90 CHAPTER 4

4.2. CATEGORIES OF LANGUAGE TEACHING

METHODS

Yet another source of tiresome ambiguity that afflicts language teaching is

the absence of a principled way to categorize language teaching methods in
a conceptually coherent fashion. This need has become even more acute
because of what Stern (1985) called the “method boom” (p. 249) witnessed
in the 1970s. The exact number of methods currently in use is unclear. It is
easy to count nearly a dozen, ranging from Audiolingualism to Jazz chants.
(I haven’t found one beginning with a Z yet, unless we count the Zen
method!)
It is not as if the existing methods provide distinct or discrete paths to
language teaching. In fact, there is considerable overlap in their theoretical
as well as practical orientation to L2 learning and teaching. It is therefore
beneficial, for the purpose of analysis and understanding, to categorize es-
tablished methods into (a) language-centered methods, (b) learner-centered meth-
ods, and (c) learning-centered methods (Kumaravadivelu, 1993b). This catego-
rization, which seeks to provide conceptual coherence, is made based on
theoretical and pedagogic considerations that are presented in a nutshell
below. A detailed treatment of these three categories of method follows in
chapters 5, 6, and 7.

4.2.1. Language-Centered Methods

Language-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with
linguistic forms. These methods (such as Audiolingual Method) seek to
provide opportunities for learners to practice preselected, presequenced
linguistic structures through form-focused exercises in class, assuming that
a preoccupation with form will ultimately lead to the mastery of the target
language and that the learners can draw from this formal repertoire when-
ever they wish to communicate in the target language outside the class. Ac-
cording to this view, language development is more intentional than inci-
dental. That is, learners are expected to pay continual and conscious
attention to linguistic features through systematic planning and sustained
practice in order to learn and to use them.
Language-centered pedagogists treat language learning as a linear, addi-
tive process. In other words, they believe that language develops primarily
in terms of what Rutherford (1987) called “accumulated entities” (p. 4).
That is, a set of grammatical structures and vocabulary items are carefully
selected for their usability, and graded for their difficulty. The teacher’s
task is to introduce one discrete linguistic item at a time and help the learn-
ers practice it until they internalize it. Secondly, supporters of language-
centered methods advocate explicit introduction, analysis, and explanation
of linguistic systems. That is, they believe that the linguistic system is simple
CONSTITUENTS AND CATEGORIES OF METHODS 91

enough and our explanatory power clear enough to provide explicit rules
of thumb, and explain them to the learners in such a way that they can un-
derstand and internalize them.

4.2.2. Learner-Centered Methods

Learner-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with
learner needs, wants, and situations. These methods (such as Communica-
tive Language Teaching) seek to provide opportunities for learners to prac-
tice preselected, presequenced linguistic structures and communicative
notions/functions through meaning-focused activities, assuming that a pre-
occupation with form and function will ultimately lead to target language
mastery and that the learners can make use of both formal and functional
repertoire to fulfill their communicative needs outside the class. In this
view, as in the previous case, language development is more intentional
than incidental.
Learner-centered pedagogists aim at making language learners gram-
matically accurate and communicatively fluent. They keep in mind the
learner’s real-life language use in social interaction or for academic study,
and present linguistic structures in communicative contexts. In spite of
strong arguments that emphasize the cyclical and analytical nature of com-
municative syllabuses (Munby, 1978; Wilkins, 1976; see chap. 3, this vol-
ume, for more details), learner-centered methods remain, basically, linear
and additive. Proponents of learner-centered methods, like those of lan-
guage-centered methods, believe in accumulated entities. The one major
difference is that in the case of language-centered methods, the accumu-
lated entities represent linguistic structures, and in the case of learner-
centered methods, they represent structures plus notions and functions.
Furthermore, just as language-centered pedagogists believe that the linguis-
tic structures of a language could be sequentially presented and explained,
the learner-centered pedagogists also believe that each notional/func-
tional category could be matched with one or more linguistic forms, and se-
quentially presented and explained to the learner.

4.2.3. Learning-Centered Methods

Learning-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with
cognitive processes of language learning (see chap. 2, this volume, for de-
tails). These methods (such as the Natural Approach) seek to provide op-
portunities for learners to participate in open-ended meaningful interac-
tion through problem-solving tasks in class, assuming that a preoccupation
with meaning-making will ultimately lead to target language mastery and
that the learners can deploy the still-developing interlanguage to achieve
linguistic as well as pragmatic knowledge/ability. In this case, unlike in the
92 CHAPTER 4

other two, language development is more incidental than intentional. That

is, grammar construction can take place when the learners pay attention to
the process of meaning-making, even if they are not explicitly focused on
the formal properties of the language.
According to learning-centered pedagogists, language development is a
nonlinear process, and therefore, does not require preselected, prese-
quenced systematic language input but requires the creation of conditions
in which learners engage in meaningful activities in class. They believe that
a language is best learned when the focus is not on the language, that is,
when the learner’s attention is focused on understanding, saying, and do-
ing something with language, and not when their attention is focused ex-
plicitly on linguistic features. They also hold the view that linguistic systems
are too complex to be neatly analyzed, explicitly explained, and profitably
presented to the learner.
In seeking to redress what they consider to be fundamental flaws that
characterize previous methods, learning-centered pedagogists seek to fill,
what Long (1985) called a “psycholinguistic vacuum” (p. 79). That is, they
claim to derive insights from psycholinguistic research on language devel-
opment in an attempt to incorporate them in language teaching methods.
As a result, the changes they advocate relate not just to syllabus specifica-
tions—as it happened in the case of the shift from language-centered to
learner-centered methods—but to all aspects of learning/teaching opera-
tions: syllabus design, materials production, classroom teaching, outcomes
assessment, and teacher education.
The categories of language teaching methods just described are summa-
rized in Fig. 4.1. A word of caution about this figure is in order. The figure
represents method analysis, not teaching analysis. From a classroom meth-
odological point of view, the three categories do not represent distinct enti-
ties with clear-cut boundaries. They overlap considerably, particularly dur-
ing the transitional time when dissatisfaction with one method yields slowly
to the evolution of another.

4.3. DESIGNER NONMETHODS

Part of the method boom that Stern talked about has given us what are
called new methods. They include Community Language Learning, the Silent Way,
Suggestopedia, and Total Physical Response. All these new methods advocate a
humanistic approach to language learning and teaching. Community Lan-
guage Learning treats teachers as language counselors who are sensitive to
the language learners’ emotional struggle to cope with the challenges of lan-
guage learning. They are supposed to create a nonthreatening atmosphere
in the classroom, forming a community of learners who build trust among
themselves in order to help each other. The Silent Way believes that teachers
 FIG. 4.1. Categories of language teaching methods.

93
94 CHAPTER 4

should be silent in class and talk only when absolutely necessary. Using color
charts and color rods as props, teachers are expected to encourage learners
to express their thoughts, perceptions, and feelings, and in the process, learn
the language. Suggestopedia, which now has even a fancier name, Desug-
gestopedia, aims at removing psychological barriers to learning through the
psychological notion of “suggestion.” Using fine arts such as music, art, and
drama, teachers are advised to create a comfortable environment in class in
order to eliminate any fear of failure on the part of the learners. Total Physi-
cal Response recommends that teachers activate their learners’ motor skills
through a command sequence in which learners perform an action, such as
standing up, sitting down, walking to the board, and so forth.
These new methods have also been dubbed as designer methods. I prefer to
call them designer nonmethods because none of them, in my view, deserves
the status of a method. They are all no more than classroom procedures
that are consistent with the theoretical underpinnings of a learner-centered
pedagogy. From a classroom procedural point of view, they are highly inno-
vative and are certainly useful in certain cases. But, they are not full-fledged
methods. As I have argued elsewhere (Kumaravadivelu, 1995), a method, to
be considered a method, must satisfy at least two major criteria. First, it
should be informed by a set of theoretical principles derived from feeder
disciplines and a set of classroom procedures directed at practicing teach-
ers. Both the underlying principles and the suggested procedures should
address the factors and processes governing learning and teaching (see
Part One, this volume) in a coherent fashion. Second, a method should be
able to guide and sustain various aspects of language learning and teaching
operations, particularly in terms of curricular content (e.g., grammar and
vocabulary), language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), and
proficiency levels (beginning, intermediate, and advanced).
None of the designer methods satisfies the just-cited criteria. In spite of
their limitations, they have been wrongly treated as new methods, a treat-
ment that really requires a stretch of interpretation, as seen in the case of
Richards and Rodgers (1986) who attempted, rather laboriously, to fit the
new methods into their tripartite framework of approach, design, and pro-
cedure. In fact, a reputed Canadian scholar expressed surprise at “the toler-
ant and positive reception the new methods were given by sophisticated
methodologists and applied linguistics in North America. One could have
expected them to be slaughtered one by one under the searing light of the-
ory and research” (Stern, 1985, p. 249).

