An Overview of Second Language Teaching Methods and Approaches

-Dammar Singh Saud

(Dammar Singh Saud is a lecturer of Darchula Multiple Campus, Tribhuvan University in English
since 2009. He is an M.A. in English Literature and M.Ed. in English Language Education from
Tribhuvan University. His fields of interests, expertise and research are English Language Teaching,
Literature, Academic Writing, Reading Writing and Critical Thinking and Communication English. He
has written a number of articles on English Language Teaching and Literature.)

Introduction
Debate and developments around the methods of language teaching and learning have
been ongoing from the past. The complexity of contexts and the greater appreciation
of the issues lead us to the conclusion that there is not a single, universal optimum
method for teaching and learning English language, but rather the need for teachers to
adopt an informed eclectic approach, incorporating elements from the range of
methods available. Most language teaching today aims to achieve oral
communication, although some place greater emphasis upon grammatical mastery and
reading.

According to Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary (2000, p.803), method can be

defined as 'a particular way of doing something'. In attempting to define what
‘method’ is, we can consider Edward Anthony’s (1963) tripartite distinction of
Approach, Method and Technique (as cited in Saud, 2011, p.95).

According to Richards and Rodgers, approach is the level at which assumptions and
beliefs about language and language learning are specified; method is the level at
which theory is put into practice and at which choices are made about the particular
skills to be taught, the content to be taught, and the order in which the content will be
presented; technique is the level at which classroom procedures are descried (as cited
in Saud, 2011, p.96).

 Richards and Rodgers proposed a reformulation of Anthony’s model. They

renamed approach, method and technique, respectively, approach, design and
procedure, with a superordinate term “method” to describe this three step
process (as cited in Saud, 2011, p.96).
 Approach refers to the beliefs and theories about language, language learning
and teaching that underlie a method
 Design specifies how theories of language and learning are implemented in a
syllabus model and teaching and learning activities and materials in the
classroom
 Procedure concerns the techniques and practices employed in the classroom as
consequences of particular approaches and designs
The three hierarchical terminologies approach, method and technique compared and
contrasted, according to Subedi (2010, p.76), in the following way:

Approach Method Technique

It is a set of correlative
assumptions / hypothesis /
axioms / principles.
It deals with the nature of
language teaching and
learning.
It is an article of faith
based on philosophy.
It is axiomatic.
It is the philosophical
base of methods.
It is an untested belief.
It deals with broad view
point about language and
language teaching.
It is set of procedures. It is a particular
contrivance used to meet
immediate objectives.
It deals with the tested It actually applied in the
principles of procedures class.
and how to present
materials.
It is developed out of It is the set of activities in
materials. the class.
It is procedural. It is implementational.
It deals with the It is implemented in the
application of the view. class.
It is a tested principle. It is application of the
method.
It deals with principles of It deals with classroom
material presentation in activities.
the class.

The Grammar-Translation Method

The Classical or Grammar-Translation method represents the tradition of language
teaching adopted in western society and developed over centuries of teaching not only
the classical languages such as Latin and Greek, but also English language. This
method emphasizes on language learning by learning grammatical rules along with
the exceptions and vocabulary items, and applying them into practice and translation.
It remained popular in modern language pedagogy, even after the introduction of
newer methods. The basic two language skills namely listening and speaking are, to
some extent, neglected. Although this method is highly criticized, it is still widely
practised. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979) listed the major characteristics of
Grammar-Translation Method (as cited in Saud, 2011, pp.98-99):

 Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target
language;
 Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words;
 Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given;
 Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often
focuses on the form and inflection of words;
 Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early;
 Little attention is paid to the context of texts, which are treated as exercises in
grammatical analysis;
 Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from
the target language into the mother tongue;
 Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.
The Direct Method
While Henri Gouin’s The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages,
published in 1880, can be seen as the precursor of modern language teaching methods
with its ‘naturalistic’ approach, the credit for popularising the Direct Method usually
goes to Charles Berlitz, although he marketed it as the Berlitz Method.

The basic premise of the Direct Method was that one should attempt to learn a second
language in much the same way as children learn their first language. The method
emphasised oral interaction, spontaneous use of language, no translation between first
and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammar rules.

Richards and Rodgers (1995) summarized the principles of the Direct method as
follows (as cited in Saud, 2011, pp.105-106):

 Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language;

 Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught;

 Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully traded progression

organized around questions-and-answer exchanges between teachers and
students in small intensive classes;

 Grammar was taught inductively;

 New teaching points were taught through modelling and practice;

 Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, pictures;

Abstract vocabulary was taught through association of ideas;

 Both speech and listening comprehension were taught;

 Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.

Oral-Structural-Situational Approach
The OSS approach is the combination of three approaches, that is to say, oral,
structural and situational. The oral presentation of structures in a meaningful situation
is the key to the OSS approach. This approach emerged as the refinement of direct
method. Shrestha summed up the major characteristics as follow (2015, p.32):

 Language teaching begins with the spoken language.

