APPROACHES AND METHODS IN LANGUAGE TEACHING1

The first step toward learning and developing a principled approach to language teaching will be to go back in time in
order to learn from the historical cycles and trends that have brought us to the present day. In the period between l800’s
and 2000 the language teaching process has evolved. Many researches for what was has been popularly called
“methods” have been developed in order to more successfully teach students a foreign language. Following is a set of
definitions that reflect the current usage, according to Gomez, L.F. (2003):

Methodology: Pedagogical practices in general. Whatever considerations are involved in “how to teach” are
methodological.

Approach: Theoretically well-informed positions and beliefs about the nature of language, nature of language
learning, and applicability of both to pedagogical settings.

Method: A generalized set of classroom specifications for accomplishing linguistic objectives. Methods tend to be
concerned primarily with teacher and students’ roles and behaviors and secondarily with such features as
linguistic and subject-matter objectives, sequencing, and materials. They are almost always thought of as being
broadly applicable to a variety of audiences in a variety of contexts.

Technique: Any of a wide variety of exercises, activities, or tasks used in the language classroom for realizing
lesson objectives.

There are many different methods that have been used for foreign language acquisition throughout history. Each
method has its supporters and its critics, mainly because each method is derived from different perspectives of foreign
language teaching. However, some methods have received wide recognition due to the historical roles they have played
in the views encompassed in this subject.

1. THE LITERARY METHOD

During most of Western history foreign languages have been taught in accordance with classical literature. This stems
from the emphasis that has been put on literacy and the aristocracy. The Renaissance was involved in the return to the
classics, particularly in Latin, but importance was placed on written mastery as opposed to speech. Therefore, learners
were essentially taught to imitate the classics instead of using L2 in everyday situations.

2. THE GRAMMAR TRANSLATION METHOD

This method was sought to reform the older literary method, and became popular in the 1800s. It was mostly comprised
of translating sentences back and forth between the L1 and the prospective L2. Grammar translation required learners
to master the grammar and to memorize extensive vocabulary lists, and had little to do with the principles of speaking or
listening.

At the height of the Communicative Approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s, it became fashionable
in some quarters to deride so-called "old-fashioned" methods and, in particular, something broadly labeled as "Grammar
Translation". There were numerous reasons for this but principally it was felt that translation itself was an academic
exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an overt focus on grammar was to
1
Duque, M.E. (2004). English Didactics. Módulo. Fundación Universitaria Luis Amigó. Medellín. p. 58.
learn about the target language rather than to learn it.

As with many other methods and approaches, Grammar Translation tended to be referred to in the past tense as if it no
longer existed and had died out to be replaced world-wide by the fun and motivation of the communicative classroom. If
the principal features of Grammar Translation are examined, however, there will be seen that it has not disappeared and
also that many of its characteristics have been central to language teaching throughout the years and are still valid
today.

The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, the basic approach is
to analyze and study the grammatical rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of
grammar, and then practice manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from
the mother tongue.

The method is very much based on the written word and texts are widely in evidence. A typical technique would be to
present the rules of a particular item of grammar, illustrate its use by including the item several times in a text, and
practice using the item through writing sentences and translating it into the mother tongue. The text is often
accompanied by a vocabulary list consisting of new lexical items used in the text together with the mother tongue
translation. Accurate use of language items is central to this approach.

Generally speaking, the medium of instruction is the mother tongue, which is used to explain conceptual problems and
to discuss the use of a particular grammatical structure. It all sounds rather dull but it can be argued that the Grammar
Translation method has over the years had a remarkable success. Millions of people have successfully learnt foreign
languages to a high degree of proficiency, without any contact whatsoever with native speakers of the language.

There are certain types of learners who respond very positively to a grammatical syllabus as it can give them both a set
of clear objectives and a clear sense of achievement. Other learners need the security of the mother tongue and the
opportunity to relate grammatical structures to mother tongue equivalents. Above all, this type of approach can give
learners a basic foundation upon which they can then build their communicative skills.

It can also be boring for many learners, and a quick look at foreign language course books from the 1950s and 1960s,
for example, will soon reveal the non-communicative nature of the language used. Using the more enlightened
principles of the Communicative Approach, however, and combining these with the systematic approach of Grammar
Translation, may well be the perfect combination for many learners. On one hand, they have motivating communicative
activities that help to promote their fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the
grammar of the language. This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being
published and, among other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much
alive as people enter the 21 st century. It can be argued that without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the
language, the learner is in possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly
adequate for basic communication but which will be found poor when the learner is required to perform any other kind of
linguistic tasks such as writing.