4.4. A SPECIAL TASK

Before concluding this section on categories of language teaching meth-

ods, a brief note on the status of Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is
in order. As the novelty of communicative language teaching is gradually
CONSTITUENTS AND CATEGORIES OF METHODS 95

wearing thin (see chap. 6, this volume, for details), TBLT is gaining
ground. The word, “communicative,” which was ubiquitously present in the
titles of scholarly books and student textbooks published during the 1980s
is being replaced by yet another word, “task.” Since the late 1980s, we have
been witnessing a steady stream of books on TBLT, in addition to numer-
ous journal articles. There are research-based scholarly books on the nature
and scope of pedagogic tasks (Bygate, Skehan, & Swain, 2001; Crookes &
Gass, 1993; Skehan, 1998). There are books about task-based language
learning and teaching in general (Ellis, 2003; Long, in press; Nunan, 2004;
Prabhu, 1987). There are also specifically targeted books that provide tasks
for language learning (Gardner & Miller, 1996; Willis, 1996), tasks for lan-
guage teaching ( Johnson, 2003; Nunan, 1989; Parrott, 1993), tasks for
teacher education (Tanner & Green, 1998), tasks for classroom observation
(Wajnryb, 1992), and tasks for language awareness (Thornbury, 1997).
In spite of the vast quantity of the published materials on TBLT, there is
no consensus definition of what a task is. For instance, more than 15 years
ago, Breen (1987) defined task as “a range of workplans which have the over-
all purpose of facilitating language learning—from the simple and brief ex-
ercise type to more complex and lengthy activities such as group problem-
solving or simulations and decision-making” (p. 23). In a recent work on
TBLT, Ellis (2003), after carefully considering various definitions available in
the literature, synthesized them to derive a composite, lengthy definition:

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically

in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the
correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end,
it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of
their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose
them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use
that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the
real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or re-
ceptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes. (p. 16)

The definitions given not only bring out the complex nature of a task but
it also signifies a simple fact. That is, as I pointed out more than a decade
ago (Kumaravadivelu, 1993b), a language learning and teaching task is not
inextricably linked to any one particular language teaching method. Task is
not a methodological construct; it is a curricular content. In other words, in
relation to the three categories of method outlined in this section, there
can very well be language-centered tasks, learner-centered tasks, and learning-
centered tasks. To put it simply, language-centered tasks are those that draw
the learner’s attention primarily and explicitly to the formal properties of
the language. For instance, tasks presented in Fotos and Ellis (1991) and
also in Fotos (1993), which they appropriately call grammar tasks, come un-
96 CHAPTER 4

der this category. Learner-centered tasks are those that direct the learner’s
attention to formal as well as functional properties of the language. Tasks
for the communicative classroom suggested by Nunan (1989) illustrate this
type. And, learning-centered tasks are those that engage the learner mainly
in the negotiation, interpretation, and expression of meaning, without any
explicit focus on form and/or function. Problem-solving tasks suggested by
Prabhu (1987) are learning centered.
In light of the present discussion, I do not, in this book, treat the de-
signer methods and TBLT as independent language teaching methods. I
do, however, refer to them for illustrative purposes as and when appropri-
ate.

4.5. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I examined the use of terms and concepts that constitute
language teaching operations in general. I argued that for the sake of sim-
plicity and practicality, it is beneficial to have a two-tier system consisting of
principles and procedures. I also presented a rationale for the classification
of language-teaching methods into language-, learner-, and learning-
centered methods. I shall henceforth be using these terms and categories
as operationally defined and described in this chapter. The next three
chapters in Part Two deal with the theoretical principles and classroom pro-
cedures of language-, learner-, and learning-centered methods.
 Chapter 5

Language-Centered Methods

5. INTRODUCTION

Language teaching methods evolve and improve over time as their merits
and demerits become more and more apparent with the accumulation of
experience and experimentation, ultimately leading to the development of
a new method with a new label. During the transitional time when dissatis-
faction with one method results in the gradual development of another,
there will necessarily be overlapping tendencies. Therefore, a method in a
later phase of its life may appear to be slightly different from what it was in
an earlier phase. But still, in order to fully understand the fundamental
characteristics of any given category of method and to differentiate it mean-
ingfully from other categories, it is necessary to go back to the foundational
texts that provide what may be called a canonical description of the theoret-
ical principles and classroom procedures of a method that may proto-
typically represent the category to which it belongs. With that understand-
ing, I focus in this chapter on what is known as audiolingual method, which
illustrates the essential characteristics of language-centered methods.
Although audiolingual method is considered to be “very much an Ameri-
can method” (Ellis, 1990, p. 21), some of its basics can be traced to almost
simultaneous developments in Britain and the United States. Toward the
second half of the 20th century, British applied linguists such as Hornby,
Palmer, and West developed principles and procedures of what came to be
called the structural–situational method. It primarily centered around the tri-
ple principles of selection, gradation, and presentation. Selection deals with the
choice of lexical and grammatical content, gradation with the organization

97
98 CHAPTER 5

and sequencing of content, and presentation with the aims and activities of
classroom teaching. As early as in 1936, Palmer, West, and their associates
selected and graded a vocabulary list, which was later revised by West and
published in 1953 with the title, A General Service List of English Words. The
list consisted of a core vocabulary of about 2,000 words selected on the basis
of such criteria as frequency, usefulness, and productivity and graded for
complexity. Likewise, Palmer and Hornby attempted to classify major gram-
matical structures into sentence patterns and also sought to introduce them
in situational dialogues. Hornby’s book, A Guide to Patterns and Usage of Eng-
lish, published in 1954 became a standard reference book of basic English
sentence patterns for textbook writers and classroom teachers.
As the British applied linguists were engaged in developing the struc-
tural–situational method, their American counterparts were called upon by
their government already drawn into World War II to devise effective, short-
term, intensive courses to teach conversational skills in German, French,
Italian, Chinese, Japanese, and other languages to army personnel who
could work as interpreters, code-room assistants, and translators. In re-
sponse, American applied linguists established what was called Army Spe-
cialized Training Program (ASTP), which moved away from the prevailing
reading/writing-oriented instruction to one that emphasized listening and
speaking. After the war and by the mid-1950s, the program evolved into a
full-fledged audiolingual method of teaching, and quickly became the pre-
dominant American approach to teaching English as second language.
A series of foundational texts published in the 1960s by American schol-
ars provided the much needed pedagogic resources for language-centered
methods. In an influential book titled Language and Language Learning: The-
ory and Practice, Brooks (1960) offered a comprehensive treatment of the
audiolingual method. This was followed by Fries and Fries (1961), whose
Foundations of English Teaching presented a corpus of structural and lexical
items selected and graded into three proficiency levels—beginning, inter-
mediate, and advanced. The corpus also included suggestions for designing
contextual dialogues in which the structural and lexical items could be in-
corporated. Yet another seminal book, Language Teaching: A Scientific Ap-
proach, by Lado (1964) provided further impetus for the spread of the
audiolingual method. Appearing in the same year was a widely acclaimed
critical commentary on the audiolingual method titled The Psychologist and
the Foreign Language Teacher, by Rivers (1964).
Although the British structural–situational method focused on the situa-
tional context and the functional content of language more than the Amer-
ican audiolingual method did, similarities between them are quite striking.
Part of the reason is that linguists on both sides of the Atlantic were influ-
enced by the tenets of structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. In
view of that common ground, I combine the two traditions under one
LANGUAGE-CENTERED METHODS 99

widely used label, audiolingual method, and discuss its theoretical principles
and classroom procedures.