 Material is taught orally before it is presented in written form.
 The target language is the language of classroom.
 New sentence patterns and vocabulary items are introduced and practised
situationally.
 Vocabulary items are selected and graded and those items which are thought
of as highly essential are included in the items and given preference.
 Grammar is taught inductively.
  Language is viewed as a purposeful activity related to goals and situations in
the real world.
 Various types of drills are used as the techniques of teaching and learning
processes.
 Reading and writing are introduced only after ensuring that the students have
achieved the mastery over the essential grammar and vocabulary.

The Audio-lingual Method

The Audio-lingual Method is derived from "The Army Method," so called because it
was developed through a U.S. Army programme devised after World War II to
produce speakers proficient in the languages of friend and foes. In this method,
grounded in the habit formation model of behaviourist psychology and on a Structural
Linguistics theory of language, the emphasis was on memorisation through pattern
drills and conversation practices rather than promoting communicative ability. Prator
and Celce-Murcia (1979) summed up the characteristics of the Audio-lingual method
in the following list (as cited in the Saud, 2011, p.115):

 New material is presented in dialogue form;

 There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and
overlearning
 Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis taught one at a time;
 Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills;
 There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive
analogy rather than by deductive explanation;
 Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context;
 There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids;
 Great importance is attached to pronunciation;
 Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted;
 Successful responses are immediately reinforced;
 There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances;
 There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.

Cognitive Code Learning

With the Chomskyan revolution in linguistics, attention of linguists and language
teachers was drawn towards the ‘deep structure’ of language and a more cognitive
psychology. Chomsky’s theory of Transformational-generative Grammar focused
attention again on the rule-governed nature of language and language acquisition
rather than habit formation. This gave rise in the 1960s to Cognitive Code Learning
where learners were encouraged to work out grammar rules deductively for
themselves.

This method had limited success as the cognitive emphasis on rules and paradigms
proved as unattractive as behaviourist rote drilling because cognitive code learning
methodology injected more deductive rule learning into language classes.
 Deductive Learning Grammatical explanations or rules are
presented and then applied through
practice in exercises.
The learner works from rules/ principles
to examples.
Inductive Learning Learners are presented with examples.
They then discover or induce language
rules and principles on their own.

The Natural Approach

The Natural Approach, with echoes of the ‘naturalistic’ approach of the Direct
Method, was developed by Krashen and Terrell. It emphasised “Comprehensible
Input”, distinguishing between ‘acquisition’ – a natural subconscious process, and
‘learning’ – a conscious process. They argued that learning cannot lead to acquisition.
The focus is on meaning, not form (structure, grammar). This approach is based on
the theory of second language acquisition. It emphasizes on exposure or input, rather
than practice; optimizing emotional preparedness for learning. Krashen and Terrell
say that the natural approach is an example of communicative approach (as cited in
Pun, Upaddhaya & Gyawaly, 2012, p.41).

Since the Natural Approach is entirely based on the Krashen's theory of second
language acquisition, the five hypothesis of his theory can be summed of as below (as
cited in Sharma, 2010, 136-137):

Krashen’s Five Hypotheses

The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis: It claims that there are two
distinctive ways of developing second language competence: acquisition
that is by using language for “real communication” and learning i.e.
"knowing about" or “formal knowledge” of a language.
The Natural Order hypothesis: We acquire the rules of language in a
predictable order.
The Monitor Hypothesis: Conscious learning ... can only be used as a
Monitor or an editor' and cannot lead to fluency.
The Input Hypothesis: 'Humans acquire language in only one way - by
understanding messages or by receiving "comprehensible input"'.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis: 'A mental block, caused by affective
factors ... that prevents input from reaching the language acquisition
device'.

The contrasts between Acquisition and Learning can be tabulated as follows:

Acquisition Learning
Implicit, subconscious Explicit, conscious
Informal situations Formal situations
Uses grammatical ‘feel’ Uses grammatical rules
 Depends on attitude Depends on aptitudes
Stable order of acquisition Simplex to complex order of learning

Total Physical Response

Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching method developed by James
Asher, a professor of psychology, in the 1960s. This method attempts to teach
language through action or physical response. TPR is a 'Natural Method' as it sees
second language learning as parallel process to child first language acquisition. It also
share Stephen Krashen's belief in comprehensible input. Richards and Rodgers (2008)
put, "Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching methods built around the
coordination of speech and action; it attempts to teach language through physical
activity" (as cited in Subedi, 2010, p.117).

