Language learning principles are
generally sorted into three sub-groupings: Cognitive Principles, Affective
Principals and Linguistic Principles. Principles are seen as
theory derived from research, to which teachers need to match classroom
practices. Here are some brief summaries of the principles that fall into
each grouping:
Cognitive Principles
- Automaticity: Subconcious
processing of language with peripheral attention to language forms;
- Meaningful Learning: This
can be contrasted to Rote Learning, and is thought to lead to
better long term retention;
- Anticipation of Rewards:
Learners are driven to act by the anticipation of rewards, tangible or
intangible;
- Intrinsic Motivation: The
most potent learning “rewards” are intrinsically motivated within the
learner;
- Strategic Investment: The
time and learning strategies learners invest into the language learning
process.
Affective Principles
- Language Ego: Learning a new
language involves developing a new mode of thinking – a new language
“ego”;
- Self-Confidence: Success in
learning something can be equated to the belief in learners that they can
learn it;
- Risk-Taking: Taking risks
and experimenting “beyond” what is certain creates better long-term
retention;
- Language-Culture Connection:
Learning a language also involves learning about cultural values and
thinking.
Linguistic Principles
- Native Language Effect: A
learner’s native language creates both facilitating and interfering
effects on learning;
- Interlanguage: At least some
of the learner’s development in a new language can be seen as systematic;
- Communicative Competence:
Fluency and use are just as important as accuracy and usage
– instruction needs to be aimed at organizational, pragmatic and strategic
competence as well as psychomotor skills.
METHODS OF TEACHING ENGLISH
1. The
Grammar Translation Method
Latin and Ancient Greek are known
as “dead” languages, based on the fact that people no longer speak them for the
purpose of interactive communication. Yet they are still acknowledged as
important languages to learn (especially Latin) for the purpose of gaining
access to classical literature, and up until fairly recently, for the kinds of
grammar training that led to the mental dexterity considered so important in
any higher education study stream.
Latin has been studied for
centuries, with the prime objectives of learning how to read classical Latin
texts, understanding the fundamentals of grammar and translation, and gaining
insights into some important foreign influences Latin has had on the
development of other European languages. The method used to teach it
overwhelmingly bore those objectives in mind, and came to be known
(appropriately!) as the Classical Method. It is now more commonly
known in Foreign Language Teaching circles as the Grammar Translation Method.
It is hard to decide which is
more surprising – the fact that this method has survived right up until today
(alongside a host of more modern and more “enlightened” methods), or the fact
that what was essentially a method developed for the study of “dead” languages
involving little or no spoken communication or listening comprehension is still
used for the study of languages that are very much alive and require competence
not only in terms of reading, writing and structure, but also speaking,
listening and interactive communication. How has such an archaic method,
“remembered with distaste by thousands of school learners” (Richards and
Rodgers, 1986:4) perservered?
It is worth looking at the
objectives, features and typical techniques commonly associated with the
Grammar Translation Method, in order to both understand how it works and why it
has shown such tenacity as an acceptable (even recommended or respected)
language teaching philosophy in many countries and institutions around the
world.
Objectives
Most teachers who employ the
Grammar Translation Method to teach English would probably tell you that (for
their students at least) the most fundamental reason for learning the language
is give learners access to English literature, develop their minds “mentally”
through foreign language learning, and to build in them the kinds of grammar,
reading, vocabulary and translation skills necessary to pass any one of a
variety of mandatory written tests required at High School or Tertiary level.
Some teachers who use the method
might also tell you that it is the most effective way to prepare students for
“global communication” by beginning with the key skills of reading and
grammar. Others may even say it is the “least stressful” for students
because almost all the teaching occurs in L1 and students are rarely called
upon to speak the language in any communicative fashion.
More conservative teachers from
more conservative countries are even likely to be put out by anyone merely
questioning the method, and a typical response could be “because that’s the way
it’s always been done – it’s the way I learned and look, now I’m a
professor”. The point being, the method is institutionalized and
considered fundamental. Such teachers are probably even unware that the
method has a name and can be compared alongside other methods.
Key
Features
According to Prator and
Celce-Murcia (1979:3), the key features of the Grammar Translation Method are
as follows:
(1) Classes are taught in
the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language.
(2) Much vocabulary is
taught in the form of lists of isolated words.
(3) Long elaborate
explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given.
(4) Grammar provides the
rules for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the form and
inflection of words.
(5) Reading of difficult
classical texts is begun early.
(6) Little attention is
paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in in grammatical
analysis.
(7) Often the only drills
are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language
into the mother tongue.
(8) Little or no attention
is given to pronunciation.
Typical
Techniques
Diane Larsen-Freeman, in her book
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:13) provides
expanded descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with
the Grammar Translation Method. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Translation of a
Literary Passage (Translating target language to native language)
(2) Reading Comprehension
Questions (Finding information in a passage, making inferences and relating
to personal experience)
(3) Antonyms/Synonyms (Finding
antonyms and synonyms for words or sets of words).
(4) Cognates (Learning
spelling/sound patterns that correspond between L1 and the target language)
(5) Deductive Application
of Rule (Understanding grammar rules and their exceptions, then applying
them to new examples)
(6) Fill-in-the-blanks (Filling
in gaps in sentences with new words or items of a particular grammar type).
(7) Memorization (Memorizing
vocabulary lists, grammatical rules and grammatical paradigms)
(8) Use Words in Sentences (Students
create sentences to illustrate they know the meaning and use of new words)
(9) Composition (Students
write about a topic using the target language)
Comments
Many people who have undertaken
foreign language learning at high schools or universities even in the past 10
years or so may remember many of the teaching techniques listed above for the
Grammar Translation Method. They may also recall that the language
learning experience was uninspiring, rather boring, or even left them with a
sense of frustration when they traveled to countries where the language was
used only to find they couldn’t understand what people were saying and struggled
mightily to express themselves at the most basic level.
Very few modern language teaching
experts would be quick to say that this is an effective language teaching
method, and fewer would dare to try and assert that it results in any kind of
communicative competence. As Richards and Rodgers (1986:5) state, “It is
a method for which there is no theory. There is no literature that offers
a rationale or justification for it that attempts to relate it to issues in
linguistics, psychology, or educational theory.”