5.1. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES

As mentioned, the fundamental principles of language-centered pedagogy

are drawn from structural linguistics and behavioral psychology. These two
schools of thought from sister disciplines have informed the theory of lan-
guage, language learning, language teaching, and curricular specifications
of language-centered pedagogy.

5.1.1. Theory of Language

Language-centered pedagogists believed in the theory of language proposed
and propagated by American structural linguists during the 1950s. Structural
linguists treated language as a system of systems consisting of several hierar-
chically linked building blocks: phonemes, morphemes, phrases, clauses,
and sentences, each with its own internal structure. These subsystems of lan-
guage were thought to be linearly connected in a structured, systematic, and
rule-governed way; that is, certain phonemes systematically cluster together
to form a morpheme, certain morphemes systematically cluster together to
form a phrase, and so forth. Secondly, structural linguists viewed language as
aural–oral, thus emphasizing listening and speaking. Speech was considered
primary, forming the very basis of language. Structure was viewed as being at
the heart of speech. Thirdly, every language was looked upon as unique,
each having a finite number of structural patterns. Each structure can be an-
alyzed, described, systematized, and graded, and by implication, can be
learned and taught by taking a similar discrete path.
Structural linguists rejected the views of traditional grammarians, who
depended on philosophical and mentalistic approaches to the study of lan-
guage. Instead, structuralists claimed to derive their view of language
through a positivist and empiricist approach. A scientific approach to the
study of language, it was thought, would help identify the structural pat-
terns of language in a more rigorous way. Such an emphasis on scientific
methods of linguistic analysis dovetailed well with the views of behavioral
psychologists whose antimentalist views of human learning informed the
audiolingual theory of language learning.

5.1.2. Theory of Language Learning

Language-centered pedagogists derived their theory of language learning
from behaviorism, a school of American psychology which was popular dur-
ing the 1950s and ’60s. Like structural linguists, behavioral psychologists
100 CHAPTER 5

too were skeptical about mentalism and rejected any explanation of human
behavior in terms of emotive feelings or mental processes. They sought a
scientifically based approach for analyzing and understanding human be-
havior. For them, human behavior can be reduced to a series of stimuli that
trigger a series of corresponding responses. Consequently, they looked at
all learning as a simple mechanism of stimulus, response, and reinforce-
ment. Experience is the basis of all learning, and all learning outcomes can
be observed and measured in the changes that occur in behavior.
Given their belief that all learning is governed by stimulus–response–re-
inforcement mechanisms, behaviorists did not make any distinction be-
tween general learning and language learning. Their theory of language
learning can be summed up in a series of assumptions they made:

! First and foremost, learning to speak a language is the same as learning

to ride a bicycle or drive a car. Language learning, then, is no different
from the learning of other school subjects like math or science. It is no
more than a systematic accumulation of consciously collected discrete
pieces of knowledge gained through repeated exposure, practice, and ap-
plication. This is a central belief that logically leads to all other assumptions
of varying importance.
! Second, language learning is just a process of mechanical habit forma-
tion through repetition. Forming a habit, in the context of language learn-
ing, is described as developing the ability to perform a particular linguistic
feature such as a sound, a word, or a grammatical item automatically, that
is, without paying conscious attention to it. Such a habit can be formed only
through repeated practice aided by positive reinforcement. Bloomfield
(1942), a prominent structural linguist, in his Outline Guide for the Practical
Study of Foreign Language, articulated the structuralist’s view of language
learning very succinctly: “The command of a language is a matter of prac-
tice. . . . practice everything until it becomes second nature” (p. 16). He
also emphasized that “Language learning is overlearning: Anything else is
of no use” (p. 12).
! Third, habit formation takes place by means of analogy rather than
analysis. Analysis involves problem solving, whereas analogy involves the
perception of similarities and differences. In the context of language learn-
ing, this means an inductive approach, in which learners themselves iden-
tify the underlying structure of a pattern, is preferable to a deductive ap-
proach. Pattern practice, therefore, is an important tool of language
learning.
! Fourth, language learning is a linear, incremental, additive process.
That is, it entails mastering of one discrete item at a time, moving to the
next only after the previous one has been fully mastered. It also involves
gradually adding one building block after another, thus accumulating, in
LANGUAGE-CENTERED METHODS 101

due course, all the linguistic elements that are combined to form the total-
ity of a language. Because speech is primary, discrete items of language can
be learned effectively if they are presented in spoken form before they are
seen in the written form.
! Finally, discrete items of language should be introduced in carefully
constructed dialogues embedded in a carefully selected linguistic and cul-
tural context. Language should not be separated from culture, and words
should be incorporated in a matrix of references to the culture of the target
language community.

These fundamental assumptions about language learning deeply influ-

enced the theory of language teaching adopted by language-centered
pedagogists.

5.1.3. Theory of Language Teaching

Audiolingual theory of language teaching is, in fact, a mirror image of its
theory of language learning. Because learning a language is considered to
involve forming habits in order to assimilate and use a hierarchical system
of systems, language teaching is nothing more than a planned presentation
of those (sub)systems combined with provision of opportunities for repeti-
tion. The purpose of teaching, therefore, is twofold: In the initial stage, the
teacher, using a textbook, serves as a model providing samples of linguistic
input, and then in the later stage, acts as a skillful manipulator of questions,
commands, and other cues in order to elicit correct responses from the
learner. Linguistic input is, of course, presented in the form of dialogues
because they involve

a natural and exclusive use of the audio-lingual skills. All the elements of the
sound-system appear repeatedly, including the suprasegmental phonemes,
which are often the most difficult for the learner. All that is learned is mean-
ingful, and what is learned in one part of a dialogue often makes meaning
clear in another. (Brooks, 1964, p. 145)

The emphasis on dialogues also takes care of the primacy of speech as well
as the strict sequencing of four language skills in terms of listening, speak-
ing, reading, and writing.
Given the preference of analogy over analysis, pattern practice was con-
sidered to be the most important aspect of teaching, because it “capitalizes
on the mind’s capacity to perceive identity of structure where there is differ-
ence in content and its quickness to learn by analogy” (Brooks, 1964, p.
146). Besides, teaching the basic patterns helps the learner’s performance
become habitual and automatic. The teacher’s major task is to drill the ba-
102 CHAPTER 5

sic patterns. Learners “require drill, drill, and more drill, and only enough
vocabulary to make such drills possible” (Hockett, 1959). During the proc-
ess of drilling, the learners should be carefully guided through a series of
carefully designed exercises, thereby eliminating the possibility for making
errors. As the learners are helped to perform the drills, they are supposed
to inductively learn the grammatical structure being practiced.
Language-centered pedagogists thus drew heavily from structural lin-
guistics and behavioral psychology in order to conceptualize their princi-
ples of language teaching. And, in tune with the spirit that prevailed in
these two disciplines at that time, they dubbed their approach to language
teaching “scientific,” as reflected in the title of Lado’s 1964 book, men-
tioned earlier.

