FACULTY: ARTS

DEPARTMENT: APPLIED LINGUISTICS

PROGRAMME: MASTERS

COURSE: APL 605: LINGUISTICS AND LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS

ASSIGNMENT: CHOOSE ANY TWO METHODS OF LANGUAGE

TEACHING AND COMPARE THEM WITH RESPECT TO APPROACH
AND ANY THREE ASPECTS OF DESIGN

NAME OF STUDENT: NGUM MELVIS NJUALEM

COURSE MASTER: CHIEF PROFESSOR SAMSON N. ABANGMA

JULY, 2015

INTRODUCTION
 Over the years, many language teaching methods have been developed and are still

being developed. Grammar Translation Method, Direct

Method, Audio lingual Method, Situational Language
Teaching, Total Physical Response, Suggestopedia, The
Silent Way and Communicative Language Teaching, just
to mention a few, are examples of language teaching methods. A careful study reveals that
each method results from a critic of a previous method and seeks to propose a better way of
teaching a language. It is because the Grammar Translation Method did not meet up with the
demands for oral proficiency that The Direct Method and later the Oral Approach came into
being. These methods were hailed for their emphasis on oral productions, yet these methods
only gave limited opportunities for learners to use language interactively, thus, the shift to the
communicative approaches to language teaching. Inevitably, these methods contain features
that sometimes overlap or are distinctive. This paper seeks to compare two methods of
language teaching: one that targets automatic oral production of basic structures - Situational
Language Teaching (henceforth SLT) and the other that targets the development of
communicative competence, that is, Communicative Language Teaching (henceforth CLT).
The aim of this comparison is not to propagate any language teaching method. The
assumption is that there is no best language teaching method, rather a prolific language
teacher should be eclectic, that is be properly informed on all the teaching methods, judge
them, and appropriately incorporate different language teaching methods that meets the
objectives of their lessons. This comparison shall be done at two levels - the level of
approach and the level of design, but before we get into this comparison, it is important for us
to have a bird’s eye view of what SLT and CLT is all about.

Brief Introduction of SLT and CLT

Richards and Rodgers (1987) presents SLT as an approach to language teaching

developed by British applied linguists from the 1930s to the 1960s. It is an approach that is
not widely known, but has a considerable impact on the design of English as a Foreign
Language and English as a Second Language textbooks and courses still in use today. SLT
was championed by Harold Palmer and A. S. Hornby, prominent figures in British 20 th
century language teaching. Their goal was to develop a more scientific base for an oral
approach to teaching English which had already been echoed by the Direct Method. So, they
came up with a set of principles and procedures that could guide a language course. They
were working at a time when the amount of vocabulary to be acquired by a second or foreign
language learner was being given serious consideration. Also at this time, the view of
grammar was shifting from a set of abstract rules to be memorized to elements that constitute
the “sentence patterns of spoken language”. On this premise, they came up with the Oral
Approach to serve as a methodological framework for the teaching of English as a foreign
language.

In the 1950s, the Oral Approach was the accepted British approach to English language
teaching. Its principles are found in the works of many textbook writers like Palmer, Hornby,
P. Gurrey, A. W. Frisby, the Australians, George Pittman and Gouin Tate, who termed this
approach the Situational Approach. The main characteristics of the approach were as follows:

1. Language teaching with spoken language. Material is taught orally before presented in
written form.
2. The target language is the language of the classroom.
3. New language points are introduced and practiced situationally.
4. Vocabulary procedures are followed to ensure that an essential general service
vocabulary is covered.
5. Items of grammar are graded following the principle that simple forms should be
taught before complex ones.
6. Reading and writing are introduced once a sufficient lexical and grammatical basis is
established

