TESOL QUARTERLY

Vol. 16, No. 2

June 1982

Method: Approach, Design, and Procedure

Jack C. Richards and Ted Rodgers

This paper presents a framework for the systematic description and

comparison of methods. The proliferation of new methods in recent
years suggests the need for such a model. A method is defined in terms
of three levels: approach, design, and procedure. Approach is a theory
of language and of language learning. Design is a definition of linguistic
content, a specification for the selection and organization of content,
and a description of the role of teacher, learner, and teaching materials.
Procedure is concerned with techniques and practices in a method. The
model is discussed with reference to recent proposals in methodology,
and the application of the model is demonstrated.

A comparison of the state of the art in language teaching today with

the field as it was some twenty years ago reveals some interesting differ-
ences. In the fifties and sixties language teaching represented a reasonably
unified body of theory and practice. It was clearly linked in its theoretical
foundations to linguistics and psychology, particularly as these disciplines
were represented in North America. The methodology of language teach-
ing was identified with the orthodoxy of audiolingualism. Language teach-
ers in the eighties, however, have a considerable array of theories and
methods to choose from. Contemporary language teaching draws on a
number of areas which were unknown or unconsulted by the linguists
and psychologists of the fifties and sixties. These include (following
Candlin 1976) studies in textual cohesion, language functions, speech act
theory, sociolinguistic variation, presuppositional semantics, interaction
analysis, ethnomethodology and face to face analysis, ethnography of
speaking, process analysis, and discourse analysis. Methodologies unheard
of in the sixties are now familiar, at least by name: Silent Way, Total
Physical Response, Communicative Language Teaching, Counseling Learn-
ing, Suggestopedia.
The practitioner is thus confronted with a somewhat bewildering set
of options at the levels of both theory and practice. One conclusion might
be that the field of language teaching has moved away from a generally

* This is a jointly revised version of a plenary address given by Jack Richards at

the Japan Association of Language Teachers’ Convention in Nagoya, Japan in November
1980.
Mr. Richards is Professor of ESL at the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Mr. Rodgers is Professor of Psycholinguistics with the Curriculum Research and
Development Group, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Both authors have published ex-
tensively.
153
154 TESOL Quarterly

accepted body of principles as a basis for the organization of language

teaching. It is our belief, however, that current practices need not be seen
as random or radical departures from the mainstream of applied linguistic
thought and practice. Today’s innovations in teaching practice represent
variations on familiar themes, rather than radical departures or totally
new practices. Given this point of view, we wish to outline a model for
the systematic description and comparison of language teaching methods
in the hope that such a model may make it easier to understand recent
developments in methodology in terms of some general principles.
As a point of departure we use a three-part distinction made some
twenty years ago by Edward Anthony when he proposed an analysis of lan-
guage teaching practices using the terms approach, method, and technique
(Anthony 1963). But since we prefer method as an umbrella term for the
specification and interrelation of theory and practice, we find it convenient
to modify Anthony’s terminology for the present purpose and speak of
approach, design, and procedure.
These terms will be used to label three interrelated elements of or-
ganization upon which language teaching practices are founded. The first
level, approach, defines those assumptions, beliefs, and theories about the
nature of language and the nature of language learning which operate as
axiomatic constructs or reference points and provide a theoretical founda-
tion for what language teachers ultimately do with learners in classrooms.
The second level in the system, design, specifies the relationship of theories
of language and learning to both the form and function of instructional
materials and activities in instructional settings. The third level, procedure,
comprises the classroom techniques and practices which are consequences
of particular approaches and designs.
These three levels of organization form an interdependent system.
When faced with a plethora of new language teaching proposals, by focus-
ing on the relationships between the levels of approach, design, and pro-
cedure, we can better understand the ways in which one method resembles
or differs from another and hence more readily describe and evaluate the
claims of different methods. We begin by defining the relevant elements
of a teaching-learning system that form the basis for the description and
comparison of methods. The system is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
We do not wish to imply that the ideal methodological development
proceeds, rather neatly, from approach, to design, to procedure. It is not
clear whether such a developmental formula is possible, and it certainly
does not describe the typical case. Methodologies can develop out of any
of the three categories (in our diagram, clockwise, counterclockwise, or
both). One can, for example, stumble on or invent a teaching procedure
that appears to be successful on some measure and then later develop
(counterclockwise) a design and a theoretical approach which explain or
justify the given procedures. Several currently popular methods appear,
 Approach, Design, Procedure 155

