Approaches-and-Methods-in-Language-Teaching (1).pdf

Approaches and Methods in
Language Teaching
Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 129.215.17.188 on Fri Jan 22 20:45:51 GMT 2016.
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511667305
Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2016

CAMBRIDGE LANGUAGE TEACHING LIBRARY
A series covering central issues in language teaching and learning, by authors
who have expert knowledge in their field.
In this series:
Affect in Language Learning edited by Jane Arnold
Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, Second Edition, by Jack C.
Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers
Appropriate Methodology and Social Context by Adrian Holliday
Beyond Training by Jack C. Richards
Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers by Anne Burns
Collaborative Language Learning and Teaching edited by David Nunan
Communicative Language Teaching By William Littlewood
Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom by David Nunan
Developing Reading Skills by Françoise Grellet
Developments in English for Specific Purposes by Tony Dudley-Evans and Maggie
Jo St. John
Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers by Michael McCarthy
Discourse and Language Education by Evelyn Hatch
English for Academic Purposes by R. R. Jordan
English for Specific Purposes by Tom Hutchinson and Alan Waters
Establishing Self-Access: From Theory to Practice by David Gardner and Lindsay
Miller
Foreign and Second Language Learning by William Littlewood
Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective edited by Michael Byram and
Michael Fleming
The Language Teaching Matrix by Jack C. Richards
Language Test Construction and Evaluation by J. Charles Alderson, Caroline
Chapham, and Dianne Wall
Learner-centredness as Language Education by Ian Tudor
Managing Curricular Innovation by Numa Markee
Materials Development in Language Teaching edited by Brian Tomlinson
New Immigrants in the United States edited by Sandra Lee McKay and Sau-ling
Cynthia Wong
Psychology for Language Teachers by Marion Williams and Robert L. Burden
Research Methods in Language Learning by David Nunan
Second Language Teacher Education edited by Jack C. Richards and David Nunan
Society and the Language Classroom edited by Hywel Coleman
Teacher Learning in Language Teaching edited by Donald Freeman and Jack C.
Richards
Teaching the Spoken Language by Gillian Brown and George Yule
Understanding Research in Second Language Learning by James Dean Brown
Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy edited by Norbert Schmitt and
Michael McCarthy
Vocabulary, Semantics, and Language Education by Evelyn Hatch and Cheryl
Brown
Voices From the Language Classroom edited by Kathleen M. Bailey and David
Nunan

Approaches and
Methods in
Language Teaching
Second Edition
Jack C. Richards
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization
Regional Language Centre, Singapore
and
Theodore S. Rodgers
University of Hawaii
Manoa

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
First published in print format
ISBN-13 978-0-521-80365-6
ISBN-13 978-0-521-00843-3
ISBN-13 978-0-511-66730-5
© Cambridge University Press 2001
2001
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521803656
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the
provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part
may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
paperback
OCeISBN
hardback

v
Contents
Preface vii
Part I Major language trends in twentieth-century language
teaching 1
1 A brief history of language teaching 3
2 The nature of approaches and methods in language teaching 18
3 The Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching 36
4 The Audiolingual Method 50
Part II Alternative approaches and methods 71
5 Total Physical Response 73
6 The Silent Way 81
7 Community Language Learning 90
8 Suggestopedia 100
9 Whole Language 108
10 Multiple Intelligences 115
11 Neurolinguistic Programming 125
12 The lexical approach 132
13 Competency-Based Language Teaching 141
Part III Current communicative approaches 151
14 Communicative Language Teaching 153

Contents
vi
15 The Natural Approach 178
16 Cooperative Language Learning 192
17 Content-Based Instruction 204
18 Task-Based Language Teaching 223
19 The post-methods era 244
Author index 257
Subject index 261

Cambridge Books Online
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/
Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching
Jack C. Richards, Theodore S. Rodgers
Book DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305
Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Hardback ISBN: 9780521803656
Paperback ISBN: 9780521008433
Chapter
Preface pp. vii-x
Chapter DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.001

vii
Preface
This is a revised and reorganized version of the first edition, originally
published in 1986. More than half of the contents of this new edition has
been specially written for this edition. Since the first edition was pub-
lished, it has become one of the most widely referred to books on teach-
ing methods. Since then, however, a great deal has happened in language
teaching. In planning this new edition, we have therefore made a number
of substantial changes.
We have divided the book into three main parts:
Part I deals with major trends in twentieth-century language teaching.
The chapters in this section are substantially the same as those in the first
edition but include an updated list of references.
Part II deals with alternative approaches and methods. This section
describes approaches and methods that have attracted support at
different times and in different places throughout the last 30 or so years,
but have generally not been widely accepted or, in some cases, have not
maintained substantial followings. The chapters on Total Physical Re-
sponse, the Silent Way, Community Language Learning, and Sug-
gestopedia are shorter versions of chapters from the first edition. Addi-
tional and more recent references have been added to these chapters.
Because these methods are no longer widely used, a shorter treatment
seemed appropriate. Readers requiring fuller discussion of these methods
should consult the first edition. New chapters on Whole Language, Mul-
tiple Intelligences, Neurolinguistic Programming, the lexical approach,
and Competency-Based Language Teaching complete Part II. Although
these latter approaches share some features with communicative ap-
proaches in Part III, we feel that they are sufficiently distinct to be
grouped with the other approaches discussed in Part II.
Part III deals with current communicative approaches. It includes two
chapters from the first edition – Communicative Language Teaching and
the Natural Approach – and new chapters on Cooperative Language
Learning, Content-Based Instruction, Task-Based Language Teaching,
and the post-methods era. New material has been added to the final
sections of the chapter on Communicative Language Teaching, and addi-
tional references have been added to this chapter and to the one on the
Natural Approach.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667305.001

Preface
viii
The history of language teaching has been characterized by a search for
more effective ways of teaching second or foreign languages. For more
than a hundred years, debate and discussion within the teaching profes-
sion have often centered on issues such as the role of grammar in the
language curriculum, the development of accuracy and fluency in teach-
ing, the choice of syllabus frameworks in course design, the role of vocab-
ulary in language learning, teaching productive and receptive skills, learn-
ing theories and their application in teaching, memorization and
learning, motivating learners, effective learning strategies, techniques for
teaching the four skills, and the role of materials and technology. Al-
though much has been done to clarify these and other important ques-
tions in language teaching, the teaching profession is continually explor-
ing new options for addressing these and other basic issues and the
effectiveness of different instructional strategies and methods in the
classroom.
The teaching of any subject matter is usually based on an analysis of
the nature of the subject itself and the application of teaching and learn-
ing principles drawn from research and theory in educational psychology.
The result is generally referred to as a teaching method or approach, by
which we refer to a set of core teaching and learning principles together
with a body of classroom practices that are derived from them. The same
is true in language teaching, and the field of teaching methods has been a
very active one in language teaching since the 1900s. New approaches
and methods proliferated throughout the twentieth century. Some
achieved wide levels of acceptance and popularity at different times but
were then were replaced by methods based on newer or more appealing
ideas and theories. Examples of this kind include the Direct Method,
Audiolingualism, and the Situational Approach. Some, such as Com-
municative Language Teaching, were adopted almost universally and
achieved the status of methodological orthodoxy. At the same time, alter-
natives to mainstream approaches have always found some level of sup-
port within language teaching, though often this has not led to wider
acceptance or use. Methods in this category include those from the 1970s
such as the Silent Way, Counseling-Learning, Suggestopedia, and Total
Physical Response, as well as more recent alternative methods and ap-
proaches such as Multiple Intelligences, Neurolinguistic Programming,
and the Lexical Approach.
Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching seeks to provide a
comprehensive and comprehensible account of major and minor trends
in language teaching methods from the beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury to the present. To highlight the similarities and differences between
approaches and methods, the same descriptive framework is used
throughout. This model is presented in Chapter 2 and is used in subse-
quent chapters. It describes approaches and methods according to their

Preface
ix
underlying theories of language and language learning; the learning ob-
jectives; the syllabus model used; the roles of teachers, learners, and
materials within the method or approach; and the classroom procedures
and techniques that the method uses. Where a method or approach has
extensive and acknowledged links to a particular tradition in second or
foreign language teaching, this historical background is treated in the first
section of each chapter. In other cases we have attempted to establish
links between the method or approach and more general linguistic, psy-
chological, or educational traditions.
Within each chapter, our aim has been to present an objective and
comprehensive picture of a particular approach or method. We have
avoided personal evaluation, preferring to let the method speak for itself
and allow readers to make their own appraisals. The book is not intended
to popularize or promote particular approaches or methods, nor is it an
attempt to train teachers in the use of the methods described. Rather, it is
designed to give the teacher or teacher trainee a straightforward intro-
duction to commonly and less commonly used methods, and a set of
criteria by which to critically read, observe, analyze, and question ap-
proaches and methods.
We have included several references to articles that are available on or
through the Internet through the ERIC databases and ERIC Digests. In
order to see abstracts of the ERIC references cited or to order copies of
the full articles in hard copy or microfiche or to read the complete texts of
the ERIC Digests, consult the ERIC Web site(s) and follow the search
procedures listed there.
Jack C. Richards
Theodore S. Rodgers

blank verso

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
Part I - Major language trends in twentieth-century language teaching
pp. 1-2

1
I Major language trends in
twentieth-century language
teaching
Language teaching came into its own as a profession in the twentieth
century. The whole foundation of contemporary language teaching was
developed during the early part of the twentieth century, as applied lingu-
ists and others sought to develop principles and procedures for the design
of teaching methods and materials, drawing on the developing fields of
linguistics and psychology to support a succession of proposals for what
were thought to be more effective and theoretically sound teaching
methods. Language teaching in the twentieth century was characterized
by frequent change and innovation and by the development of sometimes
competing language teaching ideologies. Much of the impetus for change
in approaches to language teaching came about from changes in teaching
methods. The method concept in teaching – the notion of a systematic set
of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and lan-
guage learning – is a powerful one, and the quest for better methods was a
preoccupation of many teachers and applied linguists throughout the
twentieth century. Common to each method is the belief that the teaching
practices it supports provide a more effective and theoretically sound
basis for teaching than the methods that preceded it. The chapters in Part
I examine the developments that led to the first major paradigm in mod-
ern language teaching – the adoption of grammar-based teaching
methods that came to be known as the structural approach or Situational
Language Teaching in the United Kingdom, and Audiolingualism in the
United States. In Chapter 1 we outline the historical precedents to lan-
guage teaching in the first part of the twentieth century. In Chapter 2 we
introduce a model or framework for the description of methods, one that
identifies three levels of organization underlying approaches and
methods that we refer to as Approach, Design, and Procedure. In Chapter
3 we describe one of the most important British language teaching pro-
posals of the twentieth century, the Oral Approach or Situational Lan-
guage Teaching, a method that continues to be widely used today in
textbooks and teaching materials, though in somewhat modified form. In
Chapter 4 we describe the method known as Audiolingualism, an Ameri-
can teaching method that has similarly left a lasting and continuing legacy
in terms of commonly used teaching procedures.

blank verso

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
1 - A brief history of language teaching pp. 3-17

3
1 A brief history of language teaching
This chapter, in briefly reviewing the history of language teaching
methods, provides a background for discussion of contemporary
methods and suggests the issues we will refer to in analyzing these
methods. From this historical perspective we are also able to see that the
concerns that have prompted modern method innovations were similar to
those that have always been at the center of discussions on how to teach
foreign languages. Changes in language teaching methods throughout
history have reflected recognition of changes in the kind of proficiency
learners need, such as a move toward oral proficiency rather than reading
comprehension as the goal of language study; they have also reflected
changes in theories of the nature of language and of language learning.
Kelly (1969) and Howatt (1984) have demonstrated that many current
issues in language teaching are not particularly new. Today’s controver-
sies reflect contemporary responses to questions that have been asked
often throughout the history of language teaching.
It has been estimated that some 60 percent of today’s world population
is multilingual. From both a contemporary and a historical perspective,
bilingualism or multilingualism is the norm rather than the exception. It
is fair, then, to say that throughout history foreign language learning has
always been an important practical concern. Whereas today English is the
world’s most widely studied foreign language, 500 years ago it was Latin,
for it was the dominant language of education, commerce, religion, and
government in the Western world. In the sixteenth century, however,
French, Italian, and English gained in importance as a result of political
changes in Europe, and Latin gradually became displaced as a language of
spoken and written communication.
As the status of Latin diminished from that of a living language to that
of an “occasional” subject in the school curriculum, the study of Latin
took on a different function. The study of classical Latin (the Latin in
which the classical works of Virgil, Ovid, and Cicero were written) and
an analysis of its grammar and rhetoric became the model for foreign
language study from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. Chil-
dren entering “grammar school” in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eigh-
teenth centuries in England were initially given a rigorous introduction to
Latin grammar, which was taught through rote learning of grammar
rules, study of declensions and conjugations, translation, and practice in

Major language trends
4
writing sample sentences, sometimes with the use of parallel bilingual
texts and dialogue (Kelly 1969; Howatt 1984). Once basic proficiency
was established, students were introduced to the advanced study of gram-
mar and rhetoric. School learning must have been a deadening experience
for children, for lapses in knowledge were often met with brutal punish-
ment. There were occasional attempts to promote alternative approaches
to education; Roger Ascham and Montaigne in the sixteenth century and
Comenius and John Locke in the seventeenth century, for example, had
made specific proposals for curriculum reform and for changes in the way
Latin was taught (Kelly 1969; Howatt 1984), but since Latin (and, to a
lesser extent, Greek) had for so long been regarded as the classical and
therefore most ideal form of language, it was not surprising that ideas
about the role of language study in the curriculum reflected the long-
established status of Latin.
The decline of Latin also brought with it a new justification for teach-
ing Latin. Latin was said to develop intellectual abilities, and the study of
Latin grammar became an end in itself.
When once the Latin tongue had ceased to be a normal vehicle for com-
munication, and was replaced as such by the vernacular languages, then it
most speedily became a ‘mental gymnastic’, the supremely ‘dead’ language, a
disciplined and systematic study of which was held to be indispensable as a
basis for all forms of higher education. (V. Mallison, cited in Titone 1968: 26)
As “modern” languages began to enter the curriculum of European
schools in the eighteenth century, they were taught using the same basic
procedures that were used for teaching Latin. Textbooks consisted of
statements of abstract grammar rules, lists of vocabulary, and sentences
for translation. Speaking the foreign language was not the goal, and oral
practice was limited to students reading aloud the sentences they had
translated. These sentences were constructed to illustrate the grammati-
cal system of the language and consequently bore no relation to the
language of real communication. Students labored over translating sen-
tences such as the following:
The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen.
My sons have bought the mirrors of the Duke.
The cat of my aunt is more treacherous than the dog of your uncle.
(Titone 1968: 28)
By the nineteenth century, this approach based on the study of Latin had
become the standard way of studying foreign languages in schools. A
typical textbook in the mid-nineteenth century thus consisted of chapters
or lessons organized around grammar points. Each grammar point was
listed, rules on its use were explained, and it was illustrated by sample
sentences.

A brief history of language teaching
5
Nineteenth-century textbook compilers were mainly determined to codify the
foreign language into frozen rules of morphology and syntax to be explained
and eventually memorized. Oral work was reduced to an absolute minimum,
while a handful of written exercises, constructed at random, came as a sort of
appendix to the rules. Of the many books published during this period, those
by Seidenstücker and Plötz were perhaps the most typical. . . . [Seidenstücker]
reduced the material to disconnected sentences to illustrate specific rules. He
divided his text carefully into two parts, one giving the rules and necessary
paradigms, the other giving French sentences for translation into German and
German sentences for translation into French. The immediate aim was for the
student to apply the given rules by means of appropriate exercises. . . . In
[Plötz’s] textbooks, divided into the two parts described above, the sole form
of instruction was mechanical translation. Typical sentences were: ‘Thou hast
a book. The house is beautiful. He has a kind dog. We have a bread [sic]. The
door is black. He has a book and a dog. The horse of the father was kind.’
(Titone 1968: 27)
This approach to foreign language teaching became known as the
Grammar-Translation Method.
The Grammar-Translation Method
As the names of some of its leading exponents suggest (Johann
Seidenstücker, Karl Plötz, H. S. Ollendorf, and Johann Meidinger),
Grammar Translation was the offspring of German scholarship, the ob-
ject of which, according to one of its less charitable critics, was “to know
everything about something rather than the thing itself” (W. H. D.
Rouse, quoted in Kelly 1969: 53). Grammar Translation was in fact first
known in the United States as the Prussian Method. (A book by B. Sears,
an American classics teacher, published in 1845 was titled The Cicero-
nian or the Prussian Method of Teaching the Elements of the Latin
Language [Kelly 1969].) The principal characteristics of the Grammar-
Translation Method were these:
1. The goal of foreign language study is to learn a language in order to
read its literature or in order to benefit from the mental discipline and
intellectual development that result from foreign language study.
Grammar Translation is a way of studying a language that approaches
the language first through detailed analysis of its grammar rules, fol-
lowed by application of this knowledge to the task of translating
sentences and texts into and out of the target language. It hence views
language learning as consisting of little more than memorizing rules
and facts in order to understand and manipulate the morphology and
syntax of the foreign language. “The first language is maintained as
the reference system in the acquisition of the second language” (Stern
1983: 455).

6
2. Reading and writing are the major focus; little or no systematic atten-
tion is paid to speaking or listening.
3. Vocabulary selection is based solely on the reading texts used, and
words are taught through bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and
memorization. In a typical Grammar-Translation text, the grammar
rules are presented and illustrated, a list of vocabulary items is pre-
sented with their translation equivalents, and translation exercises are
prescribed.
4. The sentence is the basic unit of teaching and language practice. Much
of the lesson is devoted to translating sentences into and out of the
target language, and it is this focus on the sentence that is a distinctive
feature of the method. Earlier approaches to foreign language study
used grammar as an aid to the study of texts in a foreign language. But
this was thought to be too difficult for students in secondary schools,
and the focus on the sentence was an attempt to make language learn-
ing easier (see Howatt 1984: 131).
5. Accuracy is emphasized. Students are expected to attain high stan-
dards in translation, because of “the high priority attached to meticu-
lous standards of accuracy which, as well as having an intrinsic moral
value, was a prerequisite for passing the increasing number of formal
written examinations that grew up during the century” (Howatt
1984: 132).
6. Grammar is taught deductively – that is, by presentation and study of
grammar rules, which are then practiced through translation ex-
ercises. In most Grammar-Translation texts, a syllabus was followed
for the sequencing of grammar points throughout a text, and there
was an attempt to teach grammar in an organized and systematic way.
7. The student’s native language is the medium of instruction. It is used
to explain new items and to enable comparisons to be made between
the foreign language and the student’s native language.
Grammar Translation dominated European and foreign language
teaching from the 1840s to the 1940s, and in modified form it continues
to be widely used in some parts of the world today. At its best, as Howatt
(1984) points out, it was not necessarily the horror that its critics depicted
it as. Its worst excesses were introduced by those who wanted to demon-
strate that the study of French or German was no less rigorous than the
study of classical languages. This resulted in the type of Grammar-
Translation courses remembered with distaste by thousands of school
learners, for whom foreign language learning meant a tedious experience
of memorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary
and attempting to produce perfect translations of stilted or literary prose.
Although the Grammar-Translation Method often creates frustration for
students, it makes few demands on teachers. It is still used in situations

7
where understanding literary texts is the primary focus of foreign lan-
guage study and there is little need for a speaking knowledge of the
language. Contemporary texts for the teaching of foreign languages at the
college level often reflect Grammar-Translation principles. These texts
are frequently the products of people trained in literature rather than in
language teaching or applied linguistics. Consequently, though it may be
true to say that the Grammar-Translation Method is still widely prac-
ticed, it has no advocates. It is a method for which there is no theory.
There is no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it or that
attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational
theory.
In the mid- and late nineteenth century, opposition to the Grammar-
Translation Method gradually developed in several European countries.
This Reform Movement, as it was referred to, laid the foundations for the
development of new ways of teaching languages and raised controversies
that have continued to the present day.
Language teaching innovations in the nineteenth
century
Toward the mid-nineteenth century several factors contributed to a ques-
tioning and rejection of the Grammar-Translation Method. Increased
opportunities for communication among Europeans created a demand
for oral proficiency in foreign languages. Initially this created a market
for conversation books and phrase books intended for private study, but
language teaching specialists also turned their attention to the way mod-
ern languages were being taught in secondary schools. Increasingly, the
public education system was seen to be failing in its responsibilities. In
Germany, England, France, and other parts of Europe, new approaches
to language teaching were developed by individual language teaching
specialists, each with a specific method for reforming the teaching of
modern languages. Some of these specialists, such as C. Marcel, T. Pren-
dergast, and F. Gouin, did not manage to achieve any lasting impact,
though their ideas are of historical interest.
The Frenchman C. Marcel (1793–1896) referred to child language
learning as a model for language teaching, emphasized the importance of
meaning in learning, proposed that reading be taught before other skills,
and tried to locate language teaching within a broader educational frame-
work. The Englishman T. Prendergast (1806–1886) was one of the first
to record the observation that children use contextual and situational
cues to interpret utterances and that they use memorized phrases and
“routines” in speaking. He proposed the first “structural syllabus,” ad-
vocating that learners be taught the most basic structural patterns occur-

8
ring in the language. In this way he was anticipating an issue that was to
be taken up in the 1920s and 1930s, as we shall see in Chapter 3. The
Frenchman F. Gouin (1831–1896) is perhaps the best known of these
mid-nineteenth century reformers. Gouin developed an approach to
teaching a foreign language based on his observations of children’s use of
language. He believed that language learning was facilitated through
using language to accomplish events consisting of a sequence of related
actions. His method used situations and themes as ways of organizing
and presenting oral language – the famous Gouin “series,” which in-
cludes sequences of sentences related to such activities as chopping wood
and opening the door. Gouin established schools to teach according to his
method, and it was quite popular for a time. In the first lesson of a foreign
language, the following series would be learned:
I walk toward the door. I walk.
I draw near to the door. I draw near.
I draw nearer to the door. I draw nearer.
I get to the door. I get to.
I stop at the door. I stop.
I stretch out my arm. I stretch out.
I take hold of the handle. I take hold.
I turn the handle. I turn.
I open the door. I open.
I pull the door. I pull.
The door moves. moves
The door turns on its hinges turns
The door turns and turns. turns
I open the door wide. I open.
I let go of the handle. I let go.
(Titone 1968: 35)
Gouin’s emphasis on the need to present new teaching items in a context
that makes their meaning clear, and the use of gestures and actions to
convey the meanings of utterances, are practices that later became part of
such approaches and methods as Situational Language Teaching (Chap-
ter 3) and Total Physical Response (Chapter 5).
The work of individual language specialists like these reflects the
changing climate of the times in which they worked. Educators recog-
nized the need for speaking proficiency rather than reading comprehen-
sion, grammar, or literary appreciation as the goal for foreign language
programs; there was an interest in how children learn languages, which
prompted attempts to develop teaching principles from observation of
(or, more typically, reflections about) child language learning. But the
ideas and methods of Marcel, Prendergast, Gouin, and other innovators
were developed outside the context of established circles of education

9
and hence lacked the means for wider dissemination, acceptance, and
implementation. They were writing at a time when there was not suffi-
cient organizational structure in the language teaching profession (i.e., in
the form of professional associations, journals, and conferences) to en-
able new ideas to develop into an educational movement. This began to
change toward the end of the nineteenth century, however, when a more
concerted effort arose in which the interests of reform-minded language
teachers and linguists coincided. Teachers and linguists began to write
about the need for new approaches to language teaching, and through
their pamphlets, books, speeches, and articles, the foundation for more
widespread pedagogical reforms was laid. This effort became known as
the Reform Movement in language teaching.
The Reform Movement
Language teaching specialists such as Marcel, Prendergast, and Gouin
had done much to promote alternative approaches to language teaching,
but their ideas failed to receive widespread support or attention. From the
1880s, however, practical-minded linguists such as Henry Sweet in En-
gland, Wilhelm Viëtor in Germany, and Paul Passy in France began to
provide the intellectual leadership needed to give reformist ideas greater
credibility and acceptance. The discipline of linguistics was revitalized.
Phonetics – the scientific analysis and description of the sound systems of
languages – was established, giving new insights into speech processes.
Linguists emphasized that speech, rather than the written word, was the
primary form of language. The International Phonetic Association was
founded in 1886, and its International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) was
designed to enable the sounds of any language to be accurately tran-
scribed. One of the earliest goals of the association was to improve the
teaching of modern languages. It advocated
1. the study of the spoken language
2. phonetic training in order to establish good pronunciation habits
3. the use of conversation texts and dialogues to introduce conversa-
tional phrases and idioms
4. an inductive approach to the teaching of grammar
5. teaching new meanings through establishing associations within the
target language rather than by establishing associations with the na-
tive language
Linguists too became interested in the controversies that emerged
about the best way to teach foreign languages, and ideas were fiercely
discussed and defended in books, articles, and pamphlets. Henry Sweet
(1845–1912) argued that sound methodological principles should be
based on a scientific analysis of language and a study of psychology. In his

10
book The Practical Study of Languages (1899), he set forth principles for
the development of teaching method. These included
1. careful selection of what is to be taught
2. imposing limits on what is to be taught
3. arranging what is to be taught in terms of the four skills of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing
4. grading materials from simple to complex
In Germany, the prominent scholar Wilhelm Viëtor (1850–1918) used
linguistic theory to justify his views on language teaching. He argued that
training in phonetics would enable teachers to pronounce the language
accurately. Speech patterns, rather than grammar, were the fundamental
elements of language. In 1882 he published his views in an influential
pamphlet, Language Teaching Must Start Afresh, in which he strongly
criticized the inadequacies of Grammar Translation and stressed the
value of training teachers in the new science of phonetics.
Viëtor, Sweet, and other reformers in the late nineteenth century shared
many beliefs about the principles on which a new approach to teaching
foreign languages should be based, although they often differed consider-
ably in the specific procedures they advocated for teaching a language. In
general the reformers believed that
1. the spoken language is primary and that this should be reflected in an
oral-based methodology
2. the findings of phonetics should be applied to teaching and to teacher
training
3. learners should hear the language first, before seeing it in written form
4. words should be presented in sentences, and sentences should be prac-
ticed in meaningful contexts and not be taught as isolated, discon-
nected elements
5. the rules of grammar should be taught only after the students have
practiced the grammar points in context – that is, grammar should be
taught inductively
6. translation should be avoided, although the native language could be
used in order to explain new words or to check comprehension
These principles provided the theoretical foundations for a principled
approach to language teaching, one based on a scientific approach to the
study of language and of language learning. They reflect the beginnings of
the discipline of applied linguistics – that branch of language study con-
cerned with the scientific study of second and foreign language teaching
and learning. The writings of such scholars as Sweet, Viëtor, and Passy
provided suggestions on how these applied linguistic principles could best
be put into practice. None of these proposals assumed the status of a
method, however, in the sense of a widely recognized and uniformly

11
implemented design for teaching a language. But parallel to the ideas put
forward by members of the Reform Movement was an interest in
developing principles for language teaching out of naturalistic principles
of language learning, such as are seen in first language acquisition. This
led to what have been termed natural methods and ultimately led to the
development of what came to be known as the Direct Method.
The Direct Method
Gouin had been one of the first of the nineteenth-century reformers to
attempt to build a methodology around observation of child language
learning. Other reformers toward the end of the century likewise turned
their attention to naturalistic principles of language learning, and for this
reason they are sometimes referred to as advocates of a “natural”
method. In fact, at various times throughout the history of language
teaching, attempts have been made to make second language learning
more like first language learning. In the sixteenth century, for example,
Montaigne described how he was entrusted to a guardian who addressed
him exclusively in Latin for the first years of his life, since Montaigne’s
father wanted his son to speak Latin well. Among those who tried to
apply natural principles to language classes in the nineteenth century was
L. Sauveur (1826–1907), who used intensive oral interaction in the target
language, employing questions as a way of presenting and eliciting lan-
guage. He opened a language school in Boston in the late 1860s, and his
method soon became referred to as the Natural Method.
Sauveur and other believers in the Natural Method argued that a for-
eign language could be taught without translation or the use of the
learner’s native language if meaning was conveyed directly through
demonstration and action. The German scholar F. Franke wrote on the
psychological principles of direct association between forms and mean-
ings in the target language (1884) and provided a theoretical justification
for a monolingual approach to teaching. According to Franke, a language
could best be taught by using it actively in the classroom. Rather than
using analytical procedures that focus on explanation of grammar rules
in classroom teaching, teachers must encourage direct and spontaneous
use of the foreign language in the classroom. Learners would then be able
to induce rules of grammar. The teacher replaced the textbook in the early
stages of learning. Speaking began with systematic attention to pronun-
ciation. Known words could be used to teach new vocabulary, using
mime, demonstration, and pictures.
These natural language learning principles provided the foundation for
what came to be known as the Direct Method, which refers to the most
widely known of the natural methods. Enthusiastic supporters of the

12
Direct Method introduced it in France and Germany (it was officially
approved in both countries at the turn of the century), and it became
widely known in the United States through its use by Sauveur and Max-
imilian Berlitz in successful commercial language schools. (Berlitz, in fact,
never used the term; he referred to the method used in his schools as the
Berlitz Method.) In practice it stood for the following principles and
procedures:
1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target
language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.
3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded progres-
sion organized around question-and-answer exchanges between
teachers and students in small, intensive classes.
4. Grammar was taught inductively.
5. New teaching points were introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and
pictures; abstract vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.
These principles are seen in the following guidelines for teaching oral
language, which are still followed in contemporary Berlitz schools:
Never translate: demonstrate
Never explain: act
Never make a speech: ask questions
Never imitate mistakes: correct
Never speak with single words: use sentences
Never speak too much: make students speak much
Never use the book: use your lesson plan
Never jump around: follow your plan
Never go too fast: keep the pace of the student
Never speak too slowly: speak normally
Never speak too quickly: speak naturally
Never speak too loudly: speak naturally
Never be impatient: take it easy
(cited in Titone 1968: 100–101)
The Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools,
such as those of the Berlitz chain, where paying clients had high motiva-
tion and the use of native-speaking teachers was the norm. But despite
pressure from proponents of the method, it was difficult to implement in
public secondary school education. It overemphasized and distorted the
similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom
foreign language learning and failed to consider the practical realities of
the classroom. In addition, it lacked a rigorous basis in applied linguistic

13
theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the more academ-
ically based proponents of the Reform Movement. The Direct Method
represented the product of enlightened amateurism. It was perceived to
have several drawbacks. It required teachers who were native speakers or
who had nativelike fluency in the foreign language. It was largely depen-
dent on the teacher’s skill, rather than on a textbook, and not all teachers
were proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere to the principles
of the method. Critics pointed out that strict adherence to Direct Method
principles was often counterproductive, since teachers were required to
go to great lengths to avoid using the native language, when sometimes a
simple, brief explanation in the student’s native language would have
been a more efficient route to comprehension.
The Harvard psychologist Roger Brown has documented similar prob-
lems with strict Direct Method techniques. He described his frustration in
observing a teacher performing verbal gymnastics in an attempt to con-
vey the meaning of Japanese words, when translation would have been a
much more efficient technique (Brown 1973: 5).
By the 1920s, use of the Direct Method in noncommercial schools in
Europe had consequently declined. In France and Germany it was gradu-
ally modified into versions that combined some Direct Method tech-
niques with more controlled grammar-based activities. The European
popularity of the Direct Method in the early part of the twentieth century
caused foreign language specialists in the United States to attempt to have
it implemented in American schools and colleges, although they decided
to move with caution. A study begun in 1923 on the state of foreign
language teaching concluded that no single method could guarantee suc-
cessful results. The goal of trying to teach conversation skills was con-
sidered impractical in view of the restricted time available for foreign
language teaching in schools, the limited skills of teachers, and the per-
ceived irrelevance of conversation skills in a foreign language for the
average American college student. The study – published as the Coleman
Report – argued that a more reasonable goal for a foreign language
course would be a reading knowledge of a foreign language, achieved
through the gradual introduction of words and grammatical structures in
simple reading texts. The main result of this recommendation was that
reading became the goal of most foreign language programs in the United
States (Coleman 1929). The emphasis on reading continued to character-
ize foreign language teaching in the United States until World War II.
Although the Direct Method enjoyed popularity in Europe, not every-
one embraced it enthusiastically. The British applied linguist Henry Sweet
recognized its limitations. It offered innovations at the level of teaching
procedures but lacked a thorough methodological basis. Its main focus
was on the exclusive use of the target language in the classroom, but it
failed to address many issues that Sweet thought more basic. Sweet and

14
other applied linguists argued for the development of sound meth-
odological principles that could serve as the basis for teaching techniques.
In the 1920s and 1930s, applied linguists systematized the principles
proposed earlier by the Reform Movement and so laid the foundations
for what developed into the British approach to teaching English as a
foreign language. Subsequent developments led to Audiolingualism (see
Chapter 4) in the United States and the Oral Approach or Situational
Language Teaching (see Chapter 3) in Britain.
What became of the concept of method as foreign language teaching
emerged as a significant educational issue in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries? We have seen from this historical survey some of the questions
that prompted innovations and new directions in language teaching in
the past:
1. What should the goals of language teaching be? Should a language
course try to teach conversational proficiency, reading, translation, or
some other skill?
2. What is the basic nature of language, and how will this affect the
teaching method?
3. What are the principles for the selection of language content in lan-
guage teaching?
4. What principles of organization, sequencing, and presentation best
facilitate learning?
5. What should the role of the native language be?
6. What processes do learners use in mastering a language, and can these
be incorporated into a method?
7. What teaching techniques and activities work best and under what
circumstances?
Particular teaching approaches and methods differ in the way they have
addressed these issues from the late nineteenth century to the present, as
we shall see throughout this book. The Direct Method can be regarded as
the first language teaching method to have caught the attention of
teachers and language teaching specialists, and it offered a methodology
that appeared to move language teaching into a new era. It marked the
beginning of the “methods era.”
The methods era
One of the lasting legacies of the Direct Method was the notion of
“method” itself. The controversy over the Direct Method was the first of
many debates over how second and foreign languages should be taught.
The history of language teaching throughout much of the twentieth cen-
tury saw the rise and fall of a variety of language teaching approaches and

15
methods, the major examples of which are described in this book. Com-
mon to most of them are the following assumptions:
– An approach or method refers to a theoretically consistent set of teach-
ing procedures that define best practice in language teaching.
– Particular approaches and methods, if followed precisely, will lead to
more effective levels of language learning than alternative ways of
teaching.
– The quality of language teaching will improve if teachers use the best
available approaches and methods.
The different teaching approaches and methods that have emerged in the
last 60 or so years, while often having very different characteristics in
terms of goals, assumptions about how a second language is learned, and
preferred teaching techniques, have in common the belief that if language
learning is to be improved, it will come about through changes and
improvements in teaching methodology. This notion has been reinforced
by professional organizations that endorse particular teaching ap-
proaches and methods, by academics who support some and reject oth-
ers, by publishers who produce and sell textbooks based on the latest
teaching approaches and methods, and by teachers who are constantly
looking for the “best” method of teaching a language. Lange comments:
Foreign language teacher development . . . has a basic orientation to methods
of teaching. Unfortunately, the latest bandwagon “methodologies” come into
prominence without much study or understanding, particularly those that ap-
pear easiest to immediately apply in the classroom or those that are supported
by a particular “guru”. Although concern for method is certainly not a new is-
sue, the current attraction to “method” stems from the late 1950s, when for-
eign language teachers were falsely led to believe that there was a method to
remedy the “language teaching and learning problems.” (1990: 253)
The most active period in the history of approaches and methods was
from the 1950s to the 1980s. The 1950s and 1960s saw the emergence of
the Audiolingual Method and the Situational Method, which were both
superseded by the Communicative Approach. During the same period,
other methods attracted smaller but equally enthusiastic followers, in-
cluding the Silent Way, the Natural Approach, and Total Physical Re-
sponse. In the 1990s, Content-Based Instruction and Task-Based Lan-
guage Teaching emerged as new approaches to language teaching as did
movements such as Competency-Based Instruction that focus on the out-
comes of learning rather than methods of teaching. Other approaches,
such as Cooperative Learning, Whole Language Approach, and Multiple
Intelligences, originally developed in general education, have been ex-
tended to second language settings. These approaches and methods are
discussed in Parts II and III of this book. By the 1990s, however, many

16
applied linguists and language teachers moved away from a belief that
newer and better approaches and methods are the solution to problems in
language teaching. Alternative ways of understanding the nature of lan-
guage teaching have emerged that are sometimes viewed as characterizing
the “post-methods era.” These are discussed in the final chapter of this
book.
Approaches and methods in teacher preparation
programs
Despite the changing status of approaches and methods in language
teaching, the study of past and present teaching methods continues to
form a significant component of teacher preparation programs. The rea-
sons for this are the following:
– The study of approaches and methods provides teachers with a view of
how the field of language teaching has evolved.
– Approaches and methods can be studied not as prescriptions for how
to teach but as a source of well-used practices, which teachers can
adapt or implement based on their own needs.
– Experience in using different teaching approaches and methods can
provide teachers with basic teaching skills that they can later add to or
supplement as they develop teaching experience.
This is the orientation we adopt toward the teaching approaches and
methods described in this book. In order to understand the fundamental
nature of methods in language teaching, however, it is necessary to con-
ceptualize the notion of approach and method more systematically. This
is the aim of the next chapter, in which we present a model for the
description, analysis, and comparison of methods. This model will be
used as a framework for our subsequent discussions and analyses of
particular language teaching methods and philosophies.
Bibliography and further reading
Brown, R. 1973. A First Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brown, H. D. 1993. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (3rd ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Coleman, A. 1929. The Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages in the United
States. New York: Macmillan.
Darian, K. C. 1971. Generative Grammar, Structural Linguistics, and Language
Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Franke, F. 1884. Die Praktische Spracherlernung auf Grund der Psychologie und
der Physiologie der Sprache Dargestellt. Leipzig: O. R. Reisland.
Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.

17
Howatt, T. 1997. Talking shop: Transformation and change in ELT. ELT Journal
5(3): 263–268.
Kelly, L. 1969. 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.
Lange, D. 1990. A blueprint for a teacher development program. In J. C.
Richards and D. Nunan (eds.), Second Language Teacher Education. New
York: Cambridge University Press. 245–268.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1998. Expanding roles of learners and teachers in learner-
centered instruction. In W. Renandya and G. Jacobs (eds.), Learners and
Language Learning. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
Mackey, W. F. 1965. Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman.
Marcella, F. 1998. The historical development of ESL materials in the United
States. ERIC Document ED425653.
Richards, Jack C. 1985. The secret life of methods. In Jack C. Richards, The
Context of Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Ox-
Sweet, H. 1899. The Practical Study of Languages. Reprinted London: Oxford
University Press.
Titone, R. 1968. Teaching Foreign Languages: An Historical Sketch. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
2 - The nature of approaches and methods in language teaching pp. 18-3
5

18
2 The nature of approaches and methods
in language teaching
We saw in the preceding chapter that the changing rationale for foreign
language study and the classroom techniques and procedures used to
teach languages have reflected responses to a variety of historical issues
and circumstances. Tradition was for many years the guiding principle.
The Grammar-Translation Method reflected a time-honored and schol-
arly view of language and language study. At times, the practical realities
of the classroom determined both goals and procedures, as with the
determination of reading as the goal in American schools and colleges in
the late 1920s. At other times, theories derived from linguistics, psychol-
ogy, or a mixture of both were used to develop a both philosophical and
practical basis for language teaching, as with the various reformist pro-
posals of the nineteenth century. As the study of teaching methods and
procedures in language teaching assumed a more central role within
applied linguistics from the 1940s on, various attempts have been made
to conceptualize the nature of methods and to explore more systemat-
ically the relationship between theory and practice within a method. In
this chapter we will clarify the relationship between approach and
method and present a model for the description, analysis, and com-
parison of methods.
Approach and method
When linguists and language specialists sought to improve the quality of
language teaching in the late nineteenth century, they often did so by
referring to general principles and theories concerning how languages are
learned, how knowledge of language is represented and organized in
memory, or how language itself is structured. The early applied linguists,
such as Henry Sweet (1845–1912), Otto Jespersen (1860–1943), and
Harold Palmer (1877–1949) (see Chapter 3), elaborated principles and
theoretically accountable approaches to the design of language teaching
programs, courses, and materials, though many of the specific practical
details were left to be worked out by others. They sought a rational
answer to questions such as those regarding principles for the selection
and sequencing of vocabulary and grammar, though none of these applied
linguists saw in any existing method the ideal embodiment of their ideas.

The nature of approaches and methods
19
In describing methods, the difference between a philosophy of lan-
guage teaching at the level of theory and principles, and a set of derived
procedures for teaching a language, is central. In an attempt to clarify this
difference, a scheme was proposed by the American applied linguist Ed-
ward Anthony in 1963. He identified three levels of conceptualization
and organization, which he termed approach, method, and technique:
The arrangement is hierarchical. The organizational key is that techniques car-
ry out a method which is consistent with an approach. . . .
. . . An approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature
of language teaching and learning. An approach is axiomatic. It describes the
nature of the subject matter to be taught. . . .
. . . Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language ma-
terial, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the se-
lected approach. An approach is axiomatic, a method is procedural.
Within one approach, there can be many methods . . .
. . . A technique is implementational – that which actually takes place in a
classroom. It is a particular trick, stratagem, or contrivance used to accom-
plish an immediate objective. Techniques must be consistent with a method,
and therefore in harmony with an approach as well. (Anthony 1963: 63–67)
According to Anthony’s model, approach is the level at which assump-
tions 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 described.
Anthony’s model serves as a useful way of distinguishing between
different degrees of abstraction and specificity found in different lan-
guage teaching proposals. Thus we can see that the proposals of the
Reform Movement were at the level of approach and that the Direct
Method is one method derived from this approach. The so-called Reading
Method, which evolved as a result of the Coleman Report (see Chapter
1), should really be described in the plural – reading methods – since a
number of different ways of implementing a reading approach have been
developed.
A number of other ways of conceptualizing approaches and methods in
language teaching have been proposed. Mackey, in his book Language
Teaching Analysis (1965), elaborated perhaps the most well known
model of the 1960s, one that focuses primarily on the levels of method
and technique. Mackey’s model of language teaching analysis concen-
trates on the dimensions of selection, gradation, presentation, and repeti-
tion underlying a method. In fact, despite the title of Mackey’s book, his
concern is primarily with the analysis of textbooks and their underlying
principles of organization. His model fails to address the level of ap-
proach, nor does it deal with the actual classroom behaviors of teachers

20
and learners, except as these are represented in textbooks. Hence it can-
not really serve as a basis for comprehensive analysis of either approaches
or methods.
Although Anthony’s original proposal has the advantage of simplicity
and comprehensiveness and serves as a useful way of distinguishing the
relationship between underlying theoretical principles and the practices
derived from them, it fails to give sufficient attention to the nature of a
method itself. Nothing is said about the roles of teachers and learners
assumed in a method, for example, nor about the role of instructional
materials or the form they are expected to take. It fails to account for how
an approach may be realized in a method, or for how method and tech-
nique are related. In order to provide a more comprehensive model for
the discussion and analysis of approaches and methods, we have revised
and extended the original Anthony model. The primary areas needing
further clarification are, using Anthony’s terms, method and technique.
We see approach and method treated at the level of design, that level in
which objectives, syllabus, and content are determined, and in which the
roles of teachers, learners, and instructional materials are specified. The
implementation phase (the level of technique in Anthony’s model) we
refer to by the slightly more comprehensive term procedure. Thus, a
method is theoretically related to an approach, is organizationally deter-
mined by a design, and is practically realized in procedure. In the re-
mainder of this chapter, we will elaborate on the relationship between
approach, design, and procedure, using this framework to compare par-
ticular methods and approaches in language teaching. In the remaining
chapters of the book, we will use the model presented here as a basis for
describing a number of widely used approaches and methods.
Approach
Following Anthony, approach refers to theories about the nature of lan-
guage and language learning that serve as the source of practices and
principles in language teaching. We will examine the linguistic and psy-
cholinguistic aspects of approach in turn.
Theory of language
At least three different theoretical views of language and the nature of
language proficiency explicitly or implicitly inform current approaches
and methods in language teaching. The first, and the most traditional of
the three, is the structural view, the view that language is a system of
structurally related elements for the coding of meaning. The target
of language learning is seen to be the mastery of elements of this system,
which are generally defined in terms of phonological units (e.g.,

21
phonemes), grammatical units (e.g., clauses, phrases, sentences), gram-
matical operations (e.g., adding, shifting, joining, or transforming ele-
ments), and lexical items (e.g., function words and structure words). As
we see in Chapter 4, the Audiolingual Method embodies this particular
view of language, as do such methods as Total Physical Response (Chap-
ter 5) and the Silent Way (Chapter 6).
The second view of language is the functional view, the view that
language is a vehicle for the expression of functional meaning. The com-
municative movement in language teaching subscribes to this view of
language (see Chapter 14). This theory emphasizes the semantic and
communicative dimension rather than merely the grammatical charac-
teristics of language, and leads to a specification and organization of
language teaching content by categories of meaning and function rather
than by elements of structure and grammar. Wilkins’s Notional Syl-
labuses (1976) is an attempt to spell out the implications of this view of
language for syllabus design. A notional syllabus would include not only
elements of grammar and lexis but also specify the topics, notions, and
concepts the learner needs to communicate about. The English for Spe-
cific Purposes (ESP) movement likewise begins not from a structural
theory of language but from a functional account of learner needs
(Robinson 1980).
The third view of language can be called the interactional view. It sees
language as a vehicle for the realization of interpersonal relations and for
the performance of social transactions between individuals. Language is
seen as a tool for the creation and maintenance of social relations. Areas
of inquiry being drawn on in the development of interactional ap-
proaches to language teaching include interaction analysis, conversation
analysis, and ethnomethodology. Interactional theories focus on the pat-
terns of moves, acts, negotiation, and interaction found in conversational
exchanges. Language teaching content, according to this view, may be
specified and organized by patterns of exchange and interaction or may
be left unspecified, to be shaped by the inclinations of learners as
interactors.
“Interaction” has been central to theories of second language learning
and pedagogy since the 1980s. Rivers (1987) defined the interactive per-
spective in language education: “Students achieve facility in using a lan-
guage when their attention is focused on conveying and receiving authen-
tic messages (that is, messages that contain information of interest to
both speaker and listener in a situation of importance to both). This is
interaction” (Rivers 1987: 4). The notion of interactivity has also been
linked to the teaching of reading and writing as well as listening and
speaking skills. Carrell, Devine, and Esky (1988) use the notion of “inter-
activity” to refer to the simultaneous use by effective readers of both top-
down and bottom-up processing in reading comprehension. It is also used

22
to refer to the relationship between reader and writer who are viewed as
engaged in a text-based conversation (Grabe in Carrell, Devine, and Esky
1988). Task-Based Language Teaching (Chapter 18) also draws on an
interactional view of language, as to some extent do Whole Language
(Chapter 9), Neurolinguistic Programming (Chapter 11), Cooperative
Language Learning (Chapter 16), and Content-Based Instruction (Chap-
ter 17). Despite this enthusiasm for “interactivity” as a defining notion in
language teaching, a model of “Language as Interaction” has not been
described in the same level of detail as those models that have been
developed for structural and functional views of language theory.
Structural, functional, or interactional models of language (or varia-
tions on them) provide the axioms and theoretical framework that may
motivate a particular teaching method, such as Audiolingualism. But in
themselves they are incomplete and need to be complemented by theories
of language learning. It is to this dimension that we now turn.
Theory of language learning
Although specific theories of the nature of language may provide the
basis for a particular teaching method, other methods derive primarily
from a theory of language learning. A learning theory underlying an
approach or method responds to two questions: (a) What are the psycho-
linguistic and cognitive processes involved in language learning? and (b)
What are the conditions that need to be met in order for these learning
processes to be activated? Learning theories associated with a method at
the level of approach may emphasize either one or both of these dimen-
sions. Process-oriented theories build on learning processes, such as habit
formation, induction, inferencing, hypothesis testing, and generalization.
Condition-oriented theories emphasize the nature of the human and
physical context in which language learning takes place.
Stephen D. Krashen’s Monitor Model of second language development
(1981) is an example of a learning theory on which a method (the Natural
Approach) has been built (see Chapter 15). Monitor theory addresses
both the process and the condition dimensions of learning. At the level of
process, Krashen distinguishes between acquisition and learning. Acqui-
sition refers to the natural assimilation of language rules through using
language for communication. Learning refers to the formal study of lan-
guage rules and is a conscious process. According to Krashen, however,
learning is available only as a “monitor.” The monitor is the repository of
conscious grammatical knowledge about a language that is learned
through formal instruction and that is called upon in the editing of utter-
ances produced through the acquired system. Krashen’s theory also ad-
dresses the conditions necessary for the process of “acquisition” to take
place. Krashen describes these in terms of the type of “input” the learner

23
receives. Input must be comprehensible, slightly above the learner’s pres-
ent level of competence, interesting or relevant, not grammatically se-
quenced, in sufficient quantity, and experienced in low-anxiety contexts.
Tracy D. Terrell’s Natural Approach (1977) is an example of a method
derived primarily from a learning theory rather than from a particular
view of language. Although the Natural Approach is based on a learning
theory that specifies both processes and conditions, the learning theory
underlying such methods as Counseling-Learning and the Silent Way
addresses primarily the conditions held to be necessary for learning to
take place without specifying what the learning processes themselves are
presumed to be (see Chapters 6 and 7).
Charles A. Curran in his writings on Counseling-Learning (1972), for
example, focuses primarily on the conditions necessary for successful
learning. He believes the atmosphere of the classroom is a crucial factor,
and his method seeks to ameliorate the feelings of intimidation and inse-
curity that many learners experience. James Asher’s Total Physical Re-
sponse (Asher 1977) is likewise a method that derives primarily from
learning theory rather than from a theory of the nature of language (see
Chapter 5). Asher’s learning theory addresses both the process and the
condition aspects of learning. It is based on the belief that child language
learning is based on motor activity, on coordinating language with ac-
tion, and that this should form the basis of adult foreign language teach-
ing. Orchestrating language production and comprehension with body
movement and physical actions is thought to provide the conditions for
success in language learning. Caleb Gattegno’s Silent Way (1972, 1976) is
likewise built around a theory of the conditions necessary for successful
learning to be realized. Gattegno’s writings address learners’ needs to feel
secure about learning and to assume conscious control of learning. Many
of the techniques used in the method are designed to train learners to
consciously use their intelligence to heighten learning potential.
There often appear to be natural affinities between certain theories of
language and theories of language learning; however, one can imagine
different pairings of language theory and learning theory that might work
as well as those we observe. The linking of structuralism (a linguistic
theory) to behaviorism (a learning theory) produced Audiolingualism.
That particular link was not inevitable, however. Cognitive-code propo-
nents (see Chapter 4), for example, have attempted to link a more sophis-
ticated model of structuralism to a more mentalistic and less behavioristic
brand of learning theory.
At the level of approach, we are hence concerned with theoretical
principles. With respect to language theory, we are concerned with a
model of language competence and an account of the basic features of
linguistic organization and language use. With respect to learning theory,
we are concerned with an account of the central processes of learning and

24
an account of the conditions believed to promote successful language
learning. These principles may or may not lead to “a” method. Teachers
may, for example, develop their own teaching procedures, informed by a
particular view of language and a particular theory of learning. They may
constantly revise, vary, and modify teaching/learning procedures on the
basis of the performance of the learners and their reactions to instruc-
tional practice. A group of teachers holding similar beliefs about language
and language learning (i.e., sharing a similar approach) may each imple-
ment these principles in different ways. Approach does not specify pro-
cedure. Theory does not dictate a particular set of teaching techniques
and activities. What links theory with practice (or approach with pro-
cedure) is what we have called design.
Design
In order for an approach to lead to a method, it is necessary to develop a
design for an instructional system. Design is the level of method analysis
in which we consider (a) what the objectives of a method are; (b) how
language content is selected and organized within the method, that is, the
syllabus model the method incorporates; (c) the types of learning tasks
and teaching activities the method advocates; (d) the roles of learners; (e)
the roles of teachers; and (f) the role of instructional materials.
Objectives
Different theories of language and language learning influence the focus
of a method; that is, they determine what a method sets out to achieve.
The specification of particular learning objectives, however, is a product
of design, not of approach. Some methods focus primarily on oral skills
and say that reading and writing skills are secondary and derive from
transfer of oral skills. Some methods set out to teach general communica-
tion skills and give greater priority to the ability to express oneself mean-
ingfully and to make oneself understood than to grammatical accuracy or
perfect pronunciation. Others place a greater emphasis on accurate
grammar and pronunciation from the very beginning. Some methods set
out to teach the basic grammar and vocabulary of a language. Others may
define their objectives less in linguistic terms than in terms of learning
behaviors, that is, in terms of the processes or abilities the learner is
expected to acquire as a result of instruction. Gattegno writes, for exam-
ple, “Learning is not seen as the means of accumulating knowledge but as
the means of becoming a more proficient learner in whatever one is
engaged in” (1972: 89). This process-oriented objective may be offered in
contrast to the linguistically oriented or product-oriented objectives of
more traditional methods. The degree to which a method has process-

25
oriented or product-oriented objectives may be revealed in how much
emphasis is placed on vocabulary acquisition and grammatical profi-
ciency and in how grammatical or pronunciation errors are treated in the
method. Many methods that claim to be primarily process-oriented in
fact show overriding concerns with grammatical and lexical attainment
and with accurate grammar and pronunciation.
Content choice and organization: The syllabus
All methods of language teaching involve the use of the target language.
All methods thus involve overt or covert decisions concerning the selec-
tion of language items (words, sentence patterns, tenses, constructions,
functions, topics, etc.) that are to be used within a course or method.
Decisions about the choice of language content relate to both subject
matter and linguistic matter. In straightforward terms, one makes deci-
sions about what to talk about (subject matter) and how to talk about it
(linguistic matter). ESP courses, for example, are necessarily subject-
matter focused. Structurally based methods, such as Situational Lan-
guage Teaching and the Audiolingual Method, are necessarily lin-
guistically focused. Methods typically differ in what they see as the rele-
vant language and subject matter around which language teaching should
be organized and the principles used in sequencing content within a
course. Content issues involve the principles of selection (Mackey 1965)
that ultimately shape the syllabus adopted in a course as well as the
instructional materials that are used, together with the principles of gra-
dation the method adopts. In grammar-based courses matters of sequenc-
ing and gradation are generally determined according to the difficulty of
items or their frequency. In communicative or functionally oriented
courses (e.g., in ESP programs) sequencing may be according to the
learners’ communicative needs.
Traditionally, the term syllabus has been used to refer to the form in
which linguistic content is specified in a course or method. Inevitably, the
term has been more closely associated with methods that are product-
centered rather than those that are process-centered. Syllabuses and syl-
labus principles for Audiolingual, Structural-Situational, and notional-
functional methods, as well as in ESP approaches to language program
design, can be readily identified. The syllabus underlying the Situational
and Audiolingual methods consists of a list of grammatical items and
constructions, often together with an associated list of vocabulary items
(Fries and Fries 1961; Alexander, Allen, Close, and O’Neill 1975).
Notional-functional syllabuses specify the communicative content of a
course in terms of functions, notions, topics, grammar, and vocabulary.
Such syllabuses are usually determined in advance of teaching and for this
reason have been referred to as “a priori syllabuses.”

26
A number of taxonomies of syllabus types in language teaching have
been proposed, for example, Yalden (1987), Long and Crookes (1992),
and Brown (1995). Brown (1995: 7) lists seven basic syllabus types –
Structural, Situational, Topical, Functional, Notional, Skills-based, and
Task-based, and these can usually be linked to specific approaches or
methods: Oral/Situational (Situational); Audiolingual (Structural), Com-
municative Language Teaching (Notional/Functional), Task-based
Teaching (Task-based). However, for some of the approaches and
methods discussed in this book we have had to infer syllabus assumptions
since no explicit syllabus specification is given. This is particularly true
where content organization rather than language organization or ped-
agogical issues determines syllabus design, as with Content-Based In-
struction (Chapter 17).
The term syllabus, however, is less frequently used in process-based
methods, in which considerations of language content are often second-
ary. Counseling-Learning, for example, has no language syllabus as such.
Neither linguistic matter nor subject matter is specified in advance.
Learners select content for themselves by choosing topics they want to
talk about. These are then translated into the target language and used as
the basis for interaction and language practice. To find out what linguis-
tic content had in fact been generated and practiced during a course
organized according to Counseling-Learning principles, it would be nec-
essary to record the lessons and later determine what items of language
had been covered. This would be an a posteriori approach to syllabus
specification; that is, the syllabus would be determined from examining
lesson protocols. With such methods as the Silent Way and Total Physical
Response, an examination of lesson protocols, teacher’s manuals, and
texts derived from them reveals that the syllabuses underlying these
methods are traditional lexico-grammatical syllabuses. In both there is a
strong emphasis on grammar and grammatical accuracy.
Types of learning and teaching activities
The objectives of a method, whether defined primarily in terms of prod-
uct or process, are attained through the instructional process, through the
organized and directed interaction of teachers, learners, and materials in
the classroom. Differences among methods at the level of approach man-
ifest themselves in the choice of different kinds of learning and teaching
activities in the classroom. Teaching activities that focus on grammatical
accuracy may be quite different from those that focus on communicative
skills. Activities designed to focus on the development of specific psycho-
linguistic processes in language acquisition will differ from those directed
toward mastery of particular features of grammar. The activity types that

27
a method advocates – the third component in the level of design in
method analysis – often serve to distinguish methods. Audiolingualism,
for example, uses dialogue and pattern practice extensively. The Silent
Way employs problem-solving activities that involve the use of special
charts and colored rods. Communicative language teaching theoreticians
have advocated the use of tasks that involve an “information gap” and
“information transfer”; that is, learners work on the same task, but each
learner has different information needed to complete the task.
The notion of the “task” as a central activity type in language teaching
has been considerably elaborated and refined since its emergence in early
versions of Communicative Language Teaching. As well, tasks have be-
come a central focus in both second language acquisition research and
second language pedagogy. The history and some of the current interpre-
tations of the nature of language teaching tasks are described in detail in
Chapter 18 in relation to Task-Based Language Teaching.
Different philosophies at the level of approach may be reflected both in
the use of different kinds of activities and in different uses for particular
activity types. For example, interactive games are often used in au-
diolingual courses for motivation and to provide a change of pace from
pattern-practice drills. In communicative language teaching, the same
games may be used to introduce or provide practice for particular types of
interactive exchanges. Differences in activity types in methods may also
involve different arrangements and groupings of learners. A method that
stresses oral chorus drilling will require different groupings of learners in
the classroom from a method that uses problem-solving/information-
exchange activities involving pair work. Activity types in methods thus
include the primary categories of learning and teaching activity the
method advocates, such as dialogue, responding to commands, group
problem solving, information-exchange activities, improvisations, ques-
tion and answer, or drills.
Because of the different assumptions they make about learning pro-
cesses, syllabuses, and learning activities, methods also attribute different
roles and functions to learners, teachers, and instructional materials
within the instructional process. These constitute the next three compo-
nents of design in method analysis.
Learner roles
The design of an instructional system will be considerably influenced by
how learners are regarded. A method reflects explicit or implicit re-
sponses to questions concerning the learners’ contribution to the learning
process. This is seen in the types of activities learners carry out, the degree
of control learners have over the content of learning, the patterns of

28
learner groupings adopted, the degree to which learners influence the
learning of others, and the view of the learner as processor, performer,
initiator, problem solver.
Much of the criticism of Audiolingualism came from the recognition of
the very limited roles available to learners in audiolingual methodology.
Learners were seen as stimulus-response mechanisms whose learning was
a direct result of repetitive practice. Newer methodologies customarily
exhibit more concern for learner roles and for variation among learners.
Johnson and Paulston (1976) spell out learner roles in an individualized
approach to language learning in the following terms: (a) Learners plan
their own learning program and thus ultimately assume responsibility for
what they do in the classroom; (b) Learners monitor and evaluate their
own progress; (c) Learners are members of a group and learn by interact-
ing with others; (d) Learners tutor other learners; (e) Learners learn from
the teacher, from other students, and from other teaching sources.
Counseling-Learning views learners as having roles that change develop-
mentally, and Curran (1976) uses an ontogenetic metaphor to suggest this
development. He divides the developmental process into five stages, ex-
tending from total dependency on the teacher in stage 1 to total indepen-
dence in stage 5. These learner stages Curran sees as parallel to the
growth of a child from embryo to independent adulthood, passing
through childhood and adolescence.
Teacher roles
Learner roles in an instructional system are closely linked to the teacher’s
status and function. Teacher roles are similarly related ultimately both to
assumptions about language and language learning at the level of ap-
proach. Some methods are totally dependent on the teacher as a source of
knowledge and direction; others see the teacher’s role as catalyst, consul-
tant, guide, and model for learning; still others try to “teacher-proof” the
instructional system by limiting teacher initiative and by building instruc-
tional content and direction into texts or lesson plans. Teacher and
learner roles define the type of interaction characteristic of classrooms in
which a particular method is being used.
Teacher roles in methods are related to the following issues: (a) the
types of functions teachers are expected to fulfill, whether that of practice
director, counselor, or model, for example; (b) the degree of control the
teacher has over how learning takes place; (c) the degree to which the
teacher is responsible for determining the content of what is taught; and
(d) the interactional patterns that develop between teachers and learners.
Methods typically depend critically on teacher roles and their realiza-
tions. In the classical Audiolingual Method, the teacher is regarded as the
primary source of language and of language learning. But less teacher-

29
directed learning may still demand very specific and sometimes even
more demanding roles for the teacher. The role of the teacher in the Silent
Way, for example, depends on thorough training and methodological
initiation. Only teachers who are thoroughly sure of their role and the
concomitant learner’s role will risk departure from the security of tradi-
tional textbook-oriented teaching.
For some methods, the role of the teacher has been specified in detail.
Individualized approaches to learning define roles for the teacher that
create specific patterns of interaction between teachers and learners in
classrooms. These are designed to shift the responsibility for learning
gradually from the teacher to the learner. Counseling-Learning sees the
teacher’s role as that of psychological counselor, the effectiveness of the
teacher’s role being a measure of counseling skills and attributes –
warmth, sensitivity, and acceptance.
As these examples suggest, the potential role relationships of learner
and teacher are many and varied. They may be asymmetrical relation-
ships, such as those of conductor to orchestra member, therapist to pa-
tient, coach to player. Some contemporary methodologies have sought to
establish more symmetrical kinds of learner–teacher relationships, such
as friend to friend, colleague to colleague, teammate to teammate. The
role of the teacher will ultimately reflect both the objectives of the
method and the learning theory on which the method is predicated, since
the success of a method may depend on the degree to which the teacher
can provide the content or create the conditions for successful language
learning.
The role of instructional materials
The last component within the level of design concerns the role of instruc-
tional materials within the instructional system. What is specified with
respect to objectives, content (i.e., the syllabus), learning activities, and
learner and teacher roles suggests the function for materials within the
system. The syllabus defines linguistic content in terms of language
elements – structures, topics, notions, functions – or, in some cases, of
learning tasks (see Johnson 1982; Prabhu 1983). It also defines the goals
for language learning in terms of speaking, listening, reading, or writing
skills. The instructional materials in their turn further specify subject-
matter content, even where no syllabus exists, and define or suggest the
intensity of coverage for syllabus items, allocating the amount of time,
attention, and detail particular syllabus items or tasks require. Instruc-
tional materials also define or imply the day-to-day learning objectives
that collectively constitute the goals of the syllabus. Materials designed
on the assumption that learning is initiated and monitored by the teacher
must meet quite different requirements from those designed for student

30
self-instruction or for peer tutoring. Some methods require the instruc-
tional use of existing materials, found materials, and realia. Some assume
teacher-proof materials that even poorly trained teachers with imperfect
control of the target language can teach with. Some materials require
specially trained teachers with near-native competence in the target lan-
guage. Some are designed to replace the teacher, so that learning can take
place independently. Some materials dictate various interactional pat-
terns in the classroom; others inhibit classroom interaction; still others
are noncommittal about interaction between teacher and learner and
learner and learner.
The role of instructional materials within a method or instructional
system will reflect decisions concerning the primary goal of materials
(e.g., to present content, to practice content, to facilitate communication
between learners, or to enable learners to practice content without the
teacher’s help), the form of materials (e.g., textbook, audiovisuals, com-
puter software), the relation of materials to other sources of input (i.e.,
whether they serve as the major source of input or only as a minor
component of it), and the abilities of teachers (e.g., their competence in
the language or degree of training and experience).
A particular design for an instructional system may imply a particular
set of roles for materials in support of the syllabus and the teachers and
learners. For example, the role of instructional materials within a
functional/communicative methodology might be specified in the follow-
ing terms:
1. Materials will focus on the communicative abilities of interpretation,
expression, and negotiation.
2. Materials will focus on understandable, relevant, and interesting ex-
changes of information, rather than on the presentation of grammati-
cal form.
3. Materials will involve different kinds of texts and different media,
which the learners can use to develop their competence through a
variety of different activities and tasks.
By comparison, the role of instructional materials within an individu-
alized instructional system might include the following specifications:
1. Materials will allow learners to progress at their own rates of learning.
2. Materials will allow for different styles of learning.
3. Materials will provide opportunities for independent study and use.
4. Materials will provide opportunities for self-evaluation and progress
in learning.
The content of a method such as Counseling-Learning is assumed to be
a product of the interests of the learners, since learners generate their own
subject matter. In that sense it would appear that no linguistic content or

31
materials are specified within the method. On the other hand,
Counseling-Learning acknowledges the need for learner mastery of cer-
tain linguistic mechanics, such as vocabulary, grammar, and pronuncia-
tion. Counseling-Learning sees these issues as falling outside the teacher’s
central role as counselor. Thus, Counseling-Learning has proposed the
use of teaching machines and other programmed materials to support the
learning of some of the more mechanical aspects of language so as to free
the teacher to function increasingly as a learning counselor.
Procedure
The last level of conceptualization and organization within a method is
what we will refer to as procedure. This encompasses the actual moment-
to-moment techniques, practices, and behaviors that operate in teaching
a language according to a particular method. It is the level at which we
describe how a method realizes its approach and design in classroom
behavior. At the level of design we saw that a method will advocate the
use of certain types of teaching activities as a consequence of its theoreti-
cal assumptions about language and learning. At the level of procedure,
we are concerned with how these tasks and activities are integrated into
lessons and used as the basis for teaching and learning. There are three
dimensions to a method at the level of procedure: (a) the use of teaching
activities (drills, dialogues, information-gap activities, etc.) to present
new language and to clarify and demonstrate formal, communicative, or
other aspects of the target language; (b) the ways in which particular
teaching activities are used for practicing language; and (c) the pro-
cedures and techniques used in giving feedback to learners concerning the
form or content of their utterances or sentences.
Essentially, then, procedure focuses on the way a method handles the
presentation, practice, and feedback phases of teaching. Here, for exam-
ple, is a description of the procedural aspects of a beginning Silent Way
course based on Stevick (1980: 44–45):
1. The teacher points at meaningless symbols on a wall chart. The sym-
bols represent the syllables of the spoken language. The students read
the sounds aloud, first in chorus and then individually.
2. After the students can pronounce the sounds, the teacher moves to a
second set of charts containing words frequently used in the language,
including numbers. The teacher leads the students to pronounce long
numbers.
3. The teacher uses colored rods together with charts and gestures to lead
the students into producing the words and basic grammatical struc-
tures needed.
Of error treatment in the Silent Way Stevick notes:

32
When the students respond correctly to the teacher’s initiative, she usually
does not react with any overt confirmation that what they did was right. If a
student’s response is wrong, on the other hand, she indicates that the student
needs to do further work on the word or phrase; if she thinks it necessary, she
actually shows the student exactly where the additional work is to be done.
(1980: 45)
Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) illustrate how the procedural phases of
instruction are handled in what they call a notional-functional approach.
1. Presentation of a brief dialogue or several mini-dialogues.
2. Oral practice of each utterance in the dialogue.
3. Questions and answers based on the topic and situation in the
dialogue.
4. Questions and answers related to the student’s personal experience
but centered on the theme of the dialogue.
5. Study of the basic communicative expressions used in the dialogue or
one of the structures that exemplify the function.
6. Learner discovery of generalizations or rules underlying the functional
expression of structure.
7. Oral recognition, interpretative procedures.
8. Oral production activities, proceeding from guided to freer
communication.
We expect methods to be most obviously idiosyncratic at the level of
procedure, though classroom observations often reveal that teachers do
not necessarily follow the procedures a method prescribes.
The elements and subelements that constitute a method and that we
have described under the rubrics of approach, design, and procedure are
summarized in Figure 2.1.
Conclusion
The model presented in this chapter demonstrates that any language
teaching method can be described in terms of the issues identified here at
the levels of approach, design, and procedure. Very few methods are
explicit with respect to all of these dimensions, however. In the remaining
chapters of this book we will attempt to make each of these features of
approach, design, and procedure explicit with reference to the major
language teaching approaches and methods in use today. In so doing, we
will often have to infer from what method developers have written in
order to determine precisely what criteria are being used for teaching
activities, what claims are being made about learning theory, what type of
syllabus is being employed, and so on.
The model presented here is not intended to imply that methodological

Figure
2.1
Summary
of
elements
and
subelements
that
constitute
a
method.

