Unit2_section1 History of ELT

7/21/2019 Unit2_section1 History of ELT

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/unit2section1-history-of-elt 1/28

The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 1

History of ELT

Summary

The history of language teaching is sometimes neglected in the profession. Thinkabout your initial training as a language teacher; you may have had a brief overviewof the topic. The Diploma is an opportunity to find out more, not simply because it isof historical interest but also because everything we do now, either when planning orin the classroom, is a direct result of all sorts of theory and practice, mainstream andalternative, academic and practical, serious and, at times, perhaps eccentric.However, we should be under no illusion that we have reached a final consensus asto what constitutes best possible practice. In the same way that language is in aconstant state of flux and development, so too are language teaching approaches. Aspects of teaching fall out of favour, while other practices which were censuredcome back into fashion. New – and revamped – theory, and new practice isemerging all the time.

ObjectivesBy the end of the section you will:

• know about different methods and approaches over the last hundred years withsome glimpses of even remoter history

• know how they relate chronologically and developmentally

• know about the theoretical background to the different methodologies

• be clear about the principles and practices of Communicative LanguageTeaching, which is the closest thing we have to a current consensus

•

have a clear idea of the plurality of current methodology



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 2

Contents

1. Classroom Methodologies

2. History of Language Teaching

2.1 Monastery and Marketplace Traditions

2.2 Grammar Translation

2.3 The Direct Method

2.4 Research into Second Language Acquisition

2.5 Audiolingualism

2.6 The Natural Approach and the Listening Approach

2.7 The Communicative Approach

2.7.1 Theory of Language Acquisition

2.7.2 Description of Language

2.7.3 Educational Philosophy

3. Other Methodologies

3.1 Humanistic Approaches

3.2 Task Based Learning or Task Based Approaches

3.3 The Lexical Approach

4. Principled Eclecticism

Reading

Appendices



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 3

1. Classroom Methodologies

TASK 1: What we do? (30mins)

Here are some “things we do in the classroom”:

a. tell students not to speak in L1

b. put students into pairs

c. correct ‘at the end’

d. pre-set comprehension Qs

e. tell them to read for gist and not to worry about every word

f. do student-student correction

g. elicit language from students rather than give it to them

h. ________________________________________________________

i. ________________________________________________________

1. In the spaces above (h. and i.), put two other common practices.

2. Then think of the principles implicit in each of them. Consider whether they arenecessarily good ideas. Think what changes there could be in our outlook. Forexample, the first one above could be analysed in this way:

Telling students not to speak in L1: The principle here is that L1 should notintercede between the student’s mind and the L2; that they should “think” in L2.The pros of this are obvious: lots of focus on the target language. There arecons, too, however: Is the mind of the student a blank sheet of paper? Is therenot already a language there? And could not this language actually help themto learn another one?

Deal with the other “things we do” in the same way. If you find it difficult,imagine a students is questioning you: “Why do you make us only useEnglish?” If you can, you might like to do this as a role play with a colleague.

3. Once finished, check in Appendix 1 and see if the issues mentioned here arethe ones you discussed.

Everything we do in the classroom, however basic, is informed by some kind ofmethodology; it might be a mistaken methodology but it is there. There has alwaysbeen a mass of different and contending methodologies, or, in more practical terms:methods, approaches, techniques.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 4

TASK 2: Methods and Approaches (30 mins)

Here is a list of methods and approaches, tendencies from over the last 100 years

• Principled Eclecticism

• The Listening Approach

• Task-Based Learning

• The Silent Way

• Grammar-Translation

• The Lexical Approach

• Community Language Learning

• Suggestopaedia

• The Communicative Approach

• Total Physical Response

• Direct Method

• The Natural Approach

• Computer Assisted Language Learning

• Humanistic Approaches

1. Look at this list, if possible with a colleague. Mark them as follows:

K (know about)

H (heard of)

NH (never heard of)

2. When you have done this alone, get together with a colleague from your schooland compare your results. Help one another to fill in the gaps you have found,where possible; however little you may know about the topic. (There will beplenty of opportunity to check your knowledge later.)



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 5

TASK 3: Definitions (15mins)

Look at the list of definitions of twelve (that is not all) of these methods andapproaches below and match them to the twelve items of the list. This means thatyou will not find definitions for two which are really too self-evident to need them.

• Principled Eclecticism

• The Listening Approach

• Task-Based Learning

• The Silent Way

• Grammar Translation

• The Lexical Approach

• Community Language Learning

•

Suggestopaedia

• The Communicative Approach


• Direct Method

• The Natural Approach

• Computer Assisted Language Learning

• Humanistic Approaches

a) A language teaching method in which items are presented in the foreignlanguage as orders, commands and instructions.

b) A method of FL teaching which makes use of gesture, mime, visual aids and inparticular Cuisenaire Rods that the teacher uses to help the learners to talk.

c) It uses techniques developed in group counselling. The method makes use ofgroup learning. Learners say things they want to talk about, in their nativelanguage, the teacher translates the learner’s sentences into the foreignlanguage, and the learner then repeats this to other members of the group.

d) Methods in which the following principles are considered important: thedevelopment of human values, active learner involvement in learning and in theway learning takes place

e) A term for an approach proposed by Terrell (which) emphasizes

• the informal acquisition of language rules

• tolerance of learners’ errors

• natural communication



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 6

f) A method of foreign language teaching which has the following features:only the target language should be used in class and there is a firm emphasis onspeaking.

g) Teaching materials used with this approach teach the language needed toexpress and understand different kinds of functions, such as requesting,

describing. Emphasis is on the processes of communication.h) A method of FL teaching developed by the Bulgarian, Lozanov. It makes use of

dialogues, situations, and translation to present and practise language, and inparticular, makes use of music.

i) An approach that encourages the teacher to pick and choose judiciously from awide range of methodologies.

j) An approach in which learners do a task, using such language as they cannaturally, possibly having previously seen or heard the task performed previouslyby native speakers. Language focus can be made, before or after, though this isnot always felt to be essential.

k) A listening-based application of the ideas of Krashen to the classroom.l) An aspect of communicative language teaching which focuses more on language

as lexical units rather than grammatical structures.

