Running Head: COMPARING METHODS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING This essay serves as a comparison between two different approaches

to language instruction; namely the Audio-Lingual (AL) method of second language teaching and the Community Language Learning (CLL) method of second language teaching. As discussed in Larsen-Freeman and Andersonss (2011) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, the Audio-Lingual method is mainly an oral/aural approach to language teaching, while Community Language Learning concerns itself with the relationship between the learner and production in the target language. While both of these approaches are effective for language teaching, there are several distinct differences between them that will help an instructor determine which of the two will best serve the needs of a specific classroom. While AL was formulated and popularized in the 1940s and 50s, CLL came to prominence in the late 70s and 80s. Theories of effective language teaching have changed over the decades, and

the trend tends to favor communicative methods over the structured repetition of more traditional methods. Audio-Lingualism places emphasis on students proficiency with listening and speaking in a target language, primarily with repetition drills. Learners work through drills to learn important tasks such as distinguishing minimal pairs, focusing on specific grammatical structures, and comprehending parts of speech as they practice replacing specific words in the drills with a different word of an identical part of speech. There is certainly an element of escalation involved; as the class period goes on the teacher works within the zone of proximal development, gradually releasing some of the responsibility as students practice their substitutions. Eventually, the teacher does not need to prompt the students to make their choice.

COMPARING METHODS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING Community Language Learning also employs the gradual release of responsibility; this is indicated by its student and teacher centeredness. Not only do students have an opportunity to take full responsibility for their learning, they also have the chance to contribute to the classroom structure. Students are encouraged to interact with one another extensively, and as Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) notes, initially, the teacher structures the class; at later stages, the students may assume more responsibility for this (p. 95). Student choice and responsibility are crucial to this method, and the students should remain, for the most part, in control of what they learn. Especially once the students in a CLL classroom have attained more autonomy, the teacher will step back and act as a facilitator, ensuring that there is ample interaction between students, and that the target language becomes the groups shared identity for language production in the classroom. Because of the drill-oriented nature of AL, students are less likely to develop communicative ability in the target language as thoroughly as they might when using CLL. According to Larsen-Freeman (1986), the goal of AL is rapid acquisition. When this method was first coming to prominence as a language teaching method during World War II, there was a need for people to have foreign language knowledge in military situations. To promote accelerated language knowledge, AL focused primarily on limited patterns, over communicative practices. There is a progression of the drills becoming more difficult, and errors are avoided as the drills get harder because the teacher attempts to prevent them before they happen. When asking about the teachers response to errors, Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) states, Student errors are to be avoided if at all possible, through the teachers awareness of where the students will have difficulty, and restriction of what they are taught to say (p. 46). It is

COMPARING METHODS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING appealing to some extent to avoid making errors, but when language is used for communicating, errors are a natural part of progress. The use of language for communication purposes, which is a major focus of current language teaching research and practice, shares only some of the components of the AL method. Whereas CLL focuses on students ability to conduct conversations with one another in the target language, AL promotes understanding of structure, form, and patterns in language. In her 1971 article, The Sequencing of Structural Pattern Drills, Paulston suggests a need for an increase in the demand for some form of meaning and communication in the drills (p. 200). The majority of the paper explores the appropriateness and the benefits of AL, which was a popular method of language instruction at the time it was published. Still, researchers and instructors alike were beginning to realize that in efficient language teaching there needs to be some form of communication built into the drills (p. 201), rather than focusing entirely on habitual response. Based on more recent empirical research, language learners best acquire target language skills when meaning and form are taught together, and both are given importance during instruction. Purpura (2004) summarizes this concept with a table which depicts, the effects of explicit focus on form and meaning are greater than those of explicit focus on form alone (p. 44). While AL relies on teacher-controlled, teacher-led, focus on form, CLL allows for students to guide instruction. Meaning is a crucial aspect of target language use in CLL, and thus communicative ability comes with the emphasis on meaningful production. The Community Language Learning classroom strives to be as non-threatening as possible, based on the notion that learning something new especially something as

COMPARING METHODS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING difficult as a language can be anxiety-inducing. In order to address learner-produced utterances in a non-threatening way, Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) insists that the teacher can recast the students error without calling further attention to [it] in a way that is consistent with sustaining a respectful, non-defensive relationship between teacher and students (p. 97). This is not to indicate in any way that the Audio-Lingual method is disrespectful or anxiety-inducing to students. Its focus is merely on finite grammar rules and patterns within the language, rather than on meaningful communicative production. This type of conditioning, Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011) indicates, expects that learners will overcome the habits of their native language and form the new habits required to be target language speakers (p. 35). As stated before, this type of language teaching is losing preference to more communicative methods. While grammar and vocabulary exercises are clearly very important aspects of a language that learners need to practice and master, both of the approaches discussed here address these issues. The Audio-Lingual method focuses its drills on a specific, finite grammar structure at a time; the Community Language Learning method allows for student-created material, so that the class can practice those structures they need the very most. In both instances the teacher is there to help model accurate pronunciation, accurate use of a structure, and a positive attitude toward language use, but in CLL teachers can step back from the learning and let it become entirely student-driven. Proponents of CLL, such as Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011), contend that 1 Learning is persons and it must happen in an environment of trust, support, and

COMPARING METHODS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING cooperation between teacher and students and among students and also that 2 learning is dynamic and creative, which means that learning is an ongoing developmental process (p. 100). This attitude toward learning promotes strong skills for language learners, because they are required to participate, offer their own language, and make the communication authentic and relevant to themselves and their lives. As they are doing all of those things they are also developing vocabulary, practicing grammar structures, and learning correct pronunciation. The Audio-Lingual method is effective at achieving what its designed to do, but the major flaw of its design is the limitation imposed by the drill-oriented nature of the method. A language instructor must evaluate her needs and those of her students to determine whether the AudioLingual method will serve those needs, or whether the Community Language Learning method may be more appropriate.

COMPARING METHODS OF SECOND LANGUAGE TEACHING References Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. University of Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching (3rd ed.). University of Oxford: Oxford University Press. Paulston, C. B. (1971). The sequencing of structural pattern drills. TESOL Quarterly, 5(3), 197-208. Purpura, J. E. (2004). Assessing grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press