And yet the Grammar Translation
Method is still common in many countries – even popular. Brown attempts
to explain why the method is still employed by pointing out
“It requires few specialized
skills on the part of teachers. Tests of grammar rules and of
translations are easy to construct and can be objectively scored. Many
standardized tests of foreign languages still do not attempt to tap into
communicative abilities, so students have little motivation to go beyond
grammar analogies, translations, and rote exercises.” (1994:53)
Digression:
I myself studied Swedish as a
foreign language at university level in Australia, and I was taught according
to a rather conservative approach that involved both the Grammar Translation
Method and the Audiolingual Method. At the end of three years study I
could read and write Swedish rather well, had studied several novels and poems
by famous Swedish literary figures, and could pass a grammar test with scarcely
a problem. Ironically, when I went to study in Sweden at the end of that
period, I was endlessly frustrated with my strage accent and lack of colloquial
vocabulary, the constant stumbling through menial utterances – and yet always
impressed Swedes with my correct application of grammar/sentence structure and
my familiarity with their literature and the cultural aspects that accompanied
it. In hindsight, I would have to say that I found that the language
learning process highly stressful and frustrating, but in the end it paid
off. The end justifies the means? Personally I wish the “means”
could have been more effective and enjoyable from the outset.
I also studied Old Norse and Old
English at university level – of course using the Grammar Translation
Method. I found these languages much more interesting and far less
stressful, because my goal from the outset was to learn how to read and
access the literatures in their original forms. I was learning Swedish
primarily in order to learn how to communicate with Swedes and function happily
in Sweden.
My personal conclusion is simple:
the Grammar Translation Method was developed for the study of “dead” languages
and to facilitate access to those languages’ classical literature. That’s
the way it should stay. English is certainly not a dead or dying language
(understatement of the century!), so any teacher that takes “an approach for
dead language study” into an English language classroom should perhaps think
about taking up Math or Science instead. Rules, universals and memorized
priciples apply to those disciplines – pedagogy and communicative principles do
not.
2. The
Direct Method
Towards the end of the late
1800s, a revolution in language teaching philosophy took place that is seen by
many as the dawn of modern foreign language teaching. Teachers,
frustrated by the limits of the Grammar Translation Method in terms of its
inability to create communicative competence in students, began to experiment
with new ways of teaching language. Basically, teachers began attempting
to teach foreign languages in a way that was more similar to first language
acquisition. It incorporated techniques designed to address all the areas
that the Grammar Translation did not – namely oral communication, more
spontaneous use of the language, and developing the ability to think in the
target language. Perhaps in an almost reflexive action, the method also
moved as far away as possible from various techniques typical of the Grammar
Translation Method – for instance using L1 as the language of instruction, memorizing
grammatical rules and lots of translation between L1 and the target language.
The appearance of the “Direct
Method” thus coincided with a new school of thinking that dictated that all
foreign language teaching should occur in the target language only, with no
translation and an emphasis on linking meaning to the language being
learned. The method became very popular during the first quarter of the
20th century, especially in private language schools in Europe where highly
motivated students could study new languages and not need to travel far in
order to try them out and apply them communicatively. One of the most
famous advocates of the Direct Method was the German Charles Berlitz, whose
schools and Berlitz Method are now world-renowned.
Still, the Direct Method was not
without its problems. As Brown (1994:56) points out, “(it) did not take
well in public education where the constraints of budget, classroom size, time,
and teacher background made such a method difficult to use.” By the late
1920s, the method was starting to go into decline and there was even a return
to the Grammar Translation Method, which guaranteed more in the way of
scholastic language learning orientated around reading and grammar
skills. But the Direct Method continues to enjoy a popular following in
private language school circles, and it was one of the foundations upon which
the well-known “Audiolingual Method” expanded from starting half way through
the 20th century.
Objectives
The basic premise of the Direct
Method is that students will learn to communicate in the target
language, partly by learning how to think in that language and by not
involving L1 in the language learning process whatsoever. Objectives
include teaching the students how to use the language spontaneously and orally,
linking meaning with the target language through the use of realia, pictures or
pantomime (Larsen-Freeman 1986:24). There is to be a direct
connection between concepts and the language to be learned.
Key
Features
Richards and Rodgers (1986:9-10)
summarize the key features of the Direct Method thus:
(1) Classroom instruction
is conducted exclusively in the target language.
(2) Only everyday
vocabulary and sentences are taught.
(3) Oral communication
skills are built up in a carefully traded progression organized around
question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive
classes.
(4) Grammar is taught
inductively.
(5) New teaching points are
taught through modeling and practice.
(6) Concrete vocabulary is
taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract vocabulary is
taught by association of ideas.
(7) Both speech and
listening comprehension are taught.
(8) Correct pronunciation
and grammar are emphasized.
Typical
Techniques
Diane Larsen-Freeman, in her book
Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:26-27) provides
expanded descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with
the Direct Method. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Reading Aloud
(Reading sections of passages, plays or dialogs out loud)
(2) Question and Answer
Exercise (Asking questions in the target language and having students answer
in full sentences)
(3) Student Self-Correction
(Teacher facilitates opportunities for students to self correct using
follow-up questions, tone, etc)
(4) Conversation Practice (Teacher
asks students and students ask students questions using the target language)
(5) Fill-in-the-blank
Exercise (Items use target language only and inductive rather than explicit
grammar rules)
(6) Dictation (Teacher
reads passage aloud various amount of times at various tempos, students writing
down what they hear)
(7) Paragraph Writing (Students
write paragraphs in their own words using the target language and various
models)
Comments
The Direct Method is undoubtedly
a highly effective method in terms of creating language learners who are very
competent in terms of using the target language communicatively.
However, as pointed out above, it requires small class sizes, motivated
learners and talented teachers in order to succeed really well. It is
also an unfortunate fact of life that students of foreign languages these days
need more than just the ability to communicate confidently – they need to be
able to demonstrate grammatical accuracy and good reading skills in order to
succeed in both national and international language testing systems. It
becomes something of an issue in countries where English language learning is
primarily EFL-based (that is, English as a Foreign Language) and there is a
distinct shortage of both (1) the opportunity to apply the language
communicatively in real-life situations outside the actual classroom, and (2)
teachers who have the required level of native or native-like ability in the target
language and the creativity to provide realistic examples to illustrate what
elements of the language actually mean.