See Appendix 2

TASK 4: Chronology (5-10mins)

Try instead to establish an order for the methods / approaches above, to establisha sort of chronology of ELT. Many of these features of Language Teaching were,

of course, current simultaneously; some ‘subsume’ others. You might like to puttogether clusters of these methods rather than sequence them chronologically.(This will probably be closer to the truth than something strictly linear). Do not worryif you have doubts, as the reading which follows will clarify this for you.

Two titles you will find of use should you wish to check your understanding of thedefinitions of these methods and approaches are:

• Richards, J & Rogers, T. 2001 Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching (2nd

edition) Cambridge University Press

• Larsen-Freeman, D. 2000 Techniques and Practice in Language

Teaching Oxford University Press

2. History of Language Teaching

There has been no even, gradual development of language learning methods, oneafter the other, in history. Old methods have not gone away and been replaced bynew ones in an orderly succession; some methods dominate in different areas of theworld and some do not. And of course any history of language teaching would vary



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 7

according to the nationality of the writer. An account written by someone in the USwould be significantly different to this.

One assumption we might all have is this: language teaching started out ponderouslyacademic and gradually became more practical, and more fun, until it culminated inthe kind of teaching we do nowadays. In fact, the truth is more complicated.

2.1 Monastery and Marketplace Traditions

Initially, language teaching was influenced very much by the teaching of Greek andLatin and was very grammar based and academic. This has been termed the

monastery tradition.1

But there was another tradition, the marketplace tradition where languages werelearned for the purpose of trade.

Below is a good example of the marketplace tradition. In 1586 Jacques Bellotwrote his ‘Familiar Dialogues’ for the help of Huguenot refugees in London. Onesuch dialogue goes like this:

B. Peter, where layde you your night cap?

P. I left it upon the bedde

B. Are you ready, Peter?

P. How should I be ready? You brought me a smock instead of my shirt

B. I forgot myself: holde, here is your shirt.

P. Now you are a good wenche.

(Howatt, A. 2004 A History of English Language Teaching [2nd edition] OUP)

This is a charming glimpse of Elizabethan domestic life; but in language teachingterms they are also classic ’situationalised dialogues’ just as we are still using 400years later. There were never any ‘Dark Ages’ of language teaching.

However, the history that concerns us originates in the nineteenth century when themethodology of foreign language teaching was first approached thoughtfully andsystematically. So that is where we will begin and the sequence which will bring usup to date can be expressed most simply thus.

Grammar Translation

▼

Direct Method

▼

1 If you are interested in this, see McArthur 1983 A Foundation Course for Language

Teachers Cambridge University Press



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 8

Audiolingualism

▼

The Natural Approach

▼

Communicative Approach

Of course this ‘straight line’ account is of limited use, since there is a whole swatheof interesting, sometimes eccentric, approaches and methods which branch off it; butin the case of the UK at least, it represents a sequence of the main currents oflanguage teaching methodology. Other methods, (the ones you considered in TasksTwo and Three) will be dealt with after what, I hope, is a traceable historical accountof these four main periods.

2.2 Grammar Translation

TASK 5: What is Grammar Translation? (10mins)

Before you start reading this:Write down everything you know about this method or discuss it with a colleague.If you know nothing, what kind of methodology do you imagine would bear thisname?

Grammar Translation was ultimately based on the way that the classical languages(Greek and Latin) had been taught, and it was applied to the teaching of livinglanguages too. Indeed, the Grammar Translation method was elaborated and

codified (i.e. formally written down and explained) in the nineteenth century preciselyto teach modern languages in schools. Without wishing to state the obvious, itdepends on Grammar and Translation. Though somewhat literary in nature, itsmaterials were not necessarily confined to literary texts. Language was oftenconveyed by numbered sentences exemplifying a grammatical structure with anadjacent translation in L1, or the translation from L1 into L2 or vice versa might bethe task of the learner. Typically, such exercises would have been preceded by apage of rules, or conjugations/declensions etc. For this reason, Grammar Translationtakes a very deductive approach to language: rules before examples. What was notalways attended to was context. Here is a page of examples for learning French. It iseasy to spot the structure being focussed on – but can you see any unifying context?

You have put on your stockings

I have done my exercise

He has spoken wisely

Grammar Translation is not some archaic museum piece. This is how many of uswere first taught French, German or another second language. It did not seemstrange that we spoke English all the time, that we read aloud, that we translatedsentences and chanted je suis, tu es, il est or der, die das, den, die, das etc. Peoplestudying Latin followed the same methodology.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 9

We may like to think that we have left Grammar Translation far behind. We would bewrong. Indeed, it is probably still, in the third millennium, one of the main ways inwhich languages are taught. It has, rightly, been criticised for employing contrivedmarker sentences and having no communicative underpinning. However, it is veryeasy to implement with large classes, and many students now studying in morecommunicative contexts have previously studied in this way. Do they know nothing?

Not at all. They know a great deal, but it is largely passive. A mute learner in anElementary class may well turn out to have a large body of passive, still-to-be-activated knowledge. Many of the principles of the Grammar Translation approachare valid. Maybe, in future, we will see a new, improved version of GrammarTranslation returning? One with an inductive approach to language, authentic textsand a focus on language at more than sentence level, applied in a morecommunicative manner.

2.3 The Direct Method

TASK 6: What is the Direct Method? (10mins)

Once again try to anticipate what kind of theory and practice would come to bear

the name Direct Method. (It might help to know that it is sometimes referred to asthe “Natural Method”). Then read on.

