Direct and Grammar Translation Methods

Grammar Translation Method

Sometimes also known as the Classical Method, this is a traditional teaching technique that was used to
teach Latin and Greek and was particularly in vogue during the 16th Century.

The focus at this time was on the translation of texts, grammar, and rote learning of vocabulary. There
was no emphasis on speaking and listening comprehension because Latin and Greek were taught more
as academic subjects rather than a means of oral communication.

This teaching method is still common in many countries and institutions around the world, and still
appeals to those interested in languages from an intellectual or linguistic perspective. However, it
does little to improve your ability to use the language for oral communication.

View large version with all methods

Direct Method
This approach, also known as the ‘oral‘ or ‘natural‘ method, originated around the 1900s as an
alternative to the traditional grammatical translation method. At this time teachers were starting to
experiment with teaching and educational models as previous techniques were failing to improve
spoken communication.
The focus is on good pronunciation, with spontaneous use of the language,
no translation, and little grammar analysis.

The Direct Method is based on the direct involvement of the student when speaking, and listening to, the
foreign language in common everyday situations. Consequently, there is lots of oral interaction,
spontaneous use of the language, no translation, and little if any analysis of grammar rules and syntax.

The focus of the lessons is on good pronunciation, often introducing learners to phonetic symbols before
they see standard writing examples.
 The Direct Method continues to provoke interest and enthusiasm today, but it is not an easy
methodology to use in a classroom situation. It requires small classes and high student motivation, and
in the artificial environment of a classroom it is difficult to generate natural situations of understanding
and guarantee sufficient practice for everyone.

However, variants of this method have been developed where the teacher allows limited explanations
in the student’s native language and explains some grammar rules to correct common errors a student
may make when speaking.

One of the most famous supporters of this method was the German Maximilian Berlitz, who founded the
Berlitz chain of private language schools.

Some characteristics of this method are:

 Lessons are in the target language

 There is a focus on everyday vocabulary

 Visual aids are used to teach vocabulary

 Particular attention is placed on the accuracy of pronunciation and grammar

 A systematic approach is developed for comprehension and oral expression

The grammar–translation method is a method of teaching foreign languages derived from the
classical (sometimes called traditional) method of teaching Greek and Latin. In grammar–translation
classes, students learn grammatical rules and then apply those rules by translating sentences
between the target language and the native language. Advanced students may be required to
translate whole texts word-for-word. The method has two main goals: to enable students to read
and translate literature written in the source language, and to further students' general intellectual
development. It originated from the practice of teaching Latin; in the early 1500s, students learned
Latin for communication, but after the language died out it was studied purely as an academic
discipline. When teachers started teaching other foreign languages in the 19th century, they used
the same translation-based approach as had been used for teaching Latin. The method has been
rejected by scholars, and has no theoretical basis.

Principles and goals[edit]

There are two main goals to grammar–translation classes. One is to develop students' reading ability
to a level where they can read literature in the target language. [4] The other is to develop students'
general mental discipline. The users of foreign language wanted simply to note things of their
interest in the literature of foreign languages. Therefore, this method focuses on reading and writing
and has developed techniques which facilitate more or less the learning of reading and writing only.
As a result, speaking and listening are overlooked.[5]

Method[edit]
Grammar–translation classes are usually conducted in the students' native language. Grammar rules
are learned deductively; students learn grammar rules by rote,[6] and then practice the rules by doing
grammar drills and translating sentences to and from the target language. More attention is paid to
the form of the sentences being translated than to their content. When students reach more
advanced levels of achievement, they may translate entire texts from the target language. Tests
often consist of the translation of classical texts.
There is not usually any listening or speaking practice, and very little attention is placed on
pronunciation or any communicative aspects of the language. The skill exercised is reading, and
then only in the context of translation.

Materials[edit]
The mainstay of classroom materials for the grammar–translation method is the textbook. Textbooks
in the 19th century attempted to codify the grammar of the target language into discrete rules for
students to learn and memorize. A chapter in a typical grammar–translation textbook would begin
with a bilingual vocabulary list, after which there would be grammar rules for students to study and
sentences for them to translate.[3] Some typical sentences from 19th-century textbooks are as
follows:
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.[7]

Reception[edit]
The method by definition has a very limited scope. Because speaking or any kind of spontaneous
creative output was missing from the curriculum, students would often fail at speaking or even letter
writing in the target language . A noteworthy quote describing the effect of this method comes from
Bahlsen, who was a student of Plötz, a major proponent of this method[citation needed] in the 19th century.
In commenting about writing letters or speaking he said he would be overcome with "a veritable
forest of paragraphs, and an impenetrable thicket of grammatical rules".[8]
According to Richards and Rodgers, the grammar–translation has been rejected as a legitimate
language teaching method by modern scholars:
[T]hough it may be true to say that the Grammar-Translation Method is still widely practiced, 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.[9]
At the height of the Communicative Approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s it became
fashionable in some quarters to deride so-called "old-fashioned" methods and, in particular, something broadly
labelled "Grammar Translation". There were numerous reasons for this but principally it was felt that translation
itself was an academic exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an
overt focus on grammar was to learn about the target language rather than to learn it.

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

The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, foreign
language study is seen as a mental discipline, the goal of which may be to read literature in its original form or
simply to be a form of intellectual development. The basic approach is to analyze and study the grammatical
rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of the grammar of Latin, and
then to practise manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from the
mother tongue.

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

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

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

Applied wholesale of course, it can also be boring for many learners and a quick look at foreign language
course books from the 1950s and 1960s, for example, will soon reveal the non-communicative nature of the
language used. Using the more enlightened principles of the Communicative Approach, however, and
combining these with the systematic approach of Grammar Translation, may well be the perfect combination for
many learners. On the one hand they have motivating communicative activities that help to promote their
fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the grammar of the language.
This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being published and, amongst
other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much alive and
kicking as we enter the 21st century.

Without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the language it can be argued that the learner is in
possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly adequate for basic
communication but which will be found wanting when the learner is required to perform any kind of
sophisticated linguistic task.

History
The Grammar Translation Method is an old method which was originally used
to teach dead languages which explains why it focuses mainly on the written
form at the expense of the oral form. It was designed according to the faculty
psychology approach which was very popular during the 18th and 19th century.
It contended that ” mental discipline was essential for strengthening the
powers of the mind”. The way to do this was through learning classical
literature of the Greeks and Romans.
Method
 Use of mother tongue.
 Vocabulary items are taught in the form of word lists.
  Elaborate explanations of grammar.
 Focus on the morphology and syntax.
 Reading of difficult texts early in the course.
 Practice focuses on exercises translating sentences or texts from mother
tongue to the target language and vice versa.
It is surprising to see that the Grammar Translation Method was still in use in
some classrooms during the late decades of the 20th century. May be,
it’s because it bears some advantages.

Advantages
 Translation is the easiest and shortest way of explaining meaning of words
and phrases.
 Learners have no difficulties to understand the lesson as it is carried out in
the mother tongue.
 It is a labor-saving method as the teacher carries out everything in the
mother tongue.
Criticism
 What the method is good at is “teaching about the language” , not “teaching
the language”.
 Speaking or any kind of spontaneous creative output was missing from the
curriculum.
 Students lacked an active role in the classroom.
 Very little attention is paid to communication.
 Very little attention is paid to content.
 Translation is sometimes misleading.
Because of all these disadvantages, instructors tried to find better ways to
remedy the pitfalls of the grammar translation method. The Direct Method was
the answer.

Goals of Grammar Translation Method

1. To read literature in a target language.
2. To memorize grammar rules and vocabulary of the target language.

Characteristics of Grammar Translation Method

1. The major focus is on reading and writing with little or no systematic attention to listening and
speaking.
2. Vocabulary words are chosen from the reading text used. Teachers teach vocabulary words
through memorization, bilingual word list, and dictionary.
3. The basic unit of teaching and language practice is the sentence. Most of the lesson is in sentence
translation from and into the target language.
4. Deductive method is used in grammar. Rules are presented and studied. Then, students will
practice through translation exercises.
5. New grammatical or vocabulary items in the target language are explained in students’ native
language in order to have a comparison between the target language and the students’ native
language.
6. Students are expected to attain high standards in translation. They must be accurate in
translating the sentences into their target language and vice-versa.

Some Ideas in Teaching

With the goals and characteristics of this method, the following activities can be done in
the classroom:

1. Ask the students to take 5 vocabulary words from their favorite song and then translate it in
English.
2. In teaching a particular lesson in grammar, ask the students to memorize the rules, and they
should give their own sentences as samples.
3. Ask the students to take down the conversations of their friends in their native language, and
then translate it in English.
4. Ask students to write 10 verbs from the article assigned to them, and then they should give the
synonyms and antonyms.
5. Ask students to memorize at least 5 words per day in English and give their native language
equivalent.
Some school administrators or teachers may disagree with the idea of using the native
language in explaining vocabulary words or grammar rules because they want the
students to be exposed only with the target language in order to effectively acquire and
master it.

However, there is no hard and fast rule of what is the best method or strategy. It would
be best if the teacher will use different ways and find out what is suited to his/her
students by conducting an action research.

So, for those who would like to work on this as an action research, what are you waiting
for?

DIRECT METHOD
The direct method of teaching, which is sometimes called the natural method, and is often (but not
exclusively) used in teaching foreign languages, refrains from using the learners' native
language and uses only the target language. It was established in Germany and France around
1900 and contrasts with the grammar–translation method and other traditional approaches, as well
as with C.J.Dodson's bilingual method. It was adopted by key international language schools such
as Berlitz and Inlingua in the 1970s and many of the language departments of the Foreign Service
Institute of the U.S. State Department in 2012.[1]
In general, teaching focuses on the development of oral skills.[2] Characteristic features of the direct
method are:

 teaching concepts and vocabulary through pantomiming, real-life objects and other visual
materials
 teaching grammar by using an inductive approach (i.e. having learners find out rules through the
presentation of adequate linguistic forms in the target language)
 centrality of spoken language (including a native-like pronunciation)
 focus on question-answer patterns

Definition[edit]
Direct method is a method of teaching language directly establishing a direct or immediate
association between experience and expression, between the English word, phrase or idiom and its
meaning through demonstration, dramatization without the use of the mother tongue[3]

Aims[edit]
1. Direct method aims to build a direct relation between experience and language, word and
idea, thought and expression
2. This method intends for students to learn how to communicate in the target language
3. This method is based on the assumption that the learner should experience the new
language in the same way as he/she experienced his/her mother tongue[4]

Essentials[edit]
1. No translation
2. Concepts are taught by means of objects or by natural contexts
3. Oral training helps in reading and writing
4. Grammar is taught indirectly[5]