Communicative Language Teaching, on the other hand, developed as a rethinking of the

traditional approaches to language teaching. Up to the late 1960s, priority in language
teaching was given to grammatical competence, that is “…the ability to recognize the
morphological, syntactical and phonological features of a language and to make use of those
features to interpret and form words and sentences” (Savignon, n.d.). In th1970s, the
centrality of grammar in the teaching and learning of language was questioned. This is
because the functional approaches to language teaching failed to produce learners who could
communicate in the target language. As a result, attention shifted from grammar and
vocabulary to developing the learner’s communicative competence, that is, appropriately
using knowledge of linguistic forms, meanings and functions in a given context. (“Principles”
n.d.). There is no single authority or model that is universally accepted in CLT and it does not
clearly have a syllabus and defined teaching techniques, thus it is not a method per se. On the
contrary, it uses materials and methods that are appropriate to a given context of learning. It
is thanks to the contributions of linguists like Christopher Candlin, D. A. Wilkins, William
Littlewood, Hymes, Canale and Swain, Richards and Rodgers and a host of others that the
communicative approach gained grounds. Rodgers (2006) distinguishes two phases in this
development. The first one he terms “classic communicative language teaching and the
second current communicative language teaching. The former focused on developing
communicative competence while the latter argued that classroom activities should prepare
learners for survival in the real world. This write – up shall concern itself with the former,
that is classic communicative language teaching.

Comparison of SLT and CLT at the level of Approach

According to the Anthony’s model, approach refers to the theories about the nature of
language and language learning that serves as the sources of practices and principles of
language teaching. We shall first compare the theories about the nature of language in SLT
and CLT.

Generally, three different views of language explicitly or implicitly inform current

approaches and methods in language teaching. These are:

 The structural view

 The functional view
 The interactional view

SLT, on the one hand, was based on the theory about the nature of language that holds
that knowledge of structures must be linked to situations in which they could be used.
Richards and Rodgers (1987) likens the theory of the nature of language underpinning SLT to
the view proposed by American linguists such as Charles Fries, whereby “speech was
regarded as the basis of language, and structure was viewed as being at the heart of speaking
ability”( Richards and Rodgers, 1987: 35). However, with the British theoreticians, there was
the insistence on the notion of “situations”. This is because in real life, language is usually
produced for a specific purpose and in a given context. SLT can therefore be classified under
approaches influenced by the functional view of language, wherein emphasis is on the
semantic and communicative rather than merely the grammatical characteristics of language.
 CLT, on the other hand, is based on the theory that the primary function of language use
is communication. The central theoretical concept underlying CLT is what Hymes (1972) and
other linguistic theoreticians like Habermas (1970), Jakobovits (1970), Savignon (1971) refer
to as “communicative competence”, that is, the combination of grammatical competence ( the
knowledge of grammar and vocabulary), sociolinguistic competence (the ability to say the
appropriate thing in a certain social context), discourse competence (the ability to start, enter,
contribute to, and end a conversation and the ability to do this in a consistent and coherent
manner, and strategic competence (the ability to communicate effectively and repair
problems caused by communication breakdowns) (“Principles”, n.d.).

We therefore note that CLT adopts an interactional view of the nature of language as
opposed to the functional view in SLT. Also, both methods target the oral use of language for
communication. However, CLT goes a step further by insisting on developing
communicative competence in all its dimensions, that is, grammatical, sociolinguistic,
discourse and strategic competences.

We shall now compare the theories of language learning underlying SLT and CLT. It is
important to note that learning theories associated with a method may build on the learning
process or the human and physical context in which language learning takes place. Those
theories that build on the learning process (such as habit-formation, induction, deduction,
generalization, imitation, simplification, transfer or inference) are termed process-oriented or
cognition-oriented theories while those that build on the human and physical context are
known as condition-oriented or context-oriented theories. Littlewood (2004) identifies four
different context-oriented theories- the interaction hypothesis, the output hypothesis, the
scaffolding hypothesis and the acculturation model and social identity theory. He holds that
“no cognition-oriented theory can ignore the context in which the cognitive processes are
activated and no context-oriented theory can ignore the processes which convert input into
learning. It is a question of emphasis.” (Littlewood, 2004:514-515). This goes to say that a
balanced theory of language learning should be process – oriented and condition-oriented
because these theories are complementary.

According to practitioners of SLT, new language points are introduced and practiced
situationally. It was believed that the process of second or foreign language learning took
place the same way child language learning took place, that is, through oral practice of a
pattern till it could be produced automatically. In other words, language learning was seen as
a habit - formation as propounded by the behaviorists. In addition, with SLT, vocabulary
items and structures are not to be given through explanations, learners are expected to figure
out the meaning of a particular structure or word from the situation in which it is presented.
Thus learning is supposed to take place by generalization. In fact, learning of structures was
supposed to be deductive. We can therefore say that the learning theory underlying SLT
builds on the learning process, and as such can be categorized under process – oriented
theories.

