An Overview of Second Language Teaching Methods and Approaches

(Eugene McKendry)

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

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

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

 Approach refers to the beliefs and theories about language, language learning
and teaching that underlie a method
 Design specifies how theories of language and learning are implemented in a
syllabus model and teaching and learning activities and materials in the
classroom
 Procedure concerns the techniques and practices employed in the classroom
as consequences of particular approaches and designs.

METHOD

Design
Approach

Procedure

(Richards & Rodgers 1985:17)

There are many publications available discussing the various methods. We have
drawn here, inter alia, upon Chapter Two of H. Douglas Brown’s Teaching by
Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (Longman/ Pearson
Education, White Plains, New York, 2nd edition 2001).

Brown draws a distinction between methods as “specific, identifiable clusters of

theoretically compatible classroom techniques” (p15), and methodology as
“pedagogical practices in general…Whatever considerations are involved in ‘how to
teach’ are methodological” (ibid.).

A glance through the past century or so of language teaching will give an

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

Albert Marckwardt (1972:5) saw these “changing winds and shifting sands”
as a cyclical pattern in which a new method emerged about every quarter of
a century. Each new method broke from the old but took with it some of the
positive aspects of the previous practices
Brown 2001: 17-18

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

 Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target
language;
 Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words;
 Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given;
 Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often
focuses on the form and inflection of words;
  Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early;
 Little attention is paid to the context of texts, which are treated as exercices in
grammatical analysis;
 Often the only drills are exercices in translating disconnected sentences from
the target language into the mother tongue;
 Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

The Direct 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, although he marketed it as the Berlitz Method.

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

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

 Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language;

 Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught;

 Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully traded progression

organized around questions-and-answer exchanges between teachers and
students in small intensive classes;

 Grammar was taught inductively;

 New teaching points were taught through modelling and practice;

 Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, pictures;

Abstract vocabulary was taught through association of ideas;

 Both speech and listening comprehension were taught;

 Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

The Audiolingual Method

The Audiolingual Method is derived from "The Army Method," so called because it
was developed through a U.S. Army programme devised after World War II to
produce speakers proficient in the languages of friend and foes. In this method,
grounded in the habit formation model of behaviourist psychology and on a Structural
Linguistics theory of language, the emphasis was on memorisation through pattern
drills and conversation practices rather than promoting communicative ability.
Characteristics of the Audiolingual Method:
 New material is presented in dialogue form;
 There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and
overlearning
 Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis taught one at a time;
 Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills;
 There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive
analogy rather than by deductive explanation;
 Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context;
 There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids;
 Great importance is attached to pronunciation;
 Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted;
 Successful responses are immediately reinforced;
 There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances;
 There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.
(adapted from Prator & Celce-Murcia 1979)

Cognitive Code Learning

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

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

Deductive Learning Grammatical explanations or rules are

presented and then applied through
practice in exercices.
The learner works from rules/ principles
to examples
Inductive Learning Learners are presented with examples.
They then discover or induce language
rules and principles on their own
Alternative or ‘Designer’ 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).

The Natural Approach

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

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

Theory of language Theory of Learning Objectives Syllabus

The essence of There are 2 ways of L2 Designed to give Based on a selection of
language is meaning. language development: beginners/ intermediate communicative
Vocabulary not Acquisition a natural learner communicative activities and topics
grammar is the heart of sub-conscious process; skills. Four broad derived from learner
language Learning a conscious areas; basic personal needs
process. Learning communicative skills
cannot lead to (oral/written);
acquisition academic learning
skills (oral/written)

Activity types Learner roles Teacher roles Roles of materials

Activities allowing Should not try and The teacher is the Materials come from
comprehensible input, learn language in the primary source of realia rather than
about things in the usual sense, but should comprehensible input. textbooks. Primary aim
here-and-now. Focus try and lose themselves Must create positive is to promote
on meaning not form in activities involving low-anxiety climate. comprehension and
meaningful Must choose and communication
communication orchestrate a rich
mixture of classroom
activities

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

Krashen’s Five 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)

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

Acquisition Learning
Implicit, subconscious Explicit, conscious
Informal situations Formal situations
Uses grammatical ‘feel’ Uses grammatical rules
Depends on attitude Depends on aptitudes
Stable order of acquisition Simplex to complex order of learning

(Vivian Cook website)

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

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

Communicative Language Teaching

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

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emerged as the norm in second

language teaching. As a broadly-based approach, there are any number of definitions
and interpretations, but the following interconnected characteristics offered by Brown
(2001: 43) provide a useful overview:
 1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical,
discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic) of communicative
competence. Goals therefore must intertwine the organizational aspects of
language with the pragmatic.
2. Language techniques are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic,
authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. Organizational
language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that
enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.
3. Fluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying
communicative techniques. At times fluency may have to take on more
importance than accuracy in order to keep learners meaningfully engaged in
language use.
4. Students in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language,
productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom.
Classroom tasks must therefore equip students with the skills necessary for
communication in those contexts.
5. Students are given opportunities to focus on their own learning process
through an understanding of their own styles of learning and through the
development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning.
6. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all-knowing
bestower of knowledge. Students are therefore encouraged to construct
meaning through genuine linguistic interaction with others.

The breadth of possible applications can lead to misinterpretations. In the United

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

Functional-Notional 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 of Reference
(CEFR).

The A1 Syllabus for Irish presented in CRAMLAP follows the recommendations of

the CEFR and owes much to the NFS concept. It is a syllabus, not a pedagogy, and
due consideration must be given to the role of grammatical form in teaching it.

The Framework cannot replace reference grammars or provide a strict

ordering (though scaling may involve selection and hence some ordering in
global terms) but provides a framework for the decisions of practitioners to be
made known. (Council of Europe 2001a: 152)
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_Referenc
e/1cadre.asp#TopOfPage

Council of Europe. (2001b). A Common European Framework of Reference for

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

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

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

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

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

Nunan, D. 1991 Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers New

York: Prentice-Hall.

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

Prator, C.H. and Celce-Murcia, M. 1979. An outline of language teaching approaches.

In Celce-Murcia, M. and McIntosh, L. (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or
Foreign Language. New York: Newbury House.

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

Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 1985. “Method: Approach, design and
procedure”, Chapter 2 in Richards, Jack C. The Context of Language Teaching
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C. and Rodgers, Theodore S. 2001 (2 nd edition) Approaches and
Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

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

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