Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Exdtion, White Plains: Addison Wesley Langman, Ine, _____cuapter 2 A“METHODICAL” HISTORY OF LANGUAGE TEACHING ‘The first step toward developing a principled approach to language teaching will tbe to tum back the clock about a'century in onder to leen from the histor ‘yeles and trends that have brought us tothe present day. After all ii fil ta completely analyze the class session you just observed (Chapter 1) without the backdrop of history: In tis chapter we focus on methous asthe identifying cha. acteristics of a century of ‘modern’ language teaching efforts. What do we mean by the term “method” by which we tend to characterize that history? How do _methods reflect various trends of disciplinary thought? How does current research fon language leaning and teaching help us to distinguish, in our history. between passing fils and the good stuf? ‘These ae some of the questions we will address in this chapter. In the next chapter this historical overview culminates in 4 close look at de ‘current state ofthe atin language teaching. Above all you will come to sce hun ‘our profession is now more aptly characterized by a relatively unified, comprehen sive “approach” rather than by competing, restricted methoxls. That_ gener approach will be described in detail, along with some of the current profesional Fangon associated with it As you read on, you will encounter references to concepts, constructs, sues, and models that are normally covered in a course in second language acquisition, (S14), 1 am assuming that you have already taken or are currently taking such course. If not, may I recommend that you consult my Principles of Language Learning and Teaching, Fourth Edition (2000), or a book lke Mitchell and Myles Second Language Leaning Tbeories (1998) that summarizes current topics And issues in SLA. Throughout chis book 1 will refer here and there to speeied chapters of my Principles book (PLLT) for background review or reading, should you need it. 3“ APPROACH, METHOD, AND TECHNIQUE In the century spanning the mid18H0s to the mid-1980s, the languageteaching pro: {ession was involved in a search, That search was for what was popularly called “meth” oF ideally, a single method, generalizable across widely varying aude ‘ences, that would successfully teach students a foreign language in the classroom. foreal accounts of the profession tend therefore to describe a succession of methods, each of which is more of fess discarded as a new method takes its place We will tun to that“ methodical history of language teaching in 4 moment but firs, 1We should try to understand what we mean by method. What isa method?” About four decades ago Edward Anthony (1963) gave usa definition that has admirably withstood the test of time, His concept of "method vwas the second of three hierarchical elements, namely approach, metho, and tech An approach, according to Anthony, was a set of assumptions dealing with the nature of language, learning, and teaching. Method was described as an overall plan for systematic presentation of language based upon a selected approach, ‘Techniques were the specific activities manifested in the classroom that were con sistent with a method and therefore were in harmony with an approach as well, ‘To this dy for better or worse, Anthony's terms are sill n common use among language teachers. A teacher may for example, atthe approach level. affirm the ult- ‘mate importance of learning in a relaxed state of mental awareness just above the threshold of consciousness, The method that follows might resemble, sy Suggestopedia (2 description follows in this chapter). Techniques could include playing baroque music while reading a passage inthe foreign language, getting st {ents to sit a the yoxa position while lstening to lis of words, of having learners [adopt a new name in the classcoom and roleplay that new person ‘A couple of decades later Jack Richards and Theodore Rodgers (1982, 1986) proposed reformulation of the coneept of “method” Anthony's approach, method, and techaique were renamed, respectively. approach, design, and proce: dure, with a superondinate term to describe this threestep process, now called method.” A methox!acconting to Richards and Rodgers, was"an umbrella term for the specification and interrelation of theory and pracice”J9R2:154). An approach ‘defines assumptions belief, and theories abou the nature of language and language leaming, Designs specify the relationship of those theories 40 classtoom materials and activities. Procedures ate the techniques and practices that are derived from, ‘one's approach and design. TMi their reformulation Richards and Rexgers made two principal cont butions to our understanding of the concept of method: They specified the necessary elements of language teaching designs that had heretofore heen let somewhat vague, Their schematic representation of method (See Fig. 21) descebed sex important features of designs: objectives Curie? A Meth” Hin of Language cing 15 ssllabus (rites for selectio ter contend, activ ind organization of linguistic and subject les learner foes, teacher foles, and the role of instruc ‘ional materials, The latter three features have occupied a significant proportion of our collective attention in the profession forthe list decade oF 0. Already in this book you may have noted how, for example, learner roles (oes individual preferences for group or individual learning, student input Jn determining curricular content, et.) are important considerations in your teaching 2, Richards and Rodgers nudged us into at list reinguishing the notion that sep anite, definable, discrete methods are the esential building locks of metho ‘ology. By helping us to think ia terms of an approach that underginds our language designs curricula), which are realized by various procedures (tech niques), we could see that methods, as we sill use and understand the term, are too restrictive, too pre-programmed, and too prepackaged” Viraly all languageteaching methods make the oversimplified assumption that what teachers"do" in the elasseoom can be conventionalized ito set of proce ‘dures that fit all contexts. We are now all too aware that such is cle not the ease, As we shall see in the next chapter the whole concept of separate methods fs no longer a central issue in languageteaching practice. Instead, we currenly make ample reference to"methodology"as our superordinate umbrella term, reserving the term method? for somewhat specific, entifable clsters of theoretically Compa ible classroom techniques, So, Richards and Rodgers's reformation ofthe concept of method was soundly conceived: however thei attempt to give new meaning to an old term dk Hot atch fom in the pedagogical teratre. What they wanted us to eall-methads more com> forably referred to, I think, as-methodolog)”in order Wo avoid confusion with what wwe will no doubt always think of as those separate entities (like Audilingual or Suaaestopedi) that are no longer atthe center of our teaching philosophy ‘Another terminological problem isin the use ofthe term designs; instead, we more comfortably refer to curicula or syllabuses when we refer to design featres ff language program. ‘What are We left with in this lexicographic confusion? Its interesting that the terminology ofthe pedagogical literature in the field appears to be more ia ine with Anthonys original terms, but with some important additions and refinements. Following ia set of definitions that reflect the current usage and that will be used in this book, Methodology: Pedagogical prctces in general (including theoretical under: pinnings and related esearch), Whatever considerations are involved in “how £0 cach’ are methodologicalng 16 cwte2 AA Histo fangs Thing Approach: Theoretically wellinformed positions and beliefs about the nature of Tangvage, the nature of language learning, and the applicability of both to peda