This is a very general name, but it is usually understood to enshrine two principles,

• the teaching is all in the target language.

• there is an emphasis on speaking.

These two things seem so self-evident now that they look unremarkable, but actuallythey are the two fundamental pillars on which all language teaching can be said tobe predicated today, and were at one time radical – and polemic - innovations.

No one person ‘invented’ the Direct Method; it emerged in the 1880’s (with glimpseseven earlier) in German state schools as a reaction against Grammar Translation. Agroup of practitioners, termed the Reform Movement, felt that language teaching inschools was ineffective and, more worryingly, that having to learn parts of speechand chant declensions and conjugations was actually causing strain amongschoolchildren. The Movement promoted more natural classroom procedures(hence “Natural Method”), which required a direct link (hence “Direct Method”)between what students could see / hear and language use. It therefore involved lotsof gesture, visual support and here-and-now language use. Speaking was reified,

with lots of repetition, question-and-answer sessions and retelling stories all beingprized. (In fact, the focus on oral production was such that the Movement believedthat the first stages of language learning should focus exclusively on pronunciation,and it is from this period that the phonemic alphabet stems).

The Direct Method could never be said to have ‘taken over’ from GrammarTranslation. We get glimpses of the Direct Method way back in the nineteenthcentury. It worked alongside Grammar translation for years - as indeed it still does.Howatt (op. cit.) gives us the example of J.S. Blackie in 1845 describing a purely

direct method lesson all conducted in L2 and with realia. This is remarkable. Even



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 10

more so is the fact that the same pioneer also looked forward to current Task-Based

practice, for he writes: ‘Step 7. Grammar may now be introduced, or ratherdeduced out of the preceding practice’

( my emphasis)

So the Direct Method constituted an important departure in language teaching, butwas not perfect. It continued to have a very grammatical view of the components of

language and, like Grammar Translation, was not always overly concerned with therealness of its language. One might have expected the Direct Method to haveimproved in the reality of its language, and in some ways it had. It was altogether

more everyday and practical, more real; but while the language was more real the

language acts remained strange. Take the (in)famous classroom question ‘Is this apen?’ It looks fairly routine on the surface but try going up to someone in the streetwith a pen and asking them this. What communicative purpose is there in saying “isthis a pen?” to someone who can see it? A lot of Direct Method language wasunrealistic in this way. I have seen in an old Direct Method course book the followingsentence: ‘Is this a black pen or a tall policeman?’!

However, we should not see the Direct Method as a historical curiosity, and for threereasons:

• It is still around; indeed, it is as well-established worldwide as the GrammarTranslation approach

• It is an effective and stimulating methodology which is conducive to a busyand kinetic classroom

• Features of the Direct Method are compatible with the more communicativemethods of today. Many teachers drill their class at some time or another,instinctively knowing that it is good for the students and that they like doing it.I, at least, have never met a student who objected to drilling. (Rather theopposite.

The Direct Method became theoretically more thought out, and its application

extended. It became the basis for the language teaching programmes of the US Armed Forces during the Second World War, known colloquially as the G.I. Method.It was at the heart of the Michigan Oral Approach. It became intimately connectedwith the Behaviourist theory of learning and language acquisition.

The form in which it became most identifiable was the Audio-lingual method.However the Audio-lingual method was more than the old Direct Method. Basicallythe same principles lay behind each, but the Audio-lingual method was based on

research and theory, notably theories of language acquisition. Languageacquisition theory was rudimentary until the 1950s. Since then, however, it hasinformed all language teaching methodology. Indeed, the development of languageacquisition studies helps us separate the Direct Method from what was to come.

2.4 Research into Second Language Acquisition

Let us consider briefly what is involved in acquisition, and what the three mainstances are:

In short, Behaviourists, under the aegis of BF Skinner, believe that language isacquired through hearing utterances, then repeating them ourselves. A positive



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 11

reaction (which might be receiving the doll just requested, or, more basically, simplycommunicating a message effectively) results in our thinking “Ah, that was obviouslycorrect” and the utterance is acquired.

Noam Chomsky, however, in a review of Skinner’s 1959 book Verbal Behaviour took

a different stance, believing language to develop in the same way as other biological

functions, such as walking. One of Chomsky’s major disagreements withBehaviourism is that it cannot account for the massive repertoire which nativespeakers have. If all the utterances we produce have to have been heard before (oracquired by analogy with something we have heard before), then we would not beable to produce original utterances independently. It would be impossible to writepoetry, or make puns, or even produce grammatically accurate, semantically suitableyet highly infrequent utterances such as “My bikini is full of pebbles” (which I heardrecently). Also, spontaneous speech is full of ungrammatical utterances, false starts,repetition, non-sequiturs and so on, but these are filtered out and not acquired asstandard. Similarly, the children of uncommunicative parents acquire language asnaturally as those of communicative and supportive parents. We must all, therefore,possess an inbuilt ability to acquire language, and acquire it correctly, whatever thequality of the input we receive (the “poverty of the stimulus”). Chomsky termed this

concept Universal Grammar (UG) and the part of the brain where this is stored isthe Language Acquisition Device (LAD).

A third view of language is that of the psychologists Piaget and Vygotsky. They viewlanguage as emerging when our own physical and emotional development reaches astage where language is required. So, for example, children whose experience is thehere-and-now need concrete language such as imperatives, basic verbs andconcrete nouns. As we develop, we are aware of more complex concepts, and soneed the language to express these. A small child may need only to talk about the“big dog” and the “small dog”. Yet an older one may want to compare the two, andnotice the comparative structure “bigger dog”. The older child’s cognitivedevelopment has led to linguistic development.