3. THE DIRECT METHOD

Since the Grammar translation method was not very effective in preparing students to use the target language
communicatively, the Direct Method became popular. The direct method is based on the idea that people can learn a
L2 easier if it were taught without any use of the L1, which means that the basic rule of this method is “no translation
allowed”. In fact, it receives its name from the fact that meaning is to be connected directly with the target language
without going through the process of translating into students’ native language. This way is supposed to simulate the
way in which a child learns L1 because, when a child acquires L1, he or she has no prior language to refer back to. In
this method, the learner is to communicate in realistic conditions of the target language. One criticism to this method is
that it is not easy to achieve in the classroom, which is obviously not a realistic situation. Most recently, this method was
revived when the goal of instruction became learning how to use a foreign language to communicate, and it is now called
Natural Approach, and it continues to draw a lot of supper in modern language classrooms.

4. THE NATURAL APPROACH

Stephen Krashen’s (1982) theories of language acquisition have been widely discussed and debated over the years.
The major methodological outcome of Krashen’s views was manifested in the Natural Approach, developed by one of
his colleagues, Tracy Terrell (1991). Acting on many of the claims, these two authors felt that learners would benefit
from delaying production until speech “emerges”, that learners should be as relaxed as possible in the classroom, and
that a great deal of communication and “acquisition” should take place. The Natural approach advocated the use of
TPR activities at the beginning level of language learning when comprehensive input is essential for triggering the
learning of a language.

There are a number of possible long-term goals to language learning, but the natural approach is aimed at the goal of
basic personal communication skills, that is, in everyday language situations-conversations, shopping, listening to radio,
etc. The initial task of the teacher is to provide comprehensible input, in spoken language, which is understandable to
the learner or just a little beyond the learner’s level. Learners need not say anything during this “silent period” (delay of
oral production) until they feel ready to do so. During this time, the teacher is the main source of the learner’s input and
the creator of an interesting and stimulating variety of classroom activities (commands, games, small group work, and
so on).

In the Natural Approach, learners move through what Krashen and Terrell (1983) defined as three stages: (a) the
preproduction stage is the development of listening comprehension skills. (b) The early production stage is usually
marked with errors as the student struggles with the language. The teacher focuses on meaning, not in form, and
therefore the teacher does not make a point of correcting errors during this stage (unless they are gross errors that
block or hinder meaning entirely). (c) The last stage is one of extending production into longer stretches of discourse
involving more complex games, role-plays, open-ended dialogs, discussions, and extended small-group work. Since
the objective in this stage is to promote fluency, teachers are asked to be very light in their correction of errors.

The most controversial aspects of the Natural Approach are its support of a “silent period” and its heavy emphasis on
comprehensible input. The delay of oral production until speech emerges has its problems. Being more positive, most
teachers and researchers agree that teachers are too prone to insist that learners speak right away. Those teachers
can take from the Natural Approach the good advice that, for a period of time, while students build knowledge, their
silence is beneficial.

5. THE AUDIO-LINGUAL METHOD

The audio-lingual method was developed in the 1950s, based on behaviorist psychology with the idea that language is a
habit-forming process. The focus is mainly on oral discussion and very little on grammar rules. The idea was that
phrases would be repeated orally until a kind of pattern is established and then, systematic changes would be
implemented to broaden the learners' skills. This method provides very little room for creativity in comparison to what
most language learners would hope to get out of the language classroom.

There seems to be a widely held perception amongst language teachers that methods and approaches have finite
historical boundaries (that the Grammar-Translation approach is dead, for example). Similarly, Audio-Lingualism was in
vogue in the 1960s but died out in the 70s after Chomsky’s famous attack on behaviorism in language learning.

In this context, it is worth considering for a moment what goes on in a typical language learning classroom. Do you ever
ask your students to repeat phrases or whole sentences, for example? Do you drill the pronunciation and intonation of
utterances? Do you ever use drills? What about choral drilling? Question and answer? If the answer to any of these
questions is yes, then, consciously or unconsciously, you are using techniques that are features of the Audio-Lingual
approach.
This approach has its roots in the USA during World War II when there was a pressing need to train key personnel
quickly and effectively in foreign language skills. The results of the Army Specialized Training Program are generally
regarded to have been very successful, with the requirement that the learners were in small groups and were highly
motivated, which undoubtedly contributed to the success of the approach.

The approach was theoretically underpinned by structural linguistics, as a movement in linguistics that focused on the
phonemic, morphological and syntactic systems underlying the grammar of a given language, rather than according to
traditional categories of Latin grammar. As such, it was held that learning a language involved mastering the building
blocks of the language and learning the rules by which these basic elements were combined from the level of sound to
the level of sentence. The Audio-Lingual approach based on the behaviorist theory of learning held that language, like
other aspects of human activity, is a form of behavior.