opicalsetuings Method: A generalized set of classroom specifications for accomplishing lin ulstc objectives. Methods tend to be concerned primarily with teacher and se dent roles and behaviors and secondarily with such features as linguistic and subject matter objectives, sequencing and material. They are almost always thought ‘of as being broadly applicable wo a variety of audiences i a variety of contexts 4 Classroom techniques practices, ‘and behaviors observed when the Curriculum/syllabus: Designs for carrying out a particular language pro sam, Features include a primary concern with the specification of linguistic and subject-matter objectives, sequencing, and materials to mect the needs of 2 desi nated group of eamers in a defined context. (The term syllabus” usally used ‘more customarily inthe United Kingdom to reer to what i called a"cureicumin the United States) | teacher deters Technique (also commonly referred to by other terms)” Any of awide variety of exercises, activities, or tasks used in the language classroom for realizing lesson objectives, + groupings that are commended ral learmer have ovr etd) CHANGING WINDS AND SHIFTING SANDS Agdance through the past century oF so of language teaching will give an interesting, picture of how varied the interpretations have heen ofthe best way to teach a for ign language. As disciplinary schools of thought—psychologs, linguistics, and ‘education, for example—have come and gone, so have linguage-teaching methods ‘waxed and waned in popularity. Teaching methods,28"approaches ‘course the practical application of theoretical ndings and postions, 288 ours that i relatively young, i should come ore selec The role ofintructional materiale action are of| na fel such ho surprise to discover a wide tse applications over the lst hundred years some in total philosophical to others Albert Marckwardt (1972:5) saw these “changing winds and shifting sands as, ‘cyclical pattern in which a new method emerged about every quarter ofa century Eich new method broke feom the old ut took with i some of the positive aspects ipo leming tsk et or leaner See 4 The genera and specie otectives of the method 1. Asllabue model % There i curently ite an latermingling of such terms as “technique“task*proce ‘dure"activity? and "exercse"often usc in somewhat ice variation across the pote ‘on, OF these terms. ase fas received the most concerted attention, viewed by such scholars as Petr Shan (19983) as mncorporating specific communicative aa peda sogicil principles. Tisks, aceording to Ske an ethers, should he thought of ss speci kind of technique ann fae, may actually inchade mote than one technique See Chapter 3 fora more thorough explanation os ioled i cand cognite be, Athoory ofthe nature of language ‘tage proiciney 2, Elomer Ar account of thew learning 4 A theory of native language afof the previous practices. good example of this cyclical nature of methods is found inthe “revolutionary” Audioligval Method (ALMD ¢a description follows) of the midtwentieth century. The ALM borrowed tenets from is predecessor the Dinect Method by almost haf « century while breaking away ehitely from) the ammae Transition Method. Within a short time, however, ALM critics were advocating more attention 10 thinking, to cognition, and to rue learning, which 0 Some smacked of return to Grammar Translation! ‘What follows isa sketch ofthe changing winds and shifting sands of language teaching over the years ‘THE GRAMMAR TRANSLATION METHOD A historical sketch of the lst hundred years of anguage-teaching must be set in the context of a prevailing, customary languageeaching "tradition. For centusies, there \were few if any theoretical foundations of language learning upon which to base teaching methodology. In the Western world foreign’ language learing in schools ‘as synonymous with the learning of Latin of Greek. Latin, thought to promote Imellectualy through “mental gymnastics was until relatively recently held to be indispensable to an adequate higher education, Latin was taught by means of what thas been called the Classical Method focus on rannnaical cule mrcntatho ‘vocabulary and of vasious declensions and conjigations, translation of text, doing ‘As other languages began to be taught in educational instcutions inthe eigh teenth and nineteenth centuries, the Classical Method was adopted as the chict means for teaching foreign languages. Litle thought was given at the teaching someone how to speak the language: afterall, languages were not being ‘aught primarily to lean onl/aueal communication, but to learn for the sike of being "scholarly" or in some instances, for gaining a reuling proficiency in foreig language. Since there was litle if any theoretical rescarch on second language acquisition in general or on the acquisition of reading proficiency, foreign languages ‘were taught as any other skill was taught In the nineteenth century the Classical Method came to he known 38 the Grammar Translation Method, There was little to distinguish Grammar Translation from what had gone on fo foreign language clastooms for centuries beyond a focus on grammatical rules a the basis fr translating from the second 0 the ative hinguage. Remarkably, the Grammar Translation Method withstood atwemptsat the turn of the ewentieth century to"reform lnguageteaching metho ‘logy (see Gowin’s Series Method and the Direct Method, below), and to this day i 4s practiced in too many educational contexts. Prator and Celce Murcia (1979.3) listed the major characteristics of Grammar Translation: 1. asses are taught nthe mother tongue, with litle active use of the target langoae Cowes? A Meth Hany of anguage Teaching 19 22, Much vocabulary is taught In the form of tits of isolated wor. 3. Long, elaborate explanations ofthe intsicacies of grammar are given £ Grammar provides the rues for putting words together, and instruction often focuses on the form and inflection of words 5. Reading of dificult classical texts is begun early 66. Lite attention is paid tothe content of texts, which are treated as exercives fn grammatical analysis +7. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target language into the mother tongue 8, Litle or no attention is ven to pronunciation eine that this method has until very recemly been so stalwart among, smany competing models Ht docs virtually nothing to enhance 4 students comms tieative ay in the language. K fremembered with distaste by thousands of ‘Shoo! earners, or whom foreign language Hearing meant a tedious experience of ‘memorizing endless lise of unable amar rules and voeabulry and attempting to prauce perfect fanstions of sited oe erry prose” (Richards & Rodgers 19863, {nthe er nd ne can eran why Grammar Paso ens popula I requres few specialize silo the part of teachers. ests of ran Fis and of tanauons ae ean to cnsiact and can De object Sereda “Candardzed tests of foreign langage stl do not attempt cpio communica tive ates, so stents hve lle motivation to no beyond grammar analogs, translations and fot exercises, Ants sometimes succesful in Kanga student towan! a reaing knowledge of second langage But as Richards a Rogers (Gao: 5) pointed out it has no advocates. I is4 method for which there i 90 theory. There is no erature that offers rationale or fesifiaton for itor that SMtompus to relat it to sues in ings, poychology,o edvatonal theory” As So contin to examine langageteaching methodology inthis book, think you ‘ilunersand mow fly the"iheory essen” ofthe Grammar Transation Method GOUIN AND THE SERIES METHOD “The history of “*moxler"foreign language teaching maybe sad to have begun in the late 18008 with Frangois Gouin, a French teacher of Latin with remarkable insight. History doest't normally credit Gouin as a founder of langusge-teaching method tology because, at the time, his influence was overshadowed by that of Charles Berlitz, the popular German founder of the Direct Method. Nevertheless, some attention to