal communicative skills (oral/written); academic learning skills (oral/written)

Based on a selection of communicative activities and topics derived from learner needs

Activity types Learner roles Teacher roles Roles of materialsActivities allowing comprehensible input, about things in the here-and-now. Focus on meaning not form

Should not try and learn language in the usual sense, but should try and lose themselves in activities involving meaningful communication

The teacher is the primary source of comprehensible input. Must create positive low-anxiety climate. Must choose and orchestrate a rich mixture of classroom activities

Materials come from realia rather than textbooks. Primary aim is to promote comprehension and communication

KrashenThe Natural Approach was based upon Krashen’s theories of second language acquisition, and his Five Hypotheses. As we shall see, Krashen’s influence went beyond this particular method and as such merits closer attention.

Krashen’s Five HypothesesThe Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis: claims that there are two distinctive ways of developing second language competence:

acquisition, that is by using language for “real communication”

learning .. "knowing about" or “formal knowledge” of a language

The Natural Order hypothesis; 'we acquire the rules of language in a predictable order'

The Monitor Hypothesis: 'conscious learning ... can only be used as a Monitor or an editor' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) and cannot lead to fluency

The Input Hypothesis: 'humans acquire language in only one way - by understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input"'

The Affective Filter Hypothesis: 'a mental block, caused by affective factors ... that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition device' (Krashen, 1985, p.100)

The contrasts between Acquisition and Learning can be tabulated as follows:

Acquisition LearningImplicit, subconscious Explicit, consciousInformal situations Formal situationsUses grammatical ‘feel’ Uses grammatical rulesDepends on attitude Depends on aptitudesStable order of acquisition Simplex to complex order of learning

(Vivian Cook website)

The use of the term ‘Natural Approach’ rather than ‘Method’ highlights the development of a move away from ‘method’ which implies a particular set of features to be followed, almost as a panacea, to ‘approach’ which starts from some basic principles which are then developed in the design and development of practice in teaching and learning. It is now widely recognised that the diversity of contexts requires an informed, eclectic approach. To quote Nunan:

It has been realized that there never was and probably never will be a method for all, and the focus in recent years has been on the development of classroom tasks and activities which are consonant with what we know about second language acquisition, and which are also in keeping with the dynamics of the classroom itself (Nunan 1991: 228)

Communicative Language TeachingDuring the 1980s and 1990s approaches emerged which concentrated on the fundamentally communicative functions of language and language classrooms were characterized by attempts to ensure authenticity of materials and pragmatic, meaningful tasks.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emerged as the norm in second language teaching. As a broadly-based approach, there are any number of definitions and interpretations, but the following interconnected characteristics offered by Brown (2001: 43) provide a useful overview:

1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) of communicative competence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational aspects of language with the pragmatic.

2. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.

3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use.

4. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom. Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for communication in those contexts.

5. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning.

6. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with others.

The breadth of possible applications can lead to misinterpretations. In the United Kingdom, for example, the National Curriculum introduced in 1988 led to a topic-based emphasis that sidelined the role of grammar, arguing from Krashen that comprehensible input alone was required. This ignored, however, the difference in context between transitional bilingual education for Spanish speakers in the USA and the few classes a week offered in British schools.

Functional-Notional SyllabusThe move from method to approach has also focused on syllabus design. The Notional/ Functional Syllabus (NFS) has been associated with CLT. The content of language teaching is organised and categorized by categories of meaning and function rather than by elements of grammar and structure. The work of Van Ek and Alexander (1975) for the Council of Europe and Wilkins (1976) has been influential in syllabus design up to the present day, and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).

The A1 Syllabus for Irish presented in CRAMLAP follows the recommendations of the CEFR and owes much to the NFS concept. It is a syllabus, not a pedagogy, and due consideration must be given to the role of grammatical form in teaching it.