5.1.4. Content Specifications

Language-centered methods adhere to the synthetic approach to syllabus

design in which the content of learning and teaching is defined in terms of
discrete items of grammatical and lexical forms of the language that are
presented to the learners (see chap. 3, this volume, for details). In other
words, linguistic forms constitute the organizing principle for syllabus con-
struction. Drawing from the available inventory of linguistic forms com-
piled by grammarians through standard linguistic analyses, the syllabus de-
signer selects and sequences the phonological, lexical, and grammatical
elements of the language that can be included in graded textbooks used for
classroom teaching. The teacher presents the elements of language forms
(in terms of nouns, verbs, adjectives, articles, relative clauses, subordinate
clauses, etc.) one by one to the learners, who are then supposed to put
them together to figure out the totality of the language system. The primary
task of the learner is to synthesize the discrete items of language in order to
develop adequate knowledge/ability in the language.
Selection and gradation, that is, what items to select and in what sequence
to present them are but two challenges facing the syllabus designer. Lan-
guage-centered pedagogists implicitly followed the frequency, range, and
availability criteria for selection identified by Mackey (1965). Recall from
chapter 3 that frequency refers to the items that the learners are likely to en-
counter most, whereas range refers to the spread of an item across texts or
contexts. Frequency relates to where the item is used, by whom, and for
what purposes. Availability is determined by the degree to which an item is
necessary and appropriate. Similarly, for gradation purposes, language-
centered pedagogists followed the criteria of complexity, regularity, and
productivity (cf. chap. 3, this volume). Recall that the first principle deals
with a movement from the easy to the difficult, the second from the regular
to the irregular, and the third from the more useful to the less useful.
 Chapter 6

Learner-Centered Methods

6. INTRODUCTION

The theoretical principles and classroom procedures of the language-cen-

tered pedagogy we discussed in the previous chapter shaped language
teaching and teacher education for nearly a quarter century. However, by
the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers and teachers alike became in-
creasingly skeptical about the effectiveness of the pedagogy to realize its
stated goal of fostering communicative capability in the learner. The skepti-
cism was grounded in the growing realization that the knowledge/ability
required to correctly manipulate the structures of the target language is
only a part of what is involved in learning and using it.
Although several applied linguists wrote about the state of language
teaching, it was perhaps Newmark’s seminal paper, “How Not to Interfere
With Language Learning,” published in 1966, that epitomized the doubts
that prevailed among language teaching professionals, and opened up new
avenues of pedagogic thought. He doubted whether language learning can
be additive and linear as was steadfastly maintained by language-centered
pedagogists. He asserted that

if each phonological and syntactic rule, each complex of lexical features, each
semantic value and stylistic nuance—in short, if each item which the linguist’s
analysis leads him to identify had to be acquired one at a time, proceeding
from simplest to most complex, and then each had to be connected to speci-
fied stimuli or stimulus sets, the child learner would be old before he could
say a single appropriate thing and the adult learner would be dead. (New-
mark, 1966, p. 79)

114
LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS 115

So arguing, Newmark (1966) adopted the view that complex bits of lan-
guage are learned a whole chunk at a time rather than learned as an assem-
blage of constituent items. He declared that language-centered pedagogy
with its emphasis on sequential presentation, practice, and production of
isolated linguistic items “constitutes serious interference with the language
learning process” (p. 81). In making such a bold declaration, he was clearly
ahead of his time. Although his provocative thoughts had to wait for full de-
ployment until the advent of learning-centered methods (see chap. 7, this
volume), they certainly highlighted the inadequacy of language-centered
methods, and prompted the search for an alternative method.
The search was accelerated by a congruence of important developments
in social sciences and humanities. Interestingly, almost all of the develop-
ments either occurred or became prominent in the 1960s, precisely when
dissatisfaction with language-centered pedagogy was growing. As we saw in
chapter 1, in linguistics, Chomsky demonstrated the generative nature of
the language system and hypothesized about the innate ability of the hu-
man mind to acquire it. Halliday provided a different perspective to lan-
guage, highlighting its functional properties. In sociolinguistics, Hymes
proposed a theory of communicative competence incorporating socio-
cultural norms governing language communication. Austin’s speech act
theory elaborated on how language users perform speech acts such as re-
questing, informing, apologizing, and so forth. In psychology, behaviorism
was yielding its preeminence to cognitivism, which believed in the role of
human cognition as a mediator between stimulus and response. Sociolo-
gists were developing communication models to explain how language is
used to construct social networks.
A development that was unrelated to the academic disciplines just men-
tioned, but one that hastened the search for an alternative method, was the
formation of European Economic Community (EEC), a common mar-
ket of Western European countries, a precursor to the current European
Union (EU). By deliberate policy, the EEC eased trade and travel restric-
tions within multilingual Europe, which in turn provided an impetus for
greater interaction among the people of the Western European countries
and, consequently, provided a raison d’etre for developing a function-orien-
ted language teaching pedagogy in order to meet their specific communi-
cative needs. In 1971, the Council of Europe, a wing of EEC, commissioned
a group of European applied linguists and entrusted them with the task of
designing a new way to teach foreign languages.
Learning from the shortcomings of language-centered pedagogy and
drawing from the newly available psychological and linguistic insights,
Wilkins, a British applied linguist who was a member of the group commis-
sioned by the Council of Europe, proposed a set of syllabuses for language
teaching. Originally published as a monograph in 1972, a revised and ex-
116 CHAPTER 6

panded version of his proposals appeared in 1976 as a book titled Notional

Syllabuses. Instead of merely a grammatical core, the new syllabus consisted
of categories of notions such as time, sequence, quantity, location, and fre-
quency, and categories of communicative functions such as informing, re-
questing, and instructing. The notional/functional syllabus, as it was
known, provided a new way of exploiting the situational dialogue inherited
from the past by indicating that formal and functional properties can after
all be gainfully integrated. Thus began a language teaching movement
which later became well-known as communicative method or communicative ap-
proach or simply communicative language teaching. The watchword here is, of
course, communication; there will be more on this later.
It should be kept in mind that communicative language teaching is not a
monolithic entity; different teachers and teacher educators offered differ-
ent interpretations of the method within a set of broadly accepted theoreti-
cal principles so much so that it makes sense to talk about not one but sev-
eral communicative methods. In what follows, I look at, in detail, the
theoretical principles and classroom procedures associated with communi-
cative language teaching, treating it as a prototypical example of a learner-
centered pedagogy.

6.1. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES

The conceptual underpinnings of learner-centered pedagogy are truly mul-

tidisciplinary in the sense that its theory of language, language learning,
and language teaching came not only from the feeder disciplines of linguis-
tics and psychology, but also from anthropology and sociology as well as
from other subdisciplines such as ethnography, ethnomethodology, prag-
matics, and discourse analysis. The influence of all these areas of inquiry is
very much reflected in the theory of language communication adopted by
learner-centered pedagogists.

6.1.1. Theory of Language

In order to derive their theory of language, learner-centered pedagogists
drew heavily from Chomskyan formal linguistics, Hallidayan functional lin-
guistics, Hymsian sociolinguistics, and Austinian speech act theory. In chap-
ter 1, we discussed how these developments contributed to our understand-
ing of the nature of language. Let us briefly recall some of the salient
features.
Criticizing the basic tenets of structural linguistics, Chomsky pointed out
that language constitutes not a hierarchical structure of structures as
viewed by structuralists, but a network of transformations. He demon-
strated the inadequacy of structuralism to account for the fundamental
LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS 117

characteristics of language and language acquisition, particularly their cre-

ativity and uniqueness. Whereas structuralists focused on “surface” features
of phonology and morphology, Chomsky was concerned with “deep” struc-
tures, and the way in which sentences are produced. Chomskyan linguistics
thus fundamentally transformed the way we look at language as system.
However, preoccupied narrowly with syntactic abstraction, it paid very little
attention to meaning in a communicative context.
Going beyond the narrowness of syntactic abstraction, Halliday empha-
sized the triple macrofunctions of language—textual, interpersonal, and
ideational. The textual function deals with the phonological, syntactic, and
semantic signals that enable language users to understand and transmit
messages. The interpersonal function deals with sociolinguistic features of
language required to establish roles, relationships, and responsibilities in a
communicative situation. The ideational function deals with the concepts
and processes underlying natural, physical, and social phenomena. In high-
lighting the importance of the interplay between these three macrofunc-
tions of language, Halliday invoked the “meaning potential” of language,
that is, sets of options or alternatives that are available to the speaker–
hearer.
It was this concern with communicative meaning that led Hymes to ques-
tion the adequacy of the notion of grammatical competence proposed by
Chomsky. Unlike Chomsky who focused on the “ideal” native speaker–
hearer and an abstract body of syntactic structures, Hymes focused on the
“real” speaker–hearer who operates in the concrete world of interpersonal
communication. In order to operate successfully within a speech commu-
nity, a person has to be not just grammatically correct but communicatively
appropriate also, that is, a person has to learn what to say, how to say it,
when to say it, and to whom to say it.
In addition to Hallidayan and Hymsian perspectives, learner-centered
pedagogists benefited immensely from Austin’s work. As we know, he
looked at language as a series of speech acts we perform rather than as a
collection of linguistic items we accumulate, an idea that fitted in perfectly
with the concept of language as communication. We use language, Austin ar-
gued, to perform a large number of speech acts: to command, to describe,
to agree, to inform, to instruct, and so forth. The function of a particular
speech act can be understood only when the utterance is placed in a com-
municative context governed by commonly shared norms of interpretation.
What is crucial here is the illocutionary force, or the intended meaning, of
an utterance rather than the grammatical form an utterance may take.
By basing themselves on speech-act theory and discourse analysis, and by
introducing perspectives of sociolinguistics, learner-centered pedagogists
attempted to get closer to the concreteness of language use. Accordingly,
they operated on the basis of the following broad principles:
118 CHAPTER 6

! Language is a system for expressing meaning;

! the linguistic structures of language reflect its functional as well as
communicative import;
! basic units of language are not merely grammatical and structural, but
also notional and functional;
! the central purpose of language is communication; and
! communication is based on sociocultural norms of interpretation
shared by a speech community.