Gouin’s unustally perceptive observations about language teaching helps us to set the stage forthe development of languageteaching methods for the century following the publication of his book, Tbe Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages 40 1880.20 Gouin had to go through a very painful set of experiences inorder to derive his insights. Having decided in mide to learn German, he took up residency in Hamburg for one year. But rather than attempting to converse withthe natives, be engaged in a rather bizarre sequence of attempts to “master the language. Upon aerval in Hamburg he felt he should memorize a German grammar book anda table Of the 248 regular German verbs! He did this in a matter of only ten days, and hu fed to “the academy" (he university) to test his new knowledge. “But als!” he "wrote," could not understand a single word, nota single word! (Gouin 1880-11) Gouin was undaunted. He returned to the solation of his room, this tine to me lorize the German roots and to rememorize the grammar book an irewular verbs Again he emerged with expectations of success. “Ibut alas. the result wis the same as before. In the course of the year in Germany, Gouin memorized books, translated Goethe and Schiller and even memorized 30,000 words in a German dc. tionary, all in the isolation of his room, only to be crushed by his failure to unkler stand German afterward, Only once dd he ty to"make conversation” as metho but this exused people to laugh at hin, and he was too embarrassed to continue that method. At the end of the year Gouin, having reduced the Classical Method #0 absurdity, was forced to return home, faire But here wasa happy ending, After retaroing home, Gouin discovered that his three yearold nephew had. during that yeae gone through the wonderful stage Child Tanguage acquisition in which he went from saying virtually nothing at all (9 becoming a veritable chatterbox of French, Hove was i that this hile child suc ‘ceeded so casi in a first language, ia a task that Gouin in a second langage, had found impossible? The child must hold the seeret to learning a language! So Gouin spent. great deal of time observing his nephew and other childeen and came to the following conclusions language learning is primarily a matter of tansforming pet ‘ceptions into conceptions. Chiliren use language to represent theie conceptions. Language is a means of thinking, of representing the world to oneself (see PLZT. CChapter 2). These insights, remember, were formed by 4 language teacher more ‘han a century ago! So Gouin set about devising a teaching method that would follow trom these Insights. And thus the Series Method was created, a metho that taught learners ively (without translation) and conceptually (without grammatical rules and explanation) a"series" of connected sentences that are etsy to perceive. The first lesson of a foreign language would thus feach the following series of fifteen sen [wall towards the door. draw near to the door. 1 draw nearer fo the door. I get to the doot. I stop a the door. | stretch out my arm. I ake hold of the handle, 1 tuen the hhandle, open the door. 1 pull the door ume 2A -Mahoccat Hoy ofLangugeeoching 21 “The door moves, The door turns on its hinges. The door turns and turns, Lopen the door wide. Tet go ofthe handle, The itcen eee ve an uncovetonly ge nue fanaa ropentes tout tens word orca complex. Ths no Simple Ye aerate Govin wr nace wih Sach sons beaut the naa tus wey understood, store, rece and rite To real Yee Wasa man Satna ead this nad hi ss were arg ost nthe sue of tests poplar Direct Method. Buta we lok hack now ener more than ae wir of ngugevesctng or, we con appreciate the ngs of ts os os ange teacher ‘THE DIRECT METHOD the “naturalistie"—simulating the “natal” way in which children fearn fest tan uges—approaches of Gouin and a few of his contemporaries did not take hold immediately A generation ater applied linguistics finally established the credit ‘such approaches, ‘Thus ie wa that a the tara ofthe century.the Direct Method. became dite widely known and peacticed The basic premise of the Direct Method was sini ‘ethos, namely that second language learning should be more ike first language Jearning-—lots of ora interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation between fist and second languages and litle or no analysis of grammatial rules Richards and Rodgers (1986-9-10) summarized the principles ofthe Direct Methox! to that of Gouin Series 1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language 2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught 5. Oral communication skills were buile wp in a carefully graded progression ‘organized around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and st ‘dents in smal intensive classes. 4. Grammar was aught inductively: 5. New teaching points were taught through modeling and practice. 6 Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictues aibsract vocabulary Was taught by association of ideas, +. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught 8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized, “The Direct Method enjoyed considerable popularity a the beginning of the twentieth century It was most widely accepted in private language schools where Nudents were highly motivated and where nativespeaking teachers could be Cmployed One of the hest known of is populaizers was Charles Betta (who tnever use the term Disect Method and chose instead to call his method the Berlitz22 cum? Arve cia istry a ange Teaching Method). To this day “Berl” is a household wor; Berlitz language schools are thriving in every countey of the wold, But almost any “method” can succeed when clients are willing to pay high prices for small classes, individual attention, and intensive study; The Direct Method Aid not take well i public education, where the constraints of budget, lasroor size, time, and teacher background made such 4 method dificult to use, Moreover, the Direct Method was criticized for its weak theoretical foundations. Is success may have been more a factor of the skill nd personality of the teacher than of the thodology ise By the end of the frst quarter of the twentieth century, the use of the Direct Method had declined both in Furope and in the US. Most language curriculs secured tothe Grammar Translation Methox! orto a“eading approach that emph Sized reading skills in foreign languages. Buti is interesting that by the mille of the twentieth century. the Direct Method was reived and redirected into what Was, probably the most vise ofall Language teaching “revolutions” inthe miolern er, the Audiolingual Method (see below). So even this somewhat shortiived movement language teaching would reappear in the changing winds and shifing sands of ory ‘THE AUDIOLINGUAL METHOD {mn the frst half ofthe twentieth century, the Direct Method did not take hold in the US the way it din Europe. While one could easly find nativespeaking teachers fof modern foreign languages in Eugope, such was not the case in the US, Also, Furopean high school and university stadents did not have to travel far to find ‘opportunities to put the orl skills of another language to actual, practical use Moreover, US educational insiutions had hecome firmly convinced that a reading approach to foreign languages Was more useful than an oral approach, given the perceived linguistic isolation of the US atthe time. The highly influential Coteman Report (Coleman 1929) hal persuaded foreign language teachers that it was imprac \ica 10 teach oral skills and that reading should become the focus. ‘Thus schools returned in the 1930s and 1910s t0 Grammar Translation, “the handmalden of reading” owen, Madseu, & Hier 1985), “Then World War It beoke out, and suldenly the US was thrust into a workdwide ‘conflict hejghtening the need for Americans to become orally proficient in the la- fuiges of both their allies and their enemies. The time was ripe for