TASK 7: Reading: Language Acquisition

Useful titles which deal with theories of language acquisition and the way in whichthese theories are applied to second language learning are:

• Lightbown, P. & Spada, N 2006 How Languages are Learned (3rd

edition) Cambridge University Press, Chapters 1 & 2

• Littlewood 1984 Foreign and Second Language Learning, CambridgeUniversity Press pp 4 - 36

Confirm and amplify your knowledge of three acquisition theories by dipping intothese titles.

Lightbown and Spada show how there have been three major theories aboutlanguage acquisition:

The principles can be summarised thus.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 12

Theory of L1acquisition

Proponent View oflanguage

View of languageacquisition process

Behaviourist Skinner Language isacquiredbehaviour

• Imitation

• Repetition

• Positive & negativereinforcement

Innatist ChomskyLanguage isinnate

• Hypothesising

• Trial and error

• Creativity

Cognitive –developmentalist

Piaget

Vygotsky

Language isinnate, but not

separate fromother mentaldevelopments

• Languageacquisition growsfrom language use

• Embedded in theexperiences of itsusers

This is a particularly simple tabulation of the issues and you may wish to refine thissimplification by looking at other sources. Bear in mind once more that these

theories are concerned with how native speakers acquire their first language. Allapplication to how adults learn their second language needs to take this intoaccount.

2.5 Audiolingualism

As we have seen, whether we are aware of it or not, there is a lot of theoryunderpinning what we do in the classroom. This has not always been the case. Torecap, until the 1950s, there was little research or theory into how languages areacquired. The Audiolingual approach to language teaching was the first to be basedon any real theoretical foundation.

The approach has its roots in the United States, when entry into the Second Worldwar necessitated large numbers of service personnel who could communicate to ahigh level in German, French, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Malay and Chinese.There simply were not enough competent speakers around, nor appropriate teachingprogrammes, so the army set up its own system, based around very intensiveinstruction (10 hours a day, 6 days a week), and the use of two instructors in class: a

native-speaker “informer” and a professional linguist who managed the classroom.The language focus was purely oral, and produced some excellent results. Officiallyentitled the Army Specialised Training Program, it be came known as the ArmyMethod, or the G.I. Method.

As mentioned earlier, Audiolingualism developed out of the Direct Method, andshares many of the same premises (language should be treated inductively,language should be tightly controlled so that there is no room for errors to beproduced, and language should be presented in natural situations). What



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 13

differentiates Audiolingualism from the Direct Method, however, is the fact that itovertly espouses a Behaviourist view of learning, in that language is a question ofhabit-formation, and that practice makes perfect. It is also predicated on the use ofcontrastive linguistic analysis, where errors are predicted and identified through astudy of the structure of both languages, and materials carefully designed to addressthese differences. There was also a heavy influence of structural (i.e. rule-based)

linguistics. Charles Fries, at the University of Michigan, integrated data fromstructural linguistics and language teaching into one teaching program. His MichiganOral Approach eventually led to Audiolingualism, although Fries himself was noBehaviourist. This emphasis on structure is also a major departure from the DirectMethod: Audiolingualism believes that grammar / structures are the organisingprinciple of language, rather than the more “phrase book” focus of the Direct Method.

The approach was in vogue until Chomsky’s attack dealt it a blow from which it neverfully recovered. Although theorists and practitioners were aware of the limitations of Audiolingualism, the lack of viable alternatives led to a vacuum in methodologicaldevelopment until the early 1980s.

2.6 The Natural Approach and the Listening Approach

The Audio-lingual approach was basically the prevailing mode in British-basedlanguage teaching until the early 1980s, indeed to the present day. In the US and inmany parts of Europe and the World it remains a flourishing and credible method oflanguage teaching. Very recently the publicity of one language school in Londondeclared:

“Learning a language, like learning to type or play the piano, isprincipally a question of developing a quick reflex……..a quick reflexcan only be developed by mechanical repetition”.

Clearly, however, such a methodology has its limitations. Effective up to a point, itdoes appear to lack a human dimension. The Natural Approach provided this.

In the early 1980s. there was a major shift in teaching in general, including languageteaching, towards what we now call more Humanistic approaches, which aim toinvolve the “whole” person in the learning process. In language teaching, this wasmarked by the growth of what we now call Communicative teaching approaches,where the emphasis is on message and successful communication rather thanlinguistic accuracy of prowess. The idea was about learning to use language, notusing learnt language. The Natural Approach (and the associated Listening Approach.) is associated with the Humanistic Approaches in its focus on context,and on the complexity of the learning process. It is associated with Tracy Terrell andStephen Krashen. The former was a teacher of Spanish in California, and Krashen a

University linguist. In 1983, they published a very influential work: The Natural

Approach. In it, they highlight 5 hypotheses which they believe promote effective

learning. They all emulate the factors present in First Language Acquisition. These 5hypotheses are:

• The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: acquisition is rough-tuned andunconscious, and used to communicate message. It is not consciouslyattended to. Learning, however, is very fine-tuned and refers to a learners’knowledge of rules and their ability to talk abut them. The Natural Approachvalues the former.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 14

• The Natural Order Hypothesis. This states that there is an order in whichstructures are acquire by learners, irrespective of L1, aptitude or age(learners learn –ing as a progressive form, then plurals, then to be and so on)which is at odds with the order of language presented in coursebooks.

• The Monitor Hypothesis. Sometimes when we communicate spontaneously in

L2, we want to get our message across and accuracy is sacrificed. At othertimes, we may wish to be much more accurate (writing a formal letter, forexample). In the latter case, we employ our Monitor ( a kind of accuracy-focus device) to scrutinise our output and make it is accurate as possible.

• The Input Hypothesis: This does not necessarily mean everything is comprehended, but the learner should be constantly exposed to reading andlistening and that this is most beneficial if it is a notch or two above thelearner’s ‘level’.