In short, unlike language-centered pedagogists who treated language largely

as system, learner-centered pedagogists treated it both as system and as dis-
course, at least some of the features of the latter (cf. chap. 1, this volume).

6.1.2. Theory of Language Learning

Learner-centered pedagogists derived their language learning theories

mainly from cognitive psychologists, who dismissed the importance given
to habit formation by behaviorists, and instead focused on insight forma-
tion. They maintained that, in the context of language learning, the
learner’s cognitive capacity mediates between teacher input (stimulus) and
learner output (response). The learner, based on the data provided, is ca-
pable of forming, testing, and confirming hypotheses, a sequence of psy-
chological processes that ultimately contribute to language development.
Thus, for cognitive psychologists, mental processes underlying response is
important, not the response itself. They also believed in developmental
stages of language learning and, therefore, partial learning on the part of
the learner is natural and inevitable. Because of the active involvement of
the learner in the learning process, only meaningful learning, not rote
learning, can lead to internalization of language systems (for more details,
see the section on intake processes in chap. 2, this volume).
Consistent with the theory of language just discussed, learner-centered
pedagogists looked at language communication as a synthesis of textual, in-
terpersonal, and ideational functions. These functions, according to Breen
and Candlin (1980), involve the abilities of interpretation, expression, and
negotiation, all of which are intricately interconnected with one another
during communicative performance. They suggest that language learning

is most appropriately seen as communicative interaction involving all the par-

ticipants in the learning and including the various material resources on
which the learning is exercised. Therefore, language learning may be seen as
a process which grows out of the interaction between learners, teachers, texts
and activities. (p. 95)
LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS 119

It must not be overlooked that in foregrounding the communicative

abilities of interpretation, expression, and negotiation, learner-centered
pedagogists did not neglect the importance of grammar learning. As Wid-
dowson (2003) recently lamented, the concern for communicative func-
tion was misconstrued by some as a justification for disregarding grammar.
“But such a view runs directly counter to Halliday’s concept of function
where there can be no such disjunction since it has to do with semantically
encoded meaning in form. This concept of function would lead to a re-
newed emphasis on grammar, not to its neglect” (p. 88, emphasis in origi-
nal). As a matter of fact, learner-centered pedagogists insisted that lan-
guage learning entails the development of both accuracy and fluency,
where accuracy activity involves conscious learning of grammar and fluency
activity focuses on communicative potential (Brumfit, 1984).
In a recent interpretation of the learning objectives of communicative
language teaching, Savignon (2002, pp. 114–115) considers the five goal ar-
eas, (known as Five Cs: communication, cultures, connections, compari-
sons, and communities) agreed upon as National Standards for Foreign
Language Learning in the United States as representing a holistic, commu-
nicative approach to language learning:

! The communication goal area addresses the learner’s ability to use the
target language to communicate thoughts, feelings, and opinions in a
variety of settings;
! the cultures goal area addresses the learner’s understanding of how the
products and practices of a culture are reflected in the language;
! the connections goal area addresses the necessity for learners to learn to
use the language as a tool to access and process information in a diver-
sity of contexts beyond the classroom;
! the comparisons goal area are designed to foster learner insight and un-
derstanding of the nature of language and culture through a compari-
son of the target language and culture with the languages and cultures
already familiar to them; and
! the communities goal area describes learners’ lifelong use of the lan-
guage, in communities and contexts both within and beyond the
school setting itself.

These learning goals, Savignon rightly asserts, move the communicative

language teaching toward a serious consideration of the discoursal and
sociocultural features of language use.

6.1.3. Theory of Language Teaching

As can be expected, learner-centered pedagogists took their pedagogic
bearings from the theories of language and language learning outlined
120 CHAPTER 6

above. Consequently, they recognized that it is the responsibility of the lan-

guage teacher to help learners (a) develop the knowledge/ability necessary
to manipulate the linguistic system and use it spontaneously and flexibly in
order to express their intended message; (b) understand the distinction,
and the connection, between the linguistic forms they have mastered and
the communicative functions they need to perform; (c) develop styles and
strategies required to communicate meanings as effectively as possible in
concrete situations; and (d) become aware of the sociocultural norms gov-
erning the use of language appropriate to different social circumstances
(Littlewood, 1981, p. 6).
In order to carry out the above responsibilities, it was argued, language
teachers must foster meaningful communication in the classroom by

! Designing and using information-gap activities where when one

learner in a pair-work exchange knows something the other learner
does not;
! offering choice of response to the learner, that is, open-ended tasks
and exercises where the learner determines what to say and how to say
it;
! emphasizing contextualization rather than decontextualized drills and
pattern practices;
! using authentic language as a vehicle for communication in class;
! introducing language at discoursal (and not sentential) level;
! tolerating errors as a natural outcome of language development; and
! developing activities that integrate listening, speaking, reading, and
writing skills.

These and other related measures recognize the importance of communi-

cative abilities of negotiation, interpretation, and expression that are con-
sidered to be the essence of a learner-centered pedagogy.
Such recognition also entailed a reconsideration of the role played by
teachers and learners in a communicative classroom. Breen and Candlin
(1980) identified two main roles for the “communicative” teacher.

The first role is to facilitate the communicative process between all partici-
pants in the classroom, and between those participants and the various activi-
ties and texts. The second role is to act as an interdependent participant within
the learning-teaching group. This latter role is closely related to the objective
of the first role and it arises from it. These roles imply a set of secondary roles
for the teacher: first, as an organizer of resources and as a resource himself.
Second, as a guide within the classroom procedures and activities. In this role
the teacher endeavors to make clear to the learners what they need to do in
LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS 121

order to achieve some specific activity or task, if they indicate that such guid-
ance is necessary. (p. 99, emphasis as in original)

The learners have to take an active role too. Instead of merely repeating af-
ter the teacher or mindlessly memorizing dialogues, they have to learn to
navigate the self, the learning process, and the learning objectives.

6.1.4. Content Specifications

In order to meet the requirements of the learning and teaching principles

they believed in, learner-centered pedagogists opted for a product-oriented
syllabus design just as their language-centered counterparts did before
them, but with one important distinction: Whereas the language-centered
pedagogists sought to select and sequence grammatical items, learner-
centered pedagogists sought to select and sequence grammatical as well as
notional/functional categories of language. Besides, they put a greater pre-
mium on the communicative needs of their learners. It is, therefore, only
natural that a learner-centered curriculum is expected to provide a frame-
work for identifying, classifying, and organizing language features that are
needed by the learners for their specific communicative purposes. One way
of constructing a profile of the communicative needs of the learners is “to
ask the question: Who is communicating with whom, why, where, when,
how, at what level, about what, and in what way?” (Munby, 1978, p. 115).
The 1970s witnessed several frameworks for content specifications geared
toward a learner-centered pedagogy. As mentioned earlier, Wilkins (1972)
proposed a notional/functional syllabus containing an inventory of
semantico-grammatical notions such as duration, frequency, quantity, di-
mension, and location, and communicative functions such as greeting, warn-
ing, inviting, requesting, agreeing, and disagreeing. His syllabus was further
expanded by another member of the Council of Europe, van Ek (1975) who,
based on a detailed needs analysis, identified the basic communicative needs
of European adult learners, and produced an inventory of notions, functions
and topics as well as grammatical items required to express them. Munby’s
(1978) book titled Communicative Syllabus Design contains an elaborate taxon-
omy of specifications of communicative functions, discourse features and
textual operations along with micro- and macroplanning.
Any textbook writer or language teacher can easily draw from such in-
ventories and taxonomies to design a syllabus that addresses the specific
needs and wants of a given group of learners. Finocchiaro and Brumfit
(1983) in their well-known book, The Functional-Notional Approach: From The-
ory to Practice, provided detailed guidelines for teachers. Here is part of a
sample “mini-curriculum” adapted from their work:
 Chapter 7