In the behaviorist view, language is elicited by a stimulus and that stimulus then triggers a response. The response in
turn then produces some kind of reinforcement which, if positive, encourages the repetition of the response in the future
or, if negative, its suppression. When transposed to the classroom, this gives teachers the classic pattern drill-model:
“She went to the cinema yesterday”. Stimulus: “Theatre”. Response: “She went to the theatre yesterday”.
Reinforcement: “Good!”. In its purest form Audio-Lingualism aims to promote mechanical habit-formation through
repetition of basic patterns. Accurate manipulation of structure leads to eventual fluency. Spoken language comes
before written language. Dialogues and drill are central to the approach. Accurate pronunciation and control of structure
are vital.

While some of this might seem amusingly rigid in these enlightened times, it is worth reflecting on actual classroom
practice and noticing when activities occur that can be said to have their basis in the Audio-Lingual approach. Most
teachers will, at some point, require learners to repeat examples of grammatical structures in context with a number of
aims in mind: stress, rhythm, intonation, "consolidating the structure" and enabling learners to use the structure
accurately through repetition, etc. Question and answer in open class or closed pairs to practice a particular form can
also be argued to have its basis in the Audio-Lingual approach, as can, without doubt, any kind of drill.

Although the Audio-Lingual approach in its purest form has many weaknesses (notably the difficulty of transferring
learned patterns to real communication), to say that the Audio-Lingual approach is an outmoded method of the 1960s, is
to ignore the reality of current classroom practice which is based on more than 2000 years of collective wisdom.

6. NOTIONAL-FUNCTIONAL APPROACH

Methods and approaches such as Grammar Translation, Audio-Lingualism and Situational Language teaching are based
on the presentation and practice of grammatical structures and, essentially, a grammar-based syllabus. In 1976, the
British linguist D.A. Wilkins published a document that proposed a radical shift away from using the traditional concepts
of grammar and vocabulary to describe language to an analysis of the communicative meanings that learners would
need in order to express themselves and to understand effectively. This initial document was followed by his 1976 work
Notional Syllabuses, which showed how language could be categorized on the basis of notions such as quantity, location
and time, and functions such as making requests, making offers and apologizing.

Wilkins’ work was used by the Council of Europe in drawing up a communicative language syllabus, which specified the
communicative functions a learner would need in order to communicate effectively at a given level of competence. At
the end of the 1970s, the first course-books to be based on functional syllabuses began to appear. Typically, they would
be organized on the basis of individual functions and the exponents needed to express these functions. For example,
many course-books would begin with the function of ‘introducing oneself’, perhaps followed by the function of ‘making
requests’, with typical exponents being “Can I ….?”, "Could you ….?”, "Is it all right if I ….?” and so on. These would
often be practiced in the form of communicative exercises involving pair work, group work and role plays. It is interesting
to compare this approach with a grammatical one. In a typical grammatical approach, structures using the word ‘would’
tend to appear in later stages of the syllabus, as they are held to be relatively complex (e.g. "If I knew the answer, I
would tell you"), whereas in a functional syllabus ‘would’ often appears at a very early stage due to its communicative
significance in exponents such as “Would you like ….?”, which is extremely common and of great communicative value
even to beginners. The need to apply a grammatical name or category to the structure is not considered important within
the framework of a purely functional approach.

Criticisms to notional-functional approach include the difficulty in deciding the order in which different functions should
be presented. Is it more important to be able to complain or to apologize, for example? Another problem lies in the
wide range of grammatical structures needed to manipulate basic functions at different levels of formality (for example,
“Can I …..?” as opposed to “Would you mind if I …..?"). In addition, although it is possible to identify hundreds of
functions and micro-functions, there are probably no more than ten fundamental communicative functions that are
expressed by a range of widely used exponents. There is also the apparently random nature of the language used
which may frustrate learners accustomed to the more analytical and "building-block" approach that a grammatical
approach can offer. Another apparent weakness is the question of what to do at higher levels. Is it simply a case of
learning more complex exponents for basic functions or is one required to seek out over more obscure functions? (e.g.
Complaining sarcastically).

On the positive side, however, there is little doubt that the notional-functional approach has contributed a great deal to
the overall store of language teaching methodology. Most new course-books contain some kind of functional syllabus
alongside a focus on grammar and vocabulary, thus providing learners with communicatively useful expressions in
tandem with a structured syllabus with a clear sense of progression. In addition, the focus on communication inherent in
the practice of functional exponents has contributed greatly to communicative language teaching in general. Finally, the
idea that even beginners can be presented with exponents of high communicative value from the very start represents a
radical shift from the kind of approach that began with the simple present of the verb ‘to be’ in all its forms and focused
almost entirely on structure with little regard for actual communication in the target language.

7. THE SILENT WAY

Silent Way originated in the early 1970s. The last line of Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote about teaching and learning
can be said to lie at the heart of Silent Way. The three basic beliefs of the approach are that learning is facilitated if the
learner discovers rather than remembers or repeats, that learning is aided by physical objects, and that problem-solving
is central to learning. The use of the word "silent" is also significant, as the Silent Way is based on the premise that the
teacher should be as silent as possible in the classroom in order to encourage the learner to produce as much language
as possible.