The Framework cannot replace reference grammars or provide a strict ordering (though scaling may involve selection and hence some ordering in global terms) but provides a framework for the decisions of practitioners to be made known. (Council of Europe 2001a: 152)

Selected Language Teaching Methods and Approaches: Cognitive Code Learning, Communicative Language Teaching,

Suggestopedia, The Silent Way

Cognitive Code Learning (for volunteers only)

The age of audiolingualism, with its emphasis on surface forms and on the rote practice of scientifically produced patterns, began to wane when the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics turned linguists and language teachers toward the "deep structure" of language. Increasing interest in generative transformational grammar and focused attention on the rule-governed nature of language and language acquisition led some language-teaching programs to promote a deductive approach rather than the inductivity of the ALM. Arguing that children subconsciously acquire a system of rules, proponents of a cognitive code learning methodology began to inject more deductive rule learning into language classes. In an amalgamation of Audiolingual and Grammar Translation techniques, classes retained the drilling typical of ALM but added healthy doses of rule explanations and reliance on grammatical sequencing of material. Cognitive code learning was not so much a method as it was an approach that emphasized a conscious awareness of rules and their applications to second language learning. It was a reaction to the strictly behavioristic practices of the ALM, and ironically, a return to some of the practices of Grammar Translation. As teachers and materials developers saw that incessant parroting of potentially rote material was not creating communicatively proficient learners, a new twist was needed, and cognitive code learning appeared to provide just such a twist. Unfortunately, the innovation was short-lived, for as surely as rote drilling bored students, overt cognitive attention to the rules, paradigms, intricacies, and exceptions of a language overtaxed the mental reserves of language students. The language teaching profession needed some spice and verve, and innovation which appeared in the 1970s. (Brown, 2001: 24), (Brown, 2000: 103).

The Methods of the 1970s

The decade of the 1970s was historically significant on two counts. First, perhaps more than in other decade in "modern" language-teaching history, research on second language learning and teaching grew from an offshoot of linguistics to a discipline in its own right. As more and more scholars specialized their efforts in second language acquisition studies, our knowledge of how people learn languages inside and outside the classroom mushroomed.

Second, in this spirited atmosphere of pioneering research, a number of innovative if not revolutionary methods were conceived. These "designer" methods were soon marketed by entrepreneurs as the latest and greatest applications of the multidisciplinary research findings of the day. Today, as we look back at these methods, we can applaud them for their innovative flair, for their attempt to rouse the language-teaching world out of its audiolingual sleep, and for their stimulation of even more research as we sought to discover why they were not the godsend that their inventors and marketers hoped they would be. The scrutiny that the designer methods underwent has enabled us today to incorporate certain elements thereof in our current communicative approaches to language teaching. Let's look at five of these products of the spirited 1970s. (Brown, 2001: 24-25).

Communicative Language Teaching

CLT is best understood as an approach, not a method. There is a relation between eclecticism and a communicative approach since eclecticism derives from what existed in the past, it includes the mixture of different approaches and methods of the past and combines the best elements from all of them. Thus, an eclectic teacher is the one who will attempt to extract the best elements from all of the past methods and approaches. Dynamic teaching is this flexibility, that is adjusting methods in the classroom to the present situation. What aspects influence the choice of technique or techniques in the classroom? - learners’ age, their level of proficiency, their interests, motivation, materials, equipment to disposal, learners’ learning styles and so on and so forth. For the sake of simplicity and directness, here are the following interconnected characteristics as a definition of CLT.

1. Communicative Language Teaching means preparing learners to be able to communicate outside the classroom, in real life situations, therefore, a classroom should be regarded as a springboard for the ability to utilize the language outside the classroom.

2. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components of communicative competence and not restricted to grammatical or linguistic competence.

3. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central focus but rather aspects of language that enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.

4. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in language use.

5. In the communicative classroom, students ultimately have to use the language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts.