• The Affective Filter Hypothesis. The student will learn better if s/he feels welldisposed to the language and to the learning process. In such cases his Affective Filter is low, and so more input can wash over him. If the filter ishigh (negative attitude to the language, stress, linguistic difficulties), the filterwill be high and so little – if any – input will be attended to.

A very important aspect of the Natural Approach, which imitates children acquiringtheir first language, is the “Right to Silence”, or Silent Period. Speaking should ariseas and when the learner wishes to communicate. There should be no pressure onthe student to speak. You will notice that this is very different from the generalassumption of the Communicative Approach with its emphasis on personal free oralproduction from Day One.

The Listening Approach mentioned earlier is an application of Krashenite ideasthrough the language skill of listening; that is, of exposure of the learner to“comprehensible input”.

If you would like to learn more about the Natural Approach and the Listening Approach, read:

• Brown, J.M. & Palmer, A.S. 1988 The Listening Approach Longman

• Krashen, S. 1982 Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition Pergamon. Pages 10-30 provide a good synopsis of Krashen’shypotheses.

• Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. 1983 The Natural Approach Pergamon

2.7 The Communicative Approach

It would not be possible to complete an account of current language teaching withoutdealing with the Communicative Approach (or Communicative Language Teaching,as it is sometimes called).

The Communicative Approach is notoriously difficult to define. Since it representssuch a sea-change in our perception of how best to teach language, it has beendefined by numerous theoreticians and practitioners, all having slightly differentviews of what the approach involves. Supporters of the “strong”, “deep end” or “pure”Communicative Approach would say that language needs no overt focus and that



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 15

linguistic competence develops naturally out of focussing on communication throughskills work; those who advocate a “weaker”, or “shallow-end” version would say thatovert focus on form is vital but that focus on form should lead to focus on meaningthrough some kind of communicative, meaningful activity. The latter is what we findin coursebooks – possibly because it fits in with what we feel we ought to provide forstudents in class, and in order to meet students’ expectations of classroom provision.

The Communicative Approach has its roots in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Adissatisfaction with the structural focus of Audiolingualism, which was producinglearners who could communicate, but not effectively or, at times, particularlymeaningfully. Also, the expansion and strengthening of the European EconomicCommunity meant that there was a real need for languages to be learnt, and learntin such a way as to facilitate real communication. The Council of Europecommissioned a study which analysed learners’ language needs and published theresults of this study in a document which proposed that language exponents shouldbe taught in meaningful contexts and divided according to the notions (topics) theyexpress (“the weather”, “time”, “location” etc.), and the function they perform incommunication (“apologising”, “greeting people”, “expressing gratitude” and so on), –a very different organisational principle than that of the grammatical structures which

informed the Audiolingual curriculum. Because of the focus on notions and functions,the Communicative Approach is sometimes referred to as the Notional-Functional Approach, or simply the Functional Approach.

The Council of Europe document was followed by a formalised publication, Van Ek’s

1976 The Threshold Level for Modern Language Learning in Schools (Council ofEurope / Longman). This provided a yardstick which students could use to measuretheir own linguistic competence. What does this mean? Put it this way: sometimeslearners will have approached you and asked, ‘When will I be able to speak English?’Of course this is almost unanswerable and we usually say something encouragingthough not very specific (“Just keep coming to class and doing your homework…”).In fact the learner’s question is one we should respect, and the Threshold Levelprovides an answer. We can say to them: Look, when you know and can use and

understand this body of language, this vocabulary, these functions, these notions,then you can be deemed to be a speaker of English

Now let us think in more details about practical aspects of notions and functions.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 16

TASK 8: Notions, Functions and Structures (5 mins)

Look at the following: decide whether they are: Structure (S) Function (F) Notion(N) Put a letter next to the items. Beware: one of these is a trick one!

• advising

• the present perfect continuous

• going to the doctor

• education

• the passive

• time

• modals

• disagreeing

• inviting

• family

• third conditional

See Appendix 3

Let us now look at three elements of the Communicative Approach




Under each of these headings the CA is distinctive.


The Direct Method and Audiolingual Method tended to reflect a behaviourist accountof how languages are acquired; that is, we learn by imitating, repeating, building uplanguage habits with the aid of positive (or negative) reinforcement. The

Communicative Approach, however, clearly reflects a different theory of languageacquisition: the Cognitive-Mentalist model. Basically this says that we acquirelanguage through hypothesis, trial and error, through making mistakes etc.

We should remind ourselves that both these theories of language acquisition were

originally expounded on how babies acquire their first language, not how adults

learn their second language.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 17


Language in the Direct Method / Audiolingual Method view consisted of a set ofstructural patterns. The CA sees language as more complex than that. Itacknowledges the fact that there is more to language than just structures. D.A.

Wilkins (Notional Syllabuses OUP 1976) queries the ‘adequacy of grammaticalsyllabuses’ because ‘when we have described the structural (and lexical) meaning ofa sentence we have not accounted for the way it is used as an utterance.’ He, likemany others, recommended the use of notions and functions as the basis of apedagogic language description, rather than structures.

But what are these notions and functions? Because you have been working withcurrent published materials you are probably already using these, but may not beable to define them. So, to remind ourselves:

• Notions are topics

Language is seen as divisible into topic areas. (There is nothing new in that:Victorian language learning manuals were often divided into sections such as

‘At the tailors’ or ‘With the dentist’). But notions are more sophisticatedentities. There are some specific notions: Sport, House and Home etc., butthere are also more general notions: Presence / Absence, Being, Distance,etc.

• Functions are the jobs that language does

Linguistics has long recognised that there is no direct equation between agrammatical structure and the job it is doing. If you come to my flat and I say‘There’s a beer in the fridge’ then clearly I am doing more than indicating the

location of a can of Heineken. I am offering it to you. “Offering” is a Function.