Techniques[edit]
1. Question/answer exercise – the teacher asks questions of any type and the student answers.
2. Dictation – the teacher chooses a grade-appropriate passage and reads it aloud.
3. Reading aloud – the students take turn reading sections of a passage, play or a dialogue
aloud.
4. Student self-correction – when a student makes a mistake the teacher offers him/her a
second chance by giving a choice.
5. Conversation practice – the students are given an opportunity to ask their own questions to
the other students or to the teacher. This enables both a teacher-learner interaction as well
as a learner-learner interaction.
6. Paragraph writing – the students are asked to write a passage in their own words.[4]
Nature[edit]
1. The direct method is also known as natural method. It was developed as a reaction to the
grammar translation method and is designed to take the learner into the domain of the target
language in the most natural manner.
2. The main objective is to impart a perfect command of a foreign language. The main focus
being to make the learner think in the targeted language in the same manner as the learning
of his/her mother-tongue in the most natural way.
3. In traditional language-learning, pupil participation was found to be diminished as the
teaching is perceived to be long and monotonous.[5]

Merits[edit]
1. Facilitates understanding of language – understanding of the target language becomes
easier due to the inhibition of the linguistic interferences from the mother tongue, it
establishes a direct bond between contexts, and helps in understanding directly what is
heard and read
2. Improves fluency of speech – fluency of speech results in easier writing, it tends to improve
expression, expression in writing, and it is a quick way of learning and expanding vocabulary
3. Aids reading – reading becomes easier and more pleasant, and it also promotes a habit of
critical studying
4. Improves the development of language sense
5. Full of activities, which make it interesting and exciting
6. Emphasizes the target language by helping the pupil express their thoughts and feelings
directly in target language without using their mother tongue
7. Develops listening, speaking,reading and writing
8. Increase in market for goods and services
9. Increased employment opportunities
10. Helps in bringing words from passive vocabulary into active vocabulary
11. Helps in proceeding the English language from particular to general, it bridges the gap
between practice and theory
12. Makes use of audio-visual aids and also facilitates reading and writing
13. Facilitates alertness and participation of students[4][3]

Demerits[edit]
1. Ignores systematic written work and reading activities
2. May not hold well in higher-level classes where the translation method is more suitable
3. Supports only limited vocabulary – it restricts the scope of vocabulary as not all words can be
directly associated with their meanings
4. Lacks application – the method aims at active command of a language, only the clever child
can profit by this method
5. Needs skilled teachers; e.g., most of the teachers in Indian schools have a poor command of
English
6. Does not suit or satisfy the needs of individual students in large classes
7. Inconvenient in a huge class
8. Ignores reading and writing aspects of language learning
9. Does not teach grammar systematically
 10. Time-consuming in creating real life situations
11. Less suitable for slow learners, who struggle with this method[4][3]

Principles[edit]
1. Classroom instructions are conducted exclusively in the target language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences are taught during the initial phase; grammar,
reading and writing are introduced in intermediate phase.
3. Oral communication skills are built up in a carefully graded progression organized around
question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes.
4. Grammar is taught inductively.
5. New teaching points are introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary is taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract
vocabulary is taught by association of ideas.
7. Both speech and listening comprehensions are taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar are emphasized.
9. Student should be speaking approximately 80% of the time during the lesson.
10. Students are taught from inception to ask questions as well as answer them.

Pedagogy[edit]
The key Aspects of this method are:
I. Introduction of new word, number, alphabet character, sentence or concept (referred to as
an Element) :
• SHOW...Point to Visual Aid or Gestures (for verbs), to ensure student clearly understands
what is being taught.
• SAY...Teacher verbally introduces Element, with care and enunciation.
• TRY...Student makes various attempts to pronounce new Element.
• MOLD...Teacher corrects student if necessary, pointing to mouth to show proper shaping of
lips, tongue and relationship to teeth.
• REPEAT...Student repeats each Element 5-20 times.
NOTE: Teacher should be aware of "high frequency words and verbs" and
prioritize teaching for this. (i.e. Teach key verbs such as "To Go" and "To Be"
before unusual verbs like "To Trim" or "To Sail"; likewise, teach Apple and
Orange before Prune and Cranberry.)
II. Syntax, the correct location of new Element in sentence:
• SAY & REPEAT...Teacher states a phrase or sentence to student; Student repeats such 5-
20 times.
• ASK & REPLY IN NEGATIVE...Teacher uses Element in negative situations (e.g. "Are you
the President of the United States?" or "Are you the teacher?"); Students says "No". If more
advanced, may use the negative with "Not".
• INTERROGATIVES Teacher provides intuitive examples using 5 "w"s (Who, What, Where,
Why, When) or How". Use random variations to practice.
• PRONOUNS WITH VERBS Using visuals (such as photos or illustrations) or gestures,
Teacher covers all pronouns. Use many random variations such as "Is Ana a woman?" or
"Are they from France?" to practice.
• USE AND QUESTIONS...Student must choose and utilize the correct Element, as well as
posing appropriate questions as Teacher did.
 III. Progress, from new Element to new Element (within
same lesson):
A. Random Sequencing:
1. After new Element (X) is taught and learned, go to next Element (Y).
2. After next Element (Y) is taught and learned, return to practice with Element (X).
3. After these two are alternated (X-Y; Y-X; Y-Y, etc), go to 3rd Element (Z).
4. Go back to 1 and 2, mix in 3, practice (X-Y-Z; Z-Y-X; Y-Y-Z, etc.) and continue building up
to appropriate number of Elements (may be as many as 20 per lesson, depending on
student, see B.1), practicing all possible combinations and repeating 5-20 times each
combination.
B. Student-Led Limits:
1. Observe student carefully, to know when mental "saturation" point is reached, indicating
student should not be taught more Elements until another time.
2. At this point, stop imparting new information, and simply do Review as follows:
C. Review: Keep random, arbitrary sequencing. If appropriate, use visuals, pointing quickly
to each. Employ different examples of Element that are easy to understand, changing
country/city names, people names, and words student already knows. Keep a list of
everything taught, so proper testing may be done.
D. Observation and Notation: Teacher should maintain a student list of words/phrases that
are most difficult for that student. The list is called "Special Attention List"
IV. Progress,
from Lesson to
Lesson:
• LESSON REVIEW The first few minutes of each lesson are to review prior lesson(s).
• GLOBAL REVIEW Transition from Lesson Review to a comprehensive review, which
should always include items from the Special Attention List.
V.
Advance
d
Concepts
:
• Intermediate and Advanced Students may skip some Element introduction as
appropriate; become aware of student's language abilities, so they are not frustrated by too
much review. If Student immediately shows recognition and knowledge, move to next
Element.
• Non-Standard Alphabets: Teaching Student to recognize letters/characters and reading
words should employ same steps as in above Aspect I, and alphabet variations may be
taught using Aspect III. Writing characters and words should initially be done manually, either
on paper or whiteboard.
• Country Accents: Any student at intermediate stages or higher should be made aware of
subtle variations in pronunciation, which depend on geography within a country or from
country to country.

The direct method of teaching was developed as a response to the Grammar-

Translation method. It sought to immerse the learner in the same way as when a first
language is learnt. All teaching is done in the target language, grammar is taught
inductively, there is a focus on speaking and listening, and only useful ‘everyday'
language is taught. The weakness in the Direct Method is its assumption that a second
language can be learnt in exactly the same way as a first, when in fact the conditions
under which a second language is learnt are very different.

Example
The teacher explains new vocabulary using realia, visual aids or demonstrations.

In the classroom
Aspects of the Direct Method are still evident in many ELT classrooms, such as the
emphasis on listening and speaking, the use of the target language for all class
instructions, and the use of visuals and realia to illustrate meaning.

Background

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 language. 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 foreign language could be
taught without translation or the use of the learner's native tongue 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 meanings 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
pronunciation. 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 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 Maximilian 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 progression 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

Critics

The Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools, such as those of the Berlitz
chain, where paying clients had high motivation 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 theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the more academically based
proponents of the Reform Movement. The Direct Method represented the product of enlightened
amateurism. It was perceived to have several drawbacks. First, it required teachers who were
native speakers or who had nativelike fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent
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 tongue, when sometimes a simple brief
explanation in the student's native tongue would have been a more efficient route to com-
prehension.

The Harvard psychologist Roger Brown has documented similar problems with strict Direct
Method techniques. He described his frustration in observing a teacher performing verbal
gymnastics in an attempt to convey the meaning of Japanese words, when translation would have
been a much more efficient technique to use.

By the 1920s, use of the Direct Method in noncommercial schools in Europe had consequently
declined. In France and Germany it was gradually modified into versions that combined some
Direct Method techniques 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 successful results.
The goal of trying to teach conversation skills was considered impractical in view of the
restricted time available for foreign language teaching in schools, the limited skills of teachers,
and the perceived irrelevance of conversation skills in a foreign language for the average
American college student. The study - published as the Coleman Report - advocated 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 characterize foreign language teaching in the United States until World War
II.

Although the Direct Method enjoyed popularity in Europe, not everyone had embraced it
enthusiastically. The British applied linguist Henry Sweet had 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 other applied linguists
argued for the development of sound methodological 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 Audio-lingualism in the United States and the Oral Approach or
Situational Language Teaching in Britain.
Audio-Lingual Method
The audio-lingual method, Army Method, or New Key,[1] is a style of teaching used in
teaching foreign languages. It is based on behaviorist theory,[citation needed] which postulates that certain
traits of living things, and in this case humans, could be trained through a system of reinforcement.
The correct use of a trait would receive positive feedback while incorrect use of that trait would
receive negative feedback.[citation needed]
This approach to language learning was similar to another, earlier method called the direct
method.[citation needed] Like the direct method, the audio-lingual method advised that students should be
taught a language directly, without using the students' native language to explain new words or
grammar in the target language. However, unlike the direct method, the audio-lingual method did not
focus on teaching vocabulary. Rather, the teacher drilled students in the use of grammar.
Applied to language instruction, and often within the context of the language lab, it means that the
instructor would present the correct model of a sentence and the students would have to repeat it.
The teacher would then continue by presenting new words for the students to sample in the same
structure. In audio-lingualism, there is no explicit grammar instruction: everything is simply
memorized in form.
The idea is for the students to practice the particular construct until they can use it spontaneously.
The lessons are built on static drills in which the students have little or no control on their own
output; the teacher is expecting a particular response and not providing the desired response will
result in a student receiving negative feedback. This type of activity, for the foundation of language
learning, is in direct opposition with communicative language teaching.
Charles C. Fries, the director of the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, the first
of its kind in the United States, believed that learning structure, or grammar was the starting point for
the student. In other words, it was the students' job to recite the basic sentence patterns and
grammatical structures. The students were given only “enough vocabulary to make such drills
possible.” (Richards, J.C. et-al. 1986). Fries later included principles for behavioural psychology, as
developed by B.F. Skinner, into this method.

Oral drills[edit]
Drills and pattern practice are typical (Richards, J.C. et-al. 1986):

 Repetition: the student repeats an utterance as soon as he hears it.