6. Teachers in communicative classrooms will find themselves talking less and listening more – becoming active facilitators. The teacher sets up an exercise, but because the learners’ performance is the major goal , the teacher must step back and observe, sometimes acting as a referee or monitor. A classroom during a communicative activity is far from quiet. The learners do most of the speaking and frequently the scene of such a classroom is active with learners leaving their seats to complete a task. Because of the increased responsibility to participate, learners may find they gain confidence in using the target language in general.Moreover, the teacher’s role is to show his/her learners effective language learning strategies, autonomous learners will be able to use a repertoire of strategies.

7. Vocabulary should be taught in the context, preferably in a students-oriented context.

8. Pronunciation should be taught clear and comprehensive as mispronunciation may block communication.

9. If learners benefit from using their native language, it is accepted to use it to e.g. understand some problems or when explaining the rules of the activities, games (it is much more reasonable to instruct learners how they should do a particular activity in the classroom resorting to the native language rather than using the target language).

10. All of the receptive and productive skills should be integrated, that is put together so that they work well and bring good effect and make a good system.

These characteristics underscore some major departures from earlier approaches. In some ways those departures were a gradual product of outgrowing the numerous methods that characterized a long stretch of history. In other ways those departures were radical. Structurally (grammatically) sequenced curricula were a mainstay of language teaching for centuries. CLT suggests that grammatical structure might better be subsumed under various functional categories. In CLT we pay considerably less attention to the overt presentation and discussion of grammatical rules than we traditionally did. A great deal of use of authentic language is implied in CLT, as we attempt to build fluency (Chambers 1997). It is important to note, however, that fluency should never be encouraged at the expense of clear, unambiguous, direct communication. Finally, much more spontaneity is present in communicative classrooms: students are encouraged to deal with unrehearsed situations under the guidance, but not control, of the teacher. The fourth characteristic of CLT often makes it difficult for a non-native speaking teacher who is not very proficient in the second language to teach effectively. Dialogs, drills, rehearsed exercises, and discussions (in the first language) of grammatical rules are much simpler for some non-native speaking teachers to contend with. This drawback should not deter one, however, from pursuing communicative goals in the classroom. Technology (video, television, audiotapes, the Internet, computer software) can come to the aid of such teachers. Moreover, in the

last decade or so, we have seen a marked increase in English teachers' proficiency levels around the world. As educational and political institutions in various countries become more sensitive to the importance of teaching foreign languages for communicative purposes (not just for the purpose of fulfilling a "requirement" or of "passing a test"), we may be better able, worldwide, to accomplish the goals of communicative language teaching. (Brown, 2000: 103-105).

Suggestopedia

Other new methods of the decade were not quite as strictly affective as CLT. Suggestopedia, for example, was a method that was derived from Bulgarian psychologist Georgi Lozanov's (1979) contention that the human brain could process great quantities of material if given the right conditions for learning, among which are a state of relaxation and giving over of control to the teacher. According to Lozanov, people are capable of learning much more than they give themselves credit for. Drawing on insights from Soviet psychological research on extrasensory perception and from yoga, Lozanov created a method for learning that capitalized on relaxed states of mind for maximum retention of material. Music was central to his method. Baroque music, with its 60 beats per minute and its specific rhythm, created the kind of "relaxed concentration" that led to "superlearning" (Ostrander and Schroeder 1979: 65). According to Lozanov, during the soft playing of baroque music, one can take in tremendous quantities of material due to an increase in alpha brain waves and a decrease in blood pressure and pulse rate. In applications of Suggestopedia to foreign language learning, Lozanov and his followers experimented with the presentation of vocabulary, readings, dialogs, role-plays, drama, and a variety of other typical classroom activities. Some of the classroom methodology was not particularly unique. The primary difference lay in a significant proportion of activity carried out in soft, comfortable seats in relaxed states of consciousness. Students were encouraged to be as "childlike" as possible, yielding all authority to the teacher and sometimes assuming the roles (and names) of native speakers of the foreign language. Students thus became "suggestible." Lozanov (1979: 272) described the concert session portion of a Suggestopedia language class:

At the beginning of the session, all conversation stops for a minute or two, and the teacher listens to the music coming from a tape-recorder. He waits and listens to several passages in order to enter into the mood of the music and then begins to read or recite the new text, his voice modulated in harmony with the musical phrases. The students follow the text in their textbooks where each lesson is translated into the

mother tongue. Between the first and second part of the concert, there are several minutes of solemn silence. In some cases, even longer pauses can be given to permit the students to stir a little.