FIGURE 1

in fact, to have been developed from procedure to approach (see, for

example, Scovel’s 1979 review of Suggestopedia).
1. Approach
Approach encompasses both theories of language and language learn-
ing. All language teaching methods operate explicitly from a theory of
language and beliefs or theories about how language is learned. Theories
at the level of approach relate directly to the level of design since they
provide the basis for determining the goals and content of a language
syllabus. They also relate to the level of procedure since they provide the
linguistic and psycholinguistic rationale for selection of particular teaching
techniques and activities.
At least three different theoretical views of language explicitly or im-
plicitly underlie currently popular language teaching methods. The first,
and the most traditional of the three, is the structural view, the view that
language is a system of structurally related elements for the coding of
meaning. The target of language learning is seen to be the acquisition of
the elements of this system, which are generally defined in terms of gram-
matical units (clause, phrase, sentence) and grammatical operations (add-
ing, shifting, joining elements). The second view of language is the func-
tional view—the view that language is a vehicle for the expression of
meaning. This approach emphasizes the semantic rather than the gram-
matical potential of language and leads to a specification and organiza-
tion of language teaching content by categories of function rather than
156 TESOL Quarterly

by categories of form. A third view of language which informs some cur-

rent methods of language teaching might be called the interfactional view.
It sees language as a vehicle for the realization of interpersonal relations
and for the performance of social transactions between individuals. Areas
of language inquiry which are being drawn on in the development of inter-
factional language teaching include studies in interaction analysis, dis-
course analysis, ethnomethodology, and second language acquisition. Inter-
factional theories focus on the patterns of moves, acts, and exchanges in
communication. Language teaching content, according to this view, may
be specified and organized by patterns of exchange or may be left un-
specified—to be shaped by the inclination of the learners as interactors.
Structural, functional, or interfactional models of language (or varia-
tions on them) provide the axioms and theoretical framework of support
underlying particular methods of language teaching. But in themselves
they are incomplete and need to be complemented by theories of language
learning. There often appear to be natural affinities between certain
theories of language and theories of language learning; however, one can
imagine different pairings of language theory to learning theory which
might have worked as well as those we observe. The linking of structural-
ism (a linguistic theory) to behaviorism (a learning theory) produced
audiolingualism. That particular link was not inevitable, however. Cog-
nitive-code proponents, for example, have attempted to link structuralism
to a more mentalistic and less behavioristic brand of learning theory.
Halliday (1975) has developed a theory of language focusing on
“meaning potential,” and he has proposed an account of how the capacity
to use and understand the meaning potential of language develops in chil-
dren. We can imagine a parallel account which describes the develop-
mental stages by which meaning potential and communicative fluency are
acquired by adult learners of a second language. Such an account would
represent a learning model which might be paired with a notional/func-
tional view of language.
Studies relevant to interfactional models of learning are fewer and less
developed than those relevant to interfactional models of language. How-
ever some proto-theories of interactive language learning are available,
and others are imaginable. Weeks (1979) offers evidence of what we might
call a compulsion to converse (our term) which she feels directs the course
of language acquisition of young children. Curran (1972, 1976) speaks of
a relationship of redemptive convalidation which exists between knower
and learner. It is a state of interdependence which enables them to reach
self-fulfillment. Human beings seek such redemptive convalidation, and
Curran’s Counseling Learning identifies this as the driving force of lan-
guage learning. Compulsion to converse or redemptive convalidation pre-
sent proto-theories of interactive language learning which ultimately might
support a theory of interactive linguistic organization as discussed above.
 Approach, Design, Procedure 157