34
development proceeds neatly from approach, through design, to pro-
cedure. It is not clear whether such a developmental formula is possible,
and our model certainly does not describe the typical case. Methods can
develop out of any of the three categories. One can, for example, stumble
on or invent a set of teaching procedures that appear to be successful and
then later develop a design and a theoretical approach that explain or
justify the procedures. Some methodologists would resist calling their
proposals a method, although, if descriptions are possible at each of the
levels described here, we would argue that what is advocated has, in fact,
the status of a method. Let us now turn to the major approaches and
teaching methods that are in use today and examine them according to
how they reflect specific decisions at the levels of approach, design, and
procedure.
Alexander, L. G., W. S. Allen, R. A. Close, and R. J. O’Neill. 1975. English
Grammatical Structure. London: Longman.
Anthony, E. M. 1963. Approach, method and technique. English Language
Teaching 17: 63–67.
Asher, J. 1977. Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete
Teacher’s Guidebook. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oakes Productions.
Bosco, F. J., and R. J. Di Pietro. 1970. Instructional strategies: Their psychologi-
cal and linguistics bases. International Review of Applied Linguistics 8:
1–19.
Breen, M. P., and C. Candlin. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curricu-
lum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2): 89–112.
Brown, J. 1995. The Elements of the Language Curriculum. Boston: Heinle &
Heinle.
Carrell, P., A. Devine, and D. Esky. 1988. Interactive Approaches to Second
Language Reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curran, C. A. 1972. Counseling-Learning: A Whole-Person Model for Educa-
tion. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Curran, C. A. 1976. Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, Ill.:
Apple River Press.
Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1983. The Functional-Notional Approach:
From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fries, C. C., and A. C. Fries. 1961. Foundations for English Teaching. Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Gattegno, C. 1972. Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way.
(2nd ed.). New York: Educational Solutions.
Gattegno, C. 1976. The Common Sense of Teaching Foreign Languages. New
York: Educational Solutions.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Johnson, F., and C. B. Paulston. 1976. Individualizing in the Language Class-
room. Cambridge, Mass.: Jacaranda.

35
Johnson, K. 1982. Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learn-
ing. Oxford: Pergamon.
Long, M., and G. Crookes. 1992. Three approaches to task-based syllabus
design. TESOL Quarterly 226(1) (spring): 27–56.
Mackey, W. F. 1965. Language Teaching Analysis. London: Longman.
Prabhu, N. 1983. Procedural syllabuses. Paper presented at the RELC Seminar.
Singapore: Regional Language Centre.
Prabhu, N. 1990. There is no best method – why? TESOL Quarterly 24: 161–
176.
Richards J. C. 1990. Beyond methods. In J. C. Richards, The Language Teaching
Matrix. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. M. (ed.). 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Robinson, P. 1980. ESP (English for Specific Purposes). Oxford: Pergamon.
Rodgers, T. 1990. After methods, what? In S. Aninan (ed.), Language Teaching
Methodology for the Nineties. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language
Centre.
Spolsky, B. 1998. Conditions for Second Language Learning: Introduction to a
General Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stevick, E. W. 1980. Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Terrell, T. D. 1977. A natural approach to the acquisition and learning of a
language. Modern Language Journal 61(7): 325–336.
Warschauer, M., and R. Kern (eds.). 1999. Network-Based Language Teaching:
Concepts and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalden, J. 1987. Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
3 - The Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching pp. 36-49

36
3 The Oral Approach and Situational
Language Teaching
Few language teachers today are familiar with the terms Oral Approach
or Situational Language Teaching, which refer to an approach to lan-
guage teaching developed by British applied linguists from the 1930s to
the 1960s. Even though neither term is commonly used today, the impact
of the Oral Approach has been long-lasting, and it has shaped the design
of many widely used EFL/ESL textbooks and courses, including many
still being used today. One of the most successful ESL courses published,
Streamline English (Hartley and Viney 1978), reflected the classic princi-
ples of Situational Language Teaching, as did many other series that have
been widely used (e.g., Access to English, Coles and Lord 1975; Kernel
Lessons Plus, O’Neill 1973; and many of L. G. Alexander’s widely used
textbooks, e.g., Alexander 1967). Hubbard, Jones, Thornton, and
Wheeler’s comment in 1983 still holds true today: “This method is widely
used at the time of writing and a very large number of textbooks are based
on it” (Hubbard et al. 1983: 36). It is important, therefore, to understand
the principles and practices of the Oral Approach and Situational Lan-
guage Teaching.
Background
The origins of this approach began with the work of British applied
linguists in the 1920s and 1930s. Beginning at this time, a number of
outstanding applied linguists developed the basis for a principled ap-
proach to methodology in language teaching. Two of the leaders in this
movement were Harold Palmer and A. S. Hornby, two of the most promi-
nent figures in British twentieth-century language teaching. Both were
familiar with the work of such linguists as Otto Jespersen and Daniel
Jones, as well as with the Direct Method. They attempted to develop a
more scientific foundation for an oral approach to teaching English than
was evidenced in the Direct Method. The result was a systematic study of
the principles and procedures that could be applied to the selection and
organization of the content of a language course (Palmer 1917, 1921).

The Oral Approach and Situational Language Teaching
37
Vocabulary control
One of the first aspects of method design to receive attention was the role
of vocabulary. In the 1920s and 1930s, several large-scale investigations
of foreign language vocabulary were undertaken. The impetus for this
research came from two quarters. First, there was a general consensus
among language teaching specialists, such as Palmer, that vocabulary was
one of the most important aspects of foreign language learning. A second
influence was the increased emphasis on reading skills as the goal of
foreign language study in some countries. This had been the recommen-
dation of the Coleman Report (Chapter 1) and also the independent
conclusion of another British language teaching specialist, Michael West,
who had examined the role of English in India in the 1920s. Vocabulary
was seen as an essential component of reading proficiency.
This led to the development of principles of vocabulary control, which
were to have a major practical impact on the teaching of English in
subsequent decades. Frequency counts showed that a core of two thou-
sand or so words occurred frequently in written texts and that a knowl-
edge of these words would greatly assist in reading a foreign language.
Harold Palmer, Michael West, and other specialists produced a guide to
the English vocabulary needed for teaching English as a foreign language,
The Interim Report on Vocabulary Selection (Faucett, West, Palmer, and
Thorndike 1936), based on frequency as well as other criteria. This was
later revised by West and published in 1953 as A General Service List of
English Words, which became a standard reference in developing teach-
ing materials. These efforts to introduce a scientific and rational basis for
choosing the vocabulary content of a language course represented the
first attempts to establish principles of syllabus design in language
teaching.
Grammar control
Parallel to the interest in developing rational principles for vocabulary
selection was a focus on the grammatical content of a language course.
Palmer had emphasized the problems of grammar for the foreign learner.
Much of his work in Japan, where he directed the Institute for Research
in English Teaching from 1922 until World War II, was directed toward
developing classroom procedures suited to teaching basic grammatical
patterns through an oral approach. His view of grammar was very
different from the abstract model of grammar seen in the Grammar-
Translation Method, however, which was based on the assumption that
one universal logic formed the basis of all languages and that the teacher’s
responsibility was to show how each category of the universal grammar
was to be expressed in the foreign language. Palmer viewed grammar as

38
the underlying sentence patterns of the spoken language. Palmer, Hornby,
and other British applied linguists analyzed English and classified its
major grammatical structures into sentence patterns (later called “sub-
stitution tables”), which could be used to help internalize the rules of
English sentence structure.
A classification of English sentence patterns was incorporated into the
first dictionary for students of English as a foreign language, developed
by Hornby, Gatenby, and Wakefield and published in 1953 as The Ad-
vanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. A number of ped-
agogically motivated descriptions of English grammar were undertaken,
including A Grammar of Spoken English on a Strictly Phonetic Basis
(Palmer and Blandford 1939), A Handbook of English Grammar
(Zandvoort 1945), and Hornby’s Guide to Patterns and Usage in English
(1954), which became a standard reference source of basic English sen-
tence patterns for textbook writers. With the development of systematic
approaches to the lexical and grammatical content of a language course
and with the efforts of such specialists as Palmer, West, and Hornby in
using these resources as part of a comprehensive methodological frame-
work for the teaching of English as a foreign language, the foundations
for the British approach in TEFL/TESL – the Oral Approach – were
firmly established.
Palmer, Hornby, and other British applied linguists from the 1920s on-
ward developed an approach to methodology that involved systematic
principles of selection (the procedures by which lexical and grammatical
content was chosen), gradation (principles by which the organization and
sequencing of content were determined), and presentation (techniques
used for presentation and practice of items in a course). Although Palmer,
Hornby, and other English teaching specialists had differing views on the
specific procedures to be used in teaching English, their general principles
were referred to as the Oral Approach to language teaching. This was not
to be confused with the Direct Method, which, although it used oral
procedures, lacked a systematic basis in applied linguistic theory and
practice.
An oral approach should not be confused with the obsolete Direct Method,
which meant only that the learner was bewildered by a flow of ungraded
speech, suffering all the difficulties he would have encountered in picking up
the language in its normal environment and losing most of the compensating
benefits of better contextualization in those circumstances. (Pattison 1964: 4)
The Oral Approach was the accepted British approach to English lan-
guage teaching by the 1950s. It is described in the standard methodology

39
textbooks of the period, such as French (1948–1950), Gurrey (1955),
Frisby (1957), and Billows (1961). Its principles are seen in Hornby’s
famous Oxford Progressive English Course for Adult Learners (1954–
1956) and in many other more recent textbooks. One of the most active
proponents of the Oral Approach in the 1960s was the Australian George
Pittman. Pittman and his colleagues were responsible for developing an
influential set of teaching materials based on the Situational Approach,
which were widely used in Australia, New Guinea, and the Pacific territo-
ries. Most Pacific territories continue to use the so-called Tate materials,
developed by Pittman’s colleague Gloria Tate. Pittman was also responsi-
ble for the situationally based materials developed by the Commonwealth
Office of Education in Sydney, Australia, used in the English programs
for immigrants in Australia. These were published for worldwide use in
1965 as the series Situational English. Materials by Alexander and other
leading British textbook writers also reflected the principles of Situational
Language Teaching as they had evolved over a 20-year period. The main
characteristics of the approach were as follows:
1. Language teaching begins with the spoken language. Material is
taught orally before it is 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 selection procedures are followed to ensure that an essen-
tial 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 gram-
matical basis is established.
It was the third principle that became a key feature of the approach in the
1960s, and it was then that the term situational was used increasingly in
referring to the Oral Approach. Hornby himself used the term the Situa-
tional Approach in the title of an influential series of articles published in
English Language Teaching in 1950. Later, the terms Structural-
Situational Approach and Situational Language Teaching came into
common usage. To avoid further confusion, we will use the term Situa-
tional Language Teaching (SLT) to include the Structural-Situational and
Oral approaches. How can Situational Language Teaching be charac-
terized at the levels of approach, design, and procedure?

40
Approach
Theory of language
The theory of language underlying Situational Language Teaching can be
characterized as a type of British “structuralism.” Speech was regarded as
the basis of language, and structure was viewed as being at the heart of
speaking ability. Palmer, Hornby, and other British applied linguists had
prepared pedagogical descriptions of the basic grammatical structures of
English, and these were to be followed in developing methodology.
“Word order, Structural Words, the few inflexions of English, and Con-
tent Words, will form the material of our teaching” (Frisby 1957: 134). In
terms of language theory, there was little to distinguish such a view from
that proposed by American linguists, such as Charles Fries. Indeed, Pitt-
man drew heavily on Fries’s theories of language in the 1960s, but Ameri-
can theory was largely unknown by British applied linguists in the 1950s.
The British theoreticians, however, had a different focus to their version
of structuralism – the notion of “situation.” “Our principal classroom
activity in the teaching of English structure will be the oral practice of
structures. This oral practice of controlled sentence patterns should be
given in situations designed to give the greatest amount of practice in
English speech to the pupil” (Pittman 1963: 179).
The theory that knowledge of structures must be linked to situations in
which they could be used gave Situational Language Teaching one of its
distinctive features. This may have reflected the functional trend in Brit-
ish linguistics since the 1930s. Many British linguists had emphasized the
close relationship between the structure of language and the context and
situations in which language is used. British linguists, such as J. R. Firth
and M. A. K. Halliday, developed powerful views of language in which
meaning, context, and situation were given a prominent place: “The
emphasis now is on the description of language activity as part of the
whole complex of events which, together with the participants and rele-
vant objects, make up actual situations” (Halliday, McIntosh, and
Strevens 1964: 38). Thus, in contrast to American structuralist views on
language (see Chapter 4), language was viewed as purposeful activity
related to goals and situations in the real world. “The language which a
person originates . . . is always expressed for a purpose” (Frisby 1957:
16).
Theory of learning
The theory of learning underlying Situational Language Teaching is a
type of behaviorist habit-learning theory. It addresses primarily the pro-

41
cesses rather than the conditions of learning. Frisby, for example, cites
Palmer’s views as authoritative:
As Palmer has pointed out, there are three processes in learning a language –
receiving the knowledge or materials, fixing it in the memory by repetition,
and using it in actual practice until it becomes a personal skill. (1957: 136)
French likewise saw language learning as habit formation:
The fundamental is correct speech habits. . . . The pupils should be able to put
the words, without hesitation and almost without thought, into sentence pat-
terns which are correct. Such speech habits can be cultivated by blind imitative
drill. (1950, vol. 3: 9)
Like the Direct Method, Situational Language Teaching adopts an in-
ductive approach to the teaching of grammar. The meaning of words or
structures is not to be given through explanation in either the native
language or the target language but is to be induced from the way the
form is used in a situation. “If we give the meaning of a new word, either
by translation into the home language or by an equivalent in the same
language, as soon as we introduce it, we weaken the impression which the
word makes on the mind” (Billows 1961: 28). Explanation is therefore
discouraged, and the learner is expected to deduce the meaning of a
particular structure or vocabulary item from the situation in which it is
presented. Extending structures and vocabulary to new situations takes
place by generalization. The learner is expected to apply the language
learned in a classroom to situations outside the classroom. This is how
child language learning is believed to take place, and the same processes
are thought to occur in second and foreign language learning, according
to practitioners of Situational Language Teaching.
Design
Objectives
The objectives of the Situational Language Teaching method are to teach
a practical command of the four basic skills of language, goals it shares
with most methods of language teaching. But the skills are approached
through structure. Accuracy in both pronunciation and grammar is re-
garded as crucial, and errors are to be avoided at all costs. Automatic
control of basic structures and sentence patterns is fundamental to read-
ing and writing skills, and this is achieved through speech work. “Before
our pupils read new structures and new vocabulary, we shall teach orally
both the new structures and the new vocabulary” (Pittman 1963: 186).
Writing likewise derives from speech.
Oral composition can be a very valuable exercise. . . .

Major trends in language teaching
42
Nevertheless, the skill with which this activity is handled depends largely on
the control of the language suggested by the teacher and used by the chil-
dren. . . . Only when the teacher is reasonably certain that learners can speak
fairly correctly within the limits of their knowledge of sentence structure and
vocabulary may he allow them free choice in sentence patterns and vocabulary.
(Pittman 1963: 188)
The syllabus
Basic to the teaching of English in Situational Language Teaching is a
structural syllabus and a word list. A structural syllabus is a list of the
basic structures and sentence patterns of English, arranged according to
their order of presentation. In Situational Language Teaching, structures
are always taught within sentences, and vocabulary is chosen according
to how well it enables sentence patterns to be taught. “Our early course
will consist of a list of sentence patterns [statement patterns, question
patterns, and request or command patterns] . . . will include as many
structural words as possible, and sufficient content words to provide us
with material upon which to base our language practice” (Frisby 1957:
134). Frisby gives an example of the typical structural syllabus around
which situational teaching was based:
Sentence pattern Vocabulary
1st lesson This is . . . book, pencil, ruler,
That is . . . desk
2nd lesson These are . . . chair, picture, door,
Those are . . . window
3rd lesson Is this . . . ? Yes it is. watch, box, pen,
Is that . . . ? Yes it is. blackboard
(1957: 134)
The syllabus was not therefore a situational syllabus in the sense that this
term is sometimes used (i.e., a list of situations and the language associ-
ated with them). Rather, situation refers to the manner of presenting and
practicing sentence patterns, as we shall see later.
Situational Language Teaching employs a situational approach to pre-
senting new sentence patterns and a drill-based manner of practicing
them:
our method will . . . be situational. The situation will be controlled carefully
to teach the new language material . . . in such a way that there can be no
doubt in the learner’s mind of the meaning of what he hears. . . . almost all
the vocabulary and structures taught in the first four or five years and even

43
later can be placed in situations in which the meaning is quite clear. (Pittman
1963: 155–156)
By situation Pittman means the use of concrete objects, pictures, and
realia, which together with actions and gestures can be used to demons-
trate the meanings of new language items:
The form of new words and sentence patterns is demonstrated with examples
and not through grammatical explanation or description. The meaning of new
words and sentence patterns is not conveyed through translation. It is made
clear visually (with objects, pictures, action and mime). Wherever possible
model sentences are related and taken from a single situation. (Davies,
Roberts, and Rossner 1975: 3)
The practice techniques employed generally consist of guided repetition
and substitution activities, including chorus repetition, dictation, drills,
and controlled oral-based reading and writing tasks. Other oral-practice
techniques are sometimes used, including pair practice and group work.
Learner roles
In the initial stages of learning, the learner is required simply to listen and
repeat what the teacher says and to respond to questions and commands.
The learner has no control over the content of learning and is often
regarded as likely to succumb to undesirable behaviors unless skillfully
manipulated by the teacher. For example, the learner might lapse into
faulty grammar or pronunciation, forget what has been taught, or fail to
respond quickly enough; incorrect habits are to be avoided at all costs (see
Pittman 1963). Later, more active participation is encouraged. This in-
cludes learners initiating responses and asking each other questions, al-
though teacher-controlled introduction and practice of new language is
stressed throughout (see Davies, Roberts, and Rossner 1975: 3–4).
Teacher roles
The teacher’s function is threefold. In the presentation stage of the lesson,
the teacher serves as a model, setting up situations in which the need for
the target structure is created and then modeling the new structure for
students to repeat. Then the teacher “becomes more like the skillful
conductor of an orchestra, drawing the music out of the performers”
(Byrne 1976: 2). The teacher is required to be a skillful manipulator,
using questions, commands, and other cues to elicit correct sentences
from the learners. Lessons are hence teacher-directed, and the teacher sets
the pace.
During the practice phase of the lesson, students are given more of an
opportunity to use the language in less controlled situations, but the

44
teacher is ever on the lookout for grammatical and structural errors that
can form the basis of subsequent lessons. Organizing review is a primary
task for the teacher, according to Pittman (1963), who summarizes the
teacher’s responsibilities as dealing with
1. timing
2. oral practice, to support the textbook structures
3. revision [i.e., review]
4. adjustment to special needs of individuals
5. testing
6. developing language activities other than those arising from the textbook
(Pittman 1963: 177–178)
The teacher is essential to the success of the method, since the textbook is
able only to describe activities for the teacher to carry out in class.
Situational Language Teaching is dependent on both a textbook and
visual aids. The textbook contains tightly organized lessons planned
around different grammatical structures. Visual aids may be produced by
the teacher or may be commercially produced; they consist of wall charts,
flashcards, pictures, stick figures, and so on. The visual element together
with a carefully graded grammatical syllabus is a crucial aspect of Situa-
tional Language Teaching, hence the importance of the textbook. In
principle, however, the textbook should be used “only as a guide to the
learning process. The teacher is expected to be the master of his text-
book” (Pittman 1963: 176).
Procedure
Classroom procedures in Situational Language Teaching vary according
to the level of the class, but procedures at any level aim to move from
controlled to freer practice of structures and from oral use of sentence
patterns to their automatic use in speech, reading, and writing. Pittman
gives an example of a typical lesson plan:
The first part of the lesson will be stress and intonation practice. . . . The
main body of the lesson should then follow. This might consist of the teaching
of a structure. If so, the lesson would then consist of four parts:
1. pronunciation
2. revision (to prepare for new work if necessary)
3. presentation of new structure or vocabulary
4. oral practice (drilling)
5. reading of material on the new structure, or written exercises
(1963: 173)

45
Davies et al. give sample lesson plans for use with Situational Language
Teaching. The structures being taught in the following lesson are “This is
a . . .” and “That’s a . . .”
Teacher: (holding up a watch) Look. This is a watch. (2 × ) (pointing to
a clock on wall or table) That’s a clock. (2 × ) That’s a clock.
(2 × ) This is a watch. (putting down watch and moving across
to touch the clock or pick it up) This is a clock. (2 × ) (pointing
to watch) That’s a watch. (2 × ) (picking up a pen) This is a
pen. (2 × ) (drawing large pencil on blackboard and moving
away) That’s a pencil. (2 × ) Take your pens. All take your
pens. (students all pick up their pens)
Teacher: Listen. This is a pen. (3 × ) This. (3 × )
Students: This. (3 × )
A student: This. (6 × )
Teacher: This is a pen.
Students: This is a pen. (3 × )
Student: (moving pen) This is a pen. (6 × )
Teacher: (pointing to blackboard) That’s a pencil. (3 × ) That. (3 × )
Students: That. (3 × )
A student. That. (6 × )
Teacher: That’s a pencil.
Students: (all pointing at blackboard) That’s a pencil. (3 × )
Student: (pointing at blackboard) That’s a pencil. (6 × )
Teacher: Take your books. (taking a book himself) This is a book.
(3 × )
Students: This is a book. (3 × )
Teacher: (placing notebook in a visible place) Tell me . . .
Student 1: That’s a notebook.
You can now begin taking objects out of your box, making sure they are as
far as possible not new vocabulary items. Large objects may be placed in vis-
ible places at the front of the classroom. Smaller ones distributed to students.
(1975: 56)
These procedures illustrate the techniques used in presenting new lan-
guage items in situations. Drills are likewise related to “situations.” Pitt-
man illustrates oral drilling on a pattern, using a box full of objects to
create the situation. The pattern being practiced is “There’s a NOUN + of
+ (noun) in the box.” The teacher takes objects out of the box and the
class repeats:
There’s a tin of cigarettes in the box.
There’s a packet of matches in the box.
There’s a reel of cotton in the box.
There’s a bottle of ink in the box.
There’s a packet of pins in the box.

46
There’s a pair of shoes in the box.
There’s a jar of rice in the box.
(Pittman 1963: 168)
The teacher’s kit, a collection of items and realia that can be used in
situational language practice, is hence an essential part of the teacher’s
equipment.
Davies et al. likewise give detailed information about teaching pro-
cedures to be used with Situational Language Teaching. The sequence of
activities they propose consists of the following:
1. Listening practice in which the teacher obtains his student’s attention and
repeats an example of the patterns or a word in isolation clearly, several
times, probably saying it slowly at least once (where . . . is . . . the . . .
pen?), separating the words.
2. Choral imitation in which students all together or in large groups repeat
what the teacher has said. This works best if the teacher gives a clear in-
struction like “Repeat,” or “Everybody” and hand signals to mark time
and stress.
3. Individual imitation in which the teacher asks several individual students to
repeat the model he has given in order to check their pronunciation.
4. Isolation, in which the teacher isolates sounds, words, or groups of words
which cause trouble and goes through techniques 1–3 with them before re-
placing them in context.
5. Building up to a new model, in which the teacher gets students to ask and
answer questions using patterns they already know in order to bring about
the information necessary to introduce the new model.
6. Elicitation, in which the teacher, using mime, prompt words, gestures, etc.,
gets students to ask questions, make statements, or give new examples of
the pattern.
7. Substitution drilling, in which the teacher uses cue words (words, pictures,
numbers, names, etc.) to get individual students to mix the examples of the
new patterns.
8. Question-answer drilling, in which the teacher gets one student to ask a
question and another to answer until most students in the class have prac-
ticed asking and answering the new question form.
9. Correction, in which the teacher indicates by shaking his head, repeating
the error, etc., that there is a mistake and invites the student or a different
student to correct it. Where possible the teacher does not simply correct the
mistake himself. He gets students to correct themselves so they will be en-
couraged to listen to each other carefully.
(Davies et al. 1975: 6–7)
Davies et al. then go on to discuss how follow-up reading and writing
activities are to be carried out.

47
Conclusion
Procedures associated with Situational Language Teaching in the 1950s
and 1960s were an extension and further development of well-
established techniques advocated by proponents of the earlier Oral Ap-
proach in the British school of language teaching. The essential features
of SLT are seen in the “P-P-P” lesson model that thousands of teachers
who studied for the RSA/Cambridge Certificate in TEFL were required to
master in the 1980s and early 1990s, with a lesson having three phases:
Presentation (introduction of a new teaching item in context), Practice
(controlled practice of the item), and Production (a freer practice phase)
(Willis and Willis 1996). SLT provided the methodology of major meth-
odology texts throughout the 1980s and beyond (e.g., Hubbard et al.
1983), and, as we noted, textbooks written according to the principles of
Situational Language Teaching continue to be widely used in many parts
of the world, particularly when materials are based on a grammatical
syllabus. In the mid-1960s, however, the view of language, language
learning, and language teaching underlying Situational Language Teach-
ing was called into question. We discuss this reaction and how it led to
Communicative Language Teaching in Chapter 14. But because the prin-
ciples of Situational Language Teaching, with its strong emphasis on oral
practice, grammar, and sentence patterns, conform to the intuitions of
many language teachers and offer a practical methodology suited to
countries where national EFL/ESL syllabuses continue to be gram-
matically based, it continues to be widely used, though not necessarily
widely acknowledged.
Alexander, L. G. 1967. New Concept English. 4 vols. London: Longman.
Billows, F. L. 1961. The Techniques of Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Byrne, D. 1976. Teaching Oral English. London: Longman.
Coles, M., and B. Lord. 1975. Access to English. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Commonwealth Office of Education. 1965. Situational English. London:
Longman.
Davies, P., J. Roberts, and R. Rossner. 1975. Situational Lesson Plans. Mexico
City: Macmillan.
Faucett, L., M. West, H. E. Palmer, and E. L. Thorndike. 1936. The Interim
Report on Vocabulary Selection for the Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language. London: P. S. King.
French, F. G. 1948–1950. The Teaching of English Abroad. 3 vols. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Frisby, A. W. 1957. Teaching English: Notes and Comments on Teaching English
Overseas. London: Longman.
Gatenby, E. V. 1944. English as a Foreign Language. London: Longman.

48
Gauntlett, J. O. 1957. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. London:
Macmillan.
Gurrey, P. 1955. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., A. McIntosh, and P. Strevens. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences
and Language Teaching. London: Longman.
Hartley, B., and P. Viney. 1978 (current edition 1999). Streamline English. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Hodgson, F. M. 1955. Learning Modern Languages. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Hornby, A. S. 1950. The situational approach in language teaching. A series of
three articles in English Language Teaching. 4: 98–104, 121–128, 150–
156.
Hornby, A. S. 1954. A Guide to Patterns and Usage in English. London: Oxford
University Press.
Hornby, A. S. 1954–1956. Oxford Progressive English Course for Adult
Learners. 3 vols. London: Oxford University Press.
Hornby, A. S., E. V. Gatenby, and H. Wakefield. 1953. The Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary of Current English. London: Oxford University Press.
Hubbard, P., H. Jones, B. Thornton, and R. Wheeler. 1983. A Training Course
for TEFL. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jespersen, O. E. 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Mennon, T. K. N., and M. S. Patel. 1957. The Teaching of English as a Foreign
Language. Baroda, India: Acharya.
Morris, I. 1954. The Art of Teaching English as a Living Language. London:
Macmillan.
O’Neill, R. 1973. Kernel Lessons Plus. London: Longman.
Palmer, H. E. 1917. The Scientific Study and Teaching of Languages. Reprinted:
London: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Palmer, H. E. 1921. Principles of Language Study. New York: World Book Co.
Palmer, H. E. 1923. The Oral Method of Teaching Languages. Cambridge:
Heffer.
Palmer, H. E. 1934. Specimens of English Construction Patterns. Tokyo: Depart-
ment of Education.
Palmer, H. E. 1938. Grammar of English Words. London: Longman.
Palmer, H. E. 1940. The Teaching of Oral English. London: Longman.
Palmer, H. E., and F. G. Blandford. 1939. A Grammar of Spoken English on a
Strictly Phonetic Basis. Cambridge: Heffer.
Pattison, B. 1952. English Teaching in the World Today. London: Evans.
Pattison, B. 1964. Modern methods of language teaching. English Language
Teaching 19(1): 2–6.
Pittman, G. 1963. Teaching Structural English. Brisbane: Jacaranda.
Richards, J. C., B. Ho, and K. Giblin. 1996. Learning how to teach in the RSA
Cert. In D. Freeman and J. Richards (eds.), Teacher Learning in Language
Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press. 242–259.
Situational English for Newcomers to Australia. Sydney: Longman.
West, M. (ed.). 1953a. A General Service List of English Words. London:
Longman.

49
West, M. 1953b. The Teaching of English: A Guide to the New Method Series.
London: Longman.
White, R. 1988. The ELT Curriculum. Oxford: Blackwell.
Willis, J., and D. Willis (eds.). 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teach-
ing. Oxford: Heinemann.
Zandvoort, R. W. 1945. A Handbook of English Grammar. Groningen: Wolters.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
4 - The Audiolingual Method pp. 50-70

50
4 The Audiolingual Method
Background
The Coleman Report in 1929 recommended a reading-based approach to
foreign language teaching for use in American schools and colleges
(Chapter 1). This emphasized teaching the comprehension of texts.
Teachers taught from books containing short reading passages in the
foreign language, preceded by lists of vocabulary. Rapid silent reading
was the goal, but in practice teachers often resorted to discussing the
content of the passage in English. Those involved in the teaching of
English as a second language in the United States between the two world
wars used either a modified Direct Method approach, a reading-based
approach, or a reading-oral approach (Darian 1972). Unlike the ap-
proach that was being developed by British applied linguists during the
same period, there was little attempt to treat language content systemat-
ically. Sentence patterns and grammar were introduced at the whim of the
textbook writer. There was no standardization of the vocabulary or
grammar that was included. Neither was there a consensus on what
grammar, sentence patterns, and vocabulary were most important for
beginning, intermediate, or advanced learners.
But the entry of the United States into World War II had a significant
effect on language teaching in America. To supply the U.S. government
with personnel who were fluent in German, French, Italian, Chinese,
Japanese, Malay, and other languages, and who could work as interpret-
ers, code-room assistants, and translators, it was necessary to set up a
special language training program. The government commissioned
American universities to develop foreign language programs for military
personnel. Thus the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) was
established in 1942. Fifty-five American universities were involved in the
program by the beginning of 1943.
The objective of the army programs was for students to attain conver-
sational proficiency in a variety of foreign languages. Since this was not
the goal of conventional foreign language courses in the United States,
new approaches were necessary. Linguists, such as Leonard Bloomfield at
Yale, had already developed training programs as part of their linguistic
research that were designed to give linguists and anthropologists mastery
of American Indian languages and other languages they were studying.

The Audiolingual Method
51
Textbooks did not exist for such languages. The technique Bloomfield
and his colleagues used was sometimes known as the “informant
method,” since it used a native speaker of the language – the informant –
who served as a source of phrases and vocabulary and who provided
sentences for imitation, and a linguist, who supervised the learning expe-
rience. The linguist did not necessarily know the language but was
trained in eliciting the basic structure of the language from the informant.
Thus the students and the linguist were able to take part in guided conver-
sation with the informant, and together they gradually learned how to
speak the language, as well as to understand much of its basic grammar.
Students in such courses studied 10 hours a day, 6 days a week. There
were generally 15 hours of drill with native speakers and 20 to 30 hours
of private study spread over two to three 6-week sessions. This was the
system adopted by the army, and in small classes of mature and highly
motivated students, excellent results were often achieved.
The Army Specialized Training Program lasted only about two years
but attracted considerable attention in the popular press and in the aca-
demic community. For the next 10 years the “Army Method” and its
suitability for use in regular language programs were discussed. But the
linguists who developed the ASTP were not interested primarily in lan-
guage teaching. The “methodology” of the Army Method, like the Direct
Method, derived from the intensity of contact with the target language
rather than from any well-developed methodological basis. It was a pro-
gram innovative mainly in terms of the procedures used and the intensity
of teaching rather than in terms of its underlying theory. However, it did
convince a number of prominent linguists of the value of an intensive,
oral-based approach to the learning of a foreign language.
Linguists and applied linguists during this period were becoming in-
creasingly involved in the teaching of English as a foreign language.
America had now emerged as a major international power. There was a
growing demand for foreign expertise in the teaching of English. Thou-
sands of foreign students entered the United States to study in univer-
sities, and many of these students required training in English before
they could begin their studies. These factors led to the emergence of the
American approach to ESL, which by the mid-1950s had become
Audiolingualism.
In 1939, the University of Michigan developed the first English Lan-
guage Institute in the United States; it specialized in the training of
teachers of English as a foreign language and in teaching English as a
second or foreign language. Charles Fries, director of the institute, was
trained in structural linguistics, and he applied the principles of structural
linguistics to language teaching. Fries and his colleagues rejected ap-
proaches such as those of the Direct Method, in which learners are ex-
posed to the language, use it, and gradually absorb its grammatical pat-

52
terns. For Fries, grammar, or “structure,” was the starting point. The
structure of the language was identified with its basic sentence patterns
and grammatical structures. The language was taught by systematic at-
tention to pronunciation and by intensive oral drilling of its basic sen-
tence patterns. Pattern practice was a basic classroom technique. “It is
these basic patterns that constitute the learner’s task. They require drill,
drill, and more drill, and only enough vocabulary to make such drills
possible” (Hockett 1959).
Michigan was not the only university involved in developing courses
and materials for teaching English. A number of other similar programs
were established, some of the earliest being at Georgetown University and
American University, Washington, D.C., and at the University of Texas,
Austin. U.S. linguists were becoming increasingly active, both within the
United States and abroad, in supervising programs for the teaching of
English (Moulton 1961). In 1950, the American Council of Learned
Societies, under contract to the U.S. State Department, was commis-
sioned to develop textbooks for teaching English to speakers of a wide
number of foreign languages. The format the linguists involved in this
project followed was known as the “general form”: A lesson began with
work on pronunciation, morphology, and grammar, followed by drills
and exercises. The guidelines were published as Structural Notes and
Corpus: A Basis for the Preparation of Materials to Teach English as a
Foreign Language (American Council of Learned Societies 1952). This
became an influential document and together with the “general form”
was used as a guide to developing English courses for speakers of ten
different languages (the famous Spoken Language series), published be-
tween 1953 and 1956 (Moulton 1961).
In many ways the methodology used by U.S. linguists and language
teaching experts during this period sounded similar to the British Oral
Approach, although the two traditions developed independently. The
American approach differed, however, in its strong alliance with Ameri-
can structural linguistics and its applied linguistic applications, particu-
larly contrastive analysis. Fries set forth his principles in Teaching and
Learning English as a Foreign Language (1945), in which the problems
of learning a foreign language were attributed to the conflict of different
structural systems (i.e., differences between the grammatical and pho-
nological patterns of the native language and the target language). Con-
trastive analysis of the two languages would allow potential problems of
interference to be predicted and addressed through carefully prepared
teaching materials. Thus was born a major industry in American applied
linguistics – systematic comparisons of English with other languages,
with a view toward solving the fundamental problems of foreign lan-
guage learning.
The approach developed by linguists at Michigan and other univer-

53
sities became known variously as the Oral Approach, the Aural-Oral
Approach, and the Structural Approach. It advocated aural training first,
then pronunciation training, followed by speaking, reading, and writing.
Language was identified with speech, and speech was approached
through structure. This approach influenced the way languages were
taught in the United States throughout the 1950s. As an approach to the
teaching of English as a foreign language the new orthodoxy was pro-
moted through the University of Michigan’s journal Language Learning.
This was a period when expertise in linguistics was regarded as a neces-
sary and sufficient foundation for expertise in language teaching. Not
surprisingly, the classroom materials produced by Fries and linguists at
Yale, Cornell, and elsewhere evidenced considerable linguistic analysis
but very little pedagogy. They were widely used, however, and the applied
linguistic principles on which they were based were thought to incorpo-
rate the most advanced scientific approach to language teaching. If there
was any learning theory underlying the Aural-Oral materials, it was a
commonsense application of the idea that practice makes perfect. There
is no explicit reference to then-current learning theory in Fries’s work. It
was the incorporation of the linguistic principles of the Aural-Oral ap-
proach with state-of-the-art psychological learning theory in the
mid-1950s that led to the method that came to be known as
Audiolingualism.
The emergence of the Audiolingual Method resulted from the in-
creased attention given to foreign language teaching in the United States
toward the end of the 1950s. The need for a radical change and rethink-
ing of foreign language teaching methodology (most of which was still
linked to the Reading Method) was prompted by the launching of the first
Russian satellite in 1957. The U.S. government acknowledged the need
for a more intensive effort to teach foreign languages in order to prevent
Americans from becoming isolated from scientific advances made in
other countries. The National Defense Education Act (1958), among
other measures, provided funds for the study and analysis of modern
languages, for the development of teaching materials, and for the training
of teachers. Teachers were encouraged to attend summer institutes to
improve their knowledge of foreign languages and to learn the principles
of linguistics and the new linguistically based teaching methods. Lan-
guage teaching specialists set about developing a method that was appli-
cable to conditions in U.S. colleges and university classrooms. They drew
on the earlier experience of the army programs and the Aural-Oral or
Structural Approach developed by Fries and his colleagues, adding in-
sights taken from behaviorist psychology. This combination of structural
linguistic theory, contrastive analysis, aural-oral procedures, and be-
haviorist psychology led to the Audiolingual Method. Audiolingualism
(the term was coined by Professor Nelson Brooks in 1964) claimed to

54
have transformed language teaching from an art into a science, which
would enable learners to achieve mastery of a foreign language effectively
and efficiently. The method was widely adopted for teaching foreign
languages in North American colleges and universities. It provided the
methodological foundation for materials for the teaching of foreign lan-
guages at the college and university level in the United States and Canada,
and its principles formed the basis of such widely used series as the Lado
English Series (Lado 1977) and English 900 (English Language Services
1964). Although the method began to fall from favor in the late 1960s for
reasons we shall discuss later, Audiolingualism and materials based on
audiolingual principles continue to be used today. Let us examine the
features of the Audiolingual Method at the levels of approach, design,
and procedure.
Approach
Theory of language
The theory of language underlying Audiolingualism was derived from a
view proposed by American linguists in the 1950s – a view that came to
be known as structural linguistics. Linguistics had emerged as a flourish-
ing academic discipline in the 1950s, and the structural theory of lan-
guage constituted its backbone. Structural linguistics had developed in
part as a reaction to traditional grammar. Traditional approaches to the
study of language had linked the study of language to philosophy and to a
mentalist approach to grammar. Grammar was considered a branch of
logic, and the grammatical categories of Indo-European languages were
thought to represent ideal categories in languages. Many nineteenth-
century language scholars had viewed modern European languages as
corruptions of classical grammar, and languages from other parts of the
world were viewed as primitive and underdeveloped.
The reaction against traditional grammar was prompted by the move-
ment toward positivism and empiricism, which Darwin’s On the Origin
of Species had helped promote, and by an increased interest in non-
European languages on the part of scholars. A more practical interest in
language study emerged. As linguists discovered new sound types and
new patterns of linguistic invention and organization, a new interest in
phonetics, phonology, morphology, and syntax developed. By the 1930s,
the scientific approach to the study of language was thought to consist of
collecting examples of what speakers said and analyzing them according
to different levels of structural organization rather than according to
categories of Latin grammar. A sophisticated methodology for collecting
and analyzing data developed, which involved transcribing spoken utter-
ances in a language phonetically and later working out the phonemic,

55
morphological (stems, prefixes, suffixes, etc.), and syntactic (phrases,
clauses, sentence types) systems underlying the grammar of the language.
Language was viewed as a system of structurally related elements for the
encoding of meaning, the elements being phonemes, morphemes, words,
structures, and sentence types. The term structural referred to these
characteristics: (a) Elements in a language were thought of as being lin-
early produced in a rule-governed (structured) way; (b) Language sam-
ples could be exhaustively described at any structural level of description
(phonetic, phonemic, morphological, etc.); (c) Linguistic levels were
thought of as systems within systems – that is, as being pyramidally
structured; phonemic systems led to morphemic systems, and these in
turn led to the higher-level systems of phrases, clauses, and sentences.
Learning a language, it was assumed, entails mastering the elements or
building blocks of the language and learning the rules by which these
elements are combined, from phoneme to morpheme to word to phrase to
sentence. The phonological system defines those sound elements that
contrast meaningfully with one another in the language (phonemes), their
phonetic realizations in specific environments (allophones), and their per-
missible sequences (phonotactics). The phonological and grammatical
systems of the language constitute the organization of language and by
implication the units of production and comprehension. The grammati-
cal system consists of a listing of grammatical elements and rules for their
linear combination into words, phrases, and sentences. Rule-ordered pro-
cesses involve addition, deletion, and transposition of elements.
An important tenet of structural linguistics was that the primary me-
dium of language is oral: Speech is language. Since many languages do
not have a written form and we learn to speak before we learn to read or
write, it was argued that language is “primarily what is spoken and only
secondarily what is written” (Brooks 1964). Therefore, it was assumed
that speech had a priority in language teaching. This was contrary to
popular views of the relationship of the spoken and written forms of
language, since it had been widely assumed that language existed prin-
cipally as symbols written on paper, and that spoken language was an
imperfect realization of the pure written version.
This scientific approach to language analysis appeared to offer the
foundations for a scientific approach to language teaching. In 1961, the
American linguist William Moulton, in a report prepared for the 9th
International Congress of Linguists, proclaimed the linguistic principles
on which language teaching methodology should be based: “Language is
speech, not writing. . . . A language is a set of habits. . . . Teach the
language, not about the language. . . . A language is what its native
speakers say, not what someone thinks they ought to say. . . . Languages
are different” (quoted in Rivers 1964: 5). But a method cannot be based
simply on a theory of language. It also needs to refer to the psychology of

56
learning and to learning theory. It is to this aspect of Audiolingualism that
we now turn.
Theory of learning
The language teaching theoreticians and methodologists who developed
Audiolingualism not only had a convincing and powerful theory of lan-
guage to draw upon but they were also working in a period when a
prominent school of American psychology – known as behavioral
psychology – claimed to have tapped the secrets of all human learning,
including language learning. Behaviorism, like structural linguistics, is
another antimentalist, empirically based approach to the study of human
behavior. To the behaviorist, the human being is an organism capable of a
wide repertoire of behaviors. The occurrence of these behaviors is depen-
dent on three crucial elements in learning: a stimulus, which serves to
elicit behavior; a response triggered by a stimulus; and reinforcement,
which serves to mark the response as being appropriate (or inappropri-
ate) and encourages the repetition (or suppression) of the response in the
future (see Skinner 1957; Brown 1980). A representation of this can be
seen in Figure 4.1.
Reinforcement is a vital element in the learning process, because it
increases the likelihood that the behavior will occur again and eventually
become a habit. To apply this theory to language learning is to identify the
organism as the foreign language learner, the behavior as verbal behavior,
the stimulus as what is taught or presented of the foreign language, the
response as the learner’s reaction to the stimulus, and the reinforcement
as the extrinsic approval and praise of the teacher or fellow students or
the intrinsic self-satisfaction of target language use. Language mastery is
represented as acquiring a set of appropriate language stimulus-response
chains.
The descriptive practices of structural linguists suggested a number of
hypotheses about language learning, and hence about language teaching
as well. For example, since linguists normally described languages begin-
ning with the phonological level and finishing with the sentence level, it
was assumed that this was also the appropriate sequence for learning and
teaching. Since speech was now held to be primary and writing second-
ary, it was assumed that language teaching should focus on mastery of
speech and that writing or even written prompts should be withheld until
reasonably late in the language learning process. Since the structure is
what is important and unique about a language, early practice should
focus on mastery of phonological and grammatical structures rather than
on mastery of vocabulary.
Out of these various influences emerged a number of learning princi-
ples, which became the psychological foundations of Audiolingualism

57
Figure 4.1
and came to shape its methodological practices. Among the more central
are the following:
1. Foreign language learning is basically a process of mechanical habit
formation. Good habits are formed by giving correct responses rather
than by making mistakes. By memorizing dialogues and performing
pattern drills the chances of producing mistakes are minimized. Lan-
guage is verbal behavior – that is, the automatic production and com-
prehension of utterances – and can be learned by inducing the students
to do likewise.
2. Language skills are learned more effectively if the items to be learned
in the target language are presented in spoken form before they are
seen in written form. Aural-oral training is needed to provide the
foundation for the development of other language skills.
3. Analogy provides a better foundation for language learning than anal-
ysis. Analogy involves the processes of generalization and discrimina-
tion. Explanations of rules are therefore not given until students have
practiced a pattern in a variety of contexts and are thought to have
acquired a perception of the analogies involved. Drills can enable
learners to form correct analogies. Hence the approach to the teaching
of grammar is essentially inductive rather than deductive.
4. The meanings that the words of a language have for the native speaker
can be learned only in a linguistic and cultural context and not in
isolation. Teaching a language thus involves teaching aspects of the
cultural system of the people who speak the language. (Rivers 1964:
19–22)
In advocating these principles, proponents of Audiolingualism were
drawing on the theory of a well-developed school of American
psychology – behaviorism. The prominent Harvard behaviorist B. F. Skin-
ner had elaborated a theory of learning applicable to language learning in
his influential book Verbal Behavior (1957), in which he stated, “We
have no reason to assume . . . that verbal behavior differs in any funda-
mental respect from non-verbal behavior, or that any new principles must

58
be invoked to account for it” (1957: 10). Armed with a powerful theory
of the nature of language and of language learning, audiolingualists could
now turn to the design of language teaching courses and materials.
Design
Audiolingualists demanded a complete reorientation of the foreign lan-
guage curriculum. Like the nineteenth-century reformers, they advocated
a return to speech-based instruction with the primary objective of oral
proficiency, and dismissed the study of grammar or literature as the goal
of foreign language teaching. “A radical transformation is called for, a
new orientation of procedures is demanded, and a thorough house clean-
ing of methods, materials, texts and tests is unavoidable” (Brooks 1964:
50).
Objectives
Brooks distinguishes between short-range and long-range objectives of
an audiolingual program. Short-range objectives include training in lis-
tening comprehension, accurate pronunciation, recognition of speech
symbols as graphic signs on the printed page, and ability to reproduce
these symbols in writing (Brooks 1964: 111). “These immediate objec-
tives imply three others: first, control of the structures of sound, form,
and order in the new language; second, acquaintance with vocabulary
items that bring content into these structures; and third, meaning, in
terms of the significance these verbal symbols have for those who speak
the language natively” (Brooks 1964: 113). Long-range objectives “must
be language as the native speaker uses it. . . . There must be some knowl-
edge of a second language as it is possessed by a true bilingualist” (Brooks
1964: 107).
In practice this means that the focus in the early stages is on oral skills,
with gradual links to other skills as learning develops. Oral proficiency is
equated with accurate pronunciation and grammar and the ability to
respond quickly and accurately in speech situations. The teaching of
listening comprehension, pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are all
related to development of oral fluency. Reading and writing skills may be
taught, but they are dependent on prior oral skills. Language is primarily
speech in audiolingual theory, but speaking skills are themselves depen-
dent on the ability to accurately perceive and produce the major pho-
nological features of the target language, fluency in the use of the key
grammatical patterns in the language, and knowledge of sufficient vocab-
ulary to use with these patterns.

59
The syllabus
Audiolingualism is a linguistic, or structure-based, approach to language
teaching. The starting point is a linguistic syllabus, which contains the
key items of phonology, morphology, and syntax of the language ar-
ranged according to their order of presentation. These may have been
derived in part from a contrastive analysis of the differences between the
native language and the target language, since these differences are
thought to be the cause of the major difficulties the learner will encounter.
In addition, a lexical syllabus of basic vocabulary items is usually spec-
ified in advance. In Foundations for English Teaching (Fries and Fries
1961), for example, a corpus of structural and lexical items graded into
three levels is proposed, together with suggestions as to the situations
that could be used to contextualize them.
The language skills are taught in the order of listening, speaking, read-
ing, and writing. Listening is viewed largely as training in aural
discrimination of basic sound patterns. The language may be presented
entirely orally at first; written representations are usually withheld from
learners in early stages.
The learner’s activities must at first be confined to the audiolingual and
gestural-visual bands of language behavior. . . .
Recognition and discrimination are followed by imitation, repetition and
memorization. Only when he is thoroughly familiar with sounds, arrange-
ments, and forms does he center his attention on enlarging his vocabulary. . . .
Throughout he concentrates upon gaining accuracy before striving for fluency.
(Brooks 1964: 50)
When reading and writing are introduced, students are taught to read and
write what they have already learned to say orally. An attempt is made to
minimize the possibilities for making mistakes in both speaking and
writing by using a tightly structured approach to the presentation of new
language items. At more advanced levels, more complex reading and
writing tasks may be introduced.
Dialogues and drills form the basis of audiolingual classroom practices.
Dialogues provide the means of contextualizing key structures and illus-
trate situations in which structures might be used as well as some cultural
aspects of the target language. Dialogues are used for repetition and
memorization. Correct pronunciation, stress, rhythm, and intonation are
emphasized. After a dialogue has been presented and memorized, specific
grammatical patterns in the dialogue are selected and become the focus of
various kinds of drill and pattern-practice exercises.

60
The use of drills and pattern practice is a distinctive feature of the
Audiolingual Method. Various kinds of drills are used. Brooks (1964:
156–61) includes the following:
1. Repetition. The student repeats an utterance aloud as soon as he has
heard it. He does this without looking at a printed text. The utter-
ance must be brief enough to be retained by the ear. Sound is as
important as form and order.
example
This is the seventh month. –This is the seventh month.
After a student has repeated an utterance, he may repeat it again and
add a few words, then repeat that whole utterance and add more
words.
examples
I used to know him. –I used to know him.
I used to know him years ago. –I used to know him years ago when
we were in school. . . .
2. Inflection. One word in an utterance appears in another form when
repeated.
examples
I bought the ticket. –I bought the tickets.
He bought the candy. –She bought the candy.
I called the young man. –I called the young men. . . .
3. Replacement. One word in an utterance is replaced by another.
examples
He bought this house cheap. –He bought it cheap.
Helen left early. –She left early.
They gave their boss a watch. –They gave him a watch. . . .
4. Restatement. The student rephrases an utterance and addresses it to
someone else, according to instructions.
examples
Tell him to wait for you. –Wait for me.
Ask her how old she is. –How old are you?
Ask John when he began. –John, when did you begin? . . .
5. Completion. The student hears an utterance that is complete except
for one word, then repeats the utterance in completed form.
examples
I’ll go my way and you go. . . . –I’ll go my way and you go yours.
We all have . . . own troubles. –We all have our own troubles. . . .

61
6. Transposition. A change in word order is necessary when a word is
added.
examples
I’m hungry. (so). –So am I.
I’ll never do it again. (neither). –Neither will I. . . .
7. Expansion. When a word is added it takes a certain place in the
sequence.
examples
I know him. (hardly). –I hardly know him.
I know him. (well). –I know him well. . . .
8. Contraction. A single word stands for a phrase or clause.
examples
Put your hand on the table. –Put your hand there.
They believe that the earth is flat. –They believe it. . . .
9. Transformation. A sentence is transformed by being made negative
or interrogative or through changes in tense, mood, voice, aspect, or
modality.
examples
He knows my address.
He doesn’t know my address.
Does he know my address?
He used to know my address.
If he had known my address.
10. Integration. Two separate utterances are integrated into one.
examples
They must be honest. This is important. –It is important that they be
honest.
I know that man. He is looking for you. –I know the man who is
looking for you. . . .
11. Rejoinder. The student makes an appropriate rejoinder to a given
utterance. He is told in advance to respond in one of the following
ways:
Be polite.
Answer the question.
Agree.
Agree emphatically.
Express surprise.
Express regret.
Disagree.

62
Disagree emphatically.
Question what is said.
Fail to understand.
be polite. examples
Thank you. –You’re welcome.
May I take one? –Certainly.
answer the question. examples
What is your name? –My name is Smith.
Where did it happen? –In the middle of the street.
agree. examples
He’s following us. –I think you’re right.
This is good coffee. –It’s very good. . . .
12. Restoration. The student is given a sequence of words that have been
culled from a sentence but still bear its basic meaning. He uses these
words with a minimum of changes and additions to restore the sen-
tence to its original form. He may be told whether the time is present,
past, or future.
examples
students/waiting/bus –The students are waiting for the bus.
boys/build/house/tree –The boys built a house in a tree. . . .
Learner roles
Learners are viewed as organisms that can be directed by skilled training
techniques to produce correct responses. In accordance with behaviorist
learning theory, teaching focuses on the external manifestations of learn-
ing rather than on the internal processes. Learners play a reactive role by
responding to stimuli, and thus have little control over the content, pace,
or style of learning. They are not encouraged to initiate interaction, be-
cause this may lead to mistakes. The fact that in the early stages learners
do not always understand the meaning of what they are repeating is not
perceived as a drawback, for by listening to the teacher, imitating accu-
rately, and responding to and performing controlled tasks, they are learn-
ing a new form of verbal behavior.
Teacher roles
In Audiolingualism, as in Situational Language Teaching, the teacher’s
role is central and active; it is a teacher-dominated method. The teacher
models the target language, controls the direction and pace of learning,
and monitors and corrects the learners’ performance. The teacher must
keep the learners attentive by varying drills and tasks and choosing rele-

63
vant situations to practice structures. Language learning is seen to result
from active verbal interaction between the teacher and the learners. Fail-
ure to learn results only from the improper application of the method, for
example, from the teacher not providing sufficient practice or from the
learner not memorizing the essential patterns and structures; but the
method itself is never to blame. Brooks argues that the teacher must be
trained to do the following:
Introduce, sustain, and harmonize the learning of the four skills in this order:
hearing, speaking, reading and writing.
Use – and not use – English in the language classroom.
Model the various types of language behavior that the student is to learn.
Teach spoken language in dialogue form.
Direct choral response by all or parts of the class.
Teach the use of structure through pattern practice.
Guide the student in choosing and learning vocabulary.
Show how words relate to meaning in the target language.
Get the individual student to talk.
Reward trials by the student in such a way that learning is reinforced.
Teach a short story and other literary forms.
Establish and maintain a cultural island.
Formalize on the first day the rules according to which the language class is to
be conducted, and enforce them.
(Brooks 1964: 143)
Instructional materials in the Audiolingual Method assist the teacher to
develop language mastery in the learner. They are primarily teacher-
oriented. A student textbook is often not used in the elementary phases of
a course where students are primarily listening, repeating, and respond-
ing. At this stage in learning, exposure to the printed word may not be
considered desirable, because it distracts attention from the aural input.
The teacher, however, will have access to a teacher’s book that contains
the structured sequence of lessons to be followed and the dialogues, drills,
and other practice activities. When textbooks and printed materials are
introduced to the student, they provide the texts of dialogues and cues
needed for drills and exercises.
Tape recorders and audiovisual equipment often have central roles in
an audiolingual course. If the teacher is not a native speaker of the target
language, the tape recorder provides accurate models for dialogues and
drills. A language laboratory may also be considered essential. It provides
the opportunity for further drill work and to receive controlled error-free
practice of basic structures. It also adds variety by providing an alterna-
tive to classroom practice. A taped lesson may first present a dialogue for
listening practice, allow for the student to repeat the sentences in the

64
dialogue line by line, and provide follow-up fluency drills on grammar or
pronunciation.
Procedure
Since Audiolingualism is primarily an oral approach to language teach-
ing, it is not surprising that the process of teaching involves extensive oral
instruction. The focus of instruction is on immediate and accurate
speech; there is little provision for grammatical explanation or talking
about the language. As far as possible, the target language is used as the
medium of instruction, and translation or use of the native language is
discouraged. Classes of ten or fewer are considered optimal, although
larger classes are often the norm. Brooks lists the following procedures
that the teacher should adopt in using the Audiolingual Method:
The modeling of all learnings by the teacher.
The subordination of the mother tongue to the second language by rendering
English inactive while the new language is being learned.
The early and continued training of the ear and tongue without recourse to
graphic symbols.
The learning of structure through the practice of patterns of sound, order, and
form, rather than by explanation.
The gradual substitution of graphic symbols for sounds after sounds are thor-
oughly known.
The summarizing of the main principles of structure for the student’s use when
the structures are already familiar, especially when they differ from those of
the mother tongue. . . .
The shortening of the time span between a performance and the pronounce-
ment of its rightness or wrongness, without interrupting the response. This
enhances the factor of reinforcement in learning.
The minimizing of vocabulary until all common structures have been learned.
The study of vocabulary only in context.
Sustained practice in the use of the language only in the molecular form of
speaker-hearer-situation.
Practice in translation only as a literary exercise at an advanced level.
(Brooks 1964: 142)
In a typical audiolingual lesson, the following procedures would be
observed:
1. Students first hear a model dialogue (either read by the teacher or on
tape) containing the key structures that are the focus of the lesson.
They repeat each line of the dialogue, individually and in chorus. The
teacher pays attention to pronunciation, intonation, and fluency. Cor-
rection of mistakes of pronunciation or grammar is direct and imme-
diate. The dialogue is memorized gradually, line by line. A line may be
broken down into several phrases if necessary. The dialogue is read

65
aloud in chorus, one half saying one speaker’s part and the other half
responding. The students do not consult their book throughout this
phase.
2. The dialogue is adapted to the students’ interest or situation, through
changing certain key words or phrases. This is acted out by the
students.
3. Certain key structures from the dialogue are selected and used as the
basis for pattern drills of different kinds. These are first practiced in
chorus and then individually. Some grammatical explanation may be
offered at this point, but this is kept to an absolute minimum.
4. The students may refer to their textbook, and follow-up reading,
writing, or vocabulary activities based on the dialogue may be intro-
duced. At the beginning level, writing is purely imitative and consists
of little more than copying out sentences that have been practiced. As
proficiency increases, students may write out variations of structural
items they have practiced or write short compositions on given topics
with the help of framing questions, which will guide their use of the
language.
5. Follow-up activities may take place in the language laboratory, where
further dialogue and drill work is carried out.
The decline of Audiolingualism
Audiolingualism reached its period of most widespread use in the 1960s
and was applied both to the teaching of foreign languages in the United
States and to the teaching of English as a second or foreign language. It
led to such widely used courses as English 900 and the Lado English
Series, as well as to texts for teaching the major European languages. But
then came criticism on two fronts. On the one hand, the theoretical
foundations of Audiolingualism were attacked as being unsound in terms
of both language theory and learning theory. On the other hand, practi-
tioners found that the practical results fell short of expectations. Students
were often found to be unable to transfer skills acquired through Au-
diolingualism to real communication outside the classroom, and many
found the experience of studying through audiolingual procedures to be
boring and unsatisfying.
The theoretical attack on audiolingual beliefs resulted from changes in
American linguistic theory in the 1960s. The MIT linguist Noam
Chomsky rejected the structuralist approach to language description as
well as the behaviorist theory of language learning. “Language is not a
habit structure. Ordinary linguistic behavior characteristically involves
innovation, formation of new sentences and patterns in accordance with
rules of great abstractness and intricacy” (Chomsky 1966: 153).