 Inflection: one word in a sentence appears in another form when repeated.
 Replacement: one word is replaced by another.
 Restatement: the student rephrases an utterance.

Examples[edit]
Inflection: Teacher: I ate the sandwich. Student: I ate the sandwiches.
Replacement: Teacher: He bought the car for half-price. Student: He bought it for half-price.
Restatement: Teacher: Tell me not to smoke so often. Student: Don't smoke so often!
The following example illustrates how more than one sort of drill can be incorporated into one
practice session:
“Teacher: There's a cup on the table ... repeat
Students: There's a cup on the table
Teacher: Spoon
Students: There's a spoon on the table
Teacher: Book
Students: There's a book on the table
Teacher: On the chair
Students: There's a book on the chair
etc.”[2]

Historical roots[edit]
The method is the product of three historical circumstances. For its views on language, it drew on
the work of American linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield. The prime concern of American linguists
in the early decades of the 20th century had been to document all the indigenous languages spoken
in the US. However, because of the death of trained native teachers who would provide a theoretical
description of the native languages, linguists had to rely on observation. For the same reason, a
strong focus on oral language was developed.
At the same time, behaviourist psychologists such as B.F. Skinner were forming the belief that all
behaviour (including language) was learnt through repetition and positive or negative reinforcement.
The third factor was the outbreak of World War II, which created the need to post large number of
American servicemen all over the world. It was, therefore, necessary to provide these soldiers with
at least basic verbal communication skills. Unsurprisingly, the new method relied on the prevailing
scientific methods of the time, observation and repetition, which were also admirably suited to
teaching en masse. Because of the influence of the military, early versions of the audio-lingualism
came to be known as the “army method.”[1]

In practice[edit]
As mentioned, lessons in the classroom focus on the correct imitation of the teacher by the students.
The students expected to produce the correct output, but attention is also paid to correct
pronunciation. Although correct grammar is expected in usage, no explicit grammatical instruction is
given. Furthermore, the target language is the only language to be used in the classroom.[1] Modern
implementations are more lax on this last requirement.

Fall from popularity[edit]

In the late 1950s, the theoretical underpinnings of the method were questioned by linguists such
as Noam Chomsky, who pointed out the limitations of structural linguistics. The relevance of
behaviorist psychology to language learning was also questioned, most famously by
Chomsky's review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior in 1959. The audio-lingual method was thus
deprived of its scientific credibility and it was only a matter of time before the effectiveness of the
method itself was questioned.
In 1964, Wilga Rivers released a critique of the method in her book, The Psychologist and the
Foreign Language Teacher. Subsequent research by others, inspired by her book, produced results
which showed explicit grammatical instruction in the mother language to be more productive.[citation
needed]
These developments, coupled with the emergence of humanist pedagogy led to a rapid decline
in the popularity of audiolingualism.[citation needed]
Philip Smith's study from 1965-1969, termed the Pennsylvania Project, provided significant proof that
audio-lingual methods were less effective than a more traditional cognitive approach involving the
learner's first language.[3]

In recent years[edit]
Despite being discredited as an effective teaching methodology in 1970,[3] audio-lingualism continues
to be used today although it is typically not used as the foundation of a course but rather has been
relegated to use in individual lessons. As it continues to be used, it also continues to gain criticism,
as Jeremy Harmer notes, “Audio-lingual methodology seems to banish all forms of language
processing that help students sort out new language information in their own minds.” As this type of
lesson is very teacher-centered, it is a popular methodology for both teachers and students, perhaps
for several reasons but especially because the input and output is restricted and both parties know
what to expect. Some hybrid approaches have been developed, as can be seen in the
textbook Japanese: The Spoken Language (1987–90), which uses repetition and drills extensively
but supplements them with detailed grammar explanations in English.
Butzkamm and Caldwell have tried to revive traditional pattern practice in the form of bilingual semi-
communicative drills. For them, the theoretical basis, and sufficient justification, of pattern drills is
the generative principle, which refers to the human capacity to generate an infinite number of
sentences from a finite grammatical competence.[4]

In popular culture[edit]
The fact that audio-lingualism continues to manifest itself in the classroom is reflected in popular
culture. Films often depict one of the most well-known aspects of audio-lingualism: the repetition
drill. In South Park Episode #172, Cartman applies the repetition drill while teaching a class of high
school students. In Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, an LP record of a French lesson instructs a pair
of obliging children to 'repeat' short phrases in French and then in English.

Main features[edit]
 Each skill like listening, speaking, reading, writing is treated and taught separately.
 The skills of writing and reading are not neglected, but the focus throughout remains on listening
and speaking.
 Dialogue is the main features of the audio lingual syllabus.
 Dialogues are the chief means of presenting language items. They provide learner an
opportunity to practice, mimic and memorize bits of language.
 Patterns drills are used as an important technique and essential part of this method for language
teaching and learning.
 The language laboratory was introduced as an important teaching aid.
 Mother tongue was not given much importance, similar to the direct method, but it was not
deemphasized so rigidly.[clarification needed].[5]

Techniques[edit]
Skills are taught in the following order: listening, speaking, reading, writing. Language is taught
through dialogues with useful vocabulary and common structures of communication. Students are
made to memorize the dialogue line by line. Learner mimic the teacher or a tape listening carefully to
all features of the spoken target language. Pronunciation like that of native speaker is important in
presenting the model. Through repetition of phrases and sentences, a dialogue is learned by the first
whole class, then smaller groups and finally individual learners.
Reading and writing are introduced in the next stage. The oral lesson learned in previous class is the
reading material to establish a relationship between speech and writing. All reading material is
introduced as orally first. Writing, in the early stages, is confined to transcriptions of the structures
and dialogues learned earlier. Once learners mastered the basic structure, they were asked to write
composition reports based on the oral lesson.[5]
Emphasizing the audio[edit]
The theory emphasizes the listening-speaking-reading-writing order.
Listening is important in developing speaking proficiency and so receives particular emphasis. There
are strong arguments, both physiological and psychological, for combining speaking practice with
training in listening comprehension.
Speaking is effective through listening. By hearing the sounds, articulation is more accurate, with
differentiation of sounds, memorization and internalization of proper auditory sounds images.
Development of a feel for the new language gains interest for the language.
There has been practically no study or experiments to determine how much time should be taken
between listening experience and speaking practice.
Listening comprehension is most neglected in language learning. It is generally treated as incidental
to speaking rather than as a foundation for it. Texts, guides and course of study contain tests for
evaluating progress in listening comprehension, but they rarely contain specific learning materials
designed for the systematic development of this skill.
Here are some materials that can be adapted for improving listening comprehension:

 The dialogue should be presented as a story, in the foreign language, using simple language.
 The meaning of some of the new words and expressions that will appear in the dialogue should
be explained through gestures, visual aids, synonyms, etc. The idea is to teach the content in
the story.
 Different role-plays can be used to present the dialogue.
 Without stopping, the dialogue can be gone through to hear how the entire conversation sounds
at normal speed.
 True and false activity can improve comprehension.
 The entire dialogue can be repeated at normal rate speed. The student can close his eyes to
eliminate distractions and increase his listening concentration.
 A listening comprehension test can be given.
 Listening comprehension practice can be given using dialogues from other courses of
study or recorded materials that contain most of the language that has previously been learned by
the students. The speaking practice would begin after listening comprehension. The students will be
ready to speak at this time. Speaking practice can proceed according to sequence.

1. Pattern practice can be based on material taken from the dialogue.

2. Mimicking can practice the dialogue itself.
3. Performance of the dialogue in front of class and at the seats with the students changing
roles and partners from time to time.
4. Dialogue can be adapted.
Memorization of techniques suggested represent an approach that will enable student to memorize
larger segments at a time and perform dialogues as a whole with more confidence. In the meantime,
if teachers are willing to use their imagination and experiment with new techniques, many ways can
be found to emphasize the audio in the method.[6]

Aims[edit]
 Oral skills are used systematically to emphasize communication.The foreign language is taught
for communication, with a view to achieve development of communication skills.
 Practice is how the learning of the language takes place. Every language skill is the total of the
sets of habits that the learner is expected to acquire. Practice is central to all the contemporary
foreign language teaching methods. With audio-lingual method, it is emphasized even more.
 Oral learning is emphasized. Stress is put on oral skills at the early year of the foreign language
course and is continued during the later years. Oral skills remain central even when, later,
reading and writing are introduced. Learners are asked to speak only what they have had a
chance to listen to sufficiently. They read only the material used as part of their practice. They
have to write only that which they have read. Strict order of material, in terms of the four skills, is
followed.[7]

Advantages[edit]
 Listening and speaking skills are emphasized and, especially the former, rigorously developed.
 The use of visual aids is effective in vocabulary teaching.
 The method is just as functional and easy to execute for larger groups.
 Correct pronunciation and structure are emphasized and acquired.
 It is a teacher-dominated method.
 It is a mechanical method since it demands pattern practice, drilling, and memorization.
 The learner is in a directed role; the learner has little control over the material studied or the
method of study.
 It is grounded on a solid theory of language learning.[8][9]

Disadvantages[edit]
 The behaviorist approach to learning is now discredited. Many scholars have proved its
weakness.[citation needed]
 It does not pay sufficient attention to communicative competence.[citation needed]
 Only language form is considered while meaning is neglected.[citation needed]
 Equal importance is not given to all four skills.[citation needed]
 It is a teacher-dominated method.
 It is a mechanical method since it demands pattern practice, drilling, and memorization over
functional learning and organic usage.
 The learner is in a passive role; the learner has little control over their learning.[10]

Explanation
Based on Skinner’s Behaviorism theory, it assumed that a human being can be trained using
a system of reinforcement. Correct behaviour receives positive feedback, while errors receive
negative feedback.

This approach to learning is similar to the Direct Method, in that the lesson takes place entirely in the
target language.

Emphasis is on the acquisition of patterns in common everyday dialogue.

 The Audio-lingual Method was widely used in the 1950s and 1960s, and the emphasis was not on
the understanding of words, but rather on the acquisition of structures and patterns in common
everyday dialogue.

These patterns are elicited, repeated and tested until the responses given by the student in the
foreign language are automatic.

Some characteristics of this method are:

 Drills are used to teach structural patterns

 Set phrases are memorised with a focus on intonation

 Grammatical explanations are kept to a minimum

 Vocabulary is taught in context

 Audio-visual aids are used

 Focus is on pronunciation

 Correct responses are positively reinforced immediately

Modern Usage
The Audio-lingual Method is still in use today, though normally as a part of individual lessons rather
than as the foundation of the course. These types of lessons can be popular as they are relatively
simple, from the teacher’s point of view, and the learner always knows what to expect.

Some of the most famous supporters of this method were Giorgio Shenker, who promoted guided
self learning with the Shenker method in Italy, and Robin Callan, who created the Callan method.