Some of the teachers who go on to
practice this kind of methodology tend to be native speakers who travel to
foreign countries where thay have no ability in the local language. In
many cases they are not even aware they are following what is known as the
“Direct Method” – they are trying to make the best out of a difficult classroom
situation where creativity and constant (careful) use of the target language
are required to make up for teachers’ shortcomings elsewhere, whether that be a
lack of ability in the students’ mother language or a lack of knowledge about
various pedagogic approaches to language teaching.
In an interesting development, it
is not at all uncommon to find a blend of teaching techniques consisting of
partner teachers – one a native speaker with no knowledge of the local
language, culture or educational system, the other a local teacher who speaks
English as a second or foreign language. The native speaker is often
referred to as the “conversation teacher”, and represents the “global
communication” aspect of a marketing strategy so important for private language
institutes. The local teacher may be known as the “grammar and
translation” half of the overall package, the teacher who can use the students’
mother language to control their behavior, put them at ease and explain how the
grammar works. In essence, this kind of teaching teamwork is an often
unconscious effort to combine the Direct Method with the Grammar Translation
Method in an attempt to provide a (basically misguided) “holistic” approach to
teaching the language – the basic premise being that the shortfallings of one
are covered by the other and vice-versa. There are even institutes that
consider themselves “advanced” because they employ a native-speaking teacher
who has a “Direct Method” style approach in combination with a local teacher
who teaches according to a blend of the Grammar Translation Method and the
Audiolingual Method (that is, the local teacher sometimes or often uses L1 to
explain the grammar, but for the rest of the time applies the kind of
rote-learning and over-learning of forms typical of the Audiolingual Method).
How well does such a combination
of styles work for the average language learner? In my opinion, the two
styles undermine rather than complement each other, and inject both unnecessary
extra confusion into the language learning process as well as what could be
termed “stereo-typical roles” for teachers based purely on nationality.
For an interesting analysis of this very topic (essentially “direct” approaches
in combination with “indirect” approaches), click here.
I will admit that I myself have
been through what I call the “Direct Method for Initial Classroom Survival”
phase, basically because I didn’t know better and felt that with it I was
achieving some measure of tangible success as a teacher of “communicative
English”. Having (hopefully!) reached a somewhat more enlightened outlook
through both experience and research, I realized that there is a fundamental
flaw to the Direct Approach that has nothing to do with ensuring the students
achieve a sufficient level of proficiency in English structure and
reading. Like many other “modern” language teaching methods that preceded
the “communicative approach”, the Direct Method contains nothing in its
essential theory and principles that deals with the learners themselves –
cognitive and affective principles orientated around stepping into the boots of
the students and looking out at the strange and confusing landscape of the
foreign language they are asking (or being asked) to learn.
The Direct Method was an
important turning point in the history of foreign language teaching, and
represented a step away from the Grammar Translation Method that was
progressive and heading in the right direction. I would encourage
teachers to view the method in exactly the same way – not a bad way to teach
but a long way short of the big picture modern language teaching methodology is
attempting to achieve.
3. The
Audiolingual Method
The next revolution in terms of
language teaching methodology coincided with World War II, when America became
aware that it needed people to learn foreign languages very quickly as part of
its overall military operations. The “Army Method” was suddenly developed
to build communicative competence in translators through very intensive
language courses focusing on aural/oral skills. This in combination with
some new ideas about language learning coming from the disciplines of
descriptive linguistics and behavioral psychology went on to become what is
known as the Audiolingual Method (ALM).
Objectives
Just as with the Direct Method
that preceded it, the overall goal of the Audiolingual Method was to create communicative
competence in learners. However, it was thought that the most
effective way to do this was for students to “overlearn” the language being
studied through extensive repetition and a variety of elaborate drills.
The idea was to project the linguistic patterns of the language (based on the
studies of structural linguists) into the minds of the learners in a way that
made responses automatic and “habitual”. To this end it was held that the
language “habits” of the first language would constantly interfere, and the
only way to overcome ths problem was to facilitate the learning of a new set of
“habits” appropriate linguistically to the language being studied.
Key Features
Here is a summary of the key
features of the Audiolingual Method, taken from Brown (1994:57) and adapted
from Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979).
(1) New material is
presented in dialog form.
(2) There is dependence on
mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and overlearning.
(3) Structures are
sequenced by means of contrastive analysis and taught one at a time.
(4) Structural patterns are
taught using repetitive drills.
(5) There is little or no
grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive analogy rather
than
deductive explanation.
(6) Vocabulary is strictly
limited and learned in context.
(7) There is much use of
tapes, language labs, and visual aids.
(8) Great importance is attached
to pronunciation.
(9) Very little use of the
mother tongue by teachers is permitted.
(10) Successful responses
are immediately reinforced.
(11) There is great effort
to get students to produce error-free utterances.
(12) There is a tendency to manipulate
language and disregard content.
Typical Techniques
Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques
and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:45-47) provides expanded
descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with the
Audiolingual Method. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Dialog Memorization
(Students
memorize an opening dialog using mimicry and applied role-playing)
(2) Backward Build-up
(Expansion Drill)
(Teacher
breaks a line into several parts, students repeat each part starting at the end
of the
sentence and “expanding” backwards through the sentence, adding each part in
sequence)
(3) Repitition Drill
(Students
repeat teacher’s model as quickly and accurately as possible)
(4) Chain Drill
(Students
ask and answer each other one-by-one in a circular chain around the classroom )
(5) Single Slot
Substitution Drill
(Teacher
states a line from the dialog, then uses a word or a phrase as a “cue” that
students, when
repeating the line, must substitute into the sentence in the correct place)
(6) Multiple-slot
Substitution Drill
(Same as the
Single Slot drill, except that there are multiple cues to be substituted into
the line)
(7) Transformation Drill
(Teacher
provides a sentence that must be turned into something else, for example a
question to be
turned
into a statement, an active sentence to be turned into a negative statement,
etc)
(8) Question-and-answer Drill
(Students
should answer or ask questions very quickly)
(9) Use of Minimal Pairs
(Using
contrastive analysis, teacher selects a pair of words that sound identical
except for a single
sound
that typically poses difficulty for the learners – students are to pronounce
and differentiate the
two
words)
(10) Complete the Dialog
(Selected
words are erased from a line in the dialog – students must find and insert)
(11) Grammar Games
(Various
games designed to practice a grammar point in context, using lots of
repetition)
Comments
Just as with the Direct Method,
the Audiolingual Method represents a major step in language teaching
methodology that was still aimed squarely at communicative competence. A
teacher that can use the method well will generally be able to create what
appear to be very “productive” students. The extensive and elaborate
drills deisgned to facilitate overlearning and good “language habit forming”
were an innovative addition to the techniques used to practice language, and
many of them are featured as essential parts of “communicative” methods that
followed the Audiolingual Method.