66
Chomsky’s theory of transformational grammar proposed that the funda-
mental properties of language derive from innate aspects of the mind and
from how humans process experience through language. His theories
were to revolutionize American linguistics and focus the attention of
linguists and psychologists on the mental properties people bring to bear
on language use and language learning. Chomsky also proposed an alter-
native theory of language learning to that of the behaviorists. Behavior-
ism regarded language learning as similar in principle to any other kind of
learning. It was subject to the same laws of stimulus and response, rein-
forcement and association. Chomsky argued that such a learning theory
could not possibly serve as a model of how humans learn language, since
much of human language use is not imitated behavior but is created anew
from underlying knowledge of abstract rules. Sentences are not learned
by imitation and repetition but “generated” from the learner’s underlying
“competence.”
Suddenly the whole audiolingual paradigm was called into question:
pattern practice, drilling, memorization. These might lead to language-
like behaviors, but they were not resulting in competence. This created a
crisis in American language teaching circles from which a full recovery
has not yet been made. Temporary relief was offered in the form of a
theory derived in part from Chomsky – cognitive code learning. In 1966,
John B. Carroll, a psychologist who had taken a close interest in foreign
language teaching, wrote:
The audio-lingual habit theory which is so prevalent in American foreign lan-
guage teaching was, perhaps fifteen years ago, in step with the state of psycho-
logical thinking of that time, but it is no longer abreast of recent develop-
ments. It is ripe for major revision, particularly in the direction of joining it
with some of the better elements of the cognitive-code learning theory. (Car-
roll 1966a: 105)
This referred to a view of learning that allowed for a conscious focus on
grammar and that acknowledged the role of abstract mental processes in
learning rather than defining learning simply in terms of habit formation.
Practice activities should involve meaningful learning and language use.
Learners should be encouraged to use their innate and creative abilities to
derive and make explicit the underlying grammatical rules of the lan-
guage. For a time in the early 1970s there was a considerable interest in
the implication of the cognitive-code theory for language teaching (e.g.,
see Jakobovits 1970; Lugton 1971). But no clear-cut methodological
guidelines emerged, nor did any particular method incorporating this
view of learning. The term cognitive code is still sometimes invoked to
refer to any conscious attempt to organize materials around a grammati-
cal syllabus while allowing for meaningful practice and use of language.
The lack of an alternative to Audiolingualism led in the 1970s and 1980s

67
to a period of adaptation, innovation, experimentation, and some confu-
sion. Several alternative method proposals appeared in the 1970s that
made no claims to any links with mainstream language teaching and
second language acquisition research. These included Total Physical Re-
sponse, the Silent Way, and Counseling-Learning. These methods at-
tracted some interest at first but have not continued to attract significant
levels of acceptance. Other proposals since then have reflected develop-
ments in general education and other fields outside the second language
teaching community, such as Whole Language, Multiple Intelligences,
Neurolinguistic Programming, Competency-Based Language Teaching,
and Cooperative Language Learning. Mainstream language teaching
since the 1980s, however, has generally drawn on contemporary theories
of language and second language acquisition as a basis for teaching pro-
posals. The Lexical Approach, Communicative Language Teaching, the
Natural Approach, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teaching
are representative of this last group. The concern for grammatical accu-
racy that was a focus of Audiolingualism has not disappeared, however,
and continues to provide a challenge for contemporary applied linguistics
(see Doughty and Williams 1998).
Conclusion
Audiolingualism holds that language learning is like other forms of learn-
ing. Since language is a formal, rule-governed system, it can be formally
organized to maximize teaching and learning efficiency. Audiolingualism
thus stresses the mechanistic aspects of language learning and language
use.
There are many similarities between Situational Language Teaching
and Audiolingualism. The order in which the language skills are intro-
duced, and the focus on accuracy through drill and practice in the basic
structures and sentence patterns of the target language, might suggest
that these methods drew from each other. In fact, however, Situational
Language Teaching was a development of the earlier Direct Method (see
Chapter 1) and does not have the strong ties to linguistics and behavioral
psychology that characterize Audiolingualism. The similarities of the two
methods reflect similar views about the nature of language and of lan-
guage learning, though these views were in fact developed from quite
different traditions.
Allen, V. F. 1965. On Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cham-
paign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

68
American Council of Learned Societies. 1952. Structural Notes and Corpus: A
Basis for the Preparation of Materials to Teach English as a Foreign Lan-
guage. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies.
Bloch, B., and G. Trager. 1942. Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Baltimore: Lin-
guistic Society of America.
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.
Brooks, N. 1964. Language and Language Learning: Theory and Practice. 2nd
ed. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Brown, H.D. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Carroll, J. B. 1953. The Study of Language: A Surveyor of Linguistics and
Related Disciplines in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carroll, J. B. 1966a. The contributions of psychological theory and educational
research to the teaching of foreign languages. In A. Valdman (ed.), Trends in
Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill. 93–106.
Carroll, J. B. 1966b. Research in foreign language teaching: The last five years. In
R. G. Mead Jr. (ed.), Language Teaching: Broader Contexts. Northeast
Conference Reports on the Teaching of Foreign Languages: Reports of the
Working Committees. New York: MLA Materials Center. 12–42.
Chastain, K. 1969. The audio-lingual habit theory versus the cognitive code
learning theory: Some theoretical considerations. International Review of
Applied Linguistics 7: 79–106.
Chastain, K. 1971. The Development of Modern Language Skills: Theory to
Practice. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, N. 1959. A review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language 35(1):
26–58.
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. 1966. Linguistic theory. Reprinted in J. P. B. Allen and P. Van
Buren (eds.), Chomsky: Selected Readings. London: Oxford University
Press. 152–159.
Darian, S. G. 1972. English as a Foreign Language: History, Development, and
Methods of Teaching. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Doughty, C., and J. Williams (eds.). 1998. Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisitions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
English Language Services. 1964. English 900. New York: Collier Macmillan.
Fries, C. C. 1945. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fries, C. C., and A. C. Fries. 1961. Foundations for English Teaching. Tokyo:
Kenkyusha.
Gagne, R. M. 1962. Military training and principles of learning. American Psy-
chologist 17(2): 83–91.
Hilgard, E. R. 1975. Theories of Learning. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Hockett, C. F. 1958. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
Hockett, C. F. 1959. The objectives and process of language teaching. Reprinted
in D. Byrne (ed.), English Teaching Extracts. London: Longman, 1969.
Hughes, J. P. 1968. Linguistics and Language Teaching. New York: Random
House.

69
Jakobovits, L. A. 1970. Foreign Language Learning: A Psycholinguistic Analysis
of the Issues. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language
Teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lado, R. 1961. Language Testing. London: Longman.
Lado, R. 1977. Lado English Series. 7 vols. New York: Regents.
Lugton, R. (ed.). 1971. Toward a Cognitive Approach to Second Language
Acquisition. Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Matthew, R. J. 1947. Language and Area Studies in the Armed Services: Their
Future and Significance. Washington, D.C.: American Council on
Education.
Modern Language Association. 1962. Reports of Surveys and Studies in the
Teaching of Modern Foreign Languages. New York: Modern Language
Teaching Association.
Moulton, W. G. 1961. Linguistics and language teaching in the United States:
1940–1960. In C. Mohrmann, A. Sommerfelt, and J. Whatmough (eds.),
Trends in European and American Linguistics, 1930–1960. Utrecht: Spec-
trum. 82–109.
Moulton, W. G. 1963. What is structural drill? International Journal of Ameri-
can Linguistics 29(2, pt. 3): 3–15.
Moulton, W. 1966. A Linguistic Guide to Language Learning. New York: Mod-
ern Language Association.
Parker, W. 1962. The National Interest and Foreign Languages. Washington,
D.C.: Department of State.
Rivers, W. M. 1964. The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rivers, W. M. 1981. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Smith, H. L. 1956. Linguistics Science and the Teaching of English. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Stack, E. 1969. The Language Laboratory and Modern Language Teaching.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Stern, H. H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Ox-
Tarvin, W., and Al Arishi. A. 1990. Literature in EFL: Communicative alterna-
tives to audiolingual assumptions. Journal of Readings 34(1): 30–36.
United States Office of Education. 1963. The Language Development Program.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Zimmerman, C. B. 1997. Historical trends in second language vocabulary in-
struction. In J. Coady and T. Huckin (eds.), Second Language Vocabulary
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
Part II - Alternative approaches and methods pp. 71-72

71
II Alternative approaches and
methods
The period from the 1970s through the 1980s witnessed a major para-
digm shift in language teaching. The quest for alternatives to grammar-
based approaches and methods led in several different directions. Main-
stream language teaching embraced the growing interest in communica-
tive approaches to language teaching. The communicative movement
sought to move the focus away from grammar as the core component of
language, to a different view of language, of language learning, of
teachers, and of learners, one that focused on language as communica-
tion and on making the classroom an environment for authentic com-
munication. This “communicative movement” and related approaches
are discussed in Part III. However, other directions for language teaching
also appeared during this period, and these are the focus of Part II.
Whereas Audiolingualism and Situational Language Teaching were
mainstream teaching methods developed by linguists and applied lingu-
ists, the approaches and methods described in this section were either
developed outside of mainstream language teaching or represent an ap-
plication in language teaching of educational principles developed else-
where. The former case is represented by such innovative methods of the
1970s as Total Physical Reponse, Silent Way, Counseling Learning, Sug-
gestopedia, and more recently Neurolinguistic Programming and Multi-
ple Intelligences. Rather than starting from a theory of language and
drawing on research and theory in applied linguistics, these methods are
developed around particular theories of learners and learning, sometimes
the theories of a single theorizer or educator. These methods are conse-
quently relatively underdeveloped in the domain of language theory, and
the learning principles they reflect are generally different from theories
found in second language acquisition textbooks. One exception is the
Lexical Approach, which is based on an alternative syllabus model to that
found in grammar-based methodologies, one that gives priority to vocab-
ulary and lexical phrases as the building blocks of communicative compe-
tence. A different case is represented by Whole Language and
Competency-Based Instruction. These are movements that emerged
within mainstream education and have later been applied and extended
to second and foreign language teaching.
Alternative approaches and methods of the 1970s and 1980s have had
a somewhat varied history. Although Total Physical Response, Silent

Part II
72
Way, Counseling-Learning, and Suggestopedia did not succeed in attract-
ing the support of mainstream language teaching, each can be seen as
stressing important dimensions of the teaching–learning process. They
can be seen as offering particular insights that have attracted the attention
and/or allegiance of some teachers and educators, but they have each seen
their popularity rise and wane since the 1970s. Today, in most places,
they are of little more than historical interest. The fate of others, such as
the Lexical Approach, Whole Language, Neurolinguistic Programming,
and Multiple Intelligences, has yet to be fully determined. Because of the
limited influence of most of the approaches and methods described here
and because many of them have a relatively slight literature, we have
generally provided less detailed description than for the approaches and
methods described in Parts I and III. Competency-Based Instruction,
however, has a different status, since it is used as the framework for the
design of national curricula in English as well as other subjects in some
countries.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
5 - Total Physical Response pp. 73-80

73
5 Total Physical Response
Background
Total Physical Response (TPR) is a language teaching method built
around the coordination of speech and action; it attempts to teach lan-
guage through physical (motor) activity. Developed by James Asher, a
professor of psychology at San Jose State University, California, it draws
on several traditions, including developmental psychology, learning the-
ory, and humanistic pedagogy, as well as on language teaching pro-
cedures proposed by Harold and Dorothy Palmer in 1925. In a develop-
mental sense, Asher sees successful adult second language learning as a
parallel process to child first language acquisition. He claims that speech
directed to young children consists primarily of commands, which chil-
dren respond to physically before they begin to produce verbal responses.
Asher feels that adults should recapitulate the processes by which chil-
dren acquire their native language.
Asher shares with the school of humanistic psychology a concern for
the role of affective (emotional) factors in language learning. A method
that is undemanding in terms of linguistic production and that involves
gamelike movements reduces learner stress, he believes, and creates a
positive mood in the learner, which facilitates learning.
Approach: Theory of language and learning
TPR reflects a grammar-based view of language. Asher states that “most
of the grammatical structure of the target language and hundreds of
vocabulary items can be learned from the skillful use of the imperative by
the instructor” (1977: 4). He views the verb, and particularly the verb in
the imperative, as the central linguistic motif around which language use
and learning are organized.
Asher sees a stimulus-response view as providing the learning theory
underlying language teaching pedagogy. TPR can also be linked to the
“trace theory” of memory in psychology (e.g., Katona 1940), which
holds that the more often or the more intensively a memory connection is
traced, the stronger the memory association will be and the more likely it
will be recalled. Retracing can be done verbally (e.g., by rote repetition)

Alternative approaches and methods
74
and/or in association with motor activity. Combined tracing activities,
such as verbal rehearsal accompanied by motor activity, hence increase
the possibility of successful recall.
In addition, Asher has elaborated an account of what he feels facilitates
or inhibits foreign language learning. For this dimension of his learning
theory he draws on three rather influential learning hypotheses:
1. There exists a specific innate bio-program for language learning,
which defines an optimal path for first and second language
development.
2. Brain lateralization defines different learning functions in the left- and
right-brain hemispheres.
3. Stress (an affective filter) intervenes between the act of learning and
what is to be learned; the lower the stress, the greater the learning.
Let us consider how Asher views each of these in turn.
The bio-program
Asher’s Total Physical Response is a “Natural Method” (see Chapter 1),
inasmuch as Asher sees first and second language learning as parallel
processes. Asher sees three processes as central:
1. Children develop listening competence before they develop the ability
to speak. At the early stages of first language acquisition, they can
understand complex utterances that they cannot spontaneously pro-
duce or imitate.
2. Children’s ability in listening comprehension is acquired because chil-
dren are required to respond physically to spoken language in the
form of parental commands.
3. Once a foundation in listening comprehension has been established,
speech evolves naturally and effortlessly out of it.
Parallel to the processes of first language learning, the foreign language
learner should first internalize a “cognitive map” of the target language
through listening exercises. Listening should be accompanied by physical
movement. Speech and other productive skills should come later. Asher
bases these assumptions on his belief in the existence in the human brain
of a bio-program for language, which defines an optimal order for first
and second language learning.
A reasonable hypothesis is that the brain and nervous system are biologically
programmed to acquire language . . . in a particular sequence and in a partic-
ular mode. The sequence is listening before speaking and the mode is to syn-
chronize language with the individual’s body. (Asher 1977: 4)

Total Physical Response
75
Brain lateralization
Asher sees Total Physical Response as directed to right-brain learning,
whereas most second language teaching methods are directed to left-
brain learning. Drawing on work by Jean Piaget, Asher holds that the
child language learner acquires language through motor movement – a
right-hemisphere activity. Right-hemisphere activities must occur before
the left hemisphere can process language for production.
Similarly, the adult should proceed to language mastery through right-
hemisphere motor activities, while the left hemisphere watches and
learns. When a sufficient amount of right-hemisphere learning has taken
place, the left hemisphere will be triggered to produce language and to
initiate other, more abstract language processes.
Reduction of stress
An important condition for successful language learning is the absence of
stress. First language acquisition takes place in a stress-free environment,
according to Asher, whereas the adult language learning environment
often causes considerable stress and anxiety. The key to stress-free learn-
ing is to tap into the natural bio-program for language development and
thus to recapture the relaxed and pleasurable experiences that accom-
pany first language learning. By focusing on meaning interpreted through
movement, rather than on language forms studied in the abstract, the
learner is said to be liberated from self-conscious and stressful situations
and is able to devote full energy to learning.
Design: Objectives, syllabus, learning activities, roles of
learners, teachers, and materials
The general objectives of Total Physical Response are to teach oral profi-
ciency at a beginning level. Comprehension is a means to an end, and the
ultimate aim is to teach basic speaking skills. A TPR course aims to
produce learners who are capable of an uninhibited communication that
is intelligible to a native speaker. Specific instructional objectives are not
elaborated, for these will depend on the particular needs of the learners.
Whatever goals are set, however, must be attainable through the use of
action-based drills in the imperative form.
The type of syllabus Asher uses can be inferred from an analysis of the
exercise types employed in TPR classes. This analysis reveals the use of a
sentence-based syllabus, with grammatical and lexical criteria being pri-
mary in selecting teaching items. Unlike methods that operate from a
grammar-based or structural view of the core elements of language, Total

76
Physical Response requires initial attention to meaning rather than to the
form of items. Grammar is thus taught inductively.
Asher also suggests that a fixed number of items be introduced at a
time, to facilitate ease of differentiation and assimilation. “In an hour, it is
possible for students to assimilate 12 to 36 new lexical items depending
upon the size of the group and the stage of training” (Asher 1977: 42). A
course designed around Total Physical Response principles, however,
would not be expected to follow a TPR syllabus exclusively.
Imperative drills are the major classroom activity in Total Physical
Response. They are typically used to elicit physical actions and activity on
the part of the learners. Conversational dialogues are delayed until after
about 120 hours of instruction. Other class activities include role plays
and slide presentations. Role plays center on everyday situations, such as
at the restaurant, supermarket, or gas station.
Learners in Total Physical Response have the primary roles of listener
and performer. They listen attentively and respond physically to com-
mands given by the teacher. Learners are also expected to recognize and
respond to novel combinations of previously taught items. They are re-
quired to produce novel combinations of their own. Learners monitor
and evaluate their own progress. They are encouraged to speak when
they feel ready to speak – that is, when a sufficient basis in the language
has been internalized. The teacher plays an active and direct role in Total
Physical Response. It is the teacher who decides what to teach, who
models and presents the new materials, and who selects supporting mate-
rials for classroom use. Asher recommends detailed lesson plans: “It is
wise to write out the exact utterances you will be using and especially the
novel commands because the action is so fast-moving there is usually not
time for you to create spontaneously” (1977: 47).
Asher stresses, however, that the teacher’s role is not so much to teach
as to provide opportunities for learning. The teacher has the responsibil-
ity of providing the best kind of exposure to language so that the learner
can internalize the basic rules of the target language. Thus the teacher
controls the language input the learners receive, providing the raw mate-
rial for the “cognitive map” that the learners will construct in their own
minds. The teacher should also allow speaking abilities to develop in
learners at the learners’ own natural pace.
In giving feedback to learners, the teacher should follow the example of
parents giving feedback to their children. At first, parents correct very
little, but as the child grows older, parents are said to tolerate fewer
mistakes in speech. Similarly, teachers should refrain from too much
correction in the early stages and should not interrupt to correct errors,
since this will inhibit learners. As time goes on, however, more teacher
intervention is expected, as the learners’ speech becomes “fine-tuned.”
There is generally no basic text in a Total Physical Response course.

77
Materials and realia play an increasing role, however, in later learning
stages. For absolute beginners, lessons may not require the use of mate-
rials, since the teacher’s voice, actions, and gestures may be a sufficient
basis for classroom activities. Later, the teacher may use common class-
room objects, such as books, pens, cups, furniture. As the course
develops, the teacher will need to make or collect supporting materials to
support teaching points. These may include pictures, realia, slides, and
word charts. Asher has developed TPR student kits that focus on specific
situations, such as the home, the supermarket, the beach. Students may
use the kits to construct scenes (e.g., “Put the stove in the kitchen”).
Procedure
Asher (1977) provides a lesson-by-lesson account of a course taught
according to TPR principles, which serves as a source of information on
the procedures used in the TPR classroom. The course was for adult
immigrants and consisted of 159 hours of classroom instruction. The
sixth class in the course proceeded in the following way:
Review. This was a fast-moving warm-up in which individual students were
moved with commands such as:
Pablo, drive your car around Miako and honk your horn.
Jeffe, throw the red flower to Maria.
Maria, scream.
Rita, pick up the knife and spoon and put them in the cup.
Eduardo, take a drink of water and give the cup to Elaine.
New commands. These verbs were introduced.
wash your hands.
your face.
your hair.
look for a towel.
the soap.
a comb.
hold the book.
the cup.
the soap.
comb your hair.
Maria’s hair.
Shirou’s hair.
brush your teeth.
your pants.
the table.
Other items introduced were:
Rectangle Draw a rectangle on the chalkboard.

78
Pick up a rectangle from the table and give it to me.
Put the rectangle next to the square.
Triangle Pick up the triangle from the table and give it to me.
Catch the triangle and put it next to the rectangle.
Quickly Walk quickly to the door and hit it.
Quickly, run to the table and touch the square.
Sit down quickly and laugh.
Slowly Walk slowly to the window and jump.
Slowly, stand up.
Slowly walk to me and hit me on the arm.
Toothpaste Look for the toothpaste.
Throw the toothpaste to Wing.
Wing, unscrew the top of the toothpaste.
Toothbrush Take out your toothbrush.
Brush your teeth.
Put your toothbrush in your book.
Teeth Touch your teeth.
Show your teeth to Dolores.
Dolores, point to Eduardo’s teeth.
Soap Look for the soap.
Give the soap to Elaine.
Elaine, put the soap in Ramiro’s ear.
Towel Put the towel on Juan’s arm.
Juan, put the towel on your head and laugh.
Maria, wipe your hands on the towel.
Next, the instructor asked simple questions which the student could answer
with a gesture such as pointing. Examples would be:
Where is the towel? [Eduardo, point to the towel!]
Where is the toothbrush? [Miako, point to the toothbrush!]
Where is Dolores?
Role reversal. Students readily volunteered to utter commands that manipu-
lated the behavior of the instructor and other students. . . .
Reading and writing. The instructor wrote on the chalkboard each new vocab-
ulary item and a sentence to illustrate the item. Then she spoke each item and
acted out the sentence. The students listened as she read the material. Some
copied the information in their notebooks.
(Asher 1977: 54–56)
Conclusion
Total Physical Response enjoyed some popularity in the 1970s and 1980s
because of its support by those who emphasize the role of comprehension
in second language acquisition. Krashen (1981), for example, regards
provision of comprehensible input and reduction of stress as keys to

79
successful language acquisition, and he sees performing physical actions
in the target language as a means of making input comprehensible and
minimizing stress (see Chapter 15). Asher stressed that Total Physical
Response should be used in association with other methods and tech-
niques. Indeed, practitioners of TPR typically follow this recommenda-
tion, suggesting that for many teachers TPR represents a useful set of
techniques and is compatible with other approaches to teaching. TPR
practices therefore may be effective for reasons other than those pro-
posed by Asher and do not necessarily demand commitment to the learn-
ing theories used to justify them.
Asher, J. 1965. The strategy of the total physical response: An application to
learning Russian. International Review of Applied Linguistics 3: 291–300.
Asher, J. 1966. The learning strategy of the total physical response: A review.
Modern Language Journal 50: 79–84.
Asher, J. 1969. The total physical response approach to second language learn-
ing. Modern Language Journal 53: 3–17.
Asher, J. 1972. Children’s first language as a model of second language learning.
Asher, J. 1977. Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete
Teacher’s Guide Book. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oaks Productions. (2nd ed.
1982.)
Asher, J. 1981a. The extinction of second language learning in American schools:
An intervention model. In H. Winitz (ed.), The Comprehension Approach to
Foreign Language Instruction. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. 49–68.
Asher, J. 1981b. The fear of foreign languages. Psychology Today 15(8): 52–59.
Asher, J., J. A. Kusudo, and R. De La Torre. 1974. Learning a second language
through commands: The second field test. Modern Language Journal 58:
24–32.
Asher, J., and B. S. Price. 1967. The learning strategy of the total physical re-
sponse: Some age differences. Child Development 38: 1219–1227.
DeCecco, J. P. 1968. The Psychology of Learning and Instruction: Educational
Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Garcia, Ramiro. 1996. Instructor’s Notebook: How to Apply TPR for Best Re-
sults. 4th ed. Los Gatos, Calif.: Sky Oakes Productions.
Hermanson, M. 1988. English as a Second Language tutor training guide. Port-
land, Oreg.: Portland Community College. ERIC Document ED318303.
Katona, G. 1940. Organizing and Memorizing: Studies in the Psychology of
Learning and Teaching. New York: Columbia University Press.
Krashen, S. D. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learn-
ing. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kunihira, S., and J. Asher. 1965. The strategy of the total physical response: An
application to learning Japanese. International Review of Applied Linguis-
tics 3: 277–289.
Mangubhai, F. 1991. How does one learn a second language? Let me count the
number of ways. ERIC Document ED358695.

80
Marlatt, E. 1995. Learning language through total physical response. Perspec-
tives in Education and Deafness 13(4): 18–20.
Miller, G. A., E. Galanter, and K. H. Pribram. 1960. Plans and the Structure of
Behavior. New York: Henry Holt.
Palmer, H., and D. Palmer. 1925. English through Actions. Reprint ed. London:
Longman Green, 1959.
Seely, Contee. 1998. TPR Is More Than Commands at All Levels. Los Gatos,
Calif.: Sky Oakes Productions.
Winitz, H. (ed.). 1981. The Comprehension Approach to Foreign Language
Instruction. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Winitz, H., and J. Reeds. 1975. Comprehension and Problem Solving as Strat-
egies for Language Training. The Hague: Mouton.
Yorio, C. 1980. Conventionalized language forms and the development of com-
municative competence. TESOL Quarterly 14(4): 433–442.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
6 - The Silent Way pp. 81-89

81
6 The Silent Way
Background
The Silent Way is the name of a method of language teaching devised by
Caleb Gattegno. It is based on the premise that the teacher should be
silent as much as possible in the classroom but the learner should be
encouraged to produce as much language as possible. Elements of the
Silent Way, particularly the use of color charts and the colored Cuisenaire
rods, grew out of Gattegno’s previous experience as an educational
designer of reading and mathematics programs. The Silent Way shares a
great deal with other learning theories and educational philosophies.
Very broadly put, the learning hypotheses underlying Gattegno’s work
could be stated as follows:
1. Learning is facilitated if the learner discovers or creates rather than
remembers and repeats what is to be learned.
2. Learning is facilitated by accompanying (mediating) physical objects.
3. Learning is facilitated by problem solving involving the material to be
learned.
Let us consider each of these issues in turn.
1. The Silent Way belongs to a tradition that views learning as a problem-
solving, creative, discovering activity, in which the learner is a princi-
pal actor rather than a bench-bound listener (Bruner 1966). Bruner
discusses the benefits derived from “discovery learning” under four
headings: (a) the increase in intellectual potency, (b) the shift from
extrinsic to intrinsic rewards, (c) the learning of heuristics by discover-
ing, and (d) the aid to conserving memory (Bruner 1966: 83). Gat-
tegno claims similar benefits from learners taught via the Silent Way.
2. The rods and the color-coded pronunciation charts (called Fidel
charts) provide physical foci for student learning and also create mem-
orable images to facilitate student recall. In psychological terms, these
visual devices serve as associative mediators for student learning and
recall.
3. The Silent Way is also related to a set of premises that we have called
“problem-solving approaches to learning.” These premises are suc-
cinctly represented in the words of Benjamin Franklin:

82
Tell me and I forget,
teach me and I remember,
involve me and I learn.
Gattegno takes an openly skeptical view of the role of linguistic theory in
language teaching methodology. He feels that linguistic studies “may be a
specialization, [that] carry with them a narrow opening of one’s sen-
sitivity and perhaps serve very little towards the broad end in mind”
(Gattegno 1972: 84). Considerable discussion is devoted to the impor-
tance of grasping the “spirit” of the language, and not just its component
forms. By the “spirit” of the language Gattegno is referring to the way
each language is composed of phonological and suprasegmental elements
that combine to give the language its unique sound system and melody.
The learner must gain a “feel” for this aspect of the target language as
soon as possible.
By looking at the material chosen and the sequence in which it is
presented in a Silent Way classroom, it is clear that the Silent Way takes a
structural approach to the organization of language to be taught. The
sentence is the basic unit of teaching, and the teacher focuses on proposi-
tional meaning, rather than communicative value. Students are presented
with the structural patterns of the target language and learn the grammar
rules of the language through largely inductive processes.
Gattegno sees vocabulary as a central dimension of language learning
and the choice of vocabulary as crucial. The most important vocabulary
for the learner deals with the most functional and versatile words of the
language, many of which may not have direct equivalents in the learner’s
native language. This “functional vocabulary” provides a key, says Gat-
tegno, to comprehending the “spirit” of the language.
In elaborating a learning theory to support the principles of Silent Way,
like many other method proponents Gattegno makes extensive use of his
understanding of first language learning. He recommends, for example,
that the learner needs to “return to the state of mind that characterizes a
baby’s learning – surrender” (Scott and Page 1982: 273).
Having referred to these processes, however, Gattegno states that the
processes of learning a second language are “radically different” from
those involved in learning a first language. The second language learner is
unlike the first language learner and “cannot learn another language in
the same way because of what he now knows” (Gattegno 1972: 11). The
“natural” or “direct” approaches to acquiring a second language are thus
misguided, says Gattegno, and a successful second language approach

The Silent Way
83
will “replace a ‘natural’ approach by one that is very ‘artificial’ and, for
some purposes, strictly controlled” (1972: 12).
The “artificial approach” that Gattegno proposes is based on the prin-
ciple that successful learning involves commitment of the self to language
acquisition through the use of silent awareness and then active trial.
Gattegno’s repeated emphasis on the primacy of learning over teaching
places a focus on the self of the learner, on the learner’s priorities and
commitments. The self, we are told, consists of two systems – a learning
system and a retaining system. The learning system is activated only by
way of intelligent awareness. “The learner must constantly test his
powers to abstract, analyze, synthesize and integrate” (Scott and Page
1982: 273). Silence is considered the best vehicle for learning, because in
silence students concentrate on the task to be accomplished and the
potential means to its accomplishment. Repetition (as opposed to silence)
“consumes time and encourages the scattered mind to remain scattered”
(Gattegno 1976: 80). Silence, as avoidance of repetition, is thus an aid to
alertness, concentration, and mental organization.
Awareness is educable. As one learns “in awareness,” one’s powers of
awareness and one’s capacity to learn become greater. The Silent Way
thus claims to facilitate what psychologists call “learning to learn.”
Again, the process chain that develops awareness proceeds from atten-
tion, production, self-correction, and absorption. Silent Way learners
acquire “inner criteria,” which play a central role “in one’s education
throughout all of one’s life” (Gattegno 1976: 29). These inner criteria
allow learners to monitor and self-correct their own production. It is in
the activity of self-correction through self-awareness that the Silent Way
claims to differ most notably from other ways of language learning. It is
this capacity for self-awareness that the Silent Way calls upon, a capacity
said to be little appreciated or exercised by first language learners.
The general objective of the Silent Way is to give beginning-level students
oral and aural facility in basic elements of the target language. The gen-
eral goal set for language learning is near-native fluency in the target
language, and correct pronunciation and mastery of the prosodic ele-
ments of the target language are emphasized. An immediate objective is to
provide the learner with a basic practical knowledge of the grammar.
Gattegno discusses the following kinds of objectives as appropriate for
a language course at an elementary level (Gattegno 1972: 81–83). Stu-
dents should be able to

84
correctly and easily answer questions about themselves, their education, their
family, travel, and daily events;
speak with a good accent;
give either a written or an oral description of a picture, “including the existing
relationships that concern space, time and numbers”;
answer general questions about the culture and the literature of the native
speakers of the target language;
perform adequately in the following areas: spelling, grammar (production
rather than explanation), reading comprehension, and writing.
The Silent Way adopts a basically structural syllabus, with lessons
planned around grammatical items and related vocabulary. Gattegno
does not, however, provide details as to the precise selection and arrange-
ment of grammatical and lexical items to be covered. But language items
are introduced according to their grammatical complexity, their relation-
ship to what has been taught previously, and the ease with which items
can be presented visually.
The following is a section of a Peace Corps Silent Way Syllabus for the
first 10 hours of instruction in Thai. It was used to teach American Peace
Corps volunteers being trained to teach in Thailand. At least 15 minutes
of every hour of instruction would be spent on pronunciation. A word
that is italicized can be substituted for by another word having the same
function.
Lesson Vocabulary
1. Wood color red. wood, red, green, yellow, brown,
pink, white, orange, black,
color
2. Using the numbers 1–10. one, two, . . . ten
3. Wood color red two pieces.
4. Take (pick up) wood color
red two pieces.
take (pick up)
5. Take wood color red two
pieces give him.
give, object pronouns
6. Wood red where?
Wood red on table.
where, on, under, near, far, over,
next to, here, there
7. Wood color red on table, is
it?
Yes, on.
Not on.
Question-forming rules.
Yes, No.
8. Wood color red long.
Wood color green longer.
Wood color orange longest.
adjectives of comparison
9. Wood color green taller.
Wood color red, is it?

The Silent Way
85
10. Review. Students use struc-
tures taught in new situa-
tions, such as comparing the
heights of students in the
class.
(Joel Wiskin, personal communication)
Learning tasks and activities in the Silent Way have the function of
encouraging and shaping student oral response without direct oral in-
struction from or unnecessary modeling by the teacher. Basic to the
method are simple linguistic tasks in which the teacher models a word,
phrase, or sentence and then elicits learner responses. Learners then go on
to create their own utterances by putting together old and new informa-
tion. Charts, rods, and other aids may be used to elicit learner responses.
Teacher modeling is minimal, although much of the activity may be
teacher-directed. Responses to commands, questions, and visual cues
thus constitute the basis for classroom activities.
Learners are expected to develop independence, autonomy, and re-
sponsibility. Independent learners are those who are aware that they must
depend on their own resources and realize that they can use “the knowl-
edge of their own language to open up some things in a new language” or
that they can “take their knowledge of the first few words in the new
language and figure out additional words by using that knowledge” (Ste-
vick 1980: 42). The absence of correction and repeated modeling from
the teacher requires the students to develop “inner criteria” and to cor-
rect themselves. The absence of explanations requires learners to make
generalizations, come to their own conclusions, and formulate whatever
rules they themselves feel they need.
Learners have only themselves as individuals and the group to rely on,
and so must learn to work cooperatively rather than competitively. They
need to feel comfortable both correcting one another and being corrected
by one another.
Teacher silence is, perhaps, the unique and, for many traditionally
trained language teachers, the most demanding aspect of the Silent Way.
Teachers are exhorted to resist their long-standing commitment to model,
remodel, assist, and direct desired student responses. Stevick defines the
Silent Way teacher’s tasks as (a) to teach, (b) to test, and (c) to get out of
the way (Stevick 1980: 56). Although this may not seem to constitute a
radical alternative to standard teaching practice, the details of the steps
the teacher is expected to follow are unique to the Silent Way. By “teach-
ing” is meant the presentation of an item once, typically using nonverbal
clues to get across meanings. Testing follows immediately and might
better be termed elicitation and shaping of student production, which,
again, is done in as silent a way as possible. Finally, the teacher silently

86
monitors learners’ interactions with each other and may even leave the
room while learners struggle with their new linguistic tools.
The teacher uses gestures, charts, and manipulatives in order to elicit
and shape student responses and so must be both facile and creative as a
pantomimist and puppeteer. In sum, the Silent Way teacher, like the
complete dramatist, writes the script, chooses the props, sets the mood,
models the action, designates the players, and is critic for the
performance.
Silent Way materials consist mainly of a set of colored rods, color-
coded pronunciation and vocabulary wall charts, a pointer, and reading/
writing exercises, all of which are used to illustrate the relationships
between sound and meaning in the target language. The materials are
designed for manipulation by the students as well as by the teacher,
independently and cooperatively, in promoting language learning by
direct association.
The pronunciation charts, called “Fidels,” have been devised for a
number of languages and contain symbols in the target language for all of
the vowel and consonant sounds of the language. The symbols are color-
coded according to pronunciation; thus, if a language possesses two
different symbols for the same sound, they will be colored alike.
Just as the Fidel charts are used to visually illustrate pronunciation, the
colored Cuisenaire rods are used to directly link words and structures
with their meanings in the target language, thereby avoiding translation
into the native language. The rods vary in length from 1 to 10 centime-
ters, and each length has a specific color. The rods may be used for
naming colors, for size comparisons, to represent people, build floor
plans, constitute a road map, and so on. Use of the rods is intended to
promote inventiveness, creativity, and interest in forming communicative
utterances on the part of the students, as they move from simple to more
complex structures.
Procedure
A Silent Way lesson typically follows a standard format. The first part of
the lesson focuses on pronunciation. Depending on student level, the
class might work on sounds, phrases, even sentences designated on the
Fidel chart. At the beginning stage, the teacher will model the appropriate
sound after pointing to a symbol on the chart. Later, the teacher will
silently point to individual symbols and combinations of utterances, and
monitor student utterances. The teacher may say a word and have stu-
dents guess what sequence of symbols compromised the word.
The pointer is used to indicate stress, phrasing, and intonation. Stress
can be shown by touching certain symbols more forcibly than others

The Silent Way
87
when pointing out a word. Intonation and phrasing can be demonstrated
by tapping on the chart to the rhythm of the utterance.
After practice with the sounds of the language, sentence patterns,
structure, and vocabulary are practiced. The teacher models an utterance
while creating a visual realization of it with the colored rods. After mod-
eling the utterance, the teacher will have a student attempt to produce the
utterance and will indicate its acceptability. If a response is incorrect, the
teacher will attempt to reshape the utterance or have another student
present the correct model. After a structure is introduced and under-
stood, the teacher will create a situation in which the students can prac-
tice the structure through the manipulation of the rods. Variations on the
structural theme will be elicited from the class using the rods and charts.
The sample lesson that follows illustrates a typical lesson format. The
language being taught is Thai, for which this is the first lesson.
1. Teacher empties rods onto the table.
2. Teacher picks up two or three rods of different colors, and after each
rod is picked up says: [mai].
3. Teacher holds up one rod of any color and indicates to a student that
a response is required. Student says: [mai]. If response is incorrect,
teacher elicits response from another student, who then models for
the first student.
4. Teacher next picks up a red rod and says: [mai sii daeng].
5. Teacher picks up a green rod and says: [mai sii khiaw].
6. Teacher picks up either a red or green rod and elicits response from
student. If response is incorrect, procedure in step 3 is followed
(student modeling).
7. Teacher introduces two or three other colors in the same manner.
8. Teacher shows any of the rods whose forms were taught previously
and elicits student response. Correction technique is through student
modeling, or the teacher may help student isolate error and self-
correct.
9. When mastery is achieved, teacher puts one red rod in plain view and
says: [mai sii daeng nung an].
10. Teacher then puts two red rods in plain view and says: [mai sii daeng
song an].
11. Teacher places two green rods in view and says: [mai sii khiaw song
an].
12. Teacher holds up two rods of a different color and elicits student
response.
13. Teacher introduces additional numbers, based on what the class can
comfortably retain. Other colors might also be introduced.
14. Rods are put in a pile. Teacher indicates, through his or her own
actions, that rods should be picked up, and the correct utterance

88
made. All the students in the group pick up rods and make utter-
ances. Peer-group correction is encouraged.
15. Teacher then says: [kep mai sii daeng song an].
16. Teacher indicates that a student should give the teacher the rods
called for. Teacher asks other students in the class to give him or her
the rods that he or she asks for. This is all done in the target language
through unambiguous actions on the part of the teacher.
17. Teacher now indicates that the students should give each other com-
mands regarding the calling for of rods. Rods are put at the disposal
of the class.
18. Experimentation is encouraged. Teacher speaks only to correct an
incorrect utterance, if no peer-group correction is forthcoming.
(Joel Wiskin, personal communication)
Conclusion
Despite the philosophical and sometimes almost metaphysical quality of
much of Gattegno’s writings, the actual practices of the Silent Way are
much less revolutionary than might be expected. Working from what is a
rather traditional structural and lexical syllabus, the method exemplifies
many of the features that characterize more traditional methods, such as
Situational Language Teaching and Audiolingualism, with a strong focus
on accurate repetition of sentences modeled initially by the teacher and a
movement through guided elicitation exercises to freer communication.
The innovations in Gattegno’s method derive primarily from the manner
in which classroom activities are organized, the indirect role the teacher is
required to assume in directing and monitoring learner performance, the
responsibility placed on learners to figure out and test their hypotheses
about how the language works, and the materials used to elicit and
practice language.
Arnold, F. 1981. College English: A Silent-Way Approach. Nara, Japan: Dawn
Press.
Blair, R. W. (ed.). 1982. Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.
Borasi, R., and B. Agor. 1990. What can mathematics educators learn from
second language instruction? Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics.
17(3/4): 1–27.
Bower, G. H., and D. Winzenz. 1970. Comparison of associative learning strat-
egies. Psychonomic Sciences 20: 119–120.
Bruner, J. 1966. On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. New York: Atheneum.
Cheery, D. 1994. Learning with rods: One account. Master’s thesis, School for
International Training, Brattleboro, Vermont.

The Silent Way
89
Craik, F. I. M. 1973. A levels of analysis view of memory. In P. Pliner, L. Krames,
and T. Alloway (eds.), Communication and Affect: Language and Thought.
New York: Academic Press.
Diller, K. C. 1978. The Language Teaching Controversy. Rowley, Mass.: New-
bury House.
Gattegno, C. 1972. Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way. 2nd
ed. New York: Educational Solutions.
Gattegno, C. 1976. The Common Sense of Teaching Foreign Languages. New
York: Educational Solutions.
Harbon, L. 1997. Constructivism in the language classroom. Babel 32(3): 12–
15.
Lantolf, J. 1986. Silent Way in a university setting: An applied research report.
Canadian Modern Language Review 43(1): 34–58.
Rossner, R. 1982. Talking shop: A conversation with Caleb Gattegno, inventor of
the Silent Way. ELT Journal 36(4): 237–41.
Scott, R., and M. Page. 1982. The subordination of teaching to learning: A
seminar conducted by Dr. Caleb Gattegno. ELT Journal 36(4): 273–274.
Selman, M. 1977. The Silent Way: Insights for ESL. TESL Talk 8: 33–6.
Stevick, E. W. 1976. Memory, Meaning and Method: Some Psychological Per-
spectives on Language Learning. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Newbury House.
Stevick, E. W. 1990. Humanism in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Stevick, E. W. 1998. Working with Teaching Methods: What’s at Stake? Boston,
Mass.: Heinle & Heinle.
Thompson, G. J. 1980. The Silent Way: Interpretation and application. Master’s
thesis, University of Hawaii.
Varvel, T. 1979. The Silent Way: Panacea or pipedream? TESOL Quarterly
13(4): 483–494.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
7 - Community Language Learning pp. 90-99

90
7 Community Language Learning
Background
Community Language Learning (CLL) is the name of a method
developed by Charles A. Curran and his associates. Curran was a special-
ist in counseling and a professor of psychology at Loyola University,
Chicago. His application of psychological counseling techniques to learn-
ing is known as Counseling-Learning. Community Language Learning
represents the use of Counseling-Learning theory to teach languages. As
the name indicates, CLL derives its primary insights, and indeed its orga-
nizing rationale, from Rogerian counseling (Rogers 1951). In lay terms,
counseling is one person giving advice, assistance, and support to another
who has a problem or is in some way in need. Community Language
Learning draws on the counseling metaphor to redefine the roles of the
teacher (the counselor) and learners (the clients) in the language class-
room. The basic procedures of CLL can thus be seen as derived from the
counselor–client relationship.
CLL techniques also belong to a larger set of foreign language teaching
practices sometimes described as humanistic techniques (Moskowitz
1978). Moskowitz defines humanistic techniques as those that
blend what the student feels, thinks and knows with what he is learning in the
target language. Rather than self-denial being the acceptable way of life, self-
actualization and self-esteem are the ideals the exercises pursue. [The tech-
niques] help build rapport, cohesiveness, and caring that far transcend what is
already there . . . help students to be themselves, to accept themselves, and be
proud of themselves . . . help foster a climate of caring and sharing in the for-
eign language class. (Moskowitz 1978: 2)
In sum, humanistic techniques engage the whole person, including the
emotions and feelings (the affective realm) as well as linguistic knowledge
and behavioral skills.
Another language teaching tradition with which Community Lan-
guage Learning is linked is a set of practices used in certain kinds of
bilingual education programs and referred to by Mackey (1972) as “lan-
guage alternation.” In language alternation, a message/lesson/class is pre-
sented first in the native language and then again in the second language.
Students know the meaning and flow of an L2 message from their recall

Community Language Learning
91
of the parallel meaning and flow of an L1 message. They begin to holi-
stically piece together a view of the language out of these message sets. In
CLL, a learner presents a message in L1 to the knower. The message is
translated into L2 by the knower. The learner then repeats the message in
L2, addressing it to another learner with whom he or she wishes to
communicate. CLL learners are encouraged to attend to the “overhears”
they experience between other learners and their knowers. The result of
the “overhear” is that every member of the group can understand what
any given learner is trying to communicate (La Forge 1983: 45).
Curran himself wrote little about his theory of language. His student La
Forge (1983) has attempted to be more explicit about this dimension of
Community Language Learning theory. La Forge accepts that language
theory must start, though not end, with criteria for sound features, the
sentence, and abstract models of language (La Forge 1983:4). The foreign
language learners’ tasks are “to apprehend the sound system, assign fun-
damental meanings, and to construct a basic grammar of the foreign
language.” La Forge goes beyond this structuralist view of language,
however, and elaborates an alternative theory of language, which is re-
ferred to as Language as Social Process:
communication is more than just a message being transmitted from a speaker
to a listener. The speaker is at the same time both subject and object of his
own message. . . . communication involves not just the unidirectional transfer
of information to the other, but the very constitution of the speaking subject
in relation to its other. . . . Communication is an exchange which is in-
complete without a feedback reaction from the destinee of the message. (La
Forge 1983: 3)
This social-process view of language is then elaborated in terms of six
qualities or subprocesses. La Forge also elaborates on the interactional
view of language underlying Community Language Learning (see Chap-
ter 2): “Language is people; language is persons in contact; language is
persons in response” (1983: 9). CLL interactions are of two distinct and
fundamental kinds: interactions between learners and interactions be-
tween learners and knowers. Interactions between learners are unpredict-
able in content but typically are said to involve exchanges of affect.
Learner exchanges deepen in intimacy as the class becomes a community
of learners. The desire to be part of this growing intimacy pushes learners
to keep pace with the learning of their peers.
Interaction between learners and knowers is initially dependent. The
learner tells the knower what he or she wishes to say in the target lan-
guage, and the knower tells the learner how to say it. In later stages,

92
interactions between learner and knower are characterized as self-
assertive (stage 2), resentful and indignant (stage 3), tolerant (stage 4),
and independent (stage 5). These changes of interactive relationship are
paralleled by five stages of language learning and five stages of affective
conflicts (La Forge 1983: 50).
Curran’s counseling experience led him to conclude that the techniques
of counseling could be applied to learning in general (this became
Counseling-Learning) and to language teaching in particular (Com-
munity Language Learning). The CLL view of learning is a holistic one,
since “true” human learning is both cognitive and affective. This is
termed whole-person learning. Such learning takes place in a com-
municative situation where teachers and learners are involved in “an
interaction . . . in which both experience a sense of their own wholeness”
(Curran 1972: 90). Within this, the development of the learner’s relation-
ship with the teacher is central. The process is divided into five stages and
compared to the ontogenetic development of the child.
In the first, “birth” stage, feelings of security and belonging are estab-
lished. In the second, as the learner’s abilities improve, the learner, as
child, begins to achieve a measure of independence from the parent. By
the third, the learner “speaks independently” and may need to assert his
or her own identity, often rejecting unasked-for advice. The fourth stage
sees the learner as secure enough to take criticism, and by the last stage,
the learner merely works on improving style and knowledge of linguistic
appropriateness. By the end of the process, the child has become adult.
The learner knows everything the teacher does and can become knower
for a new learner. The process of learning a new language, then, is like
being reborn and developing a new persona, with all the trials and chal-
lenges that are associated with birth and maturation.
Curran in many places discusses what he calls “consensual validation,”
or “convalidation,” in which mutual warmth, understanding, and a posi-
tive evaluation of the other person’s worth develop between the teacher
and the learner. A relationship characterized by convalidation is con-
sidered essential to the learning process and is a key element of CLL
classroom procedures. A group of ideas concerning the psychological
requirements for successful learning are collected under the acronym
SARD (Curran 1976: 6), which can be explained as follows:
S stands for security. Unless learners feel secure, they will find it difficult to
enter into a successful learning experience.
A stands for attention and aggression. CLL recognizes that a loss of attention
should be taken as an indication of the learner’s lack of involvement in
learning, the implication being that variety in the choice of learner tasks will
increase attention and therefore promote learning. Aggression applies to the
way in which a child, having learned something, seeks an opportunity to

93
show his or her strength by taking over and demonstrating what has been
learned, using the new knowledge as a tool for self-assertion.
R stands for retention and reflection. If the whole person is involved in the
learning process, what is retained is internalized and becomes a part of the
learner’s new persona in the foreign language. Reflection is a consciously
identified period of silence within the framework of the lesson for the stu-
dent “to focus on the learning forces of the last hour, to assess his present
stage of development, and to re-evaluate future goals” (La Forge 1983: 68).
D denotes discrimination. When learners “have retained a body of material,
they are ready to sort it out and see how one thing relates to another” (La
Forge 1983: 69). This discrimination process becomes more refined and ul-
timately “enables the students to use the language for purposes of com-
munication outside the classroom” (La Forge 1983: 69).
These central aspects of Curran’s learning philosophy address not the
psycholinguistic and cognitive processes involved in second language ac-
quisition, but rather the personal commitments that learners need to
make before language acquisition processes can operate.
Since linguistic or communicative competence is specified only in social
terms, explicit linguistic or communicative objectives are not defined in
CLL. Most of what has been written about it describes its use in introduc-
tory conversation courses in a foreign language. CLL does not use a
conventional language syllabus, which sets out in advance the grammar,
vocabulary, and other language items to be taught and the order in which
they will be covered. The progression is topic-based, with learners nomi-
nating things they wish to talk about and messages they wish to com-
municate to other learners. The teacher’s responsibility is to provide a
conveyance for these meanings in a way appropriate to the learners’
proficiency level. In this sense, then, a CLL syllabus emerges from the
interaction between the learner’s expressed communicative intentions
and the teacher’s reformulations of these into suitable target-language
utterances. Specific grammatical points, lexical patterns, and generaliza-
tions will sometimes be isolated by the teacher for more detailed study
and analysis, and subsequent specification of these as a retrospective
account of what the course covered could be a way of deriving a CLL
language syllabus.
As with most methods, CLL combines innovative learning tasks and
activities with conventional ones. They include:
1. Translation. Learners form a small circle. A learner whispers a mes-
sage or meaning he or she wants to express, the teacher translates it

94
into (and may interpret it in) the target language, and the learner
repeats the teacher’s translation.
2. Group work. Learners may engage in various group tasks, such as
small-group discussion of a topic, preparing a conversation, preparing
a summary of a topic for presentation to another group, preparing a
story that will be presented to the teacher and the rest of the class.
3. Recording. Students record conversations in the target language.
4. Transcription. Students transcribe utterances and conversations they
have recorded for practice and analysis of linguistic forms.
5. Analysis. Students analyze and study transcriptions of target-language
sentences in order to focus on particular lexical usage or on the appli-
cation of particular grammar rules.
6. Reflection and observation. Learners reflect and report on their expe-
rience of the class, as a class or in groups. This usually consists of
expressions of feelings – sense of one another, reactions to silence,
concern for something to say, and so on.
7. Listening. Students listen to a monologue by the teacher involving
elements they might have elicited or overheard in class interactions.
8. Free conversation. Students engage in free conversation with the
teacher or with other learners. This might include discussion of what
they learned as well as feelings they had about how they learned.
Learner roles in CLL are well defined. Learners become members of a
community – their fellow learners and the teacher – and learn through
interacting with the community. Learning is not viewed as an individual
accomplishment but as something that is achieved collaboratively.
Learners are expected to listen attentively to the knower, to freely provide
meanings they wish to express, to repeat target utterances without hesita-
tion, to support fellow members of the community, to report deep inner
feelings and frustrations as well as joy and pleasure, and to become
counselors of other learners. CLL learners are typically grouped in a circle
of six to twelve learners, with the number of knowers varying from one
per group to one per student.
Learner roles are keyed to the five stages of language learning outlined
earlier. The view of the learner is an organic one, with each new role
growing developmentally out of the one preceding. These role changes
are not easily or automatically achieved. They are in fact seen as out-
comes of affective crises:
When faced with a new cognitive task, the learner must solve an affective cri-
sis. With the solution of the five affective crises, one for each CLL stage, the
student progresses from a lower to a higher stage of development. (La Forge
1983: 44)

95
The teacher’s role derives from the functions of the counselor in
Rogerian psychological counseling. The counselor’s role is to respond
calmly and nonjudgmentally, in a supportive manner, and help the client
try to understand his or her problems better by applying order and analy-
sis to them. “One of the functions of the counseling response is to relate
affect . . . to cognition. Understanding the language of ‘feeling’, the coun-
selor replies in the language of cognition” (Curran 1976: 26). It was the
model of teacher as counselor that Curran attempted to bring to language
learning.
There is also room for actual counseling in Community Language
Learning: “Personal learning conflicts . . . anger, anxiety and similar psy-
chological disturbance – understood and responded to by the teacher’s
counseling sensitivity – are indicators of deep personal investment” (J.
Rardin, in Curran 1976: 103).
More specific teacher roles are, like those of the students, keyed to the
five developmental stages. In the early stages of learning, the teacher
operates in a supportive role, providing target-language translations and
a model for imitation on request of the clients. Later, interaction may be
initiated by the students, and the teacher monitors learner utterances,
providing assistance when requested. As learning progresses, students
become increasingly capable of accepting criticism, and the teacher may
intervene directly to correct deviant utterances, supply idioms, and advise
on usage and fine points of grammar. The teacher’s role is initially likened
to that of a nurturing parent. The student gradually “grows” in ability,
and the nature of the relationship changes so that the teacher’s position
becomes somewhat dependent on the learner. The knower derives a sense
of self-worth through requests for the knower’s assistance.
Since a CLL course evolves out of the interactions of the community, a
textbook is not considered a necessary component. A textbook would
impose a particular body of language content on the learners, thereby
impeding their growth and interaction. Materials may be developed by
the teacher as the course develops, although these generally consist of
little more than summaries on the blackboard or overhead projector of
some of the linguistic features of conversations generated by students.
Conversations may also be transcribed and distributed for study and
analysis, and learners may work in groups to produce their own mate-
rials, such as scripts for dialogues and mini-dramas.
Procedure
Because each Community Language Learning course is in a sense a
unique experience, description of typical CLL procedures in a class

96
period is problematic. Stevick (1980) distinguishes between “classical”
CLL (based directly on the model proposed by Curran) and personal
interpretations of it, such as those discussed by different advocates of
CLL (e.g., La Forge 1983). The following description attempts to capture
some typical activities in CLL classes.
Generally, the observer will see a circle of learners all facing one an-
other. The learners are linked in some way to knowers or a single knower
as teacher. The first class (and subsequent classes) may begin with a
period of silence, in which learners try to determine what is supposed to
happen in their language class. In later classes, learners may sit in silence
while they decide what to talk about (La Forge 1983: 72). The observer
may note that the awkwardness of silence becomes sufficiently agonizing
for someone to volunteer to break the silence. The knower may use the
volunteered comment as a way of introducing discussion of classroom
contacts or as a stimulus for language interaction regarding how learners
felt about the period of silence. The knower may encourage learners to
address questions to one another or to the knower. These may be ques-
tions on any subject a learner is curious enough to inquire about. The
questions and answers may be tape-recorded for later use, as a reminder
and review of topics discussed and language used.
The teacher might then form the class into facing lines for 3-minute
pair conversations. These are seen as equivalent to the brief wrestling
sessions by which judo students practice. Following this the class might
be re-formed into small groups in which a single topic, chosen by the class
or the group, is discussed. The summary of the group discussion may be
presented to another group, who in turn try to repeat or paraphrase the
summary back to the original group.
In an intermediate or advanced class, a teacher may encourage groups
to prepare a paper drama for presentation to the rest of the class. A paper
drama group prepares a story that is told or shown to the counselor. The
counselor provides or corrects target-language statements and suggests
improvements to the story sequence. Students are then given materials
with which they prepare large picture cards to accompany their story.
After practicing the story dialogue and preparing the accompanying pic-
tures, each group presents its paper drama to the rest of the class. The
students accompany their story with music, puppets, and drums as well
as with their pictures (La Forge 1983: 81–82).
Finally, the teacher asks learners to reflect on the language class, as a
class or in groups. Reflection provides the basis for discussion of con-
tracts (written or oral contracts that learners and teachers have agreed
upon and that specify what they agree to accomplish within the course),
personal interaction, feelings toward the knower and learner, and the
sense of progress and frustration.

97
Dieter Stroinigg (in Stevick 1980: 185–186) presents a protocol of
what a first day’s CLL class covered, which is outlined here:
1. Informal greetings and self-introductions were made.
2. The teacher made a statement of the goals and guidelines for the
course.
3. A conversation in the foreign language took place.
a) A circle was formed so that everyone had visual contact with each
other.
b) One student initiated conversation with another student by giving
a message in the L1 (English).
c) The instructor, standing behind the student, whispered a close
equivalent of the message in the L2 (German).
d) The student then repeated the L2 message to its addressee and into
the tape recorder as well.
e) Each student had a chance to compose and record a few messages.
f) The tape recorder was rewound and replayed at intervals.
g) Each student repeated the meaning in English of what he or she had
said in the L2 and helped to refresh the memory of others.
4. Students then participated in a reflection period, in which they were
asked to express their feelings about the previous experience with total
frankness.
5. From the materials just recorded the instructor chose sentences to
write on the blackboard that highlighted elements of grammar, spell-
ing, and peculiarities of capitalization in the L2.
6. Students were encouraged to ask questions about any of the items
above.
7. Students were encouraged to copy sentences from the board with
notes on meaning and usage. This became their “textbook” for home
study.
Conclusion
Community Language Learning places unusual demands on language
teachers. They must be highly proficient and sensitive to nuance in both
L1 and L2. They must be familiar with and sympathetic to the role of
counselors in psychological counseling. They must resist the pressure “to
teach” in the traditional senses. The teacher must also be relatively non-
directive and must be prepared to accept and even encourage the “adoles-
cent” aggression of the learner as he or she strives for independence. The
teacher must operate without conventional materials, depending on stu-
dent topics to shape and motivate the class. Special training in Com-
munity Language Learning techniques is usually required.