Developments & Problems

This extensive memorization, repetition and over-learning of patterns was the key to the method’s
success, as students could often see immediate results, but it was also its weakness.

It was discovered that language was not acquired through a process of habit
formation.

The method’s insistence on repetition and memorization of standard phrases ignored the role of
context and knowledge in language learning. As the study of linguistics developed, it was discovered
 that language was not acquired through a process of habit formation, and that errors were not
necessarily bad.

It was also claimed that the methodology did not deliver an improvement in communicative ability
that lasted over the long term.

Summary
When – 1950 to 1970, some sporadic or selective use today
Focus – Sentence and sound patterns
Characteristics – Listening and speaking drills and pattern practice only in English
Supporters – B.F. Skinner, Leonard Bloomfield, Robin Callan

The Pros and Cons of the ALM

As with any “method,” the audio-lingual method probably suffered more than anything
because it was just that: a method. When teaching is based upon “a systematic plan
followed in presenting material for instruction,” that teaching can become dogmatic,
leaving teachers little room for improvisation.

In the early days of the use of the ALM, structure, rules and procedures were closely
monitored and practiced, in part to standardize the teaching process as well as to evaluate
its effectiveness.

Those on the audio-lingual bandwagon pointed out lots of advantages. These include:
 Students practicing useful language from the very first class.
 Better pronunciation and increased participation as a result of the drilling exercises.
 The use of visual cues, which was thought to help develop vocabulary.
On the other hand, critics felt that the method had these disadvantages:
 Too much attention placed upon the teacher, who was limited to presenting only
mechanical aspects of language.
 The reduction of vocabulary in favor of structure.
The Continued Presence of the ALM in Modern Language
Teaching

Despite language teaching drifting away from using ALM as a full method, the materials
that were developed for classroom use are still valid and useful and you can find many
available for your modern language class. Textbook developers have wisely continued to
include the best of audio-lingual in printed language materials. These same materials
abound online.
From everyday language dialogue to the use of structural substitution and transformation
exercises, the legacy of ALM continues with us to modern-day language instruction.

Here we will discuss three basic ALM techniques which, leaving the “method” aside, you
can readily adapt to your language classroom!

1. Focus on Practical Pronunciation

The audio-lingual approach, based upon language structure, naturally treated the sounds of
language as important building blocks for the creation of utterances, that is, meaningful
strings of sounds.

All spoken languages are pronounced. Individual sounds can be isolated. In any language,
there may be from 20 to hundreds of sounds. No matter how many sounds the language you
teach employs, you will need to first have a basic understanding of what they are, how they
are produced and how they work together to create utterances. Let’s look at how to gain
that understanding and apply it to teaching.
Identifying the sound system

You don’t need to have a comprehensive list of all the sounds available for speaking the
target language. It will suffice to help your students to first articulate, then recognize, the
most basic sounds necessary.

Avoid using complex graphic representations of these sounds (don’t ask your students to
memorize the IPA, for example). Instead, take advantage of readily recognized symbols
that students use in their native language.

For example, both the voiced and unvoiced “th” sounds in English are articulated in the
same way as the “z” sound in European Spanish. In early stages, before Spanish students
see words written with “th,” you can transcribe the sound with a “z” for their notes, and
they will make the sound you want. They will also remember it from those notes for home
practice.

Also be moderate in the existence of similar sounds. The well-known “ship-

sheep“ minimal pair in English, for example, does demonstrate the difference in meaning
when a vowel sound is changed. On the other hand, though, if the context in the sentence
indicates a woolly animal, it really doesn’t matter if the student has used the word for
“boat” instead. So avoid being nitpicky with individual sounds when practicing sentences!
 Using tongue-twisters to build articulation and strength

Though you can easily find minimal pair exercises online, instead of focusing on repeating
single sound changes in words out of context (which is fine for a quick pronunciation
warm-up!), your students will have much more fun working with complete sentences. So
try well-known tongue-twisters in the L2.

In Catalan, for example, this one can bring giggles to your students:

Plou poc, però per al poc que plou, plou prou. (It rains little, but as little as it rains, it rains
enough.)

This practices the articulation of the “l” and the “r” sounds.

Now, tongue-twisters are often kind of silly sentences that aren’t all that useful in everyday
situations (just when would you suddenly state that a female shell vendor does business on
the beach?). However, you can create your own twisters just by choosing a couple of
sounds and finding useful words.

Everyday language is full of tongue-twisters—create your own!

2. Do Structural Drilling Exercises

As in many disciplines, the repetitive practice of basic constructs develops strength and
agility for later improvisational work. In the audio-lingual method, this manifested itself in
sentence structure drilling.

The use of the word “drill” is kind of an unfortunate leftover from the “Army Method” that
gave way to the audio-lingual method. Using that word can make students tremble with
fear or yawn with boredom. So though “drilling” is useful and valid, you might want to
simply call the activity something like “sentence practice,” or even “extended pronunciation
practice,” which in the end, it actually is.

Structural drilling is useful in lots of ways:

 It strengthens the vocal apparatus for future sentence production.
 It builds strong habits in structural manipulation.
 It settles automatic responses in everyday conversational exchange.
Where to find material to drill

The first place to look for practice material is the class textbook you are using. If there are
no substitution-type exercises, there will certainly be basic sentences in any dialogue or
exercise that you can adapt to any of the procedures described here.

How to do a drill session

The most basic type of sentence structure practice involves the substitution of a particular
word with another that would logically be found in the same place in the sentence. In the
simplest kind of substitution, the student simply replaces one word with the cue word
provided by the teacher. No other modification will occur within the sentence.

In English, for example:

Teacher: I’d like a cup of coffee. Tea.

Students: I’d like a cup of tea.
Teacher: I’d like a cup of tea. Milk.
Students: I’d like a cup of milk.

Transformation practice involves slightly more complex substitution in which the change
of one word requires modifications in other words. Subject-verb agreement may need to be
reflected.

Again, in English:

Teacher: I eat breakfast every day. He.

Students: He eats breakfast every day.
Teacher: He eats breakfast every day. They.
Students: They eat breakfast every day.

In other languages, there may be adjective/noun concurrence.

In Spanish, for example:

Teacher: La puerta es roja. Libro. (The door is red. Book.)

Students: El libro es rojo. (The book is red.)
Teacher: El libro es rojo. Manzana. (The book is red. Apple.)
Students: La manzana es roja. (The apple is red.)
 The teacher repetition of the sentence produced by the students serves a couple of
purposes:

 Through this repetition, the teacher can emphasize correctly any sound or articulation the students
have shown problematic.
 The repetition reinforces the listening aspect of language, allowing students to immediately
recognize the sentence they have just pronounced.
When and how often to drill

Drilling can become a regular activity, both as a vocal warm-up and an inductive
introduction to particular structures or vocabulary that will be the theme of the class. On
the other hand, an entire hour of drilling might be something you would consider once or
twice during a semester, but should probably not be the basic structure of your class.

One criticism of the “drill” in the ALM was that it may have produced automatic responses,
but that its overuse in class led to boredom and eventual reduction of student attention. So
this type of exercise should probably be limited in time, not involving more than 10 to 15
percent of a class period.

3. Use Dialogue Practice

The natural next step in the construction of language, from sound through sentence,
is dialogue, the exchange of information between two or more people. Structural linguists
found that many conversational exchanges followed basic structures that can be studied
and learned.
Everyday dialogues are probably the most familiar leftovers of the original audio-lingual
method. Most modern language texts will include dialogue material and exercises, these
often being the principle presentation text in a unit, especially in texts aimed at language
use rather than language study for examination.
What kinds of dialogues to use

Dialogues can fall into many different categories. For this article, I am going to limit them to
just two:

 Standard everyday dialogues, or that type of verbal exchange that we tend to repeat over and
again throughout our daily lives. These will include basic greetings and farewells, shopping
dialogues and information requests, among others.
 Improvisational dialogues, or those that may begin standard but which will be unpredictable
because of the personal interaction of the people speaking. These may include debate, discussion,
argument and opinion sharing.
 Standard everyday dialogue practice

An everyday dialogue can grow easily from previous sentence structure practice. You may
present this dialogue in any number of fashions, from a printed handout to pictures, from
sock puppets to repetition exercises—whatever means suit your teaching style.

These dialogues should be kept short and sweet, each student having three to five
sentences to produce. For example:

S1: Good morning.

S2: Hello.
S1: How much are the tomatoes?
S2: 35 yen a kilo.
S1: Oh! That’s cheap! I’ll take three kilos.
S2: Good. That will be 105 yen.
S1: Here you are.
S2: And here’s your change. Thank you.
S1: Thank you! Goodbye.
S2: Goodbye.
In this dialogue, it is pretty evident that simple substitution can be had: tomatoes changed
to pears, yen changed to euros, 35 changed to whatever price seems right. Students can also
be encouraged to use different greetings and farewells that they know or have recently
learned.

This type of exchange can also be expanded by giving S1 a shopping list and S2 a list of
prices. Add props and you have yourself a role play.

The same type of exercise can be done for buying train tickets, sending a package by post,
asking directions to a local monument, etc. The structure of the exchange should remain
standard as a confidence builder, while the content of the exchange can be changed with
simple substitution.

Improvisational dialogue practice

These types of dialogues, which naturally lead to more complex role play, offer a theme to
students and allow them more freedom in using language. The presentation of these
dialogues will necessarily be a little more complex as well.

Some ideas to keep in mind:

 Have character cards prepared beforehand. These cards, with basic character information, help
students to imagine what their point of view may be in the dialogue. Giving them names, attitudes
 and sometimes specific instructions about their opinion will keep the focus on what they need to
say rather than on why they are saying it.
 Practice the vocabulary first. Any discussion will include specific words. Have a short list of useful
vocabulary prepared, and use those words in pronunciation and structure exercises as a warm-up
activity.
 Make a dialogue scheme. It helps a lot if students can see a mind map of how the dialogue may
develop. Sketch on the board the basic structure of the dialogue, highlighting options like where the
conversation may go if one says “yes” while the other says “no.” Give useful fragments for different
parts of the dialogue, like “I don’t think so” or “I agree, but…”
 Work in pairs. This type of dialogue will need your close attention and aid. Divide your group into
pairs and set them to work creating their dialogue based upon the information you have provided
them. While all are working in pairs, you can move about and give personal attention to each pair.

As you can see, once the strict imposition of a “method” has been removed, the material
developed within the audio-lingual method can be quite useful in any class at any level.

Other areas where the ALM developed material include error correction, rewards for work
well done and an emphasis on oral and aural study.

You can start with the above, and by looking into the kinds of materials available to ALM
teachers, you can continue to find even more great techniques to expand on and put to use
in today’s language classroom.