This more complicated, multi-layered view of language is an important (and

sometimes awkward) feature of the CA. For we now have three different categories:Structures, Functions, Notions. They relate hierarchically:

Notion:

Functions

Structures:

Health

Describing

Complaints

Sympathising Advising

If I wereyou…

Whydon’t

you…?

Have youtried…?



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 18

If you are interested in this area, look at:

Van Ek, J. 1971 Threshold Report Council of Europe

Widdowson, H. 1972 The Teaching of English as Communication OUP

Wilkins, D. 1976 Notional Syllabuses OUP

However, the use of notions and functions as syllabus or coursebook categories isonly one way in which our view of language changed at the time of theCommunicative Approach. The CA insisted naturally enough on an analysis oflanguage that was not merely a surface one. One of the writers responsible for anew approach to language was Henry Widdowson. In 1972 he had written that itwas:

‘a radical mistake to suppose that a knowledge of how sentencesare put to use in communication follows automatically from aknowledge of how sentences are composed and what significationthey have as linguistic units.’


It is clear that since the sixties in Europe and in the States we have had anincreasingly ‘progressive’ educational philosophy. This is particularly the case in theUK, and this has had far-reaching (and not always happy) effects on education.Indeed now ‘trendy teaching’ is deemed by many to have ‘gone too far’ and there isa call for a return to ‘basics’.

Progressive ideas have naturally found their way into the ELT world; more than any

other teaching context, perhaps. And the Communicative Approach has naturallyreflected this in its concern with, for example:

• learner centredness

• creativity

• focus on fluency rather than accuracy

• pair/group work

• fun (for a note on ‘fun’ see Section 4)

3. Other Methodologies

Earlier we represented the simplified history of language teaching thus:

Grammar Translation ► Direct Method ► Audiolingualism ►

The Natural Approach ► Communicative Approach

There is a flaw here, of course. We have seen from this history of language teachingthat it is not just a matter of one method succeeding gracefully to another. As we



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 19

have seen, Grammar Translation and Direct Method have not by any means goneaway; they are flourishing the world round and why not? They have proved to beeffective. Furthermore what about all those other methods and approaches welooked at in Tasks 2 & 3?

A very important issue to bear in mind when considering these methodologies is that

they are all communicative (note the small ‘c’). In all of them, promoting meaningfullanguage use is key and is more important than the mechanical learning ofstructures. How they differ is in the classroom events and procedures they espousein order to achieve this goal. The most recent of these methodologies, the Lexical Approach, is described by its originator as fully compatible with the practices of thecommunicative approach (or ‘approaches’ as he prefers to call them).

Let us look at these methods or approaches. One group is routinely united under theheading:

3.1 Humanistic Approaches

TASK 9: Humanistic Approaches (10 mins)

What does the phrase Humanistic Approaches bring to mind? What do youimagine to be the features of the Humanistic classroom? Discuss this with acolleague.

• Suggestopaedia


• The Silent Way

• Community Language Learning (to a lesser extent)

• Neurolinguistic Programming

The first 4 are all some 20-30 years old. They are all still ‘alternative’, albeit showingtheir age somewhat. They have probably played a larger part in the US than the UKhistory of language teaching.

Suggestopaedia

This is now sometimes known as Desuggestopaedia. This perhaps indicates that theoriginal choice of name was ill-advised. The new name, cumbersome though it is, isa better one: it refers to a language teaching method that wants to dissuade the

student (to desuggest him) from thinking that language learning is difficult. ForLozanov, the Bulgarian 1960s originator of this approach, believed that we areactually capable of learning far more and far more quickly than was previouslythought. This, he claimed, could be achieved by an atmosphere of relaxation, lowlights, sonorous, almost singsong readings of texts by the teacher perhaps to abackground of music. Later, students will do readings and acting out of situationsetc. play games, do role-plays etc. The actual learning process will be ‘peripheral’ toeverything else that is happening in the classroom.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 20

Total Physical Response

This method is based on the theories of James Asher. Total Physical Response ismore or less clear from its name. It is based primarily on the doing of enjoyableactions in the classroom in response to teacher directions (and later directions fromthe students themselves); it is kinetic, fun and lends itself best to younger students

and lower levels. Clearly a frequently used structure in TPR is the Imperative. Buthow (we are tempted to ask) does TPR deal with the 3rd

conditional? Indeed we haveto enquire to what extent this methodology can be used for students aboveelementary level.

The Silent Way

The Silent Way is based on the assumption that ‘Teaching should be subordinatedto Learning’ as its originator Gattegno puts it. The teacher is busy throughout but nottalkative. Indeed the teacher remains largely silent, even slightly formal in manner,with the help of coloured pronunciation charts and Cuisenaire rods drawing languageout of the students; students correct one another under the aegis of the teacher.Overall, if one looks at the principles of the Silent Way, we find the essentials of theCommunicative Approach more in this than in any other methodology. It is, onemight say, the CA in embryo (with the exception, certainly of the ‘distant’ teachermanner.)

Community Language Learning

CLL is clearly ‘humanistic’ in its insistence that we teach the ‘whole person.’ Studentssit around a tape recorder and themselves in charge of the recording procedure they(hesitantly at first) build up a tape recording together. L1 can be used but the teacherwill translate or make suggestions before the utterance is committed to tape.Gradually an improvised conversation is built up. When it is long enough it is listenedto, with learners remembering what comes next. The conversation is then written up,line by line on the board, special features are underlined, problems translated etc.(You will notice that there are no compunctions about using L1 in this methodology,

which makes it interestingly traditional).