At the level of approach, we examine the theoretical principles underlying par-

ticular methods. With respect to language theory, we are concerned with a
model of linguistic competence and an account of the basic features of linguistic
organization. With respect to learning theory, we are concerned with am account
of the central processes of language learning ( e.g., memorization, inference,
habit learning) and an account of the variables believed to promote successful
language learning (e.g., frequency of stimulus, motivation, age, meaningfulness,
type of learning, task, communality, activity).
2. Design
We now consider how the views of language and learning identified
in a particular approach are linked to a design for language teaching.
Such a design includes specifications of 1) the content of instruction, i.e.,
the syllabus, 2) learner roles in the system, 3) teacher roles in the sys-
tem, 4) instructional materials types and functions.1 Different approaches
to language teaching manifest themselves in different design elements in
language teaching systems. Let us consider these elements, their relation-
ship, and the outputs they determine.
2.1. Content Choice and Organization Within the Instructional System:
The Syllabus. All methods of language teaching involve the use of the
target language. All methods involve decisions concerning the selection of
content that is to be used within the teaching program. Content concerns
involve both subject matter and linguistic matter. In straightforward terms
one makes decisions as to what to talk about (subject matter) and how to
talk about it (linguistic matter). ESP and immersion courses, for example,
are necessarily subject-matter focused. Structurally-based courses are
necessarily linguistically focused. Methods typically differ in what they
see as the relevant language and subject matter around which language
instruction should be organized and in the principles they make use of in
structuring and sequencing content units within a course. These involve
issues of selection and gradation that ultimately shape the syllabus
adopted in a language course, as well as the instructional materials.
Within a design built on a structural theory of language, linguistic
matter is identified with lexis and grammar, and the syllabus is an arrange-
ment of linguistic units determined by such criteria as learnability, fre-
quency of use, linguistic complexity, etc. Within a design built on a func-
tional theory of language, linguistic content is organized conceptually. An
explicit notional syllabus, for example, would contain a specification of the
propositional, conceptual, and communicative content of a language course,
a selection of the linguistic means by which these are realized, and an
organization of the product of such an analysis in terms of pedagogic
priorities. Designs built on interfactional theories of language and of lan-
1 We acknowledge that some methods lack both teachers and teaching materials.
A more general model of design would comprise: 1 ) knowledge considerations ( con-
tent ), 2 ) learner considerations, and 3 ) instructional considerations ( presentation ).
However, since most current methods assume the existence of teachers and teaching
materials, these are specified in the present model.
158 TESOL Quarterly

guage learning ostensibly use affective and interactive goals as organizing

principles for the selection and structuring of content. The progression
within the course might be rationalized in terms of developing patterns
of relationships between teachers and learners. An alternative solution for
developing a syllabus within an interfactional approach is illustrated by
Community Language Learning ( CLL ). The emphasis in CLL is on
having learners enter into a creative affiliation with other students and the
teacher. To this end, CLL offers neither linguistic nor subject matter
specification. Learners select content for themselves by choosing topics
which they wish to talk about. These are then translated into the target
language and used as the basis for interaction and second language prac-
tice and development.
Conceptions of syllabus thus range from code-based to relationship-
based. These conceptions lead to different solutions to the question of how
the content of a course or textbook is to be chosen and organized. The
evaluation and testing procedures and teacher training proposals defined
for a particular teaching method may also suggest the syllabus implicit in
a particular method. A useful exercise which we use in teacher training
is to have trainees examine textbooks, course designs, language learner
protocols, and testing instruments in order to reconstruct the rationale for
the selection and organization of content that has been followed. In the
absence of these resources, trainees read what Asher, Curran, Gattegno,
Candlin, and others have written about their own proposals for language
teaching and then attempt to abstract specific principles for the selection
and gradation of language content, that is, the actual criteria for syllabus
design as specified or implied.

With respect to the selection and organization of content, design is thus the
level which is concerned with the general objectives of a method ( e.g., choice
of language skills to be taught), the specific objectives of the method ( e.g.,
target vocabulary or level to be taught in a conversation method), the criteria
for the selection, sequencing, and organization of linguistic and/or subject
matter content (e.g., frequency, learnability, complexity, personal utility),
the form in which that content is presented in the syllabus ( e.g., grammatical
structures, situations, topics, functions, exchanges).