Learning-Centered Methods

7. INTRODUCTION

In chapter 5 and chapter 6, we learned how language- and learner-centered

methods are anchored primarily in the linguistic properties of the target
language, the former on formal properties and the latter on formal as well
as functional properties. We also learned that they both share a fundamen-
tal similarity in classroom methodological procedures: presentation, prac-
tice, and production of those properties. In other words, they are grounded
on the linguistic properties underlying the target language rather than on
the learning processes underlying L2 development. This is understandable
partly because, unlike the advocates of learning-centered methods, those of
language- and learner-centered methods did not have the full benefit of
nearly a quarter century of sustained research in the psycholinguistic proc-
esses of L2 development. Studies on intake factors and intake processes
governing L2 development (cf. chap. 2, this volume), in spite of their con-
ceptual and methodological limitations, have certainly provided a fast-
expanding site on which the edifice of a process-based method could be
constructed.
During the 1980s, several scholars experimented with various process-
oriented approaches to language teaching. These approaches include:
comprehension approach (Winitz, 1981), natural approach (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983), proficiency-oriented approach (Omaggio, 1986), communi-
cational approach (Prabhu, 1987), lexical approach (Lewis, 1993; Willis,
1990) and process approach (Legutke & Thomas, 1991). In addition, there
is a host of other local projects that are little known and less recognized

134
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS 135

(see Hamilton, 1996, for some). All these attempts indicate a rare conver-
gence of ideas and interests in as wide a geographical area and as varied a
pedagogical context as North America, Western Europe and South Asia. In
this chapter, I focus on two learning-centered methods, mainly because
both of them have been widely recognized and reviewed in the L2 litera-
ture: the Natural Approach, and the Communicational Approach.
The Natural Approach (NA) was originally proposed by Terrell at the
University of California at Irvine initially for teaching beginning level Span-
ish for adult learners in the United States. It was later developed fully by
combining the practical experience gained by Terrell and the theoretical
constructs of the Monitor Model of second language acquisition proposed
by Krashen, an applied linguist at the University of Southern California.
The principles and procedures of the approach have been well articulated
in Krashen and Terrell (1983). In addition, Brown and Palmer (1988) de-
veloped language specifications and instructional materials for applying
Krashen’s theory. The NA is premised on the belief that a language is best
acquired when the learner’s focus is not directly on the language.
The Communicational Approach, very much like the NA, is based on the
belief that grammar construction can take place in the absence of any ex-
plicit focus on linguistic features. It was developed through a long-term
project initiated and directed by Prabhu, who was an English Studies Spe-
cialist at the British Council, South India. Reviews of the project that have
appeared in the literature call it the Bangalore Project (referring to the
place of its origin), or the Procedural Syllabus (referring to the nature of its
syllabus), but the project team itself used the name Communicational
Teaching Project (CTP). The need for the project arose from a widespread
dissatisfaction with a version of language-centered pedagogy followed in In-
dian schools. It was also felt that the learner-centered pedagogy with its em-
phasis on situational appropriacy might not be relevant for a context where
English is taught and learned more for academic and administrative rea-
sons than for social interactional purposes. The project was carried out for
5 years (1979–1984) in large classes in South India (30 to 45 students per
class in primary schools, and 40 to 60 students per class in secondary
schools). Few classes used teaching aids beyond the chalkboard, paper, and
pencil. Toward the end of the project period and at the invitation of the
project team, a group of program evaluators from the University of Edin-
burgh, U.K. evaluated the efficacy of the approach (see, e.g., Beretta &
Davies, 1985). Thus, among the known learning-centered methods, the
CTP is perhaps the only one that enjoys the benefits of a sustained system-
atic investigation as well as a formal external evaluation.
In the following sections of this chapter, I take a critical look at the theo-
retical principles and classroom procedures associated with learning-
centered methods with particular reference to the NA and the CTP.
136 CHAPTER 7

7.1. THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES

The theoretical foundations of learning-centered pedagogy are guided by

the theory of language, language learning, language teaching, and curricu-
lar specifications that the proponents of the pedagogy deemed appropriate
for constructing a new pedagogy.

7.1.1. Theory of Language

Although learning-centered pedagogists have not explicitly spelled out any

specific theory of language that governs their pedagogy, their principles
and procedures imply the same theory that informs the learner-centered
pedagogy (see chap. 6, this volume, for details). They have drawn heavily
from the Chomskyan cognitive perspective on language learning, and from
the Hallidayan functional perspective on language use. They particularly
owe a debt to Halliday’s concept of learning to mean and his observation that
language is learned only in relation to use. They have, however, been very
selective in applying the Hallidayan perspective. For instance, they have em-
phasized the primacy of meaning and lexicon while, unlike Halliday, mini-
mizing the importance of grammar. There is also an important difference
between the NA and the CTP in terms of the theory of language: while the
NA values sociocultural aspects of pragmatic knowledge, the CTP devalues
them. The reason is simple: unlike the NA, the CTP is concerned with de-
veloping linguistic knowledge/ability that can be used for academic pur-
poses rather than developing pragmatic knowledge/ability that can be used
for social interaction.

7.1.2. Theory of Language Learning

Both the NA and the CTP share a well-articulated theory of language learn-
ing partially supported by research in L2 development. They both believe
that L2 grammar construction can take place incidentally, that is, even
when the learners’ conscious attention is not brought to bear on the gram-
matical system. There is, however, a subtle difference in their approach to
language learning. The NA treats L2 grammar construction as largely inci-
dental. That is, it does not rule out a restricted role for explicit focus on
grammar as part of an institutionalized language learning/teaching pro-
gram or as part of homework given to the learner. The CTP, however, treats
L2 grammar construction as exclusively incidental. That is, it rules out any
role for explicit focus on grammar even in formal contexts. In spite of this
difference, as we shall see, there are more similarities than differences be-
tween the two in terms of their theoretical principles and classroom proce-
dures.
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS 137

The language learning theory of learning-centered pedagogy rests on

the following four basic premises:

1. Language development is incidental, not intentional.

2. Language development is meaning focused, not form focused.
3. Language development is comprehension based, not production
based.
4. Language development is cyclical and parallel, not sequential and ad-
ditive.

I briefly discuss each of these premises below, highlighting the extent to

which the NA and the CTP converge or diverge.
Language development is incidental, not intentional. In the context of L2 de-
velopment, the process of incidental learning involves the picking up of
words and structures, “simply by engaging in a variety of communicative ac-
tivities, in particular reading and listening activities, during which the
learner’s attention is focused on the meaning rather than on the form of
language” (Hulstijin, 2003, p. 349). The incidental nature of language de-
velopment has long been a subject of interest to scholars. As early as in the
17th century, philosopher Locke (1693) anticipated the basic principles of
learning-centered methods when he said:

learning how to speak a language . . . is an intuitive process for which human

beings have a natural capacity that can be awakened provided only that the
proper conditions exist. Put simply, there are three such conditions: someone
to talk to, something to talk about, and a desire to understand and make your-
self understood. (cited in Howatt, 1984, p. 192)

Much later, Palmer (1921) argued that (a) in learning a second language,
we learn without knowing that we are learning; and (b) the utilization of
the adult learner’s conscious attention on language militates against the
proper functioning of the natural capacities of language development.
Krashen has put forth similar arguments in three of his hypotheses that
form part of his Monitor Model of second-language acquisition. His input
hypothesis states “humans acquire language in only one way—by under-
standing messages, or by receiving comprehensible input. . . . If input is un-
derstood, and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically
provided” (Krashen, 1985, p. 2). His acquisition/learning hypothesis states
that adults have two distinct and independent ways of developing L2 knowl-
edge/ability. One way is acquisition, a process similar, if not identical, to the
way children develop their knowledge/ability in the first language. It is a
subconscious process. Acquisition, therefore, is “picking-up” a language in-
cidentally. Another way is learning. It refers to conscious knowledge of an
138 CHAPTER 7