As far as the presentation of language is concerned, the Silent Way adopts a highly structural approach, with language
taught through sentences in a sequence based on grammatical complexity. The structural patterns of the target
language are presented by the teacher and the grammar "rules" of the language are learned inductively by the learners.
Cuisenaire rods (small colored blocks of varying sizes originally intended for the teaching of mathematics) are often
used to illustrate meaning (the physical objects mentioned above). New items are added cautiously by the teacher and
learners take these as far as they can in their communication until the need for the next new item becomes apparent.
The teacher then provides this new item by modeling it very clearly just once. The learners are then left to use the new
item and to incorporate it into their existing stock of language, again taking it as far as they can until the next item is
needed and so on.

This is perhaps best illustrated by an example. Let us say that the teacher has introduced the idea of pronouns as in
"Give me a green rod". The class will then use this structure until it is clearly assimilated, using, in addition, all the other
colors. One member of the class would now ask another to pass a rod to a third student but she does not know the
word "her", only that it cannot be "me". At this point the teacher would intervene and supply the new item: "Give her the
green rod" and the learners will continue until the next new item is needed (probably "him"). This minimalist role of the
teacher has led some critics to describe Silent Way teachers as "unfriendly" and, indeed, this apparently excessive
degree of self-restraint can be seen as such.
The prominent writer on language teaching, Earl W. Stevick (in Brown, 2001), has described the role of the teacher in
Silent Way as "Teach, test, get out of the way". The apparent lack of real communication in the approach has also been
criticized, with some arguing that it is difficult to take the approach beyond the very basics of the language, with only
highly motivated learners being able to generate real communication from the rigid structures illustrated by the rods. The
fact that, for logistical reasons, it is limited to relatively small groups of learners is also seen as a weakness.

As with other methods and approaches, however, aspects of the Silent Way can be observed in many lessons in the
modern classroom. In the 1980s and early 90s, for example, it became fashionable in some schools to argue that
excessive "teacher talking time" was something to be discouraged. Cuisenaire rods are also popular with some
teachers and can be used extremely creatively for various purposes from teaching pronunciation to story-telling. The
idea of modeling a new structure or item of vocabulary just once may also have some justification as it encourages
learners both to listen more carefully and then to experiment with their own production of the utterance.

Finally, the problem-solving feature of the Silent Way may well prove to be its most enduring legacy as it has led
indirectly both to the idea of Task-based Learning and to the widespread use of problem-solving activities.

8. TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE

Originally developed in the 1960s, by James Asher, an American professor of psychology, Total Physical Response
(TPR) is based on the theory that the memory is enhanced through association with physical movement. It is also
closely associated with theories of mother tongue language acquisition in very young children where they respond
physically to parental commands, such as: "Pick it up" and "Put it down". TPR as an approach to teaching a foreign
language is based, first and foremost, on listening, and this is linked to physical actions which are designed to reinforce
comprehension of particular basic items.

A typical TPR activity might contain instructions such as "Walk to the door", "Open the door", "Sit down" and "Give
Maria your dictionary". The students are required to carry out the instructions by physically performing the activities.
Given a supportive classroom environment, there is little doubt that such activities can be both motivating and fun, and it
is also likely that with even a fairly limited amount of repetition basic instructions such as these could be assimilated by
the learners, even if they were unable to reproduce them accurately themselves.

The above examples, however, also illustrate some of the potential weaknesses inherent in the approach. Firstly, from a
purely practical point of view, it is highly unlikely that even the most skilled and inventive teacher could sustain a lesson
involving commands and physical responses for more than a few minutes before the activity became repetitious for the
learners; although, the use of situational role-play could provide a range of contexts for practicing a wider range of lexis.
Secondly, it is fairly difficult to give instructions without using imperatives, so the language input is basically restricted to
this single form. Thirdly, it is quite difficult to see how this approach could extend beyond a beginners’ level. Fourthly,
the relevance of some of the language used in TPR activities to real-world learner needs is questionable. Finally,
moving from the listening and responding stage to oral production might be workable in a small group of learners but it
would appear to be problematic when applied to a class of 30 students, for example.

In defense of the approach, however, it should be emphasized that it was never intended by its early proponents that it
should extend beyond a beginners’ level. (In theory it might be possible to develop it by making the instructions lexically
more complex (for example, "Pick up the toothpaste and unscrew the cap"), but this does seem to be stretching the
point somewhat). In addition, a course designed around TPR principles would not be expected to follow a TPR syllabus
exclusively, and Asher himself (in Byrne, 1987) suggested that TPR should be used in association with other methods
and techniques. In terms of the theoretical basis of the approach, the idea of listening preceding production and learners
to be only required to speak when they are ready to do so closely resembles elements of Stephen Krashen’s Natural
Approach.