The Audiolingual method

The objective of the audiolingual method is accurate pronunciation and
grammar, the ability to respond quickly and accurately in speech situations
and knowledge of sufficient vocabulary to use with grammar patterns.
Particular emphasis was laid on mastering the building blocks of language
and learning the rules for combining them. It was believed that learning
structure, or grammar was the starting point for the student. Here are some
characteristics of the method:

 language learning is habit-formation,

 mistakes are bad and should be avoided, as they are considered bad habits,
 language skills are learned more effectively if they are presented orally first,
then in written form,
 analogy is a better foundation for language learning than analysis,
 the meanings of words can be learned only in a linguistic and cultural
context.
The main activities include reading aloud dialogues, repetitions of model
sentences, and drilling. Key structures from the dialogue serve as the basis
for pattern drills of different kinds. Lessons in the classroom focus on the
correct imitation of the teacher by the students. Not only are the students
expected to produce the correct output, but attention is also paid to correct
pronunciation. Although correct grammar is expected in usage, no explicit
grammatical instruction is given. It is taught inductively. Furthermore, the
target language is the only language to be used in the classroom.

Advantages
 It aims at developing listening and speaking skills which is a step away from
the Grammar translation method
 The use of visual aids has proven its effectiveness in vocabulary teaching.
Disadvantages
 The method is based on false assumptions about language. The study of
language doesn’t amount to studying the “parole”, the observable data.
Mastering a language relies on acquiring the rules underlying language
performance. That is, the linguistic, sociolinguistic, and discourse
competences.
 The behaviorist approach to learning is now discredited. Many scholars have
proven its weakness. Noam Chomsky ( “Chomsky, Noam (1959). “A Review of
B. F. Skinner’s Verbal behavior”) has written a strong criticism of the
principles of the theory.

COMMUNITY LANGUAGE LEARNING

Community language learning (CLL) is a language-teaching method[1] in which students work
together to develop what aspects of a language they would like to learn. It is based on
the Counselling-approach in which the teacher acts as a counsellor and a paraphraser, while the
learner is seen as a client and collaborator.
The CLL emphasizes the sense of community in the learning group, encourages interaction as a
vehicle of learning, and considers as a priority the students' feelings and the recognition of struggles
in language acquisition.
There is no syllabus or textbook to follow, and it is the students themselves who determine the
content of the lesson by means of meaningful conversations in which they discuss real messages.
Notably, it incorporates translation, transcription, and recording techniques.

Background[edit]
The CLL approach was developed by Charles Arthur Curran, a Jesuit priest,[2] professor
of psychology at Loyola University Chicago, and counseling specialist.[3] This method refers to two
roles: that of the know-er (teacher) and student (learner). Also the method draws on the counseling
metaphor and refers to these respective roles as a counselor and a client. According to Curran, a
counselor helps a client understand his or her own problems better by 'capturing the essence of the
clients concern ...[and] relating [the client's] affect to cognition...'; in effect, understanding the client
and responding in a detached yet considerate manner.
To restate, the counselor blends what the client feels and what he is learning in order to make the
experience a meaningful one. Often, this supportive role requires greater energy expenditure than
an 'average' teacher.[4]

Methods[edit]
Natural approach[edit]
The foreign language learner's tasks, according to CLL are (1) to apprehend the sound system of the
language (2) assign fundamental meanings to individual lexical units and (3) construct a basic
grammar.
In these three steps, the CLL resembles the natural approach to language teaching in which a
learner is not expected to speak until he has achieved some basic level of comprehension.[5]
There are 5 stages of development in this method.

1. “Birth” stage: feeling of security and belonging are established.

2. As the learners' ability improve, they achieve a measure of independence from the parent.
3. Learners can speak independently.
4. The learners are secure enough to take criticism and being corrected.
5. The child becomes an adult and becomes the know-er.
Online communities[edit]
These types of communities have recently arisen with the explosion of educational resources for
language learning on the Web. A new wave of Community Learning Languages have come into
place with the internet growth and the boom of social networking technologies. These online CLLs
are social network services such as English, baby! and LiveMochathat take advantage of the Web
2.0 concept of information sharing and collaboration tools, for which users can help other users to
learn languages by direct communication or mutual correction of proposed exercises.

Barriers[edit]
When learning a different language while in a multilingual community, there are certain barriers that
one definitely will encounter. The reason for these barriers is that in language learning while in a
multicultural community, native and nonnative groups will think, act, and write in different ways
based on each of their own cultural norms. Research shows that students in multicultural
environments communicate less with those not familiar with their culture. Long-term problems
include that the foreign speakers will have their own terms of expression combined into the language
native to the area, which often makes for awkward sentences to a native speaker. Native students
tend to develop an exclusive attitude toward the nonnative speaker because they feel threatened
when they do not understand the foreign language. Short-term problems include the fact that native
students will usually lack in-depth knowledge of the nonnative cultures, which makes them more
likely to be unwilling to communicate with the foreign speakers. Because these foreign students
grew up and were educated in a totally different cultural environment, their ideologies, identities and
logic that form in the early age cause different ways of expressing ideas both in written and spoken
form. They will have to modify and redefine their original identities when they enter a multicultural
environment (Shen, 459). This is no easy task. Consequentially, a low level of social involvement
and enculturation will occur for both native and nonnative speakers in the community.
 Community language learning (CLL) was primarily designed for monolingual
conversation classes where the teacher-counsellor would be able to speak
the learners' L1. The intention was that it would integrate translation so that the
students would disassociate language learning with risk taking. It's a method that is
based on English for communication and is extremely learner-focused. Although each
course is unique and student-dictated, there are certain criteria that should be applied
to all CLL classrooms, namely a focus on fluency in the early stages, an undercurrent of
accuracy throughout the course and learner empowerment as the main focus.

 How it works in the classroom

o Stage 1- Reflection
o Stage 2 - Recorded conversation
o Stage 3 - Discussion
o Stage 4 - Transcription
o Stage 5 - Language analysis
o Length of stages

 For and against CLL

 Working with monolingual or multilingual classes

 Working with large classes

 Conclusion

How it works in the classroom

In a typical CLL lesson I have five stages:

Stage 1- Reflection
I start with students sitting in a circle around a tape recorder to create a community
atmosphere.

 The students think in silence about what they'd like to talk about, while I remain
outside the circle.

 To avoid a lack of ideas students can brainstorm their ideas on the board before
recording.

Stage 2 - Recorded conversation

Once they have chosen a subject the students tell me in their L1 what they'd like to say
and I discreetly come up behind them and translate the language chunks into English.
 With higher levels if the students feel comfortable enough they can say some of it
directly in English and I give the full English sentence. When they feel ready to speak
the students take the microphone and record their sentence.

 It's best if you can use a microphone as the sound quality is better and it's easier to
pick up and put down.

 Here they're working on pace and fluency. They immediately stop recording and then
wait until another student wants to respond. This continues until a whole conversation
has been recorded.

Stage 3 - Discussion
Next the students discuss how they think the conversation went. They can discuss how
they felt about talking to a microphone and whether they felt more comfortable
speaking aloud than they might do normally.

 This part is not recorded.

Stage 4 - Transcription
Next they listen to the tape and transcribe their conversation. I only intervene when
they ask for help.

 The first few times you try this with a class they might try and rely on you a lot but aim
to distance yourself from the whole process in terms of leading and push them to do it
themselves.

Stage 5 - Language analysis

I sometimes get students to analyse the language the same lesson or sometimes in the
next lesson. This involves looking at the form of tenses and vocabulary used and why
certain ones were chosen, but it will depend on the language produced by the students.

 In this way they are totally involved in the analysis process. The language is completely
personalised and with higher levels they can themselves decide what parts of their
conversation they would like to analyse, whether it be tenses, lexis or discourse.

 With lower levels you can guide the analysis by choosing the most common problems
you noted in the recording stages or by using the final transcription.

Length of stages
The timing will depend entirely on the class, how quickly they respond to CLL, how long
you or they decide to spend on the language analysis stage and how long their
recorded conversation is. Be careful however that the conversation isn't too long as this
will in turn make the transcription very long
 For and against CLL

Pros

 Learners appreciate the autonomy CLL offers them and thrive on analysing their own
conversations.

 CLL works especially well with lower levels who are struggling to produce spoken
English.

 The class often becomes a real community, not just when using CLL but all of the time.
Students become much more aware of their peers, their strengths and weaknesses and
want to work as a team.

Cons

 In the beginning some learners find it difficult to speak on tape while others might find
that the conversation lacks spontaneity.

 We as teachers can find it strange to give our students so much freedom and tend to
intervene too much.

 In your efforts to let your students become independent learners you can neglect their
need for guidance.

Working with monolingual or multilingual classes

I have used CLL with both monolingual and multilingual classes and found that it works
well with both. With the multilingual low-level classes I, as the teacher-counsellor,
reformulated their English in the same way you might do with higher levels. However,
the first few attempts at CLL work better with a monolingual class as the instructions
can be given in L1. It's important that the learners understand their and your new roles
in the language learning process.

Working with large classes

For the first lesson it's important to record the conversation as a whole class even
though this can limit student-speaking time. It's more practical in terms of giving
instructions before you start and for moving from one student to another when they
need you to translate or reformulate what they want to say. The next time you use CLL
however, you could split the class into two groups. This gives them more speaking
time.

 Make sure the groups are far enough away from each other for the recording stage but
not so far that you can't move freely from one group to another.
 A further alternative is that they swap tapes for the transcription stage. The language is
obviously less personalised but their listening skills are being challenged in a different
way and they still feel part of a whole class community.

Conclusion
Although CLL is primarily meant as a 'whole' approach to teaching I have found it
equally useful for an occasional lesson, especially with teenagers. It enables me to
refocus on the learner while my students immediately react positively to working in a
community. They take exceptionally well to peer-correction and by working together
they overcome their fear of speaking. I have also found quieter students able to offer
corrections to their peers and gladly contribute to the recording stage of the lesson. It's
a teaching method which encompasses all four skills while simultaneously revealing
learners' styles which are more or less analytical in their approach to language learning.
All of which raises our awareness as a teacher and that of our students.

Once you have tried CLL with your class, it's a good idea to evaluate the method. Here
are some possible questions you could ask.

(CLL) is one of the ‘designer’ methods of language acquisition that arose in the 1970’s (along with The Silent
Way, Suggestopoedia and TPR) and forms part of the Humanistic Approach to language learning. The key
features of these methodologies is that they flout orthodox language teaching, they have a guru (regarded by
devotees of the method with something approaching religious awe), and they all developed from outside
language teaching. Additionally they are all rigidly-prescriptive and emphasise the learners’ responsibility for
their own learning.

The founder figure of CLL was Charles Curran, an American Jesuit priest, whose work in Counselling Learning
(a general learning approach based on Rogerian counselling ideas and practices) was applied to language
learning.

