An Overview of Language Teaching Methods and Approaches “…there

is, as Gebhard et al.(1990:16) argue, no convincing evidence from

pedagogic research, including research into second language
instruction, that there is any universally or ‘best’ way to teach.
Although, clearly, particular approaches are likely to prove more
effective in certain situations, blanket prescription is difficult to support
theoretically. The art of teaching does not lie in accessing a checklist
of skills but rather in knowing which approach to adopt with different
students, in different curricular circumstances or in different cultural
settings (Klapper 2001:17).
Such pedagogic choices are most effective when underpinned by an
appreciation of what support theory, or indeed the range of theories
available, can bring to practice. But what experience of theory does the
average higher education teacher of ab initio, or language teaching in
general possess?
“…in view of the fact that many junior academics in language
departments are required to spend a considerable amount of their
time teaching practical language classes, and that many of them
come to the task from an academic research background, often
involving a topic in the fields of literacy, cultural, historical or area
studies, it is surprising and a little worrying that departments are not
doing more to prepare staff for a substantial part of their academic
role. Bearing in mind the typical background and profile of senior
academic linguist, it would be unreasonable to expect most language
departments to mount a programme of raining independently;
nevertheless, there is much room for collaborative provision with
Education and Staff Development or, where one exists, a language
centre. Unless the decision is taken to hive off language teaching to a
specialist centre or to dedicated, trained language teaching staff, it
might be thought that departments should ensure that anyone
embarking on a career in languages is at the very lest introduced to
the rudiments of second language acquisition and second language
instruction, the theory and practice of grammar teaching, approaches
to
translation, techniques for teaching listening and reading, applications
of ICT, and assessment of language proficiency (Klapper 2001: 7-8). There
is moreover wide divergence in the various aims of language teaching and
learning. Quist (2000) discusses a ‘clash of cultures’ in language teaching
in universities, between the liberal tradition which emphasises the cultural
and intellectual aims of language teaching and learning in Higher
Education, and the instrumental paradigm which emphasises ‘real-world’
skills with “an emphasis on speaking and interpersonal skills at the cost of
writing or accuracy” (Quist 2000: 131). The CRAMLAP questionnaire
responses reflected this clash in aims and methodology in Regional and
Minority Languages teaching and learning, broadly reflected within the
‘Philological’ and ‘Communicative’ traditions, but there was often little in the
responses to suggest theoretical reflection. Given the gap between practice
and access to theory, we will now proceed to a summary of methods and
theory in the expectation that it will help teachers in higher education to
ground their future practice
Debate and developments around the methods of language teaching and
learning have been ongoing since the time of Comenius in the 17 th century,
if not before. The complexity of contexts and the greater appreciation of the
issues lead us to the conclusion that the panacea of a single, universal,
optimum method for teaching and learning modern languages does not
exist. Instead, teachers now acknowledge the need to adopt an informed
eclectic approach, incorporating elements from the range of methods
available. Most language teaching today emphasise oral communication,
although many Higher Education programmes, including some CRAMLAP
questionnaire respondents, place greater emphasis upon grammatical
mastery and reading.
In attempting to define what ‘method’ is, we can consider Edward Anthony’s
tripartite distinction of Approach, Method and Technique (Anthony: 1963).
This distinction was developed and recast by Richards and Rodgers (1982,
1985) as Approach, Design and Procedure, encompassed within the
overall concept of Method, “an umbrella term for the specification and
interrelation of theory
and practice” (Richards & Rodgers 1985: 16) where
Approach refers to the beliefs and theories about language,
language learning and teaching that underlie a method
Design relates the theories of language and learning to the form and
 function of teaching materials and activities in the classroom;
Procedure concerns the techniques and practices employed in the
classroom as consequences of particular approaches and designs.
METHOD
Design