TPR activities, used judiciously and integrated with other activities can be both highly motivating and linguistically
purposeful. Careful choice of useful and communicative language at beginner level can make TPR activities entirely
valid. Many learners respond well to kinesthetic activities and they can genuinely serve as a memory aid. A lot of
classroom warmers and games are based, consciously or unconsciously, on TPR principles. As with other methods,
however, general adoption of this approach, to the total exclusion of any other, would probably not be sustainable for
very long.

9. SUGGESTOPEDIA

Often considered to be the strangest of the so-called "humanistic approaches", Suggestopedia was originally developed
in the 1970s by the Bulgarian educator Georgi Lozanov. Extravagant claims were initially made for the approach with
Lozanov himself, declaring that memorization in learning through Suggestopedia would be accelerated by up to 25
times over that in conventional learning methods. The approach attracted wild enthusiasm in some schools and open
disdain in others. On balance, it is probably fair to say that Suggestopedia has had its day but also that certain
elements of the approach survive in today’s practice.

The approach was based on the power of suggestion in learning; the notion being that positive suggestion would make
the learner more receptive and, in turn, stimulate learning. Lozanov holds that a relaxed but focused state is the
optimum state for learning. In order to create this relaxed state in the learner and to promote positive suggestion,
Suggestopedia makes use of music, a comfortable and relaxing environment, and a relationship between the teacher
and the student that is similar to the parent-child relationship. Music, in particular, is central to the approach. Unlike
other methods and approaches, there is no apparent theory of language in Suggestopedia and no obvious order in
which items of language are presented.

The original form of Suggestopedia presented by Lozanov consisted of the use of extended dialogues, often several
pages in length, accompanied by vocabulary lists and observations on grammatical points. Typically, these dialogues
would be read aloud to the students to the accompaniment of music. The most formal of these readings, known as the
"concert reading", would typically employ a memorable piece of classical music such as a Beethoven symphony. This
would not be in the form of background music but would be the main focus of the reading, with the teacher’s voice
acting as a counterpoint to the music. Thus, the "concert reading" could be seen as a kind of pleasurable event, with
the learners free to focus on the music, the text or a combination of the two. The rhythm and intonation of the reading
would be exaggerated in order to fit in with the rhythm of the music.

A second, less formal reading would employ a lighter, less striking piece of music, such as a piece of Baroque music,
and this would take a less prominent role. During both types of reading, the learners would sit in comfortable seats,
armchairs rather than classroom chairs, in a suitably stimulating environment in terms of decoration and lighting. After
the readings of these long dialogues to the accompaniment by music, the teacher would then make use of the dialogues
for more conventional language work. In theory at least, large chunks of the dialogues would be internalized by the
learners during the readings due both to the relaxed and receptive state of the learners and to the positive suggestion
created by the music.

There is, however, little evidence to support the extravagant claims of success. The more obvious criticisms lie in the
fact that many people find classical music irritating rather than stimulating, the length of the dialogues and the lack of a
coherent theory of language may serve to confuse rather than to motivate, and, for purely logistic reasons, the provision
of comfortable armchairs and a relaxing environment will probably be beyond the means of most educational
establishments.

In addition, the idea of a teacher reading a long (and often clearly inauthentic) dialogue aloud, with exaggerated rhythm
and intonation, to the accompaniment of Beethoven or Mozart may well seem ridiculous to many people.

This is not to say, however, that certain elements of the approach cannot be taken and incorporated into the more
eclectic approach to language teaching widely in evidence today. The use of music both in the background and as an
accompaniment to certain activities can be motivating and relaxing. Attention to factors such as decoration, lighting and
furniture is surely not a bad thing. Dialogues have their uses, too. Perhaps most importantly of all the ideas, creating
conditions in which learners are alert and receptive can only have a positive effect on motivation. Whether these
conditions are best created by the use of classical music and the reading of dialogues is open to questions but there is
no doubt that Suggestopedia has raised some interesting questions in the areas of both learning and memory.

10. COMMUNITY LANGUAGE LEARNING METHOD

Also, by the decade of the 1970s, as the importance of the affective domain was increasingly recognized, some
innovative methods took an affective nature. Community Language Learning is a classic example of an affectively
based method.

In this method students as are not regarded as a ‘class’ but as a ‘group’ in need of certain therapy and counseling, and
the social dynamics of the group are very important. In order to construct knowledge, students need to interact in an
interpersonal relationship in which students and teacher work together to facilitate learning in a context where each
member of the group is valued. The anxiety caused by foreign language was lessened by means of the supportive
community. Teacher was not perceived as a threat, and did not act as the authority, but as a counselor to center the
attention in the students and their needs. Students are allowed to use their native language; the teacher translates what
student say and s/he will repeat the English sentence as accurately as possible. As learners gain more and more
familiarity with the foreign language, more and more direct communication can take place, with the teacher providing
less and less translation and information. After some time, the learner achieves fluency in the spoken language, it
means that the learner has become independent.