2.2. Use of Content in the Instructional System: Learners, Teachers, and

Materials. The syllabus is the first component of the level of design. The
other components concern the use of the syllabus in the system by the
learners and teachers as they interact with the instructional materials. De-
sign considerations thus deal with assumptions about the content and the
context for teaching and learning—with how learners are expected to learn
in the system and with how teachers are expected to teach with respect
to a particular set of instructional materials organized according to the
criteria of a syllabus.
Language teaching methods differ in the weighting they give to these
 Approach, Design, Procedure 159

variables and in the assumptions they make about them. A notional sylla-
bus, for example, is rightly termed a syllabus and not a method. Discus-
sions of notional syllabuses (e.g., Wilkins 1976) are directed to the or-
ganization of the linguistic content of language teaching. They say nothing
about the roles of learners, teachers, or types of instructional materials.
We might compare this to the Breen and Candlin discussion of com-
municative language teaching, for example, where they have tried to relate
the syllabus to specific roles for learners, teachers, and materials (Breen
and Candlin 1980). We return to this below. Individualized approaches
to language learning have also redefined the roles of learner and teacher.
This has led to a reconsideration of the kinds and uses of instructional
materials and, in turn, to new requirements for specification of linguistic
content, that is, new kinds of syllabuses for use in individualized instruc-
tion.
We will discuss design considerations as they relate to learners, teach-
ers, and materials in the next three sections.
2.2.1. Learner Roles. The majority of the world’s population is bilingual,
and formal classroom teaching has contributed only insignificantly to this
statistic. Thus, it is easy to find successful language learning situations
which formally possess neither syllabus, teachers, nor instructional ma-
terials. It is difficult to imagine a language learning situation without
learners, however. Learners are the sine qua non of language learning.
What roles do learners play in the design of formal instructional systems?
Many of the newer methodologies reflect a rethinking of the learner’s contribu-
tion to the learning process and acknowledgment that the design of an instruc-
tional system will be much influenced by the kinds of assumptions made about
learners. Such assumptions reflect explicit or implicit responses to such issues
as the types of learning tasks set for learners, the degree of control learners
have over the content of learning, the patterns of learner groupings which are
recommended or implied, the degree to which learners influence the learning
of others, the view of the learner as a processor, performer, initiator, problem
solver, etc.
Much of the criticism of audiolingualism came from the recognition of
the very limited options available to learners in audiolingual methodology.
Learners were seen as stimulus-response mechanisms whose learning was
a direct product of repetitive practice. Newer methodologies customarily
exhibit more concern for learner roles and variation among learners. Breen
and Candlin describe the learner’s role within a communicative methodol-
ogy in the following terms. “The role of learner as negotiator-–between
the self, the learning process, and the object of learning—emerges from
and interacts with the role of joint negotiator within the group and within
the classroom procedures and activities which the group undertakes. The
implication for the learner is that he should contribute as much as he
gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent way” (Breen and Candlin
1980:110).
160 TESOL Quarterly

Johnson and Paulston (1976:39-46) spell out learner roles in an indi-

visualized approach to language learning: a) The learner is planner of
his or her own learning program and thus ultimately assumes responsi-
bility for what he or she does in the classroom; b) The learner is monitor
and evaluator of his or her own progress; c) The learner is a member of
a group and learns by interacting with others; d) The learner is a tutor
of other learners; e) The learner learns from the teacher, from other stu-
dents, and from other teaching sources.
Counseling Learning views learners as having roles that change de-
velopmentally; indeed, Curran uses an ontogenetic metaphor to suggest
this development. The developmental process is divided into five stages
extending from total dependency of the learner in Stage 1 to total inde-
pendence in Stage 5. These learner stages Curran sees as parallel to “the
growth of a child from embryo to independent adulthood passing through
childhood and adolescence” ( Curran 1980 ).
2.2.2. Teacher Roles. Clearly linked to the roles defined for the learner
are the roles the teacher is expected to play in the instructional process.
Teacher roles, too, must ultimately be related both to assumptions about
content and, at the level of approach, to particular views of language and
language learning. Some instructional systems are totally dependent on the
teacher as the source of knowledge and direction; others see the teacher’s
role as catalyst, consultant, diagnostician, guide, and model for learning;
still others try to teacher-proof the instructional system by limiting teacher
initiative and building instructional content and direction into texts or
lesson plans. Teacher and learner roles define the type of interaction char-
acteristic of classrooms in which a particular method is being used.
Teacher roles in methods are related to the following issues: the types of
functions teachers are expected to fulfill ( e.g., practice director, counselor,
model ), the degree of control the teacher influences over learning, the degree
to which the teacher is responsible for determining linguistic content, and the
interfactional patterns assumed between teachers and learners.