Language teaching revolution, The US military. provided the Impetus with funding. for special, intensive language courses that focused on aur/ora skills: these courses ame to be known as the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) of, mare coll ‘quilly the“Aemy Method” Characteristic of these courses was a great deal of ora Aactvity—pronunciation and patter drills and conversation practice—with vitally hone of the grammar and translation found in triditiomal classes, Wi ionic that Cures 2A Mecca” Hit of ange ecting 23 humerous foundation stones of the dscanded Direct Method! were borrowed and injected into this new approach, Soon, the success of the Army Method and the revived national imerest in foreign languages spurred educational institutions to dope the new methodology. In all ts variations and adaptations, the Army Method ‘came fo be known inthe 1950s 2s the Audiotingual Method Methox! (ALMD ws fray grounded in linguistic and psycho- logical theory, Structural linguists of the 1940s and 1950s were engaged in what they claimed was a "scientific descriptive analysis" of various languages: teaching tmethodologiss saw a direct application of such analysis vo teaching linguistic pat terns Fries 1945). At the same time, behaviorstic psychologists (PLIT, Chapter 4) “advocated conditioning and habitformation models of learning that were perfectly married with the mimicry dais and pattera practices of audilingual methodology. "The charicteritics of the ALM may be summed up in the following Ist (adapted from Prator & Celee Mureia 1979) 1. New material is presented in dialogue form. 2. There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and over tearing. Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis and taught ome at a 4. Strctural patterns are taught using repetitive dil 5. There is litle of no grammatical explanation. Grammar i taught by inductive analogy rather than by deductive explanation 6, Nocabutary is stecty limited and feared in context. 7. There is much use of tapes language labs, and visual ak {8 Great importance is attached to pronunciation. 9, Very lite use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted 10, Successful responses are immesdately reinforced. 11, Thee is a great elfort to et students to produce erroesiee utterances, 12, Thee isa tendency to manipulate language and disregard content For a number of reasons the ALM enjoyed many years of popularity and even to this day, adaptations ofthe ALM are found ip contemporary methaxdologies. The ‘ALM was fitmly rooted in respectable theoretical perspectives of the time Materials were carefully prepared, tested, and disseminated to educational insti tions. “Success” could be overtly experienced by students as they practiced tlalogues in ofthours, Hut the popularity was not to lst forever. Challenged by ‘Wiles Rivers’s (1968) eloquent criticism of the misconceptions of the ALM and by {ts ultimate failure 10 teach longterm communicative proficiency, ALM popularity ‘waned. We discovered tha language wis not really acquired through a process of habit formation and overlearning, that ertors were not necessarily co De avovded at all cost. and that structural linguists did not tll us everything about language that Ive needed to know, While the ALM was yllant attempt to reap the fruits of lane tsuage teaching methodologies that had preceded iti the enk! it stil fell short as all24 ows? AM! Hy of ange Thing methods do, But we learned something from the very falure of the ALM to do ‘everyting it had promised, and we moved forward COGNITIVE CODE LEARNING ‘The age of auiolinguatim, with ts emphasis on surface forms and on the rote prac tice of scientifically produced patterns, begin to wane when the Chomakyan tev lution in tinguistcs cured linguists and language teachers toward the “deep Structure“ of language. Increasing interest in generative tanstormationalsrammat and focused attention on the rule governed nature of language and lane sition Jed some languageseaching programs to promote a deductive approach father than the inductivty of the ALM. Arguing that chikiren subeconsetouny acquire a system of rules, proponents ofa cognitive code learning methxloloxy (ce Carroll 1966) began to inject more deductive rule learning into language classes. fn an amalgamation of Audiolingval and Grammar Translation technles, «lasses retained the dling typical of ALM but added healthy doses of rule explane ‘ons and reliance on grammatical sequencing of materia, Cognitive code learning was not so mich a method as it was an approach that ‘emphasized a conscious awareness of rules and their applications ta sere! an uage learning, Ie was a reaction tothe strictly behavoristic practices of te ALM, and ironically retuen to some ofthe practices of GrammarTranslation, As teachers and! materials developers saw that incessant nti of potently rote mater ‘so creating communities poficent kemerra ne twist es heeded ed conve coe earning appeared to prove fast such tw, Unortnutey the vation was shorived fora rly ar re ding bored tadeate wert co tveattemon tothe rues, paradigms intricacies and excep oft ngage see taxed the mental reserves of language students. : mate The profesion needed some spce nd verve and innovative nds in the sp ite 19708 were wp tothe challenge “DESIGNER” METHODS OF THE SPIRITED 1970S ‘The decade of the 1970s was historically significant on two counts. Fist, perhaps ‘more than in other decade in “modern” langwage-tcaching history, resetnch on second language learning and teaching grew from an offshoot of Hinsustis to 4 die Spline in its owa right. As more and more scholars specialized their efforts in second language acquisition studies, our knowledge how people lear ope lea languages Inside and outside the classroom mushroomed. Second, inthis spirited atmosphere ‘of pioneering research, a number of innovative if not revolutionary mcthox were ‘conceived. These “designer” methods (to borrow a term from Nunn 989% 9°) ‘were soon marketed by entrepreneurs asthe latest and greatest applications of the ‘utiisciplinary research findings of the day ( umm? A Mecca Hit of angge Feaching 25 ‘Taday, a8 we took hack at these methods, we can applaud them for their inno ‘ative Mas, for thee attempt to rouse the kanguageeaching, Woekd QUE ofits aio Tingust sleep, and for their stimulation of even more research as we sought 10 dliscover wh they were not the godsend tha their inventors and marketers hoped they would he. The scrutiny thatthe designer methods underwent has enabied 0s today 10 incorporate certain elements thereof in our current communicative approaches to language teaching, Let’ look at five ofthese products of the spirited 1970, 1, Community Language Learning By the decade ofthe 1970s, as We increasingly recognized the importance of the affective domain, some innovative methods took ona distinctly affective nature Community Language Learning is a classic example of an afectively based method, In what he called the “Counseling-Learning” model of education, Charles ‘Curran (1972) was inspired by Carl Rogerss view of education (PLIT, Chapter #) 48, ‘which Teamers in a classroom were regarded not as a "class" but as a “group"—a [group in nced of certain therapy and counseling. The social dymamics of sch 3 |90up were of primary importance, In onder for any learning to take place, group members frst nceded to interact an inteepersonal relationship ia whieh students tind teacher joined together to facilitate learning in & context of valuing exch inde ‘dual inthe group. In such a surrounding, each person lowered the defenses that prevent open interpersonal communication. The anxiety caused by the edues tional context was lessened by means of the supportive community. The teachers presente was not perceived 382 threat, nor was ie the teachers purpose to impose limits and boundaries, but eather, as a true counselor, center his oF ber atteaton fon the clients he