Today this method is not exclusively used in a curriculum. Like other methods, it is too restrictive for institutional
language programs. However, the principles of student-centered participation and development of student autonomy,
all remain viable in their application to language classrooms, but it has to be creatively adapted to every situation.

11. THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH

This method is based on the idea that the goal of learning L2 is to gain communicative competency. It is thought that
learners need to have knowledge of the rules of use in order to generate language appropriately for certain situations,
and to have strategies to communicate effectively. The communicative approach focuses on the use of language in
everyday situations, or the functional aspects of language, and less on the formal structures. However, critics believe
that there needs to be some sort of "bridge" between the two for effective language learning.

This approach to language teaching that can be broadly labeled as communicative language teaching emerged in the
1970s and 1980s as the emphasis switched from the mechanical practice of language patterns associated with the
Audio-Lingual method to activities that engaged the learner in more meaningful and authentic language use.

It is interesting to look at the legacy of the communicative approach and to observe how current practice has been
affected by its basic principles. Most present-day practitioners would probably like to think that their classes are
"communicative" in the widest sense of the word. Their lessons probably contain activities where learners communicate
and where tasks are completed by means of interaction with other learners. To this end there will probably be
considerable if not extensive use of pair, group and mingling activities, with the emphasis on completing the task
successfully through communication with others rather than on the accurate use of form. During these activities the
teacher’s role will be to facilitate and then to monitor, usually without interruption, and then to provide feedback on the
success or otherwise of the communication and, possibly, on the linguistic performance of the learners in the form of
post-activity error correction.

In terms of the organization of the lesson, practice and perform model, (where careful input of a particular structure is
typically followed by controlled, less controlled and freer practice) is likely to have been replaced by a more task-based
approach, possibly on the lines of test-teach-test, where the learners are given a communicative task which is monitored
by the teacher and then their language use while performing the task is tuned by the teacher in a lesson stage which
focuses on error correction or a particular form that is causing difficulties. This is typically followed by a further task-
based stage, where the initial task is repeated or a similar task is performed, ideally with a greater degree of linguistic
accuracy than during the first attempt.

Another feature will probably be that the traditional grammatical approach of starting the beginner’s syllabus by
presenting the present tense of the verb ‘to be’ will have been replaced by a more communicative focus, with basic
introductions, requests and questions enabling learners to begin communicating in English from the very first lesson. It
is probably fair to say that, as we look at the language classroom of 2001, there will probably be a certain degree from
stepping back from the extremes of the totally communicative classroom, with its obsession about reducing teacher
talking time to a minimum and maximizing the opportunities for communication. This type of approach tended to give
the impression of a syllabus without direction and a sense of communication for communication’s sake, producing the
valid comment from at least one upset learner: "Groups, groups, groups. Why do I have to talk all the time to my fellow
students? I can do this in the coffee-bar!" What teachers will probably find now is a more balanced approach with
opportunities for structural input (including practice of language patterns). There will, however, almost certainly be an
emphasis on more authentic contexts with example sentences being at the very least semi-authentic communicative
use rather than arbitrary examples of form with little or no communicative value. In today’s classroom teachers will
probably also see a lot of authentic listening and reading material being used and far fewer unnatural texts designed to
illustrate grammatical form or present items of vocabulary and with no attempt to communicate a meaningful message
to the listener or reader.

Perhaps the most long-term legacy of the communicative approach will be that it has allowed teachers to incorporate
motivating and purposeful communicative activities and principles into their teaching while simultaneously retaining the
best elements of other methods and approaches rather than to focus in a single one.

12. THE ECLECTIC (ENLIGHTENED) APPROACH

It should be clear that an “eclectic” (enlightened) teacher thinks in terms of a number of possible methodological options
when tailoring classes to particular contexts. No approach is a set of static principles set in stone, it is a dynamic
combination of ‘energies' that with experiences in the learning teaching process teacher can creatively use, or fuse to
make teaching and learning process more productive. It is inspired by the interconnection of all your readings,
observations, discussions and experiences, and underlies everything you do in the classroom and by the way a teacher
understands the language teaching and learning process.

The interaction between methodologies and approaches and the classroom practice is the key to dynamic teaching. The
best teachers always take a few calculated risks in the classroom by trying new activities. The creativity for such
innovations comes from the understanding of what learning and teaching is.

It could be said that the Eclectic Approach is YOUR approach, and it is guided by a number of factors such as: your
experiences as a learner and as a teacher, research on language teaching, classroom observations, books and courses
in this field you have read or taken, and what is more important, YOUR approach has to be tempered by specific
contexts of teaching, because not all the principles apply to all learners, to all contexts, and to all purposes. Therefore,
your approach will differ on various issues from the approach used by your colleagues or by “experts” in the field of
language teaching and learning.