Typically methods turn most critically on teacher roles and their real-
ization. In the classical audiolingual method the teacher is regarded as the
source of language and learning. The teacher is the conductor of the
orchestra, whose prime goal is to keep the players in tune and time, and
without whom no music could be performed. Less teacher conducted
learning, however, still may have very specific and sometimes more de-
manding roles for the teacher. Such roles often require thorough training
and methodological initiation on the teacher’s part. Only the teacher who
is thoroughly sure of one’s role, and of the concomitant learner’s role, will
risk departure from the security of traditional textbook-oriented learning.
For a functional/communicative method, the roles of the teacher have
been described in the following terms:
 Approach, Design, Procedure 161

The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the
communication process between all participants in the classroom,
and between these participants and the various activities and texts.
The second role is to act as an independent participant within the
learning-teaching group. The latter role is closely related to the
objectives of the first role and arises from it. These roles impIy 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. . . . A third role for the teacher is that of
researcher and learner, with much to contribute in terms of appro-
priate knowledge and abilities, actual and observed experience of
the nature of learning, and organizational capacities.
(Breen and Candlin 1980:99)

Similarly, individualized approaches to learning define roles for the

teacher which create specific patterns of interaction between the teachers
and the learners in the classroom. These are designed to gradually shift
responsibility for learning from the teacher to the learner (Johnson and
Paulston 1976).
CLL sees the teacher (knower) role as that of psychological counselor
—the effectiveness of the teacher role being a measure of counseling skills
and attributes: warmth, acceptance, and sensitivity. As these examples
suggest, the potential role relationships of learner and teacher are many
and varied. These include asymmetrical relationships such as those of con-
ductor to orchestra member, therapist to patient, and coach to player.
Some contemporary methodologies have sought to establish more symmet-
rical kinds of learner/teacher relationships: friend to friend, colleague to
colleague, teammate to teammate, etc.
2.2.3. Role of Instructional Materials. The fourth design component is
concerned with the role of instructional materials within the instructional
system. What is specified with respect to content (the syllabus) and with
respect to learner and teacher roles suggests the functions for materials
within the system. The syllabus defines linguistic content in terms of lan-
guage elements: structures, topics, notions, functions, exchanges, or what-
ever. It also specifies the selection and ordering of particular language
items to be taught which represent the elements. Finally, it defines the
goals for language learning. The instructional materials, in their turn,
specify subject matter content (even where the syllabus may not). They
also define or suggest the intensity of coverage for particular syllabus
items: how much time, attention, and detail are devoted to specific lan-
guage items. Finally, instructional materials define (or imply) the day-to-
day learning objectives which (should) collectively constitute the goals
of the syllabus. Materials designed on the assumption that learning is
initiated and monitored by the teacher must meet quite different require-
162 TESOL Quarterly