The method’s original appearance
under the name “The Army Method” is apt, and from it one ought not to be
surprised that the method is all about highly controlled practice involving
extensive repetition aimed at “habit forming”. If you can imagine a squad
of new military recruits doing marching drills in the exercise yard, listening
to the terse commands and repeating the movements in various combinations until
they become second nature and do not need to be “thought about”, then you have
yourself an effective picture of how the Audiolingual Method essentially works
and creates the desired result. The experts representing descriptive linguistics
at that time can be seen as disseminating the patterns required to perform the
various marching drills piece by piece, and the behavioral psychologists
dictated the various ways for the drills to be repeated in order to create an
effective habit-forming process.
The (however slightly simplified)
picture presented above ought to also indicate to the modern, enlightened and
eclectic language teacher the obvious ways in which the Audiolingual Method
falls far short of the overall goal of creating sustainable long-term
communicative competence in language learners. The linguistic principles
upon which the theory was based emphasized surface forms of language and not
the “deep structure”. Cognitive principles aimed at explaining how learners
learn and develop independent concepts were to change considerably in the
period following the Audiolingual Method.
Still, there are reasons why the
method is still popular, and perhaps even appropriate in certain educational
contexts. In countries where one of the prime objectives of learning
English is to take and achieve successful results in a variety of tests, and
where many learners are not intrinsically motivated to learn English but do so
because they feel they have to, the method is not without merits. The
term “practice makes perfect” was coined at a time when the concept of practice
was synonomous with repetition, and if English is seen as just “another subject
to be learned”, then the philosophy of repeating the required patterns until
you get them right without needing to think about them does have a lot of
supporters.
In my personal opinion, however,
one of the key responsibilities of the modern day teacher of any discipline is
to actively create and build intrinsic motivation in their learners, to empower
them with the ability and confidence to “learn how to learn”, to develop a
sense of responsibility for their own development, and to regard peers as
possible sources of learning as well. They should also be encouraged to experiment
with and formulate their own ongoing set of language rules, and to deduct
through active independent application where and how the rules need to be
adapted. The idea that errors are a natural and even necessary part of
the learning process needs to be encouraged and supported. The
Audiolingual Method does nothing to address those issues, and as a whole is
little more than a very effective way of running highly teacher-orientated
classrooms designed to produce language users whose proficiency stems from some
kind of “auto pilot” mentality.
There are ways in which the
practice involved in the Audiolingual Method can be applied to approaches that
have a bigger picture in mind. Audiolingual-based drills can be adapted
and used in combination with effective error correction techniques to create an
approach that is sensitive to affective factors, and can be followed up with
techniques designed to create more independent experimentation and
application. I do not in any way recommend it as a holistic approach to
language teaching, but there are certainly aspects and techniques from the
method that are effective if used properly and in combination with an
appropriate range of other activities.
This new method incorporated many
of the features typical of the earlier Direct Method, but the disciplines
mentioned above added the concepts of teaching linguistic patterns in
combination with something generally referred to as “habit-forming”. This
method was one of the first to have its roots “firmly grounded in linguistic
and psychological theory” (Brown 1994:57), which apparently added to its
credibility and probably had some influence in the popularity it enjoyed over a
long period of time. It also had a major influence on the language
teaching methods that were to follow, and can still be seen in major or minor
manifestations of language teaching methodology even to this day.
Another factor that accounted for
the method’s popularity was the quick success it achieved in leading learners
towards communicative competence. Through extensive mimicry, memorization
and over-learning of language patterns and forms, students and teachers were
often
able to see immediate
results. This was both its strength and its failure in the long run, as
critics began to point out that the method did not deliver in terms of
producing long-term communicative ability.
The study of linguistics itself
was to change, and the area of second language learning became a discipline in
its own right. Cognitive psychologists developed new views on learning in
general, arguing that mimicry and rote learning could not account for the fact
that language learning involved affective and interpersonal factors, that
learners were able to produce language forms and patterns that they had never
heard before. The idea that thinking processes themselves led to the
discovery of independent language rule formation (rather than “habit
formation”), and a belief that affective factors influenced their application,
paved the way toward the new methods that were to follow the Audiolingual
Method.
4. The
Silent Way
In addition to affective theories
relative to language learning, another challenge to the Audiolingual Method was
under way already in the sixties in the form of the Cognitive Code and
an educational trend known as “Discovery Learning.” These concepts most
directly challenged the idea that language learning was all about mimicry and
good habit-formation. An emphasis on human cognition in language learning
addressed issues such as learners being more responsible for their own learning
– formulating independent hypotheses about the rules of the target language and
testing those hypotheses by applying them and realizing errors.
Objectives
Teachers using the Silent Way
want their students to become highly independent and experimental
learners. Making errors is a natural part of the process and a key
learning device, as it is a sign that students are testing out their
hypostheses and arriving at various conclusions about the language through a
trial and error style approach. The teacher tries to facilitate
activities whereby the students discover for themselves the conceptual rules
governing the language, rather than imitating or memorizing them – Brown
(1994:63) expresses this as being a process whereby “students construct
conceptual hierachies of their own which are a product of the time they
have invested.”
In addition to the idea that
students become more autonomous learners and “develop their own inner criteria
for correctness” (Larsen Freeman, 1986:62), another key objective was to
encourage students to work as a group – to try and solve problems in the target
language together.
