An Overview of Second Language Teaching Methods and Approaches

(Eugene McKendry)
Debate and developments around the methods of language teaching and learning have
been ongoing since the time of Comenius in the 17
th
century, if not before. The
complexity of contexts and the greater appreciation of the issues lead us to the
conclusion that the panacea of a single, universal optimum method for teaching and
learning modern languages does not exist, but rather the need for teachers to adopt an
informed eclectic approach, incorporating elements from the range of methods
available. Most language teaching today aims to achieve oral communication,
although some C!M"!# $uestionnaire respondents place greater emphasis upon
grammatical mastery and reading.
%n attempting to define &hat 'method( is, &e can consider )d&ard !nthony(s
tripartite distinction of Approach, Method and Technique (!nthony* 1+,-..
This distinction &as developed and recast by ichards and odgers (1+/0, 1+/1. as
Approach, Design and rocedure encompassed &ithin the overall concept of
Method, 2an umbrella term for the specification and interrelation of theory and
practice3 (ichards 4 odgers 1+/1* 1,. &here
Approach refers to the beliefs and theories about language, language learning
and teaching that underlie a method
Design specifies ho& theories of language and learning are implemented in a
syllabus model and teaching and learning activities and materials in the
classroom
Procedure concerns the techni$ues and practices employed in the classroom
as conse$uences of particular approaches and designs.
(ichards 4 odgers 1+/1*17.
There are many publications available discussing the various methods. 5e have
dra&n here, inter alia, upon Chapter T&o of 6. Douglas 7ro&n(s Teaching by
MET!OD
#rocedure
!pproach
Design
Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy ("ongman8 #earson
)ducation, 5hite #lains, 9e& :or;, 0
nd
edition 0<<1..
7ro&n dra&s a distinction bet&een "ethods as 2specific, identifiable clusters of
theoretically compatible classroom techni$ues3 (p11., and "ethodo#ogy as
2pedagogical practices in general=5hatever considerations are involved in 'ho& to
teach( are methodological3 (ibid...
! glance through the past century or so of language teaching &ill give an
interesting picture of ho& varied the interpretations have been of the best
&ay to teach a foreign language. !s disciplinary schools of thought >
psychology, linguistics, and education, for example > have come and gone,
so have language?teaching methods &axed and &aned in popularity.
Teaching methods, as 2approaches in action,3 are of course the practical
application of theoretical findings and positions. %n a field such as ours that
is relatively young, it should come as no surprise to discover a &ide variety
of these applications over the last hundred years, some in total philosophical
opposition to others.
!lbert Marc;&ardt (1+70*1. sa& these 2changing &inds and shifting sands3
as a cyclical pattern in &hich a ne& method emerged about every $uarter of
a century. )ach ne& method bro;e from the old but too; &ith it some of the
positive aspects of the previous practices
7ro&n 0<<1* 17?1/
The $ra""ar%Trans#ation Method
The Classical or @rammar?Translation method represents the tradition of language
teaching adopted in &estern society and developed over centuries of teaching not only
the classical languages such as "atin and @ree;, but also foreign languages. The focus
&as on studying grammatical rules and morphology, study, doing &ritten exercices,
memoriAing vocabulary, translating texts from and prose passages into the language.
%t remained popular in modern language pedagogy, even after the introduction of
ne&er methods. %n !merica, the Coleman eport in 1+0+ recommended an emphasis
on the s;ill of reading in schools and colleges as it &as felt at that time that there
&ould be fe& opportunities to practise the spo;en language. %nternationally, the
@rammar?Translation method is still practised today, not only in courses, including
C!M"!# respondents, teaching the older forms of languages ("atin, @ree;, Bld
%rish etc.. &here its validity can still be argued in light of expected learning outcomes,
but also, &ith less Custification, in some institutions for modern language courses.
#rator and Celce?Murcia (1+7+*-. listed the maCor characteristics of @rammar?
Translation*
Classes are taught in the mother tongue, &ith little active use of the target
languageD
Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated &ordsD
"ong, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are givenD
@rammar provides the rules for putting &ords together, and instruction often
focuses on the form and inflection of &ordsD
eading of difficult classical texts is begun earlyD
"ittle attention is paid to the context of texts, &hich are treated as exercices in
grammatical analysisD
Bften the only drills are exercices in translating disconnected sentences from
the target language into the mother tongueD
"ittle or no attention is given to pronunciation.