ments from those materials designed for student self-instruction or for

peer tutoring. Some methods require the instructional use of existing ma-
terials, found materials, and realia. Some assume teacher-proof materials
that even poorly trained teachers with imperfect control of the target lan-
guage can teach from. Some materials require specially trained teachers
with near-native competence in the target language. Some are designed
to enable learning to take place independently; that is, the materials are
designed to replace the teacher. Some materials dictate various inter-
factional patterns in the classroom; others inhibit classroom interaction;
still others are noncommittal as regards interaction between teacher and
learner or learner and learner.
The role of instructional materials within an instructional system will reflect
decisions concerning the primary goal of materials ( e.g., to present content, to
practice content, to facilitate communication between learners, to enable the
learners to practice content without the teacher, etc.), the form of materials
(e.g., textbook, audiovisual, computer display, etc.), the relation materials hold
to other sources of input ( i.e., whether they serve as the major source of input,
or only as a minor component of input), and the abilities of the teacher (e.g.,
competence in the language, degree of training, etc.).
A particular design for an instructional system may imply a particular
set of roles for instructional materials in support of the syllabus and the
teachers and learners. For example, the role of instructional materials
within a functional/communicative methodology might be specified in
terms such as the following:
1. The materials will facilitate the communicative abilities of interpre-
tation, expression, and negotiation.
2. Materials will focus on understandable and relevant communication
rather than on grammatical form.
3. Materials will command the learners’ interests and involve their in-
telligence and creativity.
4. Materials will involve different types of text, and different media,
which the participants can use to develop their competence through
a variety of different activities and tasks.
By comparison, the role of instructional materials within an individual-
ized instructional system might include such specifications as these:
1. Materials will allow learners to progress at their own rates of learn-
ing.
2. Materials will cater for different styles of learning.
3. Materials will provide opportunities for independent study and use.
4. Materials will provide for student self-evaluation and progress in
learning.
The content of CLL is assumed to be a product of the interests of the
learners. In that sense it would appear that no linguistic content or ma-
 Approach, Design, Procedure 163

terials are specified within the method. On the other hand, CLL acknowl-
edges the need for learner mastery of certain linguistic mechanics such as
the learning of vocabulary, appropriate pronunciation, and grammatical
rules. CLL sees these issues as failing outside the teacher/knower’s central
role as counselor. Thus, CLL has proposed the use of teaching machines
and other learning apparatus to support the learning of such mechanics
so as to free the teacher to function increasingly as a learning counselor.

3. Procedure
The last level of conceptualization and organization within an instruc-
tional system is what we refer to as procedure. Here the focus is on the
actual moment-to-moment techniques, practices, and activities that operate
in teaching and learning a language according to a particular method.
Many contemporary methods are characterized primarily by their
techniques and practices. When we ask for impressions of these methods,
we customarily get responses dealing with procedure rather than with
approach or design. Free association to Silent Way elicits descriptions like
“manipulating colored rods;” to Total Physical Response, “jumping up and
down;” to Suggestopedia, “lying in a chaise lounge listening to soothing
music;” to Counseling Learning, “sitting in a conversation circle,” and so
forth. All of these responses deal with the procedural element of particular
methods.
Differences in approach and design are likely to manifest themselves
at the level of procedure in different types of activities and exercise in
materials and in the classroom and in different uses for particular exercise
types. Types of exercises include drill, dialogue, dictation, cloze sentence
completion, ( guided, semi-guided, and free ) composition and conversation,
role-play games, simulation, etc. For a particular exercise type, procedure
includes a specification of context of use and a description of precisely
what is expected in terms of execution and outcome for each exercise type.
For example, interactive games are often used in audiolingual method-
ology for motivation and change of pace from pattern practice drills. In
contemporary communicative methodology, the same games may be used
to introduce or provide practice for particular types of interaction ex-
changes,
Within a particular version of a functional/communicative methodol-
ogy, the following requirements have been specified for exercise type and
use. Exercises must be interactive, authentic, purposive, and contextual-
ized (cf. Palmer and Rodgers, In press.). Thus the materials make use of
dialogues as one exercise type, but within these the learner has to provide
the content. The learner has to make decisions based on minimal clues
rather than memorize prepackaged language since it is argued that pur-
poseful communication involves encoding meaning.
Another example of practices recommended within a particular method
164 TESOL Quarterly