Based on these principles and
using the techniques described below, it was hoped that students would
eventually be able to actively use the language for self-expression, relating
their thoughts, feelings and perceptions.
Key Features
Richards and Rodgers (1986:99)
describe the key theories underlying 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.
Cuisinere rods (small rods of
varying color and length) are typically used in this method to introduce
vocabulary and syntax, along with colorful wall charts. Instruction in
this method typically starts with sounds, the basic building blocks in any
language. The teacher usually provides single words or short phrases to
stimulate the students into refining their knowledge of the language with as
little correction/feedback from the teacher as possible.
Typical Techniques
Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques
and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:66-68) provides expanded
descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with the
Silent Way. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Sound-Color Chart –
click here to see an example
(The teacher
refers students to a color-coded wall chart depicting individual sounds in the
target
language – students use this to point out and build words with correct
pronunciation)
(2) Teacher’s Silence
(Teacher is
generally silent, only giving help when it is absolutely necessary)
(3) Peer Correction
(Students
encouraged to help each other in a cooperative and not competitive spirit)
(4) Rods
(Rods are
used to trigger meaning, and to introduce or actively practice language.
They can
symbolize whatever words are being taught and be manipulated directly or
abstractly to create
sentences)
(5) Self-correction
Gestures
(Teacher
uses hands to indicate that something is incorrect or needs changing – eg.
using fingers as
words
then touching the finger/word that is in need of correction)
(6) Word Chart
(Words are
depicted on charts, the sounds in each word corresponding in color to the
Sound-Color
Chart
described above – students use this to build sentences)
(7) Fidel Chart – click here to see an example
(A chart that is color-coded
according to the sound-color chart but includes the various English
spellings so that they can be directly related to actual sounds)
(8) Structured Feedback
(Students are invited to make
observations about the day’s lesson amd what they have learned)
Comments
Like almost all methods, this one
has had its fair share of criticism. The method encourages the teacher to
assume a distance that prevents him/her from providing direct guidance when at
times such guidance would be helpful. It is criticized as being too
focused on building structure, and misses out on cultural input through the
language, and the silence of the teacher can prevent students from hearing many
active models of correct usage that they may find useful. In trying to
create a less teacher-orientated classroom, many say that the Silent Way goes
too far to the opposite extreme.
Other problems are a little more
practical in nature. Getting together the “classic SW” prerequisite
materials can take a lot of time and money – there is the sound-color chart, 12
word charts each containing around 500 words, and 8 Fidel Charts for the
English language alone. And don’t forget the actual cuisinere rods as
well! In order to maximize the learning potential of students using the
Silent Way, teachers would have to be prepared to invest quite heavily in
materials.
A lot can be taken from the
method, however, if adapted and combined with elements from other
methods. Viewing language learning as an “exploratory” process for
students, of hypothesis building and trying out, is a very valuable teaching
principle. Having tried various SW-style techniques with Young Learners,
I would have to say that they are amazingly effective, and students appear to
enjoy the learning process much more when they have such an active role in
it. You can see various “Discovery Learning” principles in a lot of the
materials I have created for this site, especially Sentence Building, Sentence Navigation and Conversation Creation Cards.
However, I usually like to combine the cognitive elements with a lot of
contextual language input, initial models, and peripheral language
pointers/stimulators. “Finding out for oneself” is a very important part
of my overall teaching philosophy, but not the be-all and end-all.
Some of Cattegno’s basic theories
were that “teaching should be subordinated to learning” and “the teacher works
with the student; the student works on the language”. The most prominent
characteristic of the method was that the teacher typically stayed “silent”
most of the time, as part of his/her role as facilitator and stimulator, and
thus the method’s popular name. Language learning is usually seen as a
problem solving activity to be engaged in by the students both independently
and as a group, and the teacher needs to stay out of the way in the process as
much as possible.
The Silent Way is also well-known
for its common use of small colored rods of varying length (cuisinere rods) and
color-coded word charts depicting pronunciation values, vocabulary and
grammatical paradigms. It is a unique method and the first of its kind to
really concentrate on cognitive principles in language learning.
5.
Total Physical Response (TPR)
Already in the late 1800s, a
French teacher of Latin by the name of Francois Gouin was hard at work devising
a method of language teaching that capitalized on the way children naturally
learn their first language, through the transformation of perceptions into
conceptions and then the expression of those conceptions using language.
His approach became known as the Series Method, involving direct
conceptual teaching of language using series of inter-connected sentences that
are simple and easy to perceive, because the language being used can be
directly related to whatever the speaker is doing at the immediate time of
utterance (ie, one’s actions and language match each other). His thinking
was well ahead of his time, and the Series Method became swamped in the
enthusiasm surrounding the other new approach at the time in the form of the
Direct Method.
Objectives
One of the primary objectives
underlying Asher’s TPR methodology was that learning needed to become more
enjoyable and less stressful. Asher thought that a natural way to
accomplish this was to recreate the natural way children learn their native
language, most notably through facilitating an appropriate “listening” and
“comprehension” period, and encourage learners to respond using right-brain
motor skills rather than left-brain language “processing”.
Key Features
Here are some of the key features
of the Total Physical Response method:
(1) The teacher directs and
students “act” in response – “The instructor is the director of a stage play
in which the students are the
actors” (Asher, 1977:43).
(2) Listening and physical
response skills are emphasized over oral production.
(3) The imperative mood is
the most common language function employed, even well into advanced
levels. Interrogatives are
also heavily used.
(4) Whenever possible, humor is
injected into the lessons to make them more enjoyable for learners.
(5) Students are not
required to speak until they feel naturally ready or confident enough to do so.
(6) Grammar and vocabulary
are emphasized over other language areas. Spoken language is
emphasized over written language.
Typical Techniques
Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques
and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:118-120) provides expanded
descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with
TPR. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Using Commands to
Direct Behavior
(The use of
commands requiring physical actions from the students in response is the major
teaching
technique)
(2) Role Reversal
(Students
direct the teacher and fellow learners)
(3) Action Sequence
(Teacher
gives interconnected directions which create a sequence of actions [also called
an
"operation"] – as students progress in proficiency, more and more
commands are added to the
action
sequence. Most everyday activities can be broken down into a sequence of
actions)
Comments
TPR has become a worldwide
business (see www.tpr-world.com), so it makes sense to try and
determine which of the principles involved are business/marketing-orientated
and which are strictly pedagogic. TPR.com would have you believe that you
can use TPR as the be-all and end-all for language teaching, right up into very
advanced levels.