98
Critics of Community Language Learning question the appropriate-
ness of the counseling metaphor on which it is predicated. Questions also
arise about whether teachers should attempt counseling without special
training. Other concerns have been expressed regarding the lack of a
syllabus, which makes objectives unclear and evaluation difficult to ac-
complish, and the focus on fluency rather than accuracy, which may lead
to inadequate control of the grammatical system of the target language.
Supporters of CLL, on the other hand, emphasize the positive benefits of
a method that centers on the learner and stresses the humanistic side of
language learning, and not merely its linguistic dimensions.
Brown, H. D. 1977. Some limitations of C-L/CLL models of second language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly 11(4): 365–372.
Curran, C. A. 1972. Counseling-Learning: A Whole-Person Model for Educa-
tion. New York: Grune and Stratton.
Curran, C. A. 1976. Counseling-Learning in Second Languages. Apple River, Ill.:
Apple River Press.
La Forge, P. G. 1971. Community language learning: A pilot study. Language
Learning 21(1): 45–61.
La Forge. P. G. 1975a. Community language learning: The Japanese case. In F. C.
C. Peng (ed.), Language in Japanese Society. Tokyo: University of Tokyo
Press. 215–246.
La Forge, P. G. 1975b. Research Profiles with Community Language Learning.
Apple River, Ill.: Apple River Press.
La Forge, P. G. 1977. Uses of social silence in the interpersonal dynamics of
Community Language Learning. TESOL Quarterly 11(4): 373–382.
La Forge, P. G. 1983. Counseling and Culture in Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Lim, K. B. 1968. The unified language project. RELC Journal 9(1): 19–27.
Mackey, W. F. 1972. Bilingual Education in a Binational School. Rowley, Mass.:
Newbury House.
Moskowitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Class.
Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Munby, J. 1978. Communicative Syllabus Design. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Rardin, J. 1976. A Counseling-Learning model for second language learning.
TESOL Newsletter 10(2): 21–22.
Rardin, J. 1977. The language teacher as facilitator. TESOL Quarterly 11(4):
383–38.
Rogers, C. R. 1951. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Samimy, K. 1989. A comparative study of teaching Japanese in the audiolingual
method and the counseling-learning approach. Modern Language Journal
73(2): 169–177.
Samimy, K., and J. Rardin. 1994. Adult language learners’ affective reactions to
community language learning: A descriptive study. Foreign Language An-
nals 27(3):379–90.

99
Shannon, J. 1994. Experimenting with a community language learning principle
in an ESL second language writing class. ERIC Document ED373583.
Stevick, E. W. 1973. Review article: Charles A. Curran’s Counseling-Learning: a
whole person model for education. Language Learning 23(2): 259–271.
Newbury House.
Taylor, B. P. 1979. Exploring Community Language Learning. In C. Yorio, K.
Perkins, and J. Schachter (eds.), On TESOL ’79. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
80–84.
Tranel, D. D. 1968. Teaching Latin with the chromachord. The Classical Journal
63: 157–60.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
8 - Suggestopedia pp. 100-107

100
8 Suggestopedia
Background
Suggestopedia, also known as Desuggestopedia, is a method developed
by the Bulgarian psychiatrist-educator Georgi Lozanov. Suggestopedia is
a specific set of learning recommendations derived from Suggestology,
which Lozanov describes as a “science . . . concerned with the systematic
study of the nonrational and/or nonconscious influences” that human
beings are constantly responding to (Stevick 1976: 42). Suggestopedia
tries to harness these influences and redirect them so as to optimize
learning. The most conspicuous characteristics of Suggestopedia are the
decoration, furniture, and arrangement of the classroom, the use of mu-
sic, and the authoritative behavior of the teacher. The claims for sug-
gestopedic learning are dramatic. “There is no sector of public life where
suggestology would not be useful” (Lozanov 1978: 2). “Memorization in
learning by the suggestopedic method seems to be accelerated 25 times
over that in learning by conventional methods” (Lozanov 1978: 27).
Lozanov acknowledges ties in tradition to yoga and Soviet psychology.
From raja-yoga Lozanov has borrowed and modified techniques for al-
tering states of consciousness and concentration, and the use of rhythmic
breathing. From Soviet psychology Lozanov has taken the notion that all
students can be taught a given subject matter at the same level of skill.
Lozanov claims that his method works equally well whether or not stu-
dents spend time on outside study. He promises success through Sug-
gestopedia to the academically gifted and the ungifted alike. (For an
overview of the tenets of Soviet psychology and how these differ from
those of Western psychology, see Bancroft 1978.)
A most conspicuous feature of Suggestopedia is the centrality of music
and musical rhythm to learning. Suggestopedia thus has a kinship with
other functional uses of music, particularly therapy. Gaston (1968)
defines three functions of music in therapy: to facilitate the establishment
and maintenance of personal relations; to bring about increased self-
esteem through increased self-satisfaction in musical performance; and to
use the unique potential of rhythm to energize and bring order. This last
function seems to be the one that Lozanov calls upon in his use of music
to relax learners as well as to structure, pace, and punctuate the presenta-
tion of linguistic material.

Suggestopedia
101
Lozanov does not articulate a theory of language, nor does it seem that he
is much concerned with any particular assumptions regarding language
elements and their organization. The emphasis on memorization of vo-
cabulary pairs – a target-language item and its native language
translation – suggests a view of language in which lexis is central and in
which lexical translation rather than contextualization is stressed. How-
ever, Lozanov does occasionally refer to the importance of experiencing
language material in “whole meaningful texts” (Lozanov 1978: 268) and
notes that the suggestopedic course directs “the student not to vocabulary
memorization and acquiring habits of speech, but to acts of communica-
tion” (1978: 109).
In describing course work and text organization Lozanov refers most
often to the language to be learned as “the material” (e.g., “The new
material that is to be learned is read or recited by a well-trained teacher”)
(Lozanov 1978: 270). The sample protocol given for an Italian lesson
(Lozanov 1978) does not suggest a theory of language markedly different
from that which holds a language to be its vocabulary and the grammar
rules for organizing vocabulary.
Suggestion is at the heart of the theory of learning underlying Sug-
gestopedia. Lozonov distinguishes his theory of suggestion from the “nar-
row clinical concept of hypnosis as a kind of static, sleeplike, altered state
of consciousness” (1978: 3). Lozanov further claims that what
distinguishes his method from hypnosis and other forms of mind control
is that these other forms lack “a desuggestive-suggestive sense” and “fail
to create a constant set up access to reserves through concentrative
psycho-relaxation” (1978: 267). There are six principal theoretical com-
ponents through which desuggestion and suggestion operate and that set
up access to reserves. We will describe these briefly following Bancroft
(1972).
Authority
People remember best and are most influenced by information coming
from an authoritative source. Lozanov appears to believe that scientific-
sounding language, highly positive experimental data, and true-believer
teachers constitute a ritual placebo system that is authoritatively appeal-
ing to most learners. Well-publicized accounts of learning success lend the
method and the institution authority, and commitment to the method,
self-confidence, personal distance, acting ability, and a highly positive
attitude give an authoritative air to the teacher.

102
Infantilization
Authority is also used to suggest a teacher–student relation like that of
parent to child. In the child’s role the learner takes part in role playing,
games, songs, and gymnastic exercises that help “the older student regain
the self-confidence, spontaneity and receptivity of the child” (Bancroft
1972: 19).
Double-planedness
The learner learns not only from the effect of direct instruction but from
the environment in which the instruction takes place. The bright decor of
the classroom, the musical background, the shape of the chairs, and the
personality of the teacher are considered as important in instruction as
the form of the instructional material itself.
Intonation, rhythm, and concert pseudo-passiveness
Varying the tone and rhythm of presented material helps both to avoid
boredom through monotony of repetition and to dramatize, emotional-
ize, and give meaning to linguistic material. In the first presentation of
linguistic material, three phrases are read together, each with a different
voice level and rhythm. In the second presentation, the linguistic material
is given a proper dramatic reading, which helps learners visualize a con-
text for the material and aids in memorization (Bancroft 1972: 19).
Both intonation and rhythm are coordinated with a musical back-
ground. The musical background helps to induce a relaxed attitude,
which Lozanov refers to as concert pseudo-passiveness. This state is felt
to be optimal for learning, in that anxieties and tension are relieved and
power of concentration for new material is raised.
The objectives of Suggestopedia are to deliver advanced conversational
proficiency quickly. It bases its learning claims on student mastery of
prodigious lists of vocabulary pairs and, indeed, suggests to the students
that it is appropriate that they set such goals for themselves. Lozanov
emphasizes, however, that increased memory power is not an isolated
skill but is a result of “positive, comprehensive stimulation of person-
ality” (Lozanov 1978: 253).
A Suggestopedia course lasts 30 days and consists of ten units of study.
Classes are held 4 hours a day, 6 days a week. The central focus of each
unit is a dialogue consisting of 1,200 words or so, with an accompanying

Suggestopedia
103
vocabulary list and grammatical commentary. The dialogues are graded
by lexis and grammar.
There is a pattern of work within each unit and a pattern of work for
the whole course. Unit study is organized around 3 days: day 1–half a
day, day 2–full day, day 3–half a day. On the first day of work on a new
unit the teacher discusses the general content (not structure) of the unit
dialogue. The learners then receive the printed dialogue with a native
language translation in a parallel column. The teacher answers any ques-
tions of interest or concern about the dialogue. The dialogue then is read
a second and third time in ways to be discussed subsequently. This is the
work for day 1. Days 2 and 3 are spent in primary and secondary elabora-
tion of the text. Primary elaboration consists of imitation, question and
answer, reading, and so on, of the dialogue and of working with the 150
new vocabulary items presented in the unit. The secondary elaboration
involves encouraging students to make new combinations and produc-
tions based on the dialogues. A story or essay paralleling the dialogue is
also read. The students engage in conversation and take small roles in
response to the text read.
During the course there are two opportunities for generalization of
material. In the middle of the course students are encouraged to practice
the target language in a setting where it might be used, such as hotels or
restaurants. The last day of the course is devoted to a performance in
which every student participates. The students construct a play built on
the material of the course. Rules and parts are planned, but students are
expected to speak extempore rather than from memorized lines. Written
tests are also given throughout the course, and these and the performance
are reviewed on the final day of the course.
Learning activities used in the method include imitation, question and
answer, and role play – which are not activities “that other language
teachers would consider to be out of the ordinary” (Stevick 1976: 157).
The type of activities that are more original to Suggestopedia are the
listening activities, which concern the text and text vocabulary of each
unit. These activities are typically part of the “pre-session phase,” which
takes place on the first day of a new unit. The students first look at and
discuss a new text with the teacher. In the second reading, students relax
comfortably in reclining chairs and listen to the teacher read the text in a
certain way.
Learners’ roles are carefully prescribed. The mental state of the learners
is critical to success, which is why learners must forgo mind-altering
substances and other distractions and immerse themselves in the pro-
cedures of the method. Learners must not try to figure out, manipulate, or
study the material presented but must maintain a pseudo-passive state, in
which the material rolls over and through them. Students are expected to
tolerate and in fact encourage their own “infantilization.” In part this is

104
accomplished by acknowledging the absolute authority of the teacher and
in part by giving themselves over to activities and techniques designed to
help them regain the self-confidence, spontaneity, and receptivity of the
child. Such activities include role playing, games, songs, and gymnastic
exercises (Bancroft 1972: 19).
Groups of learners are ideally socially homogeneous, twelve in number,
and divided equally between men and women. Learners sit in a circle,
which encourages face-to-face exchange and activity participation.
The primary role of the teacher is to create situations in which the
learner is most suggestible and then to present linguisitic material in a
way most likely to encourage positive reception and retention by the
learner.
Lozanov lists several expected teacher behaviors that contribute to
these presentations.
1. Show absolute confidence in the method.
2. Display fastidious conduct in manners and dress.
3. Organize properly and strictly observe the initial stages of the teaching
process – this includes choice and play of music, as well as punctuality.
4. Maintain a solemn attitude toward the session.
5. Give tests and respond tactfully to poor papers (if any).
6. Stress global rather than analytical attitudes toward material.
7. Maintain a modest enthusiasm.
Materials consist of direct support materials, primarily text and tape,
and indirect support materials, including classroom fixtures and music.
The text is organized around the ten units described earlier. The text-
book should have emotional force, literary quality, and interesting
characters. Language problems should be introduced in a way that does
not worry or distract students from the content. “Traumatic themes and
distasteful lexical material should be avoided” (Lozanov 1978: 278).
Each unit should be governed by a single idea featuring a variety of
subthemes, “the way it is in life” (p. 278).
Although not language materials per se, the learning environment plays
such a central role in Suggestopedia that the important elements of the
environment need to be briefly enumerated. The environment (the indi-
rect support materials) comprises the appearance of the classroom (bright
and cheery), the furniture (reclining chairs arranged in a circle), and the
music (Baroque largo).
Procedure
As with other methods we have examined, there are variants both histor-
ical and individual in the actual conduct of Suggestopedia classes. Adap-
tations such as those we witnessed in Toronto by Jane Bancroft and her

Suggestopedia
105
colleagues at Scarborough College, University of Toronto, showed a wide
and diversified range of techniques unattested to in Lozanov’s writings.
We have tried here to characterize a class as described in the Sug-
gestopedia literature while pointing out where the actual classes we have
observed varied considerably from the description. Bancroft (1972) notes
that the 4-hour language class has three distinct parts. The first part we
might call an oral review section. Previously learned material is used as
the basis for discussion by the teacher and twelve students in the class. All
participants sit in a circle in their specially designed chairs, and the discus-
sion proceeds like a seminar. This session may involve what are called
micro-studies and macro-studies. In micro-studies specific attention is
given to grammar, vocabulary, and precise questions and answers. A
question from a micro-study might be, “What should one do in a hotel
room if the bathroom taps are not working?” In the macro-studies, em-
phasis is on role playing and wider-ranging, innovative language con-
structions. “Describe to someone the Boyana church” (one of Bulgaria’s
most well known medieval churches) would be an example of a request
for information from the macro-studies.
In the second part of the class new material is presented and discussed.
This consists of looking over a new dialogue and its native language
translation and discussing any issues of grammar, vocabulary, or content
that the teacher feels important or that students are curious about.
Bancroft notes that this section is typically conducted in the target lan-
guage, although student questions or comments will be in whatever lan-
guage the student feels he or she can handle. Students are led to view the
experience of dealing with the new material as interesting and undemand-
ing of any special effort or anxiety. The teacher’s attitude and authority
are considered critical to preparing students for success in the learning to
come. The pattern of learning and use is noted (i.e., fixation, reproduc-
tion, and new creative production), so that students will know what is
expected.
The third part – the séance or concert session – is the one by which
Suggestopedia is best known. Since this constitutes the heart of the
method, we will quote Lozanov as to how this session proceeds.
At the beginning of the session, all conversation stops for a minute or two,
and the teacher listens to the music coming from a tape-recorder. He waits
and listens to several passages in order to enter into the mood of the music
and then begins to read or recite the new text, his voice modulated in har-
mony with the musical phrases. The students follow the text in their text-
books where each lesson is translated into the mother tongue. Between the
first and second part of the concert, there are several minutes of solemn si-
lence. In some cases, even longer pauses can be given to permit the students to
stir a little. Before the beginning of the second part of the concert, there are
again several minutes of silence and some phrases of the music are heard again

106
before the teacher begins to read the text. Now the students close their text-
books and listen to the teacher’s reading. At the end, the students silently leave
the room. They are not told to do any homework on the lesson they have just
had except for reading it cursorily once before going to bed and again before
getting up in the morning. (Lozanov 1978: 272)
Conclusion
Suggestopedia received a rave review in Parade magazine of March 12,
1978. Suggestopedia also received a scathing review by a leading applied
linguist (Scovel 1979). Having acknowledged that “there are techniques
and procedures in Suggestopedy that may prove useful in a foreign lan-
guage classroom,” Scovel notes that Lozanov is unequivocally opposed
to any eclectic use of the techniques outside of the full panoply of sug-
gestopedic science. Of suggestopedic science Scovel comments, “If we
have learnt anything at all in the seventies, it is that the art of language
teaching will benefit very little from the pseudo-science of suggestology”
(Scovel 1979: 265).
And yet, from Lozanov’s point of view, this air of science (rather than
its substance) is what gives Suggestopedia its authority in the eyes of
students and prepares them to expect success. Lozanov makes no bones
about the fact that Suggestopedia is introduced to students in the context
of a “suggestive-desuggestive ritual placebo-system” (Lozanov 1978:
267), and that one of the tasks of the suggestopedic leader is to determine
which current ritual placebo system carries most authority with students.
Just as doctors tell patients that the placebo is a pill that will cure them, so
teachers tell students that Suggestology is a science that will teach them.
And Lozanov maintains that placebos do both cure and teach when the
patient or pupil credits them with the power to do so. Perhaps, then, it is
not productive to futher belabor the science/nonscience, data/double-talk
issues and instead, as Bancroft and Stevick have done, try to identify and
validate those techniques from Suggestopedia that appear effective and
that harmonize with other successful techniques in the language teaching
inventory.
Bancroft, W. J. 1972. The psychology of Suggestopedia or learning without
stress. The Educational Courier (February): 16–19.
Bancroft, W. J. 1978. The Lozanov method and its American adaptions. Modern
Language Journal 62(4): 167–175.
Bancroft, J. 1996. SALT for language acquisition. Mosaic 3(3): 16–20.
Blair, R. W. (ed.). 1982 Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Rowley,
Mass.: Newbury House.

Suggestopedia
107
Brewer, C., and D. Campbell. 1991. Rhythms of Learning: Creative Tools for
Developing Lifelong Skills. Tuscon, Ariz.: Zephyr Press.
Gaston, E. T. (ed.). 1968. Music in Therapy. New York: Macmillan.
Hammerly, H. 1982. Synthesis in Second Language Teaching. Vancouver, B.C.:
Second Language Publications.
Hansen, G. H. 1998. Lozanov and the teaching text. In B. Tomlinson (ed.),
Materials Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press. 311–319.
Lozanov, G. 1978. Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York. Gor-
don and Breach.
Lozanov, G., and E. Gateva. 1988. The Foreign Language Teacher’s Sug-
gestopedic Manual. New York: Gordon and Breach.
Ostrander, S., L. Schroeder, and N. Ostrander. 1979. Superlearning. New York:
Dell.
Scovel, T. 1979. Review of Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. TESOL
Quarterly 13: 255–266.
Newbury House.
Zence, R. 1995. Accelerated learning: madness with a method. Training 32(10):
93–96, 98–100.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
9 - Whole Language pp. 108-114

108
9 Whole Language
Background
The term Whole Language was created in the 1980s by a group of U.S.
educators concerned with the teaching of language arts, that is, reading
and writing in the native language. The teaching of reading and writing in
the first language (often termed the teaching of literacy) is a very active
educational enterprise worldwide, and, like the field of second language
teaching, has led to a number of different and at times competing ap-
proaches and methodologies. One widespread approach to both the
teaching of reading and writing has focused on a “decoding” approach to
language. By this is meant a focus on teaching the separate components of
language such as grammar, vocabulary, and word recognition, and in
particular the teaching of phonics. Phonics is based on the theory that
reading involves identifying letters and turning them into sounds. Other
reading theories approach reading through skills. The Whole Language
movement is strongly opposed to these approaches to teaching reading
and writing and argues that language should be taught as a “whole.” “If
language isn’t kept whole, it isn’t language anymore” (Rigg 1991: 522).
Whole Language instruction is a theory of language instruction that was
developed to help young children learn to read, and has also been ex-
tended to middle and secondary levels and to the teaching of ESL. “What
began as a holistic way to teach reading has become a movement for
change, key aspects of which are respect for each student as a member of
a culture and as a creator of knowledge, and respect for each teacher as a
professional” (Rigg 1991: 521).
The Whole Language Approach emphasizes learning to read and write
naturally with a focus on real communication and reading and writing for
pleasure. In the 1990s it became popular in the United States as a
motivating and innovative way of teaching language arts skills to primary
school children. In language teaching it shares a philosophical and in-
structional perspective with Communicative Language Teaching since it
emphasizes the importance of meaning and meaning making in teaching
and learning. It also relates to natural approaches to language learning
(see Chapter 15) since it is designed to help children and adults learn a
second language in the same way that children learn their first language.
Considerable discussion has been devoted to whether Whole Language

Whole Language
109
is an approach, a method, a philosophy, or a belief. In a survey of sixty-
four articles on Whole Language, Bergeron (1990) found Whole Lan-
guage treated as an approach (34.4 percent of the articles), as a philoso-
phy (23.4 percent), as a belief (14.1 percent), or as a method (6.3 per-
cent). We see it as an approach based on key principles about language
(language is whole) and learning (writing, reading, listening, and speak-
ing should be integrated in learning). Each Whole Language teacher im-
plements the theories of Whole Language as he or she interprets them and
according to the kinds of classes and learners he or she is teaching.
Approach: theory of language and of learning
Whole language views language organization from what we have earlier
called an interactional perspective. This perspective is most obviously a
social one that views language as a vehicle for human communication
and in which there is an interactional relationship between readers and
writers. “Language use is always in a social context, and this applies to
both oral and written language, to both first and second language use”
(Rigg 1991: 523). Heavy emphasis in Whole Language is placed on “au-
thenticity,” on engagement with the authors of written texts, and also on
conversation. For example, in mastering the sociolinguistic signals for
“apologizing,” “A whole language perspective requires an authentic,
‘real’ situation in which one truly needs to apologize to another” (Rigg
1991: 524).
Whole Language also views language psycholinguistically as a vehicle
for internal “interaction,” for egocentric speech, for thinking. “We use
language to think: In order to discover what we know, we sometimes
write, perhaps talk to a friend, or mutter to ourselves silently” (Rigg
1991: 323). A functional model of language is also referred to in many
articles on Whole Language. Language is always seen as something that is
used for meaningful purposes and to carry out authentic functions.
The learning theory underlying Whole Language is in the humanistic
and constructivist schools. The descriptions of whole language class-
rooms recall terms familiar to humanistic approaches to education and to
language learning: Whole Language is said to be authentic, personalized,
self-directed, collaborative, pluralistic. Such characteristics are believed
to focus learner attention and to motivate mastery. Constructivist learn-
ing theory holds that knowledge is socially constructed, rather than re-
ceived or discovered. Thus, constructivist learners “create meaning,”
“learn by doing,” and work collaboratively “in mixed groups on com-
mon projects.” Rather than transmitting knowledge to students, teachers
collaborate with them to create knowledge and understanding in their
mutual social context. Rather than seeking to “cover the curriculum,”

110
learning focuses on the learners’ experience, needs, interests, and
aspirations.
The major principles underlying the design of Whole Language instruc-
tion are as follows:
– the use of authentic literature rather than artificial, specially prepared
texts and exercises designed to practice individual reading skills
– a focus on real and natural events rather than on specially written
stories that do not relate to the students’ experience
– the reading of real texts of high interest, particularly literature
– reading for the sake of comprehension and for a real purpose
– writing for a real audience and not simply to practice writing skills
– writing as a process through which learners explore and discover
meaning
– the use of student-produced texts rather than teacher-generated or
other-generated texts
– integration of reading, writing, and other skills
– student-centered learning: students have choice over what they read
and write, giving them power and understanding of their world
– reading and writing in partnership with other learners
– encouragement of risk taking and exploration and the acceptance of
errors as signs of learning rather than of failure
The teacher is seen as a facilitator and an active participant in the learning
community rather than an expert passing on knowledge. The teacher
teaches students and not the subject matter and looks for the occurrence
of teachable moments rather than following a preplanned lesson plan or
script. The teacher creates a climate that will support collaborative learn-
ing. The teacher has the responsibility of negotiating a plan of work with
the learners.
The learner is a collaborator, collaborating with fellow students, with
the teacher, and with writers of texts. Students are also evaluators, eval-
uating their own and others’ learning, with the help of the teacher. The
learner is self-directed; his or her own learning experiences are used as
resources for learning. Students are also selectors of learning materials
and activities. “Choice is vital in a whole language class, because without
the ability to select activities, materials, and conversational partners, the
students cannot use language for their own purposes” (Rigg 1991: 526).
Whole Language instruction advocates the use of real-world materials
rather than commercial texts. A piece of literature is an example of “real-
world” materials in that its creation was not instructionally motivated

Whole Language
111
but resulted from the author’s wish to communicate with the reader.
Other real-world materials are brought to class by the students in the
form of newspapers, signs, handbills, storybooks, and printed materials
from the workplace in the case of adults. Students also produce their own
materials. Rather than purchase pedagogically prepared textbooks and
“basal readers,” schools make use of class sets of literature, both fictional
and nonfictional.
Procedure
The issue of what instructional characteristics are specific to Whole Lan-
guage is somewhat problematic. Bergeron (1990) found that Whole Lan-
guage was described differently in each article of the sixty-four articles
she surveyed (except those written by the same author). She found only
four classroom features mentioned in more than 50 percent of the arti-
cles. These included:
– the use of literature
– the use of process writing
– encouragement of cooperative learning among students
– concern for students’ attitude
Activities that are often used in Whole Language instruction are:
– individual and small group reading and writing
– ungraded dialogue journals
– writing portfolios
– writing conferences
– student-made books
– story writing
Many of these activities are also common in other instructional ap-
proaches, such as Communicative Language Teaching, Content-Based
Teaching, and Task-Based Language Teaching. Perhaps the only feature
of Whole Language that does not also appear centrally in discussions of
communicative approaches to language teaching is the focus on litera-
ture, although this has obviously been of concern to other writers on ELT
methodology. Suggestions for exploitation of literary resources in the
Whole Language classroom will be familiar to language teachers with a
similar interest in the use of literature in support of second language
learning. What differs in Whole Language teaching is not the incidental
use of such activities based on the topic of the lesson or an item in the
syllabus but their use as part of an overall philosophy of teaching and
learning that gives a new meaning and purpose to such activities.

112
The following is an example of the use of literary pieces in a Whole
Language workshop and involves activities built around the use of “Par-
allel Texts.” Two English translations of the same short story is an exam-
ple of Parallel Texts. Study of the two translations highlights the range of
linguistic choices open to the writer (and translator) in the contrast of
linguistic choices made by the translators and the responses made to these
choices by the students as readers. In pairs, one student acts as presenter/
interpreter of one of the two short-story translations and a partner acts as
presenter/interpreter of the other.
Parallel Texts: Opening sentences from two translations of a Korean short
story.
1a. “Cranes” by Hwang Sun-Won (translated by Kevin O’Rourke)
“The village on the northern side of the 38th parallel frontier was ever so
quiet and desolate beneath the high, clear autumn sky. White gourds leaned
on white gourds as they swayed in the yard of an empty house.”
1b. “The Crane” by Hwang Sun-Won (translated by Kim Se-young)
“The northern village at the border of the 38th Parallel was ever so snug un-
der the bright high autumn sky. In the space between the two main rooms of
the empty farm house a white empty gourd was lying against another white
empty gourd.”
Examples of student activities based on parallel texts:
1. Think of the village as described in 1a and 1b as two different villages.
Which one would you choose to live in? Why?
2. Do the contrasting opening sentences set up any different expectations in
the reader as to what kind of story will follow and what the tone of the
story will be?
3. On a map of Korea, each partner should indicate where he/she thinks the
village is located. Are the locations the same? If not, why not?
4. Write an opening sentence of a short story in which you briefly introduce
the village of 1a as it might appear in winter rather than autumn.
5. Write two parallel text opening sentences in which you describe in different
words a village you know. Ask a partner which village he/she prefers.
6. Discuss what different kinds of stories might follow on the basis of the
opening sentences. Write an original first sentence of this story thinking of
yourself as “translator” and drawing on both translations as your
resources.
(Rodgers 1993)
Conclusions
The Whole Language movement is not a teaching method but an ap-
proach to learning that sees language as a whole entity. Each language

Whole Language
113
teacher is free to implement the approach according to the needs of
particular classes. Advantages claimed for Whole Language are that it
focuses on experiences and activities that are relevant to learners’ lives
and needs, that it uses authentic materials, and that it can be used to
facilitate the development of all aspects of a second language. Critics,
however, see it as a rejection of the whole ESL approach in language
teaching and one that seeks to apply native-language principles to ESL.
Whole Language proposals are seen as anti-direct teaching, anti-skills,
and anti-materials, assuming that authentic texts are sufficient to support
second language learning and that skill development will follow without
special attention (Aaron 1991). Many language teachers still have a
strong commitment to specially developed materials to support instruc-
tion and some have argued that Whole Language promotes fluency at the
expense of accuracy. On the other hand, supporters of Whole Language
have developed a rich array of materials that can offer an integrated
approach to ESL instruction and that can be adapted for use in a wide
variety of contexts (e.g., Whiteson 1998). Whole Language activities may
prove useful particularly for younger learners in ESL environments.
Many of the activities for older learners in other environments are similar
to those recommended in other instructional approaches (e.g., Com-
municative Language Teaching and Cooperative Learning), which can
also serve as resources to support a Whole Language approach.
Aaron, P. 1991. Is there a hole in whole language? Contemporary Education 62
(winter): 127.
Adunyarittigun, D. 1996. Whole Language: A whole new world for ESL pro-
grams. ERIC Document ED386024.
Bergeron, B. S. 1990. What does the term Whole Language mean? Journal of
Reading Behavior 22(4): 6–7.
Brockman, B. 1994. Whole language: A philosophy of literacy teaching for adults
too! ERIC Document: ED376428.
Chitrapu, D. 1996. Whole Language: Adapting the approach for large classes.
Forum Magazine 34(2): 28–29.
Freeman, D., and Y. Freeman. 1993. Whole Language: How does it support
second language learners? ERIC Document: ED360875.
Goodman, K. 1986. What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, N.H.:
Heinemann.
Hao, R. N. 1991. Whole Language: Some thoughts. Kamehameha Journal of
Education (March): 16–18.
Heymsfeld, C. R. 1989. Filling the hole in Whole Language. Educational Leader-
ship 46(6).
Krashen, S. 1998. Has whole language failed? ERIC Document: ED586010.
Lems, K. 1995. Whole Language and the ESL/EFL classroom. ERIC Document
ED384210.

114
Patzelt, Karen E. 1993. Principles of Whole Language and implications for ESL
learners. ERIC Document: ED400526.
Rigg, P. 1991. Whole Language in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 25(3): 521–542.
Rodgers, T. S. 1993. Teacher training for Whole Language in ELT. Paper given at
City University of Hong Kong Seminar on Teacher in Education in Language
Teaching. April.
Shao, X. 1996. A bibliography of Whole Language materials. Biblio. Series 1993,
No. 1. ERIC Document: ED393093.
Stahl, S. A. 1994. The effects of Whole Language instruction: An update and a
reappraisal. ERIC Document: ED364830.
Whiteson, V. 1998. Play’s the Thing: A Whole Language Approach. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
10 - Multiple Intelligences pp. 115-124

115
10 Multiple Intelligences
Background
Multiple Intelligences (MI) refers to a learner-based philosophy that
characterizes human intelligence as having multiple dimensions that must
be acknowledged and developed in education. Traditional IQ or intelli-
gence tests are based on a test called the Stanford-Binet, founded on the
idea that intelligence is a single, unchanged, inborn capacity. However,
traditional IQ tests, while still given to most schoolchildren, are increas-
ingly being challenged by the MI movement. MI is based on the work of
Howard Gardner of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (Gardner
1993). Gardner notes that traditional IQ tests measure only logic and
language, yet the brain has other equally important types of intelligence.
Gardner argues that all humans have these intelligences, but people differ
in the strengths and combinations of intelligences. He believes that all of
them can be enhanced through training and practice. MI thus belongs to
a group of instructional perspectives that focus on differences between
learners and the need to recognize learner differences in teaching.
Learners are viewed as possessing individual learning styles, preferences,
or intelligences. Pedagogy is most successful when these learner
differences are acknowledged, analyzed for particular groups of learners,
and accommodated in teaching. In both general education and language
teaching, a focus on individual differences has been a recurring theme in
the last 30 or so years, as seen in such movements or approaches as
Individualized Instruction, Autonomous Learning, Learner Training, and
Learner Strategies. The Multiple Intelligences model shares a number of
commonalities with these earlier proposals.
Gardner (1993) proposed a view of natural human talents that is la-
beled the “Multiple Intelligences Model.” This model is one of a variety
of learning style models that have been proposed in general education and
have subsequently been applied to language education (see, e.g.,
Christison 1998). Gardner claims that his view of intelligence(s) is
culture-free and avoids the conceptual narrowness usually associated
with traditional models of intelligence (e.g., the Intelligent Quotient [IQ]
testing model). Gardner posits eight native “intelligences,” which are
described as follows:

116
1. Linguistic: the ability to use language in special and creative ways,
which is something lawyers, writers, editors, and interpreters are
strong in
2. Logical/mathematical: the ability to think rationally, often found with
doctors, engineers, programmers, and scientists
3. Spatial: the ability to form mental models of the world, something
architects, decorators, sculptors, and painters are good at
4. Musical: a good ear for music, as is strong in singers and composers
5. Bodily/kinesthetic: having a well-coordinated body, something found
in athletes and craftspersons
6. Interpersonal: the ability to be able to work well with people, which is
strong in salespeople, politicians, and teachers
7. Intrapersonal: the ability to understand oneself and apply one’s talent
successfully, which leads to happy and well-adjusted people in all areas
of life
8. Naturalist: the ability to understand and organize the patterns of
nature
The idea of Multiple Intelligences has attracted the interest of many
educators as well as the general public. Schools that use MI theory en-
courage learning that goes beyond traditional books, pens, and pencils.
Teachers and parents who recognize their learners’/children’s particular
gifts and talents can provide learning activities that build on those inher-
ent gifts. As a result of strengthening such differences, individuals are free
to be intelligent in their own ways.
Other “intelligences” have been proposed, such as Emotional Intelli-
gence, Mechanical Intelligence, and Practical Intelligence, but Gardner
defends his eight-dimensional model of intelligence by claiming that the
particular intelligences he has nominated are verified by eight databased
“signs.” Detailed discussion of the signs is beyond the range of this
chapter. However, signs include such clues as an intelligence having a
distinct developmental and a distinct evolutionary history; that is, within
individuals there is a similar sequence of development of an intelligence
beginning in early childhood and continuing into maturity. This sequence
will be universal for individuals but unique to each intelligence. Similarly,
each intelligence is deeply embedded in evolutionary history. Human tool
using, for example, has such an evidential evolutionary history and is an
example, Gardner says, of bodily/kinesthetic intelligence.
Approach: Theory of language and language learning
MI theory was originally proposed by Gardner (1993) as a contribution
to cognitive science. Fairly early on, it was interpreted by some general
educators, such as Armstrong (1994), as a framework for rethinking

Multiple Intelligences
117
school education. Some schools in the United States have indeed remade
their educational programs around the MI model. Applications of MI in
language teaching have been more recent, so it is not surprising that MI
theory lacks some of the basic elements that might link it more directly to
language education. One lack is a concrete view of how MI theory relates
to any existing language and/or language learning theories, though at-
tempts have been made to establish such links (e.g., Reid 1997; Christison
1998). It certainly is fair to say that MI proposals look at the language of
an individual, including one or more second languages, not as an “added-
on” and somewhat peripheral skill but as central to the whole life of the
language learner and user. In this sense, language is held to be integrated
with music, bodily activity, interpersonal relationships, and so on. Lan-
guage is not seen as limited to a “linguistics” perspectives but encom-
passes all aspects of communication.
Language learning and use are obviously closely linked to what MI
theorists label “Linguistic Intelligence.” However, MI proponents believe
there is more to language than what is usually subsumed under the rubric
linguistics. There are aspects of language such as rhythm, tone, volume,
and pitch that are more closely linked, say, to a theory of music than to a
theory of linguistics. Other intelligences enrich the tapestry of com-
munication we call “language.” In addition, language has its ties to life
through the senses. The senses provide the accompaniment and context
for the linguistic message that give it meaning and purpose. A multisen-
sory view of language is necessary, it seems, to construct an adequate
theory of language as well as an effective design for language learning.
A widely accepted view of intelligence is that intelligence – however
measured and in whatever circumstance – comprises a single factor, usu-
ally called the “g” factor. From this point of view, “Intelligence (g) can be
described as the ability to deal with cognitive complexity. . . . The vast
majority of intelligence researchers take these findings for granted”
(Gottfredson 1998: 24). One popular explication of this view sees intelli-
gence as a hierarchy with g at the apex of the hierarchy:
more specific aptitudes are arrayed at successively lower levels: the so-called
group factors, such as verbal ability, mathematical reasoning, spatial visualiza-
tion and memory, are just below g, and below these are skills that are more
dependent on knowledge or experience, such as the principles and practices of
a particular job or profession. (Gottfredson 1998: 3)
The view of Gardner (and some other cognitive scientists) “contrasts
markedly with the view that intelligence is based on a unitary or ‘general’
ability for problem solving” (Teele 2000: 27). In the Gardner view, there
exists a cluster of mental abilities that are separate but equal and that
share the pinnacle at the top of the hierarchy called intelligence – thus, the
eight Multiple Intelligences that Gardner has described. One way of look-

118
ing at the learning theoretical argument is to apply the logic of the single
factor (g) model to the Multiple Intelligences model. The single factor
model correlates higher intelligence (+g) with greater speed and efficiency
of neural processing; that is, the higher the g factor in the individual, the
greater the speed and efficiency of that individual’s brain in performing
cognitive operations (Gottfredson 1998: 3). If there is not one I but
several I’s, then one can assume that the speed and efficiency of neural
processing will be greatest when a particular I is most fully exercised; that
is, if a language learner has a high musical intelligence, that person will
learn most quickly (e.g., a new language) when that content is embedded
in a musical frame.
There are no goals stated for MI instruction in linguistic terms. MI pedag-
ogy focuses on the language class as the setting for a series of educational
support systems aimed at making the language learner a better designer
of his/her own learning experiences. Such a learner is both better em-
powered and more fulfilled than a learner in traditional classrooms. A
more goal-directed learner and happier person is held to be a likely
candidate for being a better second language learner and user.
Also, there is no syllabus as such, either prescribed or recommended, in
respect to MI-based language teaching. However, there is a basic develop-
mental sequence that has been proposed (Lazear 1991) as an alternative
to what we have elsewhere considered as a type of “syllabus” design. The
sequence consists of four stages:
– Stage 1: Awaken the Intelligence. Through multisensory experiences –
touching, smelling, tasting, seeing, and so on – learners can be sen-
sitized to the many-faceted properties of objects and events in the
world that surrounds them.
– Stage 2: Amplify the Intelligence. Students strengthen and improve the
intelligence by volunteering objects and events of their own choosing
and defining with others the properties and contexts of experience of
these objects and events.
– Stage 3: Teach with/for the Intelligence. At this stage the intelligence is
linked to the focus of the class, that is, to some aspect of language
learning. This is done via worksheets and small-group projects and
discussion.
– Stage 4: Transfer of the Intelligence. Students reflect on the learning
experiences of the previous three stages and relate these to issues and
challenges in the out-of-class world.

119
MI has been applied in many different types of classrooms. In some, there
are eight self-access activity corners, each corner built around one of the
eight intelligences. Students work alone or in pairs on intelligence foci of
their own choosing. Nicholson-Nelson (1998: 73) describes how MI can
be used to individualize learning through project work. She lists five types
of projects:
1. Multiple intelligence projects: These are based on one or more of the
intelligences and are designed to stimulate particular intelligences.
2. Curriculum-based projects: These are based on curriculum content
areas but are categorized according to the particular intelligences they
make use of.
3. Thematic-based projects: These are based on a theme from the curric-
ulum or classroom but are divided into different intelligences.
4. Resource-based projects: These are designed to provide students with
opportunities to research a topic using multiple intelligences.
5. Student-choice projects: These are designed by students and draw on
particular intelligences.
In other, more fully teacher-fronted classrooms, the students move
through a cycle of activities highlighting use of different intelligences in
the activities that the teacher has chosen and orchestrated.
The following list summarizes several of the alternative views as to how
the MI model can be used to serve the needs of language learners within a
classroom setting:
– Play to strength. If you want an athlete or a musician (or a student
having some of the these talents) to be an involved and successful
language learner, structure the learning material for each individual (or
similar group of individuals) around these strengths.
– Variety is the spice. Providing a teacher-directed rich mix of learning
activities variously calling upon the eight different intelligences makes
for an interesting, lively, and effective classroom for all students.
– Pick a tool to suit the job. Language has a variety of dimensions, levels,
and functions. These different facets of language are best served in-
structionally by linking their learning to the most appropriate kind of
MI activity.
– All sizes fit one. Every individual exercises all intelligences even though
some of these may be out of awareness or undervalued. Pedagogy that
appeals to all the intelligences speaks to the “whole person” in ways
that more unifaceted approaches do not. An MI approach helps to
develop the Whole Person within each learner, which best serves the
person’s language learning requirements as well.
– Me and my people. IQ testing is held to be badly biased in favor of
Western views of intelligence. Other cultures may value other intelli-

120
gences more than the one measured in IQ testing. Since language learn-
ing involves culture learning as well, it is useful for the language learner
to study language in a context that recognizes and honors a range of
diversely valued intelligences.
Each of these views has strengths and weaknesses, some of a theoreti-
cal, some of a pedagogical, and some of a practical nature. It seems that
potential MI teachers need to consider each of these possible applications
of MI theory in light of their individual teaching situations.
Campbell notes that MI theory “is not prescriptive. Rather, it gives
teachers a complex mental model from which to construct curriculum
and improve themselves as educators” (Campbell 1997: 19). In this view,
teachers are expected to understand, master, and be committed to the MI
model. Teachers are encouraged to administer an MI inventory on them-
selves and thereby be able to “connect your life’s experiences to your
concept of Multiple Intelligences” (Christison 1997: 7). (The MI inven-
tory is a short checklist that enables users to create their own MI profiles
and use these as a guide to designing and reflecting upon their learning
experiences [Christison 1997]). Teachers then become curriculum
developers, lesson designers and analysts, activity finders or inventors,
and, most critically orchestrators of a rich array of multisensory activities
within the realistic constraints of time, space, and resources of the class-
room. Teachers are encouraged not to think of themselves merely as
language teachers. They have a role that is not only to improve the second
language abilities of their students but to become major “contributors to
the overall development of students’ intelligences” (Christison 1999: 12).
Like teachers, learners need to see themselves engaged in a process of
personality development above and beyond that of being successful lan-
guage learners. The MI classroom is one designed to support develop-
ment of the “whole person,” and the environment and its activities are
intended to enable students to become more well-rounded individuals
and more successful learners in general. Learners are encouraged to see
their goals in these broader terms. Learners are typically expected to take
an MI inventory and to develop their own MI profiles based on the
inventory. “The more awareness students have of their own intelligences
and how they work, the more they will know how to use that intelligence
[sic] to access the necessary information and knowledge from a lesson”
(Christison 1997: 9). All of this is to enable learners to benefit from
instructional approaches by reflecting on their own learning.
Where MI is richest is in proposals for lesson organization, multisen-
sory activity planning, and in using realia. There are also now a number
of reports of actual teaching experiences from an MI perspective that are
both teacher-friendly and candid in their reportage. Activities and the
materials that support them are often shown or suggested in tables in

table 1. taxonomy of language-learning activities for multiple
intelligences
Linguistic Intelligence
lectures student speeches
small- and large-group discussions storytelling
books debates
worksheets journal keeping
word games memorizing
listening to cassettes or talking books using word processors
publishing (creating class newspapers or
collections of writing)
Logical/Mathematical Intelligence
scientific demonstrations creating codes
logic problems and puzzles story problems
science thinking calculations
logical-sequential presentation of subject matter
Spatial Intelligence
charts, maps, diagrams visualization
videos, slides, movies photography
art and other pictures using mind maps
imaginative storytelling painting or collage
graphic organizers optical illusions
telescopes, microscopes student drawings
visual awareness activities
Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence
creative movement hands-on activities
Mother-may-I? field trips
cooking and other “mess” activities mime
role plays
Musical Intelligence
playing recorded music singing
playing live music (piano, guitar) group singing
music appreciation mood music
student-made instruments Jazz Chants
Interpersonal Intelligence
cooperative groups conflict mediation
peer teaching board games
group brainstorming pair work
Intrapersonal Intelligence
independent student work reflective learning
individualized projects journal keeping
options for homework interest centers
inventories and checklists self-esteem journals
personal journal keeping goal setting
self-teaching/programmed instruction

122
which a particular intelligence is paired with possible resources useful for
working with this intelligence in class. Such a table from Christison
(1997: 7–8) is reproduced in Table 1.
Procedure
Christison describes a low-level language lesson dealing with description
of physical objects. The lesson plan recapitulates the sequence described
earlier in the “Design” section.
– Stage 1: Awaken the Intelligence. The teacher brings many different
objects to class. Students experience feeling things that are soft, rough,
cold, smooth, and so on. They might taste things that are sweet, salty,
sour, spicy, and so on. Experiences like this help activate and make
learners aware of the sensory bases of experience.
– Stage 2. Amplify the Intelligence. Students are asked to bring objects to
class or to use something in their possession. Teams of students
describe each object attending to the five physical senses. They com-
plete a worksheet including the information they have observed and
discussed (Table 2).
– Stage 3: Teach with/for the Intelligence. At this stage, the teacher struc-
tures larger sections of lesson(s) so as to reenforce and emphasize
sensory experiences and the language that accompanies these experi-
ences. Students work in groups, perhaps completing a worksheet such
as that shown in Table 3.
– Stage 4: Transfer of the Intelligence. This stage is concerned with appli-
cation of the intelligence to daily living. Students are asked to reflect on
both the content of the lesson and its operational procedures (working
in groups, completing tables, etc.).
table 2. the sensory handout
Name of team
Team members
Sight
Sound
Feel
Smell
Size
What it’s used for
Name of the object

123
table 3. multiple intelligences description exercise
What am I describing?
Directions: Work with your group. Listen as the teacher reads the description
of the object. Discuss what you hear with your group. Together, decide which
object in the class is being described.
Name of the object
Object 1
Object 2
Object 3
Object 4
Object 5
Next have each group describe an object in the classroom using the formula
given in Stage 2. Then, collect the papers and read them, one at a time. Ask
each group to work together to write down the name of the object in the
classroom that you are describing.
This particular lesson on describing objects is seen as giving students
opportunities to “develop their linguistic intelligence (for example,
describing objects), logical intelligence (for example, determining which
object is being described), visual/spatial intelligence (for example, deter-
mining how to describe things), interpersonal intelligence (for example,
working in groups), and intrapersonal intelligence (for example, reflect-
ing on one’s own involvement in the lesson)” (Christison 1997: 10–12).
Conclusion
Multiple Intelligences is an increasingly popular approach to characteriz-
ing the ways in which learners are unique and to developing instruction to
respond to this uniqueness. MI is one of a set of such perspectives dealing
with learner differences and borrows heavily from these in its recommen-
dations and designs for lesson planning. The literature on MI provides a
rich source of classroom ideas regardless of one’s theoretical perspective
and can help teachers think about instruction in their classes in unique
ways. Some teachers may see the assumptions of identifying and respond-
ing to the variety of ways in which students differ to be unrealistic in their
own settings and antithetical to the expectations of their students and
administrators. There are, however entire schools as well as language
programs being restructured around the MI perspective. Evaluation of
how successful these innovations are will be needed to more fully evaluate
the claims of MI in education and in second language teaching.

124
Armstrong, T. 1994. Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom. Alexandria, Va.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Campbell, L. 1997. How teachers interpret MI theory. Educational Leadership
55(1): 15–19.
Christison, M. 1997. An introduction to multiple intelligences theory and second
language learning. In J. Reid (ed.), Understanding Learning Styles in the
Second Language Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall/Regents.
1–14.
Christison, M. 1998. Applying multiple intelligences theory in preservice and
inservice TEFL education programs. English Language Teaching Forum
36(2) (April–June): 2–13.
Christison, M. 1999. Multiple Intelligences: Teaching the whole student. ESL
Magazine 2(5): 10–13.
Christison, M. 2001. Applying Multiple Intelligences Theory in the Second and
Foreign Language Classroom. Burlingame, Calif: Alta Book Center
Publishers.
Gardner, H. 1985. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Basic Books.
Gardner, H. 1993. Multiple Intelligences: The Theory and Practice. New York:
Basic Books.
Gottfredson, L. 1998. The general intelligence factor. Scientific American 9(4)
(Winter): 24–29.
Lazear, D. 1991. Seven Ways of Teaching: The Artistry of Teaching with Multiple
Intelligences. Palatine, Ill.: IRI Skylight.
Marzano, R., R. Brandt, C. Hughes, B. Jones, B. Presseisen, and S. Rankin. 1988.
Dimensions of Thinking: A Framework for Curriculum and Instruction.
Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Nicholson-Nelson, K. 1988. Developing Students’ Multiple Intelligences. New
York: Scholastic.
Reid, J. 1997. Understanding Learning Styles in the Second Language Class-
room. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall/Regents.
Teele, S. 2000. Rainbows of Intelligence: Exploring How Students Learn. Thou-
sand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
Weinreich-Haste, H. 1985. The varieties of intelligence: An interview with
Howard Gardner. New Ideas in Psychology 3(4): 47–65.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
11 - Neurolinguistic Programming pp. 125-131

125
11 Neurolinguistic Programming
Background
Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) refers to a training philosophy and
set of training techniques first developed by John Grindler and Richard
Bandler in the mid-1970s as an alternative form of therapy. Grindler (a
psychologist) and Bandler (a student of linguistics) were interested in how
people influence each other and in how the behaviors of very effective
people could be duplicated. They were essentially interested in discover-
ing how successful communicators achieved their success. They studied
successful therapists and concluded that they “followed similar patterns
in relating to their clients and in the language they used, and that they all
held similar beliefs about themselves and what they were doing” (Revell
and Norman 1997: 14). Grindler and Bandler developed NLP as a system
of techniques therapists could use in building rapport with clients, gather-
ing information about their internal and external views of the world, and
helping them achieve goals and bring about personal change. They
sought to fill what they perceived to be a gap in psychological thinking
and practice of the early 1970s by developing a series of step-by-step
procedures that would enable people to improve themselves:
NLP is . . . a collection of techniques, patterns, and strategies for assisting
effective communication, personal growth and change, and learning. It is
based on a series of underlying assumptions about how the mind works and
how people act and interact. (Revell and Norman 1997: 14)
The NLP model provides a theoretical framework and a set of working
principles for directing or guiding therapeutic change, but the principles
of NLP have been applied in a variety of other fields, including manage-
ment training, sports training, communications sales and marketing, and
language teaching. Since NLP is a set of general communication tech-
niques, NLP practitioners generally are required to take training in how
to use the techniques in their respective fields. NLP was not developed
with any applications to language teaching in mind. However, because
the assumptions of NLP refer to attitudes to life, to people, and to self-
discovery and awareness, it has had some appeal within language teach-
ing to those interested in what we have called humanistic approaches –

126
that is, approaches that focus on developing one’s sense of self-
actualization and self-awareness, as well as to those drawn to what has
been referred to as New Age Humanism.
The name “Neurolinguistic Programming” might lead one to expect that
it is based on the science of neurolinguistics and that it also draws on
behaviorist theories of learning (see Chapter 4). However, in NLP neuro
refers to beliefs about the brain and how it functions: The literature on
NLP does not refer to theory or research in neurolinguistics. In fact,
research plays virtually no role in NLP. Linguistic has nothing to do with
the field of linguistics but refers to a theory of communication, one that
tries to explain both verbal and nonverbal information processing. Pro-
gramming refers to observable patterns (referred to as “programs”) of
thought and behavior. NLP practitioners claim to be able to deprogram
and program clients’ behaviors with a precision close to computer pro-
gramming. Learning effective behaviors is viewed as a problem of skill
learning: It is dependent on moving from stages of controlled to auto-
matic processing (O’Connor and McDermott 1996: 6). Modeling is also
central to NLP views on learning:
Modeling a skill means finding out about it, and the beliefs and values that
enable them to do it. You can also model emotions, experiences, beliefs and
values. . . . Modeling successful performance leads to excellence. If one person
can do something it is possible to model and teach others how to do it.
(O’Connor and McDermott 1996: 71)
Revell and Norman offer the following explanation of the name:
The neuro part of NLP is concerned with how we experience the world
through our five senses and represent it in our minds through our neurological
processes.
The linguistic part of NLP is concerned with the way the language we use
shapes, as well as reflects, our experience of the world. We use language – in
thought as well as in speech – to represent the world to ourselves and to em-
body our beliefs about the world and about life. If we change the way we
speak and think about things, we can change our behavior. We can also use
language to help other people who want to change.
The programming part of NLP is concerned with training ourselves to
think, speak, and act in new and positive ways in order to release our poten-
tial and reach those heights of achievement which we previously only dreamt
of. (Revell and Norman 1997: 14)

Neurolinguistic Programming
127
Four key principles lie at the heart of NLP (O’Connor and McDermott
1996; Revell and Norman 1997).
1. Outcomes: the goals or ends. NLP claims that knowing precisely what
you want helps you achieve it. This principle can be expressed as
“know what you want.”
2. Rapport: a factor that is essential for effective communication –
maximizing similarities and minimizing differences between people at
a nonconscious level. This principle can be expressed as “Establish
rapport with yourself and then with others.”
3. Sensory acuity: noticing what another person is communicating, con-
sciously and nonverbally. This can be expressed as “Use your senses.
Look at, listen to, and feel what is actually happening.”
4. Flexibility: doing things differently if what you are doing is not work-
ing: having a range of skills to do something else or something
different. This can be expressed as “Keep changing what you do until
you get what you want.”
Revell and Norman (1997) present thirteen presuppositions that guide
the application of NLP in language learning and other fields. The idea is
that these principles become part of the belief system of the teacher and
shape the way teaching is conducted no matter what method the teacher
is using:
1. Mind and body are interconnected: They are parts of the same sys-
tem, and each affects the other.
2. The map is not the territory: We all have different maps of the world.
3. There is no failure, only feedback . . . and a renewed opportunity for
success.
4. The map becomes the territory: What you believe to be true either is
true or becomes true.
5. Knowing what you want helps you get it.
6. The resources we need are within us.
7. Communication is nonverbal as well as verbal.
8. The nonconscious mind is benevolent.
9. Communication is nonconscious as well as conscious.
10. All behavior has a positive intention.
11. The meaning of my communication is the response I get.
12. Modeling excellent behavior leads to excellence.
13. In any system, the element with the greatest flexibility will have the
most influence on that system.

128
Revell and Norman’s book (1997) on NLP in English-language teach-
ing seeks to relate each of these principles to language teaching. For
example, in discussing principle 7 – “Communication is nonverbal as
well as verbal” – they discuss the kinds of nonverbal messages teachers
consciously or unconsciously communicate to learners in the classroom.
As noted earlier, modeling is also central to NLP practice. Just as
Bandler and Grinder modeled NLP on the practices of successful thera-
pists, so teachers are expected to model their teaching on expert teachers
they most admire. Similarly, learners are expected to find successful
models for that person they themselves are striving to become:
If you want to be an excellent teacher, model excellent teachers. Look at that
they do, how they act, what sort of relationship they have with their students
and colleagues. Ask then how they feel about what they do. What are their be-
liefs? Second, position them. Imagine what it’s like to be them. As you learn
techniques and strategies, put them into practice. Share modeling strategies
with students. Set the project of modeling good learners. Encourage them to
share and try out strategies they learn. If you want to speak a language like a
native speaker, model native speakers. (Revell and Norman 1997: 116)
What do NLP language teachers do that make them different from
other language teachers? According to NLP, they seek to apply the princi-
ples in their teaching and this leads to different responses to many class-
room events and processes. For example, one of the four central princi-
ples of NLP centers on the need for “rapport”:
Rapport is meeting others in their world, trying to understand their needs,
their values and their culture and communicating in ways that are congruent
with those values. You don’t necessarily have to agree with their values, simply
recognize that they have a right to them and work within their framework,
not against it. (Rylatt and Lohan 1995: 121)
Rylatt and Lohan give the following example of how a teacher might
apply rapport in responding to the following statements from students:
a) I hate this stuff. It’s such a waste of time.
b) Everyone says that. It makes me sick.
c) I can’t do it.
d) This is all theory.
In establishing rapport, the teacher could respond:
a) Is a part of you saying that you want to be sure your time is well spent
today?
b) Who says that?
c) What, specifically, can’t you do?
d) Are you saying you want practical suggestions?

129
Likewise, principle 10 above – “All behavior has a positive intention” –
would lead the teacher to seek for a positive intent in the following
situations:
a) A learner disagrees strongly with the teacher.
b) A student frequently comes late to class.
c) A student seeks to dominate discussions.
The possible positive intents here could be:
a) wanting to have expertise acknowledged
b) having other important priorities
c) needing to vocalize thoughts in order to internalize them
Procedure
NLP principles can be applied to the teaching of all aspects of language,
according to Revell and Norman. For example, the following suggested
lesson sequence is “to help students become aware at a feeling level of the
conceptual meaning of a grammatical structure.” The primary focus of
the sequence is awareness (and, indeed, production) of instances of the
present perfect in English. The lesson begins with a guided fantasy of
eating a food item and then reflecting on the experience.
1. Students are told that they are going on an “inner grammatical expe-
rience as you eat a biscuit.”
2. Check that they understand vocabulary of the experience (smell,
taste, chew, swallow, bite, lick, etc.).
3. Students are asked to relax, close their eyes, and “go inside.” Once
“inside,” they listen to the teacher-produced fantasy, which is given
as the following:
4. (An abbreviated version of the teacher text) “Imagine a biscuit. A
delicious biscuit. The sort you really like. Pick it up and look at it
closely. Notice how crisp and fresh it is. Smell it. Notice how your
mouth is beginning to water. In a moment you are going to eat the
biscuit. Say the words to yourself: ‘I am going to eat this biscuit.’
“Slowly chew the biscuit and notice how delicious it tastes on your
tongue and in your mouth. . . . Say the words to yourself, ‘I’m really
enjoying eating this biscuit.’
“Take another bite. Chew it. Taste it. Enjoy it. . . . And then swal-
low. Lick your lips, move your tongue all around the inside of your
mouth to catch any last bits of biscuit, and swallow them.
“Notice how you feel now. Notice the taste in your mouth. Notice
how your stomach feels with a biscuit inside it. Notice how you feel
emotionally. You have eaten a biscuit. Say the words to yourself, ‘I’ve
eaten a biscuit.’

130
“How are you feeling now? Think of the words to describe how
you are feeling now. Take a deep breath and gently come back to the
room, bringing the feeling with you. Open your eyes.”
5. Ask the students to describe how they are feeling now – “the feeling
of the present perfect.” Listen for any statements that link the past
experience of eating the biscuit with their present feelings (e.g., “I
feel full,” “I’m not hungry anymore,” “I’ve got a nice taste in my
mouth,” “I feel fat”).
6. Ask them to say again the sentence that describes the cause of the
way they feel (“I’ve eaten a biscuit”).
7. Put a large piece of paper on the wall with the words “I’ve eaten a
biscuit” at the top. Have students write how they feel underneath.
8. On other pieces of paper, write sentences such as: I’ve painted a
picture. I’ve had a row with my boy/girlfriend. I’ve finished my
homework. I’ve cleaned my teeth.
9. Ask students to stand in front of each sentence, close their eyes, and
strongly imagine what they have done in order to be saying that
sentence now.
10. Students write on the paper how they feel now about these sentences.
11. Leave the papers on the wall as a reminder of the feeling link to the
grammatical structure.
12. As follow-up, contrast the feeling of the present perfect with the
feeling of the simple past. Ask students to remember the things they
did in the last lesson (“I ate a biscuit”). Ask them to close their eyes
and notice how they are feeling now. Contrast this feeling with the
feeling they remember from the last lesson and which they wrote
down on the papers.
13. Ask them to say the sentence “Yesterday, I ate a biscuit.”
14. Discuss the comparison between the feelings (“I remember the taste,
but I can’t actually taste it”).
15. You can do similar exercises to exemplify other tenses using different
tastes and sensory experiences.
(Adapted from Revell and Norman 1999)
Conclusion
NLP is not a language teaching method. It does not consist of a set of
techniques for teaching a language based on theories and assumptions at
the levels of an approach and a design. Rather, it is a humanistic philoso-
phy and a set of beliefs and suggestions based on popular psychology,
designed to convince people that they have the power to control their
own and other people’s lives for the better, and practical prescriptions on
how to do so. NLP practitioners believe that if language teachers adopt

131
and use the principles of NLP, they will become more effective teachers.
Workshops on NLP are hence typically short on theory and research to
justify its claims and strong on creating positive expectations, bonding,
and enthusiasm. As Revell and Norman comment, the assumptions on
which NLP are based “need not be accepted as the absolute truth, but
acting as if they were true can make a world of difference in your life and
in your teaching” (1997: 15). In language teaching, the appeal of NLP to
some teachers stems from the fact that it offers a set of humanistic princi-
ples that provide either a new justification for well-known techniques
from the communicative or humanistic repertoire or a different interpre-
tation of the role of the teacher and the learner, one in harmony with
many learner-centered, person-centered views.
Bandler, R. 1985. Using Your Brain for a Change. Moab, Utah: Real People
Press.
Bandler, R., and J. Grinder. 1982. Reframing: NLP and the Transformation of
Meaning. Utah: Real People Press.
Betts, N. 1988. Neuro-Linguistic Programming: The new eclectic therapy. ERIC
Document ED300711.
Grinder, M. 1991. Righting the Educational Conveyor Belt. Portland, Oreg.:
Metamorphosis Press.
O’Connor, J., and I. McDermott. 1996. Principles of NLP. London: Thorsons.
O’Connor, J., and J. Seymour. 1993. Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Program-
ming. Mandala: HarperCollins. rev ed. London: Aquarian/Thorsons, 1993.
Patridge, S. 1985. Neuro-Linguistic Programming: A discussion of why and how.
ERIC Document ED265925.
Revell, J., and S. Norman. 1997. In Your Hands: NLP in ELT. London: Saffire
Press.
Revell, J., and S. Norman. 1999. Handing Over: NLP-Based Activities for Lan-
guage Learning. London: Saffire Press.
Rylatt, A., and K. Lohan. 1995. Creating Training Miracles. Sydney: Prentice
Hall.
Turner, C., and P. Andrews. 1994. One to one: Interpersonal skills for managers.
ERIC Document ED375759.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
12 - The lexical approach pp. 132-140

132
12 The lexical approach
Background
We have seen throughout this book that central to an approach or
method in language teaching is a view of the nature of language, and this
shapes teaching goals, the type of syllabus that is adopted, and the em-
phasis given in classroom teaching. A lexical approach in language teach-
ing refers to one derived from the belief that the building blocks of
language learning and communication are not grammar, functions, no-
tions, or some other unit of planning and teaching but lexis, that is, words
and word combinations. Lexical approaches in language teaching reflect
a belief in the centrality of the lexicon to language structure, second
language learning, and language use, and in particular to multiword
lexical units or “chunks” that are learned and used as single items. Lin-
guistic theory has also recognized a more central role for vocabulary in
linguistic description. Formal transformational/generative linguistics,
which previously took syntax as the primary focus, now gives more
central attention to the lexicon and how the lexicon is formatted, coded,
and organized. Chomsky, the father of contemporary studies in syntax,
has recently adopted a “lexicon-is-prime” position in his Minimalist Lin-
guistic theory.
The role of lexical units has been stressed in both first and second
language acquisition research. These have been referred to by many
different labels, including “holophrases” (Corder 1973), “prefabricated
patterns” (Hakuta 1974), “gambits” (Keller 1979), “speech formulae”
(Peters 1983), and “lexicalized stems” (Pawley and Syder 1983). Several
approaches to language learning have been proposed that view vocabu-
lary and lexical units as central in learning and teaching. These include
The Lexical Syllabus (Willis 1990), Lexical Phrases and Language Teach-
ing (Nattinger and DeCarrico 1992), and The Lexical Approach (Lewis
1993). Advances in computer-based studies of language (referred to as
corpus linguistics) have also provided a huge, classroom-accessible
database for lexically based inquiry and instruction. These studies have
focused on collocations of lexical items and multiple word units. A num-
ber of lexically based texts and computer resources have become avail-
able to assist in organizing and teaching the lexicon.