The Direct Method
5hile 6enri @ouin(s The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages,
published in 1//<, can be seen as the precursor of modern language teaching methods
&ith its 'naturalistic( approach, the credit for popularising the Direct Method usually
goes to Charles 7erlitA, although he mar;eted it as the 7erlitA Method.
The basic premise of the Direct Method &as that one should attempt to learn a second
language in much the same &ay as children learn their first language. The method
emphasised oral interaction, spontaneous use of language, no translation bet&een first
and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammar rules.
ichards and odgers summariAed the principles of the Direct method as follo&s
(0<<1* 10.
Classroom instruction &as conducted exclusively in the target languageD
Bnly everyday vocabulary and sentences &ere taughtD
Bral communication s;ills &ere built up in a carefully traded progression
organiAed around $uestions?and?ans&er exchanges bet&een teachers and
students in small intensive classesD
@rammar &as taught inductivelyD
9e& teaching points &ere taught through modelling and practiceD
Concrete vocabulary &as taught through demonstration, obCects, picturesD
!bstract vocabulary &as taught through association of ideasD
7oth speech and listening comprehension &ere taughtD
Correct pronunciation and grammar &ere emphasiAed.
The Audio#ingua# Method
The !udiolingual Method is derived from EThe !rmy Method,E so called because it
&as developed through a F.G. !rmy programme devised after 5orld 5ar %% to
produce spea;ers proficient in the languages of friend and foes. %n this method,
grounded in the habit formation model of behaviourist psychology and on a Gtructural
"inguistics theory of language, the emphasis &as on memorisation through pattern
drills and conversation practices rather than promoting communicative ability.
Characteristics of the !udiolingual Method*
9e& material is presented in dialogue formD
There is dependence on mimicry, memoriAation of set phrases, and
overlearning
Gtructures are se$uenced by means of contrastive analysis taught one at a timeD
Gtructural patterns are taught using repetitive drillsD
There is little or no grammatical explanation. @rammar is taught by inductive
analogy rather than by deductive explanationD
Hocabulary is strictly limited and learned in contextD
There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aidsD
@reat importance is attached to pronunciationD
Hery little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permittedD
Guccessful responses are immediately reinforcedD
There is a great effort to get students to produce error?free utterancesD
There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.
(adapted from #rator 4 Celce?Murcia 1+7+.
&ognitive &ode Learning
5ith the Choms;yan revolution in linguistics, attention of linguists and language
teachers &as dra&n to&ards the 'deep structure( of language and a more cognitive
psychology. Choms;y(s theory of Transformational?generative @rammar focused
attention again on the rule?governed nature of language and language ac$uisition
rather than habit formation. This gave rise in the 1+,<s to &ognitive &ode Learning
&here learners &ere encouraged to &or; out grammar rules deductively for
themselves.
This method had limited success as the cognitive emphasis on rules and paradigms
proved as unattractive as behaviourist rote drilling. There is also confusion for
practitioners, &ith 9unan (0<<-* ,. ascribing inductive reasoning to it, &hile 7ro&n
(0<<1* 0I. notes that proponents of a cognitive code learning methodology inCected
more deductive rule learning into language classes
Deductive "earning @rammatical explanations or rules are
presented and then applied through
practice in exercices.
The learner &or;s from rules8 principles
to examples
%nductive "earning "earners are presented &ith examples.
They then discover or induce language
rules and principles on their o&n
A#ternative or 'Designer( "ethods
The 1+7<s sa& the emergence of some alternative, less?commonly used methods and
approaches, such as Suggestopedia) The Si#ent *ay) Tota# hysica# +esponse. !n
overvie& table of these 'Designer( methods is provided by 9unan (1+/+* 1+I?1+1.
and 7ro&n (0<<1* chapter 0..
The ,atura# Approach
The 9atural !pproach, &ith echoes of the 'naturalistic( approach of the Direct
Method, &as developed by Jrashen and Terrell (1+/-.. %t emphasised
2Comprehensible %nput3, distinguishing bet&een 'ac$uisition( > a natural
subconscious process, and 'learning( > a conscious process. They argued that learning
cannot lead to ac$uisition. The focus is on meaning, not form (structure, grammar..
9unan(s overvie& of the 9atural !pproach (1+/+, 1+I?1+1., adapted here, outlines its
characteristics*
Theory of language Theory of Learning Objectives Syllabus
The essence of
language is meaning.
Hocabulary not
grammar is the heart of
language
There are 0 &ays of "0
language development*
!c$uisition a natural
sub?conscious processD
"earning a conscious
process. "earning
cannot lead to
ac$uisition
Designed to give
beginners8 intermediate
learner communicative
s;ills. Kour broad
areasD basic personal
communicative s;ills
(oral8&ritten.D
academic learning
s;ills (oral8&ritten.