I personally feel that the
original theories underlying the method, orientated around creating an
effective and stress-free listening period in combination with physical
responses (the same way we all began learning our own native language as
babies) are the safest ones to stick to. I therefore view it as an almost
pre-requisite technique for teaching young students or older students at
beginning levels, but a method that needs to be supplemented with other
approaches as students progress in proficiency. In the same way, it is an
excellent method for young/beginning teachers to learn, as TPR lessons tend to
be a lot of fun and the techniques involved are relatively simple. As
with any other method or technique style, overdoing it will eventually create
boredom and a feeling of repetition, which is enjoyable for neither students
nor teachers.
I have enjoyed using varieties of
TPR for a long time, and if there is a weakness to be found it would have to be
the difficulty involved in employing TPR for the purpose of teaching abstract
language. Not all the things we do are “physical” and not all of our
thinking is orientated around the visible physical universe. To some
extent you can be innovative and even develop “physical” manifestations of
abstract and/or mentally-based verbs and nouns, but it loosens the connection
and thus weakens it. I personally try to limit TPR activities to the
directly obvious, visible and physically “doable”. I believe this makes
it a great method for young learners before they develop enough cognitively to
start considering more abstract concepts.
I have also experimented with a
technique that I felt grew naturally out of the TPR sphere, which I called at
the time “Total Conceptual Response.” Through this technique, students
were encouraged to draw pictures or symbols for words and/or phrases and units
of meaning that are personal to them – a manifestation on paper representing their
own perception of various concepts. They share these with fellow students
to (1) see how effectively the representation transfers to other people, (2) to
get fresh ideas on how to portray the language “visually”, and (3) build up a
personal language “picture dictionary” that portrays language conceptually
rather than translating it. It tends to involve humor in the same way TPR
does, but involves the students more personally and more creatively. The
way one student conceptualizes “ambition” or “success” is usually different
from other students, and it can be an entertaining process to see what drawings
and symbols emerge. I liked the “Total Conceptual Response” technique
because it had elements of learner autonomy and problem-solving, and actively moved
students away from the habit of making direct translations back into their
native language.
Some 80 years later, in the
1960s, James Asher began experimenting with a method he called Total Physical
Response, and its basic premise had a lot in common with Gouin’s. The
method was to become well known in the 70s, and it drew on several other
insights in addition to the “trace theory” that memory is stimulated and
increased when it is closely associated with motor activity. The method
owes a lot to some basic principles of language acquisition in young learners,
most notably that the process involves a substantial amount of listening and
comprehension in combination with various physical responses (smiling,
reaching, grabbing, looking, etc) – well before learners begin to use the
language orally. It also focused on the ideas that learning should be as
fun and stress-free as possible, and that it should be dynamic through the use
of accompanying physical activity. Asher (1977) also had a lot to say about
right-brained learning (the part of the brain that deals with motor activity),
believing it should precede the language processing element covered by the
left-brain.
TPR is now a household name among
teachers of foreign languages. It is widely acclaimed as a highly
effective method at beginning levels, and almost a standard requirement in the
instruction of young learners. It is also admired as a method due to its
inherent simplicity, making it accessible to a wide range of teachers and
learning environments.
6. The
Natural Approach
Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell
developed the Natural Approach in the early eighties (Krashen and Terrell,
1983), based on Krashen’s theories about second language acquisition. The
approach shared a lot in common with Asher’s Total Physical Response method in
terms of advocating the need for a silent phase, waiting for spoken production
to “emerge” of its own accord, and emphasizing the need to make learners as
relaxed as possible during the learning process. Some important underlying
principles are that there should be a lot of language “acquisition” as opposed
to language “processing”, and there needs to be a considerable amount of comprehensible
input from the teacher. Meaning is considered as the essence of
language and vocabulary (not grammar) is the heart of language.
As part of the Natural Approach,
students listen to the teacher using the target language communicatively from
the very beginning. It has certain similarities with the much earlier
Direct Method, with the important exception that students are allowed to use
their native language alongside the target language as part of the language
learning process. In early stages, students are not corrected during oral
production, as the teacher is focusing on meaning rather than form (unless the
error is so drastic that it actually hinders meaning).
Communicative activities prevail
throughout a language course employing the Natural Approach, focusing on a wide
range of activities including games, roleplays, dialogs, group work and
discussions. There are three generic stages identified in the approach:
(1) Preproduction – developing listening skills; (2) Early Production –
students struggle with the language and make many errors which are corrected
based on content and not structure; (3) Extending Production – promoting
fluency through a variety of more challenging activities.
Krashen’s theories and the
Natural approach have received plenty of criticism, particularly orientated
around the recommendation of a silent period that is terminated when students
feel ready to emerge into oral production, and the idea of comprehensible
input. Critics point out that students will “emerge” at different times
(or perhaps not at all!) and it is hard to determine which forms of language
input will be “comprehensible” to the students. These factors can create
a classroom that is essentially very difficult to manage unless the teacher is
highly skilled. Still, this was the first attempt at creating an
expansive and overall “approach” rather than a specific “method”, and the
Natural Approach led naturally into the generally accepted norm for effective
language teaching: Communicative Language Teaching.
Suggestopedia
In the late 70s, a Bulgarian
psychologist by the name of Georgi Lozanov introduced the contention that
students naturally set up psychological barriers to learning – based on fears
that they will be unable to perform and are limited in terms of their ability
to learn. Lozanov believed that learners may have been using only 5 to 10
percent of their mental capacity, and that the brain could process and retain
much more material if given optimal conditions for learning. Based on
psychological research on extrasensory perception, Lozanov began to develop a
language learning method that focused on “desuggestion” of the limitations
learners think they have, and providing the sort of relaxed state of mind that
would facilitate the retention of material to its maximum potential. This
method became known as Suggestopedia (but also – rather confusingly –
Desuggestopedia) – the name reflecting the application of the power of
“(de)suggestion” to the field of pedagogy.