Up to now, one has been introduced to a progression of methods and approaches that define more than a century of
history of language teaching, each one of them supported in some important theoretical assumptions. At some stages
the teaching and learning process was very behaviorist, later on, one has moved into new ways of teaching and learning
taking into account the cognitive, constructive and humanistic factors. Today one continues the march continue our
march through history. People are exploring pedagogical means for “real-life” communication in the classroom; they are
trying to guide our students to develop linguistic fluency, not just accuracy as they have studied in many of the
approaches and methods during our historical journey. They are trying to guide our students to be equipped with tools to
facilitate lifelong language learning and their performance in the “real world”, it means beyond the classrooms.
Allied to all the concepts studied, here is a brief summary of other perspectives that teachers have to take into account
when they continue with current language teaching approaches.

13. LEARNER-CENTERED INSTRUCTION

This applies to curricula, lesson planning, and specific techniques that allow students to be creative and innovative, as
well as allowing students to enhance their sense of competence and self-esteem, as students believe that they indeed
are capable of accomplishing language learning. It can be compared or contrasted with teacher-centered. LCI includes
techniques that focus on students’ needs, learning styles, goals, and that will give students control over language
learning. Students will therefore construct a sense of ownership of their learning and will be intrinsically motivated.

14. COOPERATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

The cooperative learning usually involves learner-centered characteristics. Students will learn in groups, share
information and always help others. They are like a team where the players work together in order to achieve goals
successfully. This learning promotes intrinsic motivation, great self-esteem, altruistic relationships, lowers anxiety, and
challenges individual learning styles, personality differences, because it does not simple implies collaboration, students
and teacher work together to pursue goals and objectives.

15. INTERACTIVE LEARNING

When it is said that the function of the language goes beyond of just producing a message, it also includes the factor of
listener’s reception. In a semantic sense, it is a product of negotiation, of give and take; therefore, it is necessary to
create opportunities for genuine interactions in the classroom. To cope with all these factors, classes will have to be
developed doing a lot of pair and group work, using authentic language, producing language in genuine, meaningful
communication, performing tasks to prepare students to talk outside of the classroom, practicing language
spontaneously, writing for real audiences, and so on. Here, both, the input and the output, are considered of great
importance in the development of language as students attempt to produce and interpret language. As students interact
with each other through oral and written language, their communicative abilities are enhanced.

16. WHOLE LANGUAGE EDUCATION

The term comes to emphasize the wholeness of language in opposition to the fragmented language –bits, pieces,
isolated words-, and the interaction between the productive skills (speaking and writing) and the receptive skills (listening
and reading). This term also comes to encompass cooperative and student-centered learning, the use of authentic
meaningful language, integration of the four skills, holistic assessment techniques, as well as focusing on the community
of learners in order to help students to build meaningful connections between everyday learning and school learning
which will lead them towards a better long term retention of the language learned.

17. CONTENT-BASED INSTRUCTION

It refers to the integration of content learning with language teaching aims. Content-based classrooms will increase
intrinsic motivation and empowerment since students are involved in subject matter that is important to their lives.
Challenges range from a demand of new books and other materials to the training of language teachers to teach the
concepts of various disciplines or to teach concepts across disciplines.

18. TASK-BASED INSTRUCTION

A task is a special form or technique, even though tasks are usually ‘bigger’ in their ultimate ends than techniques (a role
play task/technique, problem solving task that includes grammatical explanations). This TBI is not a new method; it
views the learning process as a set of communicative tasks that enhance learning. It forces teachers to carefully
consider all the techniques used in the classroom in terms of some pedagogical purposes such as if the task contributes
to communicative goals, if the objectives are well specified, if they engage learners in some genuine problem-solving
activity, if they take learners beyond the forms of language into real-world contexts.

Now it can be concluded that the approach to language teaching and learning is the keystone to all teaching
methodology in the classroom. By now, you have probably identified at least, some components of your own approach
to language teaching and learning, and have built an understanding of how your approach enlightens your classroom
practices. Keep in mind that there is much to research and learn in this profession, and that we will be best teachers
ourselves, when we maintain a disciplined inquisitiveness about our teaching practices.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

BYRNE, Donn (1987): Techniques for Classroom Interaction. New York: Longman.

BROWN, H. Douglas. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth edition. New York: Longman.

BROWN, H. Douglas. (2001) Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. USA: Prentice-
Hall Regents.

BROWN, H. Douglas. (2002). Strategies for Success. A practical guide to learning

English. New York: Longman.

CAMPBELL, Linda., CAMPBELL, Bruce & DICKINSON, Dee. (1993). Teaching

and Learning through Multiple Intelligences. New York: Plume/Penguin.