students) and their needs, “Defensive” learning was made unnee: essary by the empathetic relationship between teacher and students. Cuerans CCounseling-Learning model of education thus capitalized on the primacy of the needs ofthe learners—clients—who gathered together in the educational comm rity to be counseled. ‘Curran’s Counseling-Learning model of education was extended to language Fearing contexts in the form of Community Language Learning (CLL). While pr "cular adaptations of CLL were numerous, the hasie methodology was explicit The s10up of elients (for insance, bewinning learners of English), having est established Jn their native language (ay, Japanese) an interpersonal relationship and trast were seated ina circle withthe counselor (eachet) on the outside of the eicle. When ‘one of the clients wished to say something to the group or to an individual, he oF she Said it inthe native language Gapanese) and the counselor tansated the uter ance buck to the learner ia the second language (English). The learner thea repeated that English sentence as accurately as possible, Another client respond in Japanese: the uterance 9s translated by the counselor into English the client repeated itjand the conversation continued. If possible the conversation wis taped26 for lite stein. and atthe end of each session, the earners inductively attempted togethce to glean information about the new language. If desirable, the counselor might take a more directive role and provide some explanation of certain linguistic rues oF items The first stage of intense strugele and confusion might continue for many sey sions, but always with the support of the counselor and of the fellow clients Gradually the learner became able to speak a word or phase directly in the foreign fangwage, without translation, ‘This was the est sign ofthe learner's moving away from complete dependence on the counselor. As the learners gained more and mone familiarity with the foreiga language, more and more direct communication ‘Could take place, with the counselor providing less and less direct translation and Information. After many sessions, perhaps many months or years ater, the learner achieved fluency in the spoken language. The learner bad at that point become ndependent. ‘CLL reflected not only the principles of Carl Rogers's view of education, but aso basie principles of the dynamics of counseing in which the counselor, through ‘careful attention to the client's needs, aids the cient i moving from dependence and helplessness 1 independence and selFassurance “There were advantages and disadvantages 10a method like CLL "The affective audvantages were evident. ELL wae an attempt a pat Rogers philosophy kato tetion and to overcome some ofthe threatening affective factors in second Language Teaming. The threat of the atknowing teacher of making blunders ia the foreign language infront of classmates, of competing against peers—al threats that can lead to 2 feeling of alienation and inadequacy—were presumably removed. The coun ‘Selo allowed the learner to determine the type of conversion and to analyze the foreign language inductive: In situations in which explanation or translation scemed to be impossible it Was often the clentearner who stepped in and became 1 counselor to aid the motivation and capitalize on intrinsic motivation There were some practical and theoretical problems with CLI. The counselor teacher cou! Become too nondlirective, The student often needed direction. espe Cally in the frst stage, in which there was such seeming’ endless struggle within the foreign language. Supportive but assertive direction from the counselor could strengthen the method. Another problem with CLL was ts reliance on an inductive Strategy of learning, 1is well aecepted that deductive learning i both a viable and Clicient strategy of learning and that adults pariculaely can benefit from deduction. 4s well as induction. While some intense inductive struggle is a necessary Comper rent of second language fearing, the inital grueling days and weeks of floundering in ignorance in CLL, coukd be alleviated by miore directed, deductive fearing, “by being told Perhaps only in dhe second or tind stage, when the learner has moved to more independence, sn inductive strategy really successful. Finally.the success ‘of CLL depended largely on the transition expertise of the counselor, Translation {s an inttate and complex process that is offen “easier sud than done”: if subtle aspects of langue are mistranslated, these can be a less than effective under Cuter A “Mecca” Hany of ange acting 27 standing ofthe target language “Tokay virtaly no ne wses CLL exclusively ina curticulum. Like other methods in this chapter, it was far too restrictive for institutional ngage programs However, the principles of discovery learing, stulentcentered participation, and development Of student autonomy Gdependence) all remain viable in their app ‘ation to language classrooms, sf the case with virally any method the theoret {eal underpinnings of CLL may he creavely adapted to your own situation 2. Suggestopedia ‘Other new methods of the decade were not quite a strictly affective as CLL ‘Suggestopedia, for example, was a method that was derived from Bulgarian psy chologist Georgi Lozanov's (1979) coatention thatthe human brain could process treat quantities of material if given the right conditions for learning, among, which fe a sate of relaxation and giving over of eonteol to the teacher. According to Loranox, people are capable of eaening much more than they give themselves credit for. Drawing on insights from Soviet psychological research oa extrasensory [perception and from yoga, Lozanov created a method for learning that capitalized ‘on relaxed states of mind for maximum retention of material. Music was central (0 his method. Baroque music created the kind of*relaxed concentration” that led to sunerieaming” (Ostrander & Schroeder 1979: 65). According to Lozano, during the soft plying of haroque musi, one can take in tremendous quantities Of mate ial de to an increase in alpha brain waves and a decrease in blood pressure and prlse rate. In applications of Suggestopedia to foreign language learning, Lozanov and his followers experimented with the presentation of vocabulary, readings, dialogs ole- plays drama, and a variety of other typical classroom activities. Some of the class room methodology wis not particulitly unique. The primary diflerence lay in a gnificant proportion of activity carried out in soft, comfortable seats in relaxed Sates of consciousness. Students were encouraged to he a8" childike” as possible yickling all authority to the teacher and sometimes assuming the roles (and names) ‘Of mative speakers of the foreign language. Students thus hecame “suggestible” Lozano (1979: 2°2) described the concert session portion of Suggestopedia ln uae class: At the beginning ofthe session all conversation stops fora minute oF "oan the teacher listens to the music coming froma tperecorder. He waits and listens €0 several passages in order to enter into the mood of the music and then begins to read or recite the new text his voice modulated in harmony’ with the musical phrases. The students follow the text in their textbooks where each lesson is trnsated imo the mother tongue, Between the frst and second part ofthe concert, there are several minutes of solemn silence. In some cases, even longer pauses can he given to permit the students to stir a lite6 Before the beginning of the second part of the concert, there are again several minutes of silence and some phases ofthe music are heard again before the teacher begins to read the text. Now the st dents close their textbooks and listen to the teacher's reading. A th end, the students silently leave the room, They are not told to do an homework on the lesson they hive jst hal except for reading it cur sorily once before going to hed and again before getting up in the morning Suggestopedta was enitcized on a number of fronts. Scovel (1979) showed ‘quite eloquently that Lozanov's experimental dita in which he reported astounding, Fesults with Suggestopedta, were highly questionable. Moreover the practicality af Using Suaaestopedia isan issue that teachers must face where music an confor: able chairs are not available. More serious i the issue of the place of memorization fn language learning. Scovel (1979. 