7ased on a selection of
communicative
activities and topics
derived from learner
needs
Activity types Learner roles Teacher roles oles of !aterials
!ctivities allo&ing
comprehensible input,
about things in the
here?and?no&. Kocus
on meaning not form
Ghould not try and
learn language in the
usual sense, but should
try and lose themselves
in activities involving
meaningful
communication
The teacher is the
primary source of
comprehensible input.
Must create positive
lo&?anxiety climate.
Must choose and
orchestrate a rich
mixture of classroom
activities
Materials come from
realia rather than
textboo;s. #rimary aim
is to promote
comprehension and
communication

Krashen
The 9atural !pproach &as based upon Jrashen(s theories of second language
ac$uisition, and his Kive 6ypotheses. !s &e shall see, Jrashen(s influence &ent
beyond this particular method and as such merits closer attention.
Krashen(s -ive !ypotheses
The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis. claims that there are t&o distinctive
&ays of developing second language competence*
ac"uisition, that is by using language for 2real communication3
learning .. E;no&ing aboutE or 2formal ;no&ledge3 of a language
The Natural Order hypothesisD L&e ac$uire the rules of language in a
predictable orderL
The Monitor Hypothesis. Lconscious learning ... can only be used as a
Monitor or an editorL (Jrashen 4 Terrell 1+/-. and cannot lead to fluency
The Input Hypothesis* Lhumans ac$uire language in only one &ay ? by
understanding messages or by receiving Ecomprehensible inputEL
The Affective Filter Hypothesis. La mental bloc;, caused by affective
factors ... that prevents input from reaching the language ac$uisition deviceL
(Jrashen, 1+/1, p.1<<.
The contrasts bet&een !c$uisition and "earning can be tabulated as follo&s*
Acquisition Learning
%mplicit, subconscious )xplicit, conscious
%nformal situations Kormal situations
Fses grammatical 'feel( Fses grammatical rules
Depends on attitude Depends on aptitudes
Gtable order of ac$uisition Gimplex to complex order of learning
(Hivian Coo; &ebsite.
The use of the term '9atural !pproach( rather than 'Method( highlights the
development of a move a&ay from 'method( &hich implies a particular set of features
to be follo&ed, almost as a panacea, to 'approach( &hich starts from some basic
principles &hich are then developed in the design and development of practice in
teaching and learning. %t is no& &idely recognised that the diversity of contexts
re$uires an informed, eclectic approach. To $uote 9unan*
%t has been realiAed that there never &as and probably never &ill be a method
for all, and the focus in recent years has been on the development of classroom
tas;s and activities &hich are consonant &ith &hat &e ;no& about second
language ac$uisition, and &hich are also in ;eeping &ith the dynamics of the
classroom itself (9unan 1++1* 00/.
&o""unicative Language Teaching
During the 1+/<s and 1++<s approaches emerged &hich concentrated on the
fundamentally communicative functions of language and language classrooms &ere
characteriAed by attempts to ensure authenticity of materials and pragmatic,
meaningful tas;s.
Communicative "anguage Teaching (C"T. has emerged as the norm in second
language teaching. !s a broadly?based approach, there are any number of definitions
and interpretations, but the follo&ing interconnected characteristics offered by 7ro&n
(0<<1* I-. provide a useful overvie&*
1. Classroom goals are focused on all of the components (grammatical,
discourse, functional, sociolinguistic, and strategic. of communicative
competence. @oals therefore must intert&ine the organiAational aspects of
language &ith the pragmatic.
0. "anguage techni$ues are designed to engage learners in the pragmatic,
authentic, functional use of language for meaningful purposes. BrganiAational
language forms are not the central focus, but rather aspects of language that
enable the learner to accomplish those purposes.
-. Kluency and accuracy are seen as complementary principles underlying
communicative techni$ues. !t times fluency may have to ta;e on more
importance than accuracy in order to ;eep learners meaningfully engaged in
language use.
I. Gtudents in a communicative class ultimately have to use the language,
productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts outside the classroom.
Classroom tas;s must therefore e$uip students &ith the s;ills necessary for
communication in those contexts.
1. Gtudents are given opportunities to focus on their o&n learning process
through an understanding of their o&n styles of learning and through the
development of appropriate strategies for autonomous learning.