Before the beginning of the second part of the concert, there are again several minutes of silence and some phrases of the music are heard again before the teacher begins to read the text. Now the students close their textbooks and listen to the teacher's reading. At the end, the students silently leave the room. They are not told to do any homework on the lesson they have just had except for reading it cursorily once before going to bed and again before getting up in the morning.

Suggestopedia was criticized on a number of fronts. Scovel (1979) showed quite eloquently that Lozanov's experimental data, in which he reported astounding results with Suggestopedia, were highly questionable. Moreover, the practicality of using Suggestopedia is an issue that teachers must face where music and comfortable chairs are not available. More serious is the issue of the place of memorization in language learning. Scovel (1979: 260-61) noted that Lozanov's "innumerable references to ... memorization ... to the total exclusion of references to 'understanding' and/or 'creative solutions of problems' convinces this reviewer at least that suggestopedy ... is an attempt to teach memorization techniques and is not devoted to the far more comprehensive enterprise of language acquisition." On the other hand, other researchers, including Schiffler (1992), have suggested a more moderate position on Suggestopedia, hoping "to prevent the exaggerated expectations of Suggestopedia that have been promoted in some publications." Like some other designer methods (CLT and the Silent Way, for example), Suggestopedia became a business enterprise of its own, and it made promises in the advertising world that were not completely supported by research. Despite such dubious claims, Suggestopedia gave the language-teaching profession some insights. We learned a bit about how to believe in the power of the human brain. We learned that deliberately induced states of relaxation may be beneficial in the classroom. And numerous teachers have at times experimented with various forms of music as a way to get students to sit back and relax. (Brown, 2001: 27-28), (Brown, 2000: 105).

The Silent Way (for volunteers only)

Like Suggestopedia, the Silent Way rested on more cognitive than affective arguments for its theoretical sustenance. While Caleb Gattegno, its founder, was said to be interested in a "humanistic" approach to education, much of the Silent Way was characterized by a problem-solving approach to learning. Richards and Rodgers (1986: 99) summarized the theory of learning behind the Silent Way:

1. Learning is facilitated if the learner discovers or creates rather than remembers and repeats what is to be learned.2. Learning is facilitated by accompanying (mediating) physical objects.3. Learning is facilitated by problem solving involving the material to be learned.

The Silent Way capitalized on discovery-learning procedures. Gattegno (1972) believed that learners should develop independence, autonomy, and responsibility. At the same time, learners in a classroom must cooperate with each other in the process of solving language problems. The teacher - a stimulator but not a hand-holder - is silent much of the time, thus the name of the method. Teachers must resist their instinct to spell everything out in black and white - to come to the aid of students at the slightest downfall l- and must "get out of the way" while students work out solutions. In a language classroom the Silent Way typically utilized as materials a set of Cuisinere rods - small colored rods of varying lengths - and a series of colorful wall charts. The rods were used to introduce vocabulary (colors, numbers, adjectives [long, short, and so on], verbs [give, take, pick up, drop]), and syntax (tense, comparatives, pluralization, word order, and the like). The teacher provided single-word stimuli, or short phrases and sentences once or twice, and then the students refined their understanding and pronunciation among themselves, with minimal corrective feedback from the teacher. The charts introduced pronunciation models and grammatical paradigms. Like Suggestopedia, the Silent Way had its share of criticism. In one sense, the Silent Way was too harsh a method, and the teacher too distant, to encourage a communicative atmosphere. A number of aspects of language can indeed be "told" to students to their benefit; they need not, as in CLT as well, struggle for hours or days with a concept that could be easily clarified by the teacher's direct guidance. The rods and charts wore thin after a few lessons, and other materials had to be introduced, at which point the Silent Way resembled any other language classroom. There are, of course, insights to be derived. All too often we are tempted as teachers to provide everything for our students, served up on a silver platter. We could benefit from injecting healthy doses of discovery learning into our classroom activities and from providing less teacher talk so that the students can work things out on their own. These are some of the contributions of innovation. They expose us to new thoughts that we can-through our developing theoretical rationale for language teaching - sift through, weigh, and adapt to multiple contexts. (Brown, 2001: 28-29), (Brown, 2000: 106-107).