260-61) noted that lozanows“Innumerable ‘erences 10... memorization ...0 the tol exclusion of referenecs to "understanding and/or ‘creative solutions of problems convinces this reviewer atleast that sis Eestopedy...is am attempt to teach memorization techniques nd is not devoted 10 the far more comprehensive enterprise of language acquisition "On the other hand, ‘other researchers, including Schiffer (1992: sv), have sugested a more moderate Position on Suggestopedia, hoping “to prevent the exaggerated expectations of Suggestopedia that have been promoted in some publications Like some other designer methods (CLL and the Silent Way, for example Suggestopedta became a business emtespris ofits own, and it made promises in the advertising world that were not completely supported by research Despite such “dubious claims Suggestopedi gave the languageteaching profession some insight, We learned a bit about how to believe in the power ofthe buntan brain. We learned that deliberitely induced states of relaxation may’ be beneficial in the classroom ‘And numerous teachers have at times experimented with various forms of music #6 A wa to get students to sit back andl relax 3. The Silent Way Like Suggestopedia, the Silent Way rested on more cognitive than affective anguments for is theoretical sustenance. While Calch Gatteyno its founder, Was Sai to be interested in “humanistic” approach (Chamot & McKeon 1984-2) 10 eh ‘ation, ach of the Silent Way was charieterized by a problem-solving approach to learning. Richards and Rodgers (1986: 99) summarized the theory of learning Jnchind the Stent Way 4, Learning i factated ifthe learner discovers of ereates rather than remem bers and repeats what isto be learned 2. Learning is faciitated by accompanying (mediating) physical objects, 3. Learning is faciitated by problem solving involving the material to be learned ie? “Moca Hi of angge ching 29 Discovery leaning." popular educational tend ofthe 1960s, advocated less learning “by being told” and more lexning by discovering for oneselt various facts nd principles. tn this way, students constructed conceptual hierarchies of their ‘own that were a producto the time they invested, Ausubel subsumption” (PLLT, ‘Chapter 4) was enhanced by discovery learning since the cognitive categories were Created meaningfully with less chance of rote learning taking place. Inductive processes were also encouraged more in discoverylearning metho The Silent Way capitalized on such discovery-exening procedures. Gattegne (1972) believed that learners should develop independence, autonomy, and respon ‘ibilig:_At the same time, learners ina Silent Way classroom hid to cooperate with ‘each other in the process of solving language problems. The teacher—a stimulator but nota handholder—was silent mich ofthe time, thus the name ofthe metho ‘Teachers had to resist their instinct to spell everything out in black and white, to ‘come tothe ad of scents a the slightest downlal: they had "get out ofthe wy” “while students worked out solutions, In a language classroom, the silent Way typically iized as materials a set of ‘Cuisensire rods—small colored rods of varying lengths—and a series of colorful, ‘wall charts. The rods were wsed to introduce vocabulary (colors, numbers, adjec: tives Hong, ort and 20 onl), wet ite, take, pick tp, drop), and yn nse ‘comparatives pluralization, word order, and the lke). The teacher proved single- ‘word stimuli or short phrases and sentences, once of twice and then the stents refined their understanding and pronunciation among thenseves with minimal cor rectve feedback from the teacher. The charts introduced pronunciation modes, ‘grammatical paradigms, and the tke Like Sugestopedia. the Silent Way has had its share of eitcism, In one sense the Silent Way was too harsh a method and the teacher too distant to encounige & ‘communicative atmosphere. Students often need more guidance and overt correc. tion than the Silent Way permitted. There ate numberof aspects of language that can indeed he "told to students to theie beni they need not as in CLL as well, strugsle for hours oF days with a concept that could be easly clarified bythe teacher's direct guidance, The rods and charts wear thin after a few lessons, and other materials must be introduced, at which point the Silent Way classroom can Took ike anyother fanguage classroom [And yet, the underying principles of the Silent Way are valid, All 10 often wei tempted as teachers to provide everything for our sents, neatly served up fon a silver platter We could henefit from injecting healthy: doses of discovery ming into our classroom activities and from provieing less teacher talk than we vswally do to let the students work things out om their own, ‘Total Physical Response James Asher (1977), the developer of Fotal Physical Response (TPR), actually bneqan experimenting with TPR inthe 1960s, but it wis almost a decade before the20 method was widely discussed in profesional circles. "Tolay TPR. with simplicity as ‘ts most appealing fice, a household word among language teachers ‘You will ecall from earlier inthis chapter that more than a century ago, Gouin signed his Series Method on the premise that language associated with a series of Simple actions will be easily retained by learners. Much later, psyehologisis deve ‘oped the “trace theory” of learning in which it was claimed that memory is Increased if is simlated, or “raced” theough association with motor activity ‘Over the years, language teachers have intuitively recognized the value of assoc ating language with physical acuviy. So while the idea of bulding a method of la "age teaching on the principle of psychomotor associations was not new, it was this very ea that Asher capitalized upon in developing TPR. ‘TPR combined a number of other insights in ts rationale. Principles of child Janae acquisition were important. Asher (1977) noted that children, in learning, theie first language, appear to do alot of listening before they speak, and that thee listening is accompanied by: physical responses (reaching, grabbing. moving looking, and so forth). He also fave some attention to right-brain learning (PLT. Chapter 5). According 10 Asher motor activity isa righcbrain function that should precede leftbeain language processing. Asher was also convinced that language Classes were offen the locus Of too much anxiety, so he wished to devise a method that was a6 sitewfiee as possible. where learners would aot feel overly sel conscious and defensive. The TPR classroom, then, was one in which students did 2 great deal of listening and acting. ‘The teacher was very directive in orchestrating ‘performance: “The instructor isthe director ofa stage play in which the students ae the actors" Asher 197743). ‘Typically, TPR heavily uulzed the imperative mood, even into more advanced proficiency levels, Commands were an easy way to get learners to move about and, to loosen up: Open the window, Close the door, Stand up, Sit down, Pick up the ook Give it 10 Jobn.and so on. No verbal respoase was necessary. More complex syntax could be incorporated into the imperative: Draw a rectangle on the ebalk- Doard, Walle quickly to tbe door and bit i, Yumor is easy 40 introdce: Walk slowly to the window and jump, Put your tootbbrusb in your book (Asher 1977: 55), Interrogatives were also easily dealt with: Where is the book? Who és Jobn? (tucents pointed tothe book or to John). Eventually students, one by one, would {ec comfortable enough 10 venture