Approach

Procedure
(Richards & Rodgers 1985:17)
There are many publications discussing the various language teaching
methods employed over the years. We have drawn here, inter alia, upon
Chapter Two of H. Douglas Brown’s Teaching by Principles: An Interactive
Approach to Language Pedagogy (Longman/ Pearson Education, White
nd
Plains, New York, 2 edition 2001).
Brown draws a distinction between methods as “specific, identifiable
clusters of theoretically compatible classroom techniques” (p15), and
methodology as “pedagogical practices in general…Whatever
considerations are involved in ‘how to teach’ are methodological”
(ibid.).’Methodology’ here can thus be equated to Richards and Rodgers’
‘Procedure’.
Pedagogic approaches are typically informed by both a theory of language
and a theory of language learning. For example, audiolingualism was
informed by a structuralist model of language and by behaviourist learning
theory (Richards and Rodgers 1986).
The twentieth century saw new methods emerging with regularity in what
Marckwardt (1972:5) saw as a cyclical pattern of “changing winds and
shifting sands” with each new method breaking from what preceded, while
incorporating
some of the positive aspects of its predecessors. This mortality of language
learning methods, to use Decoo’s phrase can usually be attributed to the
neglect or lack of one particular component (Decoo 2001: §4.5)
Brown summarises:
A glance through the past century or so of language teaching will give an
interesting picture of how varied the interpretations have been of the
best way to teach a foreign language. As disciplinary schools of
 thought – psychology, linguistics, and education, for example – have
come and gone, so have language-teaching methods waxed and
waned in popularity. Teaching methods, as “approaches in action,”
are of course the practical application of theoretical findings and
positions. In a field such as ours that is relatively young, it should
come as no surprise to discover a wide variety of these applications
over the last hundred years, some in total philosophical opposition to
others.
Brown 2001: 17-18
The Grammar-Translation Method
The Classical or Grammar-Translation method represents the tradition of
language teaching adopted in western society and developed over centuries
of teaching not only the classical languages such as Latin and Greek, but
also foreign languages. The focus was on studying grammatical rules and
morphology, doing written exercices, memorizing vocabulary, translating
texts from and prose passages into the language. It remained popular in
modern language pedagogy, even after the introduction of newer methods.
In America, the Coleman Report in 1929 recommended an emphasis on the
skill of reading in schools and colleges as it was felt at that time that there
would be few opportunities to practise the spoken language. Internationally,
the Grammar Translation method is still practised today, not only in courses,
including CRAMLAP respondents, teaching the classical older stages of
languages (Latin, Greek, Old Irish etc.) where its validity can still be argued
in light of expected learning outcomes, but also, with less justification, in
some institutions for
modern language courses. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979:3) listed the
major characteristics of Grammar-Translation:
Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the
target language;
Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words; Long,
elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given;
Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and
instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words;
Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early;
Little attention is paid to the context of texts, which are treated as
 exercices in grammatical analysis;
Often the only drills are exercices in translating disconnected
sentences from the target language into the mother tongue;
Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.
Decoo attributes the grammar-translation method’s fall from favour to its
lack of potential for lively communication.
A greater attention to grammar (focus on form/ structure) has now re-
emerged as well as appropriate integration by teachers of structures into
content focused lessons. But the explicit teaching of grammatical
paradigms in isolation is rare nowadays.
The Direct Method
While Henri Gouin’s The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages,
published in 1880, can be seen as the precursor of modern language
teaching methods with its ‘naturalistic’ approach, the credit for popularising
the Direct Method usually goes to Charles Berlitz, who marketed it as the
Berlitz Method.

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

Richards and Rodgers summarized the principles of the Direct

Method as follows (2001: 12)

Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target

language; Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught;
Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded
progression organized around questions-and-answer exchanges
between teachers and students in small intensive classes;
Grammar was taught inductively;
New teaching points were taught through modelling and practice;
Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects,
pictures; Abstract vocabulary was taught through association of
 ideas;
Both speech and listening comprehension were taught;
Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.
Decoo identifies as its weakness the lack of insight into the reality of the
classroom situation for most learners, in its aspiration to a mastery of the
language that few could achieve.
Many of the elements of the Direct Method listed above will be familiar to
teachers in Higher Education, which, however, now includes more language
use tailored to the needs and experiences of the students, and also a return
to ‘focus on form’ (language structures)
The Audio-Methods
The Audiolingual/Audiovisual Method is derived from "The Army Method,"
so called because it was developed through a U.S. Army programme
devised after World War II to produce speakers proficient in the languages
of friend and foes. In this method, grounded in the habit formation model of
behaviourist psychology and on a Structural Linguistics theory of language,
the emphasis was on memorisation through pattern drills and conversation
practices rather than
promoting communicative ability.
Characteristics of the Audio-Methods:
New material is presented in dialogue form;
There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and
overlearning
Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis taught
one at a time;
Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills;
There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by
inductive analogy rather than by deductive explanation;
Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context;
There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids;
Great importance is attached to pronunciation;
Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted;
Successful responses are immediately reinforced;
There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free
utterances; There is a tendency to manipulate language and
 disregard content. (adapted from Prator & Celce-Murcia 1979)
The Oral-Situational Approach
This resembles the Audiolingual approach as it is based on a structural
syllabus but it emphasises the meanings expressed by the linguistic
structures, not just the forms, and also the situations or contexts chosen to
practise the structures. It can be found in courses dating from the 1970s
which are now criticised for not achieving the hoped-for results.
As they were based on behaviourist psychology (see below), the Audio-
method and Oral-situational approach were limited by their neglect of
cognitive learning. The drill-based approach in the classroom re-emerged in
early Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) software where it was
perceived to motivate pupils and develop autonomous study and learning.
CALL is now more sophisticated and can foster cognitive learning as well.
Psychological Traditions
Psychology is the scientific study of behaviour. Since the middle of the 20 th
century, psychological views of teaching and learning have been dominated
by Behaviourist and then Cognitive theory. There is an abundance of
sources describing and discussing these theories. An accessible website
presenting theories of psychology and teaching and learning is maintained
by Atherton and can be found at http://www.learningandteaching.info/
Behaviourism
The behaviourist view of learning emphasises the repetitive conditioning of
learner responses. Behaviourism is based on the proposition that behaviour
can be researched scientifically. Learning is an automatic process which
does not involve any cognitive processes in the brain.
Pavlov’s “Respondent Conditioning” results from the association of two
stimuli, such as causing dogs to salivate at the sound a tuning fork.
Skinner developed “Operant Conditioning” where the “Stimulus-Response”
association is elicited through selective reinforcement (rewards or
punishments) to shape behaviour
Behaviourist Learning Theory is a process of forming habits; the
teacher controls the learning environment and learners are empty
vessels into which the teacher pours knowledge.
Behaviourist Language Theory is based upon Structuralist Linguistics
and is identified with the Audiolingual/ Audiovisual method, -
 associated with the use of rote learning with repetitive drills.
Behaviourists argued that teachers could link together content involving
lower level skills and create a learning ‘chain’ to teach higher skills.
Nevertheless, while circumstances and classroom practice might still
benefit from such an approach, the limitations of behaviourism are
apparent as it lacks recognition of problem solving and learning strategies.
Cognitivism
As a reaction to behaviourism, the "cognitive revolution" in the 1950s
combined new thinking in psychology, anthropology and linguistics with the
emerging fields of computer science and neuroscience.
Cognitive Learning Theory emphasised the learner’s cognitive activity,
involving reasoning and mental processes rather than habit formation
Cognitive Language Theory emerged from the Chomskyan Revolution
which gave rise in Language Method to Cognitive Code Learning, etc
Cognitive learning goes beyond the behaviourist learning of facts and skills,
adding cognitive apprenticeship to the learning process. Learners are
encouraged to work out rules deductively for themselves. It focuses on
building a learner’s experiences and providing learning tasks that can
challenge, but also function as ‘intellectual scaffolding’ to help pupils learn
and progress through the curriculum. Broadly speaking, cognitive theory is
interested in how people understand material, and thus in aptitude and
capacity to learn and learning styles (see Atherton). As such it is the basis
of constructivism and can be placed somewhere in the middle of the scale
between behavioural and constructivist learning.
Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is identified with the Innatist or Nativist theory. As seen in
the discussion under the age factor, Chomsky claims that children are
biologically programmed to acquire language, as they are for other
biological functions such as walking, which a child normally learns without
being taught. While the environment supplies people who talk to the child,
language acquisition is an unconscious process. The child activates the
Language Acquisition Device (LAD), an innate capability or blueprint that
endows the child with the capability to develop speech from a universal
grammar.
Cognitive Code Learning
With the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics, the attention of linguists and
language teachers was drawn towards the ‘deep structure’ of language and
a more cognitive psychology. Chomsky’s theory of Transformational-
generative
Grammar focused attention again on the rule-governed nature of language
and language acquisition rather than habit formation. This gave rise in the
1960s to Cognitive Code Learning where learners were encouraged to
work out grammar rules deductively for themselves.
Deducti Grammatical explanations or rules are presented and then
ve appliedthrough practice in exercices
Learnin
g

Inducti Learners are presented with examples. They then discover or

ve inducelanguage rules and principles on their own
Learni
ng

Cognitive code learning achieved only limited success as the cognitive

emphasis on rules and grammatical paradigms proved as off-putting as
behaviourist rote drilling.
Alternative or ‘Designer’ methods
The 1970s saw the emergence of some alternative, less-commonly used
methods and approaches, such as Suggestopedia; The Silent Way; Total
Physical Response. An overview table of these ‘Designer’ methods is
provided by Nunan (1989: 194-195) and Brown (2001: chapter 2).
Decoo (200l §4.2) makes the important point that new methods such as
these may succeed initially when introduced by skilled and enthusiastic
teachers or personalities and are delivered in experimental or well financed
situations with well behaved, responsive and motivated students and small
classes. Problems arise, however, when attempts are made to widen such
methods out to less ideal situations, with large classes, low motivation and
discipline issues. Nevertheless, such methods may continue to thrive in
privileged circumstances with motivated teachers, as has been the case
with the Silent Way or Suggestopedia, which continue to find supporters
throughout the world.
Approach replacing Method
If ‘Method’ involves a particular set of features to be followed almost as a
panacea, it can be suggested that we are now in a ‘Post-Method’ era where
the emphasis is on the looser concept of ‘Approach’ which starts from some
basic
principles which are then developed in the design and development of
practice. Accordingly, the Richards and Rodgers model (1985) might be
recast as follows, without the outer shell of ‘Method’:

Design

Approach

Procedure/
technique
The Natural Approach
The Natural Approach, with echoes of the ‘naturalistic’ aspect of the Direct
Method, was developed by Krashen and Terrell (1983). It emphasised
“Comprehensible Input”, distinguishing between ‘acquisition’ – a natural
subconscious process, and ‘learning’ – a conscious process. They argued
that learning cannot lead to acquisition. The focus is on meaning, not form
(structure, grammar). The goal is to communicate with speakers of the
target language.
Krashen summarises the input hypothesis thus:
We acquire language in an amazingly simple way – when we
understand messages. We have tried everything else – learning
grammar rules, memorizing vocabulary, using expensive machinery,
forms of group therapy etc. What has escaped us all these years,
however, is the one essential ingredient: comprehensible input
(Krashen 1985: vii).
Unlike Chomsky, moreover, Stephen Krashen's linguistic theories had a
more direct relationship to language learning and acquisition, thereby
bringing them to the attention of language teachers around the world.
Krashen, along with Terrell, developed the "input theory," which stresses
maximum amounts of passive language or what Krashen (1979) refers to
as ‘i+1’ (input + 1), language input that is just a little beyond the learner’s
current level of comprehension. Krashen contends that through context and
extralinguistic information, like a mother talking to her child, hence the
‘natural approach’, learners will climb to the next level and then repeat the
process. The message is
more important than the form. The input is one way, from the teacher, and
learners will participate when ready.
Nunan’s overview of the Natural Approach (1989, 194-195), adapted here,
outlines its characteristics:

Theory of language
The essence of language is meaning.
heart oflanguage

Theory of Learning
There are 2 ways of L2 language dev
Acquisition a natural sub-conscious p
Learning a conscious process. Learni

Objectives
Designed to give beginners/ interme
Fourbroad areas; basic personal
academiclearning skills (oral/written)

Syllabus
Based on a selection of communicativ
learnerneeds

Activity types
Activities allowing comprehensible inp
now.Focus on meaning not form
Learner roles Teacher roles
Should not try and learn language in the usual sense,
The teacher
but should
is the
try and
primary source of
losethemselves in activities involving meaningful communication
positivelow-anxiety climate. Must cho
of classroomactivities

Roles of materials
Materials come from realia rather than textbooks. Primary aim is to
promotecomprehension and communication

The Natural Approach was based upon Krashen’s theories of second

language acquisition, and his Five Hypotheses:
Krashen’s Five Hypotheses

The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis: claims that there

are two distinctive ways of developing second language
competence:

acquisition, that is by using language for “real

communication” learning .. "knowing about" or “formal

knowledge” of a language

The Natural Order hypothesis; 'we acquire the rules of

language in a predictable order'

The Monitor Hypothesis: 'conscious learning ... can only be used

as a Monitor or an editor' (Krashen & Terrell 1983) and cannot
lead to fluency

The Input Hypothesis: 'humans acquire language in only one

way - by understanding messages or by receiving
"comprehensible input"'
The Affective Filter Hypothesis: 'a mental block, caused by
affective factors ... that prevents input from reaching the
language acquisition device' (Krashen, 1985, p.100)