References:

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Longman. A Pearson Education

Company.

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fifth

Edition. New York: Longman. Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth

Edition, New York: Longman. Pearson Education.

Some Language Teaching Methods and

Approaches :

Community Language Learning, Total Physical

Response, The Natural Approach

Community Language Learning (for volunteers only)

By the decade of the 1970s, as we increasingly recognized the importance of the affective domain, some innovative methods took on a distinctly affective nature. Community Language Learning is a classic example of an affectively based method. In what he called the "Counseling-learning" model of education, Charles Curran (1972) was inspired by Carl Rogers's view of education in which learners in a classroom were regarded not as a "class" but as a "group" - a group in need of certain therapy and counseling. The social dynamics of such a group were of primary importance. In order for any learning to take place, group members first needed to interact in an interpersonal relationship in which students and teacher joined together to facilitate learning in a context of valuing each individual in the group. In such a surrounding, each person lowered the defenses that prevent open interpersonal communication. The anxiety caused by the educational context was lessened by means of the supportive community. The teacher's presence was not perceived as a threat, nor was it the teacher's purpose to impose limits and boundaries, but rather, as a true counselor, to center his or her attention on the clients (the students) and their needs. "Defensive" learning was made unnecessary by the empathetic relationship between teacher and students. Curran's Counseling-Learning model of education thus capitalized on the primacy of the needs of the learners – clients - who gathered together in the educational community to be counseled. Curran's Counseling-learning model of education was extended to language learning contexts in the form of Community Language Learning (CLL). While particular adaptations of CLL were numerous, the basic methodology was explicit. The group of clients (for instance, beginning learners of 'English), having first established in their native language (say, Japanese) an interpersonal relationship and trust, were seated in a circle with

the counselor (teacher) on the outside of the circle. When one of the clients wished to say something to the group or to an individual, he or she said it in the native language (Japanese) and the counselor translated the utterance back to the learner in the second language (English). The learner then repeated that English sentence as accurately as possible. Another client responded, in Japanese; the utterance was translated by the counselor into English; the client repeated it; and the conversation continued. If possible the conversation was taped for later listening, and at the end of each session, the learners inductively attempted together to glean information about the new language. If desirable, the counselor might take a more directive role and provide some explanation of certain linguistic rules or items. The first stage of intense struggle and confusion might continue for many sessions, but always with the support of the counselor and of the fellow clients. Gradually the learner became able to speak a word or phrase directly in the foreign language, without translation. This was the first sign of the learner's moving away from complete dependence on the counselor. As the learners gained more and more familiarity with the foreign language, more and more direct communication could take place, with the counselor providing less and less direct translation and information. After many sessions, perhaps many months or years later, the learner achieved fluency in the spoken language. The learner had at that point become independent. CLL reflected not only the principles of Carl Rogers's view of education, but also basic principles of the dynamics of counseling in which the counselor, through careful attention to the client's needs, aids the client in moving from dependence and helplessness to independence and self-assurance. There were advantages and disadvantages to a method like CLL. The affective advantages were evident. CLL was an attempt to put Rogers's philosophy into action and to overcome some of the threatening affective factors in second language learning. The threat of the all-knowing teacher, of making blunders in the foreign language in front of classmates, of competing against peers - all threats that can lead to a feeling of alienation and inadequacy - were presumably removed. The counselor allowed the learner to determine the type of conversation and to analyze the foreign language inductively. In situations in which explanation or translation seemed to be impossible, it was often the client-learner who stepped in and became a counselor to aid the motivation and capitalize on intrinsic motivation. There were some practical and theoretical problems with CLL. The counselor teacher could become too nondirective. The student often needed direction, especially in the first stage, in which there was such seemingly endless struggle within the foreign language. Supportive but assertive direction from the counselor could strengthen the method. Another problem with CLL was its reliance on an inductive strategy of learning. It is well accepted that deductive learning is both a viable and efficient strategy of learning and that adults particularly can benefit from deduction as