The key idea is that the students determine what is to be learned, so the teacher is a facilitator and provides
support. In the basic form of CLL, a maximum of 12 students sit in a circle. There is a small portable tape
recorder inside the circle. The teacher (who is termed the ‘Knower’ ) stands outside the circle. When a student
has decided they want to say something in the foreign language, they call the Knower over and whisper what
they want to say, in their mother tongue. The teacher, also in a whisper, then offers the equivalent utterance in
English (or the target language). The student attempts to repeat the utterance, with encouragement from the
Knower, with the rest of the group eavesdropping. When the Knower is satisfied, the utterance is recorded by
the student. Another student then repeats the process until there is a kind of dialogue recorded. The Knower
then replays the recording, and transcribes it on the board. This is followed by analysis, and questions from
students. In a subsequent session, the Knower may suggest activities springing from the dialogue. Gradually,
the students spin a web of language.

Space does not permit me to describe in detail the psychological system on which CLL is based, but
essentially, the learner is supposed to move from a stage of total dependence on the Knower at the beginning
to a stage of independent autonomy at the end, passing through 5 developmental stages along the way. It is
the Knower’s job to provide the supportive and secure environment for learners, and to encourage a whole-
person approach to the learning.

There are clearly some major problems with CLL. It can only be done with small numbers of students. The
students have to share a single mother tongue. The teacher (Knower) has to be highly proficient in the target
language and in the language of the students. The teacher also has to have enormous reserves of energy –
both physical and psychic. (I have used CLL to teach French and Italian in the beginner stages, and I can
assure you I was exhausted after each session!). Arguably, too, it is unwise to undertake CLL as a teacher
without some counselling training.
It has also been pointed out that this is a methodology exclusively suitable for adult learners, not for children.
Also, most descriptions of it in action focus on the early stages of learning the new language. What do teachers
do after that? As for many methods, it gets more difficult to distinguish between one method and another the
more advanced the learner becomes.

Perhaps the enduring value of CLL has been its emphasis on whole-person learning; the role of a supportive,
non-judgmental teacher; the passing of responsibility for learning to the learners (where it belongs); and the
abolition of a pre-planned syllabus.

Background of the CLL

As the Chomskyan linguistic revolution turned linguists and language teachers
away from the audiolingual method which focused on surface structure and on
rote practice of scientifically produced patterns to a new era where the deep
structure is paramount, psychologists began to see the fundamental
importance of the effective domain. So innovative methods of language
teaching were developed during the 70s to redress the shortcomings of the
audiolingual method. One of these methods came to be known as Community
Language Learning.

CLL differs from other methods by which languages are taught. It’s based on
an approach modeled on counseling techniques that alleviate anxiety, threat
and the personal and language problems a person encounters in the learning
of foreign languages. The method was originally developed by Charles Curran
who was inspired by Carl Rogers view of education. in In this “Counseling-
learning” model of education, learners in a classroom are seen as a group
rather than as a class, a group in dire need of certain therapy and counseling .
The social dynamics occurring in the group are very important and a number
of conditions are needed for learning to take place.

 Members should interact in an interpersonal relationship.

 Students and teachers work together to facilitate learning by
 valuing each other,
 lowering the defense that prevent interpersonal interaction
 reducing anxiety
 and constituting a supportive community.
 Teachers role is that of a true counselor.
 They are not perceived as a threat
 They don’t impose boundaries and limits
 They concentrate on the learners needs

Stages in CLL
Learners go through 5 stages in their learning process.

1. “Birth” stage: feeling of security and belonging are established. Dependence on

the knower as learners have little or no idea of the target language.
2. “Self stage”: As the learner’s ability improve and starts to gt an idea of how
language works, they achieve a measure of independence from the parent
although they still seek help from the knower.
3. “Separate existence”: Learners can speak independently.
4. “Adolescence”: The learners are independent although they are aware of
gaps in their knowledge and feel secure enough to take criticism and being
corrected.
5. “Independence”: Complete independence from the knower. The child
becomes an adult and becomes the knower.
CLL class
Here is what you may find in a CLL class:

 Students determine content.

 Clients/learners establish an interpersonal relationship and trust in their
native language.
 They sit in a circle with the teacher/counselor on the outside of the circle.
 Learners start a conversation.
 Learners speak in their native language.
 The counselor provides translations and explanations.
 Learners repeat the utterances as accurately as they can.
 The conversation goes on and my be taped for later use.
Advantages of CLL
 CLL is an attempt to overcome the threatening affective factors in EFL and
ESL.
 The councelor allow the learners to determine type of coversation and to
analyze the language inductively
 The student centered nature of the method can provide extrincic motivation
and capitalize on intinsic motivation.
Disadvantages
 The counselor/teacher can become too non directive. Students often need
directions .
 The method relies completely on inductive learning. It is worthwhile noting
that deductive learning is also a viable strategy of learning.
 Translation is an intricate and difficult task. The success of the method relies
largely on the translation expertise of the counselor.

SILENT WAY
 The Silent Way is a language-teaching method created by Caleb Gattegno that makes
extensive use of silence as a teaching method. Gattegno introduced the method in 1963, in
his book Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way.[1] Gattegno was critical of
mainstream language education at the time, and he based the method on his general
theories of education rather than on existing language pedagogy. It is usually regarded as an
"alternative" language-teaching method; Cook groups it under "other styles",[2] Richards
groups it under "alternative approaches and methods"[3]and Jin & Cortazzi group it under
"Humanistic or Alternative Approaches".[4]
 The method emphasizes learner autonomy and active student participation. Silence is used
as a tool to achieve this goal; the teacher uses a mixture of silence and gestures to focus
students' attention, to elicit responses from them, and to encourage them to correct their own
errors. Pronunciation is seen as fundamental to the method, with a great deal of time spent
on it each lesson. The Silent Way uses a structural syllabus and concentrates on teaching a
small number of functional and versatile words. Translation and rote repetition are avoided,
and the language is usually practiced in meaningful contexts. Evaluation is carried out by
observation, and the teacher may never set a formal test.
 One of the hallmarks of the Silent Way is the use of Cuisenaire rods, which can be used for
anything from introducing simple commands ("Take two red rods and give them to her.") to
representing objects such as clocks and floor plans. The method also draws on color
associations to help teach pronunciation; there is a sound-color chart which is used to teach
the language sounds, colored word charts which are used for work on sentences, and
colored Fidel charts which are used to teach spelling. While the Silent Way is not widely
used in its original form, its ideas have been influential, especially in the teaching of
pronunciation.
 The silent way is a methodology of teaching language based on the idea that
teachers should be as silent as possible during a class but learners should be
encouraged to speak as much as possible. There are three basic principles:
 - The learner needs to discover or create
- Learning is made easier by the use of physical objects such as Cuisenaire rods
- Learning is made easier by problem-solving using the target language
 Example
The teacher shows the learners a small red Cuisenaire rod and a bigger blue one
and says ‘The blue one is bigger than the red one'. The learners repeat this. The
teacher then substitutes the rods to produce other models, and finally
encourages the learners to produce their own comparisons.
 In the classroom
Areas of target language where Cuisenaire rods can be useful include word
boundaries, contracted forms, prepositions, word order and word stress.
Learners can use the rods to first represent and then to manipulate language.

The Silent Way

The Chomskyan criticism of the theories upon which the audiolingual
method was founded led to an interest in not only the affective factors but
also in the cognitive factors. While Community Language Learning, drawing
from Carl Roger’s philosophy, focused on the importance of the affect, new
methods were developed in the 70s to highlight the cognitive domain in
language learning. The Silent Way is one of these innovative methods. In
Fact, Caleb Gattegno, the founder of the Silent Way,devoted his thinking to
the importance of problem solving approach in education. He contends that
the method is constructivist and leads the learners to develop their own
conceptual models of all the aspects of the language. The best way of
achieving this is to help students to be experimental learners.
Features
The Silent Way is characterized by its focus on discovery, creativity, problem
solving and the use of accompanying materials. Richards and Rodgers
(1986:99) summarized the method into three major features.

1. Learning is facilitated if the learner discovers or creates. The Silent way

belongs to the tradition of teaching that favors hypothetical mode of teaching
(as opposed to expository mode of teaching) in which the teacher and the
learner work cooperatively to reach the educational desired goals. (cf Bruner
1966.) The learner is not a bench bound listener but an active contributor to
the learning process.
2. Learning is facilitated by accompanying (mediating) physical objects.
The Silent Way uses colorful charts and rods (cuisenaire rods) which are of
varying length. They are used to introduce vocabulary ( colors, numbers,
adjectives, verbs) and syntax (tense, comparatives, plurals, word order …)
3. Learning is facilitated by problem solving involving the material to be
learned. This can be summarized by Benjamin Franklin’s words:
“Tell me and I forget
Teach me and I remember
Involve me and I learn”
A good silent way learner is a good problem solver. The teacher’s role resides
only in giving minimum repetitions and correction, remaining silent most of
the times, leaving the learner struggling to solve problems about the
language and get a grasp of its mechanism.
Disadvantages
 The Silent Way is often criticized of being a harsh method. The learner works
in isolation and communication is lacking badly in a Silent Way classroom.
 With minimum help on the part of the teacher, the Silent Way method may
put the learning itself at stake.
 The material ( the rods and the charts) used in this method will certainly fail
to introduce all aspects of language. Other materials will have to be
introduced.
Advantages
 Learning through problem solving looks attractive especially because it
fosters:
 creativity,
 discovery,
 increase in intelligent potency and
 long term memory.
 The indirect role of the teacher highlights the importance and the centrality
of the learner who is responsible in figuring out and testing the hypotheses
about how language works. In other words teaching is subordinated to
learning
 What should we be teaching?
 Beginners’ books normally start with the same structures: Hello. I come
from…, adding vocabulary…
 The Silent Way is completely different. It asks what you can give the learners
in the time you have them. It requires you to give them everything they might
have trouble learning without you, like pronunciation and structures.
 What Roslyn wants them to learn is the mindset of how to relate to people in
the English language. You can do this by placing yourself in time and space.
They can learn vocabulary without her. She wants to give them those things
that they won’t get outside her lessons, focussing principally on pronunciation
to start with. This will give them a grounding for self-study later.
 The next step
 She pulls out a couple of students, and they follow instructions, using the
language in a ‘real’ context. This is after about five hours of language.
e.g. Take a rod. Give it to him.
 A student might suggest ‘Take two rods and give it to her.’ At this point,
Roslyn will hold up her hands and point out ‘Take two rods and give them to
her’ on the chart. This helps students to learn the meaning of ‘it’ and ‘them’.
This is how the Silent Way advances, by students taking leaps and the teacher
helping them. Every time, communication has already taken place, and the
Silent Way shows them how to express it correctly. The students are talking to
each other the whole time. The only time Roslyn speaks is for classroom
management. Silent Way is about expression.
 “The person I talk to most is myself.” Language is about understanding my
world in terms of what I think, what I say – you say things in different ways in
your head until you work out what you want to say.
  Connected speech
 The chart shows different pronunciations of the same spellings, like ‘there’ and
‘there’, showing the different functions. The chart also has dots showing words
which might have different pronunciations, like weak and strong ‘a’. Students
learn this from the very beginning.
 The initial English rectangle chart includes schwa, schwii (short /i/, like at the
end of ‘happy’), and schwu (short /u/, like at the end of ‘shadow‘).
 Spelling
 There is a similar chart to the rectangle chart, showing all of the spellings for
each sound. Those written in a smaller font appear less often, and students
notice this and realise they don’t have to focus on those sound patterns as
much.
 Silent Way spellings chart
 The colour-coding mean that there is an immediate way into reading off new
words that students have never seen before.
 This still works for colour-blind students, as people work via the geography of
the chart as well as the colours.
 Why use The Silent Way?
 You subordinate your teaching to the student’s learning. It helps the students
undertake their learning in a very orderly way.
 By repeatedly doing something you create experience, like an apprentice learns
from a master craftsman. You then order that experience to create knowledge,
like a craftsman writing a book. Somebody picks up that book, but that doesn’t
give them the knowledge. They still have to build up the experiences. You
can’t transmit knowledge, but you can give students experience. Silent Way
gives them that experience by getting students to speak as much as possible,
with the teacher acting purely as a facilitator.
SUGGESTOPEDIA

Suggestopedia is a teaching method developed by the Bulgarian psychotherapist Georgi Lozanov.