Cook presents a Combined model of acquisition and production on his website

For Krashen, a conscious knowledge of grammar rules is of limited value

and can at most enable the student to ‘monitor’ production (Krashen 1982:
15). Communicative Language Teaching
Influenced by Krashen, approaches emerged during the 1980s and 1990s
which concentrated on the communicative functions of language.
Classrooms were characterized by attempts to ensure authenticity of
materials and meaningful tasks.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emerged as the norm in second
language and immersion teaching. As a broadly-based approach, there are
any number of definitions and interpretations, but the following
interconnected characteristics offered by Brown (2001: 43) provide a useful
overview:
1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components
(grammatical, discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic)
of communicative competence. Goals therefore must intertwine
the organizational aspects of language with the pragmatic.
2. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the
pragmatic, authentic, functional use of language for meaningful
purposes. Organizational language forms are not the central
focus, but rather aspects of language that enable the learner to
accomplish those purposes.
3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles
 underlying communicative techniques. At times fluency may have
to
take on more importance than accuracy in order to keep learners
meaningfully engaged in language use.
4. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the
language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts
outside the classroom. Classroom tasks must therefore equip
students with the skills necessary for communication in those
contexts.
5. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning
process through an understanding of their own styles of learning
and through the development of appropriate strategies for
autonomous learning.
6. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all
knowing bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore
encouraged to construct meaning through genuine linguistic
interaction with others.
The communicative approach was developed mainly in the context of
English Second Language (ESL) teaching. The question must be asked,
however, how universal can its application be? Decoo (§4.3) points out that
one can relatively easily reach a fair level of communication in English,
which has a relatively simple morphology ( e.g. simple plurals with ‘s’, no
adjectival agreement, no gender markers, etc). Neither is mastery of the
highly irregular orthography of English a priority in an oral communication
approach. French, for example, requires mastery of an enormously greater
number of elements to reach a similar first year communicative level
(different articles in front of nouns, gender, adjectival agreement, numerous
verbal forms etc.). It is fatal for the progression and motivation of the
learner to ignore this complexity. With Irish, the apparently simple notion
“Where do you live?” is not rendered by a simple question form of the verb
‘to live’, but by an idiom denoting state “Cá bhfuil tú i do chónaí?” (“Where
are you in your living?”) linking it not with a verbal construction, but with the
other idioms denoting state by means of the preposition, personal
adjective, and noun construction, “i do luí, shuí, etc.”. This
construction, and the other distinctive features of Irish, are not inordinately
difficult when taught in structural context, but it is different to English and
other languages and requires appropriate adaptation if the communicative
approach is to be adopted. The same can of course be said about other
languages as well. Notional-Functional Syllabus
The move from method to approach has also focused on syllabus design.
The Notional/ Functional Syllabus (NFS) has been associated with CLT.
The content of language teaching is organised and categorized by
categories of meaning and function rather than by elements of grammar
and structure. The work of Van Ek and Alexander (1975) for the Council of
Europe and Wilkins (1976) has been influential in syllabus design up to the
present day, and the Common European Framework (CEFR). The CEFR
emphasises that consideration must be given to the role of grammatical
form in its delivery:
The Framework cannot replace reference grammars or provide a strict
ordering (though scaling may involve selection and hence some
ordering in global terms) but provides a framework for the decisions of
practitioners to be made known. (Council of Europe 2001a: 152)
The breadth of possible applications of Communicative Language Teaching
can lead to misinterpretations. In United Kingdom schools, for example, the
National Curriculum introduced in 1988 led to a topic-based emphasis for
modern languages subject teaching that sidelined the role of grammar,
arguing from Krashen that comprehensible input alone was required. This
ignored, however, the difference in context between transitional bilingual
education for Spanish speakers in the USA and the few classes a week
offered in British schools. Immersion education, on the other hand,
recognised the positive potential of the CLT.
Responses to CRAMLAP questionnaires show a great diversity in models
of ab initio teaching in Higher Education, with some institutions
emphasising grammatical competence, others communicative, others
again a combination of both.
However, the belief that exposure to ‘comprehensible input + 1’ could be
sufficient to ensure language acquisition is now challenged. We are now in
a ‘Post-Communicative’ era, influenced by a Constructivist theory of
learning (see below).
Post-Communicative Language Teaching
Krashen’s theories on language acquisition have been challenged by
researchers and theorists who recognise that while rich language input is
necessary, it is not sufficient to create proficient speakers of the target
language, even in immersion contexts, as Hammerly argued:
If ‘comprehensible input’ alone were adequate in the classroom,
immersion graduates, after over 7000 hours of such input, would be
very competent speakers of the second language – but they are
not. They are very inaccurate (Hammerly 1991: 9).
Language teaching and learning has entered a ‘Post-Communicative’
phase which takes a more constructivist view of learning emphasising
personal learning and discovery on the part of the learner, with more task-
based, collaborative work between learners, and a more facilitating role for
the teacher. Immersion programmes in Canada were found to achieve good
listening and reading comprehension in the target language, but relatively
poor achievement in the productive skills of reading and writing (Genesee,
1987; Harley and Swain, 1984; Swain, 1985). Johnstone (2002:5)
summarises as follows:
Views about immersion pedagogy have changed over the years.
Initially it tended to be considered good practice for the immersion
teacher to use the immersion language extensively and for the pupils
to focus on the subject matter meanings that the teacher was
transmitting. Underlying this was an assumption that extensive
Immersion Language input plus focus on
meaning would trigger natural language acquisition mechanisms in
children so that they intuitively absorbed the underlying structure of
the language, i.e. they would not need to focus on form as much
as on meaning. Research suggests however that whereas this has
undoubtedly
encouraged confidence and fluency it often leads to pupils
reaching a ‘plateau’ (fossilisation’) with recurrent problems in
gender, syntax and morphology, rather than continuing to
develop.
Age Factor
For adult learners, as is the case with Higher Education, there is research
evidence to suggest that instruction may be more effective at an age, from
the end of elementary schooling on, when learners have the maturity and
motivation to use or transfer appropriate learning strategies (Harley and
Hart, 1997; Muñoz, 1999; Singleton, 1989).
Focus on Form
The view that input exposure to the target language is sufficient has been
widely criticised. The lack of focus on form features strongly among
Klapper’s concerns with CLT (2003: 34):
● The embracing of a meaning-based pedagogy with little conscious
attention to form, in direct contradiction of one of the classic
statements of communicative competence (cf. Canale and Swain,
1980; Canale, 1983); [in CLT ] grammar is tied to certain functional
contexts and learners have to rely on unanalysed chunks of
language without any real understanding of their structure;
● Forms appear independently of grammatical context; the
resulting absence of a reliable frame of formal reference
means learners’ inaccuracies become systemic;
● The concomitant failure to build a generative language framework
that enables learners to recombine linguistic elements and thus to
create new or unique utterances.
While current approaches stress the need for a greater focus on form
(see e.g. Doughty and Williams, 1998), Schmidt (1994, 2001) argues
however that this ‘focus on form’should be on specific forms, rather than a
global approach. He emphasises the noticing by learners of specific
linguistic items as they occur in input, rather than as awareness of
grammatical rules.
The input and focus on form perspectives can also be seen in terms of
experiential and analytic teaching. Harley (1991) distinguished between
experiential and analytic teaching in immersion classrooms. Johnstone
(2002 Chapter 5) sets out the two modes in a figure which draws on and
adds to Harley’s distinction:
Experiential and analytic immersion teaching
 L2 is the vehicle for teaching and lear
importantsubject matter-use in class