The lexical approach
133
Lexical approaches in language teaching seek to develop proposals for
syllabus design and language teaching founded on a view of language in
which lexis plays the central role.
Whereas Chomsky’s influential theory of language emphasized the
capacity of speakers to create and interpret sentences that are unique and
have never been produced or heard previously, in contrast, the lexical
view holds that only a minority of spoken sentences are entirely novel
creations and that multiword units functioning as “chunks” or memo-
rized patterns form a high proportion of the fluent stretches of speech
heard in everyday conversation (Pawley and Syder 1983). The role of
collocation is also important in lexically based theories of language. Col-
location refers to the regular occurrence together of words. For example,
compare the following collocations of verbs with nouns:
do my hair/the cooking/the laundry/my work
make my bed/a promise/coffee/a meal
Many other lexical units also occur in language. For example:
binomials: clean and tidy, back to front
trinomials: cool, calm, and collected
idioms: dead drunk, to run up a bill
similes: as old as the hills
connectives: finally, to conclude
conversational gambits: Guess what!
These and other types of lexical units are thought to play a central role in
learning and in communication. Studies based on large-scale computer
databases of language corpora have examined patterns of phrase and
clause sequences as they appear in samples of various kinds of texts,
including spoken samples. Three important UK-based corpora are the
COBUILD Bank of English Corpus, the Cambridge International
Corpus, and the British National Corpus, the latter of which contains
more than 300 million words. These and other corpora are important
sources of information about collocations and other multiword units in
English.
Lexis is also believed to play a central role in language learning. Nat-
tinger commented:
Perhaps we should base our teaching on the assumption that, for a great deal
of the time anyway, language production consists of piecing together the

134
ready-made units appropriate for a particular situation and that comprehen-
sion relies on knowing which of these patterns to predict in these situations.
Our teaching, therefore, would center on these patterns and the ways they can
be pieced together, along with the ways they vary and the situations in which
they occur. (Nattinger 1980: 341)
However, if as Pawley and Syder estimate, native speakers have hundreds
of thousands of prepackaged phrases in their lexical inventory, the im-
plications for second language learning are uncertain. How might second
language learners, lacking the language experiential base of native
speakers, approach the daunting task of internalizing this massive inven-
tory of lexical usage?
Krashen suggests that massive amounts of “language input,” especially
through reading, is the only effective approach to such learning. Others
propose making the language class a laboratory in which learners can
explore, via computer concordance databases, the contexts of lexical use
that occur in different kinds of texts and language data. A third approach
to learning lexical chunks has been “contrastive”: Some applied linguists
have suggested that for a number of languages there is an appreciable
degree of overlap in the form and meaning of lexical collocations. Bahns
(1993: 58) suggests that “the teaching of lexical collocations in EFL
should concentrate on items for which there is no direct translational
equivalence in English and in the learners’ respective mother tongues.”
Regardless of the learning route taken, a massive learning load seems an
unavoidable consequence of a lexical approach in second language
instruction.
Lewis (2000) acknowledges that the lexical approach has lacked a
coherent learning theory and attempts to rectify this with the following
assumptions about learning theory in the lexical approach (Lewis 2000:
184):
– Encountering new learning items on several occasions is a necessary
but sufficient condition for learning to occur.
– Noticing lexical chunks or collocations is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for “input” to become “intake.”
– Noticing similarities, differences, restrictions, and examples con-
tributes to turning input into intake, although formal description of
rules probably does not help.
– Acquisition is based not on the application of formal rules but on an
accumulation of examples from which learners make provisional gen-
eralizations. Language production is the product of previously met
examples, not formal rules.
– No linear syllabus can adequately reflect the nonlinear nature of
acquisition.

135
Design: Objectives, syllabus, learning activities, role of
The rationale and design for lexically based language teaching described
in The Lexical Syllabus (Willis 1990) and the application of it in the
Collins COBUILD English Course represent the most ambitious attempt
to realize a syllabus and accompanying materials based on lexical rather
than grammatical principles. (This may not, however, have been the rea-
son for the lack of enthusiasm with which this course was received.)
Willis notes that the COBUILD computer analyses of texts indicate that
“the 700 most frequent words of English account for around 70% of all
English text.” This “fact” led to the decision that “word frequency would
determine the contents of our course. Level 1 would aim to cover the
most frequent 700 words together with their common patterns and uses”
(Willis 1990: vi). In one respect, this work resembled the earlier
frequency-based analyses of vocabulary by West (1953) and Thorndike
and Longe (1944). The difference in the COBUILD course was the atten-
tion to word patterns derived from the computer analysis. Willis stresses,
however, that “the lexical syllabus not only subsumes a structural syl-
labus, it also indicates how the structures which make up syllabus should
be exemplified” since the computer corpus reveals the commonest struc-
tural patterns in which words are used (Willis 1990: vi).
Other proposals have been put forward as to how lexical material
might be organized for instruction. Nation (1999) reviews a variety of
criteria for classifying collocations and chunks and suggests approaches
to instructional sequencing and treatment for different types of colloca-
tions. Nattinger and DeCarrico propose using a functional schema for
organizing instruction:
Distinguishing lexical phrases as social interactions, necessary topics, and
discourse devices seems to us the most effective distinction for pedagogical
purposes, but that is not to say that a more effective way of grouping might
not be found necessary in the wake of further research. (Nattinger and DeCar-
rico 1992: 185)
Nattinger and DeCarrico provide exemplification of the lexical phrases
that exemplify these categories for English and several other languages.
Specific roles for teachers and learners are also assumed in a lexical
approach. Lewis supports Krashen’s Natural Approach procedures and
suggests that teacher talk is a major source of learner input in
demonstrating how lexical phrases are used for different functional pur-
poses. Willis proposes that teachers need to understand and manage a
classroom methodology based on stages composed of Task, Planning,
and Report. In general terms, Willis views the teacher’s role as one of

136
creating an environment in which learners can operate effectively and
then helping learners manage their own learning. This requires that
teachers “abandon the idea of the teacher as ‘knower’ and concentrate
instead on the idea of the learner as ‘discoverer’” (Willis 1990: 131).
Others propose that learners make use of computers to analyze text
data previously collected or made available “free-form” on the Internet.
Here the learner assumes the role of data analyst constructing his or her
own linguistic generalizations based on examination of large corpora of
language samples taken from “real life.” In such schemes, teachers have a
major responsibility for organizing the technological system and provid-
ing scaffolding to help learners build autonomy in use of the system. The
most popular computer-based applications using corpora are built on the
presentation of concordance lines to the learner that illustrate the con-
texts of use of some words or structures. However, learners need training
in how to use the concordancer effectively. Teaching assistance will be
necessary in leading the learner, by example, through the different stages
of lexical analysis such as observation, classification, and generalization.
Materials and teaching resources to support lexical approaches in lan-
guage teaching are of at least four types. Type 1 consists of complete
course packages including texts, tapes, teacher’s manuals, and so on, such
as the Collins COBUILD English Course (Willis and Willis 1989). Type 2
is represented by collections of vocabulary teaching activities such as
those that appear in Lewis’s Implementing the Lexical Approach (Lewis
1997). Type 3 consists of “printout” versions of computer corpora col-
lections packaged in text format. Tribble and Jones (1990) include such
materials with accompanying student exercises based on the corpora
printouts. Type 4 materials are computer concordancing programs and
attached data sets to allow students to set up and carry out their own
analyses. These are typically packaged in CD-ROM form, such as Ox-
ford’s Micro Concord, or can be downloaded from sites on the Internet.
An example of the kinds of displays that appear in text materials and in
the concordancing displays from which the printout materials derive is
illustrated below. The difference between how the vocabulary items “pre-
dict” and “forecast” are used and how they collocate is not easy to
explain. However, access to these items in context in the computer corpus
allows students (and their teachers) to see how these words actually
behave in authentic textual use. Corpus samples are usually presented in
the limited context form exemplified here.
Some contexts of PREDICT
1. involved in copper binding. Our findings predict that examples of
selective editing of mitocho

137
2. the stratosphere. The present models predict that a cooling of the
winter polar vortex by
3. analysis of this DNA we are able to predict the complete amino-acid
sequence of the polyp
4. or this problem use the survey data to predict values on the vertical
profile; by contrast,
5. the calcium-voltage hypothesis would predict an increase in release,
locked in time to the
Some contexts of FORECAST
1. calculations a second. The center makes forecasts 10 days ahead for
18 national meteorological
2. any action whose success hinges on a forecast being right. They might
end up doing a lot
3. stands up in the House of Commons to forecast Britain’s economic
performance for the next
4. vice labor of its people. This gloomy forecast can be better understood
by looking closely
5. But three months earlier the secret forecast carried out by Treasury
economists suggested
Procedure
Procedural sequences for lexically based language teaching vary depend-
ing on which of the four types of materials and activities outlined in the
preceding section are employed. However, all designers, to some degree,
assume that the learner must take on the role of “discourse analyst,” with
the discourse being either packaged data or data “found” via one of the
text search computer programs. Classroom procedures typically involve
the use of activities that draw students’ attention to lexical collocations
and seek to enhance their retention and use of collocations. Woolard
(2000) suggests that teachers should reexamine their course books for
collocations, adding exercises that focus explicitly on lexical phrases.
They should also develop activities that enable learners to discover
collocations themselves, both in the classroom and in the language they
encounter outside of the classroom. Woolard (2000: 35) comments:
The learning of collocations is one aspect of language development which is
ideally suited to independent language learning. In a very real sense, we can
teach students to teach themselves. Collocation is mostly a matter of noticing
and recording, and trained students should be able to explore texts for them-
selves. Not only should they notice common collocations in the texts they
meet, but more importantly, they should select those collocations which are
crucial to their particular needs.

138
Hill (2000) suggests that classroom procedures involve (a) teaching indi-
vidual collocations, (b) making students aware of collocation, (c) extend-
ing what students already know by adding knowledge of collocation
restrictions to known vocabulary, and (d) storing collocations through
encouraging students to keep a lexical notebook. Lewis (2000: 20–21)
gives the following example of how a teacher extends learners’ knowl-
edge of collocations while giving feedback on a learner’s error.
S: I have to make an exam in the summer.
(T indicates mistake by facial expression.)
S: I have to make an exam.
T: (Writes ‘exam’ on the board.)
What verb do we usually use with “exam”?
S2: Take.
T: Yes, that’s right. (Writes “take” on the board.)
What other verbs do we use with “exam”?
S2: Pass.
T: Yes. And the opposite?
S: Fail.
(Writes “pass” and “fail” on the board.)
And if you fail an exam, sometimes you can do it again.
What’s the verb for that? (Waits for response.)
No? OK, retake. You can retake an exam.
(Writes “retake” on the board.)
If you pass an exam with no problems, what can you say? I . . . passed.
S2: Easily.
T: Yes, or we often say “comfortably.” I passed comfortably.
What about if you get 51 and the pass mark is 50?
What can you say? I . . . (Waits for response.)
No? I just passed. You can also just fail.
Conclusion
The status of lexis in language teaching has been considerably enhanced
by developments in lexical and linguistic theory, by work in corpus analy-
sis, and by recognition of the role of multiword units in language learning
and communication. However, lexis still refers to only one component of
communicative competence. Lewis and others have coined the term lexi-
cal approach to characterize their proposals for a lexis-based approach to
language teaching. However, such proposals lack the full characterization
of an approach or method as described in this book. It remains to be
convincingly demonstrated how a lexically based theory of language and
language learning can be applied at the levels of design and procedure in
language teaching, suggesting that it is still an idea in search of an ap-
proach and a methodology.

139
Bahns, J. 1993. Lexical collocations: A contrastive view. ELT Journal 7(1): 56–
63.
Corder, P. 1973. Introducing Applied Linguistics. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Hakuta, K. 1974. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in sec-
ond language acquisition. Language Learning 24, 287–297.
Hoey, M. 1983. On the Surface of Discourse. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Hoey, M. 1991. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keller, R. 1979. Gambits: Conversational strategy signals. Journal of Pragmatics
3, 219–237.
Leech, G. 1997. Teaching and language corpora: a convergence. In A.
Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, and G. Knowles (eds.), Teaching and
Language Corpora. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Lewis, M. 1993. The Lexical Approach. London: Language Teaching
Publications.
Lewis, M. 1997. Implementing the Lexical Approach. London: Language Teach-
ing Publications.
Lewis, M. (ed.). 2000. Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexi-
cal Approach. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. 2000. Learning in the lexical approach. In M. Lewis (ed.), Teaching
Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. London: Lan-
guage Teaching Publications. 155–184.
Lewis, M. 2000. There is nothing as practical as a good theory. In M. Lewis (ed.),
Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Approach. Lon-
don: Language Teaching Publications. 10–27.
Murison-Bowie, S. 1996. Linguistic corpora and language teaching. Annual Re-
view of Applied Linguistics 16: 182–199.
Nation, I. S. P. 1999. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. ELI Occasional
Publication No. 19, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Nattinger, J. 1980. A lexical phrase grammar for ESL. TESOL Quarterly 14:
337–344.
Nattinger, J., and J. DeCarrico. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawley, A., and F. Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like
selection and native-like fluency. In J. Richards and R. Schmidt (eds.), Lan-
guage and Communication. London: Longman. 191–226.
Peters, A. 1983. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Phillips, M. 1989. Lexical Structure of Text. Discourse Analysis Monograph No.
12, English Language Research, University of Birmingham (UK).
Thorndike, E. L., and I. Longe. 1944. The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000
Words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Tribble, C., and G. Jones. 1990. Concordances in the Classroom: A Resource
Book for Teachers. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
West, M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman.
Willis, J., and D. Willis. 1989. Collins COBUILD English Course. London:
Collins.
Willis, J. D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus. London: Collins COBUILD.

140
Wood, M. 1981. A Definition of Idiom. Manchester, UK: Centre for Computa-
tional Linguistics, University of Manchester.
Woolard, G. 2000. Collocation-encouraging learner independence. In M. Lewis
(ed.), Teaching Collocation: Further Developments in the Lexical Ap-
proach. London: Language Teaching Publications. 28–46.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
13 - Competency-Based Language Teaching pp. 141-150

141
13 Competency-Based Language
Teaching
Background
Most of the methods and approaches described in this book focus on
inputs to language learning. The assumption is that by improving syl-
labuses, materials, and activities or by changing the role of learners and
teachers, more effective language learning will take place. Competency-
Based Education (CBE) by comparison is an educational movement that
focuses on the outcomes or outputs of learning in the development of
language programs. CBE addresses what the learners are expected to do
with the language, however they learned to do it. The focus on outputs
rather than on inputs to learning is central to the competencies perspec-
tive. CBE emerged in the United States in the 1970s and refers to an
educational movement that advocates defining educational goals in terms
of precise measurable descriptions of the knowledge, skills, and behaviors
students should possess at the end of a course of study. The characteristics
of CBE are described by Schenck (1978: vi):
Competency-based education has much in common with such approaches to
learning as performance-based instruction, mastery learning and individualized
instruction. It is outcome-based and is adaptive to the changing needs of stu-
dents, teachers and the community. . . . Competencies differ from other stu-
dent goals and objectives in that they describe the student’s ability to apply
basic and other skills in situations that are commonly encountered in everyday
life. Thus CBE is based on a set of outcomes that are derived from an analysis
of tasks typically required of students in life role situations.
Competency-Based Language Teaching (CBLT) is an application of the
principles of Competency-Based Education to language teaching. Such an
approach had been widely adopted by the end of the 1970s, particularly
as the basis for the design of work-related and survival-oriented language
teaching programs for adults. It has recently reemerged in some parts of
the world (e.g., Australia) as a major approach to the planning of lan-
guage programs. The Center for Applied Linguistics called competency-
based ESL curricula “the most important breakthrough in adult ESL”
(1983). By the 1990s, CBLT had come to be accepted as “the state-of-the-
art approach to adult ESL by national policymakers and leaders in curric-
ulum development as well” (Auerbach 1986: 411): By 1986, any refugee
in the United States who wished to receive federal assistance had to be

142
enrolled in a competency-based program (Auerbach 1986: 412). Typ-
ically, such programs were based on
a performance outline of language tasks that lead to a demonstrated mastery
of language associated with specific skills that are necessary for individuals to
function proficiently in the society in which they live. (Grognet and Crandall
1982: 3)
Advocates of CBLT see it as a powerful and positive agent of change:
Competency-based approaches to teaching and assessment offer teachers an
opportunity to revitalize their education and training programs. Not only will
the quality of assessment improve, but the quality of teaching and student
learning will be enhanced by the clear specification of expected outcomes and
the continuous feedback that competency-based assessment can offer. These
beneficial effects have been observed at all levels and kinds of education and
training, from primary school to university, and from academic studies to
workplace training. (Docking 1994: 15)
The most recent realization of a competency perspective in the United
States is found in the “standards” movement, which has dominated edu-
cational discussions since the 1990s. As Glaser and Linn note:
In the recounting of our nation’s drive towards educational reform, the last
decade of this century will undoubtedly be identified as the time when a con-
centrated press for national educational standards emerged. The press for
standards was evidenced by the efforts of federal and state legislators, presi-
dential and gubernatorial candidates, teacher and subject-matter specialists,
councils, governmental agencies, and private foundations. (Glaser and Linn
1993: xiii)
Second language teaching, especially ESL in the United States, was a
late entry in the standards movement. As the ESL project director for ESL
standards development noted in 1997:
It quickly became apparent to ESL educators in the United States at that time
(1991) that the students we serve were not being included in the standards-
setting movement that was sweeping the country. (Short 1997: 1)
The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Applied Linguistics under con-
tract to the TESOL organization undertook to develop the K–12
“school” standards for ESL. These were completed in 1997. The ESL
standards are framed around three goals and nine standards. Each stan-
dard is further explicated by descriptors, sample progress indicators, and
classroom vignettes with discussions. The standards section is organized
into grade-level clusters: pre-K–3, 4–8, and 9–12. Each cluster addresses
all goals and standards with descriptors, progress indicators, and vi-
gnettes specific to that grade range.
CBLT also shares features of the graded objectives movement that was

Competency-Based Language Teaching
143
proposed as a framework for organizing foreign language teaching in
Britain in the 1980s:
Graded objectives means the definition of a series of short-term goals, each
building upon the one before, so that the learner advances in knowledge and
skill. The setting up of graded objectives schemes in United Kingdom second-
ary schools has been one of the most remarkable phenomena in modern-
language learning over the last five years. (Page 1983: 292)
CBLT is based on a functional and interactional perspective on the nature
of language. It seeks to teach language in relation to the social contexts in
which it is used. Language always occurs as a medium of interaction and
communication between people for the achievement of specific goals and
purposes. CBLT has for this reason most often been used as a framework
for language teaching in situations where learners have specific needs and
are in particular roles and where the language skills they need can be
fairly accurately predicted or determined. It also shares with behaviorist
views of learning the notion that language form can be inferred from
language function; that is, certain life encounters call for certain kinds of
language. This assumes that designers of CBLT competencies can accu-
rately predict the vocabulary and structures likely to be encountered in
those particular situations that are central to the life of the learner and can
state these in ways that can be used to organize teaching/learning units.
Central to both language and learning theory is the view that language
can be functionally analyzed into appropriate parts and subparts: that
such parts and subparts can be taught (and tested) incrementally. CBLT
thus takes a “mosaic” approach to language learning in that the “whole”
(communicative competence) is constructed from smaller components
correctly assembled. CBLT is also built around the notion of communica-
tive competence and seeks to develop functional communication skills in
learners. These skills are generally described in only the most general
terms, however, rather than being linked to the performance of specific
real-world tasks. CBLT thus shares some features with Communicative
Language Teaching.
Design: Objectives, syllabus, learning activities, role of
Docking (1994) points out that the traditional approach to developing a
syllabus involves using one’s understanding of subject matter as the basis
for syllabus planning. One starts with the field of knowledge that one is
going to teach (e.g., contemporary European history, marketing, listening

144
comprehension, or French literature) and then selects concepts, knowl-
edge, and skills that constitute that field of knowledge. A syllabus and the
course content are then developed around the subject. Objectives may
also be specified, but these usually have little role in the teaching or
assessing of the subject. Assessment of students is usually based on norm
referencing, that is, students will be graded on a single scale with the
expectation either that they be spread across a wide range of scores or
that they conform to a preset distribution. A student receives a set of
marks for his or her performance relative to other students, from which it
is very difficult to make any form of judgment about the specific knowl-
edge or skills a student has acquired. Indeed, two students may receive
the same marks on a test but in fact have widely different capacities and
knowledge in the subject:
CBT by comparison is designed not around the notion of subject knowledge
but around the notion of competency. The focus moves from what students
know about language to what they can do with it. The focus on competencies
or learning outcomes underpins the curriculum framework and syllabus speci-
fication, teaching strategies, assessment and reporting. Instead of norm-
referenced assessment, criterion-based assessment procedures are used in
which learners are assessed according to how well they can perform on spe-
cific learning tasks. (Docking 1994: 16)
Competencies consist of a description of the essential skills, knowl-
edge, attitudes, and behaviors required for effective performance of a
real-world task or activity. These activities may be related to any domain
of life, though have typically been linked to the field of work and to social
survival in a new environment. For example, areas for which competen-
cies have been developed in a vocationally oriented ESL curriculum for
immigrants and refugees include:
Task Performance
Safety
General Word-Related
Work Schedules, Time Sheets, Paychecks
Social Language
Job Application
Job Interview
(Mrowicki 1986)
For the area of “Retaining a Job” the following competencies are
described:
– Follow instructions to carry out a simple task.
– Respond appropriately to supervisor’s comments about quality of
work on the job, including mistakes, working too slowly, and in-
complete work.

145
– Request supervisor to check work.
– Report completion of task to supervisor.
– Request supplies.
– Ask where object is located: Follow oral directions to locate an object.
– Follow simple oral directions to locate a place.
– Read charts, labels, forms, or written instructions to perform a task.
– State problem and ask for help if necessary.
– Respond to inquiry as to nature or progress of current task; state
amount and type of work already competed.
– Respond appropriately to work interruption or modification.
(Mrowicki 1986)
Docking (1994: 11) points out the relationship between competencies
and job performance:
A qualification or a job can be described as a collection of units of compe-
tency, each of which is composed on a number of elements of competency. A
unit of competency might be a task, a role, a function, or a learning module.
These will change over time, and will vary from context to context. An ele-
ment of competency can be defined as any attribute of an individual that con-
tributes to the successful performance of a task, job, function, or activity in an
academic setting and/or a work setting. This includes specific knowledge,
thinking processes, attitudes, and perceptual and physical skills. Nothing is ex-
cluded that can be shown to contribute to performance. An element of compe-
tency has meaning independent of context and time. It is the building block
for competency specifications for education, training, assessment, qualifica-
tions, tasks, and jobs.
Tollefson (1986) observes that the analysis of jobs into their constituent
functional competencies in order to develop teaching objectives goes
back to the mid-nineteenth century. In the 1860s, Spencer “outlined the
major areas of human activity he believed should be the basis for curricu-
lar objectives.” Similarly, in 1926 Bobbitt developed curricular objectives
according to his analysis of the functional competencies required for
adults living in America. This approach has been picked up and refined as
the basis for the development of CBLT since the 1960s. Northrup (1977)
reports on a study commissioned by the U.S. Office of Education in
which a wide variety of tasks performed by adults in American society
were analyzed and the behaviors needed to carry out the tasks classified
into five knowledge areas and four basic skill areas. From this analysis,
sixty-five competencies were identified. Docking (1994) describes how he
was involved in a project in Australia in 1968 that involved specifying the
competencies of more than a hundred trades.
Auerbach (1986) provides a useful review of factors involved in the
implementation of CBE programs in ESL, and identifies eight key
features:

146
1. A focus on successful functioning in society. The goal is to enable
students to become autonomous individuals capable of coping with
the demands of the world.
2. A focus on life skills. Rather than teaching language in isolation,
CBLT teaches language as a function of communication about con-
crete tasks. Students are taught just those language forms/skills re-
quired by the situations in which they will function. These forms are
determined by “empirical assessment of language required” (Findley
and Nathan 1980: 224).
3. Task- or performance-centered orientation. What counts is what stu-
dents can do as a result of instruction. The emphasis is on overt
behaviors rather than on knowledge or the ability to talk about lan-
guage and skills.
4. Modularized instruction. “Language learning is broken down into
manageable and immediately meaningful chunks” (Center for Ap-
plied Linguistics 1983: 2). Objectives are broken into narrowly
focused subobjectives so that both teachers and students can get a
clear sense of progress.
5. Outcomes that are made explicit a priori. Outcomes are public knowl-
edge, known and agreed upon by both learner and teacher. They are
specified in terms of behavioral objectives so that students know ex-
actly what behaviors are expected of them.
6. Continuous and ongoing assessment. Students are pretested to deter-
mine what skills they lack and posttested after instruction in that skill.
If they do not achieve the desired level of mastery, they continue to
work on the objective and are retested. Program evaluation is based
on test results and, as such, is considered objectively quantifiable.
7. Demonstrated mastery of performance objectives. Rather than the
traditional paper-and-pencil tests, assessment is based on the ability to
demonstrate prespecified behaviors.
8. Individualized, student-centered instruction. In content, level, and
pace, objectives are defined in terms of individual needs; prior learning
and achievement are taken into account in developing curricula. In-
struction is not time-based; students progress at their own rates and
concentrate on just those areas in which they lack competence.
(Auerbach 1986: 414–415)
There are said to be several advantages of a competencies approach
from the learner’s point of view:
1. The competencies are specific and practical and can be seen to relate to
the learner’s needs and interests.
2. The learner can judge whether the competencies seem relevant and
useful.

147
3. The competencies that will be taught and tested are specific and
public – hence the learner knows exactly what needs to be learned.
4. Competencies can be mastered one at a time so the learner can see
what has been learned and what still remains to be learned.
Procedure
Examples of how many of these principles apply in practice is seen in the
work of the Australian Migrant Education Program, one of the largest
providers of language training to immigrants in the world. The program
has undergone a number of philosophical reorientations since the
mid-1970s, moving from “centralised curriculum planning with its
content-based and structural curriculum in the late 1970s, to de-
centralised learner-centred, needs-based planning with its multiplicity of
methodologies and materials in the 1980s and yet more recently, to the
introduction of competency-based curriculum frameworks” (Burns and
Hood 1994: 76). In 1993, a competency-based curriculum, the Certifi-
cate in Spoken and Written English, was introduced as the framework for
its programs. Learning outcomes are specified at three stages in the
framework, leading to an Advanced Certificate in Spoken and Written
English at Stage 4 of the framework. Hagan (1994: 22) describes how the
framework operates:
After an initial assessment, students are placed within the framework on the
basis of their current English proficiency level, their learning pace, their needs,
and their social goals for learning English. The twelve core competencies at
Stages 1 and 2 relate to general language development. . . . At stage 3,
learners are more often grouped according to their goal focus and competen-
cies are defined according to the three syllabus strands of Further Study, Voca-
tional English, and Community Access. . . . The competency descriptions at
each stage are divided into four domains . . . :
1. Knowledge and learning competencies
2. Oral competencies
3. Reading competencies
4. Writing competencies
All competencies are described in terms of:
– elements that break down the competency into smaller components and re-
fer to the essential linguistic features of the text
– performance criteria that specify the minimal performance required to
achieve a competency
– range of variables that sets limits for the performance of the competency
– sample texts and assessment tasks that provide examples of texts and as-
sessment tasks that relate to the competency

148
Conclusion
Although CBLT has been embraced with enthusiasm by large sections of
the ESL profession, it is not without its critics. These criticisms are both
practical and philosophical. Tollefson (1986) argues that there are in fact
no valid procedures available to develop competency lists for most pro-
grams. Many of the areas for which competencies are needed, such as
“adult living,” “survival,” and “functioning proficiently in the com-
munity,” are impossible to operationalize. Others have pointed out that
dividing activities up into sets of competencies is a reductionist approach,
and that the sum of the parts does not equal the complexity of the whole.
Auerbach, summarizing the work of Paolo Friere and others, points out
that CBLT reflects what Friere has characterized as a “banking” model of
education. This assumes the following:
There is a structure of socially prescribed knowledge to be mastered by stu-
dents. Here, the function of education is to transmit the knowledge and to so-
cialise learners according to the values of the dominant socio-economic group.
The teacher’s job is to devise more and more effective ways to transmit skills:
what counts is success in delivery. Educational progress is defined in terms of
“improving” delivery systems. (Auerbach 1986: 416–417)
CBLT is therefore seen as prescriptivist in that it prepares students to fit
into the status quo and maintain class relationships. In addition, teaching
typically focuses on behavior and performance rather than on the
development of thinking skills.
Because competencies are designed to enable learners to participate
effectively in society, Tollefson and others have pointed out that they
typically represent value judgments about what such participation in-
volves. Competencies for refugee settlement programs in the United
States, for example, attempt to inculcate attitudes and values that will
make refugees passive citizens who accept the status quo rather than
challenge it. Despite these criticisms, CBLT appears to be gaining strength
internationally. Such outcomes-based approaches have, in particular, at-
tracted a large political following from those seeking “accountability” for
educational investment. As Rylatt and Lohan (1997: 18) conclude: “It
can confidently be said, as we enter a new millennium, that the business
of improving learning competencies and skills will remain one of the
world’s fastest growing industries and priorities.”
Auerbach, E. R. 1986. Competency-based ESL: One step forward or two steps
back? TESOL Quarterly 20(3): 411, 430.
Bottomley, Y., J. Dalton, and C. Corbel. 1994. From Proficiency to Competen-
cies. Sydney: National Centre for English Teaching and Research.

149
Burns, A., and S. Hood. 1994. The competency-based curriculum in action:
Investigating course design practices. Prospect 9(2): 76–89.
Center for Applied Linguistics. 1983. From the Classroom to the Workplace:
Teaching ESL to Adults. Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Docking, R. 1994. Competency-based curricula – the big picture. Prospect 9(2):
8–17.
Findlay, C. A., and L. Nathan. 1980. Functional language objectives in a
competency-based curriculum. TESOL Quarterly 14(2): 221–232.
Freed, B. 1984. Proficiency in context: The Pennsylvania experience. In S. Savig-
non and M. Berns (eds.), Initiatives in Communicative Language Teaching.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 221-240.
Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Glaser, R., and R. Linn. 1993. Foreword. In L. Shephard, Setting Performance
Standards for Student Achievement. Stanford, Calif.: National Academy of
Education, Stanford University. xii–xiv.
Grognet, A. G., and J. Crandall. 1982. Competency-based curricula in adult ESL.
ERIC/CLL New Bulletin 6: 3–4.
Hagan, P. 1994. Competency-based curriculum. The NSW AMES experience.
Prospect 9(2): 19–30.
Harding, A., B. Page, and S. Rowell. 1980. Graded Objectives in Modern Lan-
guages. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and
Research.
Higgs, T. V. (ed.). 1984. Teaching for Proficiency, the Organizing Principle.
Skokie, Ill.: National Textbook Company.
Hood, S., and A. Burns. 1994. The competency-based curriculum in action:
Investigating course design practices. Prospect 9(2): 76–89.
Ingram, D. E. 1982. Designing a language program. RELC Journal 13(2): 64–
86.
Moore, H. 1996. Why has competency-based training become the “solution”?
Prospect 11(2): 28–46.
Mrowicki, L. 1986. Project Work English Competency-Based Curriculum. Port-
land, Oreg.: Northwest Educational Cooperative.
Nitko, A. J. 1983. Educational Tests and Measurement. New York: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Northrup, N. 1977. The Adult Performance Level Study. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Page, B. 1983. Graded objectives in modern-language learning. Language Teach-
ing 16(4): 292–308.
Rylatt, A., and K. Lohan. 1997. Creating Training Miracles. Sydney: Prentice
Hall.
Schneck, E. A. 1978. A Guide to Identifying High School Graduation Competen-
cies. Portland, Oreg.: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Short, D. 1997. Revising the ESL standards. TESOL Matters (February–March):
1, 6.
Tollefson, J. 1986. Functional competencies in the U.S. refugee program: The-
oretical and practical problems. TESOL Quarterly 20(4): 649–664.

blank verso

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
Part III - Current communicative approaches pp. 151-152

151
III Current communicative
approaches
The chapters in Part III bring the description of approaches and methods
up to the present time and describe some of the directions mainstream
language teaching has followed since the emergence of communicative
methodologies in the 1980s.
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) marks the beginning of a
major paradigm shift within language teaching in the twentieth century,
one whose ramifications continue to be felt today. The general principles
of Communicative Language Teaching are today widely accepted around
the world and we consider the reasons for this in Chapters 14 and 19. In
Chapter 14 we present what we now might call the “Classical View of
Communicative Language Teaching.” The other chapters in this section
trace how CLT philosophy has been molded into quite diverse teaching
practices, although all would claim to embody basic principles of CLT.
Although the Natural Approach is not as widely established as CLT,
Krashen’s theories of language learning have had a wide impact, particu-
larly in the United States, and the issues the Natural Approach addresses
continue to be at the core of debates about teaching methods. Coopera-
tive Language Learning originates outside of language teaching, but be-
cause it is compatible with many of the assumptions of Communicative
Language Teaching it has become a popular and relatively uncontrover-
sial approach to the organization of classroom teaching in many parts of
the world.
Content-Based Teaching (CBT) can be regarded as a logical develop-
ment of some of the core principles of Communicative Language Teach-
ing, particularly those that relate to the role of meaning in language
learning. Because CBT provides an approach that is particularly suited to
prepare ESL students to enter elementary, secondary, or tertiary educa-
tion, it is widely used in English-speaking countries around the world.
Task-Based Teaching can be regarded as a recent version of a com-
municative methodology and seeks to reconcile methodology with cur-
rent theories of second language acquisition.
In the final chapter, we reflect on the history of approaches and methods
in the recent history of language teaching and speculate as to why some
approaches and methods have had a more lasting impact than others. We
also characterize what has been termed the post-methods era and offer
somesuggestionsaboutinfluencesonlanguageteachinginthefuture.

blankverso

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
14 - Communicative Language Teaching pp. 153-177

153
14 Communicative Language Teaching
Background
The origins of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) are to be found
in the changes in the British language teaching tradition dating from the
late 1960s. Until then, Situational Language Teaching (see Chapter 3)
represented the major British approach to teaching English as a foreign
language. In Situational Language Teaching, language was taught by
practicing basic structures in meaningful situation-based activities. But
just as the linguistic theory underlying Audiolingualism was rejected in
the United States in the mid-1960s, British applied linguists began to call
into question the theoretical assumptions underlying Situational Lan-
guage Teaching:
By the end of the sixties it was clear that the situational approach . . . had run
its course. There was no future in continuing to pursue the chimera of predict-
ing language on the basis of situational events. What was required was a
closer study of the language itself and a return to the traditional concept that
utterances carried meaning in themselves and expressed the meanings and in-
tentions of the speakers and writers who created them. (Howatt 1984: 280)
This was partly a response to the sorts of criticisms the prominent Ameri-
can linguist Noam Chomsky had leveled at structural linguistic theory in
his now-classic book Syntactic Structures (1957). Chomsky had demon-
strated that the current standard structural theories of language were
incapable of accounting for the fundamental characteristic of language –
the creativity and uniqueness of individual sentences. British applied lin-
guists emphasized another fundamental dimension of language that was
inadequately addressed in approaches to language teaching at that time –
the functional and communicative potential of language. They saw the
need to focus in language teaching on communicative proficiency rather
than on mere mastery of structures. Scholars who advocated this view of
language, such as Christopher Candlin and Henry Widdowson, drew on
the work of British functional linguists (e.g., John Firth, M. A. K. Halli-
day), American work in sociolinguistics (e.g., Dell Hymes, John Gum-
perz, and William Labov), as well as work in philosophy (e.g., John
Austin and John Searle).
Another impetus for different approaches to foreign language teaching

Current communicative approaches
154
came from changing educational realities in Europe. With the increasing
interdependence of European countries came the need for greater efforts
to teach adults the major languages of the European Common Market.
The Council of Europe, a regional organization for cultural and educa-
tional cooperation, examined the problem. Education was one of the
Council of Europe’s major areas of activity. It sponsored international
conferences on language teaching, published books about language
teaching, and was active in promoting the formation of the International
Association of Applied Linguistics. The need to develop alternative
methods of language teaching was considered a high priority.
In 1971, a group of experts began to investigate the possibility of
developing language courses on a unit-credit system, a system in which
learning tasks are broken down into “portions or units, each of which
corresponds to a component of a learner’s needs and is systematically
related to all the other portions” (van Ek and Alexander 1980: 6). The
group used studies of the needs of European language learners, and in
particular a preliminary document prepared by a British linguist, D. A.
Wilkins (1972), which proposed a functional or communicative defini-
tion of language that could serve as a basis for developing communicative
syllabuses for language teaching. Wilkins’s contribution was an analysis
of the communicative meanings that a language learner needs to under-
stand and express. Rather than describe the core of language through
traditional concepts of grammar and vocabulary, Wilkins attempted to
demonstrate the systems of meanings that lay behind the communicative
uses of language. He described two types of meanings: notional catego-
ries (concepts such as time, sequence, quantity, location, frequency) and
categories of communicative function (requests, denials, offers, com-
plaints). Wilkins later revised and expanded his 1972 document into a
book titled Notional Syllabuses (Wilkins 1976), which had a significant
impact on the development of Communicative Language Teaching. The
Council of Europe incorporated his semantic/communicative analysis
into a set of specifications for a first-level communicative language syl-
labus. These threshold level specifications (van Ek and Alexander 1980)
have had a strong influence on the design of communicative language
programs and textbooks in Europe.
The work of the Council of Europe; the writings of Wilkins, Wid-
dowson, Candlin, Christopher Brumfit, Keith Johnson, and other British
applied linguists on the theoretical basis for a communicative or func-
tional approach to language teaching; the rapid application of these ideas
by textbook writers; and the equally rapid acceptance of these new prin-
ciples by British language teaching specialists, curriculum development
centers, and even governments gave prominence nationally and interna-
tionally to what came to be referred to as the Communicative Approach,
or simply Communicative Language Teaching. (The terms notional-

Communicative Language Teaching
155
functional approach and functional approach are also sometimes used.)
Although the movement began as a largely British innovation, focusing
on alternative conceptions of a syllabus, since the mid-1970s the scope of
Communicative Language Teaching has expanded. Both American and
British proponents now see it as an approach (and not a method) that
aims to (a) make communicative competence the goal of language teach-
ing and (b) develop procedures for the teaching of the four language skills
that acknowledge the interdependence of language and communication.
Its comprehensiveness thus makes it different in scope and status from
any of the other approaches or methods discussed in this book. There is
no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally
accepted as authoritative. For some, Communicative Language Teaching
means little more than an integration of grammatical and functional
teaching. Littlewood (1981: 1) states, “One of the most characteristic
features of communicative language teaching is that it pays systematic
attention to functional as well as structural aspects of language.” For
others, it means using procedures where learners work in pairs or groups
employing available language resources in problem-solving tasks. A na-
tional primary English syllabus based on a communicative approach (Syl-
labuses for Primary Schools 1981), for example, defines the focus of the
syllabus as the “communicative functions which the forms of the lan-
guage serve” (p. 5). The introduction to the same document comments
that “communicative purposes may be of many different kinds. What is
essential in all of them is that at least two parties are involved in an
interaction or transaction of some kind where one party has an intention
and the other party expands or reacts to the intention” (p. 5). In her
discussion of communicative syllabus design, Yalden (1983) discusses six
Communicative Language Teaching design alternatives, ranging from a
model in which communicative exercises are grafted onto an existing
structural syllabus, to a learner-generated view of syllabus design (e.g.,
Holec 1980).
Howatt distinguishes between a “strong” and a “weak” version of
Communicative Language Teaching:
There is, in a sense, a ‘strong’ version of the communicative approach and a
‘weak’ version. The weak version which has become more or less standard
practice in the last ten years, stresses the importance of providing learners
with opportunities to use their English for communicative purposes and,
characteristically, attempts to integrate such activities into a wider program of
language teaching. . . . The ‘strong’ version of communicative teaching, on the
other hand, advances the claim that language is acquired through communica-
tion, so that it is not merely a question of activating an existing but inert
knowledge of the language, but of stimulating the development of the lan-
guage system itself. If the former could be described as ‘learning to use’ En-
glish, the latter entails ‘using English to learn it.’ (1984: 279)

156
Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983) contrast the major distinctive features
of the Audiolingual Method and the Communicative Approach, accord-
ing to their interpretation:
Audiolingual Communicative Language Teaching
1. Attends to structure and
form more than meaning.
Meaning is paramount.
2. Demands memorization of
structure-based dialogues.
Dialogues, if used, center around
communicative functions and are
not normally memorized.
3. Language items are not nec-
essarily contextualized.
Contextualization is a basic prem-
ise.
4. Language learning is learn-
ing structures, sounds, or
words.
Language learning is learning to
communicate.
5. Mastery, or “over-learning,”
is sought.
Effective communication is sought.
6. Drilling is a central tech-
nique.
Drilling may occur, but pe-
ripherally.
7. Native-speaker-like pronun-
ciation is sought.
Comprehensible pronunciation is
sought.
8. Grammatical explanation is
avoided.
Any device that helps the learners is
accepted – varying according to
their age, interest, etc.
9. Communicative activities
only come after a long pro-
cess of rigid drills and ex-
ercises.
Attempts to communicate may be
encouraged from the very begin-
ning.
10. The use of the student’s na-
tive language is forbidden.
Judicious use of native language is
accepted where feasible.
11. Translation is forbidden at
early levels.
Translation may be used where stu-
dents need or benefit from it.
12. Reading and writing are
deferred till speech is mas-
tered.
Reading and writing can start from
the first day, if desired.
13. The target linguistic system
will be learned through the
overt teaching of the pat-
terns of the system.
The target linguistic system will be
learned best through the process
of struggling to communicate.
14. Linguistic competence is the
desired goal.
Communicative competence is the
desired goal (i.e., the ability to
use the linguistic system effec-
tively and appropriately).

157
15. Varieties of language are rec-
ognized but not emphasized.
Linguistic variation is a central con-
cept in materials and methodol-
ogy.
16. The sequence of units is
determined solely by princi-
ples of linguistic complexity.
Sequencing is determined by any
consideration of content, func-
tion, or meaning that maintains
interest.
17. The teacher controls the
learners and prevents them
from doing anything that
conflicts with the theory.
Teachers help learners in any way
that motivates them to work with
the language.
18. “Language is habit” so er-
rors must be prevented at all
costs.
Language is created by the individ-
ual, often through trial and error.
19. Accuracy, in terms of formal
correctness, is a primary
goal.
Fluency and acceptable language is
the primary goal: Accuracy is
judged not in the abstract but in
context.
20. Students are expected to in-
teract with the language sys-
tem, embodied in machines
or controlled materials.
Students are expected to interact
with other people, either in the
flesh, through pair and group
work, or in their writings.
21. The teacher is expected to
specify the language that stu-
dents are to use.
The teacher cannot know exactly
what language the students will
use.
22. Intrinsic motivation will
spring from an interest in the
structure of the language.
Intrinsic motivation will spring
from an interest in what is being
communicated by the language.
(1983: 91–93)
Apart from being an interesting example of how proponents of Com-
municative Language Teaching stack the cards in their favor, such a set of
contrasts illustrates some of the major differences between communica-
tive approaches and earlier traditions in language teaching. The wide
acceptance of the Communicative Approach and the relatively varied
way in which it is interpreted and applied can be attributed to the fact
that practitioners from different educational traditions can identify with
it, and consequently interpret it in different ways. One of its North
American proponents, Savignon (1983), for example, offers as a prece-
dent to CLT a commentary by Montaigne on his learning of Latin
through conversation rather than through the customary method of for-
mal analysis and translation. Writes Montaigne, “Without methods,
without a book, without grammar or rules, without a whip and without

158
tears, I had learned a Latin as proper as that of my schoolmaster” (Savig-
non 1983: 47). This antistructural view can be held to represent the
language learning version of a more general learning perspective usually
referred to as “learning by doing” or “the experience approach” (Hilgard
and Bower 1966). This notion of direct rather than delayed practice of
communicative acts is central to most CLT interpretations.
The focus on communicative and contextual factors in language use
also has an antecedent in the work of the anthropologist Bronislaw Mal-
inowski and his colleague, the linguist John Firth. British applied linguists
usually credit Firth with focusing attention on discourse as subject and
context for language analysis. Firth also stressed that language needed to
be studied in the broader sociocultural context of its use, which included
participants, their behavior and beliefs, the objects of linguistic discus-
sion, and word choice. Both Michael Halliday and Dell Hymes, linguists
frequently cited by advocates of Communicative Language Teaching,
acknowledge primary debts to Malinowski and Firth.
Another frequently cited dimension of CLT, its learner-centered and
experience-based view of second language teaching, also has antecedents
outside the language teaching tradition per se. An important American
national curriculum commission in the 1930s, for example, proposed the
adoption of an Experience Curriculum in English. The report of the
commission began with the premise that “experience is the best of all
schools. . . . The ideal curriculum consists of well-selected experiences”
(cited in Applebee 1974: 119). Like those who have urged the organiza-
tion of Communicative Language Teaching around tasks and procedures,
the committee tried to suggest “the means for selection and weaving
appropriate experiences into a coherent curriculum stretching across the
years of school English study” (Applebee 1974: 119). Individual learners
were also seen as possessing unique interests, styles, needs, and goals,
which should be reflected in the design of methods of instruction.
Teachers were encouraged to develop learning materials “on the basis of
the particular needs manifested by the class” (Applebee 1974: 150).
Common to all versions of Communicative Language Teaching is a
theory of language teaching that starts from a communicative model of
language and language use, and that seeks to translate this into a design
for an instructional system, for materials, for teacher and learner roles
and behaviors, and for classroom activities and techniques. Let us now
consider how this is manifested at the levels of approach, design, and
procedure.

159
Approach
Theory of language
The Communicative Approach in language teaching starts from a theory
of language as communication. The goal of language teaching is to
develop what Hymes (1972) referred to as “communicative compe-
tence.” Hymes coined this term in order to contrast a communicative
view of language and Chomsky’s theory of competence. Chomsky held
that
linguistic theory is concerned primarily with an ideal speaker-listener in a
completely homogeneous speech community, who knows its language perfectly
and is unaffected by such grammatically irrelevant conditions as memory lim-
itation, distractions, shifts of attention and interest, and errors (random or
characteristic) in applying his knowledge of the language in actual perfor-
mance. (Chomsky 1965: 3)
For Chomsky, the focus of linguistic theory was to characterize the ab-
stract abilities speakers possess that enable them to produce gram-
matically correct sentences in a language. Hymes held that such a view of
linguistic theory was sterile, that linguistic theory needed to be seen as
part of a more general theory incorporating communication and culture.
Hymes’s theory of communicative competence was a definition of what a
speaker needs to know in order to be communicatively competent in a
speech community. In Hymes’s view, a person who acquires communica-
tive competence acquires both knowledge and ability for language use
with respect to
1. whether (and to what degree) something is formally possible
2. whether (and to what degree) something is feasible in virtue of the means
of implementation available
3. whether (and to what degree) something is appropriate (adequate, happy,
successful) in relation to a context in which it is used and evaluated
4. whether (and to what degree) something is in fact done, actually per-
formed, and what its doing entails
(Hymes 1972: 281)
This theory of what knowing a language entails offers a much more
comprehensive view than Chomsky’s view of competence, which deals
primarily with abstract grammatical knowledge. Another linguistic the-
ory of communication favored in CLT is Halliday’s functional account of
language use. “Linguistics . . . is concerned . . . with the description of
speech acts or texts, since only through the study of language in use are all
the functions of language, and therefore all components of meaning,
brought into focus” (Halliday 1970: 145). In a number of influential
books and papers, Halliday has elaborated a powerful theory of the
functions of language, which complements Hymes’s view of communica-

160
tive competence for many writers on CLT (e.g., Brumfit and Johnson
1979; Savignon 1983). He described (1975: 11–17) seven basic functions
that language performs for children learning their first language:
1. the instrumental function: using language to get things
2. the regulatory function: using language to control the behavior of others
3. the interactional function: using language to create interaction with others
4. the personal function: using language to express personal feelings and
meanings
5. the heuristic function: using language to learn and to discover
6. the imaginative function: using language to create a world of the
imagination
7. the representational function: using language to communicate information
Learning a second language was similarly viewed by proponents of Com-
municative Language Teaching as acquiring the linguistic means to per-
form different kinds of functions.
Another theorist frequently cited for his views on the communicative
nature of language is Henry Widdowson. In his book Teaching Language
as Communication (1978), Widdowson presented a view of the relation-
ship between linguistic systems and their communicative values in text
and discourse. He focused on the communicative acts underlying the
ability to use language for different purposes. A more pedagogically influ-
ential analysis of communicative competence is found in Canale and
Swain (1980), in which four dimensions of communicative competence
are identified: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence,
discourse competence, and strategic competence. Grammatical compe-
tence refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic competence and what
Hymes intends by what is “formally possible.” It is the domain of gram-
matical and lexical capacity. Sociolinguistic competence refers to an un-
derstanding of the social context in which communication takes place,
including role relationships, the shared information of the participants,
and the communicative purpose for their interaction. Discourse compe-
tence refers to the interpretation of individual message elements in terms
of their interconnectedness and of how meaning is represented in rela-
tionship to the entire discourse or text. Strategic competence refers to the
coping strategies that communicators employ to initiate, terminate,
maintain, repair, and redirect communication. The usefulness of the no-
tion of communicative competence is seen in the many attempts that have
been made to refine the original notion of communicative competence.
Canale and Swain’s extension of the Hymesian model of communicative
competence discussed earlier was in turn elaborated in some complexity
by Bachman (1991). The Bachman model has been, in turn, extended by
Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei, and Thurrell (1997).
At the level of language theory, Communicative Language Teaching

161
has a rich, if somewhat eclectic, theoretical base. Some of the characteris-
tics of this communicative view of language follow:
1. Language is a system for the expression of meaning.
2. The primary function of language is to allow interaction and
communication.
3. The structure of language reflects its functional and communicative
uses.
4. The primary units of language are not merely its grammatical and
structural features, but categories of functional and communicative
meaning as exemplified in discourse.
Theory of learning
In contrast to the amount that has been written in Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching literature about communicative dimensions of language,
little has been written about learning theory. Neither Brumfit and
Johnson (1979) nor Littlewood (1981), for example, offers any discus-
sion of learning theory. Elements of an underlying learning theory can be
discerned in some CLT practices, however. One such element might be
described as the communication principle: Activities that involve real
communication promote learning. A second element is the task principle:
Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks
promote learning (Johnson 1982). A third element is the meaningfulness
principle: Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learn-
ing process. Learning activities are consequently selected according to
how well they engage the learner in meaningful and authentic language
use (rather than merely mechanical practice of language patterns). These
principles, we suggest, can be inferred from CLT practices (e.g., Lit-
tlewood 1981; Johnson 1982). They address the conditions needed to
promote second language learning, rather than the processes of language
acquisition. These and a variety of other more recent learning principles
relevant to the claims of Communicative Language Teaching are sum-
marized in Skehan (1998), and are further discussed in relation to Task-
Based Language Teaching in Chapter 18.
Other accounts of Communicative Language Teaching, however, have
attempted to describe theories of language learning processes that are
compatible with the Communicative Approach. Savignon (1983) surveys
second language acquisition research as a source for learning theories and
considers the role of linguistic, social, cognitive, and individual variables
in language acquisition. Other theorists (e.g., Stephen Krashen, who is
not directly associated with Communicative Language Teaching) have
developed theories cited as compatible with the principles of CLT (see
Chapter 15). Krashen sees acquisition as the basic process involved in

162
developing language proficiency and distinguishes this process from
learning. Acquisition refers to the unconscious development of the target-
language system as a result of using the language for real communication.
Learning is the conscious representation of grammatical knowledge that
has resulted from instruction, and it cannot lead to acquisition. It is the
acquired system that we call upon to create utterances during spon-
taneous language use. The learned system can serve only as a monitor of
the output of the acquired system. Krashen and other second language
acquisition theorists typically stress that language learning comes about
through using language communicatively, rather than through practicing
language skills.
Johnson (1984) and Littlewood (1984) consider an alternative learning
theory that they also see as compatible with CLT – a skill-learning model
of learning. According to this theory, the acquisition of communicative
competence in a language is an example of skill development. This in-
volves both a cognitive and a behavioral aspect:
The cognitive aspect involves the internalisation of plans for creating appro-
priate behaviour. For language use, these plans derive mainly from the lan-
guage system – they include grammatical rules, procedures for selecting
vocabulary, and social conventions governing speech. The behavioural aspect
involves the automation of these plans so that they can be converted into flu-
ent performance in real time. This occurs mainly through practice in convert-
ing plans into performance. (Littlewood 1984: 74)
This theory thus encourages an emphasis on practice as a way of develop-
ing communicative skills.
Design
Objectives
Piepho (1981) discusses the following levels of objectives in a com-
municative approach:
1. an integrative and content level (language as a means of expression)
2. a linguistic and instrumental level (language as a semiotic system and an
object of learning)
3. an affective level of interpersonal relationships and conduct (language as a
means of expressing values and judgments about oneself and others)
4. a level of individual learning needs (remedial learning based on error
analysis)
5. a general educational level of extra-linguistic goals (language learning
within the school curriculum)
(Piepho 1981: 8)

163
These are proposed as general objectives, applicable to any teaching sit-
uation. Particular objectives for CLT cannot be defined beyond this level
of specification, since such an approach assumes that language teaching
will reflect the particular needs of the target learners. These needs may be
in the domains of reading, writing, listening, or speaking, each of which
can be approached from a communicative perspective. Curriculum or
instructional objectives for a particular course would reflect specific as-
pects of communicative competence according to the learner’s profi-
ciency level and communicative needs.
The syllabus
Discussions of the nature of the syllabus have been central in Com-
municative Language Teaching. We have seen that one of the first syl-
labus models to be proposed was described as a notional syllabus
(Wilkins 1976), which specified the semantic-grammatical categories
(e.g., frequency, motion, location) and the categories of communicative
function that learners need to express. The Council of Europe expanded
and developed this into a syllabus that included descriptions of the objec-
tives of foreign language courses for European adults, the situations in
which they might typically need to use a foreign language (e.g., travel,
business), the topics they might need to talk about (e.g., personal identi-
fication, education, shopping), the functions they needed language for
(e.g., describing something, requesting information, expressing agree-
ment and disagreement), the notions made use of in communication (e.g.,
time, frequency, duration), as well as the vocabulary and grammar
needed. The result was published as Threshold Level English (van Ek and
Alexander 1980) and was an attempt to specify what was needed in order
to be able to achieve a reasonable degree of communicative proficiency in
a foreign language, including the language items needed to realize this
“threshold level.”
Discussion of syllabus theory and syllabus models in Communicative
Language Teaching has been extensive. Wilkins’s original notional syl-
labus model was soon criticized by British applied linguists as merely
replacing one kind of list (e.g., a list of grammar items) with another (a
list of notions and functions). It specified products, rather than com-
municative processes. Widdowson (1979) argued that notional-
functional categories provide
only a very partial and imprecise description of certain semantic and pragma-
tic rules which are used for reference when people interact. They tell us noth-
ing about the procedures people employ in the application of these rules when
they are actually engaged in communicative activity. If we are to adopt a com-
municative approach to teaching which takes as its primary purpose the

164
development of the ability to do things with language, then it is discourse
which must be at the center of our attention. (Widdowson 1979: 254)
There are several proposals and models for what a syllabus might look
like in Communicative Language Teaching. Yalden (1983) describes the
major current communicative syllabus types. We summarize below a
modified version of Yalden’s classification of communicative syllabus
types, with reference sources to each model:
Type Reference
1. structures plus functions Wilkins (1976)
2. functional spiral around a
structural core
Brumfit (1980)
3. structural, functional, instru-
mental
Allen (1980)
4. functional Jupp and Hodlin (1975)
5. notional Wilkins (1976)
6. interactional Widdowson (1979)
7. task-based Prabhu (1983)
8. learner-generated Candlin (1976), Henner-
Stanchina and Riley (1978)
There is extensive documentation of attempts to create syllabus and
proto-syllabus designs of Types 1–5. Descriptions of interactional strat-
egies have been given, for example, for interactions of teacher and stu-
dent (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975) and doctor and patient (Candlin,
Bruton, and Leather 1974). Although interesting, these descriptions have
restricted the field of inquiry to two-person interactions in which there
exist reasonably rigid and acknowledged superordinate-to-subordinate
role relationships.
Some designers of communicative syllabuses have also looked to task
specification and task organization as the appropriate criteria for syl-
labus design.
The only form of syllabus which is compatible with and can support com-
municational teaching seems to be a purely procedural one – which lists, in
more or less detail, the types of tasks to be attempted in the classroom and
suggests an order of complexity for tasks of the same kind. (Prabhu 1983: 4)
An example of such a model that has been implemented nationally is the
Malaysian communicational syllabus (English Language Syllabus in Ma-
laysian Schools 1975) – a syllabus for the teaching of English at the upper
secondary level in Malaysia. This was one of the first attempts to organize
Communicative Language Teaching around a specification of com-
munication tasks. In the organizational schema three broad communica-
tive objectives are broken down into twenty-four more specific objectives

165
determined on the basis of needs analysis. These objectives are organized
into learning areas, for each of which are specified a number of outcome
goals or products. A product is defined as a piece of comprehensible
information, written, spoken, or presented in a nonlinguistic form. “A
letter is a product, and so is an instruction, a message, a report or a map
or graph produced through information gleaned through language” (En-
glish Language Syllabus 1975: 5). The products, then, result from suc-
cessful completion of tasks. For example, the product called “relaying a
message to others” can be broken into a number of tasks, such as (a)
understanding the message, (b) asking questions to clear any doubts (c)
asking questions to gather more information, (d) taking notes, (e) arrang-
ing the notes in a logical manner for presentation, and (f) orally present-
ing the message. For each product, a number of proposed situations are
suggested. These situations consist of a set of specifications for learner
interactions, the stimuli, communicative context, participants, desired
outcomes, and constraints. These situations (and others constructed by
individual teachers) constitute the means by which learner interaction
and communicative skills are realized.
As discussion of syllabus models continues in the CLT literature, some
have argued that the syllabus concept be abolished altogether in its ac-
cepted forms, arguing that only learners can be fully aware of their own
needs, communicational resources, and desired learning pace and path,
and that each learner must create a personal, albeit implicit, syllabus as
part of learning. Others lean more toward the model proposed by Brumfit
(1980), which favors a grammatically based syllabus around which no-
tions, functions, and communicational activities are grouped.
The range of exercise types and activities compatible with a communica-
tive approach is unlimited, provided that such exercises enable learners to
attain the communicative objectives of the curriculum, engage learners in
communication, and require the use of such communicative processes as
information sharing, negotiation of meaning, and interaction. Classroom
activities are often designed to focus on completing tasks that are medi-
ated through language or involve negotiation of information and infor-
mation sharing.
These attempts take many forms. Wright (1976) achieves it by showing out-
of-focus slides which the students attempt to identify. Byrne (1978) provides
incomplete plans and diagrams which students have to complete by asking for
information. Allwright (1977) places a screen between students and gets one
to place objects in a certain pattern: this pattern is then communicated to stu-
dents behind the screen. Geddes and Sturtridge (1979) develop “jigsaw” lis-

166
tening in which students listen to different taped materials and then communi-
cate their content to others in the class. Most of these techniques operate by
providing information to some and withholding it from others. (Johnson
1982: 151)
Littlewood (1981) distinguishes between “functional communication ac-
tivities” and “social interaction activities” as major activity types in
Communicative Language Teaching. Functional communication ac-
tivities include such tasks as learners comparing sets of pictures and
noting similarities and differences; working out a likely sequence of
events in a set of pictures; discovering missing features in a map or
picture; one learner communicating behind a screen to another learner
and giving instructions on how to draw a picture or shape, or how to
complete a map; following directions; and solving problems from shared
clues. Social interaction activities include conversation and discussion
sessions, dialogues and role plays, simulations, skits, improvisations, and
debates.
Learner roles
The emphasis in Communicative Language Teaching on the processes of
communication, rather than mastery of language forms, leads to different
roles for learners from those found in more traditional second language
classrooms. Breen and Candlin describe the learner’s role within CLT in
the following terms:
The role of learner as negotiator – between the self, the learning process, and
the object of learning – emerges from and interacts with the role of joint nego-
tiator within the group and within the classroom procedures and activities
which the group undertakes. The implication for the learner is that he should
contribute as much as he gains, and thereby learn in an interdependent way.
(1980: 110)
There is thus an acknowledgment, in some accounts of CLT, that learners
bring preconceptions of what teaching and learning should be like. These
constitute a “set” for learning, which when unrealized can lead to learner
confusion and resentment (Henner-Stanchina and Riley 1978). Often
there is no text, grammar rules are not presented, classroom arrangement
is nonstandard, students are expected to interact primarily with each
other rather than with the teacher, and correction of errors may be absent
or infrequent. The cooperative (rather than individualistic) approach to
learning stressed in CLT may likewise be unfamiliar to learners. CLT
methodologists consequently recommend that learners learn to see that
failed communication is a joint responsibility and not the fault of speaker
or listener. Similarly, successful communication is an accomplishment
jointly achieved and acknowledged.