Unlike SLT, it is difficult to associate CLT to any particular theory of language learning
because there is no universally accepted model in this approach. However, there is a certain
degree of consensus as to the qualities that allows for a method to be viewed as
communicative. For instance, Rodgers (2006) stipulate that with CLT learners had to
negotiate meaning, use communication strategies, correct misunderstandings and work to
avoid communication breakdowns. This implies that learning had to take place through
inference, creativity and participation in dialogues, thus stressing on the learning process.
Also, there is a general consensus that learning had to take place within a real communicative
context, where real life information is exchanged and where the language used is not totally
predictable. Here, we are focusing on the conditions that allows for comprehensible input to
be made available. Actually, this idea is in line with Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. This goes to
say that CLT, as opposed to SLT, embraces both process-oriented and condition-oriented
theories of language learning. CLT is a much more empirical approach. It emphasizes the
context more than the process.

Comparison of SLT and CLT at the Level of Design

Design is a level of method analysis in which we consider the objectives of a method,

the syllabus model the method incorporates, the types of learning tasks and teaching activities
the method advocates, the roles of learners, the roles of teachers and the role of instructional
material. For the purpose of this paper, three aspects of design will be compared. They are:

 Types of learning and teaching activities

 The roles of learners and
 The roles of teachers

A. Comparison of the Types of Learning and Teaching Activities

 Classroom activities reflect the principles of a methodology. Differences at the level
of approach manifest themselves in the choice of different kinds of learning and teaching
activities in the classroom. While SLT practices activities geared at achieving accuracy, CLT
focuses on activities that seeks to attain fluency.

With SLT, two main activities are carried out- demonstration and pattern practice.
The teacher had to present new language items in a “situation” with situation referring to the
use of concrete objects, pictures, realia, actions, and gestures. The demonstration had to be so
clear to the extent that the learners can deduce the meanings without any explanation of rules.
The language item is then assimilated by the learner through repetitive practice until the form
or the structure can be replaced in different contexts without any hesitation.

With CLT, the activities are many and usually communicative. Richards (2006) identifies
the following activities that are practiced in the CLT approach:

1. Information-gap activities whereby learners use their communicative resources in

order to obtain information, for example, obtaining information on how to fill a form
2. Jigsaw activities. Here, the class is divided into groups with each group having a
part of the information needed to complete an activity so that at the end both groups
get to complete a given task.
3. Task completion activities. Learners use their language resource to complete a
given task like reporting an incident in class to the Principal
4. Information-gathering activities in which learners use the target language to collect
information. For instance, interviewing a club coordinator so as to get information for
a class journal
5. Opinion-sharing activities in which learners compare beliefs or values
6. Information-transfer activities which require learners to take information presented
in one form and representing it in another form
7. Reasoning-gap activities. For example guessing the profession of a person from a
number of information given
8. Role plays. Here, learners are assigned roles and they improvise a scene based on the
information given.

It can be seen that teaching and learning activities in SLT are limited whereas those in
CLT are numerous and varied. Learners in an SLT classroom mostly work as individuals, in
chorus and sometimes in pairs while those in a CLT class mostly work in pairs or in groups.
These differences result from the assumptions that both methods make about the nature of
language and language learning.

A. Comparison of The Roles of Learners

Here, we are concerned with the contribution of learners to the learning process, that is,
activities that learners are expected to carry out, degree of control learners have over the
content of learning, patterns of learner groupings adopted and the degree to which learners
influence the learning of peers. In fact, learner roles within a method seek to determine how
learners should be regarded and the part they should play in the learning process.

The roles assigned to learners in the SLT approach is a passive one. Learners are required
to listen and repeat what the teacher says and to respond to questions and commands
accurately and quickly enough. They have no control over the content of learning. It is the
teacher who models what is to be learnt and they are to imitate. Learners have very little
influence over the learning of peers. All eyes are on the teacher and the practice of new
language is stressed throughout.

As an innovation of SLT, the CLT approach puts the learner at the centre of the learning
process. The learner is actively involved in the classroom activities. Thus, he has a greater
control over the learning content and the entire learning process. Working in pairs or in
groups is part and parcel of the CLT method. This is because learners are expected to
contribute as much as they gain in the learning process. So learners equally have a great
influence over the learning of peers.