verbal responses to questions then to ask ques tions themselves, and to continue the process Like every other method we have encountered, TPR had its limitations. seemed to be especially effectve inthe beginning levels of language proficiency but It lost its eistinctiveness as learners advanced in their competence. In aTPR class room.after students overcame the fear of speaking out, classroom conversations and ‘other activites proceeded 2s in almost any other communicative language clas: room. In TPR reading and writing activities, students are limited «© spinning off from the oral workin the classroom. Ii appeal to the dramatic or theatrical nature ‘of angvage learning was attractive, (See Smith 198 and Sten 198% for discussions Cauren2 A Meth” Hay of ange Teching 31 fof the use of deama in foreign language classrooms.) But soon learners! needs for Spontaneity and unrehearsed language must be met 5. The Natural Approach Stephen Krashen's (1982, 1997) theories of second language acquisition have bocen widely discussed! and hotly debated over the years (PLLT, Chapter 10). The iijor methodological ofshoot of Krashen's views was manifested in the Natural Approach, developed by one of Krishen's colleagies, Trey Terrell (Krashen & Terrell 1983). Acting on many ofthe claims that Asher made fora comprehension: based approach such a6 TPR, Krashen and Tertell felt that learners would benesit from deliying prodiction until speech “emerges: that earners should be 2s relaxed. as posible in the classroom, and that great deal of communication and"acquisition” should take place, 38 opposed to analysis. In ft, the Natural Approach advocated the use of TPR activities atthe beginning level of language learning when “compre: hhensible inputs essential for triggering the acquisition of language ‘There are a number of possible long-ange goals of language instruction. 9 some cases second languages are learned for oral communication: in other cases for ‘writen communication; and! in still ethers there may be an academic emphasis on, say; listening to lecues, speaking in a classroom context, or writing a research paper. The Natura Approach was aimed atthe goal of basic personal communica ‘on skills that i, everyday language stuations—-conversations, shopping, listening to the radio, and the like. The initial task of the teacher was to provide compre hhensibe input thats, spoken language that is understandable tothe learner or just a lite heyond the lesmer’s level. Learners need not sty anything during this"slent Period” unl they fel ready to do so, ‘The teacher was the soutce ofthe learners Input and the ereator of an snteresting and stimulating varity of elasroom activ ties—commands, games, skits, and small-group work In the Natura Approach, learners presumably move through what Krashen and Terrell defined as three stages(a) The preproduction stage ts the development of is tening comprehension skils. (b) The early production stage is usualy marked! with crrors as the student struggles withthe language. The teacher focuses on meaning. here, not on form and therefore the teacher does not make a point of correcting ‘errors daring this stage Canless they are gross erzors that block or hinder meaning, entirely), (6) The last stage ks one of extending production into longer stetches of ‘discourse involving more complex games, role-plays, open-ended dialogues, discus sons, and extended small group work. Since the objecuve im this tage is to pro mote fluency: teachers ae asked to be very sparse in tk “The most controversial aspects ofthe Natural Approach were ts advocacy of & “silent period (delayof oral production) and its heavy emphasis on comprehensible input. The dey of oral production until speech "emerges" has shortcomings (see Gibbons 1985). What about the student whose speech never emerges? And with al students at different timetables for this socalled emergence, how does the Teacher manage a classroom efficiently? Furthermore, the concept of comprehen sible input i dificult eo pin down, as Langi (198-18) noted:32 cower? Autocity of Langage Kachin nv does one know which structures the lrners are to be provided with? From the examples of “teacher talk” provided in the book (Krushen and Terrell, 1983), communication interactions seem to he -uided by the topic of conversation rather than by the structures of the language. The decision of which strictures to use appears to he Jeft to some mysterious sort of intuition, which many teachers may snot possess (On a more positive note, most teachers and researchers agree that we ae all {oo prone to insist that learners speak fight aay, and so. we can take from the Natural Approach the goox! advice that fora period of tine, while students row accustomed to the new language their silence is beneficial, Though TPR and other forms of input, students language egos are not as easily threatened, and they aren't forced into immediate rsktaking that could embarrass them. The resulting sit confidence eventually can spur a student to venture to speak out. Innovative methods such as these five merous ofthe 1970s expose us to prin Table 2.1. Approaches and methods—an overview (adapted from Nunan 1983) Tory of lng Tapginges aspen teegevemed ces CORR cnet ating | “eon fearing Ohta Saher Taba trnaons le Condo tacts ol Grote abo ‘telooidmeelc- Sam orm st peegy mono, operetta: Ce ‘wie any moe ean ashe Sih nese. "aaa pes Balas ‘ite sewn eth Freier me ‘ols onto Tate Fina pesca ot Pica ach ange con Povo ta Spat roc Sieur ae ye al ge The Sent Wy pone cs. The Natura Apprach Languapeaning he eee ange ‘er ieulole mowing TERS een chaniocicing @ Saonctncs 1 Kang cree podce mer sah amma rv Sone poductonsLan omnis ei eel cg Simp rah ced re gym, a con ‘iiqeve carmen” hie years ing te (een ctoing Proceso aming Neste fn cor Bakaly sca ‘Sco anguage eet mance eso pared urd ‘menage fom ptt ined of gama sd iiEomne Leman” he gammarct ie 2) ea sry es ‘Sanimecol cog terrae how octal aond ‘Repuces Sirmarie ins anpage. othe ganmatcl ‘hoon ol are pie ge ee tore Leaning ivohes he Ro speci ajectins_ No wt yin, Cone ‘os poton ive Reweae maeeyis popes tgs iron ite er go thetopies Saban independence ‘ntnton andthe ‘Scher lomultons Theva wo mayselL2 Deseo ge gle ned on skaton of Ibnginge Slope ty Sngvacedsit” imate aes estion” nantes tune comes sal ded om Stbtinscas prone ese il Fur id ae ee nian com. Sa ane pron ‘Sonetedn aq alien sade on mage Shae in eee eer “used to induce this state goes ts of wocabary ie ecaeet Tapa da wok ‘wal sco ‘Sars gear, indvalAc- is ecg a sae rig yeh Combinatn of eo fveand conan ‘Tania ap er, cvs sawing om ior stove ye ‘eng veces Une Sept, era aren ‘son args mt Seep mitpendene, ‘Stand 2 eer i commen origi ots a Seton sd eter exllntny arn ing da the cn | (rh ance, ae and dete acer us a ac Seen Fete vk re i, Seer ate Course mand som eet npt nt ‘Set Sarasa Soe aml arin Stes me atten on ‘ins bane one ne ‘td conden arian mae Salman otal wie, etn, and rs so ‘ef ie orc fronton ad = cy Seren, wich ‘ud is pe Nitti Sloped Steve pee {neonenemesten ‘Son non foes ne ‘city quay and egress a a nage eehing | —Sopgetpeda ‘Actes evching al bjs wll de Wil aca sono ol Smeal! a wl tered” ces men thing one ich lear ng ees ek:Oring iting ene Se wie sy he eg arin cm cn ‘eae a gn ‘Sr sta ee ns re Tea ana crue proves mage Thay le rong ‘mance angenpe 526 Sa alsa Ea ae ee a Se | ‘oun 2A Mata” Hist of ange Techn Vide a link between a dynasty of methods that were pershing and a new era of an ‘Ruage teaching that isthe subject ofthe next chapter As an aid to your recollection of the characteristics of some of the methods reviewed easier ou may wish to refer to Table 2.1 (pp, 34-35), ia which the -Audiotingual Method, the Sve"designer” methous and the Communicative Language Teaching Approach are summarized according to eight diferent criteria, ‘On looking hack over this meandering history, you can no doubt see the cycles of changing winds and shifting sands