,. The role of the teacher is that of facilitator and guide, not an all?;no&ing
besto&er of ;no&ledge. Gtudents are therefore encouraged to construct
meaning through genuine linguistic interaction &ith others.
The breadth of possible applications can lead to misinterpretations. %n the Fnited
Jingdom, for example, the 9ational Curriculum introduced in 1+// led to a topic?
based emphasis that sidelined the role of grammar, arguing from Jrashen that
comprehensible input alone &as re$uired. This ignored, ho&ever, the difference in
context bet&een transitional bilingual education for Gpanish spea;ers in the FG! and
the fe& classes a &ee; offered in 7ritish schools.
-unctiona#%,otiona# Sy##a/us
The move from method to approach has also focused on syllabus design. The
,otiona#0 -unctiona# Sy##a/us 1,-S) has been associated &ith C"T. The content of
language teaching is organised and categoriAed by categories of meaning and function
rather than by elements of grammar and structure. The &or; of Han ); and !lexander
(1+71. for the Council of )urope and 5il;ins (1+7,. has been influential in syllabus
design up to the present day, and the Common )uropean Krame&or; of eference
(C)K..
The !1 Gyllabus for %rish presented in C!M"!# follo&s the recommendations of
the C)K and o&es much to the 9KG concept. %t is a syllabus, not a pedagogy, and
due consideration must be given to the role of grammatical form in teaching it.
The Krame&or; cannot replace reference grammars or provide a strict
ordering (though scaling may involve selection and hence some ordering in
global terms. but provides a frame&or; for the decisions of practitioners to be
made ;no&n. (Council of )urope 0<<1a* 110.
+eferences
!nthony, )d&ard M. 1+,-. 2!pproach, method and techni$ue.3 #nglish Language
Teaching $%: ,-?17
7ro&n, 6. Douglas 0<<1 Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy "ongman8 #earson )ducation, 5hite #lains, 9e& :or;.
Coo;, H. &ebsite http*88homepage.ntl&orld.com8vivian.c8G"!8Jrashen.htm
Council of )urope. (0<<1a.. A &o!!on #uropean Fra!e'or( of eference for
Languages: Learning) Teaching) Assess!ent* Cambridge Fniversity #ress.
!lso available for do&nload from*
http*88&&&.coe.int8T8)8CulturalMCo?
operation8education8"anguages8"anguageM#olicy8CommonMKrame&or;MofMeferenc
e81cadre.aspNTopBf#age
Council of )urope. (0<<1b.. A &o!!on #uropean Fra!e'or( of eference for
Languages: Learning) Teaching) Assess!ent + A ,eneral ,uide for -sers*
Gtrasbourg*Council of )urope. (Document D@%H?)DF?"!9@ (0<<1. 1.
Jrashen, G. (1+/1. The Input .ypothesis* "ondon* "ongman
Jrashen, G. 4 Terrell, T.D. (1+/-., The /atural Approach, #ergamon
Marc;&ardt, !lbert D. 1+70. Changing &inds and shifting sands. 0ST #nglish
1uarterly 2$: 34$$*
9unan, David 1+/+ Designing Tas(s for the &o!!unicative &lassroo!. Cambridge*
Cambridge Fniversity #ress
9unan, D. 1++1 Language Teaching 0ethodology: A Te5tboo( for Teachers 9e&
:or;* #rentice?6all.
9unan, David (ed. 0<<- Practical #nglish LanguageTeaching Mc@ra& 6ill.
#rator, C.6. and Celce?Murcia, M. 1+7+. !n outline of language teaching approaches.
%n Celce?Murcia, M. and Mc%ntosh, ". ()d.., Teaching #nglish as a Second or
Foreign Language* 9e& :or;* 9e&bury 6ouse.
ichards, Oac; C. and odgers, Theodore G. 1+/0. 2Method* !pproach, design and
procedure.3 T#SOL 1uarterly $6: 11-?,/
ichards, Oac; C. and odgers, Theodore G. 1+/1. 2Method* !pproach, design and
procedure3, Chapter 0 in ichards, Oac; C. The &onte5t of Language Teaching
Cambridge Fniversity #ress.
ichards, Oac; C. and odgers, Theodore G. 0<<1 (0
nd
edition. Approaches and
0ethods in Language Teaching* Cambridge* Cambridge Fniversity #ress
Han );, O.!. and !lexander, ".@. 1+71. Threshold Level #nglish* Bxford* #ergamon
#ress.
5il;ins, D.!. 1+7,. /otional Syllabuses* "omdon* Bxford Fniversity #ress.