Teachers tend to do much or most of

talking

Assumes learners acquire the underly

rule system through ‘use’ and ‘absorp

EXPERIENTIAL

Message-oriented focus Dangers: Learners’ L2 developm

‘fossilise’(reach a plateau) and they m
a tendency for‘smurfing’ using small n
high-coverageitems (e.g. ‘chose’, ‘all
Exposure to authentic L2-use in class rather than

develop to express more precise meanings function-meaning

relationships.
Johnstone 2002 Ch.5: Adapted from Harley, 1991
Johnstone summarises here that “good practice would ensure that both
modes (‘Experiential’ and ‘Analytic’ teaching) were activated to avoid the
dangers that arise if one of them is allowed to dominate the other”.
Higher Education is at the other end of the scale from Immersion
Education and veers towards the analytic.
Output; Intake; Interaction.
Merrill Swain (1985) argued that the failure to achieve native-like
competence in grammar and other features may be due to the learners’
lack of opportunities to actually use their target language. In a classroom
environment, particularly where the emphasis is on rich input, the teachers
do most of the talking while the pupils listen. Students tend to get few
opportunities to speak and give short answers to questions. This is a crucial
dilemna. If the teacher needs to supply substantial input,, how can s/he
ensure that individual learners have enough opportunities to speak and
practise the input received?
Swain’s ‘output hypothesis’ (1985) maintains that opportunities for language
production (the term now preferred to ‘output’) and practice need to be
promoted for both written and spoken language with an emphasis on
linguistic accuracy. Producing the target language, she claims, may force
students to pay more attention to (or to ‘notice’) how the language is used
and what they need to know in order to convey meaning, than does simply
comprehending it. This triggers cognitive processes that might in turn
generate new linguistic knowledge or consolidate their existing knowledge
(Swain 1995, Swain and Lapkin 1995), a constructivist process.
Swain (2000a: 201-2) cites Netten and Spain (1989) in support of this
view. In an observation of three Grade Two French immersion classes,
the weakest class (Class A) outperformed the stronger classes on a test
of French reading
comprehension. Observations in the classroom revealed that Class A “…
were constantly using, and experimenting with, the second language as
they engaged in communications of an academic and social nature with
their peers and the teacher…”, whereas in the supposedly stronger class
students “…had limited opportunities to use the second language to
engage in real communication acts (1989:494).
In summary, therefore, output or production enhances fluency, but also
creates students’ awareness of gaps in their knowledge. Through
collaborative dialogue (Swain 1999, 2000b) they are encouraged to
experiment but also obtain vital feedback on their performance which in
turn encourages further effort. Gass and Selinker (1994) have advanced
the idea of ‘intake’, wherein the input, (vocabulary, grammar and
expressions) needs to be internalised by the pupil before meaningful output
is possible. The teacher needs to ensure that the input is ‘taken in’, that is,
recognised, understood, and acquired by the pupils. Long (1996)
developed the Interaction Hypothesis which focuses on the notion of
interaction as a stimulus for effective output. Genuine communication
through interaction can clearly be linked to constructivist theory. In this
hypothesis, the process of interaction when a problem in communication is
encountered and learners engage in negotiating for meaning, engenders
acquisition. Input becomes comprehensible through the modifications from
interaction. Again, feedback also leads learners to modify their output.
Activities to develop interaction include group and pairwork. Swain’s
Dictagloss, where pupils collaborate to reconstruct dictated texts (Kowal
and Swain 1994, Swain 2000b) is now well established as an interaction
activity. Interaction can be developed through a task-based approach which
permits a “problem-solving negotiation between knowledge that the learner
holds and new knowledge” (Candlin and Murphy 1987:1). The pupils
interact with each other, and the teacher, thereby encountering new
language which they can assimilate and then use. The role of the teacher is
to provide suitable tasks to facilitate this process. An effective way of
developing tasks is through use of exemplars or
‘recipes’ which can be adapted to particular needs. The task-based
approach to language learning will be discussed later.
In summary,
If we accept with Mitchell and Myles (2004: 261) that “there can be ‘no one
best method’…which applies at all times and in all situations, with every
type of learner”, we recognise that the diversity of contexts requires an
informed, eclectic approach. To quote Nunan:
It has been realized that there never was and probably never will be a
method for all, and the focus in recent years has been on the
development of classroom tasks and activities which are consonant
with what we know about second language acquisition, and which are
also in keeping with the dynamics of the classroom itself (Nunan 1991:
228)
Examples from the immersion or school contexts may not always be
applicable to particular Higher Education. Nevertheless, the CRAMLAP
responses showed a full range of classroom environments in which the
approaches to teaching and learning ranged from traditional
grammar/translation to partial immersion.
Constructivism and Post-communicative Language
Teaching Constructivist Theories of Learning
Purely cognitivist theories have now developed into Constructivist
theories of learning. Cohen and Manion (2004:167) explain that:
“At heart there is a move away from instructing and instructivism
and towards constructivism”.
This
“signals a significant move from attention on teaching to attention on
learning; classrooms are places in which students learn rather than being
mainly places in which teachers teach. Teachers are facilitators of
learning (Cohen & Manion 2004: 167)
Cognitive constructivism Jean Piaget (1896-1980)
Piaget (1952 The Origins of Intelligence) is concerned with how the learner
develops understanding. Children’s minds are not empty, but actively
process material. The role of maturation (growing up) and children’s
increasing capacity to understand their world in terms of developmental
stages is central to his view.
● Children are constrained by their individual stage of
intellectual development. They cannot undertake certain
tasks until they are psychologically mature enough to do so.
● There is an emphasis on discovery learning rather than teacher
imparted information
● The readiness to learn, when learners are to progress, is
different for each individual
● The idea of a linear development through stages has been widely
used in the design and scheduling of school curricula.
Higher Education students have, of course, reached
maturity. Social Constructivism
Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934)
http://tip.psychology.org/vygotsky.html
While Piaget hypothesized that language developed to express knowledge
acquired through interaction with the physical world, for Vygotsky, thought
was essentially internalised speech, and speech emerges in social
interaction. Vygotsky and Bruner are identified with Social Constructivism
which places more emphasis upon the role of language and how
