An Analysis Paper on the Audiolingual and Oral-Situational

Language Teaching Methods

Individual differences are always highlighted in every teaching principle and it is the
business of teachers to know how students learn. Most teaching methods are usually based on
generalized theories about learning, but as much as these methods may work on most learners, a
classroom filled with diverse learners will always have a variety of learning demands, especially
when it comes to learning a language.
Perhaps, something that a teacher can always fall back on is understanding what language
is, its nature, and its uses. Language is a system composed of structures and should, therefore, be
learned systematically. One principle to observe regarding this fact is to always start with speaking,
since language is primarily a spoken skill. Another is that language is not a subject on concepts or
information. It is a skill to be learned and enhanced. Language is mainly used for communication,
hence practice should always be emphasized in class. In support to this, Halliday et al. (1964)
stated that when we acquire our primary language, we do so by learning how to behave in
situations, not by learning rules about what to say.
The oral or situational and audiolingual approaches in language teaching adhere to these
concepts of language.
The oral or situational approach highlights the structural-behaviourist views of language
learning where vocabulary and grammar are the main focus. This is paired with structured
activities that are presented in contextualized situations to make learning meaningful. Situation,
according to Pittman, means the use of concrete objects, pictures, and realia, which together with
actions and gestures can be used to demonstrate the meanings of new language items.
For instance, as per Frisby’s structural syllabus, the teacher will model a sentence pattern
by setting an example with the proper use of determiners coupled with objects and will relate it to
distance by employing gestures: This is a book *teacher points or holds a book*. Now, the object
of the sentence (which is also the vocabulary focus) will be changed by the learners with the help
of the context they are in. In the given example, they may change the word book and replace it
with materials they see in their immediate surroundings.
In comparison, the audiolingual approach is also based on a structural-behaviourist view
where the main focus is on the hierarchy of how a language should be learned, starting with
phonology building up to the construction of sentences. However, in contrast to the situational
approach, the audiolingual method constricts the learners’ experience in mere repetition of the
teacher’s utterances. Basically, the learners “parrot” the teacher but this is strengthened and
justified based on the behaviourist belief that imitation drills fortify proper habits in spoken
language.
When it comes to instructional materials, the teacher in both aforementioned approaches
serves as the main material for he or she is the model of proper language use. On the other hand,
the learners listen and repeat or respond to what the teacher says. It was also mentioned earlier that
in the situational approach, the teacher makes use of concrete objects, realia, and gestures in
instruction. Textbooks and other visual aids such as charts, flashcards, and pictures are also things
that the teacher could utilize. The audiolingual approach also employs the mentioned materials but
designed to assist the teacher in oral drills. Nonetheless, these approaches are still teacher-centered
where control is mainly on his or her abilities.
Each method has its merits. Both methods foster active participation of the class where
their listening and speaking skills are practiced. However, disadvantages are still evident. One
thing about the oral approach is teachers may find it very difficult to present grammar and
vocabulary items in appropriate situations, and this form an extra burden for teachers. Another is
that the learner has no control over the contents of the learning as explained in the preceding
paragraph for these methods are teacher-controlled. This compromises the learner’s creativity and
uniqueness in making up his or her own sentences.
Furthermore, the audiolingual approach has a negative impact on understanding the
meaning behind the language since what children do in the classroom is basically an echo of the
teacher with emphasis on structure and pronunciation and less regard on the comprehension of
words and sentences. Advanced learners may find this method tedious and boring and may not
help in the real-life use of the language.
The oral or situational and audiolingual approaches in teaching language may be regarded
as outdated, but upon analysing how these methods are (or were) used in the classroom, there is
still a strong contention that these methods are still effective to an extent, especially when it comes
to fostering speaking abilities among learners.
With all the innovations in language pedagogy, there is an array of methods one could use
in different learning contexts. Researches have always concluded that there is not one single best
method for everyone, and that no one teaching method is inherently superior to the others. Also, it
is not always possible – or appropriate – to apply the same methodology to all learners, who have
different objectives, environments and learning needs. Ultimately, a teacher should never assume
that any one method will always work and in reality, it is always in the teacher’s innate ability
where his or her students learn best.