Neurolinguistic Programming

The whole of language acquisition/learning is of course a psychological process,though so far we have only mentioned psychology in the context of theories oflanguage acquisition. Our final item under humanistic approaches must be NLP orNeurolinguistic Programming which has a more comprehensive view of the role ofpsychology (in its broadest sense) in relation to language learning, and whose

emphasis is on learning, not teaching.

First we require a definition of neurolinguistics: it is, according to the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics

“The study of the function the brain performs in languagelearning and language use. Neurolinguistics includes researchinto how the structure of the brain influences language learning,how and in which part of the brain language is stored…etc.”

In terms of classroom practice NLP means a methodology that is based on the worldof the imagination, the emotional, the kinaesthetic, the associative, the personal, theholistic, the natural. These of course are all already components of today’s bestcommunicative practice. NLP practitioners follow these concerns to their logical limits



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 21

and the classroom they have created may perhaps not be one that would suit alllearner types.

A Note on “Fun”

Common to the Communicative approach and some of the methods and approachesdescribed above is a belief in fun; the idea that learning should be fun, that fun

facilitates learning. And of course this is right. In the name of fun, however, someactivities are proposed that certain people might not at all think of as fun; not theirkind of fun, anyway (for we should be aware that for some learner types there can beno greater fun than going through a gap fill exercise!)

We may here be looking at the excesses of the communicative-humanistic tendencyin language teaching but we should think seriously of the advisability of such ideas.For example, a teacher in the Suggestopaedia lesson is described by Larsen-Freeman as reaching into her bag and bringing out fun hats for the students to wear:“with a great deal of playfulness, they are distributed,” we are told.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 22

TASK 10: How would you feel? (20mins)

Here are some other ideas from the communicative and humanistic end oflanguage teaching. Discuss with a colleague how you yourself would feel about

them. Some I am sure you would be happy to do; others possibly less so. As a veryminimum we should probably not be asking our adult students to do anything wewould feel uncomfortable with.

• wearing a “funny” hat

• throwing a teddy bear round in a circle as part of a getting to know youactivity

• sitting on the floor acting out a role play in front of the class

• discussing politics

• doing a circle dance round a vase of carnations

• having post-its stuck to your face indicating parts of the body, (nose, mouth)

• stroking crystals

• jumping up and down patting parts of you body in time to a tambourine

• miming everyday activities

• singing with other students

• making a poster with big coloured pens

• doing a running dictation

• being roped to a fellow student and asked to describe the experience.

All the above have been seen in the language teaching classroom or proposed inrecent articles.

3.2 Task Based Learning or Task Based Approaches

First a brief note on the word ‘Task’: Task (with a small or large T) has been apopular term during the last thirty years of language teaching. Indeed during this

period much of what was done in the classroom consisted of tasks , students doingthings together rather than sitting listening to the teacher. Also, during this period the

word ‘task’ became popular in conjunction with the receptive skills. Instead of justlistening to or reading texts, the students were given questions the answers to whichthey had to listen out for or look out for. These were seen as tasks.

The “tasks” of TBL are something rather more specific than the simple task-givingdescribed above. Indeed in its earliest forms it was a radical methodology. One of

the first books to deal with this area was Second Language Pedagogy, PrahbuOUP 1987. In this book he described the so-called Bangalore Project in whichchildren in India were taught English through tasks. This may sound unremarkable



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 23

but in Prabhu’s strong version of TBL there would not be any focus on language. In amore moderate application of TBL there might be language focus but it will come at

the end. Jane Willis describes such a lesson in Challenge and Change Heinemann1996 ed. Willis and Willis

“Learners begin with a holistic experience of language in use. They

end with a closer look at some of the features naturally occurring inthat language. By that point, the learners will have worked with thelanguage, and processed it for meaning. It is then that the focusturns to the surface forms that have carried the meanings”

Current TBL however means language activities in which the focus is on thesatisfactory completion of the task (with whatever language the learners have tohand) rather than with any specific language target. Perhaps, on completion of the

task, a review as to what language the students had used could be done; and

indeed the teacher may suggest some language that might usefully have been used. Perhaps the learners could then do the task again using the suggestedlanguage. In ‘weaker’ models of TBL language focus may be a part of the lesson, butwhat is presented may be an ad hoc response to the learners’ needs and abilities

there and then. Language focus might simply be based on what learners come upwith, imperfectly, in the doing of a task.

More recently a variation on TBL has involved a taped (or live) demonstration of twonative speakers doing the task. Subsequently learners do the same task. There are,indeed, many different versions of TBL and (like the Communicative Approach, ofwhich it could be seen as an extension) it is causing some confusion in its variousmanifestations. At present the best theoretical and practical description of it can befound in:

Edwards, C. & Willis, J. (eds.) 2005 Teachers Exploring Tasks (Palgrave)

Willis, D. & Willis, J. 2007 Doing Task-based Teaching (OUP)

In terms of language teaching materials a practical application of features of taskbased learning can be found in course-book form in Cutting Edge Intermediate (and other levels) by Sarah Cunningham and Peter Moor, Longman 1998.

3.3 The Lexical Approach

A major and radical ‘methodology’ over the last decade has been the Lexical Approach, associated almost exclusively with the name of Michael Lewis. While itsvery name suggests an entirely different approach, its originality lies more in its

approach to language (and its categorization) rather than to methodology. IndeedLewis himself has said that it is entirely compatible with the Communicative Approach methodology; he is simply proposing a new way of looking at language; at

the heart of Lewis’s ideas is ‘collocation’ or ‘word partnerships’. As he says under hisopening section, Key Principles:

“Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar”

The kinds of activities (exercises, interaction etc) and the manner of their delivery(learner-centred, exploratory etc) are perfectly orthodox communicative practice; theview of language is new and certainly an enrichment of how language can be seenfor pedagogical purposes. We will return to this later, in the sections exploring lexis.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 24

A personal note:

The tone of Lewis’s books is stimulating and sometimes combative. So much thebetter; it is healthy to have areas of controversy and controversialists in ourprofession. Perhaps it is a pity that in his crusade for new truths the authorsometimes tilts at windmills. His suppositions about what teachers or teacher trainers

imagine to be true are sometimes highly questionable. In one talk, for example, hedeclared:

“Errors…are a natural part of learning but I have never, evermet a teacher who was willing to take that seriously” (Videorecording of IATEFL Plenary Keele University 1996).