well as induction. While some intense inductive struggle is a necessary compo-nent of second language learning, the initial grueling days and weeks of floundering in ignorance in CLL could be alleviated by more directed, deductive learning, "by being told." Perhaps only in the second or third stage, when the learner has moved to more independence, is an inductive strategy really successful. Finally, the success of CLL depended largely on the translation expertise of the counselor. Translation is an intricate and complex process that is often "easier said than done"; if subtle aspects of language are mistranslated, there can be a less than effective understanding of the target language. Today, virtually no one uses CLL exclusively in a curriculum. Like other methods that have been discussed so far, it was far too restrictive for institutional language programs. However, the principles of discovery learning, student-centered participation, and development of student autonomy (independence) all remain viable in their application to language classrooms. As is the case with virtually any method, the theoretical underpinnings of CLL may be creatively adapted to your own situation. (Brown, 2001: 25-27). Total Physical Response

The founder of the Total Physical Response (TPR), James Asher (1977), noted that children, in learning their first language, appear to do a lot of listening before they speak, and that their listening is accompanied by physical responses (reaching, grabbing, moving, looking, and so forth). He also gave some attention to right-brain learning. According to Asher, motor activity is a right-brain function that should precede left-brain language processing. Asher was also convinced that language classes were often the locus of too much anxiety and wished to devise a method that was as stress-free as possible, where learners would not feel overly self-conscious and defensive. The TPR classroom, then, was one in which students did a great deal of listening and acting. The teacher was very directive in orchestrating a performance: "The instructor is the director of a stage play in which the students are the actors" (Asher 1977: 43). A typical TPR class utilized the imperative mood, even at more advanced proficiency levels. Commands were an easy way to get learners to move about and to loosen up: "Open the window," "Close the door," "Stand up," "Sit down," "Pick up the book," "Give it to John," and so on. No verbal response was necessary. More complex syntax was incorporated into the imperative: "Draw a rectangle on the chalkboard." "Walk quickly to the door and hit it." Humor was easy to introduce: "Walk slowly to the window and jump." "Put your toothbrush in your book" (Asher 1977: 55). Interrogatives were also easily dealt with: "Where is the book?" "Who is John?" (students point to the book or to John). Eventually students, one by one, presumably felt comfortable enough to venture verbal responses to questions, then to ask questions themselves, and the process continued.

Like other methods discussed here, TPR - as a method-had its limitations. It was especially effective in the beginning levels of language proficiency, but lost its distinctiveness as learners advanced in their competence. But today TPR is used more as a type of classroom activity, which is a more useful way to view it. Many successful communicative, interactive classrooms utilize TPR activities to provide both auditory input and physical activity. (Brown, 2000: 107).