It is used mostly to learn foreign languages.
The theory applied positive suggestion in teaching when it was developed in the 1970s. However, as
the method improved, it has focused more on "desuggestive learning" and now is often called
"desuggestopedia".[1] Suggestopedia is a portmanteau of the words "suggestion" and
"pedagogy".[dubious – discuss] A common misconception is to link "suggestion" to "hypnosis". However,
Lozanov intended it in the sense of offering or proposing, emphasising student choice.

In practice[edit]
Physical surroundings and atmosphere in classroom are the vital factors to make sure that "the
students feel comfortable and confident",[2] and various techniques, including art and music, are used
by the trained teachers. The lesson of Suggestopedia consisted of three phases at first: deciphering,
concert session (memorization séance), and elaboration.[1][3]
Deciphering: The teacher introduces the grammar and lexis of the content. In most materials the
foreign language text is on the left half of the page with a translation on the right half, i.e. meanings
are conveyed via the mother tongue not unlike the bilingual method.
Concert session (active and passive): In the active session, the teacher reads the text at a normal
speed, sometimes intoning some words, and the students follow. In the passive session, the
students relax and listen to the teacher reading the text calmly. Baroque music is played in the
background.
Elaboration: The students finish off what they have learned with dramas, songs, and games.
Then it has developed into four phases as lots of experiments were done: introduction, concert
session, elaboration, and production.[1][3]
Introduction: The teacher teaches the material in "a playful manner" instead of analyzing lexis and
grammar of the text in a directive manner.
Concert session (active and passive): In the active session, the teacher reads with intoning as
selected music is played. Occasionally, the students read the text together with the teacher, and
listen only to the music as the teacher pauses in particular moments. The passive session is done
more calmly.
Elaboration: The students sing classical songs and play games while "the teacher acts more like a
consultant".[1]
Production: The students spontaneously speak and interact in the target language without
interruption or correction.

Teachers[edit]
Teachers should not act in a directive way, although this method is teacher-controlled and not
student-controlled. For example, they should act as a real partner to the students, participating in the
activities such as games and songs "naturally" and "genuinely." [1] In the concert session, they should
fully include classical art in their behaviors. Although there are many techniques that the teachers
use, factors such as "communication in the spirit of love, respect for man as a human being, the
specific humanitarian way of applying their 'techniques'" etc. are crucial.[3] The teachers not only
need to know the techniques and to acquire the practical methodology completely, but also to fully
understand the theory, because, if they implement those techniques without complete
understanding, they will not be able to lead their learners to successful results, or they could even
cause a negative impact on their learning. Therefore, the teacher has to be trained in a course
taught by certified trainers.
Here are the most important factors for teachers to acquire, described by Lozanov.[1]

1. Covering a huge bulk of learning material.

2. Structuring the material in the suggestopaedic way: global-partial – partial-global, and global
in the part – part in the global, related to the golden proportion.
3. As a professional, on one hand, and a personality, on the other hand, the teacher should be
a highly regarded professional, reliable and credible.
4. The teacher should have, not play, a hundred percent expectation of positive results
(because the teacher is already experienced even from the time of the teacher training
course).
5. The teacher should love his/her students (of course, not sentimentally but as human beings)
and teach them with personal participation through games, songs, classical arts, and
pleasure.
Method for children (preventive Suggestopedia)[edit]
The method for Adults includes long sessions without movement,[1] and materials that are
appropriate for adults. Children, however, get impacts from "the social suggestive norms" differently,
and their brains are more delicate than those of adults. Therefore, another method with different
materials should be applied to children, which better matches their characteristics. Lessons for
children are more incidental and short, preventing the children from the negative pedagogical
suggestions of Society. It is important to tell the parents about the method and their roles – because
they could influence children both negatively and positively, depending on how they support the
kids.[3]

Side effects[edit]
Lozanov claims that the effect of the method is not only in language learning, but also in producing
favorable side effects on health, the social and psychological relations, and the subsequent success
in other subjects.[1]

Criticism[edit]
Suggestopedia has been called a "pseudo-science".[4] It depends, in a sense, on the trust that
students develop towards the method. Lozanov never admitted that Suggestopedia can be
compared to a placebo. He argues, however, that placebos are indeed effective. Another point of
criticism is brought forward by Baur, who claims that the students only receive input by listening,
reading and musical-emotional backing, while other important factors of language acquisition are
being neglected.[5] Furthermore, several other features of the method – like the 'nonconscious'
acquisition of language, or bringing the learner into a childlike state – are questioned by critics.
Lukesch claims that Suggestopedia lacks scientific backing and is criticized by psychologists as
being based on pseudoscience.[6]

Later variations[edit]
Suggestopedia yielded four main offshoots. The first – still called Suggestopedia, and developed in
eastern Europe – used different techniques from Lozanov's original version. The other three are
named Superlearning, Suggestive Accelerated Learning and Teaching (SALT),
and Psychopädie.[7] Superlearning and SALT originated in North America, while Psychopädie was
developed in West Germany.[7] While all four are slightly different from the original Suggestopedia
and from each other, they still share the common traits of music, relaxation, and suggestion.[7]
It is important to point out that those variants of Suggestopedia mentioned above are way too far
from the original concept, and are based on the early experiments, which were left behind during the
new improvements of the method.
Often considered to be the strangest of the so-called "humanistic approaches", suggestopedia was originally
developed in the 1970s by the Bulgarian educator Georgi Lozanov. Extravagant claims were initially made for
the approach with Lozanov himself declaring that memorization in learning through suggestopedia would be
accelerated by up to 25 times over that in conventional learning methods. The approach attracted both wild
enthusiasm in some quarters and open scorn in others. On balance, it is probably fair to say that
suggestopedia has had its day but also that certain elements of the approach survive in today’s good practice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestopedia method

Ø definition

Suggestopedia is a teaching method which is based on a modern understanding of how the human
brain works and how we learn most effectively.

Ø Key Elements

Some of the key elements of Suggestopedia include a rich sensory learning environment (pictures,
colour, music, etc.), a positive expectation of success and the use of a varied range of methods: dramatic
texts, music, active participation in songs and games, etc.
Suggestopedia adopts a carefully structured approach, using four main stages as follows:

a. Presentation.

b. First Concert - "Active Concert".

c. Second Concert - "Passive Review.

d. Practice.

Ø Purpose

Theintended purpose of Suggestopedia was to enhance learning by tapping into the power of
suggestion. Lozanov claims in that “suggestopedia is a system for liberation”; liberation from the
“preliminary negative concept regarding the difficulties in the process of learning” that is established
throughout their life in the society.

Ø Types of Learning and Teaching Activities

The types 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. During the third
reading the material is acted out by the instructor in a dramatic manner over a background of the
special musical form described previously.

Ø Teacher’s Roles

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 towards the session.

5. Give tests and respond tactfully to poor papers (if any).

6. Stress global rather than analytical attitudes towards material.

7. Maintain a modest enthusiasm.

Ø Advantages of Suggestopedia

There are some benefits in utilizing suggestopedia:

1. A comprehensible input based on dessugestion and suggestion principle

By using this suggestopedia method, students can lower their affective filter. Suggestopedia classes, in
addition, are held in ordinary rooms with comfortable chairs, a practice that may also help them
relaxed. Teacher can do numerous other things to lower the affective filter.
2. Authority concept

Students remember best and are most influenced by information coming from an authoritative source,
teachers.

3. Double-planedness theory

It refers to the learning from two aspects. They are the conscious aspect and the subconscious one.
Students can acquire the aim of teaching instruction from both direct instruction and environment in
which the teaching takes place.

4. Peripheral learning

Suggestopedia encourages the students to apply language more independently, takes more personal
responsibility for their own learning and get more confidence.

Ø Disadvantages of Suggestopedia

Suggestopedia also has limitation since there is no single teaching method that is categorized as the best
based on some consideration such as: the curriculum, students motivation, financial limitation, number
of students, etc.

1. Environment limitation

2. The use of hypnosis

3. Infantilization learning

Ø CONCLUSION

Teacher will find different situation and different types of students in learning. Therefore, teacher
should be creative and smart in choosing and using different types of methods in teaching different skill
of language. Teacher can use suggestopedia as teaching method in their teaching. Using suggestopedia
is very interesting but challenging to do. It can be seen from some considerations. In one side it has
some benefits, but on the other side it also has some weaknesses.

The Goal of Suggestopedia as a Method of Teaching

To learn a foreign language at an accelerated pace for everyday communication by
tapping mental powers and overcoming psychological barriers.

9 Characteristics of Suggestopedia as a Method of Teaching

According to Villamin et al. (1994), the nine characteristics of Suggestopedia are the
following:
1. It uses the power of suggestion to help students eliminate the feeling that they cannot
succeed.
2. There should be a relaxed, comfortable environment with dim lights and soft music to
facilitate learning.
3. Students’ imagination is used. They can assume new names, and new identities and
respond to the teacher accordingly using the target language.
4. Present and explain grammar and vocabulary words, but not discuss at length or
thoroughly.
5. Native language translation is used in order to get the clear meanings of words in the
target language.
6. Communication takes place in the conscious and subconscious of the learners. The
former is about the linguistic message. It is where the students pay attention to a
dialogue that is being read, while the latter is where the music is played as a
background. Music suggests that learning is easy.
7. Teaching is done by integrating music, song, and drama.
8. The emphasis of teaching is more on content. Errors made by students are tolerated
at the beginning of the lesson but in the later part, the correct forms are used by the
teachers.
9. No formal tests are given, but the evaluation is done during the normal in-class
performance.