In all, it can be said that with SLT, learners are viewed as a kind of stimulus-response
mechanism, who repeat the teacher’s model following his prompting; while with CLT,
learners are communicators, actively engaged in trying to make themselves understood and to
understand others irrespective of their limited linguistic knowledge of the target language.

B. Comparison of The Roles of Teachers

The success of a method sometimes depends on the degree to which the teacher can
provide the content or create the conditions for successful language learning. Teachers’
roles are related both to assumptions about the nature of language and language learning
at the level of approach. It also reflects the objectives of a method, that is, what a method
sets out to achieve.

Given that SLT targets accuracy whereas CLT aims at fluency, the roles assigned to
teachers vary considerably. For purposes of clarity, these disparities shall be presented in a
tabular form.

Situational Language Teaching Communicative Language Teaching

A model. The teacher has to provide A facilitator of learning. He is there to

learners with a native-speaker-like model. help the students communicate and not to
He models the pronunciation as well as the set a standard for communication
set up situation that introduces the lesson
and drills.

A skillful manipulator. He has to use A classroom manager. He is responsible

every means possible to get the students to for grouping activities and he coordinates
automatically use structures in different the activities so that they form a coherent
situations progression

A vigilant watch. Since errors are to be A tolerant guide. Errors are seen as a
avoided at all cost, the teacher has to completely normal phenomenon in the
immediately correct them when they occur development of communicative skills, so
the teacher has to tolerate them

A master. The teacher is at the centre of A co-communicator. The teacher

the learning process and the learners all sometimes participates in the learning
look up to him activities, for example, taking a role in a
dramatization exercise

The teacher gives learners the opportunity A counselor. The teacher helps learners to
to use the target language in defined feel at ease in the target language and to
situations, but is always on the lookout for develop strategies that enhance fluency
errors. without communication breakdown

The teacher determines what is to be learnt A need analyst. The teacher is responsible
 and only adjusts to special needs of learners for determining learner’s individual
during the learning process. language needs, motivations and learning
styles so as to plan activities that respond to
these individual needs

The teacher looks out for grammar Debriefs at the end of group activities with
structure errors throughout the lesson and the attention of assisting learners in self-
these could form the basis of subsequent correction exercises
lessons.

From the comparison above, it is obvious that with SLT, the teacher is at the heart of
the learning process- determining what is to be learnt and ensuring that the right habit is
formed. The CLT teacher, on the contrary, has the challenge of relinquishing the traditional
position of master of the classroom to become a participant, a guide in the learning process
and a developer of communicative competences.

Conclusion

These comparisons, so far, reveal that SLT and CLT both aim at going beyond the
mastery of rules to the use of language. However, while SLT requires the introduction of
language items in situations, CLT calls on the development of communicative competence in
all its dimensions. Also, while SLT adopts a functional view of language, CLT adheres to the
interactional view of language. Further, SLT builds on a process-oriented theory of language
learning whereas CLT draws from both process-oriented and condition-oriented theories of
language. Furthermore, SLT uses just two main teaching and learning activities whereas
those of CLT are numerous and varied. In addition, while SLT learners are passive
respondents to stimulus, CLT learners are communicators. Finally, the role attributed to
teachers within the SLT method puts the teacher at the centre of the teaching-learning process
whereas a CLT teacher is supposed to be a tolerant guide.

It can be seen that SLT could be used for lessons that require the learners to use
grammatical structures and vocabulary in a given context, while CLT could be used for
lessons that target speaking skills like taking part in an argument or making an inquiry. This
comparison also goes to say that the second or foreign language teacher should not rely on
any one teaching method as no one is too good, yet no one is faultless. A conscious language
teacher has to be eclectic, judging and deciding on which method is most appropriate to meet
up with his set objectives.
 REFERENCES

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Littlewood, W. (1981) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press

Littlewood, W. (2004) Second Language Learning. In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics.

(pp 501 – 524). USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Principles of Communicative language Teaching and Task-Based Instruction. (n.d.)

Retrieved July 8, 2015 from www.pearsonhighered.com-sample chapter

Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers (1987) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.

Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press

Richards J. C. (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Sauvignon, S.J. (n.d.). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and

Classroom Practice. Retrieved July 8, 2015 from http://yalepress.yale.edu-excerpts