The Natural Approach

Stephen Krashen's (1982) theories of second language acquisition have been widely discussed and hotly debated since the 1970s. The major methodological offshoot of Krashen's work was manifested in the Natural Approach, developed by one of Krashen's colleagues, Tracy Terrell (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). Acting on many of the claims that Asher made for TPR, Krashen and Terrell felt that learners would benefit from delaying production until speech "emerges", that learners should be as relaxed as possible in the classroom, and that a great deal of communication and "acquisition" should take place, as opposed to analysis. In fact, the Natural Approach advocated the use of TPR activities at the beginning level of language learning, when "comprehensible input" is essential for triggering the acquisition of language. The Natural Approach was aimed at the goal of basic interpersonal communication skills, that is, everyday language situations-conversations, shopping, listening to the radio, and the like. The initial task of the teacher was to provide comprehensible input - spoken language that is understandable to the learner - or just a little beyond the learner's level. Learners did not need to say anything during this "silent period" until they felt ready to do so. The teacher was the source of the learners' input and the creator of an interesting and stimulating variety of classroom activities - commands, games, skits, and small-group work. The most controversial aspects of the Natural Approach were its "silent period" and its reliance on the notion of "comprehensible input." One could argue, with Gibbons (1985), that the delay of oral production can be pushed too far and that at an early stage it is important for the teacher to step in and encourage students to talk. And determining just what we mean by "comprehensible" is exceedingly difficult. Language learning is an interactive process, and therefore an over-reliance on the role of input at the expense of the stimulation of output could thwart the second language acquisition process. But, of course, we also can look at the Natural Approach and be reminded that sometimes we insist that students speak much too soon, thereby raising anxiety and lessening the possibility of further risk-taking as the learner tries to progress. And so, once again, your responsibility as a teacher is to choose the best of what others have experimented with, and to adapt those insights to your own situation. There is a good deal of insight to be gained, and intuition to be developed, from examining the merits of all of these five "designer" methods. Those insights and intuitions can become a part of your own cautious, enlightened eclecticism. (Brown, 2000: 108).

A Task-based approach Submitted by TE Editor on 26 April, 2004 - 13:00

In recent years a debate has developed over which approaches to structuring and planning and implementing lessons are more effective. This article presents an overview of a task-based learning approach (TBL) and highlights its advantages over the more traditional Present, Practice, Produce (PPP) approach.

This article also links to the following activity.Try - Speaking activities - Task-based speaking - planning a night out

Present Practice Produce

The problems with PPP

A Task-based approach

The advantages of TBL

Conclusion

Present Practice Produce (PPP)During an initial teacher training course, most teachers become familiar with the PPP paradigm. A PPP lesson would proceed in the following manner.

First, the teacher presents an item of language in a clear context to get across its meaning. This could be done in a variety of ways: through a text, a situation build, a dialogue etc.

Students are then asked to complete a controlled practice stage, where they may have to repeat target items through choral and individual drilling, fill gaps or match halves of sentences. All of this practice demands that the student uses the language correctly and helps them to become more comfortable with it.

Finally, they move on to the production stage, sometimes called the 'free practice' stage. Students are given a communication task such as a role play and are expected to produce the target language and use any other language that has already been learnt and is suitable for completing it.

The problems with PPPIt all sounds quite logical but teachers who use this method will soon identify problems with it:

Students can give the impression that they are comfortable with the new language as they are producing it accurately in the class. Often though a few

lessons later, students will either not be able to produce the language correctly or even won't produce it at all.

Students will often produce the language but overuse the target structure so that it sounds completely unnatural.

Students may not produce the target language during the free practice stage because they find they are able to use existing language resources to complete the task.

A Task-based approachTask -based learning offers an alternative for language teachers. In a task-based lesson the teacher doesn't pre-determine what language will be studied, the lesson is based around the completion of a central task and the language studied is determined by what happens as the students complete it. The lesson follows certain stages.

Pre-taskThe teacher introduces the topic and gives the students clear instructions on what they will have to do at the task stage and might help the students to recall some language that may be useful for the task. The pre-task stage can also often include playing a recording of people doing the task. This gives the students a clear model of what will be expected of them. The students can take notes and spend time preparing for the task.