One of the most unique
characteristics of the method was the use of soft Baroque music during the
learning process. Baroque music has a specific rhythm and a pattern of 60
beats per minute, and Lozanov believed it created a level of relaxed
concentration that facilitated the intake and retention of huge quantities of
material. This increase in learning potential was put down to the
increase in alpha brain waves and decrease in blood pressure and heart rate
that resulted from listening to Baroque music. Another aspect that
differed from other methods to date was the use of soft comfortable chairs and
dim lighting in the classroom (other factors believed to create a more relaxed
state of mind).
Other characteristics of
Suggestopedia were the giving over of complete control and authority to the
teacher (who at times can appear to be some kind of instructional hypnotist
using this method!) and the encouragement of learners to act as “childishly” as
possible, often even assuming names and characters in the target
language. All of these principles in combination were seen to make the
students “suggestible” (or their fears of language learning “desuggestible”),
and therefore able to utilize their maximum mental potential to take in and
retain new material.
Objectives
The prime objective of
Suggestopedia is to tap into more of students’ mental potential to learn, in
order to accelerate the process by which they learn to understand and use the
target language for communication. Four factors considered essential in
this process were the provision of a relaxed and comfortable learning
enviroment, the use of soft Baroque music to help increase alpha brain waves
and decrease blood pressure and heart rate, “desuggestion” in terms of the
pyschological barriers learners place on their own learning potential, and
“suggestibility” through the encouragement of learners assuming “child-like”
and/or new roles and names in the target language.
Key Features
Here are some of the key features
of Suggestopedia:
(1) Learning is facilitated
in an environment that is as comfortable as possible, featuring soft
cushioned seating and dim
lighting.
(2) “Peripheral” learning
is encouraged through the presence in the learning environment of posters
and decorations featuring the
target language and various grammatical information.
(3) The teacher assumes a
role of complete authority and control in the classroom.
(4) Self-perceived and
psychological barriers to learners’ potential to learn are “desuggested”.
(5) Students are encouraged
to be child-like, take “mental trips with the teacher” and assume new
roles and names in the target
language in order to become more “suggestible”.
(6) Baroque music is played
softly in the background to increase mental relaxation and potential to
take in and retain new material
during the lesson.
(7) Students work from
lengthy dialogs in the target language, with an accompanying translation into
the students’ native language.
(8) Errors are tolerated,
the emphasis being on content and not structure. Grammar and vocabulary
are presented and given treatment
from the teacher, but not dwelt on.
(9) Homework is limited to
students re-reading the dialog they are studying – once before they go to
sleep at night and once in the
morning before they get up.
(10) Music, drama and “the
Arts” are integrated into the learning process as often as possible.
Typical Techniques
Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques
and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:84-86) provides expanded
descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with
Suggestopedia. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Classroom Set-up
(Emphasis is
placed on creating a physical environment that does not “feel” like a normal
classroom,
and
makes the students feel as relaxed and comfortable as possible)
(2) Peripheral Learning
(Students
can absorb information “effortlessly” when it is perceived as part of the
environment, rather
than
the material “to be attended to”)
(3) Positive Suggestion
(Teachers
appeal to students’ consciousness and subconscious in order to better
orchestrate the
“suggestive” factors involved in the learning situation)
(4) Visualization
(Students
are asked to close their eyes and visualize scenes and events, to help them
relax, facilitate
positive suggestion and encourage creativity from the students)
(5) Choose a New Identity
(Students
select a target language name and/or occupation that places them “inside” the
language
language they are learning)
(6) Role-play
(Students
pretend temporarily that they are somone else and perform a role using the
target language)
(7) First Concert
(Teacher does a slow, dramatic
reading of the dialog synchronized in intonation with classical music)
(8) Second Concert
(Students put aside their scripts
and the teacher reads at normal speed according to the content, not
the
accompanying pre-Classical or Baroque music – this typically ends the class for
the day)
(9) Primary Activation
(Students “playfully” reread the
target language out loud, as individuals or in groups)
(10) Secondary Activation
(Students
engage in various activities designed to help the students learn the material
and use it more
spontaneously – activities include singing, dancing, dramatizations and games –
“communicative
intent” and not “form” being the focus)
Comments
The language teaching method
known as Suggestopedia provides some valuable insights into the power of
cognition and creating/employing techniques that make students feel comfortable
and relaxed, and “suggestible” to the material being learned.
Unfortunately it does not provide
for the majority of language teaching environments teachers typically
encounter. The dim lighting, large comfortable chairs and music
selections are not readily available to the majority of schools, and these
environmental factors are certainly close to impossible for very large
classes. As with other methods, it does not take account of the fact that
many learners in many countries do not necessarily bring an intrinsic desire to
learn the language into their English lessons, and its basic foundations in
cognitive theory in some ways limit it as a method to the realm of adult
learning.
Still, many teachers can relate
to many of the basic principles of the approach. Playing soft music to
make students relax, making classrooms as comfortable as possible for students
within the constraints imposed by space and budget considerations, having them
assume new target language identities, employing role-playing activities, and
decorating the classroom with peripheral aids to learning. In my opinion,
these are the things that can be taken from the Suggestopedia method and
effectively combined with more effective language teaching techniques specific
to the students we find in various learning situations.
Something I have taken from Suggestopedia
and experimented with extensively in terms of teaching young learners has been
the concept that communication takes place on “two planes” – the conscious and
the subconscious. Suggestopedia suggests that on the conscious plane,
learners attend to the language itself and the linguistic message encoded
therein. On the subconscious plane are factors influencing this
linguistic message, such as the physical enviroment and various background ways
to make the students relax and feel that the learning process is as easy,
natural and stress-free as possible.
I also feel that “peripheral
learning” can be a huge factor in encouraging students to apply language more
independently, thereby taking more personal responsibility for their own
learning and generating a feeling of more confidence and aptitude.