167
Teacher roles
Several roles are assumed for teachers in Communicative Language
Teaching, the importance of particular roles being determined by the
view of CLT adopted. Breen and Candlin describe teacher roles in the
following terms:
The teacher has two main roles: the first role is to facilitate the communica-
tion process between all participants in the classroom, and between these par-
ticipants and the various activities and texts. The second role is to act as an
independent participant within the learning-teaching group. The latter role is
closely related to the objectives of the first role and arises from it. These roles
imply a set of secondary roles for the teacher; first, as an organizer of re-
sources and as a resource himself, second as a guide within the classroom pro-
cedures and activities. . . . A third role for the teacher is that of researcher and
learner, with much to contribute in terms of appropriate knowledge and abil-
ities, actual and observed experience of the nature of learning and organiza-
tional capacities. (1980: 99)
Other roles assumed for teachers are needs analyst, counselor, and group
process manager.
needs analyst
The CLT teacher assumes a responsibility for determining and respond-
ing to learner language needs. This may be done informally and person-
ally through one-to-one sessions with students, in which the teacher talks
through such issues as the student’s perception of his or her learning style,
learning assets, and learning goals. It may be done formally through
administering a needs assessment instrument, such as those exemplified
in Savignon (1983). Typically, such formal assessments contain items that
attempt to determine an individual’s motivation for studying the lan-
guage. For example, students might respond on a 5-point scale (strongly
agree to strongly disagree) to statements such as the following:
I want to study English because . . .
1. I think it will someday be useful in getting a good job.
2. it will help me better understand English-speaking people and their
way of life.
3. one needs a good knowledge of English to gain other people’s respect.
4. it will allow me to meet and converse with interesting people.
5. I need it for my job.
6. it will enable me to think and behave like English-speaking people.
On the basis of such needs assessments, teachers are expected to plan
group and individual instruction that responds to the learners’ needs.

168
counselor
Another role assumed by several CLT approaches is that of counselor,
similar to the way this role is defined in Community Language Learning.
In this role, the teacher-counselor is expected to exemplify an effective
communicator seeking to maximize the meshing of speaker intention and
hearer interpretation, through the use of paraphrase, confirmation, and
feedback.
group process manager
CLT procedures often require teachers to acquire less teacher-centered
classroom management skills. It is the teacher’s responsibility to organize
the classroom as a setting for communication and communicative ac-
tivities. Guidelines for classroom practice (e.g., Littlewood 1981; Finoc-
chiaro and Brumfit 1983) suggest that during an activity the teacher
monitors, encourages, and suppresses the inclination to supply gaps in
lexis, grammar, and strategy but notes such gaps for later commentary
and communicative practice. At the conclusion of group activities, the
teacher leads in the debriefing of the activity, pointing out alternatives
and extensions and assisting groups in self-correction discussion. Critics
have pointed out, however, that nonnative teachers may feel less than
comfortable about such procedures without special training.
The focus on fluency and comprehensibility in Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching may cause anxiety among teachers accustomed to seeing
error suppression and correction as the major instructional responsibility,
and who see their primary function as preparing learners to take stan-
dardized or other kinds of tests. A continuing teacher concern has been
the possible negative effect in pair or group work of imperfect modeling
and student error. Although this issue is far from resolved, it is interesting
to note that some research findings suggest that “data contradicts the
notion that other learners are not good conversational partners because
they can’t provide accurate input when it is solicited” (Porter 1983).
A wide variety of materials have been used to support communicative
approaches to language teaching. Unlike some contemporary meth-
odologies, such as Community Language Learning, practitioners of Com-
municative Language Teaching view materials as a way of influencing the
quality of classroom interaction and language use. Materials thus have
the primary role of promoting communicative language use. We will
consider three kinds of materials currently used in CLT and label these
text-based, task-based, and realia.

169
text-based materials
There are numerous textbooks designed to direct and support Com-
municative Language Teaching. Their tables of contents sometimes sug-
gest a kind of grading and sequencing of language practice not unlike
those found in structurally organized texts. Some of these are in fact
written around a largely structural syllabus, with slight reformatting to
justify their claims to be based on a communicative approach. Others,
however, look very different from previous language teaching texts. Mor-
row and Johnson’s Communicate (1979), for example, has none of the
usual dialogues, drills, or sentence patterns and uses visual cues, taped
cues, pictures, and sentence fragments to initiate conversation. Watcyn-
Jones’s Pair Work (1981) consists of two different texts for pair work,
each containing different information needed to enact role plays and
carry out other pair activities. Texts written to support the Malaysian
English Language Syllabus (1975) likewise represent a departure from
traditional textbook modes. A typical lesson consists of a theme (e.g.,
relaying information), a task analysis for thematic development (e.g.,
understanding the message, asking questions to obtain clarification, ask-
ing for more information, taking notes, ordering and presenting informa-
tion), a practice situation description (e.g., “A caller asks to see your
manager. He does not have an appointment. Gather the necessary infor-
mation from him and relay the message to your manager.”), a stimulus
presentation (in the preceding case, the beginning of an office conversa-
tion scripted and on tape), comprehension questions (e.g., “Why is the
caller in the office?”), and paraphrase exercises.
task-based materials
A variety of games, role plays, simulations, and task-based communica-
tion activities have been prepared to support Communicative Language
Teaching classes. These typically are in the form of one-of-a-kind items:
exercise handbooks, cue cards, activity cards, pair-communication prac-
tice materials, and student-interaction practice booklets. In pair-
communication materials, there are typically two sets of material for a
pair of students, each set containing different kinds of information.
Sometimes the information is complementary, and partners must fit their
respective parts of the “jigsaw” into a composite whole. Others assume
different role relationships for the partners (e.g., an interviewer and an
interviewee). Still others provide drills and practice material in interac-
tional formats.

170
realia
Many proponents of Communicative Language Teaching have advocated
the use of “authentic,” “from-life” materials in the classroom. These
might include language-based realia, such as signs, magazines, advertise-
ments, and newspapers, or graphic and visual sources around which
communicative activities can be built, such as maps, pictures, symbols,
graphs, and charts. Different kinds of objects can be used to support
communicative exercises, such as a plastic model to assemble from
directions.
Procedure
Because communicative principles can be applied to the teaching of any
skill, at any level, and because of the wide variety of classroom activities
and exercise types discussed in the literature on Communicative Lan-
guage Teaching, description of typical classroom procedures used in a
lesson based on CLT principles is not feasible. Savignon (1983) discusses
techniques and classroom management procedures associated with a
number of CLT classroom procedures (e.g., group activities, language
games, role plays), but neither these activities nor the ways in which they
are used are exclusive to CLT classrooms. Finocchiaro and Brumfit offer a
lesson outline for teaching the function “making a suggestion” for
learners in the beginning level of a secondary school program that sug-
gests that CLT procedures are evolutionary rather than revolutionary:
1. Presentation of a brief dialog or several mini-dialogs, preceded by a moti-
vation (relating the dialog situation[s] to the learners’ probable com-
munity experiences) and a discussion of the function and situation –
people, roles, setting, topic, and the informality or formality of the lan-
guage which the function and situation demand. (At beginning levels,
where all the learners understand the same native language, the motiva-
tion can well be given in their native tongue.)
2. Oral practice of each utterance of the dialog segment to be presented that
day (entire class repetition, half-class, groups, individuals) generally pre-
ceded by your model. If mini-dialogs are used, engage in similar practice.
3. Questions and answers based on the dialog topic(s) and situation itself.
(Inverted wh or or questions.)
4. Questions and answers related to the students’ personal experiences but
centered around the dialog theme.
5. Study one of the basic communicative expressions in the dialog or one of
the structures which exemplify the function. You will wish to give several
additional examples of the communicative use of the expression or struc-
ture with familiar vocabulary in unambiguous utterances or mini-dialogs

171
(using pictures, simple real objects, or dramatization) to clarify the mean-
ing of the expression or structure. . . .
6. Learner discovery of generalizations or rules underlying the functional ex-
pression or structure. This should include at least four points: its oral and
written forms (the elements of which it is composed, e.g., “How about +
verb + ing?”); its position in the utterance; its formality or informality in
the utterance; and in the case of a structure, its grammatical function and
meaning. . . .
7. Oral recognition, interpretative activities (two to five depending on the
learning level, the language knowledge of the students, and related
factors).
8. Oral production activities – proceeding from guided to freer communica-
tion activities.
9. Copying of the dialogs or mini-dialogs or modules if they are not in the
class text.
10. Sampling of the written homework assignment, if given.
11. Evaluation of learning (oral only), e.g., “How would you ask your friend
to ? And how would you ask me to ?”
(Finocchiaro and Brumfit 1983: 107–108)
Such procedures clearly have much in common with those observed in
classes taught according to Structural-Situational and Audiolingual prin-
ciples. Traditional procedures are not rejected but are reinterpreted and
extended. A similar conservatism is found in many “orthodox” CLT
texts, such as Alexander’s Mainline Beginners (1978). Although each unit
has an ostensibly functional focus, new teaching points are introduced
with dialogues, followed by controlled practice of the main grammatical
patterns. The teaching points are then contextualized through situational
practice. This serves as an introduction to a freer practice activity, such as
a role play or improvisation. Similar techniques are used in Starting
Strategies (Abbs and Freebairn 1977). Teaching points are introduced in
dialogue form, grammatical items are isolated for controlled practice,
and then freer activities are provided. Pair and group work is suggested to
encourage students to use and practice functions and forms. The meth-
odological procedures underlying these texts reflect a sequence of ac-
tivities represented in Littlewood (1981: 86) as follows:

172
Savignon (1972, 1983), however, rejects the notion that learners must
first gain control over individual skills (pronunciation, grammar, vocabu-
lary) before applying them in communicative tasks; she advocates provid-
ing communicative practice from the start of instruction. How to imple-
ment the CLT principles at the level of classroom procedures thus
remains central to discussions of the Communicative Approach. How
can the range of communicative activities and procedures be defined, and
how can the teacher determine a mix and timing of activities that best
meets the needs of a particular learner or group of learners? These funda-
mental questions cannot be answered by proposing further taxonomies
and classifications, but require systematic investigation of the use of
different kinds of activities and procedures in L2 classrooms (see Chapter
19).
Conclusion
Communicative Language Teaching is best considered an approach
rather than a method. It refers to a diverse set of principles that reflect a
communicative view of language and language learning and that can be
used to support a wide variety of classroom procedures.
These principles include:
– Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.
– Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of class-
room activities.
– Fluency is an important dimension of communication.
– Communication involves the integration of different language skills.
– Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and
error.
Communicative Language Teaching appeared at a time when language
teaching in many parts of the world was ready for a paradigm shift.
Situational Language Teaching and Audiolingualism were no longer felt
to be appropriate methodologies. CLT appealed to those who sought a
more humanistic approach to teaching, one in which the interactive pro-
cesses of communication received priority. The rapid adoption and
worldwide dissemination of the Communicative Approach also resulted
from the fact that it quickly assumed the status of orthodoxy in British
language teaching circles, receiving the sanction and support of leading
applied linguists, language specialists, and publishers, as well as institu-
tions such as the British Council (Richards 1985).
Since its inception CLT has passed through a number of different
phases as its advocates have sought to apply its principles to different
dimensions of the teaching/learning process. In its first phase, a primary
concern was the need to develop a syllabus that was compatible with the

173
notion of communicative competence. This led to proposals for the or-
ganization of syllabuses in terms of notions and functions rather than
grammatical structures (Wilkins 1976). In the second phase, CLT focused
on procedures for identifying learners’ needs and this resulted in pro-
posals to make needs analysis an essential component of communicative
methodology (Munby 1978). In its third phase, CLT focused on the kinds
of classroom activities that could be used as the basis of a communicative
methodology, such as group work, task-work, and information-gap ac-
tivities (Prabhu 1987).
Johnson and Johnson (1998) identify five core characteristics that un-
derlie current applications of communicative methodology:
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: Learners need to be able to create and understand
messages, that is, real meanings. Hence the focus on information shar-
ing 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 subskills, rather than practicing
individual skills one piece at a time.
We noted in the introduction to Part III that the approaches considered
in this section can be considered direct descendants of Communicative
Language Teaching. However, the characteristics of communicative
methodology just cited address very general aspects of language learning
and teaching that are now largely accepted as self-evident and axiomatic
throughout the profession. In some sense, then, almost all of the newer
teaching proposals discussed in this book could claim to incorporate
principles associated with Communicative Language Teaching. However,
these proposals address different aspects of the processes of teaching and
learning.
Some focus centrally on the input to the learning process. Thus
Content-Based Teaching stresses that the content or subject matter of
teaching is of primary importance in teaching. Not only should the lan-
guage input be authentic but modes of learning should be authentic to the
study of the subject as well. Lexical and corpus-based approaches to

174
teaching start with a corpus of discourse relevant to learners’ interests
and needs and the goal of methodology is to engage learners directly with
this material.
Some teaching proposals focus more directly on instructional factors.
Cooperative Learning for example, which shares many of the characteris-
tics of CLT, promotes learning through communication in pairs or small
groups. Cooperative organization and activities are central with this ap-
proach. Task-Based Language Teaching advocates the importance of spe-
cially designed instructional tasks as the basis of learning.
Other more recent proposals take learners and learning factors as the
primary issues to address in teaching and learning. Whole Language be-
longs to the humanistic tradition, which argues “Learner first, learning
second.” Learner engagement is a priority. Neurolinguistic Programming
emerges from a therapeutic tradition in which individual growth and
personal change are the focus, whereas Multiple Intelligences focuses on
learner differences and how these can be accommodated in teaching.
Outcome is another dimension of the process of communication and is
central in Competency-Based Language Teaching. Outcomes are the
starting point in program planning with this approach.
Today, Communicative Language Teaching thus continues in its
“classic” form, as is seen in the huge range of course books and other
teaching resources based on the principles of CLT. In addition, it has
influenced many other language teaching approaches and methods that
subscribe to a similar philosophy of language teaching.
Abbs, B. A., and I. Freebairn. 1977. Starting Strategies. London: Longman.
Alexander, L. G. 1978. Mainline Beginners. London: Longman.
Allen, J. P. B. 1980. A three-level curriculum model for second language educa-
tion. Mimeo, Modern Language Center, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Allwright, R. L. 1977. Language learning through communication practice. ELT
Documents 76(3). London: British Council.
Applebee, A. N. 1974. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English: A
History. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bachman, L. 1991. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Barnaby, B., and Sun, Y. 1989. Chinese teachers’ views of Western language
teaching: context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly 23(2): 219–238.
Breen, M., and C. N. Candlin. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curricu-
lum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1(2): 89–112.
Brumfit, C. 1980. From defining to designing: Communicative specifications
versus communicative methodology in foreign language teaching. In K.
Muller (ed.), The Foreign Language Syllabus and Communicative Ap-

175
proaches to Teaching: Proceedings of a European-American Seminar. Spe-
cial issue of Studies in Second Language Acquisition 3(1): 1–9.
Brumfit, C. J., and K. Johnson (eds.). 1979. The Communicative Approach to
Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D. 1978. Materials for Language Teaching: Interaction Packages. Lon-
don: Modern English Publications.
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative ap-
proaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1(1):
1–47.
Candlin, C. N. 1976. Communicative language teaching and the debt to pragma-
tics. In C. Rameh (ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable 1976. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Candlin, C. N., C. J. Bruton, and J. H. Leather. 1974. Doctor-patient com-
munication skills. Mimeo, University of Lancaster.
Celce-Murcia, M. A. Dörnyei, and S. Thurrell. 1997. Direct approaches in L2
instruction: A turning point in Communicative Language Teaching? TESOL
Quarterly 31(1): 141–152.
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky. N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Efstathiadis, S. 1987. A critique of the communicative approach to language
learning and teaching. Journal of Applied Linguistics 3: 5–13.
English Language Syllabus in Malaysian Schools, Tingkatan 4–5. 1975. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Finocchiaro, M., and C. Brumfit. 1983. The Functional-Notional Approach:
From Theory to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Firth, R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics: 1934–1951. London: Oxford University
Press.
Geddes, M., and G. Sturtridge. 1979. Listening Links. London: Heinemann.
Green, P. 1987. Communicative Language Testing: A Resource Book for Teacher
Trainers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Gumperz, J. J., and D. Hymes (eds.). 1972. Directions in Sociolinguistics: The
Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language structure and language function. In J. Lyons
(ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 140–465.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London:
Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1975. Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Develop-
ment of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
Henner-Stanchina, C., and P. Riley. 1978. Aspects of autonomous learning. In
ELT Documents 103: Individualization in Language Learning. London:
British Council. 75–97.
Hilgard, E. R., and G. H. Bower. 1966. Theories of Learning. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Holec, H. 1980. Autonomy and Foreign Language Learning. Strasbourg: Coun-
cil of Europe.
Holliday, A. 1994. The house of TESEP and the communicative approach: The
special needs of English language education. ELT Journal 48(1): 3–11.

176
Hymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes
(eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 269–293.
Johnson, K. 1982. Communicative Syllabus Design and Methodology. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Johnson, K. 1984. Skill psychology and communicative methodology. Paper pre-
sented at the RELC seminar, Singapore.
Johnson, K., and H. Johnson 1998. Communicative methodology. In K. Johnson
and H. Johnson (eds.), Encylopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Ox-
ford: Blackwell. 68–73.
Jones, N. 1995. Business writing, Chinese students and communicative language
teaching. TESOL Journal, 4(3): 12–15.
Jupp, T. C., and S. Hodlin. 1975. Industrial English: An Example of Theory and
Practice in Functional Language Teaching. London: Heinemann.
Lee, J., and B. Van Patten. 1995. Making Communicative Language Teaching
Happen. San Francisco: McGraw Hill.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cam-
Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Acqui-
sition Research and Its Implications for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cam-
Met, M. 1993. Foreign language immersion programs. ERIC Document
ED363141.
Morrow, K., and K. Johnson. 1979. Communicate. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
versity Press.
Oxford, R. 1989. Language learning strategies, the communicative approach and
their classroom implications. Foreign Language Annals, 22(1): 29–39.
Pica, T. 1988. Communicative language teaching: An aid to second language
acquisition? Some insights from classroom research. English Quarterly
21(2): 70–80.
Piepho, H.-E. 1981. Establishing objectives in the teaching of English. In C.
Candlin (ed.), The Communicative Teaching of English: Principles and an
Exercise Typology. London: Longman.
Porter, P. A. 1983. Variations in the conversations of adult learners of English as a
function of the proficiency level of the participants. Ph.D. dissertation, Stan-
ford University.
Prabhu, N. 1983. Procedural syllabuses. Paper presented at the RELC seminar,
Singapore.
Prabhu, N.S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Richards, J. C. 1985. The secret life of methods. In J. C. Richards, The Context of
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 32–45.
Savignon, S. 1972. Teaching for communicative competence: A research report.
Audiovisual Language Journal 10(3): 153–162.
Savignon, S. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Prac-
tice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Savignon, S. 1991. Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL
Quarterly 25(2): 261–277.

177
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH., and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Swan, M. 1985. A critical look at the communicative approach. English Lan-
guage Teaching Journal, pt. 1, 39(1): 2–12.
Syllabuses for Primary Schools. 1981. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development
Committee Hong Kong.
van Ek, J. A. 1975. The Threshold Level in a European Unit/Credit System for
Modern Language Teaching by Adults. Systems Development in Adult Lan-
guage Learning. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
van Ek, J., and L. G. Alexander. 1980. Threshold Level English. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Watcyn-Jones, P. 1981. Pair Work. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Widdowson, H. G. 1972. The teaching of English as communication. English
Language Teaching 27(1): 15–18.
Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Ox-
Widdowson, H. G. 1979. The communicative approach and its applications. In
H. G. Widdowson, Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 251–264.
Wilkins, D. A. 1972. The linguistics and situational content of the common core
in a unit/credit system. MS. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Wilkins, D. A. 1976. Notional Syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilkins, D. A. 1979. Notional syllabuses and the concept of a minimum ade-
quate grammar. In C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson (eds.), The Communicative
Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wright, A. 1976. Visual Material for the Language Teacher. London: Longman.
Yalden, J. 1983. The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and Imple-
mentation. Oxford: Pergamon.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
15 - The Natural Approach pp. 178-191

178
15 The Natural Approach
Background
In 1977, Tracy Terrell, a teacher of Spanish in California, outlined “a
proposal for a ‘new’ philosophy of language teaching which [he] called
the Natural Approach” (Terrell 1977; 1982: 121). This was an attempt to
develop a language teaching proposal that incorporated the “naturalis-
tic” principles researchers had identified in studies of second language
acquisition. The Natural Approach grew out of Terrell’s experiences
teaching Spanish classes, although it has also been used in elementary- to
advanced-level classes and with several other languages. At the same
time, he joined forces with Stephen Krashen, an applied linguist at the
University of Southern California, in elaborating a theoretical rationale
for the Natural Approach, drawing on Krashen’s influential theory of
second language acquisition. Krashen and Terrell’s combined statement
of the principles and practices of the Natural Approach appeared in their
book The Natural Approach, published in 1983. The Natural Approach
attracted a wider interest than some of the other innovative language
teaching proposals discussed in this book, largely because of its support
by Krashen. Krashen and Terrell’s book contains theoretical sections
prepared by Krashen that outline his views on second language acquisi-
tion (Krashen 1981; 1982), and sections on implementation and class-
room procedures, prepared largely by Terrell.
Krashen and Terrell identified the Natural Approach with what they
call “traditional” approaches to language teaching. Traditional ap-
proaches are defined as “based on the use of language in communicative
situations without recourse to the native language” – and, perhaps, need-
less to say, without reference to grammatical analysis, grammatical drill-
ing, or a particular theory of grammar. Krashen and Terrell noted that
such “approaches have been called natural, psychological, phonetic, new,
reform, direct, analytic, imitative and so forth” (Krashen and Terrell
1983: 9). The fact that the authors of the Natural Approach relate their
approach to the Natural Method (see Chapter 1) has led some people to
assume that Natural Approach and Natural Method are synonymous
terms. Although the tradition is a common one, there are important
differences between the Natural Approach and the older Natural
Method, which it will be useful to consider at the outset.

The Natural Approach
179
The Natural Method is another term for what by 1900 had become
known as the Direct Method (see Chapter 1). It is described in a report on
the state of the art in language teaching commissioned by the Modern
Language Association in 1901 (the report of the “Committee of 12”):
In its extreme form the method consisted of a series of monologues by the
teacher interspersed with exchanges of question and answer between the in-
structor and the pupil – all in the foreign language. . . . A great deal of pan-
tomime accompanied the talk. With the aid of this gesticulation, by attentive
listening and by dint of much repetition the learner came to associate certain
acts and objects with certain combinations of the sounds and finally reached
the point of reproducing the foreign words or phrases. . . . Not until a con-
siderable familiarity with the spoken word was attained was the scholar al-
lowed to see the foreign language in print. The study of grammar was reserved
for a still later period. (Cole 1931: 58)
The term natural, used in reference to the Direct Method, merely empha-
sized that the principles underlying the method were believed to conform
to the principles of naturalistic language learning in young children. Sim-
ilarly, the Natural Approach, as defined by Krashen and Terrell, is be-
lieved to conform to the naturalistic principles found in successful second
language acquisition. Unlike the Direct Method, however, it places less
emphasis on teacher monologues, direct repetition, and formal questions
and answers, and less focus on accurate production of target-language
sentences. In the Natural Approach there is an emphasis on exposure, or
input, rather than practice; optimizing emotional preparedness for learn-
ing; a prolonged period of attention to what the language learners hear
before they try to produce language; and a willingness to use written and
other materials as a source of comprehensible input. The emphasis on the
central role of comprehension in the Natural Approach links it to other
comprehension-based approaches in language teaching (see Chapter 5).
Approach
Theory of language
Krashen and Terrell see communication as the primary function of lan-
guage, and since their approach focuses on teaching communicative abil-
ities, they refer to the Natural Approach as an example of a communica-
tive approach. The Natural Approach “is similar to other communicative
approaches being developed today” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 17).
They reject earlier methods of language teaching, such as the Au-
diolingual Method, which viewed grammar as the central component of
language. According to Krashen and Terrell, the major problem with
these methods was that they were built not around “actual theories of
language acquisition, but theories of something else; for example, the

180
structure of language” (1983: 1). Unlike proponents of Communicative
Language Teaching (Chapter 14), however, Krashen and Terrell give little
attention to a theory of language. Indeed, a critic of Krashen suggested
that he has no theory of language at all (Gregg 1984). What Krashen and
Terrell do describe about the nature of language emphasizes the primacy
of meaning. The importance of the vocabulary is stressed, for example,
suggesting the view that a language is essentially its lexicon and only
inconsequently the grammar that determines how the lexicon is exploited
to produce messages. Terrell quotes Dwight Bolinger to support this
view:
The quantity of information in the lexicon far outweighs that in any other
part of the language, and if there is anything to the notion of redundancy it
should be easier to reconstruct a message containing just words than one con-
taining just the syntactic relations. The significant fact is the subordinate role
of grammar. The most important thing is to get the words in. (Bolinger, in Ter-
rell 1977: 333)
Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meanings and mes-
sages. Hence Krashen and Terrell stated that “acquisition can take place
only when people understand messages in the target language” (Krashen
and Terrell 1983: 19). Yet despite their avowed communicative approach
to language, they view language learning, as do audiolingualists, as mas-
tery of structures by stages. “The input hypothesis states that in order for
acquirers to progress to the next stage in the acquisition of the target
language, they need to understand input language that includes a struc-
ture that is part of the next stage” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32).
Krashen refers to this with the formula “I + 1” (i.e., input that contains
structures slightly above the learner’s present level). We assume that
Krashen means by structures something at least in the tradition of what
such linguists as Leonard Bloomfield and Charles Fries meant by struc-
tures. The Natural Approach thus assumes a linguistic hierarchy of struc-
tural complexity that one masters through encounters with “input” con-
taining structures at the “I + 1” level.
We are left, then, with a view of language that consists of lexical items,
structures, and messages. Obviously, there is no particular novelty in this
view as such, except that messages are considered of primary importance
in the Natural Approach. The lexicon for both perception and produc-
tion is considered critical in the construction and interpretation of mes-
sages. Lexical items in messages are necessarily grammatically structured,
and more complex messages involve more complex grammatical struc-
ture. Although they acknowledge such grammatical structuring, Krashen
and Terrell feel that grammatical structure does not require explicit anal-
ysis or attention by the language teacher, by the language learner, or in
language teaching materials.

181
Theory of learning
Krashen and Terrell make continuing reference to the theoretical and
research base claimed to underlie the Natural Approach and to the fact
that the method is unique in having such a base. “It is based on an
empirically grounded theory of second language acquisition, which has
been supported by a large number of scientific studies in a wide variety of
language acquisition and learning contexts” (Krashen and Terrell 1983:
1). The theory and research are grounded on Krashen’s views of language
acquisition, which we will collectively refer to as Krashen’s language
acquisition theory. Krashen’s views have been presented and discussed
extensively elsewhere (e.g., Krashen 1982), so we will not try to present
or critique Krashen’s arguments here. (For a detailed critical review, see
Gregg 1984 and McLaughlin 1978.) It is necessary, however, to present in
outline form the principal tenets of the theory, since it is on these that the
design and procedures in the Natural Approach are based.
the acquisition/learning hypothesis
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis claims that there are two distinc-
tive ways of developing competence in a second or foreign language.
Acquisition is the “natural” way, paralleling first language development
in children. Acquisition refers to an unconscious process that involves the
naturalistic development of language proficiency through understanding
language and through using language for meaningful communication.
Learning, by contrast, refers to a process in which conscious rules about a
language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge about the forms
of a language and the ability to verbalize this knowledge. Formal teaching
is necessary for “learning” to occur, and correction of errors helps with
the development of learned rules. Learning, according to the theory, can-
not lead to acquisition.
the monitor hypothesis
The acquired linguistic system is said to initiate utterances when we
communicate in a second or foreign language. Conscious learning can
function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs the output of
the acquired system. The Monitor Hypothesis claims that we may call
upon learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we communicate, but
that conscious learning (i.e., the learned system) has only this function.
Three conditions limit the successful use of the monitor:
1. Time. There must be sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a
learned rule.

182
2. Focus on form. The language user must be focused on correctness or
on the form of the output.
3. Knowledge of rules. The performer must know the rules. The monitor
does best with rules that are simple in two ways. They must be simple
to describe and they must not require complex movements and
rearrangements.
the natural order hypothesis
According to the Natural Order Hypothesis, the acquisition of grammati-
cal structures proceeds in a predictable order. Research is said to have
shown that certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired
before others in first language acquisition of English, and a similar natu-
ral order is found in second language acquisition. Errors are signs of
naturalistic developmental processes, and during acquisition (but not
during learning), similar developmental errors occur in learners no matter
what their native language is.
the input hypothesis
The Input Hypothesis claims to explain the relationship between what
the learner is exposed to of a language (the input) and language acquisi-
tion. It involves four main issues.
First, the hypothesis relates to acquisition, and not to learning.
Second, people acquire language best by understanding input that is
slightly beyond their current level of competence:
An acquirer can “move” from a stage I (where I is the acquirer’s level of com-
petence) to a stage I + 1 (where I + 1 is the stage immediately following I
along some natural order) by understanding language containing I + 1.
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 32)
Clues based on the situation and the context, extralinguistic information,
and knowledge of the world make comprehension possible.
Third, the ability to speak fluently cannot be taught directly; rather, it
“emerges” independently in time, after the acquirer has built up linguistic
competence by understanding input.
Fourth, if there is a sufficient quantity of comprehensible input, I + 1
will usually be provided automatically. Comprehensible input refers to
utterances that the learner understands based on the context in which
they are used as well as the language in which they are phrased. When a
speaker uses language so that the acquirer understands the message, the
speaker “casts a net” of structure around the acquirer’s current level of
competence, and this will include many instances of I + 1. Thus, input
need not be finely tuned to a learner’s current level of linguistic compe-
tence, and in fact cannot be so finely tuned in a language class, where
learners will be at many different levels of competence.

183
Just as child acquirers of a first language are provided with samples of
“caretaker speech,” rough-tuned to their present level of understanding,
so adult acquirers of a second language are provided with simple codes
that facilitate second language comprehension. One such code is “for-
eigner talk,” which refers to the speech native speakers use to simplify
communication with foreigners. Foreigner talk is characterized by a
slower rate of speech, repetition, restating, use of yes/no instead of Wh-
questions, and other changes that make messages more comprehensible
to persons of limited language proficiency.
the affective filter hypothesis
Krashen sees the learner’s emotional state or attitudes as an adjustable
filter that freely passes, impedes, or blocks input necessary to acquisition.
A low affective filter is desirable, since it impedes or blocks less of this
necessary input. The hypothesis is built on research in second language
acquisition, which has identified three kinds of affective or attitudinal
variables related to second language acquisition:
1. Motivation. Learners with high motivation generally do better.
2. Self-confidence. Learners with self-confidence and a good self-image
tend to be more successful.
3. Anxiety. Low personal anxiety and low classroom anxiety are more
conducive to second language acquisition.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis states that acquirers with a low affective
filter seek and receive more input, interact with confidence, and are more
receptive to the input they receive. Anxious acquirers have a high affec-
tive filter, which prevents acquisition from taking place. It is believed that
the affective filter (e.g., fear or embarrassment) rises in early adolescence,
and this may account for children’s apparent superiority to older ac-
quirers of a second language.
These five hypotheses have obvious implications for language teaching.
In sum, these are:
1. As much comprehensible input as possible must be presented.
2. Whatever helps comprehension is important. Visual aids are useful, as
is exposure to a wide range of vocabulary rather than study of syntac-
tic structure.
3. The focus in the classroom should be on listening and reading; speak-
ing should be allowed to “emerge.”
4. In order to lower the affective filter, student work should center on
meaningful communication rather than on form; input should be in-
teresting and so contribute to a relaxed classroom atmosphere.

184
Design
Objectives
The Natural Approach “is for beginners and is designed to help them
become intermediates.” It has the expectation that students
will be able to function adequately in the target situation. They will under-
stand the speaker of the target language (perhaps with requests for clarifica-
tion), and will be able to convey (in a non-insulting manner) their requests
and ideas. They need not know every word in a particular semantic domain,
nor is it necessary that the syntax and vocabulary be flawless – but their pro-
duction does need to be understood. They should be able to make the mean-
ing clear but not necessarily be accurate in all details of grammar. (Krashen
and Terrell 1983: 71)
However, since the Natural Approach is offered as a general set of princi-
ples applicable to a wide variety of situations, as in Communicative
Language Teaching, specific objectives depend on learner needs and the
skill (reading, writing, listening, or speaking) and level being taught.
Krashen and Terrell believe that it is important to communicate to
learners what they can expect of a course as well as what they should not
expect. They offer as an example a possible goal and nongoal statement
for a beginning Natural Approach Spanish class:
After 100–150 hours of Natural Approach Spanish, you will be able to: “get
around” in Spanish; you will be able to communicate with a monolingual na-
tive speaker of Spanish without difficulty; read most ordinary texts in Spanish
with some use of a dictionary; know enough Spanish to continue to improve
on your own.
After 100–150 hours of Natural Approach Spanish you will not be able to:
pass for a native speaker, use Spanish as easily as you use English, understand
native speakers when they talk to each other (you will probably not be able to
eavesdrop successfully); use Spanish on the telephone with great comfort; par-
ticipate easily in a conversation with several other native speakers on un-
familiar topics. (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 74)
The syllabus
Krashen and Terrell (1983) approach course organization from two
points of view. First, they list some typical goals for language courses and
suggest which of these goals are the ones at which the Natural Approach
aims. They list such goals under four areas:
1. Basic personal communication skills: oral (e.g., listening to announce-
ments in public places)
2. Basic personal communication skills: written (e.g., reading and writ-
ing personal letters)

185
3. Academic learning skills: oral (e.g., listening to a lecture)
4. Academic learning skills: written (e.g., taking notes in class)
Of these, they note that the Natural Approach is primarily “designed to
develop basic communication skills – both oral and written” (1983: 67).
They then observe that communication goals “may be expressed in terms
of situations, functions and topics” and proceed to order four pages of
topics and situations “which are likely to be most useful to beginning
students” (1983: 67). The functions are not specified or suggested but are
felt to derive naturally from the topics and situations. This approach to
syllabus design would appear to derive to some extent from threshold
level specifications (see Chapter 14).
The second point of view holds that “the purpose of a language course
will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular
interests” (Krashen and Terrell (1983: 65):
The goals of a Natural Approach class are based on an assessment of student
needs. We determine the situations in which they will use the target language
and the sorts of topics they will have to communicate information about. In
setting communication goals, we do not expect the students at the end of a
particular course to have acquired a certain group of structures or forms. In-
stead we expect them to deal with a particular set of topics in a given situa-
tion. We do not organize the activities of the class about a grammatical
syllabus. (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71)
From this point of view, it is difficult to specify communicative goals that
necessarily fit the needs of all students. Thus, any list of topics and
situations must be understood as syllabus suggestions rather than as
specifications.
As well as fitting the needs and interests of students, content selection
should aim to create a low affective filter by being interesting and foster-
ing a friendly, relaxed atmosphere, should provide a wide exposure to
vocabulary that may be useful to basic personal communication, and
should resist any focus on grammatical structures, since if input is pro-
vided “over a wider variety of topics while pursuing communicative
goals, the necessary grammatical structures are automatically provided in
the input” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 71).
From the beginning of a class taught according to the Natural Approach,
emphasis is on presenting comprehensible input in the target language.
Teacher talk focuses on objects in the classroom and on the content of
pictures, as with the Direct Method. To minimize stress, learners are not
required to say anything until they feel ready, but they are expected to
respond to teacher commands and questions in other ways.

186
When learners are ready to begin talking in the new language, the
teacher provides comprehensible language and simple response oppor-
tunities. The teacher talks slowly and distinctly, asking questions and
eliciting one-word answers. There is a gradual progression from Yes/No
questions, through either-or questions, to questions that students can
answer using words they have heard used by the teacher. Students are not
expected to use a word actively until they have heard it many times.
Charts, pictures, advertisements, and other realia serve as the focal point
for questions, and when the students’ competence permits, talk moves to
class members. “Acquisition activities” – those that focus on meaningful
communication rather than language form – are emphasized. Pair or
group work may be employed, followed by whole-class discussion led by
the teacher.
Techniques recommended by Krashen and Terrell are often borrowed
from other methods and adapted to meet the requirements of Natural
Approach theory. These include command-based activities from Total
Physical Response; Direct Method activities in which mime, gesture, and
context are used to elicit questions and answers; and even situation-based
practice of structures and patterns. Group-work activities are often iden-
tical to those used in Communicative Language Teaching, where sharing
information in order to complete a task is emphasized. There is nothing
novel about the procedures and techniques advocated for use with the
Natural Approach. A casual observer might not be aware of the philoso-
phy underlying the classroom techniques he or she observes. What
characterizes the Natural Approach is the use of familiar techniques
within the framework of a method that focuses on providing comprehen-
sible input and a classroom environment that cues comprehension of
input, minimizes learner anxiety, and maximizes learner self-confidence.
Learner roles
There is a basic assumption in the Natural Approach that learners should
not try to learn a language in the usual sense. The extent to which they
can lose themselves in activities involving meaningful communication
will determine the amount and kind of acquisition they will experience
and the fluency they will ultimately demonstrate. The language acquirer
is seen as a processor of comprehensible input. The acquirer is challenged
by input that is slightly beyond his or her current level of competence and
is able to assign meaning to this input through active use of context and
extralinguistic information.
Learners’ roles are seen to change according to their stage of linguistic
development. Central to these changing roles are learner decisions on
when to speak, what to speak about, and what linguistic expressions to
use in speaking.

187
In the pre-production stage, students “participate in the language ac-
tivity without having to respond in the target language” (Krashen and
Terrell 1983: 76). For example, students can act out physical commands,
identify student colleagues from teacher description, point to pictures,
and so forth.
In the early-production stage, students respond to either-or questions,
use single words and short phrases, fill in charts, and use fixed conversa-
tional patterns (e.g., How are you? What’s your name?).
In the speech-emergent phase, students involve themselves in role play
and games, contribute personal information and opinions, and partici-
pate in group problem solving.
Learners have four kinds of responsibilities in the Natural Approach
classroom:
1. Provide information about their specific goals so that acquisition ac-
tivities can focus on the topics and situations most relevant to their
needs.
2. Take an active role in ensuring comprehensible input. They should
learn and use conversational management techniques to regulate
input.
3. Decide when to start producing speech and when to upgrade it.
4. Where learning exercises (i.e., grammar study) are to be a part of the
program, decide with the teacher the relative amount of time to be
devoted to them and perhaps even complete and correct them
independently.
Learners are expected to participate in communication activities with
other learners. Although communication activities are seen to provide
naturalistic practice and to create a sense of camaraderie, which lowers
the affective filter, they may fail to provide learners with well-formed and
comprehensible input at the I + 1 level. Krashen and Terrell warn of these
shortcomings but do not suggest means for their amelioration.
Teacher roles
The Natural Approach teacher has three central roles. First, the teacher is
the primary source of comprehensible input in the target language. “Class
time is devoted primarily to providing input for acquisition,” and the
teacher is the primary generator of that input. In this role, the teacher is
required to generate a constant flow of language input while providing a
multiplicity of nonlinguistic clues to assist students in interpreting the
input. The Natural Approach demands a much more center-stage role for
the teacher than do many contemporary communicative methods.
Second, the Natural Approach teacher creates a classroom atmosphere
that is interesting, friendly, and in which there is a low affective filter for

188
learning. This is achieved in part through such Natural Approach tech-
niques as not demanding speech from the students before they are ready
for it, not correcting student errors, and providing subject matter of high
interest to students.
Finally, the teacher must choose and orchestrate a rich mix of class-
room activities, involving a variety of group sizes, content, and contexts.
The teacher is seen as responsible for collecting materials and designing
their use. These materials, according to Krashen and Terrell, are based
not just on teacher perceptions but on elicited student needs and interests.
As with other nonorthodox teaching systems, the Natural Approach
teacher has a particular responsibility to communicate clearly and com-
pellingly to students the assumptions, organization, and expectations of
the method, since in many cases these will violate student views of what
language learning and teaching are supposed to be.
The primary goal of materials in the Natural Approach is to make class-
room activities as meaningful as possible by supplying “the extralinguis-
tic context that helps the acquirer to understand and thereby to acquire”
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 55), by relating classroom activities to the real
world, and by fostering real communication among the learners. Mate-
rials come from the world of realia rather than from textbooks. The
primary aim of materials is to promote comprehension and communica-
tion. Pictures and other visual aids are essential, because they supply the
content for communication. They facilitate the acquisition of a large
vocabulary within the classroom. Other recommended materials include
schedules, brochures, advertisements, maps, and books at levels appro-
priate to the students, if a reading component is included in the course.
Games, in general, are seen as useful classroom materials, since “games
by their very nature, focus the students on what it is they are doing and
use the language as a tool for reaching the goal rather than as a goal in
itself” (Terrell 1982: 121). The selection, reproduction, and collection of
materials places a considerable burden on the Natural Approach teacher.
Since Krashen and Terrell suggest a syllabus of topics and situations, it is
likely that at some point collections of materials to supplement teacher
presentations will be published, built around the “syllabus” of topics and
situations recommended by the Natural Approach.
Procedure
We have seen that the Natural Approach adopts techniques and activities
freely from various method sources and can be regarded as innovative
only with respect to the purposes for which they are recommended and

189
the ways they are used. Krashen and Terrell (1983) provide suggestions
for the use of a wide range of activities, all of which are familiar compo-
nents of Situational Language Teaching, Communicative Language
Teaching, and other methods discussed in this book. To illustrate pro-
cedural aspects of the Natural Approach, we will cite examples of how
such activities are to be used in the Natural Approach classroom to
provide comprehensible input, without requiring production of re-
sponses or minimal responses in the target language.
1. Start with TPR [Total Physical Response] commands. At first the com-
mands are quite simple: “Stand up. Turn around. Raise your right hand.”
2. Use TPR to teach names of body parts and to introduce numbers and se-
quence. “Lay your right hand on your head, put both hands on your
shoulder, first touch your nose, then stand up and turn to the right three
times” and so forth.
3. Introduce classroom terms and props into commands. “Pick up a pencil
and put it under the book, touch a wall, go to the door and knock three
times.” Any item which can be brought to the class can be incorporated.
“Pick up the record and place it in the tray. Take the green blanket to Lar-
ry. Pick up the soap and take it to the woman wearing the green blouse.”
4. Use names of physical characteristics and clothing to identify members of
the class by name. The instructor uses context and the items themselves to
make the meanings of the key words clear: hair, long, short, etc. Then a
student is described. “What is your name?” (selecting a student). “Class.
Look at Barbara. She has long brown hair. Her hair is long and brown.
Her hair is not short. It is long.” (Using mime, pointing and context to en-
sure comprehension.) “What’s the name of the student with long brown
hair?” (Barbara). Questions such as “What is the name of the woman with
the short blond hair?” or “What is the name of the student sitting next to
the man with short brown hair and glasses?” are very simple to understand
by attending to key words, gestures and context. And they require the stu-
dents only to remember and produce the name of a fellow student. The
same can be done with articles of clothing and colors. “Who is wearing a
yellow shirt? Who is wearing a brown dress?”
5. Use visuals, typically magazine pictures, to introduce new vocabulary and
to continue with activities requiring only student names as response. The
instructor introduces the pictures to the entire class one at a time focusing
usually on one single item or activity in the picture. He may introduce one
to five new words while talking about the picture. He then passes the pic-
ture to a particular student in the class. The students’ task is to remember
the name of the student with a particular picture. For example, “Tom has
the picture of the sailboat. Joan has the picture of the family watching tele-
vision” and so forth. The instructor will ask questions like “Who has the
picture with the sailboat? Does Susan or Tom have the picture of the peo-
ple on the beach?” Again the students need only produce a name in
response.

190
6. Combine use of pictures with TPR. “Jim, find the picture of the little girl
with her dog and give it to the woman with the pink blouse.”
7. Combine observations about the pictures with commands and conditionals.
“If there is a woman in your picture, stand up. If there is something blue in
your picture, touch your right shoulder.”
8. Using several pictures, ask students to point to the picture being described.
Picture 1. “There are several people in this picture. One appears to be a fa-
ther, the other a daughter. What are they doing? Cooking. They are cook-
ing a hamburger.” Picture 2. “There are two men in this picture. They are
young. They are boxing.” Picture 3 . . .
(Krashen and Terrell 1983: 75–77)
In all these activities, the instructor maintains a constant flow of “com-
prehensible input,” using key vocabulary items, appropriate gestures,
context, repetition, and paraphrase to ensure the comprehensibility of the
input.
Conclusion
The Natural Approach belongs to a tradition of language teaching
methods based on observation and interpretation of how learners acquire
both first and second languages in nonformal settings. Such methods
reject the formal (grammatical) organization of language as a prerequisite
to teaching. They hold with Newmark and Reibel that “an adult can
effectively be taught by grammatically unordered materials” and that
such an approach is, indeed, “the only learning process which we know
for certain will produce mastery of the language at a native level” (1968:
153). In the Natural Approach, a focus on comprehension and meaning-
ful communication as well as the provision of the right kinds of com-
prehensible input provide the necessary and sufficient conditions for suc-
cessful classroom second and foreign language acquisition. This has led
to a new rationale for the integration and adaptation of techniques drawn
from a wide variety of existing sources. Like Communicative Language
Teaching, the Natural Approach is hence evolutionary rather than revo-
lutionary in its procedures. Its greatest claim to originality lies not in the
techniques it employs but in their use in a method that emphasizes com-
prehensible and meaningful practice activities, rather than production of
grammatically perfect utterances and sentences.
Baltra, A. 1992. On breaking with tradition: The significance of Terrell’s Natural
Approach. Canadian Modern Language Review 49(3): 565–593.
Berne, J. 1990. A comparison of teaching for proficiency with the natural ap-
proach: Procedure, design and approach. Hispania 73(4): 147–153.

191
Brown, J. M., and A. Palmer. 1988. Listening Approach: Methods and Materials
for Applying Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Cole, R. 1931. Modern Foreign Languages and Their Teaching. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ellis, R. 1997. Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregg, K. 1984. Krashen’s monitor and Occam’s razor. Applied Linguistics 5(2):
79–100.
Hashemipor, P., R. Maldonado, and M. van Naerssen (eds.). 1995. Studies in
Language Learning and Spanish Linguistics: Festschrift in Honor of Tracy
D. Terrell. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.
Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practices in Second Language Acquisition.
Oxford: Pergamon
Krashen. S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London:
Longman.
Krashen, S. 1989. We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional
evidence for the input hypothesis. Modern Language Journal. 73(4): 440–
464.
Krashen, S. 1992. Fundamentals of Language Education. Beverley Hills, Calif.:
Laredo.
Krashen, S. 1993. The case for free voluntary reading. Canadian Modern Lan-
guage Review 50(1): 72–82.
Krashen, S. 1996. The case for narrow listening. System 24(1): 97–100.
Krashen, S. 1997. The comprehension hypothesis: Recent evidence. English
Teachers’ Journal (Israel). 51: 17–29.
Krashen, S. 1996. Principles of English as a foreign language. English Teachers’
Journal (Israel) 49: 11–19.
Krashen, S., and T. Terrell. 1983. The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition
in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
McLaughlin, B. 1978. The Monitor Model: Some methodological consider-
ations. Language Learning 28(2): 309–332.
Newmark, L., and D. A. Reibel. 1968. Necessity and sufficiency in language
learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics 6(2): 145–164.
Rivers, W. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. 2nd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
University Press.
Terrell, T. D. 1977. A natural approach to second language acquisition and
learning. Modern Language Journal 61: 325–336.
Terrell, T. D. 1981. The natural approach in bilingual education. MS. California
Office of Bilingual Education.
Terrell, T. D. 1982. The natural approach to language teaching: An update.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
16 - Cooperative Language Learning pp. 192-203

192
16 Cooperative Language Learning
Background
Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) is part of a more general instruc-
tional approach also known as Collaborative Learning (CL). Cooperative
Learning is an approach to teaching that makes maximum use of cooper-
ative activities involving pairs and small groups of learners in the class-
room. It has been defined as follows:
Cooperative learning is group learning activity organized so that learning is
dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners
in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own
learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others. (Olsen and Kagan
1992: 8)
Cooperative Learning has antecedents in proposals for peer-tutoring and
peer-monitoring that go back hundreds of years and longer. The early
twentieth century U.S. educator John Dewey is usually credited with
promoting the idea of building cooperation in learning into regular class-
rooms on a regular and systematic basis (Rodgers 1988). It was more
generally promoted and developed in the United States in the 1960s and
1970s as a response to the forced integration of public schools and has
been substantially refined and developed since then. Educators were con-
cerned that traditional models of classroom learning were teacher-
fronted, fostered competition rather than cooperation, and favored ma-
jority students. They believed that minority students might fall behind
higher-achieving students in this kind of learning environment. Coopera-
tive Learning in this context sought to do the following:
– raise the achievement of all students, including those who are gifted or
academically handicapped
– help the teacher build positive relationships among students
– give students the experiences they need for healthy social, psychologi-
cal, and cognitive development
– replace the competitive organizational structure of most classrooms
and schools with a team-based, high-performance organizational
structure
(Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec 1994: 2)

Cooperative Language Learning
193
In second language teaching, CL (where it is often referred to as Coopera-
tive Language Learning–CLL) has been embraced as a way of promoting
communicative interaction in the classroom and is seen as an extension of
the principles of Communicative Language Teaching. It is viewed as a
learner-centered approach to teaching held to offer advantages over
teacher-fronted classroom methods. In language teaching its goals are:
– to provide opportunities for naturalistic second language acquisition
through the use of interactive pair and group activities
– to provide teachers with a methodology to enable them to achieve this
goal and one that can be applied in a variety of curriculum settings
(e.g., content-based, foreign language classrooms; mainstreaming)
– to enable focused attention to particular lexical items, language struc-
tures, and communicative functions through the use of interactive
tasks
– to provide opportunities for learners to develop successful learning and
communication strategies
– to enhance learner motivation and reduce learner stress and to create a
positive affective classroom climate
CLL is thus an approach that crosses both mainstream education and
second and foreign language teaching.
Approach
Theory of language
We outlined an “Interactive” view of language structuring in Chapter 2.
Cooperative Language Learning is founded on some basic premises about
the interactive/cooperative nature of language and language learning and
builds on these premises in several ways.
Premise 1 mirrors the title of a book on child language titled Born to
Talk (Weeks 1979). The author holds (along with many others) that “all
normal children growing up in a normal environment learn to talk. We
are born to talk . . . we may think of ourselves as having been pro-
grammed to talk . . . communication is generally considered to be the
primary purpose of language” (Weeks 1979: 1).
Premise 2 is that most talk/speech is organized as conversation. “Hu-
man beings spend a large part of their lives engaging in conversation and
for most of them conversation is among their most significant and en-
grossing activities” (Richards and Schmidt 1983: 117).
Premise 3 is that conversation operates according to a certain agreed-
upon set of cooperative rules or “maxims” (Grice 1975).

194
Premise 4 is that one learns how these cooperative maxims are realized
in one’s native language through casual, everyday conversational
interaction.
Premise 5 is that one learns how the maxims are realized in a second
language through participation in cooperatively structured interactional
activities. This involves using
a progressive format or sequencing of strategies in the conversation class
which carefully prepares students, that systematically breaks down stereotypes
of classroom procedure and allows them to begin interacting democratically
and independently. Through this approach, students learn step-by-step, func-
tional interaction techniques at the same time the group spirit or trust is being
built. (Christison and Bassano 1981: xvi).
Practices that attempt to organize second language learning according
to these premises, explicitly or implicitly, are jointly labeled Cooperative
Language Learning. In its applications, CLL is used to support both
structural and functional models as well as interactional models of lan-
guage, since CLL activities may be used to focus on language form as well
as to practice particular language functions.
Theory of learning
Cooperative learning advocates draw heavily on the theoretical work of
developmental psychologists Jean Piaget (e.g., 1965) and Lev Vygotsky
(e.g., 1962), both of whom stress the central role of social interaction in
learning. As we have indicated, a central premise of CLL is that learners
develop communicative competence in a language by conversing in so-
cially or pedagogically structured situations. CLL advocates have pro-
posed certain interactive structures that are considered optimal for learn-
ing the appropriate rules and practices in conversing in a new language.
CLL also seeks to develop learners’ critical thinking skills, which are seen
as central to learning of any sort. Some authors have even elevated critical
thinking to the same level of focus as that of the basic language skills of
reading, writing, listening, and speaking (Kagan 1992). One approach to
integrating the teaching of critical thinking adopted by CLL advocates is
called the Question Matrix (Wiederhold 1995). Wiederhold has
developed a battery of cooperative activities built on the matrix that
encourages learners to ask and respond to a deeper array of alternative
question types. Activities of this kind are believed to foster the develop-
ment of critical thinking. (The matrix is based on the well-known Taxon-
omy of Educational Objectives devised by Bloom [1956], which assumes
a hierarchy of learning objectives ranging from simple recall of informa-
tion to forming conceptual judgments.) Kagan and other CL theorists
have adopted this framework as an underlying learning theory for Coop-
erative Learning.

195
The word cooperative in Cooperative Learning emphasizes another
important dimension of CLL: It seeks to develop classrooms that foster
cooperation rather than competition in learning. Advocates of CLL in
general education stress the benefits of cooperation in promoting
learning:
Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. Within coopera-
tive situations, individuals seek outcomes beneficial to themselves and all other
group members. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups
through which students work together to maximize their own and each other’s
learning. It may be contrasted with competitive learning in which students
work against each other to achieve an academic goal such as a grade of “A.”
(Johnson et al., 1994: 4)
From the perspective of second language teaching, McGroarty (1989)
offers six learning advantages for ESL students in CLL classrooms:
1. increased frequency and variety of second language practice through
different types of interaction
2. possibility for development or use of language in ways that support
cognitive development and increased language skills
3. opportunities to integrate language with content-based instruction
4. opportunities to include a greater variety of curricular materials to
stimulate language as well as concept learning
5. freedom for teachers to master new professional skills, particularly
those emphasizing communication
6. opportunities for students to act as resources for each other, thus
assuming a more active role in their learning
Design
Objectives
Since CLL is an approach designed to foster cooperation rather than
competition, to develop critical thinking skills, and to develop com-
municative competence through socially structured interaction activities,
these can be regarded as the overall objectives of CLL. More specific
objectives will derive from the context in which it is used.
The syllabus
CLL does not assume any particular form of language syllabus, since
activities from a wide variety of curriculum orientations can be taught via
cooperative learning. Thus we find CLL used in teaching content classes,
ESP, the four skills, grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. What

196
defines CLL is the systematic and carefully planned use of group-based
procedures in teaching as an alternative to teacher-fronted teaching.
Johnson et al., (1994: 4–5) describe three types of cooperative learning
groups.
1. Formal cooperative learning groups. These last from one class period
to several weeks. These are established for a specific task and involve
students working together to achieve shared learning goals.
2. Informal cooperative learning groups. These are ad-hoc groups that
last from a few minutes to a class period and are used to focus student
attention or to facilitate learning during direct teaching.
3. Cooperative base groups. These are long term, lasting for at least a
year and consist of heterogeneous learning groups with stable mem-
bership whose primary purpose is to allow members to give each other
the support, help, encouragement, and assistance they need to succeed
academically.
The success of CL is crucially dependent on the nature and organization
of group work. This requires a structured program of learning carefully
designed so that learners interact with each other and are motivated to
increase each other’s learning. Olsen and Kagan (1992) propose the fol-
lowing key elements of successful group-based learning in CL:
– Positive interdependence
– Group formation
– Individual accountability
– Social skills
– Structuring and structures
Positive interdependence occurs when group members feel that what
helps one member helps all and what hurts one member hurts all. It is
created by the structure of CL tasks and by building a spirit of mutual
support within the group. For example, a group may produce a single
product such as an essay or the scores for members of a group may be
averaged.
Group formation is an important factor in creating positive interde-
pendence. Factors involved in setting up groups include:
– deciding on the size of the group: This will depend on the tasks they
have to carry out, the age of the learners, and time limits for the lesson.
Typical group size is from two to four.
– assigning students to groups: Groups can be teacher-selected, random,

197
or student-selected, although teacher-selected is recommended as the
usual mode so as to create groups that are heterogeneous on such
variables as past achievement, ethnicity, or sex.
– student roles in groups: Each group member has a specific role to play
in a group, such as noise monitor, turn-taker monitor, recorder, or
summarizer.
Individual accountability involves both group and individual perfor-
mance, for example, by assigning each student a grade on his or her
portion of a team project or by calling on a student at random to share
with the whole class, with group members, or with another group.
Social skills determine the way students interact with each other as
teammates. Usually some explicit instruction in social skills is needed to
ensure successful interaction.
Structuring and Structures refer to ways of organizing student interac-
tion and different ways students are to interact such as Three-step inter-
view or Round Robin (discussed later in this section).
Numerous descriptions exist of activity types that can be used with
CLL. Coelho (1992b: 132) describes three major kinds of cooperative
learning tasks and their learning focus, each of which has many
variations.
1. Team practice from common input – skills development and mastery
of facts
– All students work on the same material.
– Practice could follow a traditional teacher-directed presentation of new
material and for that reason is a good starting point for teachers and/or
students new to group work.
– The task is to make sure that everyone in the group knows the answer
to a question and can explain how the answer was obtained or under-
stands the material. Because students want their team to do well, they
coach and tutor each other to make sure that any member of the group
could answer for all of them and explain their team’s answer.
– When the teacher takes up the question or assignment, anyone in a
group may be called on to answer for the team.
– This technique is good for review and for practice tests; the group takes
the practice test together, but each student will eventually do an assign-
ment or take a test individually.
– This technique is effective in situations where the composition of the
groups is unstable (in adult programs, for example). Students can form
new groups every day.
2. Jigsaw: differentiated but predetermined input – evaluation and syn-
thesis of facts and opinions
– Each group member receives a different piece of the information.

198
– Students regroup in topic groups (expert groups) composed of people
with the same piece to master the material and prepare to teach it.
– Students return to home groups (Jigsaw groups) to share their informa-
tion with each other.
– Students synthesize the information through discussion.
– Each student produces an assignment of part of a group project, or
takes a test, to demonstrate synthesis of all the information presented
by all group members.
– This method of organization may require team-building activities for
both home groups and topic groups, long-term group involvement,
and rehearsal of presentation methods.
– This method is very useful in the multilevel class, allowing for both
homogeneous and heterogeneous grouping in terms of English
proficiency.
– Information-gap activities in language teaching are jigsaw activities in
the form of pair work. Partners have data (in the form of text, tables,
charts, etc.) with missing information to be supplied during interaction
with another partner.
3. Cooperative projects: topics/resources selected by students –
discovery learning
– Topics may be different for each group.
– Students identify subtopics for each group member.
– Steering committee may coordinate the work of the class as a whole.
– Students research the information using resources such as library refer-
ence, interviews, visual media.
– Students synthesize their information for a group presentation: oral
and/or written. Each group member plays a part in the presentation.
– Each group presents to the whole class.
– This method places greater emphasis on individualization and stu-
dents’ interests. Each student’s assignment is unique.
– Students need plenty of previous experience with more structured
group work for this to be effective.
Olsen and Kagan (1992: 88) describes the following examples of CLL
activities:
Three-step interview: (1) Students are in pairs; one is interviewer and
the other is interviewee. (2) Students reverse roles. (3) Each shares with
team member what was learned during the two interviews.
Roundtable: There is one piece of paper and one pen for each team. (1)
One student makes a contribution and (2) passes the paper and pen to the
student of his or her left. (3) Each student makes contributions in turn. If
done orally, the structure is called Round Robin.
Think-Pair-Share: (1) Teacher poses a question (usually a low-
consensus question). (2) Students think of a response. (3) Students discuss

199
their responses with a partner. (4) Students share their partner’s response
with the class.
Solve-Pair-Share: (1) Teacher poses a problem (a low-consensus or
high-consensus item that may be resolved with different strategies). (2)
Students work out solutions individually. (3) Students explain how they
solved the problem in Interview or Round Robin structures.
Numbered Heads: (1) Students number off in teams. (2) Teacher asks a
question (usually high-consensus). (3) Heads Together – students literally
put their heads together and make sure everyone knows and can explain
the answer. (4) Teacher calls a number and students with that number
raise their hands to be called on, as in traditional classroom.
Learner roles
The primary role of the learner is as a member of a group who must work
collaboratively on tasks with other group members. Learners have to
learn teamwork skills. Learners are also directors of their own learning.
They are taught to plan, monitor, and evaluate their own learning, which
is viewed as a compilation of lifelong learning skills. Thus, learning is
something that requires students’ direct and active involvement and par-
ticipation. Pair grouping is the most typical CLL format, ensuring the
maximum amount of time both learners spend engaged on learning tasks.
Pair tasks in which learners alternate roles involve partners in the role of
tutors, checkers, recorders, and information sharers.
Teacher roles
The role of the teacher in CLL differs considerably from the role of
teachers in traditional teacher-fronted lesson. The teacher has to create a
highly structured and well-organized learning environment in the class-
room, setting goals, planning and structuring tasks, establishing the phys-
ical arrangement of the classroom, assigning students to groups and roles,
and selecting materials and time (Johnson et al. 1994). An important role
for the teacher is that of facilitator of learning. In his or her role as
facilitator, the teacher must move around the class helping students and
groups as needs arise:
During this time the teacher interacts, teaches, refocuses, questions, clarifies,
supports, expands, celebrates, empathizes. Depending on what problems
evolve, the following supportive behaviors are utilized. Facilitators are giving
feedback, redirecting the group with questions, encouraging the group to solve
its own problems, extending activity, encouraging thinking, managing conflict,
observing students, and supplying resources. (Harel 1992: 169)
Teachers speak less than in teacher-fronted classes. They provide broad
questions to challenge thinking, they prepare students for the tasks they

200
will carry out, they assist students with the learning tasks, and they give
few commands, imposing less disciplinary control (Harel 1992). The
teacher may also have the task of restructuring lessons so that students
can work on them cooperatively. This involves the following steps, ac-
cording to Johnson et al. (1994: 9):
1. Take your existing lessons, curriculum, and sources and structure
them cooperatively.
2. Tailor cooperative learning lessons to your unique instructional needs,
circumstances, curricula, subject areas, and students.
3. Diagnose the problems some students may have in working together
and intervene to increase learning groups’ effectiveness.
Materials play an important part in creating opportunities for students to
work cooperatively. The same materials can be used as are used in other
types of lessons but variations are required in how the materials are used.
For example, if students are working in groups, each might have one set
of materials (or groups might have different sets of materials), or each
group member might need a copy of a text to read and refer to. Materials
may be specially designed for CLL learning (such as commercially sold
jigsaw and information-gap activities), modified from existing materials,
or borrowed from other disciplines.
Procedure
Johnson et al. (1994: 67–68) give the following example of how a col-
laborative learning lesson would be carried out when students are re-
quired to write an essay, report, poem, or story, or review something that
they have read. A cooperative writing and editing pair arrangement is
used. Pairs verify that each member’s composition matches the criteria
that have been established by the teacher; they then receive an individual
score on the quality of their compositions. They can also be given a group
score based on the total number of errors made by the pair in their
individual compositions. The procedure works in the following way:
1. The teacher assigns students to pairs with at least one good reader in
each pair.
2. Student A describes what he or she is planning to write to Student B,
who listens carefully, probes with a set of questions, and outlines
Student A’s ideas. Student B gives the written outline to Student A.
3. This procedure is reversed, with Student B describing what he or she is

201
going to write and Student A listening and completing an outline of
Student B’s ideas, which is then given to Student B.
4. The students individually research the material they need for their
compositions, keeping an eye out for material useful to their partner.
5. The students work together to write the first paragraph of each com-
position to ensure that they both have a clear start on their
compositions.
6. The students write their compositions individually.
7. When the students have completed their compositions, they proofread
each other’s compositions, making corrections in capitalization, punc-
tuation, spelling, language usage, and other aspects of writing the
teacher specifies. Students also give each other suggestions for
revision.
8. The students revise their compositions.
9. The students then reread each other’s compositions and sign their
names to indicate that each composition is error-free.
During this process, the teacher monitors the pairs, intervening when
appropriate to help students master the needed writing and cooperative
skills.
Conclusions
The use of discussion groups, group work, and pair work has often been
advocated both in teaching languages and in other subjects. Typically,
such groups are used to provide a change from the normal pace of class-
room events and to increase the amount of student participation in les-
sons. Such activities, however, are not necessarily cooperative. In Cooper-
ative Learning, group activities are the major mode of learning and are
part of a comprehensive theory and system for the use of group work in
teaching. Group activities are carefully planned to maximize students’
interaction and to facilitate students’ contributions to each other’s learn-
ing. CLL activities can also be used in collaboration with other teaching
methods and approaches.
Unlike most language teaching proposals, CLL has been extensively
researched and evaluated and research findings are generally supportive
(see Slavin 1995; Baloche 1998), although little of this research was con-
ducted in L2 classrooms. CLL is not without its critics, however. Some
have questioned its use with learners of different proficiency levels, sug-
gesting that some groups of students (e.g., intermediate and advanced
learners) may obtain more benefits from it than others. In addition, it
places considerable demands on teachers, who may have difficulty adapt-
ing to the new roles required of them. Proponents of CLL stress that it
enhances both learning and learners’ interaction skills.