According to Saud, the principal features of TPR can be summed up as below (2011,
pp.146-147):

 It is simply compatible with S – R learning theory and tracing theory in

psychology.
 This method tries to combine speech and actions.
 It tries to teach language through physical activities.
 This method believes that adult second language learning is paralleled process
to children's L1 acquisition.
 It reflects a grammar-based view of language.
 It believes a number of structures and vocabulary items can be learnt from the
skilful use of the imperatives.
 Language can be learnt by rote repetition.
 Verbal behaviour is to be associated with motor activity to learn a language.
 The three hypothesis which language learning belongs to are the bio-program,
brain lateralization and stress reduction.
 It mainly aims at developing oral proficiency in the learners.
 This method uses a sentence-based syllabus with grammatical and lexical
items.
 The imperative drills are used as the major classroom activities in TPR.
 The learner in TPR is listener, imitator, performer, monitor, and evaluator.
 The teacher functions as the model, controller and feedback provider.
 In TPR, there is generally no basic text.
 It emphasizes the role of comprehension in second language acquisition.
 Learners' stress and anxiety get reduced while learning goes on.

Communicative Language Teaching

During the 1980s and 1990s approaches emerged which concentrated on the
fundamentally communicative functions of language and language classrooms were
characterized by attempts to ensure authenticity of materials and pragmatic,
meaningful tasks.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has emerged as the norm in second

language teaching. The main objective of the CLT approach is to enable the learners
to achieve communicative competence which makes them use the linguistic forms and
vocabulary items functionally. Richards et al. (1999) mention in their work ' Longman
Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics' that communicative
competence includes (as cited in Sharma, 2010, pp.31-32):

 Knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language.

 Knowledge of the rules of speaking ( e.g. knowing how to begin and end
conversations, knowing what topics may be talked about, and so on).
 Knowledge of how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as
requests, apologies, thanks, etc.
 Knowledge of how to use language appropriately.

As a broadly-based approach, there are any number of definitions and interpretations,

but the following interconnected characteristics offered by Johnson and Johnson
(1998) provide a useful overview (as cited in Saud, 2011, 127-128):

1. Appropriateness: Language use reflects the situations of its use and must be
appropriate to that situation depending on the setting, the roles of the
participants, and the purpose of the communication, for example. Thus
learners may need to be able to use formal as well as casual styles of speaking.
2. Message Focus: Learner need to be able to create and understand messages,
that is, real meanings. Hence the focus on information sharing and information
transfer in CLT activities.
3. Psycholinguistic Processing: CLT activities seek to engage learners in the
use of cognitive and other processes that are important factors in second
language acquisition.
4. Risk Taking: Learners are encouraged to make guesses and learn from their
errors. By going beyond what they have been taught, they are encouraged to
employ a variety of communication strategies.
5. Free Practice: CLT encourages the use of 'holistic practice' involving the
simultaneous use of a variety of sub skills, rather than practising individual
skills one piece at a time.

Content-Based Language Teaching

Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT) or Content-Based Instruction (CBI) is a
commun9icative approach to second language teaching in which teaching program is
organized around the content, rather than around the linguistic syllabus. Frahnke
(1987) mentions, "It is the teaching of content or information in the language being
learned with little or no direct or explicit effort to teach the language itself separately
from the content being taught" (as cited in Subedi, 2010, p.123).

According to Richards and Rodgers (2001), CBI is grounded on the following two
central principles (as cited in Saud, 2011, p.152):

 People learn a second language more successfully when they use the language
as means of acquiring information, rather than as an end in itself.
 CBI better reflects learners' needs for learning a second language.

Saud (2011) summarized the principal features of CBI in the following ways (pp.153-
154):

 CBI is teaching language through contents.

  It is characterized by teaching through communication rather than for it.
 The selection and sequencing of language items arise from communicative
needs, not predetermined syllabi.
 It follows an integrated skills approach.
 The subject matter content is used for language teaching purposes.
 Communicative competence involves more than using language
conversationally. It also includes the ability to read, discuss, and write about
the content from other fields.
 Keeping students motivated and interested are two important factors
underlying CBI.
 CBI is the 'learning by doing' school of pedagogy.
 The teachers must be not just good language teachers but also knowledgeable
in the subject matter and able to elicit that knowledge from their students.
 The materials that facilitate language learning are used typically with the
subject matter of the content course.
 It focuses on teaching language skills, grammar and vocabulary in context
integratively.
 Due to the integration of language and content, CBI has been called 'a method
with many faces.

Community Language Learning

Community Language Learning (CLL) is a language teaching method developed by
Charles A. Curran, a counselling specialist and his associates. In this method, the
teacher primarily functions as the counsellor and learners as clients. This method is
also named as a 'humanistic approach' which is based on 'bilingual education
programs'. It means that learners' mother tongue comes first in the class while
teaching a second language. Larsen- Freeman (2010) mentions that:

Teachers who use the Community Language Learning Method want their
students to learn how to use the target language communicatively. In addition,
they want their students to learn about their own learning, to take increasing
responsibility for it. Both of these are to be accomplished in a non-defensive
manner. Non-defensive learning can result when the teacher and learner treat
each other as a whole person, and do not separate each other's intellect from
his or her feelings. (as cited in Subedi, 2010, p.112)

According to Subedi (2010, p.116), the major features of Community Language

Method can be summed up as follow:

 It demands unusual roles of language teachers.