L2, knowing the rules, being aware of them, and being able to talk about
them. Learning, therefore, is developing language knowledge/ability in-
tentionally. His monitor hypothesis posits that acquisition and learning are
used in very specific ways. Acquisition “initiates” our utterances in L2 and is
responsible for our fluency. Learning comes into play only to make changes
in the form of our utterance, after it has been “produced” by the acquired
system. Together, the three hypotheses claim that incidental learning is
what counts in the development of L2 knowledge/ability. It must, however,
be noted that Krashen does not completely rule out intentional learning
which, he believes, may play a marginal role.
Unlike Krashen, Prabhu claims that language development is exclusively
incidental. He dismisses any explicit teaching of descriptive grammar to
learners, not even for monitor use as advocated by Krashen. He rightly
points out that the sequence and the substance of grammar that is exposed
to the learners through systematic instruction may not be the same as the
learners’ mental representation of it. He, therefore, sees no reason why any
structure or vocabulary has to be consciously presented by the teacher or
practiced by the learner. The CTP operates under the assumption that

while the conscious mind is working out some of the meaning-content, a sub-
conscious part of the mind perceives, abstracts, or acquires (or recreates, as a
cognitive structure) some of the linguistic structuring embodied in those enti-
ties, as a step in the development of an internal system of rules. (Prabhu,
1987, pp. 69–70)

The extent to which learning-centered pedagogists emphasize inciden-

tal learning is only partially supported by research on L2 learning and
teaching. As discussed in chapter 2 and chapter 3, research makes it amply
clear that learners need to pay conscious attention to, and notice the lin-
guistic properties of, the language as well. It has been argued that there can
be no L2 learning without attention and noticing although it is possible
that learners may learn one thing when their primary objective is to do
something else (Schmidt, 1993). As Hulstjin (2003) concluded in a recent
review,

on the one hand, both incidental and intentional learning require some at-
tention and noticing. On the other hand, however, attention is deliberately
directed to committing new information to memory in the case of intentional
learning, whereas the involvement of attention is not deliberately geared to-
ward an articulated learning goal in the case of incidental learning. (p. 361)

Language development is meaning focused, not form focused. Closely linked to

the principle of incidental learning is the emphasis placed by learning-
centered methods on meaning-focused activities. This principle, which is in
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS 139

fact the cornerstone of learning-centered methods, holds that L2 develop-

ment is not a matter of accumulation and assimilation of phonological, syn-
tactic and semantic features of the target language, but a matter of under-
standing the language input “where ‘understand’ means that the acquirer
is focused on the meaning and not the form of the message” (Krashen,
1982, p. 21). Learning-centered pedagogists point out the futility of focus-
ing on form by arguing that

the internal system developed by successful learners is far more complex than
any grammar yet constructed by a linguist, and it is, therefore, unreasonable
to suppose that any language learner can acquire a deployable internal system
by consciously understanding and assimilating the rules in a linguist’s gram-
mar, not to mention those in a pedagogic grammar which represent a simpli-
fication of the linguist’s grammars and consequently can only be still further
removed from the internally developed system. (Prabhu, 1987, p. 72)

These statements clearly echo an earlier argument by Newmark (1966) that

“the study of grammar as such is neither necessary nor sufficient for learn-
ing to use a language” (p. 77).
The emphasis on an exclusively meaning-focused activity ignores the
crucial role played by language awareness (see section 2.3.5 on knowledge
factors) and several other intake factors and intake processes in L2 develop-
ment. What is more, it even ignores the active role played by learners them-
selves in their own learning effort (see section 2.3.3 on tactical factors).
Even if the textbook writer or the classroom teacher provides modified in-
put that makes meaning salient, it is up to the learner to recognize or not to
recognize it as such. As Snow (1987) perceptively observed, what learners
have in mind when they are asked to do meaning-focused activities is more
important than what is in the mind of the teacher. She goes on to argue,
“learners might be doing a good deal of private, intra-cerebral work to
make sense of, analyze, and remember the input, thus in fact imposing con-
siderable intentional learning on a context that from the outside looks as if
it might generate mostly incidental learning” (p. 4).
Snow’s observations are quite revealing because, during the course of
the CTP project, Prabhu (1987) had seen that

individual learners became suddenly preoccupied, for a moment, with some

piece of language, in ways apparently unrelated to any immediate demands of
the on-going activity in the classroom. . . . It is possible to speculate whether
such moments of involuntary language awareness might be symptoms (or
“surfacings”) of some internal process of learning, representing, for instance,
a conflict in the emerging internal system leading to system revision. (p. 76)

What Prabhu describes may perhaps be seen as one indication of learners

doing the kind of private, intracerebral work to which Snow alerted us.
140 CHAPTER 7

Prabhu (1987) counters such learner behavior by arguing that “if the in-
stances of involuntary awareness are symptoms of some learning process,
any attempt to increase or influence them directly would be effort misdi-
rected to symptoms, rather than to causes” (p. 77). This argument, of
course, assumes that any “involuntary language awareness” on the part of
the learner is only a symptom and not a cause. Our current state of knowl-
edge is too inadequate to support or reject this assumption.
Language development is comprehension based, not production based. It makes
sense empirically as well as intuitively to emphasize comprehension over
production at least in the initial stages of L2 development. Comprehen-
sion, according to several scholars (see Krashen, 1982; Winitz, 1981, for ear-
lier reports; Gass, 1997; van Patten, 1996, for later reviews), has cognitive,
affective, and communicative advantages. Cognitively, they point out, it is
better to concentrate on one skill at a time. Affectively, a major handicap
for some learners is that speaking in public, using their still-developing L2,
embarrasses or frightens them; they should therefore have to speak only
when they feel ready to do so. Communicatively, listening is inherently in-
teractive in that the listeners try to work out a message from what they hear;
speaking can be, at least in the initial stages, no more than parrotlike repeti-
tions or manipulations of a cluster of phonological features.
Learning-centered pedagogists believe that comprehension helps learn-
ers firm up abstract linguistic structures needed for the establishment of
mental representations of the L2 system (see Section 2.4 on intake proc-
esses). Prabhu (1987, pp. 78–80), lists four factors to explain the impor-
tance of comprehension over production in L2 development:

! Unlike production, which involves public display of language causing a

sense of insecurity or anxiety in the learner, comprehension involves
only a safe, private activity;
! unlike production, which involves creating and supporting new lan-
guage samples on the part of the learner, comprehension involves lan-
guage features that are already present in the input addressed to the
learner;
! unlike production, which demands some degree of verbal accuracy
and communicative appropriacy, comprehension allows the learner to
be imprecise, leaving future occasions to make greater precision possi-
ble;
! unlike production, over which the learner may not have full control,
comprehension is controlled by the learner and is readily adjustable.