202
Baloche, L. 1998. The Cooperative Classroom. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall.
Bloom, S. 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: David
McKay.
Brody, C., and N. Davidson (eds). 1998. Professional Development for Coopera-
tive Learning. New York: State University of New York Press.
Christison, M., and S. Bassano. 1981. Look Who’s Talking. San Fransisco: Al-
emany Press.
Coelho, E. 1992a. Cooperative learning: Foundation for a communicative curric-
ulum. In C. Kessler (ed.), Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s
Resource Book. New York: Prentice Hall. 31–51.
Coelho, E. 1992b. Jigsaw: Integrating language and content. In C. Kessler 129–
152.
Coelho, E. 1994. Learning Together in the Multicultural Classroom. Scar-
borough, Ont.: Pippin.
Dishon, D., and P. W. O’Leary. 1998. A Guidebook for Cooperative Learning.
Holmes Beach, Fla.: Learning Publications.
Fathman, A., and C. Kessler. 1992. Cooperative language learning in school
contexts. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13: 127–140.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.),
Syntax and Semantics, vol 3, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–
58.
Harel, Y. 1992. Teacher talk in the cooperative learning classroom. In C. Kessler
(ed.), Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book. New
York: Prentice Hall. 153–162.
Jacobs, G. M., G. Lee, and J. Ball. 1995. Learning Cooperative Learning via
Cooperative Learning. Singapore: Regional Language Centre.
Johnson, D., R. Johnson, and E. Holubec. 1994. Cooperative Learning in the
Classroom. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kagan, S. 1992. Cooperative Learning. San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Kagan Co-
operative Learning.
Kessler, C. 1992 (ed.). Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource
Book. New York: Prentice Hall.
McGroarty, M. 1989. The benefits of cooperative learning arrangements in sec-
ond lnguage instruction. NABE Journal 13(2) (winter): 127–143.
Olsen, J. W. B. 1978. Communication Starters and Other Activities for the ESL
Classroom. San Fransisco: Alemany Press.
Olsen, R., and S. Kagan. 1992. About cooperative learning. In C. Kessler (ed.),
Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book. New York:
Prentice Hall. 1–30.
Palmer, A., and T. Rodgers. 1986. Back and Forth: Pair Activities for Language
Development. San Fransisco: Alemany Press.
Piaget, J. 1965. The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: World
Publishing Co.
Richards, J., and R. Schmidt. 1983. Language and Communication. London:
Longman.

203
Rodgers, T. 1988. Cooperative language learning: What’s new? PASAA: A Jour-
nal of Language Teaching and Learning 18(2): 12–23.
Sharan, S. (ed.). 1994. Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods. Westport,
Conn.: Greenwood Press.
University Press.
Slavin, R. 1995. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. 2nd ed.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Vygotsky, L. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Weeks, T. 1979. Born to Talk. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Wiederhold, C. 1995. The Question Matrix. San Juan Capistrano, Calif.: Kagan
Cooperative Learning.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
17 - Content-Based Instruction pp. 204-222

204
17 Content-Based Instruction
Background
Content-Based Instruction (CBI) refers to an approach to second lan-
guage teaching in which teaching is organized around the content or
information that students will acquire, rather than around a linguistic or
other type of syllabus. Krahnke offers the following definition:
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. (Krahnke, 1987: 65)
The term content has become a popular one both within language teach-
ing and in the popular media. New York Times columnist and linguistic
pundit William Safire addressed it in one of his columns in 1998 and
noted:
If any word in the English language is hot, buzzworthy and finger-snappingly
with it, surpassing even millennium in both general discourse and insiderese,
that word is content. Get used to it, because we won’t soon get over it. (New
York Times, August 19, 1998, 15)
Although content is used with a variety of different meanings in language
teaching, it most frequently refers to the substance or subject matter that
we learn or communicate through language rather than the language
used to convey it. Attempts to give priority to meaning in language
teaching are not new. Approaches encouraging demonstration, imitation,
miming, those recommending the use of objects, pictures, and au-
diovisual presentations, and proposals supporting translation, explana-
tion, and definition as aids to understanding meaning have appeared at
different times in the history of language teaching. Brinton, Snow, and
Wesche (1989) propose that Saint Augustine was an early proponent of
Content-Based Language Teaching and quote his recommendations re-
garding focus on meaningful content in language teaching. Kelly’s history
of language teaching cites a number of such meaning-based proposals
(Kelly 1969). Content-Based Instruction likewise draws on the principles
of Communicative Language Teaching, as these emerged in the 1980s. If,
as it was argued, classrooms should focus on real communication and the
exchange of information, an ideal situation for second language learning
would be one where the subject matter of language teaching was not

Content-Based Instruction
205
grammar or functions or some other language-based unit of organiza-
tion, but content, that is, subject matter from outside the domain of
language. The language that is being taught could be used to present
subject matter, and the students would learn the language as a by-product
of learning about real-world content. Widdowson commented (1978:
16):
I would argue, then, that a foreign language can be associated with those areas
of use which are represented by the other subjects on the school curriculum
and that this not only helps to ensure the link with reality and the pupil’s own
experience but also provides us with the most certain means we have of teach-
ing the language as communication, as use, rather than simply as usage. The
kind of language course that I envisage is one which deals with a selection of
topics taken from the other subjects: simple experiments in physics and
chemistry, biological processes in plants and animals, map-drawing, descrip-
tions of historical events and so on. . . . It is easy to see that if such a pro-
cedure were adopted, the difficulties associated with the presentation of
language use in the classroom would, to a considerable degree, disappear. The
presentation would essentially be the same as the methodological techniques
used for introducing the topics in the subjects from which they are drawn.
Other educational initiatives since the late 1970s that also emphasize the
principle of acquiring content through language rather than the study of
language for its own sake include Language across the Curriculum, Im-
mersion Education, Immigrant On-Arrival Programs, Programs for Stu-
dents with Limited English Proficiency, and Language for Specific Pur-
poses. Content-Based Instruction draws some of its theory and practice
from these curriculum approaches. We will briefly consider the role of
content in these curriculum models before looking at the specific claims
of Content-Based Instruction.
The role of content in other curriculum designs
Language across the Curriculum was a proposal for native-language
education that grew out of recommendations of a British governmental
commission in the mid-1970s. The report of the commission recom-
mended a focus on reading and writing in all subject areas in the curricu-
lum, and not merely in the subject called language arts. Language skills
should also be taught in the content subjects and not left exclusively for
the English teacher to deal with. This report influenced American educa-
tion as well, and the slogan “Every teacher, an English teacher” became
familiar to every teacher. Like other cross-disciplinary proposals, this one
never had the classroom impact that its advocates had hoped for. Nev-
ertheless, subject-matter texts appeared that included exercises dealing
with language practice, and the need for collaboration between subject-
matter teachers and language teachers was emphasized. In some cases,

206
curricular material was produced that integrated subject matter and lan-
guage teaching goals, such as the Singaporean Primary Pilot Project in the
1970s – classroom texts integrating science, math, and language study.
Immersion Education has also had a strong influence on the theory of
Content-Based Instruction. Immersion Education is a type of foreign
language instruction in which the regular school curriculum is taught
through the medium of the foreign language. The foreign language is the
vehicle for content instruction; it is not the subject of instruction. Thus,
for example, an English-speaking child might enter a primary school in
which the medium of instruction for all the content subjects is French.
Student goals of an immersion program include: (1) developing a high
level of proficiency in the foreign language; (2) developing positive atti-
tudes toward those who speak the foreign language and toward their
culture(s); (3) developing English language skills commensurate with ex-
pectations for a student’s age and abilities; (4) gaining designated skills
and knowledge in the content areas of the curriculum.
The first immersion programs were developed in Canada in the 1970s
to provide English-speaking students with the opportunity to learn
French. Since that time, immersion programs have been adopted in many
parts of North America, and alternative forms of immersion have been
devised. In the United States, immersion programs can be found in a
number of languages, including French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and
Chinese.
Immigrant On-Arrival Programs typically focus on the language newly
arrived immigrants in a country need for survival. Such learners typically
need to learn how to deal with differing kinds of real-world content as a
basis for social survival. Design of such courses in Australia was among
the first attempts to integrate notional, functional, grammatical, and
lexical specifications built around particular themes and situations. A
typical course would cover language needed to deal with immigration
bureaucracies, finding accommodations, shopping, finding a job, and so
forth. The methodology of the Australian on-arrival courses was based
on the Direct Method (Ozolins 1993) but included role play and simula-
tions based on the language needed to function in specific situations. In
current on-arrival programs, a competency-based approach is often used
in which a teaching syllabus is developed around the competencies
learners are presumed to need in different survival situations (see Chapter
13).
Programs for Students with Limited English Proficiency (SLEP) are
governmentally mandated programs to serve especially those children
whose parents might be served by the on-arrival programs, but more
generally designed to provide in-class or pullout instruction for any
school-age children whose language competence is insufficient to partici-
pate fully in normal school instruction. Early versions of such programs

207
were largely grammar-based. More recent SLEP programs focus on giv-
ing students the language and other skills needed to enter the regular
school curriculum. Such skills often involve learning how to carry out
academic tasks and understand academic content through a second
language.
Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) is a movement that seeks to serve
the language needs of learners who need language in order to carry out
specific roles (e.g., student, engineer, technician, nurse) and who thus
need to acquire content and real-world skills through the medium of a
second language rather than master the language for its own sake. LSP
has focused particularly on English for Science and Technology (EST). An
institution offering English for Science and Technology courses would
have specialized courses to support its clients in learning to read technical
articles in computer science or to write academic papers in chemical
engineering. LSP/EST have given rise to a number of subfields, such as
ESP (English for Specific Purposes), EOP (English for Occupational Pur-
poses), and EAP (English for Academic Purposes).
Content-based courses are now common in many different settings and
content is often used as the organizing principle in ESL/EFL courses of
many different kinds. In this chapter we will examine the principles
underlying Content-Based Instruction and how these are applied in lan-
guage teaching programs and teaching materials.
Approach
Content-Based Instruction is grounded on the following two central prin-
ciples: (as we examine how these principles are applied in CBI, a number
of other issues will also be considered):
1. People learn a second language more successfully when they use the
language as a means of acquiring information, rather than as an end in
itself. This principle reflects one of the motivations for CBI noted earlier –
that it leads to more effective language learning.
2. Content-Based Instruction better reflects learners’ needs for learn-
ing a second language. This principle reflects the fact that many content-
based programs serve to prepare ESL students for academic studies or for
mainstreaming; therefore, the need to be able to access the content of
academic learning and teaching as quickly as possible, as well as the
processes through which such learning and teaching are realized, are a
central priority.
Theory of language
A number of assumptions about the nature of language underlie Content-
Based Instruction.

208
language is text- and discourse-based
CBI addresses the role of language as a vehicle for learning content. This
implies the centrality of linguistic entities longer than single sentences,
because the focus of teaching is how meaning and information are com-
municated and constructed through texts and discourse. The linguistic
units that are central are not limited to the level of sentences and subsen-
tential units (clauses and phrases) but are those that account for how
longer stretches of language are used and the linguistic features that
create coherence and cohesion within speech events and text types. This
involves study of the textual and discourse structure of written texts such
as letters, reports, essays, descriptions, or book chapters, or of speech
events such as meetings, lectures, and discussions.
language use draws on integrated skills
CBI views language use as involving several skills together. In a content-
based class, students are often involved in activities that link the skills,
because this is how the skills are generally involved in the real world.
Hence students might read and take notes, listen and write a summary, or
respond orally to things they have read or written. And rather than
viewing grammar as a separate dimension of language, in CBI grammar is
seen as a component of other skills. Topic- or theme-based courses pro-
vide a good basis for an integrated skills approach because the topics
selected provide coherence and continuity across skill areas and focus on
the use of language in connected discourse rather than isolated frag-
ments. They seek to bring together knowledge, language, and thinking
skills. Grammar can also be presented through a content-based ap-
proach. The teacher or course developer has the responsibility to identify
relevant grammatical and other linguistic focuses to complement the
topic or theme of the activities.
language is purposeful
Language is used for specific purposes. The purpose may be academic,
vocational, social, or recreational but it gives direction, shape, and ulti-
mately meaning to discourse and texts. When learners focus on the pur-
pose of the language samples they are exposed to, they become engaged
in following through and seeing if the purpose is attained and how their
own interests relate to this purpose (or purposes). For learners to receive
maximum benefit from CBI they need to be clearly in tune with its
purposes and the language codes that signal and link these expressions of
purpose.
Language contains great potential for communicating meaning. In or-
der to make content comprehensible to learners, teachers need to make

209
the same kinds of adjustments and simplifications that native speakers
make in communicating with second language learners. The discourse
that results from these simplifications is often referred to as “foreigner
talk.” Teachers and lecturers operating within CBI consciously and un-
consciously make such “foreigner talk” modifications in the language
they use in teaching, in order to make the content they are focusing on
more comprehensible to their students. These modifications include sim-
plification (e.g., use of shorter T units and clauses), well-formedness (e.g.,
using few deviations from standard usage), explicitness (e.g., speaking
with nonreduced pronunciation), regularization (e.g., use of canonical
word order), and redundancy (e.g., highlighting important material
through simultaneous use of several linguistic mechanisms) (Stryker and
Leaver, 1993).
Theory of learning
We earlier described one of the core principles of CBI as follows: People
learn a second language more successfully when they use the language as
a means of acquiring information, rather than as an end in itself. Regard-
less of the type of CBI model that is used, they all “share the fact that
content is the point of departure or organizing principle of the course – a
feature that grows out of the common underlying assumption that suc-
cessful language learning occurs when students are presented with target
language material in a meaningful, contextualized form with the primary
focus on acquiring information” (Brinton et al., Wesche, 1989: 17). This
assumption is backed by a number of studies (e.g., Scott 1974; Collier
1989; Grandin 1993; Wesche 1993) that support the position that in
formal educational settings, second languages are best learned when the
focus is on mastery of content rather than on mastery of language per se.
CBI thus stands in contrast to traditional approaches to language teach-
ing in which language form is the primary focus of the syllabus and of
classroom teaching.
A number of additional assumptions that derive from the core princi-
ples of CBI just discussed will now be described. One important corollary
can be stated as follows:
People learn a second language most successfully when the information they
are acquiring is perceived as interesting, useful, and leading to a desired goal.
To justify this claim, CBI advocates refer to ESP studies that “note that
for successful learning to occur, the language syllabus must take into
account the eventual uses the learner will make of the target language”
and further that “the use of informational content which is perceived as
relevant by the learner is assumed by many to increase motivation in the

210
language course, and thus to promote more effective learning” (Brinton
et al. 1989: 3).
Language learning is also believed to be more motivating when stu-
dents are focusing on something other than language, such as ideas,
issues, and opinions. “The student can most effectively acquire a second
language when the task of language learning becomes incidental to the
task of communicating with someone . . . about some topic . . . which is
inherently interesting to the student” (D’Anglejan and Tucker 1975:
284). If content with a high level of interest is chosen, learners may
acquire the language more willingly. This can be expressed as:
Some content areas are more useful as a basis for language learning than
others.
Certain areas of content are thought to be more effective as a basis for
CBI than others. For example, geography is often the “first choice” of
subject matter. Geography is “highly visual, spatial and contextual; it
lends itself to the use of maps, charts, and realia, and the language tends
to be descriptive in nature with use of the ‘to be,’ cognates and proper
names” (Stryker and Leaver 1993: 288). For somewhat different reasons,
“Introduction to Psychology offered an ideal situation in which to intro-
duce CBI at the bilingual University of Ottawa, since it has the largest
enrollment of any introductory course in the university” and thus was
likely to “attract a large enough number of second language speakers to
justify special lecture or discussion sections” (Brinton et al., 1989: 46).
This course was further recommended because of student interest in the
course topics and because of “the highly structured nature of the content,
the emphasis on receptive learning of factual information, the availability
of appropriate textbooks and video study material” (Brinton et al., 1989:
46).
On the other hand, CBI courses have been created around a rich variety
of alternative kinds of content. Case studies of CBI in foreign language
education report content selection as wide-ranging as “Themes of Soviet
Life and Worldview” (Russian), “Aphorisms, Proverbs, and Popular Say-
ings” (Italian), “Religion and Change in Twentieth-Century Latin Amer-
ica” (Spanish), and “French Media” (French). Eleven such case studies
using a variety of course content in a variety of foreign language teaching
situations are reported in Stryker and Leaver (1993).
Students learn best when instruction addresses students’ needs.
This principle emphasizes that in CBI the content that students study is
selected according to their needs. Hence, if the program is at a secondary
school, the academic needs of students across the curriculum form the
basis for the content curriculum. Authentic texts, both written and spo-
ken, that students will encounter in the real world (e.g., at school or at

211
work) provide the starting point for developing a syllabus, so relevance to
learners’ needs is assured. In the case of an academically focused pro-
gram, “the language curriculum is based directly on the academic needs
of the students and generally follows the sequence determined by a partic-
ular subject matter in dealing with the language problems which students
encounter” (Brinton et al., 1989: 2).
Teaching builds on the previous experience of the learners.
Another assumption of CBI is that it seeks to build on students’ knowl-
edge and previous experience. Students do not start out as blank slates
but are treated as bringing important knowledge and understanding to
the classroom. The starting point in presenting a theme-based lesson is
therefore what the students already know about the content.
Design
Objectives
In CBI, language learning is typically considered incidental to the learning
of content. Thus the objectives in a typical CBI course are stated as
objectives of the content course. Achievement of content course objec-
tives is considered as necessary and sufficient evidence that language
learning objectives have been achieved as well. An exception to this gener-
alization is with the theme-based instructional model of CBI. In theme-
based CBI, language learning objectives drive the selection of theme
topics; that is, “there are often set linguistic objectives in the curriculum,
and thematic modules are selected for the degree to which they provide
compatible contexts for working towards these objectives.” It is possible
for theme-based courses to be directed toward single-skill objectives;
however, most often theme-based instruction “lends itself well to four-
skills courses, since the topic selected provides coherence and continuity
across skill areas and allows work on higher-level language skills (e.g.,
integrating reading and writing skills)” (Brinton et al., 1989: 26).
An example of objectives in CBI comes from the theme-based Intensive
Language Course (ILC) at the Free University of Berlin. Four objectives
were identified for its yearlong, multitheme program. These objectives
were linguistic, strategic, and cultural. Objectives were:
1. to activate and develop existing English language skills
2. to acquire learning skills and strategies that could be applied in future
language development opportunities
3. to develop general academic skills applicable to university studies in
all subject areas
4. to broaden students’ understanding of English-speaking peoples
(Brinton et al., 1989: 32)

212
Syllabus
In most CBI courses, the syllabus is derived from the content area, and
these obviously vary widely in detail and format. It is typically only CBI
following the theme-based model in which content and instructional
sequence is chosen according to language learning goals. The theme-
based model uses the syllabus type referred to as a topical syllabus, the
organization of which is built around specific topics and subtopics, as the
name implies.
The organization of the Intensive Language Course at the Free Univer-
sity of Berlin consists of a sequence of modules spread over the academic
year. The topical themes of the modules are:
1. Drugs 8. Microchip Technology
2. Religious Persuasion 9. Ecology
3. Advertising 10. Alternative Energy
4. Drugs 11. Nuclear Energy
5. Britain and the Race Question 12. Dracula in Myth, Novel, and
6. Native Americans Films
7. Modern Architecture 13. Professional Ethics
There is both macro- and micro-structuring of the yearlong syllabus for
this course. At the macro-level, the syllabus consists of a sequence of
modules selected to reflect student interests and a multidisciplinary per-
spective. The modules are designed and sequenced so that they “relate to
one another so as to create a cohesive transition of certain skills, vocabu-
lary, structures, and concepts.” The first six modules are ordered so that
early modules have easily accessible, high-interest themes. “Later mod-
ules deal with more technical processes and assume mastery of certain
skills, vocabulary, structures, and concepts” (Brinton et al., 1989: 35).
The internal design of the modules (the micro-structure) is such that:
All modules move from an initial exercise intended to stimulate student inter-
est in the theme through a variety of exercises aimed at developing com-
prehension and the students’ ability to manipulate the language appropriate to
the situation and use the language of the texts. The final activities of each
module require the students themselves to choose the language appropriate for
the situation and use it in communicative interaction. (Brinton et al., 1989:
34)
There are a number of descriptions of activity types in CBI. Stoller (1997)
provides a list of activities classified according to their instructional
focus. The classification categories she proposes are:
– language skills improvement

213
– vocabulary building
– discourse organization
– communicative interaction
– study skills
– synthesis of content materials and grammar.
Mohan (1986) describes an approach to content-based ESL instruction
at the secondary level that is built around the notion of knowledge struc-
tures. This refers to the structures of knowledge across the curriculum in
terms of frameworks and schemas that apply to a wide range of topics.
The framework consists of six universal knowledge structures, half of
which represent specific, practical elements (Description, Sequence, and
Choice) and the other half of which represent general, theoretical ele-
ments (Concepts/Classification, Principles, and Evaluation). A variety of
CBI courses have been developed based on Mohan’s knowledge
framework.
Learner roles
One goal of CBI is for learners to become autonomous so that they come
to “understand their own learning process and . . . take charge of their
own learning from the very start” (Stryker and Leaver 1993: 286). In
addition, most CBI courses anticipate that students will support each
other in collaborative modes of learning. This may be a challenge to those
students who are accustomed to more whole-class or independent learn-
ing and teaching modes. CBI is in the “learning by doing” school of
pedagogy. This assumes an active role by learners in several dimensions.
Learners are expected to be active interpreters of input, willing to tolerate
uncertainty along the path of learning, willing to explore alternative
learning strategies, and willing to seek multiple interpretations of oral
and written texts.
Learners themselves may be sources of content and joint participants in
the selection of topics and activities. Such participation “has been found
to be highly motivating and has resulted in a course changing its direction
in order to better meet the needs of students” (Stryker and Leaver 1993:
11). Learners need commitment to this new kind of approach to language
learning, and CBI advocates warn that some students may not find this
new set of learner roles to their liking and may be less than ready and
willing participants in CBI courses. Some students are overwhelmed by
the quantity of new information in their CBI courses and may flounder.
Some students are reported to have experienced frustration and have
asked to be returned to more structured, traditional classrooms. Students
need to be prepared both psychologically and cognitively for CBI and, if
they are not adequately primed, then “missing schemata needs to be

214
provided or students need to be kept from enrolling until they are
‘ready’” (Stryker and Leaver 1993: 292).
The role of teachers
CBI anticipates a change in the typical roles of language teachers. “In-
structors must be more than just good language teachers. They must be
knowledgeable in the subject matter and able to elicit that knowledge
from their students” (Stryker and Leaver 1993: 292). At a more detailed
level, teachers have to keep context and comprehensibility foremost in
their planning and presentations, they are responsible for selecting and
adapting authentic materials for use in class, they become student needs
analysts, and they have to create truly learner-centered classrooms. As
Brinton et al. (1989: 3) note:
They are asked to view their teaching in a new way, from the perspective of
truly contextualizing their lessons by using content as the point of departure.
They are almost certainly committing themselves to materials adaptation and
development. Finally, with the investment of time and energy to create a
content-based language course comes even greater responsibility for the
learner, since learner needs become the hub around which the second language
curriculum and materials, and therefore teaching practices, revolve.
Stryker and Leaver suggest the following essential skills for any CBI
instructor:
1. Varying the format of classroom instruction
2. Using group work and team-building techniques
3. Organizing jigsaw reading arrangements
4. Defining the background knowledge and language skills required for
student success
5. Helping students develop coping strategies
6. Using process approaches to writing
7. Using appropriate error correction techniques
8. Developing and maintaining high levels of student esteem
(Stryker and Leaver 1993: 293)
Content-Based Instruction places different demands on teachers from
regular ESL teaching. Brinton et al. (1989) identify the following issues:
– Are adequately trained instructors available to teach the selected
courses?
– Will there be any incentives offered to instructors who volunteer to
teach in the proposed program (e.g., salary increases, release time,
smaller class sizes)?
– How will faculty not willing or qualified to participate in the new
program be reassigned?

215
– How will teachers and other support staff be oriented to the model
(e.g., pre-service, in-service)?
– What is the balance of language and content teaching (i.e., focus on
content teaching, focus on language teaching, equal attention to both)?
– What are the roles of the teacher (e.g., facilitator, content-area expert,
language expert)? What is the anticipated workload (e.g., contact
hours, curriculum duties)?
– Who is responsible for selecting the teaching materials?
– Are teachers expected to develop content-specific language-teaching
materials? If yes, will materials development training and guidelines be
provided?
– Will alternate staffing configurations (e.g., curriculum and materials
specialists, team teaching) be used?
Almost all participating instructors comment on the large amounts of
time and energy involved in Content-Based Instruction and many
describe it as “a major challenge. Taking up this challenge requires a
highly motivated and dedicated individual – or group of individuals”
(Stryker and Leaver 1993: 311).
The role of materials
As with other elements in CBI, the materials that facilitate language
learning are the materials that are used typically with the subject matter of
the content course. It is recommended that a rich variety of materials
types be identified and used with the central concern being the notion
that the materials are “authentic.” In one sense, authenticity implies that
the materials are like the kinds of materials used in native-language in-
struction. In another sense, authenticity refers to introduction of, say,
newspaper and magazine articles and any other media materials “that
were not originally produced for language teaching purposes” (Brinton et
al., 1989: 17). Many CBI practitioners recommend the use of realia such
as tourist guidebooks, technical journals, railway timetables, newspaper
ads, radio and TV broadcasts, and so on, and at least one cautions that
“textbooks are contrary to the very concept of CBI – and good language
teaching in general” (Stryker and Leaver 1993: 295).
However, comprehensibility is as critical as authenticity and it has been
pointed out that CBI courses are often “characterized by a heavy use of
instructional media (e.g., videotapes and/or audiotapes) to further enrich
the context provided by authentic readings selected to form the core of
the thematic unit” (Brinton et al. 1989: 31). Although authenticity is
considered critical, CBI proponents do note that materials (as well as
lecturer presentations) may need modification in order to ensure max-
imum comprehensibility. This may mean linguistic simplification or
adding redundancy to text materials. It will certainly mean “providing

216
guides and strategies to assist them [students] in comprehending the
materials” (Brinton et al., 1989: 17).
Contemporary models of content-based instruction
The principles of CBI can be applied to the design of courses for learners
at any level of language learning. The following are examples of different
applications of CBI.
Courses at the university level
Several different approaches to Content-Based Instruction have been
developed at the university level.
Theme-based language instruction. This refers to a language course in
which the syllabus is organized around themes or topics such as “pollu-
tion” or “women’s rights.” The language syllabus is subordinated to the
more general theme. A general theme such as “business and marketing”
or “immigrants in a new city” might provide organizing topics for 2
weeks of integrated classroom work. Language analysis and practice
evolve out of the topics that form the framework for the course. A topic
might be introduced through a reading, vocabulary developed through
guided discussion, audio or video material on the same topic used for
listening comprehension, followed by written assignments integrating
information from several different sources. Most of the materials used
will typically be teacher-generated and the topic treated will cross all
skills (Brinton et al., 1989).
Sheltered content instruction. This refers to content courses taught in
the second language by a content area specialist, to a group of ESL
learners who have been grouped together for this purpose. Since the ESL
students are not in a class together with native speakers, the instructor
will be required to present the content in a way which is comprehensible
to second language learners and in the process use language and tasks at
an appropriate level of difficulty. Typically, the instructor will choose
texts of a suitable difficulty level for the learners and adjust course re-
quirements to accommodate the learners’ language capacities (e.g., by
making fewer demands for written assignments). Shih cites examples of
such an approach in sheltered psychology courses for English and French
immersion students at the University of Ottawa, courses in English for
business and economics offered at Oregon State University, and ESP
courses in English for business, economics, and computer science at
Western Illinois University (Shih 1986: 638).
Adjunct language instruction. In this model, students are enrolled in
two linked courses, one a content course and one a language course, with
both courses sharing the same content base and complementing each

217
other in terms of mutually coordinated assignments. Such a program
requires a large amount of coordination to ensure that the two curricula
are interlocking and this may require modifications to both courses.
Team-teach approach. This is a variation on the adjunct approach.
Shih (1986) describes two examples of this approach. One (developed at
the University of Birmingham) focuses on lecture comprehension and the
writing of examination questions in fields such as transportation and
plant biology. The work of recording lectures and preparing comprehen-
sion checks (including exam questions) is shared between the subject
teacher and the language teacher, and during class time, both help stu-
dents with problems that arise. A second example is from a polytechnic
program in Singapore. An English-for-occupational-purposes writing
course was designed to prepare students for writing tasks they might have
to carry out in future jobs in building maintenance and management (e.g.,
writing of specifications, memos, accident reports, progress reports, and
meeting reports). The subject teacher finds authentic or realistic situa-
tions that are the basis for report assignments. As students work on these
assignments, both teachers acts as consultants. Models written by the
subject teacher or based on the best student work are later presented and
discussed (Shih 1986: 638).
Skills-based approach. This is characterized by a focus on a specific
academic skill area (e.g., academic writing) that
is linked to concurrent study of specific subject matter in one or more aca-
demic disciplines. This may mean that students write about material they are
currently studying in an academic course or that the language or composition
course itself simulates the academic process (e.g. mini-lectures, readings, and
discussion on a topic lead into writing assignments). Students write in a vari-
ety of forms (e.g. short-essay tests, summaries, critiques, research reports) to
demonstrate understanding of the subject matter and to extend their knowl-
edge to new areas. Writing is integrated with reading, listening, and discussion
about the core content and about collaborative and independent research
growing form the core material. (Shih, 1986: 617–618)
Courses at the elementary and secondary level
Variations of the approaches discussed in the preceding section are also
found at the secondary and elementary level.
Theme-based approach. A common model at this level is one in which
students complete theme-based modules that are designed to facilitate
their entry into the regular subject-areas classroom. These models do not
provide a substitute for mainstream content classes but focus on learning
strategies, concepts, tasks, and skills that are needed in subject areas in
the mainstream curriculum, grouped around topics and themes such as
consumer education, map skills, foods, and nutrition.

218
Two critical elements are necessary in developing an approach in which
language proficiency and academic content are developed in parallel:
integration of second language development into regular content-area
instruction and creation of appropriate conditions for providing input.
Success for this model rests on cooperative learning in heterogeneous
small-group settings. This entails:
– grouping strategies
– alternative ways for providing input
– techniques for making subject matter comprehensible
– opportunities to develop language proficiency for academic purposes
(Kessler and Quinn 1989: 75)
This approach acknowledges that preparing ESL students for main-
streaming is a responsibility not only for ESL teachers but also for con-
tent teachers. The latter have to increasingly acknowledge the crucial role
language plays in content learning.
An example of this approach is described by Wu (1996) in a program
prepared for ESL students in an Australian high school. Topics from a
range of mainstream subjects were chosen as the basis for the course and
to provide a transition to mainstream classes. Topics were chosen pri-
marily to cater to the widest variety of students’ needs and interests.
Linguistic appropriateness was another factor taken into account when
choosing topics as some involved more technical terms and complex
grammatical constructions. The topics were also chosen for relevance to
the Australian sociopolitical and cultural climate. Topics that fulfilled
these criteria included multiculturalism, the nuclear age, sports, the
Green movement, street kids, and teenage smoking (Wu 1996: 23).
Adjunct approach. Parallel to the theme-based component described
by Wu was an adjunct course focusing on science. Both ESL teachers and
science teachers were involved in this aspect of the course, which focused
on preparing students to make the transition to learning science through
English. The adjunct course focused on the following:
1. Understanding specialized science terminologies and concepts
2. Report writing skills
3. Grammar for science
4. Note-taking skills
(Wu 1996: 24)
Courses in private language institutes
Theme-based courses also provide a framework for courses and materials
in many programs outside the public school and university sector, such as
the private language-school market. With theme-based courses, a set of
themes might be selected as the basis for a semester’s work, and each

219
theme used as the basis for 6 or more hours of work in which the four
skills and grammar are taught drawing on the central theme. Such an
approach also provides the basis for many published ESL texts (e.g.,
Richards and Sandy 1998).
Procedure
Since Content-Based Instruction refers to an approach rather than a
method, no specific techniques or activities are associated with it. At the
level of procedure, teaching materials and activities are selected accord-
ing to the extent to which they match the type of program it is. Stryker
and Leaver (1997: 198–199) describe a typical sequence of classroom
procedures in a content-based lesson. The lesson is a Spanish lesson built
around the viewing of the film El Norte.
Preliminary preparation: Students read reference materials regarding U.S.
immigration laws as well as an extract from Octavio Paz’s El Laberinto
de la Soledad.
1. Linguistic analysis: discussion of grammar and vocabulary based on
students’ analysis of oral presentations done the day before.
2. Preparation for film: activities previewing vocabulary in the film,
including a vocabulary worksheet.
3. Viewing a segment of the movie.
4. Discussion of the film: The teacher leads a discussion of the film.
5. Discussion of the reading.
6. Videotaped interview: Students see a short interview in which immi-
gration matters are discussed.
7. Discussion: a discussion of immigration reform.
8. Preparation of articles: Students are given time to read related articles
and prepare a class presentation.
9. Presentation of articles: Students make presentations, which may be
taped so that they can later listen for self-correction.
10. Wrap-up discussion.
Conclusion
Content-based approaches in language teaching have been widely used in
a variety of different settings since the 1980s. From its earliest applica-
tions in ESP, EOP, and immersion programs, it is now widely used in K–
12 programs for ESL students, in university foreign language programs,
and in business and vocational courses in EFL settings. Its advocates
claim that it leads to more successful program outcomes than alternative
language teaching approaches. Because it offers unlimited opportunities

220
for teachers to match students’ interests and needs with interesting and
meaningful content, it offers many practical advantages for teachers and
course designers. Brinton et al., (1989: 2) observe:
In a content-based approach, the activities of the language class are specific to
the subject being taught, and are geared to stimulate students to think and
learn through the target language. Such an approach lends itself quite natu-
rally to the integrated teaching of the four traditional language skills. For ex-
ample, it employs authentic reading materials which require students not only
to understand information but to interpret and evaluate it as well. It provides
a forum in which students can respond orally to reading and lecture materials.
It recognizes that academic writing follows from listening, and reading, and
thus requires students to synthesize facts and ideas from multiple sources as
preparation for writing. In this approach, students are exposed to study skills
and learn a variety of language skills which prepare then for a range of aca-
demic tasks they will encounter.
Critics have noted that most language teachers have been trained to teach
language as a skill rather than to teach a content subject. Thus, language
teachers may be insufficiently grounded to teach subject matter in which
they have not been trained. Team-teaching proposals involving language
teachers and subject-matter teachers are often considered unwieldy and
likely to reduce the efficiency of both. However, because CBI is based on
a set of broad principles that can be applied in many different ways and is
widely used as the basis for many different kinds of successful language
programs, we can expect to see CBI continue as one of the leading curric-
ular approaches in language teaching.
Brinton, D. M., M. A. Snow, and M. B. Wesche. 1989. Content-Based Second
Language Instruction. New York: Newbury House.
Brinton, D. M., and P. Master (eds.). 1997. New Ways in Content-Based Instruc-
tion. Alexandria, Va.: TESOL Inc.
Burger, S. 1989. Content-based ESL in a sheltered psychology course: Input,
output and outcomes. TESL Canada Journal 6: 45–49.
Cantoni-Harvey, G. 1987. Content-Area Language Instruction. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Collier, V. 1989. How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a
second language. TESOL Quarterly 23: 509–531.
Crandall, J. (ed.). 1987. ESL through Content-Area Instruction: Mathematics,
Science, Social Studies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
D’Anglejan, A., and R. Tucker. 1975. The acquisition of complex English struc-
tures by adult learners. Language Learning 25(2): 281–296.
Dudley-Evans, T., and M. J. St John (eds.). 1998. Developments in English for
Specific Purposes: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

221
Gass, S., and C. Madden (eds.). 1985. Input in Second Language Acquisition.
New York: Newbury House.
Grabe, W., and F. Stoller. 1997. Content-Based Instruction: Research founda-
tions. In M. Snow and D. M. Brinton (eds.), The Content-Based Classroom.
New York: Longman.
Grandin, J. 1993. The University of Rhode Island’s International Engineering
Program. In M. Krueger and F. Ryan (eds.), Language and Content. Lex-
ington, Mass.: D. C. Heath. 57–79.
Hutchison, T., and A. Waters. 1987. English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge:
Jordan, R. R. 1997. English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kelly, L. G. 1969. 25 Centuries of Language Teaching. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House.
Kessler, C., and M. Quinn. 1987. ESL and science learning. In J. Crandall (ed.),
ESL through Content Area Instruction: Mathematics, Science, and Social
Studies. Englewood Cliffs, N.Y. Prentice Hall. 55–88.
Krahnke, K. 1987. Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teach-
ing. New York: Prentice Hall.
Mohan, B. 1986. Language and Content. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Mohan, B. 1993. A common agenda for language and content integration. In N.
Bird, J. Harris, and M. Ingram (eds.), Language and Content. Hong Kong:
Institute of Language in Education. 4–19.
Ozolins, U. 1993. The Politics of Language in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J. C., and C. Sandy. 1998. Passages. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Richards, J. C., and D. Hurley. 1990. Language and content: Approaches to
curriculum alignment. In J. C. Richards, The Language Teaching Matrix.
New York: Cambridge University Press. 144–162.
Robinson, P. 1980. ESP (English for Specific Purposes). Oxford: Pergamon.
Safire, W. 1998. On language: The summer of this content. New York Times,
August 19, 1998, 15.
Scott, M. S. 1974. A note on the relationship between English proficiency, years
of language study and the medium of instruction. Language Learning 24:
99–104.
Shih, M. 1986. Content-based approaches to teaching academic writing. TESOL
Quarterly 20(4) (December): 617–648.
Snow, M., and D. M. Brinton (eds.). 1998. The Content-Based Classroom. New
York: Longman.
Snow, M., M. Met, and F. Genesee. 1989. A conceptual framework for the
integration of language and content in second/foreign language instruction.
TESOL Quarterly 23: 201–217.
Stoller, F. 1997. Project work: a means to promote language and content. English
Teaching Forum. 35(4): 2–9, 37.
Stoller, F., and W. Grabe. 1997. A Six-T’s Approach to Content-Based Instruc-
tion. In M. Snow and D. Brinton (eds.), The Content-Based Classroom:
Perspectives on Integrating Language and Content. White Plains, N.Y.:
Longman. 78–94.

222
Stryker, S., and B. Leaver. 1993. Content-Based Instruction in Foreign Language
Education. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Wesche, M. 1993. Discipline-based approaches to language study: Research is-
sues and outcomes. In M. Krueger and F. Ryan (eds.), Language and Con-
tent. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath. 80–95.
Widdowson, H. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Widdowson, H. 1983. Learning Purpose and Learning Use. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wu, S.-M. 1996. Content-based ESL at high school level: A case study. Prospect
11(1): 18–36.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
18 - Task-Based Language Teaching pp. 223-243

223
18 Task-Based Language Teaching
Background
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) refers to an approach based on
the use of tasks as the core unit of planning and instruction in language
teaching. Some of its proponents (e.g., Willis 1996) present it as a logical
development of Communicative Language Teaching since it draws on
several principles that formed part of the communicative language teach-
ing movement from the 1980s. For example:
– Activities that involve real communication are essential for language
learning.
– Activities in which language is used for carrying out meaningful tasks
promote learning.
– Language that is meaningful to the learner supports the learning
process.
Tasks are proposed as useful vehicles for applying these principles. Two
early applications of a task-based approach within a communicative
framework for language teaching were the Malaysian Communicational
Syllabus (1975) and the Bangalore Project (Beretta and Davies 1985;
Prabhu 1987; Beretta 1990) both of which were relatively short-lived.
The role of tasks has received further support from some researchers in
second language acquisition, who are interested in developing pedagogi-
cal applications of second language acquisition theory (e.g., Long and
Crookes 1993). An interest in tasks as potential building blocks of second
language instruction emerged when researchers turned to tasks as SLA
research tools in the mid-1980s. SLA research has focused on the strat-
egies and cognitive processes employed by second language learners. This
research has suggested a reassessment of the role of formal grammar
instruction in language teaching. There is no evidence, it is argued, that
the type of grammar-focused teaching activities used in many language
classrooms reflects the cognitive learning processes employed in natu-
ralistic language learning situations outside the classroom. Engaging
learners in task work provides a better context for the activation of
learning processes than form-focused activities, and hence ultimately
provides better opportunities for language learning to take place. Lan-
guage learning is believed to depend on immersing students not merely in

224
“comprehensible input” but in tasks that require them to negotiate mean-
ing and engage in naturalistic and meaningful communication.
The key assumptions of task-based instruction are summarized by Feez
(1998: 17) as:
– The focus is on process rather than product.
– Basic elements are purposeful activities and tasks that emphasize com-
munication and meaning.
– Learners learn language by interacting communicatively and pur-
posefully while engaged in the activities and tasks.
– Activities and tasks can be either:
those that learners might need to achieve in real life;
those that have a pedagogical purpose specific to the classroom.
– Activities and tasks of a task-based syllabus are sequenced according to
difficulty.
– The difficulty of a task depends on a range of factors including the
previous experience of the learner, the complexity of the task, the
language required to undertake the task, and the degree of support
available.
Because of its links to Communicative Language Teaching methodology
and support from some prominent SLA theorists, TBLT has gained con-
siderable attention within applied linguistics, though there have been few
large-scale practical applications of it and little documentation concern-
ing its implications or effectiveness as a basis for syllabus design, mate-
rials development, and classroom teaching.
Task-Based Language Teaching proposes the notion of “task” as a
central unit of planning and teaching. Although definitions of task vary in
TBLT, there is a commonsensical understanding that a task is an activity
or goal that is carried out using language, such as finding a solution to a
puzzle, reading a map and giving directions, making a telephone call,
writing a letter, or reading a set of instructions and assembling a toy:
Tasks . . . are activities which have meaning as their primary focus. Success in
tasks is evaluated in terms of achievement of an outcome, and tasks generally
bear some resemblance to real-life language use. So task-based instruction
takes a fairly strong view of communicative language teaching. (Skehan
1996b: 20)
Nunan (1989: 10) offers this definition:
the communicative task [is] a piece of classroom work which involves learners
in comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting in the target lan-
guage while their attention is principally focused on meaning rather than
form. The task should also have a sense of completeness, being able to stand
alone as a communicative act in its own right.

Task-Based Language Teaching
225
Although advocates of TBLT have embraced the concept of task with
enthusiasm and conviction, the use of tasks as a unit in curriculum plan-
ning has a much older history in education. It first appeared in the voca-
tional training practices of the 1950s. Task focus here first derived from
training design concerns of the military regarding new military tech-
nologies and occupational specialties of the period. Task analysis initially
focused on solo psychomotor tasks for which little communication or
collaboration was involved. In task analysis, on-the-job, largely manual
tasks were translated into training tasks. The process is outlined by
Smith:
The operational system is analyzed from the human factors point of view, and
a mission profile or flow chart is prepared to provide a basis for developing
the task inventory. The task inventory (an outline of the major duties in the
job and the more specific job tasks associated with each duty) is prepared,
using appropriate methods of job analysis. Decisions are made regarding tasks
to be taught and the level of proficiency to be attained by the students. A
detailed task description is prepared for those tasks to be taught. Each task is
broken down into the specific acts required for its performance. The specific
acts, or task elements, are reviewed to identify the knowledge and skill com-
ponents involved in task performance. Finally, a hierarchy of objectives is or-
ganized. (Smith 1971: 584)
A similar process is at the heart of the curriculum approach known as
Competency-Based Language Teaching (see Chapter 13). Task-based
training identified several key areas of concern.
1. analysis of real-world task-use situations
2. the translation of these into teaching tasks descriptions
3. the detailed design of instructional tasks
4. the sequencing of instructional tasks in classroom training/teaching
These same issues remain central in current discussions of task-based
instruction in language teaching. Although task analysis and instructional
design initially dealt with solo job performance on manual tasks, atten-
tion then turned to team tasks, for which communication is required.
Four major categories of team performance function were recognized:
1. orientation functions (processes for generating and distributing infor-
mation necessary to task accomplishment to team members)
2. organizational functions (processes necessary for members to coordi-
nate actions necessary for task performance)
3. adaptation functions (processes occurring as team members adapt
their performance to each other to complete the task)

226
4. motivational functions (defining team objectives and “energizing the
group” to complete the task)
(Nieva, Fleishman, and Rieck [1978], cited in Crookes 1986)
Advocates of TBLT have made similar attempts to define and validate the
nature and function of tasks in language teaching. Although studies of the
kind just noted have focused on the nature of occupational tasks, aca-
demic tasks have also been the focus of considerable attention in general
education since the early 1970s. Doyle noted that in elementary educa-
tion, “the academic task is the mechanism through which the curriculum
is enacted for students” (Doyle 1983: 161). Academic tasks are defined as
having four important dimensions:
1. the products students are asked to produce
2. the operations they are required to use in order to produce these
products
3. the cognitive operations required and the resources available
4. the accountability system involved
All of the questions (and many of the proposed answers) that were
raised in these early investigations of tasks and their role in training and
teaching mirror similar discussions in relation to Task-Based Language
Teaching. In this chapter, we will outline the critical issues in Task-Based
Language Teaching and provide examples of what task-based teaching is
supposed to look like.
Approach
Theory of language
TBLT is motivated primarily by a theory of learning rather than a theory
of language. However, several assumptions about the nature of language
can be said to underlie current approaches to TBLT. These are:
language is primarily a means of making meaning
In common with other realizations of communicative language teaching,
TBLT emphasizes the central role of meaning in language use. Skehan
notes that in task-based instruction (TBI), “meaning is primary . . . the
assessment of the task is in terms of outcome” and that task-based in-
struction is not “concerned with language display” (Skehan 1998: 98).
multiple models of language inform tbi
Advocates of task-based instruction draw on structural, functional, and
interactional models of language, as defined in Chapter 1. This seems to

227
be more a matter of convenience than of ideology. For example, struc-
tural criteria are employed by Skehan in discussing the criteria for deter-
mining the linguistic complexity of tasks:
Language is simply seen as less-to-more complex in fairly traditional ways,
since linguistic complexity is interpretable as constrained by structural syllabus
considerations. (Skehan 1998: 99)
Other researchers have proposed functional classifications of task types.
For example, Berwick uses “task goals” as one of two distinctions in
classification of task types. He notes that task goals are principally “edu-
cational goals which have clear didactic function” and “social (phatic)
goals which require the use of language simply because of the activity in
which the participants are engaged.” (Berwick 1988, cited in Skehan
1998: 101). Foster and Skehan (1996) propose a three-way functional
distinction of tasks – personal, narrative, and decision-making tasks.
These and other such classifications of task type borrow categories of
language function from models proposed by Jakobson, Halliday,
Wilkins, and others.
Finally, task classifications proposed by those coming from the SLA
research tradition of interaction studies focus on interactional dimen-
sions of tasks. For example, Pica ( 1994) distinguishes between interac-
tional activity and communicative goal.
TBI is therefore not linked to a single model of language but rather
draws on all three models of language theory.
lexical units are central in language use and
language learning
In recent years, vocabulary has been considered to play a more central
role in second language learning than was traditionally assumed. Vocabu-
lary is here used to include the consideration of lexical phrases, sentence
stems, prefabricated routines, and collocations, and not only words as
significant units of linguistic lexical analysis and language pedagogy.
Many task-based proposals incorporate this perspective. Skehan, for ex-
ample (1996b: 21–22), comments:
Although much of language teaching has operated under the assumption that
language is essentially structural, with vocabulary elements slotting in to fill
structural patterns, many linguists and psycholinguists have argued that native
language speech processing is very frequently lexical in nature. This means
that speech processing is based on the production and reception of whole
phrase units larger than the word (although analyzable by linguists into
words) which do not require any internal processing when they are ‘reeled
off’. . . . . Fluency concerns the learner’s capacity to produce language in real
time without undue pausing for hesitation. It is likely to rely upon more lex-

228
icalized modes of communication, as the pressures of real-time speech produc-
tion met only by avoiding excessive rule-based computation.
“conversation” is the central focus of language
and the keystone of language acquisition
Speaking and trying to communicate with others through the spoken
language drawing on the learner’s available linguistic and communicative
resources is considered the basis for second language acquisition in TBI;
hence, the majority of tasks that are proposed within TBLT involve con-
versation. We will consider further the role of conversation later in this
chapter.
Theory of learning
TBI shares the general assumptions about the nature of language learning
underlying Communicative Language Teaching (see Chapter 14). How-
ever some additional learning principles play a central role in TBLT the-
ory. These are:
tasks provide both the input and output processing
necessary for language acquisition
Krashen has long insisted that comprehensible input is the one necessary
(and sufficient) criterion for successful language acquisition (see Chapter
15). Others have argued, however, that productive output and not merely
input is also critical for adequate second language development. For
example, in language immersion classrooms in Canada, Swain (1985)
showed that even after years of exposure to comprehensible input, the
language ability of immersion students still lagged behind native-
speaking peers. She claimed that adequate opportunities for productive
use of language are critical for full language development. Tasks, it is said,
provide full opportunities for both input and output requirements, which
are believed to be key processes in language learning. Other researchers
have looked at “negotiation of meaning” as the necessary element in
second language acquisition. “It is meaning negotiation which focuses a
learner’s attention on some part of an [the learner’s] utterance (pronun-
ciation, grammar, lexicon, etc.) which requires modification. That is,
negotiation can be viewed as the trigger for acquisition” (Plough and
Gass 1993: 36).
Tasks are believed to foster processes of negotiation, modification,
rephrasing, and experimentation that are at the heart of second language
learning. This view is part of a more general focus on the critical impor-
tance of conversation in language acquisition (e.g., Sato 1988). Drawing
on SLA research on negotiation and interaction, TBLT proposes that the

229
task is the pivot point for stimulation of input–output practice, negotia-
tion of meaning, and transactionally focused conversation.
task activity and achievement are motivational
Tasks are also said to improve learner motivation and therefore promote
learning. This is because they require the learners to use authentic lan-
guage, they have well-defined dimensions and closure, they are varied in
format and operation, they typically include physical activity, they in-
volve partnership and collaboration, they may call on the learner’s past
experience, and they tolerate and encourage a variety of communication
styles. One teacher trainee, commenting on an experience involving lis-
tening tasks, noted that such tasks are “genuinely authentic, easy to
understand because of natural repetition; students are motivated to listen
because they have just done the same task and want to compare how they
did it” (quoted in Willis 1996: 61–62). (Doubtless enthusiasts for other
teaching methods could cite similar “evidence” for their effectiveness.)
learning difficulty can be negotiated and fine-
tuned for particular pedagogical purposes
Another claim for tasks is that specific tasks can be designed to facilitate
the use and learning of particular aspects of language. Long and Crookes
(1991: 43) claim that tasks
provide a vehicle for the presentation of appropriate target language samples
to learners – input which they will inevitably reshape via application of gen-
eral cognitive processing capacities – and for the delivery of comprehension
and production opportunities of negotiable difficulty.
In more detailed support of this claim, Skehan suggests that in selecting
or designing tasks there is a trade-off between cognitive processing and
focus on form. More difficult, cognitively demanding tasks reduce the
amount of attention the learner can give to the formal features of mes-
sages, something that is thought to be necessary for accuracy and gram-
matical development. In other words if the task is too difficult, fluency
may develop at the expense of accuracy. He suggests that tasks can be
designed along a cline of difficulty so that learners can work on tasks that
enable them to develop both fluency and an awareness of language form
(Skehan 1998: 97). He also proposes that tasks can be used to “channel”
learners toward particular aspects of language:
Such channeled use might be towards some aspect of the discourse, or accu-
racy, complexity, fluency in general, or even occasionally, the use of particular
sets of structures in the language. (Skehan 1998: 97–98)

230
Design
Objectives
There are few published (or perhaps, fully implemented) examples of
complete language programs that claim to be fully based on most recent
formulations of TBLT. The literature contains mainly descriptions of
examples of task-based activities. However, as with other communicative
approaches, goals in TBLT are ideally to be determined by the specific
needs of particular learners. Selection of tasks, according to Long and
Crookes (1993), should be based on a careful analysis of the real-world
needs of learners. An example of how this was done with a national
English curriculum is the English Language Syllabus in Schools Malay-
sian (1975) – a national, task-based communicative syllabus. A very
broad goal for English use was determined by the Ministry of Education
at a time when Malay was systematically replacing English-medium in-
struction at all levels of education. An attempt to define the role of
English, given the new role for national Malay language, led to the broad
goal of giving all Malaysian secondary school leavers the ability to com-
municate accurately and effectively in the most common English-
language activities they may be involved in. Following this broad state-
ment, the syllabus development team identified a variety of work situa-
tions in which English use was likely. The anticipated vocational (and
occasionally recreational) uses of English for nontertiary-bound, upper
secondary school leavers were stated as a list of general English use
objectives. The resulting twenty-four objectives then became the frame-
work within which a variety of related activities were proposed. The
components of these activities were defined in the syllabus under the
headings of Situation, Stimulus, Product, Tasks, and Cognitive Process.
An overview of the syllabus that resulted from this process is given in
Chapter 14.
The syllabus
The differences between a conventional language syllabus and a task-
based one are discussed below. A conventional syllabus typically specifies
the content of a course from among these categories:
– language structures
– functions
– topics and themes
– macro-skills (reading, writing, listening, speaking)
– competencies
– text types
– vocabulary targets

231
The syllabus specifies content and learning outcomes and is a document
that can be used as a basis for classroom teaching and the design of
teaching materials. Although proponents of TBLT do not preclude an
interest in learners’ development of any of these categories, they are more
concerned with the process dimensions of learning than with the specific
content and skills that might be acquired through the use of these pro-
cesses. A TBLT syllabus, therefore, specifies the tasks that should be
carried out by learners within a program.
Nunan (1989) suggests that a syllabus might specify two types of tasks:
1. real-world tasks, which are designed to practice or rehearse those
tasks that are found to be important in a needs analysis and turn out to
be important and useful in the real world
2. pedagogical tasks, which have a psycholinguistic basis in SLA theory
and research but do not necessarily reflect real-world tasks
Using the telephone would be an example of the former, and an
information-gap task would be an example of the latter. (It should be
noted that a focus on Type 1 tasks, their identification through needs
analysis, and the use of such information as the basis for the planning and
delivery of teaching are identical with procedures used in Competency-
Based Instruction; see Chapter 13.)
In the Bangalore Project (a task-based design for primary age learners
of English), both types of tasks were used, as is seen from the following
list of the first ten task types:
Task type Example
1. Diagrams and formations Naming parts of a diagram with num-
bers and letters of the alphabet as
instructed.
2. Drawing Drawing geometrical figures/
formations from sets of verbal in-
structions
3. Clock faces Positioning hands on a clock to show
a given time
4. Monthly calendar Calculating duration in days and
weeks in the context of travel,
leave, and so on
5. Maps Constructing a floor plan of a house
from a description
6. School timetables Constructing timetables for teachers
of particular subjects
7. Programs and itineraries Constructing itineraries from descrip-
tions of travel

232
8. Train timetables Selecting trains appropriate to given
needs
9. Age and year of birth Working out year of birth from age
10. Money Deciding on quantities to be bought
given the money available
(Adapted from Prabhu and cited in Nunan 1989: 42–44)
Norris, Brown, Hudson, and Yoshioka (1998) provide examples of rep-
resentative real-world tasks grouped according to themes. For example:
Theme: planning a vacation
Tasks
– decide where you can go based on the “advantage miles”
– booking a flight
– choosing a hotel
– booking a room
Theme: application to a university
Tasks
– applying to the university
– corresponding with the department chair
– inquiring about financial support
– selecting the courses you want and are eligible to take, using advice
from your adviser
– registering by phone
– calculating and paying your fees
It is hard to see that this classification offers much beyond the intuitive
impressions of the writers of Situational Language Teaching materials of
the 1960s or the data-free taxonomies that are seen in Munby’s Com-
municative Syllabus Design (1978). Nor have subsequent attempts at
describing task dimensions and task difficulty gone much beyond spec-
ulation (see Skehan 1998: 98–99).
In addition to selecting tasks as the basis for a TBLT syllabus, the
ordering of tasks also has to be determined. We saw that the intrinsic
difficulty of tasks has been proposed as a basis for the sequencing of
tasks, but task difficulty is itself a concept that is not easy to determine.
Honeyfield (1993: 129) offers the following considerations:
1. Procedures, or what the learners have to do to derive output from
input
2. Input text
3. Output required
a) Language items: vocabulary, structures, discourse structures, pro-
cessability, and so on

233
b) Skills, both macro-skills and subskills
c) World knowledge or “topic content”
d) Text handling or conversation strategies
4. Amount and type of help given
5. Role of teachers and learners
6. Time allowed
7. Motivation
8. Confidence
9. Learning styles
This list illustrates the difficulty of operationalizing the notion of task
difficulty: One could add almost anything to it, such as time of day, room
temperature, or the aftereffects of breakfast!
We have seen that there are many different views as to what constitutes a
task. Consequently, there are many competing descriptions of basic task
types in TBLT and of appropriate classroom activities. Breen gives a very
broad description of a task (1987: 26):
A language learning task can be regarded as a springboard for learning work.
In a broad sense, it is a structured plan for the provision of opportunities for
the refinement of knowledge and capabilities entailed in a new language and
its use during communication. Such a work plan will have its own particular
objective, appropriate content which is to be worked upon, and a working
procedure. . . . A simple and brief exercise is a task, and so also are more
complex and comprehensive work plans which require spontaneous com-
munication of meaning or the solving of problems in learning and com-
municating. Any language test can be included within this spectrum of tasks.
All materials designed for language teaching – through their particular organi-
zation of content and the working procedures they assume or propose for the
learning of content – can be seen as compendia of tasks.
For Prabhu, a task is “an activity which requires learners to arrive at an
outcome from given information through some process of thought, and
which allows teachers to control and regulate that process” (Prabhu
1987: 17). Reading train timetables and deciding which train one should
take to get to a certain destination on a given day is an appropriate
classroom task according to this definition. Crookes defines a task as “a
piece of work or an activity, usually with a specified objective, under-
taken as part of an educational course, at work, or used to elicit data for
research” (Crookes 1986: 1). This definition would lead to a very
different set of “tasks” from those identified by Prahbu, since it could
include not only summaries, essays, and class notes, but presumably, in

234
some language classrooms, drills, dialogue readings, and any of the other
“tasks” that teachers use to attain their teaching objectives.
In the literature on TBLT, several attempts have been made to group
tasks into categories, as a basis for task design and description. Willis
(1996) proposes six task types built on more or less traditional knowl-
edge hierarchies. She labels her task examples as follows:
1. listing
2. ordering and sorting
3. comparing
4. problem solving
5. sharing personal experiences
6. creative tasks
Pica, Kanagy, and Falodun (1993) classify tasks according to the type of
interaction that occurs in task accomplishment and give the following
classification:
1. Jigsaw tasks: These involve learners combining different pieces of
information to form a whole (e.g., three individuals or groups may
have three different parts of a story and have to piece the story
together).
2. Information-gap tasks: One student or group of students has one set
of information and another student or group has a complementary set
of information. They must negotiate and find out what the other
party’s information is in order to complete an activity.
3. Problem-solving tasks: Students are given a problem and a set of
information. They must arrive at a solution to the problem. There is
generally a single resolution of the outcome.
4. Decision-making tasks: Students are given a problem for which there
are a number of possible outcomes and they must choose one through
negotiation and discussion.
5. Opinion exchange tasks: Learners engage in discussion and exchange
of ideas. They do not need to reach agreement.
Other characteristics of tasks have also been described, such as the
following:
1. one-way or two-way: whether the task involves a one-way exchange
of information or a two-way exchange
2. convergent or divergent: whether the students achieve a common goal
or several different goals
3. collaborative or competitive: whether the students collaborate to carry
out a task or compete with each other on a task

235
4. single or multiple outcomes: whether there is a single outcome or
many different outcomes are possible
5. concrete or abstract language: whether the task involves the use of
concrete language or abstract language
6. simple or complex processing: whether the task requires relatively
simple or complex cognitive processing
7. simple or complex language: whether the linguistic demands of the
task are relatively simple or complex
8. reality-based or not reality-based: whether the task mirrors a real-
world activity or is a pedagogical activity not found in the real world
Learner roles
A number of specific roles for learners are assumed in current proposals
for TBI. Some of these overlap with the general roles assumed for learners
in Communicative Language Teaching while others are created by the
focus on task completion as a central learning activity. Primary roles that
are implied by task work are:
group participant
Many tasks will be done in pairs or small groups. For students more
accustomed to whole-class and/or individual work, this may require
some adaptation.
monitor
In TBLT, tasks are not employed for their own sake but as a means of
facilitating learning. Class activities have to be designed so that students
have the opportunity to notice how language is used in communication.
Learners themselves need to “attend” not only to the message in task
work, but also to the form in which such messages typically come packed.
A number of learner-initiated techniques to support learner reflection on
task characteristics, including language form, are proposed in Bell and
Burnaby (1984).
risk-taker and innovator
Many tasks will require learners to create and interpret messages for
which they lack full linguistic resources and prior experience. In fact, this
is said to be the point of such tasks. Practice in restating, paraphrasing,
using paralinguistic signals (where appropriate), and so on, will often be
needed. The skills of guessing from linguistic and contextual clues, asking
for clarification, and consulting with other learners may also need to be
developed.