understanding and meanings grow out of social encounter.
“For Vygotsky , learning is a social, collaborative and interactional activity in
which it is difficult to ‘teach’ specifically – the teacher sets up the
 learning situation and enables learning to occur, with intervention to
provoke and prompt that learning through scaffolding “ (Cohen &
Manion 2004:168).
Vygotsky is identified with the theory of the “Zone of Proximal
Development” (ZPD). ‘Proximal’simply means ‘next’ and the ZPD is the
distance or gap between a child’s actual level of development as observed
when working independently without adult help and the level of potential
development when working in collaboration with more capable peers or
adults. The other person in not necessarily teaching them how to perform
the task, but the process of interaction and enquiry makes possible new
understandings or a refinement of performance. For Vygotsky, therefore,
the development of language and articulation of ideas is central to learning
and further development. The learner’s current level reflects the
importance of prior influences and knowledge. The learner is ‘stretched’
and ZPD is about “can do with help”. The teacher’s role is to place learning
in the ZPD.
Jerome Bruner (1915-)
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/bruner.htm
Bruner is one of the key figures in the so-called ‘cognitive revolution’ that
displaced behaviourism. Influenced by Piaget but later, and to a greater
extent, Vygotsky (whom he is credited with having introduced to the West),
he saw learning as an active knowledge-getting process in which learners
construct new ideas based upon their current and past knowledge (Bruner
Acts of meaning 1990) Learning how to learn is a central element, the
process of learning is as
important as the product, and social interaction is crucial. While
concerned primarily with young children, much of Bruner’s theory
holds true for adult learners as well.
Extending Piagetian theory, Bruner suggested three modes of thinking
which increasingly overlap each other:
● the Enactive, where learning takes place through actions,
manipulating objects and materials;
● the Iconic, where objects are represented by images
which are recognised for what they represent, but can also
be created
 independently;
● the Symbolic, words and numbers, which represents how children
make sense of their experiences and language becomes an
increasingly important means of representing the world, enabling
thinking and reasoning in the abstract.
“Teachers need to be aware of the ways in which learning can be
enhanced by using these three modes. At the enactive level, we can see
the importance of the use of drama, play, total physical response and the
handling of real objects. The iconic mode would be brought into play
through the use of pictures, or words in colour. At the same time,
learners begin to use the symbolic mode as they use the target language
… to express ideas in context” (Williams & Burden Psychology for
Language Teachers CUP 1997: 26-27)
Bruner’s term Scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, and Ross 1976) has come to
be used for the support for learning provided by a teacher to enable a
learner to perform tasks and construct understandings that they would not
quite be able to manage
on their own as the learner moves towards mastery and autonomy, when
the scaffolding is gradually phased out. It enables the teacher to extend
the pupil’s work and active participation beyond his current abilities and
levels of understanding within the ZPD.
Common elements of scaffolding include:
● defining tasks
● direct or indirect instructing
● specification and sequencing of activities
● modelling and exemplification; simplification
● reinforcing
● questioning
● provision of materials, equipment and facilities
● other environmental contributions
As well as scaffolding provided by the teacher, students collaborating in
small groups can provide scaffolding for each other – ICT would be a
prime environment for such work. This would exemplify and emphasise
Vygotsky’s view that learning is a social as well as an individual activity.
David and Heather Wood developed the theory of Contingency in
instruction. http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/Heather.Wood/
Contingency developed from work on face-to-face tutoring. It attempts to
strike a balance between:
● ensuring that learners solve for themselves as many of the
problems in a task as possible,
and
● intervening when the task is too difficult in order to avoid
prolonged failure
The goals of contingent tutoring in assisted problem solving
are: * The learner should not succeed too easily
* Nor fail too often.
The principles are:
* When learners are in trouble, give more help than before
(scaffolding) * When they succeed, give less help than before
(fading)
Critique
Constructivism is a theory and as such is open to critique as differing little
from common sense empiricist views, or as providing misleading and
incomplete views of human learning (Fox 2001). An overly enthusiastic
endorsement of
constructivism might reduce the teacher’s role to that of a facilitator, with
the students in ‘discovery mode’. This is unlikely to be wholly satisfactory in
Higher Education, either for teachers or learners, and an element of
instructivism is to be expected. Nevertheless, Fox acknowledges that “the
greatest insight of constructivism is perhaps the realisation of the difference
made by a learner’s existing knowledge and values to what is learned next,
both in facilitating and inhibiting it (ibid. 33).
References
Anthony, Edward M. 1963. “Approach, method and technique.” English
Language Teaching 17: 63-57
Brown, H. Douglas 2001 Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach
to Language Pedagogy Longman/ Pearson Education, White Plains, New
York. Cook, V. website
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/vivian.c/SLA/Krashen.htm Council of Europe.
(2001a). A Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge University Press. Also
available for download from:
http://www.coe.int/T/E/Cultural_Co
operation/education/Languages/Language_Policy/
Common_Framework_of_Reference/1cadrCouncil of Europe. (2001b). A Common
European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment –
A General Guide for Users. Strasbourg:Council of Europe. (Document DGIV-EDU-
LANG (2001) 1) Fox, R. 2001 “Constructivism examined” Oxford Review of Education,
Vol. 27, No.1, 23-35.
Gass, S. and Selinker, L. (1994) Second Language Acquisition. An
Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gebhard, J.G., S. Gaitan & R. Oprandy (1990) “Beyond prescription: the
student teacher as investigator” in Richards and Nunan: 16-25
Klapper, J. (ed) (2001) Teaching Languages in Higher Education, London:
CILT.
Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T.D. (1983), The Natural Approach, Pergamon
Long, M. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second
language acquisition. In W. Richards and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of
second language acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press
Marckwardt, Albert D. 1972. Changing winds and shifting sands. MST
English Quarterly 21: 3-11.
Netten, J. E. & Spain, W. H. (1989). Student-teacher interaction patterns
in the French immersion classroom: Implications of levels of achievement
in french language proficiency. The Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 45(3), 485-501.