This is clearly absurd and indeed rather offensive to teachers. It would surely be verydifficult to find a teacher who didn’t believe that errors are a natural part of learning!

We will return to this later, but the following are seminal:

Lewis, M. (Ed) 2000 Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical

Approach LTP

Lewis, M. 1993 The Lexical Approach, LTPWillis, D. 1990 The Lexical Syllabus Collins COBUILD

4. Principled Eclecticism

A Post-Communicative Pluralism? The Post-methods era?

We have seen that the present ‘scene’ in language teaching is a rather confused

one. The CA is almost 30 years old. It is not the latest thing. If anything we arepost-communicative; which does not mean that we are anti communicative, justthat we have been in the CA long enough to have a critical perspective on it. As werecognise above, we tend to mix it up with other, older, possibly conflicting practices.

Perhaps as a result we are in a state of slight confusion. We feel that if we draw fromdifferent sources we are being inconsistent.

All sorts of ideas seem to be simultaneously current. And instinctively or deliberatelywe pick and choose from various methodologies. We may still do choral drilling anddo not find that this conflicts with more communicative practice. Indeed we probablyall use ingredients from each of these; not Grammar Translation too much perhapsbut then again which of us, in a monolingual class, has not occasionally translated tohelp our students or contrasted L1 and L2? Which of us has not done a grammarlecture?

While this may seem rather random it has been dignified with the name of

Principled Eclecticism: this sounds rather daunting, even somewhat pretentious.

What exactly does it mean?

What we do is eclectic; that means we choose from a large and varied menu. Butwe do not choose any old thing. We choose for good principled reasons. Hence wehave: Principled Eclecticism. This is quite a mouthful but it means that in the waywe teach we choose a bit of this, a bit of that for good reasons. I have seen it alsodescribed as the Magpie Approach, as we take the shiniest elements form whatsurrounds us and make it our own.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 25

In this age of globalisation and growing cultural awareness, we appreciate betterthan ever before that different cultures, above all different educational cultures, needdifferent methodologies. It may well be that the CA is not appropriate for, say China.Indeed the CA may very well be considered an Anglo-Americo-centric methodologythat we should not presume to impose on a Confucian culture. This new sensitivity toother cultures, in particular, other educational cultures is an appropriate place to

conclude this history. Principled Eclecticism might not be such a rag-bag after all; itmay be the best way to cater respectfully to this diversity.



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 26

Reading:

Essential Reading

Richards, J and Rogers T, 1986, Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching, CUP

Larsen-Freeman D, 2000, Techniques and Practice in Language Teaching, OUP

Lewis, M, 1996, The Lexical Approach, LTP (first 30 pages, these contain astimulating and eccentric overview of issues over the last 30 or so years, not to bemissed)!

Additional Recommended Reading

Cairn, R, Jan 2000, Total Physical Response, English Teaching Professional

Brown, J.M. & Palmer A.S, 1988, The Listening Approach, Longman

Fletcher M, Apr.2000, Suggestopaedia

Howatt A, 1984, A History of English Language Teaching, OUP

Krashen, S and Terrell, T, 1995, The Natural Approach, Prentice Hall

Lewis, M, 1996, The Lexical Approach, LTP (passim)

Littlewood, W, 1984, Foreign and Second Language Learning, CUP

Richards J, Platt J, Platt H, 1999, Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied

Linguistics, Longman

Marshall, S, and Baker, J, July 2000, Community Language Learning,

McArthur, T.A, 1983, A Foundation Course for Language Teachers, CUP

Prabhu, 1987, Second Language Pedagogy, OUP

Revell, J, and Norman, S, 1997, In your Hands NLP in ELT, Saffire

Revell, J, and Norman, S, 1997, Powerful Language, English TeachingProfessional

Rossner, R, 1990, Currents of Change in LT, OUP

Van Ek, 1971, Threshold Report Council of Europe,

Widdowson, H, 1972, The Teaching of English as Communication,

Wilkins, D, 1976, Notional Syllabuses, OUPWillis, J, and Willis, D, 1996, Challenge and Change Heinemann, ed

Willis, J, 1996, Framework for Task Based Learning, Longman



The Distance Delta

Unit 2 Section 1 27

Appendices

Appendix 1: What do we do?

b. maximises student talk/creates independence

c. avoids interruption/allows them to make useful mistakes/diagnostic opportunityfor the teacher!

d. arouses interest/activates schemata

e. reduces anxiety/makes them read more globally

f. maximises student talk/creates esprit de corps

g. maximises student talk/gets them thinking/allows teacher to assess actual stateof knowledge etc.

Appendix 2: Definitions

i… Principled Eclecticism

k… The Listening Approach

j… Task-Based Learning

b… The Silent Way

… Grammar-Translation

l… The Lexical Approach

c… Community Language Learning

h… Suggestopaedia

g… The Communicative Approach

a… Total Physical Response

f… Direct Method

e… The Natural Approach

… Computer Assisted Language Learning

d… Humanistic Approaches

Appendix 3:

…F… advising…S… the present perfect continuous

…*… going to the doctor (None of them, for this is not a language act!)

…N… education

…S… the passive

…N… time



The Distance Delta

…S… modals

…F… disagreeing

…F… inviting

…N… family

…S… third conditional

Unit2_section1 History of ELT

Documents

Transcript of Unit2_section1 History of ELT