Peripheral information can also help encourage students to be more
experimental, and look to sources other than the teacher for language
input. Several of my flashcard sets include peripheral information
such as vocabulary and grammatical inflections, to encourage students to try
and start building sentences on their own rather than imitating a model from
the teacher. In Sentence Navigation,
students are provided with a range of vocabulary they must somehow navigate in
a problem-solving exercise to build correct English sentences, but the words
they do not choose are also genuine chunks of language input that can be
considered as “peripheral”. This also relates to initial exposure of
students to language and forms they will require later by placing them on the
peripheral rim of whatever they are applying themselves to now. They are
thus provided with stress-free and subtle initial exposure to language that,
when it comes along next or later, feels interestingly familiar and challenging
rather than scarily new or alien. This guides my treatment of vocabulary
and sounds in the English Raven Phonics Kits.
Community Language Learning
In the early seventies, Charles
Curran developed a new education model he called “Counceling-Learning”.
This was essentially an example of an innovative model that primarily
considered affective factors as paramount in the learning process.
Drawing on Carl Rogers’ view that learners were to be considered not as a class,
but as a group, Curran’s philosophy dictated that students were to be
thought of as “clients” – their needs being addressed by a “councelor” in the
form of the teacher. Brown (1994:59), in commenting on this approach also
notes that “In order for any learning to take place … what is first needed is
for the members to interact in an interpersonal relationship in which students
and teacher join together to facilitate learning in a context of valuing and
prizing each indiviual in the group.” Curran was best known for his
extensive studies on adult learning, and some of the issues he tried to address
were the threatening nature of a new learning situation to many adult learners
and the anxiety created when students feared making “fools” of
themselves. Curran believed that the counceling-learning model would help
lower the instinctive defenses adult learners throw up, that the anxiety caused
by the educational context could be decreased through the support of an
interactive community of fellow learners. Another important goal was for
the teacher to be perceived as an empathetic helping agent in the learning
process, not a threat.
The Counceling-Learning
educational model was also applied to language learning, and in this form it
became known as Community Language Learning. Based on most of the
principles above, Community Language Learning seeks to encourage teachers to
see their students as “whole” persons, where their feelings, intellect,
interpersonal relationships, protective reactions, and desire to learn are
addressed and balanced. Students typically sit in a circle, with the
teacher (as councelor) outside the ring. They use their first language to
develop an interpersonal relationship based on trust with the other
students. When a student wants to say something, they first say it in their
native language, which the teacher then translates back to them using the
target language. The student then attempts to repeat the English used by
the teacher, and then a student can respond using the same process. This
technique is used over a considerable period of time, until students are able
to apply words in the new language without translation, gradually moving from a
situtation of dependence on the teacher-councelor to a state of independence.
Objectives
The Community Language Learning
method does not just attempt to teach students how to use another language
communicatively, it also tries to encourage the students to take increasingly
more responsibility for their own learning, and to “learn about their
learning”, so to speak. Learning in a nondefensive manner is considered
to be very important, with teacher and student regarding each other as a “whole
person” where intellect and ability are not separated from feelings. The
initial struggles with learning the new language are addressed by creating an environment
of mutual support, trust and understanding between both learner-clients and the
teacher-councelor.
Key Features
The Community Language Learning
method involves some of the following features:
(1) Students are to be
considered as “learner-clients” and the teacher as a “teacher-councelor”.
(2) A relationship of
mutual trust and support is considered essential to the learning process.
(3) Students are permitted
to use their native language, and are provided with translations from the
teacher which they then attempt
to apply.
(4) Grammar and vocabulary
are taught inductively.
(5) “Chunks” of target
language produced by the students are recorded and later listened to – they
are also transcribed with native
language equivalents to become texts the students work with.
(6) Students apply the
target language independently and without translation when they feel inclined/
confident enough to do so.
(7) Students are encouraged
to express not only how they feel about the language, but how they feel
about the learning process, to
which the teacher expresses empathy and understanding.
(8) A variety of activities
can be included (for example, focusing on a particular grammar or
pronunciation point, or creating
new sentences based on the recordings/transcripts).
Typical Techniques
Larsen-Freeman, in her book Techniques
and Principles in Language Teaching (1986:45-47) provides expanded
descriptions of some common/typical techniques closely associated with
Community Language Learning. The listing here is in summary form only.
(1) Tape Recording Student
Conversation
(Students
choose what they want to say, and their target language production is recorded
for later
listening/dissemination)
(2) Transcription
(Teacher
produces a transcription of the tape-recorded conversation with translations in
the mother
language – this is then used for follow up activities or analysis)
(3) Reflection on
Experience
(Teacher
takes time during or after various activities to allow students to express how
they feel about
the
language and the learning experience, and the teacher indicates
empathy/understanding)
(4) Reflective Listening
(Students
listen to their own voices on the tape in a relaxed and reflective environment)
(5) Human Computer
(Teacher is
a “human computer” for the students to control – the teacher stating anything
in the
target
language the student wants to practice, giving them the opportunity to self
correct)
(6) Small Group Tasks
(Students
work in small groups to create new sentences using the transcript, afterwards
sharing
them
with the rest of the class)
Comments
Community Language Learning is an
innovative approach that Brown (1994:58) lists as one of the “‘Designer’
Methods of the Spirited Seventies”. It is certainly unique in that it is
one of the first methods to be developed that really focused on the feelings of
the students and tried to address affective factors in learning (particularly
for adult learners). It was also the first method to combine the field of
language learning with the dynamics and principles of counceling.
Important and beneficial as that
may be, it could be said that the method goes too far in the direction of
affective factors at the expense of other considerations. It has been
criticized for being too non-directive, and it certainly is not a method
which could be recommended for students who are learning English as part of a
standard, compulsory education curriculum. The method assumes that
students intrinsically want to learn the new language, and that is not
always the case. In a class where only half (or less) of the students
actually want to be there, the principles of the group support/ dynamic are
very likely to fall down.
The method has other
limitations. The teacher must be fluent in both the target language and
the students’ mother language. It cannot be used for large or very large
classrooms, and would be quite limited in terms of how it could be applied to
classes of young learners, who tend to instinctively expect a certain amount of
active direction from the teacher.
Still, the basic affective
principle is a good one, and various Community Language Learning techniques can
be used very effectively in combination with other methods. The tape
recording and transcription elements are very useful, and any method which
stresses the feelings and independent development of the learners themselves is
one worth looking at and trying out in a variety of ways.
Source: Undetectable Source. We are ready to erase this post, if there is complain someday. Considering how imporatant this information, we post this article just want to share this important information especially for those who need it.