is seen in the types of drills proposed in the individualized instructional

system advocated by Johnson and Paulston. Drills are permitted only if
they pass a test of “responsiveness.”
Practice is most effective when it is conducted in a responsive en-
vironment in which what is said by one learner matters to another
or other learners, because they may in turn have to respond to
what is said. . . . The most useful type of practice for developing
communication skill is for the learner to say something and then
have another learner respond entirely on the basis of what was said.
It is apparent that in terms of responsiveness, the forms for practice
easiest to provide in the classroom will be the request form and the
question and answer form. A measure of effectiveness of practice
will be the degree of responsiveness that a set of materials can in-
corporate into the practice of a sentence pattern (Johnson and
Paulston 1976:31).
Procedure, then, is concerned with issues such as the following: the types
of teaching and learning techniques, the types of exercises and practice activities,
the resources—time, space, equipment—required to implement recommended
practices.
We have now completed our discussion of the three elements and
subelements which in their specification and interrelation constitute a
statement of method. These elements and subelements are summarized in
Figure 2. We conclude by suggesting several types of applications to which
we think the model can usefully be put.

4. Applications
The model just discussed represents an attempt to provide a frame-
work which can be used to describe, evaluate, and compare methods in
language teaching. It attempts to define elements which are common to
all methods and to highlight alternative realizations of these for particular
methods. It is hoped that the model permits localization of points of
similarity and difference between methods as well as identification of areas
wherein particular methods may not have been defined with sufficient pre-
cision or detail. We can see that communicative language teaching, for
example, was described initially at the level of approach (see Wilkins
1976, Breen and Candlin 1980) and has only recently been more fully
elaborated at the levels of design (see Munby 1978) and procedure (Little-
wood 1980, Johnson 1982).
We can overlay the grid (Figure 2) on a particular methodological
statement to determine the degree of specificity and adequacy with which
the method has been described. As an example, let us briefly consider
Asher’s Total Physical Response using this overlay technique. The method
statement examined is that of Asher (1977).
FIGURE 2
166 TESOL Quarterly

4.1. TPR at the Approach Level. Asher’s theory of language is implicit

rather than explicit, but it appears to be based on a formalistic structural
model of language focusing primarily on the form rather than the content
of communication. It uses a surface-level concept of a grammatical system
in which language is viewed as a code composed of structural elements
which have to be mastered. Language is viewed as a vehicle for controlling
the behavior of others, as a manipulative instrument.
Asher’s learning theory is one based on the belief that language is
learned through motor activity. In child language learning, “there is an
intimate relationship between language and the child’s body” (p, 4), and
this is the model for adult learning. Orchestrating language production
with bodily movement is thought to promote success in learning, and this
is the key to the method. There is a belief in transfer across skills, and
skills acquired in speaking are thought to transfer to writing and reading.
4.2. TPR at the Design Level. The general objectives of TPR are to teach
the spoken language to beginning level students. Comprehension precedes
production. Specific objectives are not elaborated. Due to the criteria for
selection of language items, common conversational forms are not selected.
The syllabus is sentence-based, primarily lexical and grammatical. Items
are selected according to the ease with which they may be used in the
imperative form to initiate actions, “Most of the grammatical structure of
the target language and hundreds of vocabulary items can be learned
from the skillful use of the imperative by the instructor” (p. 4). Vocabulary
must be concrete and situational, and the verbs selected, action verbs.
The progression of items is from concrete to abstract, and syllabus items
are presented in sentence patterns.
Learners primarily perform actions from commands given by the
teacher. The emphasis is primarily receptive, and the learners have no
control over what is said. At a more advanced level, learners may also give
commands to other students. Learners learn in groups, but pair work is
also possible at later stages. Learners typically learn from the teacher, and
they are viewed as responders.
The teacher is the initiator of activities and communication. The teacher
has considerable freedom of choice over what language is taught, pro-
vided the command-based mode of selection and practice is followed.
Interaction is primarily nonreciprocal. The teacher commands, and stu-
dents react.
Teaching may proceed without materials. Materials play a primarily
supplementary role ( word charts, slides, pictures ) and are teacher-pro-
duced.
4.3. TPR at the Procedure Level. The activities used are primarily com-
mand-based drills. Meaning is communicated via gesture, mime, and dem-
onstration. Written and spoken forms are presented at the same time. Both
 Approach, Design, Procedure 167