 Teachers are expected to be proficient at both languages i.e. L1 and L2.
 Teachers must own the knowledge and skills required in psychological
counselling in addition to teaching a language.
 Teachers must resist the pressure 'to teach' in the traditional senses.
 Learners are independent.
 This method is compatible with the principle of counselling in psychology.
 This method believes language is for communication.
 Learners L1 is used in the class.
 Language learning is the whole-person learning process.
  This method does not have specific objectives but attaining near-native like
mastery of the target language is its goal.
 Its syllabus is developed from the interaction between the teacher and
students.
 It focuses on oral proficiency of the learners.
 There are five roles of the learners in CLL: dependent learner, self-assertive
learner, resentful plus indignant learner and independent learner.
 Teacher's major roles are counsellor, supporter, monitor, and intervener.
 No text book is necessary in CLL.

Post-Method Pedagogy
The post method condition is a state of affairs that compels us to refigure the
relationship between the theorizers and the practitioners regarding method. The post
method condition empowers practitioners to construct classroom theories of practice.
It enables practitioners to generate location-specific, classroom oriented innovative
practices. According to Kumarvadivelu (2001), post-method pedagogy is necessary to
develop appropriate methods. Post method pedagogy is a three- dimensional system
consisting of three pedagogic parameters: particularity, practicality and possibility (as
cited in Shrestha, 2015, p.39).

The principal features of post method pedagogy can be summed up in the following
ways (Shrestha, 2015, 38-39):

 Post method pedagogy signifies a search for an alternative to method rather

than an alternative method.
 Post method pedagogy rejects the advocacy of a predetermined set of
principles and procedures aimed at realizing a predetermined aims and
objectives. Pedagogy should be location-specific and context-sensitive.
 Post method pedagogy enables and encourages teachers to theorize from the
practice and practice what they theorize.
 Post method pedagogy rejects the narrow views of language education and
tries to incorporate the ideas like political, cultural, social influences in
language teaching.
 Post method pedagogy promote the ability of teachers to know how to develop
a reflective approach to their own teaching, how to analyse and evaluate their
own teaching practice, how to initiate change in the classroom, and how to
monitor the effects of such changes.
 Post method condition is principled pragmatism.
 Post method pedagogy tries to liberate both the teachers and the learners from
traditional concept of methods in teaching learning activities.

Conclusion
The desire and pleasure of sharing knowledge with people is of prime importance.
This desire to share can inspire the teacher to make himself/herself the best method of
teaching in class. Being aware of the wisdom of languages make us be more
passionate for teaching. Interacting with students is of tremendous fulfillment because
it bears the mark of learning social aspects of human wisdom and understanding, it
opens our eyes toward cultural and linguistic cognition. In teaching the students the
actual learning of a second language opens the mind to the knowledge of new worlds.

Concerning teaching methods, it is believed that a variety of approaches makes up the

most successful practice, it assists to maintain the whole attention of the students
present in class, it encourages them and offers an attractive atmosphere and
diminishes anxiety, shyness, etc. In the end, it is essential to add the following fact:
not all students share the same desire for studying a second language and it is
sometimes a bit too hard for a teacher to teach a class even if he/she is very
enthusiastic when teaching the lesson. As there are many kinds of students and each
of them have their own character and learning rhythms and styles it is not easy to keep
everyone’s attention. Some students might assimilate the information at once; others
cannot do that, though. The learning style that fits one student doesn’t fit another one.
Also, only a few students are more willing to participate in class while most are
passive participants. Therefore, it is realized that the best thing to do in class with the
students is not to ask them for rote memorization but to always look for new methods
that have more significant tasks, which are suggestive and informative. Above all, a
grain of patience and humor is needed every time we go to teach a class.

References
Hornby, A.S. (2000). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Pun, P.K., Upaddhaya, B.D. & Gyawaly, N.P. (2012). A handbook of advanced
english language teaching methodology. Kathmandu: Gyankunja Prakashan.
Saud, M.S. (2011). English language teaching methods. Kathmandu: M.K. Publishers
& Distributors.
Sharma, B. (2010). Readings in second language acquisition. Kathmandu: Sunlight
Publication.
Sharma, B. (2010). Readings in sociolinguistics. Kathmandu: Sunlight Publication.
Shrestha, R. (2015). Resource material for secondary english teachers. Kathmandu:
Sunlight Publication.
Subedi H.L. (2010). A textbook on english language methods. Kathmandu: Pradhan
Book House.