alluded to ear. In some ways the cycles Were, as Marckwardt proposed, each about a quarter of a century in length, oF roughly a generaion, In this remarkable succession of changes, we leaned soe ‘thing in eich generation, We did not allow history simply to deposit new dunes {exactly where the old ones fay. So our cumulative history has taught us to appre ate the value of “doing” language interactives of the emotional (as well as eogni tive) side of learning, of absorbing language automaticaly of Conseionsly analying ‘and of pointing leaners towand the real workd where they will uc English con rmunicatively In the next chapter we look at how we reaped those benefits to form an inte- rated, unified, communicative approach to language teaching tha is no longer bi acterized by a series of methods ‘TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION, ACTION, AND RESEARCH Note: CD Individual work; (G) group oF pair work: (C) wholeclass discussion } 4. @ Since this chapter refers to some baste principles and issues that are nor ‘mally covered in a course in second language acquisition (and in books like PLET and Mitchell and Myles 1998), itis quite important at this point for you {review such material, For example, vatied theories of learning are implied all the methods just reviewed; the role of affective factors in second ta _Rwige acquisition is highlighted im some methods, conseious and subseon scious (or focal and peripheral) processing assumes various roles, depending, ‘on the metiod in question. Ifyou encountered concepts or issues that you needed 0 brush up on as you read this chapter, make somte time for a thoe ‘ough review 2. (G) Giveo the choice of Richards and Rodgers's or Anthony's earlier model of looking atthe concepts of approach, methou, design, procedure, and tech hique, which is preferable? Direct sal soups to discuss preferences. if there is disagreement, groups should try to come to a consensus. Make sure soups deal with Richards and Rodgers rationale for the change ‘3 (G) Consider the Series Method, the Direct Method, and the Auioing Method. Assign a diferent method to each of several small groups. The task {to list the theoretical foundations on which the methexl rested and share findings with the whole class, ( | | CUTE 2A Metin of ange eching 37 4. © Richards and Rogers 19865) aid Grammar Transat “sa method for tvhich there is nother this fo harsh a jamin As stents i they Barce withthe theorsesnest of Granta Trasation and why 5. (GIO Reviow the five"desgner” methods. I chs site permis asin a seta to each of ve diferent smal groups were cach grou wl defen its method sysins the others. "The grup tak so prepare argument in fier of ts method question to ask of her method and counter arguments inst what other ups might a them. Altera modified debate, cid with 2 wholeclas discusion 6. (OTe ofthe fie “signer” methods (CLL, Sen Ws; and Suagestopes) Senta sme een props, noma publishing and educational company. Ask stent consider how tht fact Init color she objectivity with wich ts backers promote each method {nd (b) pie reception to 7. © Caper 1 described casrvom lesson in Engh a a ccond ange ‘sk stents ook hack tho tat lemon nai at of dhe aos ‘methodological postons that have occpied the last cer or of tn ge teaching to determin how he activis/ecnigus in the lesson Fefcc some ofthe theoretical foundations on which certain metho were ‘cnsracted Fr example, whem the teacor da ek chal del 6, Flow would one support tat technique wih principles that ay bein the ALP 8. GG/C Ask students in sal groups to reiew the cycles of siting sand Since Gouin’ tine. How di cach new metho borrow fom previous prac teea?‘What cil each reject in previous practices) Each group wil then share their conclasions with thereat ofthe class, On the Bod, ou might econ strict the istrial pogression inthe form tne line wi characteris iste french erate permits try to determine wa the prevaling ate tects or pole mood wis when certain methods were flowering. For tame: the AIM was» product af amity taining program an flourished drng an en when scent soltos oa problems were diligently sought Are there some logcl connections here? FOR YOUR FURTHER READING Anthony, Edward. 1963. “Approach, method and technique” Englisy Language Teaching 17° 63-67 hs this seminal article, Antbony defines and gives examples ofthe throe bile terms. Methods are seen, perbaps for the fst time, as guided by ard built pon solid thooretical foundations. His definitions have prevailed fo is day sn syformal pedaggical terminology8 [Richards Jack and Rodgers, Theodore. 1982. "Method: Approach, design, proce: dure? TESOL Quarterly 16: 153-66, ‘The authors redefine Antbony’s orginal conception of the terms by viewing “metbod as ans mbrlla term covering approach, design, and procedure Full explanations of the terms are offered and examples provided. This article also appears asa chapter tn Richards and Rodgers (1986), Richards, Jack and Rodgers, Theodore. 1986. Approaches «and Mebods én Language Teaching. Cambeidge: Cambridge University Press ‘his book presents a very useful cxeniew of @ number of different metbods teithin the rubric of approaches that support them, course designs thal ti them, and classroom procedures ecbnigues) that manifest them, ‘ardovitarlig, Kathleen, 1997. “The place of second language acquistion theory in language teacher preparation” In BardovsHarlg, Kathleen and. Hartford Bevery: 1997. Beyond Methods: Components of Second Language Teacher Haducation, New York: McGraw-Hill. Pages 18-41 Because an understanding of language-teaching history abo implies the tmporsance ofthe place of second langage acquisition research, this phece afr i rdsfrom rocarch pth pag cra te —____CHAPTER 3 THE PRESENT: uals AN_INFORMED “APPROACH” ___ ‘The ‘methoxtical” history of the previous chapter, even with our brief look at Notional Functional Sylabuses, does not quite ring us up to the present. By the tend ofthe 1980s, the profession had learned some profound lessons from ot past ‘eanderings. We had learned to be cautiously eclectic in making enlightened choices of teaching practices that were solidly grounded in the best of what we Knew about second language learning and teaching. We had amassed enough reseurch on fearing and teaching that we could jadeed formulate an integrated approach to lnguage teaching practices. And, peshps ironealy the methous that ‘were such strong signposts of our century-old journey were no longer of great com sequence in marking our progress. How di that happen? In the 1970s and early 1980s, there was a good deal of hoopla about the “designer” methods described in the previous chapter. Even though they weren't widely adopted as standard methods, they were nevertheless symbolic ofa profes sm at Feast partially caught up in a mad scramble to snveat a new method when the very concept of “method was eroding under our feet. We didn't need a new ‘method, We needed, instead, to get on with the business of unifying our approach 10 Language teaching and of designing effective tasks and techniques that were informed by that approach, And so, today those clearly lentifable and enterprising methoxls are an ier ‘sting if not insightful contribution to our professional repertoire, but few pct. toners look to any one of them, or their predecessors fo a final answer on How to {each a foreign language (Kunaravadiveld 1994, 1995), Method, asa untied, cobe. sive finite set of design features is now given only minor attention” ‘The profession has at last reached the point of maturity where we recognize thatthe diversity of “While we may have outgrown our need Yo search for such definable methods nevertheless the term "methodology" continues to be used, af wolld In any other Delaviorl scence, o refer tothe sstematc application of validated principles to practical contexts. You need not therefore subscribe toa particular Method ( api M) in onter to engage in a°methodology” a9