individual and group work are used, Errors are allowed and are not cor-
rected initially. Comprehension is emphasized before production.
A fuller description of the Total Physical Response method would take
into account all the elements of the model. The model, however, can also
be used to compare and contrast methods. As an example, let us consider
two methods: Total Physical Response ( TPR ) and Community Language
Learning ( CLL ).
Superficially the two methods seem quite antithetical. Comparing ele-
ments at the level of design, we find TPR typically has a written syllabus
with paced introductions of structures and vocabulary. CLL has no sylla-
bus and operates out of what learners feel they need to know. In TPR, the
teacher role is one of drill master, director, and motivator. In CLL, the
teacher/knower is counselor, supporter, and facilitator. TPR learners are
physically active and mobile, CLL learners are sedentary and in a fixed
configuration. TPR assumes that no particular relationship develops be-
tween learners and emphasizes the importance of individuals acting alone.
CLL is rooted, as its title suggests, in a communal relationship between
learners and teachers acting supportively and in concert. At the level of
procedure, we find that TPR language practice is largely mechanical, with
much emphasis on listening. CLL language practice is innovative, with
emphasis on production.
However, there are elements of commonality which can easily be over-
looked. In approach, both TPR and CLL see stress, defensiveness, and
embarassment as the major blocks to successful language learning. They
both see the learner’s commitment, attention, and participation as group
members as central to overcoming these barriers. They both view the
stages of adult learning as recapitulations of the stages of childhood learn-
ing. Both CLL and TPR consider mediation, memory, and recall of lin-
guistic elements as central issues and see physical activity as a way to
facilitate these—CLL through manipulation of a button-operated, color-
coded language item practice device, TPR through mimetic physical enact-
ment. TPR holds with CLL that learning is multi-modal—that “more
involvement must be provided the student than simply sitting in his seat
and passively listening. He must be somatically or physiologically, as well
as intellectually, engaged” (Curran 1976: 79). At the level of design, neither
TPR nor CLL assumes method-specific materials, but both assume ma-
terials can be locally produced as needed.

V. Conclusions
The view of method outlined here relates theory to practice by focusing
on assumptions and the programs and practices which relate to these as-
sumptions. The model offered represents a claim as to what a descrip-
tively adequate statement of method should comprise. It is also claimed
that the reasonably fine-grained analysis which the present model directs
168 TESOL Quarterly

can help provide insights into the internal adequacy of particular methods,
as well as into the similarities and differences which exist between alter-
native methods.

REFERENCES
Anthony, Edward M. 1963. Approach, method and technique. English Lan-
guage Teaching 17: 63-67.
Asher, James J. 1977. Learning another language through actions: The complete
teacher’s guidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Productions.
Breen, Michael P. and Christopher Candlin. 1980, The essentials of a com-
municative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1, 2:89-112.
Candlin, Christopher. 1976. Communicative language teaching and the debt to
pragmatics. In C. Rameh (Ed,), Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
237-256.
Curran, Charles. A. 1972. Counseling-Learning: A whole-person approach for
education. Apple River: Apple River Press.
Curran, Charles A. 1976. Counseling-Learning in second language. Apple River:
Apple River Press.
Gattegno, Caleb. 1976. The common sense of teaching foreign languages. N e w
York: Educational Solutions.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the develop-
ment of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Johnson, Francis and Christina Bratt Paulston. 1976. Individualizing in the
language classroom. Cambridge: Jacaranda.
Johnson, Keith. 1982. Communicative syllabus design and methodology. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Littlewood, W. 1980. Communicative language teaching. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Munby, John. 1978. Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Palmer, A. and Ted Rodgers. In press. Communicative and instructional con-
siderations in language teaching. Language Learning and Communication.
NY: Wiley.
Scovel, T. 1979. Review of Georgi Lozanov, Suggestology and outlines of sug-
gestopedy. TESOL Quarterly 13, 2:255-266.
Weeks, T. E. 1979. Born to talk. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wilkins, D. 1976. Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.