TaskThe students complete a task in pairs or groups using the language resources that they have as the teacher monitors and offers encouragement.

PlanningStudents prepare a short oral or written report to tell the class what happened during their task. They then practise what they are going to say in their groups. Meanwhile the teacher is available for the students to ask for advice to clear up any language questions they may have.

Report Students then report back to the class orally or read the written report. The teacher chooses the order of when students will present their reports and may give the students some quick feedback on the content. At this stage the teacher may also play a recording of others doing the same task for the students to compare.

AnalysisThe teacher then highlights relevant parts from the text of the recording for the students to analyse. They may ask students to notice interesting features within this text. The teacher can also highlight the language that the students used during the report phase for analysis.

PracticeFinally, the teacher selects language areas to practise based upon the needs of the

students and what emerged from the task and report phases. The students then do practice activities to increase their confidence and make a note of useful language.

The advantages of TBLTask-based learning has some clear advantages

Unlike a PPP approach, the students are free of language control. In all three stages they must use all their language resources rather than just practising one pre-selected item.

A natural context is developed from the students' experiences with the language that is personalised and relevant to them. With PPP it is necessary to create contexts in which to present the language and sometimes they can be very unnatural.

The students will have a much more varied exposure to language with TBL. They will be exposed to a whole range of lexical phrases, collocations and patterns as well as language forms.

The language explored arises from the students' needs. This need dictates what will be covered in the lesson rather than a decision made by the teacher or the coursebook.

It is a strong communicative approach where students spend a lot of time communicating. PPP lessons seem very teacher-centred by comparison. Just watch how much time the students spend communicating during a task-based lesson.

It is enjoyable and motivating.

ConclusionPPP offers a very simplified approach to language learning. It is based upon the idea that you can present language in neat little blocks, adding from one lesson to the next. However, research shows us that we cannot predict or guarantee what the students will learn and that ultimately a wide exposure to language is the best way of ensuring that students will acquire it effectively. Restricting their experience to single pieces of target language is unnatural.

For more information see 'A Framework for Task-Based Learning' by Jane Wills, Longman; 'Doing Task-Based Teaching' by Dave and Jane Willis, OUP 2007. Also see www.willis-elt.co.uk

Richard Frost, British Council, Turkey

References:

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. New York: Longman. A Pearson Education

Company.

Brown, H. D. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fifth

Edition. New York: Longman. Pearson Education.

Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth

Edition, New York: Longman. Pearson Education.

ReferencesAnthony, Edward M. 1963. “Approach, method and technique.” English Language Teaching 17: 63-57

Brown, H. Douglas 2001 Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy Longman/ Pearson Education, White Plains, New York.

Cook, V. website http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm

Council of Europe. (2001a). A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press.

Also available for download from:http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co-operation/education/Languages/Language_Policy/Common_Framework_of_Reference/1cadre.asp#TopOfPage

Council of Europe. (2001b). A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment – A General Guide for Users. Strasbourg:Council of Europe. (Document DGIV-EDU-LANG (2001) 1)

Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman

Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D. (1983), The Natural Approach, Pergamon

Marckwardt, Albert D. 1972. Changing winds and shifting sands. MST English Quarterly 21: 3-11.

Nunan, David 1989 Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Nunan, D. 1991 Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers New York: Prentice-Hall.

Nunan, David (ed) 2003 Practical English LanguageTeaching McGraw Hill.

Prator, C.H. and Celce-Murcia, M. 1979. An outline of language teaching approaches. In Celce-Murcia, M. and McIntosh, L. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. New York: Newbury House.

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 1982. “Method: Approach, design and procedure.” TESOL Quarterly 16: 153-68

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 1985. “Method: Approach, design and procedure”, Chapter 2 in Richards, Jack C. The Context of Language Teaching Cambridge University Press.

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001 (2nd edition) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Van Ek, J.A. and Alexander, L.G. 1975. Threshold Level English. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Wilkins, D.A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Lomdon: Oxford University Press.