CAMPBELL, Linda. (1997). "How Teachers Interpret MI Theory". Educational

Leadership, 55(1): 15-19.

CARREL, P. Y Et. Al. (1998). Interactive Approaches to Second Language.

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

CARY, S. (1997). Second Language Learners. Strategies for teaching and

learning. USA: Stenhouse Publishers.

CHRISTISON, Mary Ann. (1990). "Cooperative Learning in the EFL Classroom."

English Teaching Forum. Oct.: 6-9. USA.

CHAMOT, Anna, & O'MALLEY, Michael. (1994). The CALLA Handbook:

Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley.

CHRISTISON, Mary Ann. (1996). "Teaching and learning language through

multiple intelligences." TESOL Journal, 6(1): 10-14.

CHRISTISON, Mary Ann. (1998). “Applying Multiple Intelligences Theory in Pre-

service and In-service TEFL Education Programs”. English Teaching Forum,
April-June: 3-13.

COHEN, A.D. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and
researchers." Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
DI PIETRO, Robert J. (1987): Strategic Interaction; Massachusetts: Cambridge
University Press.

FREIRE, Paulo. (1987). Freire for the Classroom. A sourcebook for Liberatory
Teaching. New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.

GARDNER, Howard. (1993). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

New York. Basic Books.

GARDNER, Howard. (1995). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in practice. New

York: Basic Books.

GARDNER, Howard. (1997). Are There Additional Intelligences? The Case for the
Naturalist Intelligence." Howard Project Zero. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
President and Fellows of Howard College.

GOMEZ, Luis Fernando. (2003). English Methodology. Medellin: Editorial

Universidad de Antioquia.

HAGGERTY, B.A. (1995). Nurturing Intelligences: A Guide to Multiple Intelligences

Theory and Teaching. USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

HARVEY S. and GOUDVIS A. (2000). Strategies that Work. Teaching

comprehension to enhance understanding. USA: Stenhouse Publishers.

KRASHEN, Stephen. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

KRASHEN, Stephen and TERREL, Tracy. (1983). The Natural Approach:

Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

KROEKER, T. and HENRICHS M. (1993). Reaching Adult Learners with whole

language strategies. USA: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

LARSEN-FREEMAN, Diane. (1986) Techniques and Principles in Language

Teaching. England: Oxford University Press.

LAZEAR, D. (1999). Multiple Intelligence Approaches to Assessment. Spain:

Zephyr Press.

LESSARD-CLOUSTON, Michael. (1998). Vocabulary Learning Strategies for

Specialized Vocabulary Acquisition. Second Language Research. Forum
Journal, 12, March.

LESSARD-CLOUSTON, Michael. (1997). Language Learning Strategies: An

Overview for L2 Teachers on the Internet. TESL Journal.

LIGHTBOWN, P., and SPADA, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford
United Kingdom: University Press.

LOZANOV, G. (1978) Suggestology and the Outlines of Suggestopedia. U.S.A:

Gordon and Breach.
NUNAN, D. (1999) The Learner-Centered Curriculum. United Kingdom Cambridge University Press.

NUNAN, D. (1996). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158.

O'MALLEY, J.M., & CHAMOT, A.U. (1990)."Learning strategies in second

language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

OXFORD, R.L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

OXFORD, R.L., & Crookall, D. (1989). Research on language learning strategies:

Methods, findings, and instructional issues. "Modern Language Journal,"
73, 404-419.

REID, Joy M. (1995). Learning Styles in the ESL/EFL Classroom. Boston: Heinle& Heinle Publishers.

RICHARDS, Jack C. and RODGERS, Theodore S. (1986): Approaches and

Methods in Language Teaching. A description and analysis; Cambridge:
Cambridge Language Teaching Library.

RUBIN J. and THOMPSON I. (1994). How to be a Successful Language Learner:

Toward Learner Autonomy. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

RUBIN, J. (1975). What the "good language learner" can teach us. "TESOL
Quarterly," 9, 41-51.

SÁNCHEZ PÉREZ, Aquilino (1982): La Enseñanza de Idiomas. Principios,

problemas y métodos; Hora SA.

SKINNER, B.F. (1968). The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

STERN, H.H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

WENDEN, Anita. (1991). Lerner Strategies for Learners Autonomy. USA: Prentice
Hall.

WENDEN, Anita and RUBIN, Joan. (1987). Learner Strategies in Language

Learning. New York: Prentice Hall International.

WILKINS, David A. (1976). Notional Syllabuses. London: Oxford University

Press.

WILLIAMS, Marion and BURDEN, Robert. (1997). Psychology for Language

Teachers. Australia: Cambridge University Press.

www.aitech.ac.jp/~iteslj/Articles/Offner-HowToLearn.html
The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. III, No. 12, December 1997
http://iteslj.org/Articles/Lessard-Clouston-Strategy.html