Prabhu also points out that learners can draw on extralinguistic resources,
such as knowledge of the world and contextual expectations, in order to
comprehend.
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS 141

Learning-centered pedagogists also believe that once comprehension is

achieved, the knowledge/ability to speak or write fluently will automatically
emerge. In accordance with this belief, they allow production to emerge
gradually in several stages. These stages typically consist of (a) response by
nonverbal communication; (b) response with single words such as yes, no,
there, OK, you, me, house, run, and come; (c) combinations of two or three
words such as paper on table, me no go, where book, and don’t go; (d) phrases
such as I want to stay, where you going, boy running; (e) sentences; and finally
(f) more complex discourse (Krashen &Terrell, 1983).
Because of their emphasis on comprehension, learning-centered peda-
gogists minimize the importance of learner output. Krashen (1981) goes to
the extent of arguing that, in the context of subconscious language acquisi-
tion, “theoretically, speaking and writing are not essential to acquisition.
One can acquire ‘competence’ in a second language, or a first language,
without ever producing it” (pp. 107–108). In the context of conscious lan-
guage learning, he believes that “output can play a fairly direct role . . . al-
though even here it is not necessary” (1982, p. 61). He has further pointed
out that learner production “is too scarce to make a real contribution to lin-
guistic competence” (Krashen, 1998, p. 180). The emphasis learning-cen-
tered methods place on comprehension, however, ignores the role of
learner output in L2 development. We learned from Swain’s comprehensi-
ble output hypothesis and Schmidt’s auto-input hypothesis that learner
production, however meager it is, is an important link in the input–in-
take–output chain (see chap. 2 and chap. 3, this volume).
Language development is cyclical and parallel, not sequential and additive.
Learning-centered pedagogists believe that the development of L2 knowl-
edge/ability is not a linear, discrete, additive process but a cyclical, holistic
process consisting of several transitional and parallel systems—a view that
is, as we discussed in chapter 2, quite consistent with recent research in
SLA. Accordingly, they reject the notion of linearity and systematicity as
used in the language- and learner-centered pedagogies. According to them
linearity and systematicity involve two false assumptions: “an assumption
of isomorphism between the descriptive grammar used and the internal
system, and an assumption of correspondence between the grammatical
progression used in the teaching and the developmental sequence of the
internal system” (Prabhu, 1987, p. 73). These assumptions require, as
Widdowson (1990) observed, reliable information “about cognitive devel-
opment at different stages of maturation, about the conditions, psychologi-
cal and social, which attend the emergence in the mind of general prob-
lem-solving capabilities” (p. 147). Such information is not yet available.
In fact, the natural-order hypothesis proposed by Krashen as part of his
Monitor Model states that the acquisition of grammatical structures pro-
ceeds in a predictable order. Based on this claim, Krashen originally advo-
142 CHAPTER 7

cated adherence to what he called natural order sequence, but has softened
his position saying that the natural order hypothesis “does not state that ev-
ery acquirer will acquire grammatical structures in the exact same order”
(Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 28). Learners may tend to develop certain
structures early and certain other structures late. In other words, learner
performance sequence need not be the same as language learning se-
quence, and the learning sequence may not be the same as teaching se-
quence. Therefore, any preplanned progression of instructional sequence
is bound to be counterproductive. In this respect, learning-centered peda-
gogists share the view expressed earlier by Newmark and Reibel (1968): “an
adult can effectively be taught by grammatically unordered materials” and
that such an approach is, indeed, “the only learning process which we know
for certain will produce mastery of the language at a native level” (p. 153).

7.1.3. Theory of Language Teaching

In accordance with their theory of L2 development, learning-centered

pedagogists assert that “language is best taught when it is being used to
transmit messages, not when it is explicitly taught for conscious learning”
(Krashen & Terrell, 1983, p. 55). Accordingly, their pedagogic agenda cen-
ters around what the teacher can do in order to keep the learners’ atten-
tion on informational content rather than on the linguistic form. Their the-
ory of language teaching is predominantly teacher-fronted, and therefore
best characterized in terms of teacher activity in the classroom:

1. The teacher follows meaning-focused activities.

2. The teacher provides comprehensible input.
3. The teacher integrates language skills.
4. The teacher makes incidental correction.

Let us briefly outline each of the four.

The teacher follows meaning-focused activities. In keeping with the principle
of incidental learning, learning-centered pedagogy advocates meaning-
focused activities where the learner’s attention is focused on communica-
tive activities and problem-solving tasks, and not on grammatical exer-
cises. Instruction is seen as an instrument to promote the learner’s ability
to understand and say something. Interaction is seen as a meaning-focused
activity directed by the teacher. Language use is contingent upon task
completion and the meaning exchange required for such a purpose. Any
attention to language forms as such is necessarily incidental to communi-
cation. In the absence of any explicit focus on grammar, vocabulary gains
importance because with more vocabulary, there will be more compre-
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS 143

hension and with more comprehension, there will be, hopefully, more
language development.
The teacher provides comprehensible input. In order to carry out meaning-
focused activities, it is the responsibility of the teacher to provide compre-
hensible input that, according to Krashen, is i + 1 where i represents the
learner’s current level of knowledge/ability and i + 1, the next higher level.
Because it is the stated goal of instruction to provide comprehensible input,
and move the learner along a developmental path, “all the teacher need to
do is make sure the students understand what is being said or what they are
reading. When this happens, when the input is understood, if there is
enough of input, i + 1 will usually be covered automatically” (Krashen &
Terrell, 1983, p. 33). Prabhu uses the term, reasonable challenge, to refer to a
similar concept. In order then to provide reasonably challenging compre-
hensible input, the teacher has to exercise language control, which is done
not in any systematic way, but naturally, incidentally by regulating the cog-
nitive and communicative complexity of activities and tasks. Regulation of
reasonable challenge should then be based on ongoing feedback. Being
the primary provider of comprehensible input, the teacher determines the
topic, the task, and the challenge level.
The teacher integrates language skills. The principle of comprehension-
before-production assumes that, at least at the initial level of L2 develop-
ment, the focus is mainly on listening and reading. Therefore, learning-
centered pedagogists do not believe in teaching language skills—listening,
speaking, reading and writing—either in isolation or in strict sequence, as
advocated by language-centered pedagogists. The teacher is expected to in-
tegrate language skills wherever possible. In fact, the communicative activi-
ties and problem-solving tasks create a condition where the learners have to
draw, not just from language skills, but from other forms of language use,
including gestures and mimes.
The teacher makes incidental correction. The learning-centered pedagogy is
designed to encourage initial speech production in single words or short
phrases thereby minimizing learner errors. The learners will not be forced
to communicate before they are able, ready, and willing. However, they are
bound to make errors particularly because of the conditions that are cre-
ated for them to use their limited linguistic repertoire. In such a case, the
learning-centered pedagogy attempts to avoid overt error correction. Any
correction that takes place should be incidental and not systematic. Accord-
ing to Prabhu (1987, pp. 62–63), incidental correction, in contrast to sys-
tematic correction, is (a) confined to particular tokens (i.e. the error itself
is corrected, but there is no generalization to the type of error it repre-
sents); (b) only responsive (i.e., not leading to any preventive or preemp-
tive action); (c) facilitative (i.e. regarded by learners as a part of getting ob-
jective and not being more important than other aspects of the activity);
LEARNING-CENTERED METHODS 157

! how to design relevant summative and formative evaluation measures

that could reflect the learning-centered pedagogy, not only in terms of
the content of teaching but also in terms of the process of learning;
! how to determine the kind of demand the new pedagogy makes on
teachers in order to design appropriate teacher education measures.

Until some of these problems are satisfactorily addressed, any learning-

centered method will remain “largely a matter of coping with the unknown
. . .” (Prabhu, 1985, p. 173).

7.4. CONCLUSION

In this chapter, I attempted to define and describe the theoretical princi-

ples and classroom procedures associated with learning-centered pedagogy
with particular reference to the Natural Approach and the Communi-
cational Teaching Project. The discussion has shown how some of the
methodological aspects of learning-centered pedagogy are innovative and
how certain aspects of its classroom implementation bore close resem-
blance to the pedagogic orientation that it seeks to replace. Finally, the
chapter has highlighted several issues that learning-centered pedagogists
leave unanswered.
This chapter concludes Part Two, in which I have correlated some of the
fundamental features of language, language learning, and teaching identi-
fied in Part One. As we journeyed through the historical developmental
phases of language-teaching methods, it has become apparent that each of
the methods tried to address some of the perceived shortcomings of the
previous one. It is worthwhile to recall, once again, Mackey’s distinction be-
tween method analysis and teaching analysis. What Part Two has focused on
is method analysis. What practicing teachers actually do in class may not
correspond to the analysis and description presented in Part Two.
It is common knowledge that practicing teachers, faced with unpredict-
able learning/teaching needs, wants, and situations, have always taken lib-
erty with the pedagogic formulations prescribed by theorists of language-
teaching methods. In committing such “transgressions,” they have always at-
tempted, using their robust common sense and rough-weather experience,
to draw insights from several sources and put together highly personalized
teaching strategies that go well beyond the concept of method as conceived
and constructed by theorists. In the final part of this book, I discuss the limi-
tations of the concept of method, and highlight some of the attempts that
have been made so far to transcend those limitations.