236
Teacher roles
Additional roles are also assumed for teachers in TBI, including:
selector and sequencer of tasks
A central role of the teacher is in selecting, adapting, and/or creating the
tasks themselves and then forming these into an instructional sequence in
keeping with learner needs, interests, and language skill level.
preparing learners for tasks
Most TBLT proponents suggest that learners should not go into new
tasks “cold” and that some sort of pretask preparation or cuing is impor-
tant. Such activities might include topic introduction, clarifying task in-
structions, helping students learn or recall useful words and phrases to
facilitate task accomplishment, and providing partial demonstration of
task procedures. Such cuing may be inductive and implicit or deductive
and explicit.
consciousness-raising
Current views of TBLT hold that if learners are to acquire language
through participating in tasks they need to attend to or notice critical
features of the language they use and hear. This is referred to as “Focus on
Form.” TBLT proponents stress that this does not mean doing a grammar
lesson before students take on a task. It does mean employing a variety of
form-focusing techniques, including attention-focusing pretask activities,
text exploration, guided exposure to parallel tasks, and use of highlighted
material.
pedagogic materials
Instructional materials play an important role in TBLT because it is de-
pendent on a sufficient supply of appropriate classroom tasks, some of
which may require considerable time, ingenuity, and resources to
develop. Materials that can be exploited for instruction in TBLT are
limited only by the imagination of the task designer. Many contemporary
language teaching texts cite a “task focus” or “task-based activities”
among their credentials, though most of the tasks that appear in such
books are familiar classroom activities for teachers who employ col-
laborative learning, Communicative Language Teaching, or small-group
activities. Several teacher resource books are available that contain repre-
sentative sets of sample task activities (e.g., Willis 1996) that can be

237
adapted for a variety of situations. A number of task collections have also
been put into textbook form for students use. Some of these are in more
or less traditional text format (e.g., Think Twice, Hover 1986), some are
multimedia (e.g., Challenges, Candlin and Edelhoff 1982), and some are
published as task cards (e.g., Malaysian Upper Secondary Communica-
tional Syllabus Resource Kit, 1979). A wide variety of realia can also be
used as a resource for TBI.
realia
TBI proponents favor the use of authentic tasks supported by authentic
materials wherever possible. Popular media obviously provide rich re-
sources for such materials. The following are some of the task types that
can be built around such media products.
Newspapers
– Students examine a newspaper, determine its sections, and suggest
three new sections that might go in the newspaper.
– Students prepare a job-wanted ad using examples from the classified
section.
– Students prepare their weekend entertainment plan using the entertain-
ment section.
Television
– Students take notes during the weather report and prepare a map with
weather symbols showing likely weather for the predicted period.
– In watching an infomercial, students identify and list “hype” words
and then try to construct a parallel ad following the sequence of the
hype words.
– After watching an episode of an unknown soap opera, students list the
characters (with known or made-up names) and their possible relation-
ship to other characters in the episode.
Internet
– Given a book title to be acquired, students conduct a comparative
shopping analysis of three Internet booksellers, listing prices, mailing
times, and shipping charges, and choose a vendor, justifying their
choice.
– Seeking to find an inexpensive hotel in Tokyo, students search with
three different search engines (e.g., Yahoo, Netscape, Snap), comparing
search times and analyzing the first ten hits to determine most useful
search engine for their purpose.
– Students initiate a “chat” in a chat room, indicating a current interest
in their life and developing an answer to the first three people to
respond. They then start a diary with these text-sets, ranking the
responses.

238
Procedure
The way in which task activities are designed into an instructional bloc
can be seen from the following example from Richards (1985). The
example comes from a language program that contained a core compo-
nent built around tasks. The program was an intensive conversation
course for Japanese college students studying on a summer program in
the United States. Needs analysis identified target tasks the students
needed to be able to carry out in English, including:
– basic social survival transactions
– face-to-face informal conversations
– telephone conversations
– interviews on the campus
– service encounters
A set of role-play activities was then developed focusing on situations
students would encounter in the community and transactions they would
have to carry out in English. The following format was developed for
each role-play task:
Pretask activities
1. Learners first take part in a preliminary activity that introduces the
topic, the situation, and the “script” that will subsequently appear in
the role-play task. Such activities are of various kinds, including brain-
storming, ranking exercises, and problem-solving tasks. The focus is
on thinking about a topic, generating vocabulary and related lan-
guage, and developing expectations about the topic. This activity
therefore prepares learners for the role-play task by establishing sche-
mata of different kinds.
2. Learners then read a dialogue on a related topic. This serves both to
model the kind of transaction the learner will have to perform in the
role-play task and to provide examples of the kind of language that
could be used to carry out such a transaction.
Task activity
3. Learners perform a role play. Students work in pairs with a task and
cues needed to negotiate the task.
Posttask activities
4. Learners then listen to recordings of native speakers performing the
same role-play task they have just practiced and compare differences
between the way they expressed particular functions and meanings
and the way native speakers performed.
Willis (1996: 56–57) recommends a similar sequence of activities:

239
Pretask
Introduction to topic and task
– T helps Ss to understand the theme and objectives of the task, for
example, brainstorming ideas with the class, using pictures, mime, or
personal experience to introduce the topic.
– Ss may do a pretask, for example, topic-based odd-word-out games.
– T may highlight useful words and phrases, but would not preteach new
structures.
– Ss can be given preparation time to think about how to do the task.
– Ss can hear a recording of a parallel task being done (so long as this
does not give away the solution to the problem).
– If the task is based on a text, Ss read part of it.
The task cycle
Task
– The task is done by Ss (in pairs or groups) and gives Ss a chance to use
whatever language they already have to express themselves and say
whatever they want to say. This may be in response to reading a text or
hearing a recording.
– T walks round and monitors, encouraging in a supportive way every-
one’s attempts at communication in the target language.
– T helps Ss to formulate what they want to say, but will not intervene to
correct errors of form.
– The emphasis is on spontaneous, exploratory talk and confidence
building, within the privacy of the small group.
– Success in achieving the goals of the task helps Ss’ motivation.
Planning
– Planning prepares for the next stage, when Ss are asked to report
briefly to the whole class how they did the task and what the outcome
was.
– Ss draft and rehearse what they want to say or write.
– T goes round to advise students on language, suggesting phrases and
helping Ss to polish and correct their language.
– If the reports are in writing, T can encourage peer editing and use of
dictionaries.
– The emphasis is on clarity, organization, and accuracy, as appropriate
for a public presentation.
– Individual students often take this chance to ask questions about spe-
cific language items.
Report
– T asks some pairs to report briefly to the whole class so everyone can
compare findings, or begin a survey. (NB: There must be a purpose for

240
others to listen.) Sometimes only one or two groups report in full;
others comment and add extra points. The class may take notes.
– T chairs, comments on the content of their reports, rephrases perhaps,
but gives no overt public correction.
Posttask listening
– Ss listen to a recording of fluent speakers doing the same task, and
compare the ways in which they did the task themselves.
The language focus
Analysis
– T sets some language-focused tasks, based on the texts students have
read or on the transcripts of the recordings they have heard.
– Examples include the following:
Find words and phrases related to the title of the topic or text.
Read the transcript, find words ending in s or ’s, and say what the s
means.
Find all the verbs in the simple past form. Say which refer to past time
and which do not.
Underline and classify the questions in the transcript.
– T starts Ss off, then Ss continue, often in pairs.
– T goes round to help; Ss can ask individual questions.
– In plenary, T then reviews the analysis, possibly writing relevant lan-
guage up on the board in list form; Ss may make notes.
Practice
– T conducts practice activities as needed, based on the language analysis
work already on the board, or using examples from the text or
transcript.
– Practice activities can include:
choral repetition of the phrases identified and classified
memory challenge games based on partially erased examples or using
lists already on blackboard for progressive deletion
sentence completion (set by one team for another)
matching the past-tense verbs (jumbled) with the subject or objects
they had in the text
Kim’s game (in teams) with new words and phrases
dictionary reference words from text or transcript
Conclusion
Few would question the pedagogical value of employing tasks as a vehicle
for promoting communication and authentic language use in second lan-
guage classrooms, and depending on one’s definition of a task, tasks have

241
long been part of the mainstream repertoire of language teaching tech-
niques for teachers of many different methodological persuasions. TBLT,
however, offers a different rationale for the use of tasks as well as
different criteria for the design and use of tasks. It is the dependence on
tasks as the primary source of pedagogical input in teaching and the
absence of a systematic grammatical or other type of syllabus that charac-
terizes current versions of TBLT, and that distinguishes it from the use of
tasks in Competency-Based Language Teaching, another task-based ap-
proach but one that is not wedded to the theoretical framework and
assumptions of TBLT. Many aspects of TBLT have yet to be justified, such
as proposed schemes for task types, task sequencing, and evaluation of
task performance. And the basic assumption of Task-Based Language
Teaching – that it provides for a more effective basis for teaching than
other language teaching approaches – remains in the domain of ideology
rather than fact.
Bell, J., and B. Burnaby. 1984. A Handbook for ESL Literacy. Toronto: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education.
Beretta, A. 1990. Implementation of the Bangalore Project. Applied Linguistics
11(4): 321-337.
Beretta, A., and A. Davies. 1985. Evaluation of the Bangalore Project. English
Language Teaching Journal 30(2) 121–127.
Breen, M. 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In C. Candlin and D.
Murphy (eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall. 23–46.
Brown, G., and G. Yule. 1983. Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge:
Bygate, M. 1988. Units of oral expression and language learning in small group
intereaction. Applied Linguistics 9: 59–82.
Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. (eds.) 2000. Task-Based Learning: Lan-
guage Teaching, Learning, and Assessment. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
Candlin, C. 1987. Towards task-based language learning. In C. Candlin and D.
Murphy (eds.), Language Learning Tasks. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall. 5–21.
Candlin, C., and C. Edelhoff. 1982. Challenges: A Multi-media Project for
Learners of English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
Crookes, G. 1986. Task Classification: A Cross-Disciplinary Review. Technical
Report No. 4. Honolulu: Center for Second Language Classroom Research.
Crookes, G., and S. Gass (eds.). 1993. Tasks in a Pedagogical Context. Clevedon,
Philadelphia, and Adelaide: Multilingual Matters.
Day, R. (ed.). 1986. Talking to Learn. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Doyle, W. 1983. Academic work. Review of Educational Research 53(2): 159–
199.
Ellis, R. 1992. Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.

242
English Language Syllabus in Malaysian Schools, Tingkatan 4–5. 1975. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa Dan Pustaka.
Feez, S. 1998. Text-Based Syllabus Design. Sydney: National Centre for English
Teaching and Research.
Foley, Joseph 1991. A Psycholinguistic framework for task-based approaches to
language teaching. Applied Linguistics 12(1): 62–75.
Foster P., and P. Skehan 1996. The influence of planning on performance in task-
based learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 299–324.
Green, J. M. 1993. Student attitudes towards communicative and non-
communicative activities: Do enjoyment and effectiveness go together?
Modern Language Journal 77(1): 1–9.
Honeyfield, J. 1993. Responding to task difficulty. In M. Tickoo (ed.), Simplifica-
tion: Theory and Practice. Singapore: Regional Language Center. 127–138.
Hover, D. 1986. Think Twice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. 1996. Language Teaching and Skill Learning. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lantoff, J., and G. Appel (eds.). 1994. Vygotskian Approaches to Second Lan-
guage Research. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Legutke, M., and Thomas, H. 1991. Process and Experience in the Language
Classroom. London and New York: Longman.
Long, M., and G. Crookes 1991. Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly 26: 27–55.
Long, M., and G. Crookes. 1993. Units of analysis in course design – the case for
task. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Tasks in a Pedagogical Context:
Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
versity Press.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Language Teaching Techniques. Wellington: English Lan-
guage Institute, Victoria University.
Norris, J., J. Brown, T. Hudson, and J. Yoshioka. 1998. Designing Second Lan-
guage Performance Assessments. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Nunan, D. 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Pica, T. 1994. Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second lan-
guage learning, conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning 44:
493–527.
Pica, T., R. Kanagy, and J. Falodun. 1993. Choosing and using communicative
tasks for second language instruction. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.),
Tasks and Language Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters. 9–34.
Plough, I., and S. Gass. 1993. Interlocutor and task familiarity: effect on interac-
tional structure. In G. Crookes and S. Gass (eds.), Tasks and Language
Learning: Integrating Theory and Practice. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
35–56.
Prabhu, N. S. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.
Richards, J. C. 1985. Conversational competence through role-play activities.
RELC Journal 16(1): 82–100.
Richards, J. C. 1999. Addressing the grammar-gap in task work. Prospect 14(1):
4–19.

243
Resource Kits: English for Upper Secondary Schools. 1979. Kuala Lumpur:
Pusat Perbangunan Kurikulum, Kementarian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Robinson, P. 1995. Task complexity and second language narrative discourse.
Language Learning 45(1): 99–140.
Sato, C. 1988. Origins of complex syntax in interlanguage development. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 10: 371–395.
Skehan, P. 1996a. A framework for the implementation of task-based instruc-
tion. Applied Linguistics 17(1): 38–61.
Skehan, P. 1996b. Second language acquisition research and task-based instruc-
tion. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds.). Challenge and Change in Language
Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. 17–30.
University Press.
Smith, D. 1971. Task training. In AMA Encyclopedia of Supervisory Training.
New York: American Management Association. 581–586.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in development. In S. Gass and C. Madden
(eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury
House. 235–256.
Willis, J. 1996. A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis and D.
Willis (eds.), 235–256 Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Ox-
ford: Heinemann. 52–62.
Willis, J., and D. Willis (eds.). 1996. Challenge and Change in Language Teach-
ing. Oxford: Heinemann.

Online ISBN: 9780511667305
Chapter
19 - The post-methods era pp. 244-256

244
19 The post-methods era
From the survey of approaches and methods presented in this book we
have seen that the history of language teaching in the last one hundred
years has been characterized by a search for more effective ways of teach-
ing second or foreign languages. The commonest solution to the “lan-
guage teaching problem” was seen to lie in the adoption of a new teach-
ing approach or method. One result of this trend was the era of so-called
designer or brand-name methods, that is, packaged solutions that can be
described and marketed for use anywhere in the world. Thus, the Direct
Method was enthusiastically embraced in the early part of the twentieth
century as an improvement over Grammar Translation. In the 1950s the
Audiolingual Method was thought to provide a way forward, incorporat-
ing the latest insights from the sciences of linguistics and psychology. As
the Audiolingual Method began to fade in the 1970s, particularly in the
United States, a variety of guru-led methods emerged to fill the vacuum
created by the discrediting of Audiolingualism, such as the Silent Way,
Total Physical Response, and Suggestopedia. While these had declined
substantially by the 1990s, new “breakthroughs” continue to be an-
nounced from time to time, such as Task-Based Instruction, Neu-
rolinguistic Programming, and Multiple Intelligences, and these attract
varying levels of support. Mainstream language teaching on both sides of
the Atlantic, however, opted for Communicative Language Teaching
(CLT) as the recommended basis for language teaching methodology in
the 1980s and it continues to be considered the most plausible basis for
language teaching today, although, as we saw in Chapter 14, CLT is
today understood to mean little more than a set of very general principles
that can be applied and interpreted in a variety of ways.
This book describes approaches and methods in language teaching. We
have described an approach as a set of beliefs and principles that can be
used as the basis for teaching a language. The following are examples of
approaches that have been described in this book:
– Communicative Language Teaching
– Competency-Based Language Teaching
– Content-Based Instruction
– Cooperative Learning

The post-methods era
245
– Lexical Approaches
– Multiple Intelligences
– The Natural Approach
– Neurolinguistic Programming
– Task-Based Language Teaching
– Whole Language
Each of these approaches (or at least those that have been more fully
elaborated and adopted) has in common a core set of theories and beliefs
about the nature of language, of language learning, and a derived set of
principles for teaching a language. None of them, however, leads to a
specific set of prescriptions and techniques to be used in teaching a lan-
guage. They are characterized by a variety of interpretations as to how the
principles can be applied. Because of this level of flexibility and the
possibility of varying interpretations and application, approaches tend to
have a long shelf life. They allow for individual interpretation and appli-
cation. They can be revised and updated over time as new practices
emerge.
A method, on the other hand, refers to a specific instructional design or
system based on a particular theory of language and of language learning.
It contains detailed specifications of content, roles of teachers and
learners, and teaching procedures and techniques. It is relatively fixed in
time and there is generally little scope for individual interpretation.
Methods are learned through training. The teacher’s role is to follow the
method and apply it precisely according to the rules. The following are
examples of methods in this sense:
– Audiolingualism
– Counseling-Learning
– Situational Language Teaching
– The Silent Way
– Suggestopedia
– Total Physical Response
Compared to approaches, methods tend to have a relatively short shelf
life. Because they are often linked to very specific claims and to prescribed
practices, they tend to fall out of favor as these practices become un-
fashionable or discredited. The heyday of methods can be considered to
have lasted up till the late 1980s.
However, methods offer some advantages over approaches, and this
doubtless explains their appeal. Because of the general nature of ap-
proaches, there is often no clear application of their assumptions and
principles in the classroom, as we have seen with a number of the ap-
proaches described in this book. Much is left to the individual teacher’s

246
interpretation, skill, and expertise. Consequently, there is often no clear
right or wrong way of teaching according to an approach and no pre-
scribed body of practice waiting to be implemented. This lack of detail
can be a source of frustration and irritation for teachers, particularly
those with little training or experience. Methods, on the other hand, solve
many of the problems beginning teachers have to struggle with because
many of the basic decisions about what to teach and how to teach it have
already been made for them. Moreover, method enthusiasts create to-
gether a professional community with a common purpose, ideology, and
vernacular. This provides adherents with a cohort group of like-minded
teachers with whom they can share ideas and experiences. Methods can
also be seen as a rich resource of activities, some of which can be adapted
or adopted regardless of one’s own ideology. Like the “P-P-P” prescrip-
tion of Present, Practice, and Produce, a method offers to the novice
teacher the reassurance of a detailed set of sequential steps to follow in
the classroom.
The extent to which new approaches and methods become widely
accepted and have a lasting impact on teachers’ practices also depends on
the relative ease or difficulty of introducing the changes the approach or
method requires. Curriculum changes are of many different kinds. They
may affect teachers’ pedagogical values and beliefs, their understanding
of the nature of language or second language learning, or their classroom
practices and uses of teaching materials. Some changes may be readily
accepted, others resisted. The following questions will therefore affect
the extent to which a new approach or method is adopted:
– What advantages does the new approach or method offer? Is it per-
ceived to be more effective than current practices?
– How compatible is it with teachers’ existing beliefs and attitudes and
with the organization and practices within classrooms and schools?
– Is the new approach or method very complicated and difficult to under-
stand and use?
– Has it been tested out in some schools and classrooms before teachers
are expected to use it?
– Have the benefits of the new approach or method been clearly com-
municated to teachers and institutions?
– How clear and practical is the new approach or method? Are its expec-
tations stated in ways that clearly show how it can be used in the
classroom?
Practicality is a key issue. A methodology that can readily be turned into
teaching materials and textbooks and whose use requires no special train-
ing will generally be more readily adopted than one lacking these fea-
tures. The support networks available in promoting or explaining a new
teaching approach or method are also crucial. Here a ministry or depart-

247
ment of education, key educational administrators, leading academics,
and professional bodies and organizations can play an important role in
promoting a new approach or method.
From the descriptions given in this book it is clear that some ap-
proaches and methods are unlikely to be widely adopted because they are
difficult to understand and use, lack clear practical application, require
special training, and necessitate major changes in teachers’ practices and
beliefs. This is true of many of the alternative approaches and methods
described in this book.
Yet the notion of methods came under criticism in the 1990s for other
reasons, and a number of limitations implicit in the notion of all-purpose
methods were raised. By the end of the twentieth century, mainstream
language teaching no longer regarded methods as the key factor in ac-
counting for success or failure in language teaching. Some spoke of the
death of methods and approaches and the term “post-methods era” was
sometimes used. What were the major criticisms made of approaches and
methods?
The “top-down” criticism
While approaches tend to allow for varying interpretations in practice,
methods typically prescribe for teachers what and how to teach. Teachers
have to accept on faith the claims or theory underlying the method and
apply them to their own practice. Good teaching is regarded as correct
use of the method and its prescribed principles and techniques. Roles of
teachers and learners, as well as the type of activities and teaching tech-
niques to be used in the classroom, are generally prescribed. The role of
the teacher is marginalized; his or her role is to understand the method
and apply its principles correctly. Likewise, learners are sometimes
viewed as the passive recipients of the method and must submit them-
selves to its regime of exercises and activities. Absent from the traditional
view of methods is a concept of learner-centeredness and teacher
creativity: an acknowledgment that learners bring different learning
styles and preferences to the learning process, that they should be con-
sulted in the process of developing a teaching program, and that teaching
methods must be flexible and adaptive to learners’ needs and interests. At
the same time, there is often little room for the teacher’s own personal
initiative and teaching style. The teacher must submit herself or himself
to the method.

248
Role of contextual factors
Both approaches and methods are often promoted as all-purpose solu-
tions to teaching problems that can be applied in any part of the world
and under any circumstance. In trying to apply approaches or methods,
teachers sometimes ignore what is the starting point in language program
design, namely, a careful consideration of the context in which teaching
and learning occurs, including the cultural context, the political context,
the local institutional context, and the context constituted by the teachers
and learners in their classrooms.
For example, attempts to introduce Communicative Language Teach-
ing in countries with very different educational traditions from those in
which CLT was developed (Britain and the United States and other
English-speaking countries) have sometimes been described as “cultural
imperialism” because the assumptions and practices implicit in CLT are
viewed as “correct” whereas those of the target culture are seen in need of
replacement. Similarly, Counseling-Learning and Cooperative Learning
both make assumptions about the roles of teachers and learners that are
not necessarily culturally universal.
The need for curriculum development processes
Curriculum planners view debates over teaching method as part of a
broader set of educational planning decisions. These traditionally
involve:
a) The careful examination, drawing on all available sources of knowledge
and informed judgement, of the teaching objectives, whether in particular
subject courses or over the curriculum as a whole.
b) The development and trial use in schools of those methods and materials
which are judged most likely to achieve the objectives which teachers
agreed upon.
c) The assessment of the extent to which the development work has in fact
achieved its objectives. This part of the process may be expected to pro-
voke new thought about the objectives themselves.
d) The final element is therefore the feedback of all the experience gained, to
provide a starting point for further study.
(Nicholls and Nicholls 1972: 4)
These elements are viewed as forming a network of interacting systems.
Choice of teaching method cannot, therefore, be determined in isolation
from other planning and implementation practices (Richards 2000).

249
Lack of research basis
Approaches and methods are often based on the assumption that the
processes of second language learning are fully understood. Many of the
books written by method gurus are full of claims and assertions about
how people learn languages, few of which are based on second language
acquisition research or have been empirically tested. With some excep-
tions, such as Krashen, researchers who study language learning are
themselves usually reluctant to dispense prescriptions for teaching based
on the results of their research, because they know that current knowl-
edge is tentative, partial, and changing. Much of such research does not
support the often simplistic theories and prescriptions found in some
approaches and methods. Skehan, for example, commenting on the stan-
dard lesson sequence in Situational Language Teaching as well as other
methods consisting of a Presentation phase, a Practice phase, and a Pro-
duction phase (the P-P-P lesson model), points out that such a sequence
does not reflect principles of second language acquisition:
The underlying theory for a P-P-P approach has now been discredited. The be-
lief that a precise focus on a particular form leads to learning and automatiza-
tion (that learners will learn what is taught in the order in which it is taught)
no longer carries much credibility in linguistics or psychology. (Skehan 1996:
18)
Similarity of classroom practices
Another criticism is that it is very difficult for teachers to use approaches
and methods in ways that precisely reflect the underlying principles of the
method. Swaffar, Arens, and Morgan (1982: 25) commented:
One consistent problem is whether or not teachers involved in presenting ma-
terials created for a particular method are actually reflecting the underlying
philosophies of these methods in their classroom practices.
Swaffar and her colleagues studied how teachers using different methods
implemented them in the classroom and found that many of the distinc-
tions used to contrast methods, particularly those based on classroom
activities, did not exist in actual practice:
Methodological labels assigned to teaching activities are, in themselves, not in-
formative, because they refer to a pool of classroom practices which are used
uniformly. The differences among major methodologies are to be found in the
ordered hierarchy, the priorities assigned to tasks. (1982: 31)
Brown (1997: 3) makes a similar point:
Generally, methods are quite distinctive at the early, beginning stages of a lan-
guage course, and rather indistinguishable from each other at a later stage. In

250
the first few days of a Community Language Learning class, for example, the
students witness a unique set of experiences in their small circles of translated
language whispered in their ears. But within a matter of weeks, such class-
rooms can look like any other learner-centered curriculum.
It is perhaps for this reason that video samples of different approaches
and methods typically demonstrate the first lesson (or an early lesson) of a
foreign language class. There are no convincing video “demonstrations”
with intermediate or advanced learners, perhaps because, as Brown
points out, at that level there is nothing distinctive to demonstrate.
Beyond approaches and methods
What alternative approaches to the study of teaching are available out-
side of the framework of brand-name approaches and methods? We
believe that because approaches and methods have played a central role
in the development of our profession, it will continue to be useful for
teachers and student teachers to become familiar with the major teaching
approaches and methods proposed for second and foreign language
teaching. Mainstream approaches and methods draw on a large amount
of collective experience and practice from which much can be learned.
Approaches and methods can therefore be usefully studied and selectively
mastered in order:
– to learn how to use different approaches and methods and understand
when they might be useful
– to understand some of the issues and controversies that characterize
the history of language teaching
– to participate in language learning experiences based on different ap-
proaches and methods as a basis for reflection and comparison
– to be aware of the rich set of activity resources available to the imagina-
tive teacher
– to appreciate how theory and practice can be linked from a variety of
different perspectives
However, teachers and teachers in training need to be able to use ap-
proaches and methods flexibly and creatively based on their own judg-
ment and experience. In the process, they should be encouraged to trans-
form and adapt the methods they use to make them their own. Training in
the techniques and procedures of a specific method is probably essential
for novice teachers entering teaching, because it provides them with the
confidence they will need to face learners and it provides techniques and
strategies for presenting lessons. In the early stages, teaching is largely a
matter of applying procedures and techniques developed by others. An
approach or a predetermined method, with its associated activities, prin-
ciples, and techniques, may be an essential starting point for an inexperi-

251
enced teacher, but it should be seen only as that. As the teacher gains
experience and knowledge, he or she will begin to develop an individual
approach or personal method of teaching, one that draws on an estab-
lished approach or method but that also uniquely reflects the teacher’s
individual beliefs, values, principles, and experiences. This may not lead
to abandonment of the approach or method the teacher started out using
but will lead to a modification of it as the teacher adds, modifies, and
adjusts the approach or method to the realities of the classroom.
In developing a personal approach to teaching, a primary reference
point for the teacher is his or her personal beliefs and principles with
regard to the following:
– his or her role in the classroom
– the nature of effective teaching and learning
– the difficulties learners face and how these can be addressed
– successful learning activities
– the structure of an effective lesson
Beliefs and theories about these aspects of teaching result in the develop-
ment of core principles that provide the source for teacher’s plans and
instructional decisions (Richards 1998). An individual teacher may draw
on different principles at different times, depending on the type of class he
or she is teaching (e.g., children or adults, beginners, or advanced
learners). The following are examples of such principles (Bailey 1996):
– Engage all learners in the lesson.
– Make learners, and not the teacher, the focus of the lesson.
– Provide maximum opportunities for student participation.
– Develop learner responsibility.
– Be tolerant of learners’ mistakes.
– Develop learners’ confidence.
– Teach learning strategies.
– Respond to learners’ difficulties and build on them.
– Use a maximum amount of student-to-student activities.
– Promote cooperation among learners.
– Practice both accuracy and fluency.
– Address learners’ needs and interests.
Only a few of these principles will be consciously referred to at a given
time. Some may be derived from the approaches and methods teachers
are familiar with. Others are personally constructed over time based on
experience.
All classroom practices reflect teachers’ principles and beliefs, and
different belief systems among teachers can often explain why teachers
conduct their classes in different ways. Clark and Peterson (1986) noted
that:

252
– The most resilient or “core” teachers’ beliefs are formed on the basis of
teachers’ own schooling as young students while observing teachers
who taught them. Subsequent teacher education appears not to disturb
these early beliefs, not least, perhaps, because it rarely addresses them.
– If teachers actually try out a particular innovation that does not ini-
tially conform to their prior beliefs or principles and the innovation
proves helpful or successful, then accommodation of an alternative
belief or principle is more plausible than in any other circumstance.
– For the novice teacher, classroom experience and day-to-day interac-
tion with colleagues has the potential to influence particular relation-
ships among beliefs and principles, and, over time, consolidate the
individual’s permutation of them. Nevertheless, it seems that greater
experience does not lead to greater adaptability in our beliefs, and
thereby, the abandonment of strongly held pedagogical principles.
Quite the contrary, in fact. The more experience we have, the more
reliant on our “core” principles we have become and the less conscious
we are of doing so.
– Professional development that engages teachers in a direct explanation
of their beliefs and principles may provide the opportunity for greater
self-awareness through reflection and critical questioning as starting
points of later adaptation.
– The teacher’s conceptualizations of, for example, language, learning,
and teaching are situated within that person’s wider belief system con-
cerning such issues as human nature, culture, society, education, and so
on.
Therefore, there is much more to teacher development than learning how
to use different approaches or methods of teaching. Experience with
different approaches and methods, however, can provide teachers with an
initial practical knowledge base in teaching and can also be used to
explore and develop teachers’ own beliefs, principles, and practices.
Looking forward
How do we feel the language teaching profession will move ahead in the
near, or even more distant, future? The approaches and methods surveyed
in this book have identified a number of issues that we expect to continue
to shape the future of language teaching in different ways. Some of the
responses to these issues may take the form of new approaches and
methods; others may lead to a refining or reshaping of existing ap-
proaches and methods as the teaching profession responds to the findings
of new research and to developments in educational theory and practice.
The initiatives for changing programs and pedagogy may come from
within the profession – from teachers, administrators, theoreticians, and

253
researchers. Incentives or demands of a political, social, or even fiscal
nature may also drive change, as they have in the past. Particular person-
alities and leaders in the field may also shape the future of language
teaching. Change may also be motivated by completely unexpected
sources. We close, therefore, by identifying some of the factors that have
influenced language teaching trends in the past and that can be expected
to continue to do so in the future.
Government policy directives. Increased demands for accountability
on the part of funding agencies and governments have driven educational
changes on a fairly regular basis for decades and are likely to continue to
do so in the future.
Trends in the profession. The teaching profession is another source for
change. Professional certification for teachers, as well as endorsement of
particular trends or approaches by professional organizations and lobby
groups promoting particular issues and causes, can have an important
influence on teaching.
Guru-led innovations. teaching has sometimes been described as art-
istry rather than science and is often shaped by the influence of powerful
individual practitioners with their own schools of thought and followers.
Just as Gattegno, Lozanov, and Krashen inspired a number of teachers in
the 1970s and 1980s, and as Gardner does today, so doubtless new gurus
will attract disciples and shape teaching practices in the future.
Responses to technology. The potential of the Internet, the World Wide
Web, and other computer interfaces and technological innovations is
likely to capture the imagination of the teaching profession in the future
as it has in the past and will influence both the content and the form of
instructional delivery in language teaching.
Influences from academic disciplines. Disciplines such as linguistics,
psycholinguistics, and psychology have an impact on the theories of lan-
guage and language learning and support particular approaches to lan-
guage teaching. As new theories emerge in disciplines such as these, they
are likely to have an impact on future theories of teaching. Just as in the
past Audiolingualism and Cognitive Code Learning reflected linguistic
theories of their day, so new insights from functional linguistics, corpus
linguistics, psycholinguistics, or sociolinguistics, or from sources now
unknown, may play a dominant role in shaping language pedagogy.
Research influences. Second language teaching and learning is increas-
ingly a field for intensive research and theorizing. Second language acqui-
sition research provided impetus for the development of the Natural
Approach and Task-Based Language Teaching, and it will doubtless con-
tinue to motivate new language teaching approaches.
Learner-based innovations. Learner-based focuses recur in language
teaching and other fields in approximately 10-year cycles, as we have seen
with individualized instruction, the learner-centered curriculum, learner

254
training, learner strategies, and Multiple Intelligences. We can anticipate
continuation of this trend.
Crossover educational trends. Cooperative Learning, the Whole Lan-
guage Approach, Neurolinguistic Programming, and Multiple Intelli-
gences represent crossovers into second language teaching of movements
from general education and elsewhere. Such crossovers will doubtless
continue because the field of language teaching has no monopoly over
theories of teaching and learning.
Crossovers from other disciplines. Encounters with cognitive psychol-
ogy, psychotherapy, communication science, ethnography, and human
engineering have left their imprint on language pedagogy and exemplify
the way that such diverse disciplines can influence a field that is always
looking for inspiration.
Despite changes in the status of approaches and methods, we can
therefore expect the field of second and foreign language teaching in the
twenty-first century to be no less a ferment of theories, ideas, and prac-
tices than it has been in the past.
Bailey, K. 1996. The best-laid plans: Teachers’ in-class decisions to depart from
their lesson plans. In K. Bailey and D. Nunan (eds.), Voices from the Lan-
guage Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press. 15–40.
Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall/Regents.
Brown, H. D. 1997. English language teaching in the “post-method” era: Toward
better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. PASAA (Bangkok) 27: 1–10.
Clark, C. M., and P. Peterson. 1986. Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock
(ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.
255–296.
Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for
second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28, 27–48.
Nicholls, A. H., and H. Nicholls. 1972. Developing Curriculum: A Practical
Guide. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher
Initiated Action. New York: Prentice Hall.
Pennycook, A. 1989. The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the
politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 23: 589–618.
Pennycook, A. 1994. The Cultural Politics of English as an International Lan-
guage. London: Longman.
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. 1990. There is no best method – why? TESOL Quarterly 24: 161–
176.
Richards, J. C. 1998. Teachers’ maxims. In J. C. Richards, Beyond Training. New
York: Cambridge University Press. 45–62.

255
Richards, J. C. 2000. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Skehan, P. 1996. Second language acquisition research and task-based instruc-
tion. In J. Willis and D. Willis (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language
Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. 17–30.
Swaffar, J., K. Arens, and M. Morgan. 1982. Teacher classroom practices: Re-
defining method as task hierarchy. Modern Language Journal 66(1): 24–33.

blank verso

257
Author index
Aaron, P., 113
Abbs, B. A., 171
Alexander, L. G., 25, 36, 39, 154,
163, 171
Allen, J. P. B., 164
Allen, W. S., 25
Allwright, R. L., 165
Anthony, Edward, 19, 20
Applebee, A. N., 158
Armstrong, T., 116–17
Arrens, K., 249
Ascham, Peter, 4
Asher, James, 23, 73, 74–78
Auerbach, E. R., 141–42, 145–46
Austin, John, 153
Bachman, L., 160
Bahns, J., 134
Bailey, K., 251
Baloche, L., 201
Bancroft, W. Jane, 100–102, 104–5,
106
Bandler, Richard, 125, 128
Bassano, S., 194
Bell, J., 235
Beretta, A., 223
Bergeron, B. S., 108–9, 111
Berlitz, Maximilian, 12
Berwick, 227
Billows, F. L., 39, 41
Blandford, F. G., 38
Bloom, S., 194
Bloomfield, Leonard, 50–51, 180
Bolinger, Dwight, 180
Bower, G. H., 158
Breen, M., 166–67, 233
Brinton, D. M., 204, 209–12, 214–
16, 220
Brooks,Nelson,53–54,55,58,59–64
Brown, H. D., 56, 249–50
Brown, J., 26, 232
Brown, Roger, 13
Brumfit, Christopher J., 32, 154,
156–57, 159–60, 161, 164, 165,
168, 170–71
Bruner, J., 81
Bruton, C. J., 164
Burnaby, B., 235
Burns, A., 147
Byrne, D., 43, 165
Campbell, L., 120
Canale, M., 160
Candlin, Christopher N., 153, 154,
164, 166–67, 237
Carrell, P., 21–22
Carroll, John B., 66
Celce-Murcia, M. A., 160
Chomsky, Noam, 65–66, 132, 133,
153, 159, 160
Christison, M., 115, 117, 120, 122,
123, 194
Cicero, 3
Clark, C. M., 251–52
Close, R. A., 25
Coelho, E., 197
Cole, R., 179
Coleman, A., 13
Coles, M., 36
Collier, V., 209
Comenius, 4
Corder, P., 132
Coulthard, R. M., 164
Crandall, J., 142
Crookes, G., 26, 223, 225–26, 229,
230, 233
Curran, Charles A., 23, 28, 90–93,
95, 96

Author index
258
D’Anglejan, A., 210
Darian, S. G., 50
Darwin, Charles, 54
Davies, A., 223
Davies, P., 43–45, 46
DeCarrico, J., 132–35
Devine, A., 21–22
Dewey, John, 192
Docking, R., 142–45
Dörnyei, M. A., 160
Doughty, C., 67
Doyle, W., 226
Edelhoff, C., 237
Esky, D., 21–22
Falodun, J., 234
Faucett, L., 37
Feez, S., 224
Findlay, C. A., 146
Finocchiaro, M., 32, 156–57, 168,
170–71
Firth, John R., 40, 153, 158
Foster, P., 227
Franke, F., 11
Franklin, Benjamin, 81–82
Freebairn, I., 171
French, F. G., 39, 41
Friere, Paulo, 148
Fries, A. C., 25, 59
Fries, Charles C., 25, 40, 51–53, 59,
180
Frisby, A. W., 39–42
Gardner, Howard, 115–18, 253
Gass, S., 228
Gaston, E. T., 100
Gatenby, E. V., 38
Gattegno, Caleb, 23, 24, 81–88, 253
Geddes, M., 165–66
Glaser, R., 142
Gottfredson, L., 117, 118
Gouin, F., 7, 8, 9, 11
Grandin, J., 209
Gregg, K., 180, 181
Grice, H. P., 193
Grinder, John, 125, 128
Grognet, A. G., 142
Gumperz, John, 153
Gurrey, P., 38–39
Hagan, P., 147
Hakuta, K., 132
Halliday, Michael A. K., 40, 153,
158, 159, 227
Harel, Y., 199–200
Hartley, B., 36
Henner-Stanchina, C., 164, 166
Hilgard, E. R., 158
Hockett, C. F., 52
Hodlin, S., 164
Holec, H., 155
Holubec, E., 192, 195, 196, 199–201
Honeyfield, J., 232–33
Hood, S., 147
Hornby, A. S., 36–39, 40
Hover, D., 237
Howatt, A. P. R., 3–4, 6, 153, 155
Hubbard, P., 36, 47
Hudson, T., 232
Hymes, Dell, 153, 158, 159–60
Jakobson, 227
Jakobovits, L. A., 66
Jesperson, Otto, 18, 36
Johnson, D., 192, 195, 196, 199–201
Johnson, F., 28
Johnson, H., 173
Johnson, Keith, 29, 154, 159–60,
161, 162, 166, 169, 173
Johnson, R., 192, 195, 196, 199–201
Jones, Daniel, 36
Jones, G., 136
Jones, H., 36
Jupp, T. C., 164
Kagan, S., 192, 194, 196, 198
Kanagy, R., 234
Katona, G., 73
Keller, R., 132
Kelly, L. G., 3–4, 5, 204
Kessler, C., 218
Krahnke, K., 204
Krashen, Stephen D., 22–23, 78–79,
134, 135, 151, 161–62, 178–90,
228, 249, 253

Author index
259
Labov, William, 153
Lado, R., 54
LaForge, P. G., 90–97
Lange, D., 15
Lazear, D., 118
Leather, J. H., 164
Leaver, B., 209, 210, 213–14, 215,
219
Lewis, M., 134, 135, 136, 138
Linn, R., 142
Littlewood, W., 155, 161, 162, 166,
168, 171
Locke, John, 4
Lohan, K., 128, 148
Long, M., 26, 223, 229, 230
Longe, I., 135
Lord, B., 36
Lozanov, Georgi, 100–106, 253
Lugton, R., 66
Mackey, W. F., 19–20, 25, 90
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 158
Marcel, C., 7, 8, 9
McDermott, I., 126, 127
McGroarty, M., 195
McIntosh, A., 40
McLaughlin, B., 181
Meidinger, Johann, 5
Mohan, B., 213
Montaigne, 4, 11, 157–58
Morgan, M., 249
Morrow, K., 169
Moskowitz, G., 90
Moulton, William G., 52, 55
Mrowicki, L., 144–45
Munby, J., 173, 232
Nathan, L., 146
Nation, I. S. P., 135
Nattinger, J., 132–35
Newmark, L., 190
Nicholls, A. H., 248
Nicholls, H., 248
Nicholson-Nelson, K., 119
Norman, S., 125–31
Norris, J., 232
Northrup, N., 145
Nunan, D., 224, 231–32
O’Connor, J., 126, 127
Ollendorf, H. S., 5
Olsen, R., 192, 196, 198
O’Neill, R. J., 25, 36
O’Rourke, Kevin, 112
Ovid, 3
Ozolins, U., 206
Page, B., 143
Page, M., 82–83
Palmer, Dorothy, 73
Palmer, Harold E., 18, 36–38, 40, 73
Passy, Paul, 9, 10–11
Pattison, B., 38
Paulston, C. B., 28
Pawley, A., 132–34
Paz, Octavio, 219
Peters, A., 132
Peterson, P., 251–52
Piaget, Jean, 75, 194
Pica, T., 227, 234
Piepho, H.-E., 162
Pittman, George, 39–46
Plötz, Karl, 5
Plough, I., 228
Porter, P. A., 168
Prabhu, N. S., 29, 164, 173, 223,
233–34
Prendergast, T., 7–8, 9
Quinn, M., 218
Rardin, J., 95
Reibel, D. A., 190
Reid, J., 117
Revell, J., 125–31
Richards, J. C., 172, 193, 219, 238,
248, 251
Rigg, P., 108–10
Riley, P., 164, 166
Rivers, W. M., 21, 55, 57
Roberts, J., 43–45, 46
Robinson, P., 21
Rodgers, T. S., 112, 192
Rogers, C. R., 90
Rossner, R., 43–45, 46
Rouse, W. H. D., 5
Rylatt, A., 128, 148

Author index
260
Safire, William, 204
Sandy, C., 219
Sato, C., 228
Sauveur, L., 11–12
Savignon, S., 157–58, 160, 161, 167,
170, 171–72
Schmidt, R., 193
Schneck, E. A., 141
Scott, M. S., 209
Scott, R., 82–83
Scovel, T., 106
Searle, John, 153
Sears, B., 5
Seidenstücker, Johann, 5
Se-young, Kim, 112
Shih, M., 216–17
Short, D., 142
Sinclair, J. McH., 164
Skehan, P., 161, 224, 226–29, 232,
249
Skinner, B. F., 56–58
Slavin, R., 201
Smith, D., 225
Snow, M. A., 204, 209–12, 214–16,
220
Stern, H. H., 5
Stevick, E. W., 31–32, 85, 95–96,
97, 100, 103, 106
Stoller, F., 212
Strevens, P., 40
Stroinigg, Dieter, 97
Stryker, S., 209, 210, 213–14, 215,
219
Sturtridge, G., 165–66
Swaffar, J., 249
Swain, M., 160, 228
Sweet, Henry, 9–11, 13–14, 18
Syder, F., 132–34
Tate, Gloria, 39
Teele, S., 117
Terrell, Tracy D., 23, 178–90
Thorndike, E. L., 37, 135
Thornton, B., 36
Thurrell, S., 160
Titone, R., 4–5, 8, 12
Tollefson, S. J., 145, 148
Tribble, C., 136
Tucker, R., 210
van Ek, J., 154, 163
Viëtor, Wilhelm, 9, 10–11
Viney, P., 36
Virgil, 3
Vygotsky, Lev, 194
Wakefield, H., 38
Watcyn-Jones, P., 169
Weeks, T., 193
Wesche, M. B., 204, 209–12, 214–
16
West, Michael, 37, 38, 135
Wheeler, R., 36
Whiteson, V., 113
Widdowson, Henry G., 153, 154,
160, 163–64, 164, 205
Wiederhold, C., 194
Wilkins, D. A., 21, 154, 163, 164,
173, 227
Williams, J., 67
Willis, D., 47, 136
Willis, J. D., 47, 135–36, 136, 223,
229, 234, 236, 238–39
Wiskin, Joel, 84–85, 87–88
Woolard, G., 137
Wright, A., 165
Wu, S.-M., 218
Yalden, J., 26, 155, 164
Yoshioka, J., 232
Zandvoort, R. W., 38

261
Subject index
Access to English (Coles and Lord),
36
Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis, 181
adjunct language instruction
at elementary and secondary levels,
218
at university level, 216–17
Affective Filter Hypothesis, 183
allophones, 55
American Council of Learned So-
cieties, 52
American Peace Corps, 84–85
analogy, 57
approach to language teaching, 18–
20
approach, defined, 19, 20
in Audiolingual Method, 54–58
in Communicative Language
Teaching, 159–62
in Community Language Learning
(CLL), 91–93
in Competency-Based Language
Teaching (CBLT), 143
in Content-Based Instruction (CBI),
207–11
in Cooperative Language Learning,
193–95
in lexical approach, 133–34
in Multiple Intelligences, 116–18
in Natural Approach, 179–83
in Neurolinguistic Programming,
126
in Silent Way, 82–83
in Situational Language Teaching,
40–41
in Suggestopedia, 101–2
summary, 33
in Task-Based Language Teaching,
226–29
approach to language teaching (cont.)
in Total Physical Response, 73–75
in Whole Language Approach,
109–10
Army Specialized Training Program
(ASTP), 50–51
assessment, in Competency-Based
Language Teaching, 144, 146
Audiolingual Method, 14, 15, 21, 23,
50–69, 71, 88, 171, 179, 244,
253
approach in, 54–58
background of, 50–54
Communicative Language Teach-
ing (CLT) versus, 156–57
criticism of, 28
decline of, 65–67
design in, 58–64
learner roles in, 28
learning activities in, 27
procedure in, 64–65
syllabus in, 25, 59
teacher roles in, 28–29
teaching activities in, 27
Aural-Oral Approach, 52–53
Australia, 39, 141, 145, 206, 218
Australian Migrant Education Pro-
gram, 147
authenticity
210–11, 215
109–10
authority, in Suggestopedia, 101,
103–4
Autonomous Learning, 115
Bangalore Project, 223, 231–32
behaviorism, 23, 56, 66, 143

Subject index
262
Berlitz Method, 12
bilingualism, 3–4, 90–91
bio-program, 74
Born to Talk (Weeks), 193
brain lateralization, and Total Physi-
cal Response, 75
British National Corpus, 133
Cambridge International Corpus, 133
Canada, 54, 206, 228
Center for Applied Linguistics, 141,
142, 146
chunks, 132, 133, 134, 146
classroom practices, 249–50
COBUILD Bank of English Corpus,
133
Cognitive Code Learning, 23, 66–68,
253
cognitive mapping, 74, 76
Coleman Report, 13, 19, 37, 50
Collaborative Learning (CL), 192–93
Collins COBUILD English Course,
135
collocation, 133, 135, 137
color charts, in Silent Way, 81
communication theory, 126
Communicative Approach, 15
communicative competence, 159–60,
194
(CLT), 47, 67, 108, 111, 113,
143, 151, 153–77, 180, 186,
189, 190, 193, 244, 248
Audiolingual Method versus, 156–
57
characteristics of, 173
Content-Based Instruction (CBI)
and, 204
design in, 162–70
learning activities in, 27
and Task-Based Language Teaching
(TBLT), 223, 224, 228, 235,
236–37
teaching activities in, 27
communicative movement, 71
(CLL), 90–99, 249–50
design in, 93–95
Competency-Based Language Teach-
ing (CBLT), 15, 67, 71, 141–49
approach in, 143
design in, 143–47
procedure in, 147
and Task-Based Language Teach-
ing, 225
completion, in Audiolingual Method,
60
concert pseudo-passiveness, 102
condition-oriented theories, 22
consensual validation, 92–93
constructivist learning theory, 109–
10
Content-Based Instruction (CBI), 15,
22, 67, 111, 151, 173, 204–22
background on, 204–5
contemporary models of, 216–19
design in, 211–16
procedure in, 219
and role of content in other curric-
ulum designs, 205–6
syllabus in, 26
Content-Based Teaching (CBT). see
Content-Based Instruction (CBI)
contextual cues, 7–8
contraction, in Audiolingual Method,
61
contrastive analysis, 52, 59
convalidation, 92–93
Cooperative Language Learning, 22,
67, 113, 151, 174, 192–203,
248, 254
design in, 195–200
Cooperative Learning, 15
cooperative learning groups, 196
cooperative projects, 198

Subject index
263
corpus linguistics, 132, 133
Council of Europe, 154, 163
Counseling-Learning, 23, 26, 67, 71–
72, 90, 248
instructional materials in, 30–31
learner roles in, 28
teacher roles in, 29
counselor, teacher as, 168
Cuisenaire rods, in Silent Way, 81,
86, 87–88
curriculum development processes,
248
decision-making tasks, 234
decoding approach, and Whole Lan-
guage Approach, 108
design in language teaching, 24–31
Teaching (CLT), 162–63
(CLL), 93–95
Teaching, 143–47
211–16
195–200
defined, 24
importance of, 25
127–29
41–44
summary, 33
230–37
in Total Physical Response,
75–77
110–11
dialogues, in Audiolingual Method,
59–62, 64–65
Direct Method, 11–14, 19, 179, 244
Audiolingual Method versus, 51–
52
Berlitz Method and, 12
in Immigrant On-Arrival programs,
206
Natural Approach compared with,
179, 185–86
natural language learning principles
in, 11–12
Oral Approach versus, 36, 38
popularity in Europe, 13
problems of, 12–14
Situational Language Teaching
versus, 41
discourse analyst, 137
discourse competence, 160
discovery learning, 81–82
double-planedness, in Suggestopedia,
102
drill and pattern-practice, in Au-
diolingual Method, 57, 59–62
elementary level, Content-Based In-
struction at, 217–18
English 900, 54, 65
English as a foreign language (EFL)
Audiolingual Method and, 63
English sentence patterns and, 38
English for Academic Purposes
(EAP), 207
English for Occupational Purposes
(EOP), 207
English for Science and Technology
(EST), 207
English for Special Purposes (ESP)
movement, 21, 25, 207
English Language Institute, 51–53
European Common Market, 154
expansion, 61
Experience Curriculum, 158
Fidel charts, 81, 86–87
Free University of Berlin, 211, 212
French language, 5, 6
functional approach, 21, 22
Teaching (CLT), 166

Subject index
264
functional approach (cont.)
syllabus in, 25, 26
227
in Whole Language Approach, 109
functional linguistics, 153
functional vocabulary, 82
General Service List of English
Words, A, 37
German language, 5, 6
Gouin “series,” 8
graded objectives movement, 142–43
grammar, 3–4, 24
in Audiolingual Method, 54
inductive approach to, 41
in Oral Approach, 37–38
in Reform Movement, 10
grammar school, 3
Grammar-Translation Method, 5–7,
18, 37, 244
characteristics of, 5–6
popularity of, 6–7
student response to, 6–7
grammatical competence, 160
Great Britain, 142–43
Greek, 4
group formation, 196–97
group process manager, teacher as,
168
habit formation, in foreign language
learning, 57
humanistic psychology, 73–75, 90
Immersion Education, 206
Immigrant On-Arrival programs, 206
imperative drills, 76
Implementing the Lexical Approach
(Lewis), 136
India, 37
individual accountability, 197
individualized Instruction, 30, 115
infantilization, in Suggestopedia, 102,
103–4
inflection, in Audiolingual Method,
60
informant methods, 51
information gap, 27, 234
information transfer, 27
Input Hypothesis, 182–83
Institute for Research in Teaching, 37
instructional materials, 29–31
(CLL), 95
215–16
200
in Lexical Approach, 135–36
in Natural Approach, 188
in Silent Way, 81, 86–88
43–44
in Suggestopedia, 104
236–37
110–11, 112
integration
208
Intensive Language Course (ILC)
(Free University of Berlin), 211,
212
interactional approach, 21–22
227
109–10
interactive games, 27
Interim Report on Vocabulary Selec-
tion (Faucett et al.), 37
International Association of Applied
Linguistics, 154
International Congress of Linguists,
55
International Phonetic Alphabet
(IPA), 9
International Phonetic Association, 9

Subject index
265
intonation, in Suggestopedia, 102
IQ tests, 115
Japan, 37
jigsaw activities, 197–98, 234
job performance, in Competency-
Based Language Teaching, 144–
45
Kernel Lessons Plus (O’Neill), 36
Krashen’s language acquisition the-
ory, 181
Lado English Series, 54, 65
Language across the Curriculum,
205–6
Language for Specific Purposes (LSP),
207
Language Teaching Analysis
(Mackey), 19
Language Teaching Must Start Afresh
(Viëtor), 10
Latin, 3–4
learner roles, 27–28
Teaching (CLT), 166
(CLL), 94
Teaching, 144
213–14
199
in Lexical Approach, 135
in Silent Way, 85
43
235
in Total Physical Response, 76
Learner Training, 115
learning activities, 26–27
(CLL), 93–94
212–13
196–99
in Lexical Approach, 136–37
in Multiple Intelligences, 119–20,
121
in Silent Way, 85
42–43
233–35
learning strategies, 115
learning theory, 22–24
lexical approach, 67, 71, 72, 132–40
design in, 135–37
Lexical Approach, The (Lewis), 132
Lexical Syllabus, The (Willis), 132,
135
Lexis, 133–34
listening comprehension, in Total
Physical Response, 74
literacy, and Whole Language Ap-
proach, 108
long-range objectives, 58
macro-studies, 105
Mainline Beginners (Alexander), 171
Malaysian English Language Syl-
labus, 164–65, 169, 223, 230
materials. see instructional materials
meaning, importance in learning, 7
memorization, in Suggestopedia, 100,
101
methods of language teaching, 14–16

Subject index
266
active period of using, 15–16
approach in, 18–20, 33
design in, 24–31, 33
method, defined, 19
nature of, 15
post-methods era, 16, 244–55
procedure in, 20, 31–32, 33
in teacher preparation programs,
16
see also names of specific methods
micro-studies, 105
Minimalist Linguistic theory, 132
modeling, in Neurolinguistic Pro-
gramming, 126, 127, 128
Modern Language Association
(MLA), 179
Monitor Hypothesis, 181–82
Monitor Model, 22–23
morphology, 5, 54–55
multilingualism, 3
Multiple Intelligences (MI), 15, 67,
71, 72, 115–24, 244, 254
design in, 118–22
types of intelligence, 115–16, 121
music, in Suggestopedia, 100, 102,
105–6
National Defense Education Act
(1958), 53
Natural Approach, 15, 22–23, 67,
151, 178–91, 253
design in, 184–88
see also Total Physical Response
(TPR)
natural methods, 11
Natural Order Hypothesis, 182
needs analyst, teacher as, 167
Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP),
22, 67, 71, 72, 125–31, 244,
254
approach in, 126
Neurolinguistic Programming (cont.)
design in, 127–29
notional-functional methods, 154–
55, 163–64
procedure in, 32
syllabus in, 25, 26, 155
Notional Syllabuses (Wilkins), 21,
154
numbered heads activity, 199
objectives in language teaching
(CLL), 93
211
195
long-range, 58
in Natural Approach, 184
process-oriented, 24–25
product-oriented, 24–25
short-range, 58
41–42
230
Office of Education, U.S., 145
opinion exchange tasks, 234
Oral Approach, 14, 47
defined, 36
development of, 38–39, 52–53
Direct Method versus, 36, 38
see also Situational Language
Teaching
Oxford Micro Concord, 136
Parallel Texts, in Whole Language
Approach, 112

Subject index
267
phonemes, 55
phonetics, 54–55
defined, 9
growth of use, 9
phonics, and Whole Language Ap-
proach, 108
phonology, 54–55
phonotactics, 55
positive interdependence, 196
post-methods era, 16, 244–55
P-P-P (Present, Practice, Produce) ap-
proach, 47, 246, 249
Practical Study of Language, The
(Sweet), 9–10
private language institutes, 218–19
problem-solving approaches to learn-
ing, 81–82
procedure in language teaching, 20,
31–32, 33
(CLL), 95–97
Teaching, 147
in Content-Based Instruction, 219
200–201
129–30
44–46
238–40
in Total Physical Response, 77–
78
111–12
process-oriented objectives, 24–25
product-oriented objectives, 24–25
pronunciation, 24
Prussian Method, 5
pseudo-passiveness, in Suggestopedia,
102
Question Matrix (Wiederhold), 194
raja-yoga, 100
rapid silent reading, 50
Reading Method, 19, 53
realia
Teaching (CLT), 170
237
Reform Movement, 7, 9–11
approach to language teaching, 19
Direct Method and, 13, 14
rejoinder, in Audiolingual Method,
61–62
repetition
silence versus, 83
replacement, in Audiolingual
Method, 60
restatement, in Audiolingual Method,
60
restoration, in Audiolingual Method,
62
retracing, 73–74
rhetoric, 3–4
rhythm, in Suggestopedia, 102
Rogerian counseling, 90, 95
roundtable activity, 198
secondary level, Content-Based In-
second language teaching, 142
sentences
in Grammar Translation, 6
sheltered content instruction, 216
short-range objectives, 58
silence
(CLL), 96
of teacher, 85–86
as vehicle for learning, 83
see also Silent Way

Subject index
268
Silent Way, 15, 21, 23, 67, 71–72,
81–89, 244
design in, 83–86
learning hypotheses underlying,
81–82
procedure in, 31–32, 86–88
syllabus in, 26, 84–85
teacher roles in, 29
teaching and learning activities in,
27
Singaporean Primary Pilot Program,
206, 217
situational cues, 7–8
Situational Language Teaching, 8, 14,
15, 36–49, 67, 71, 88, 153, 171,
172, 189, 249
defined, 26
design in, 41–44
development of, 39
principles of, 39
syllabus in, 25, 26, 42
and Task-Based Language Teach-
ing, 232
skills-based approach, 217
social-process view of language, 91–
93
social skills, 197
sociolinguistic competence, 160
solve-pair-share activity, 199
Soviet psychology, 100
speech patterns, in Reform Move-
ment, 9
spirit of language, 82
stages of language learning, 92, 94,
95, 118
standards movement, 142
Stanford-Binet, 115
Starting Strategies (Abbs and Free-
bairn), 171
State Department, U.S., 52
strategic competence, 160
Streamline English (Hartley and
Viney), 36
stress reduction, and Total Physical
Response, 75
Structural Approach, 52–53
structural approach, 20–21, 22, 23
syllabus in, 25, 26
see also Situational Language
Teaching
structural linguistics, 54
student-centered instruction, in
Competency-Based Language
Teaching, 146
Students with Limited English Profi-
ciency (SLP), 206–7
substitution tables, 38
Suggestology, 100, 106
Suggestopedia, 71–72, 100–107,
244
background of, 100
design in, 102–4
syllabus
in Audiolingual Method, 25, 59
Teaching (CLT), 163–65, 232
(CLL), 93
Teaching, 144
212
195–96
design of, 21, 25–26
in notional-functional methods, 25,
26, 155
role of, 29
25, 26, 42
230–33
syllabus design, 21, 25–26
Syntactic Structures (Chomsky), 153
syntax, 5, 54–55

Subject index
269
(TBLT), 15, 22, 67, 111, 151,
161, 169, 223–43, 244, 253
design in, 230–37
syllabus in, 26
teaching and learning activities in,
27
teacher preparation programs, 16
teacher-proof materials, 30
teacher roles
214–15
199–200
in lexical approach, 135
in Multiple Intelligences, 119, 120
127–29
in Silent Way, 28–29, 85–86
43–44, 62
236
teaching activities, 26–27
212–13
196–99
42–43
233–35
Teaching Language as Communica-
tion (Widdowson), 160
team practice from common input,
197
team-teach approach, 217
technique, defined, 19
TEFL/TESL, 38, 47
TESOL, 142
text/textbooks
Teaching (CLT), 169
208, 210–11
in nineteenth century, 4–5
parallel bilingual, 3–4
44
Thailand, 84–85, 87–88
theme-based language instruction
at elementary and secondary levels,
217–18
at university level, 216
theory of language, 20–22
Teaching (CLT), 159–60, 159–
61
(CLL), 91
207–9
193–94
in Natural Approach, 73–75, 179–
80
126
in Silent Way, 82
40
226–29
109–10
theory of learning, 22–24

Subject index
270
theory of learning (cont.)
(CLL), 91–93
209–11
194–95
in Natural Approach, 73–75, 181–
83
126
40–41
228–29
109–10
think-pair-share activity, 198–99
three-step interview, 198
Threshold Level English (Van Ek and
Alexander), 163
Total Physical Response (TPR), 8, 15,
21, 23, 67, 71–72, 73–80, 186,
244
background of, 73
Total Physical Response (cont.)
design in, 75–77
syllabus in, 26
see also Natural Approach
trace theory of memory, 73–74
transformation, in Audiolingual
Method, 61
translation, 4, 10
transposition, in Audiolingual
Method, 61
university level, Content-Based In-
University of Birmingham, 217
University of Michigan, 51–53
University of Ottawa, 210, 216
vocabulary, 24
in Grammar Translation, 6
in Oral Approach, 37
in Silent Way, 82
Whole Language Approach, 15, 22,
67, 71, 72, 108–14, 254
design in, 110–11
whole-person learning, 92–93
whole-text approach, 101
yoga, 100

Approaches-and-Methods-in-Language-Teaching (1).pdf

More Related Content

Similar to Approaches-and-Methods-in-Language-Teaching (1).pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Approaches-and-Methods-in-Language-Teaching (1).pdf