Nunan, David 1989 Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Nunan, D. 1991 Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for
Teachers New York: Prentice-Hall.
Nunan, David (ed) 2003 Practical English Language Teaching McGraw Hill.
Prator, C.H. and Celce-Murcia, M. 1979. An outline of language teaching
approaches. In Celce-Murcia, M. and McIntosh, L. (Ed.), Teaching English
as a Second or Foreign Language. New York: Newbury House.
Quist, G., 2000 “Language Teaching at University: A Clash of Cultures.”
Language and Education 14.2: 123-139
Richards, Jack C and Nunan, D. (eds) 1990 Second language teacher
education Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 1982. “Method: Approach,
design and procedure.” TESOL Quarterly 16: 153-68
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 1985. “Method: Approach,
design and procedure”, Chapter 2 in Richards, Jack C. The Context of
Language Teaching Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001 (2nd edition) Approaches
and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press Swain, M. (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of
comprehensible input and comprehensiblen output in its development. In S.
Gass and C. Madden Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House. 235-253 Swain, M (2000a) French Immersion research in
Canada: recent Contributions to SLA and Applied Linguistics Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics Cambridge: CUP.199-212
Swain, M.(2000b) The Output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating
acquisition through collaborative dialogue In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.),
Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp 97-114). Oxford:
OUP
Swain, M. & Lapkin(1995)
Van Ek, J.A. and Alexander, L.G. 1975. Threshold Level English. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Wilkins, D.A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford University Pr