Sample of Classroom Activities using Suggestopedia

If you are a teacher or mentor, you may use the following activities using the
Suggestopedia method.

1. Choose a background music that will give an impression or feeling that you are in a
forest. For example, the music may be punctuated by the chirping of the birds or the
sounds of the leaves as they dance in the wind, or any sound indicating that the location
is in the forest.

In the classroom, turn off the lights and play the background music. Then, group the
students into three, and ask them to close their eyes, and let them imagine, for one
minute, that they are animals, birds, trees, or flowers.

After that, ask them to create their own dialogues on how people should take care of the
environment. But in their dialogues they have to remember their roles. If one assumes
to be a bird, his/her point of view and dialogues should be like a bird, and not as a
human being.

2. Choose a story. Practice reading the story with emotions or feeling. Then, choose
appropriate background music for the story. It would be best if you prepare it in
advance.

In the classroom, ask the students to relax and make themselves comfortable. Allow
them to sit on the floor or lie down, and to be with their classmates or listen by
themselves while seated at their desk. Then, turn off the lights, play the music and start
reading the story. You may ask questions in between to check that they are listening
intently to you and to keep their motivation high. In answering your questions, don’t
correct the students’ grammatical errors immediately. Focus first on the content. Before
you end the lesson, at the later part, you may give the correct form by repetition.

The origin of Suggestopedia

Suggestopedia is a language teaching method developed by the Bulgarian
psychologist, Georgi Lozanov (see picture on the right.) Like Community
Language Learning and the Silent Way Method, Suggestopedia is an
innovative method that promises great effective language learning results.
Lozanov claimed that by using this method one can teach languages
approximately three to five times as quickly as conventional methods.

The name of Suggestopedia is from the words “suggestion” and “pedagogy.”

It is a set of learning recommendations derived from Suggestology, which
Lozanov describes as “a science … concerned with systematic study of the
nonrational and/or non-conscience influences” that human beings are
constantly responding to. The method also draws from insights from yoga
and the Soviet psychology. From yoga it draws the importance of relaxation of
mind for maximum retention of material. From Soviet psychology
Lozanov took the idea that
“all sudents can be taught a given subject matter at the same level of skill.” Jack C.
Richards and Theodore S. Rodgers (1986)
The main features of suggestopedia are:

 The use of music to relax learners.

 The furniture, decoration and the arrangement of the classroom.
 Teacher’s authority. The teacher plays a central role and he/she is the source
of all information.
In the classroom
The arrangements and the physical atmosphere in the classroom are
paramount for making sure that the students feel comfortable and confident.
The use of various techniques including art and music, are used by the trained
teachers. In the beginning, the lesson based on Suggestopedia used to
consist of three phases : deciphering, concert session (memorization séance),
and elaboration. Later, it has developed into four phases as lots of
experiments were done: introduction, concert session, elaboration, and
production(cf Lozanov’s siteweb).
1. Introduction: The teacher teaches the material in “a playful manner” instead
of analyzing Lexis and grammar of the text in a directive manner.
2. Concert session (active and passive): in the active session, the teacher
reads with special intonation as selected music is played. Occasionally, the
students read the text together with the teacher, and listen only to the music
as the teacher pauses in particular moments. The passive session is done
more calmly.
3. Elaboration: The students sing classical songs and play games while “the
teacher acts more like a consultant
4. Production: The students spontaneously speak and interact in the target
language without interruption or correction.
Criticism:
Suggestopedia has been criticised for a number of reasons:

 It is not a practical method as teachers face the problem of the availability of

music and comfortable chairs.
 Lozanov refers in a number of occasions to the importance of memorization,
excluding any reference to comprehension and creative problem solving. In
fact language is not only about the power of the mind to memorize. It’s about
understanding, interacting and producing novel utterances in different
unpredictable situations.
Advantages
In spite of all these disadvantages, some tenets of Suggestopedia have been
accepted and adapted by teachers worldwide.

 Through Suggetopedia we learn to trust the power of the mind.

 We also learn that deliberately induced states of relaxation can be valuable at
times in the classroom.
 We can also benefit from the use of music to get students sit back and relax.
These are some of the contributions of Suggestopedia that teachers may
weigh and adapt to different situations.
TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE
Total physical response (TPR) is a language teaching method developed by James Asher, a
professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University. It is based on the coordination of
language and physical movement. In TPR, instructors give commands to students in the target
language, and students respond with whole-body actions.
The method is an example of the comprehension approach to language teaching. The listening and
responding (with actions) serves two purposes: It is a means of quickly recognizing meaning in the
language being learned, and a means of passively learning the structure of the language itself.
Grammar is not taught explicitly, but can be learned from the language input. TPR is a valuable way
to learn vocabulary, especially idiomatic terms, e.g., phrasal verbs.
Asher developed TPR as a result of his experiences observing young children learning their first
language. He noticed that interactions between parents and children often took the form of speech
from the parent followed by a physical response from the child. Asher made three hypotheses based
on his observations: first, that language is learned primarily by listening; second, that language
learning must engage the right hemisphere of the brain; and third, that learning language should not
involve any stress.
Total physical response is often used alongside other methods and techniques. It is popular with
beginners and with young learners, although it can be used with students of all levels and all age
groups.

Background[edit]
James Asher developed the total physical response method as a result of his observation of the
language development of young children. Asher saw that most of the interactions that young children
experience with parents or other adults combine both verbal and physical aspects. The child
responds physically to the speech of the parent, and the parent reinforces the child's responses
through further speech. This creates a positive feedback loop between the parent's speech and the
child's actions.[1] Asher also observed that young children typically spend a long time listening to
language before ever attempting to speak, and that they can understand and react to utterances that
are much more complex than those they can produce themselves.[2]
From his experiences, Asher outlined three main hypotheses about learning second languages that
are embodied in the total physical response method. The first is that the brain is naturally
predisposed to learn language through listening. Specifically, Asher says that learners best
internalize language when they respond with physical movement to language input. Asher
hypothesizes that speech develops naturally and spontaneously after learners internalize the target
language through input, and that it should not be forced.[2] In Asher's own words:
A reasonable hypothesis is that the brain and the nervous system are biologically programmed to
acquire language, either the first or the second in a particular sequence and in a particular mode.
The sequence is listening before speaking and the mode is to synchronise language with the
individual's body.[3]
The second of Asher's hypotheses is that effective language learning must engage the right
hemisphere of the brain. Physical movement is controlled primarily by the right hemisphere, and
Asher sees the coupling of movement with language comprehension as the key to language
acquisition. He says that left-hemisphere learning should be avoided, and that the left hemisphere
needs a great deal of experience of right-hemisphere-based input before natural speech can occur.[4]
Asher's third hypothesis is that language learning should not involve any stress, as stress and
negative emotions inhibit the natural language-learning process. He regards the stressful nature of
most language-teaching methods as one of their major weaknesses. Asher recommends that
teachers focus on meaning and physical movement to avoid stress.[4]
The main text on total physical response is James Asher's Learning Another Language through
Actions, first published in 1977.[1]

Principles[edit]
Total physical response is an example of the comprehension approach to language teaching.
Methods in the comprehension approach emphasize the importance of listening to language
development, and do not require spoken output in the early stages of learning.[5] In total physical
response, students are not forced to speak. Instead, teachers wait until students acquire enough
language through listening that they start to speak spontaneously.[1] At the beginning stages of
instruction students can respond to the instructor in their native language.[6]
While the majority of class time in total physical response is spent on listening comprehension, the
ultimate goal of the method is to develop oral fluency. Asher sees developing listening
comprehension skills as the most efficient way of developing spoken language skills.[4]
Lessons in TPR are organized around grammar, and in particular around the verb. Instructors issue
commands based on the verbs and vocabulary to be learned in that lesson.[7]However, the primary
focus in lessons is on meaning, which distinguishes TPR from other grammar-based methods such
as grammar-translation.[8]
Grammar is not explicitly taught, but is learned by induction.[8] Students are expected to
subconsciously acquire the grammatical structure of the language through exposure to spoken
language input, in addition to decoding the messages in the input to find their meaning. This
approach to listening is called codebreaking.[9]
Total physical response is both a teaching technique and a philosophy of language teaching.
Teachers do not have to limit themselves to TPR techniques to teach according to the principles of
the total physical response method.[10]
Because the students are only expected to listen and not to speak, the teacher has the sole
responsibility for deciding what input students hear.[11]

Procedure[edit]
The majority of class time in TPR lessons is spent doing drills in which the instructor gives
commands using the imperative mood. Students respond to these commands with physical actions.
Initially, students learn the meaning of the commands they hear by direct observation. After they
learn the meaning of the words in these commands, the teacher issues commands that use novel
combinations of the words the students have learned.[10]
Instructors limit the number of new vocabulary items given to students at any one time. This is to
help students differentiate the new words from those previously learned, and to facilitate integration
with their existing language knowledge.[10] Asher suggests that students can learn between 12 and
36 words for every hour of instruction, depending on their language level and class size.[10]
While drills using the imperative are the mainstay of total physical response classes, teachers can
use other activities as well. Some typical other activities are role plays and slide
presentations.[10] However, beginners are not made to learn conversational dialogs until 120 hours
into their course.[10]
There is little error correction in TPR. Asher advises teachers to treat learners' mistakes the same
way a parent would treat their children's. Errors made by beginning-level students are usually
overlooked, but as students become more advanced teachers may correct more of their errors. This
is similar to parents raising their children; as children get older parents tend to correct their
grammatical mistakes more often.[10]
According to Asher, TPR lesson plans should contain the detailed commands that the teacher
intends to use. He says, “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.”[12]

Teaching materials[edit]
Total physical response lessons typically use a wide variety of realia, posters, and props. Teaching
materials are not compulsory, and for the very first lessons they may not be used. As students
progress in ability the teacher may begin to use objects found in the classroom such as furniture or
books, and later may use word charts, pictures, and realia.[13]
There are a number of specialized TPR teaching products available, including student kits
developed by Asher and an interactive CD-ROM for students to practice with privately.[14][15]

Research[edit]
Asher conducted a large number of scientific studies to test and refine his hypotheses and the
teaching practices in total physical response. When testing children and adults learning Russian,
Asher and Price found that the adults outperformed the children.[16]

Reception[edit]
According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning, TPR is often
criticized as being only suitable for beginning students.[1] However, the encyclopedia goes on to note
that there are several publications available about how to use TPR with intermediate and advanced
students.[1]
According to its proponents, total physical response has a number of advantages: Students enjoy
getting out of their chairs and moving around. Simple TPR activities do not require a great deal of
preparation on the part of the teacher. TPR is aptitude-free, working well with a mixed ability class,
and with students having various disabilities.[17] It is good for kinesthetic learners who need to be
active in the class. Class size need not be a problem, and it works effectively for children and
adults.[citation needed]
However, it is recognized that TPR is most useful for beginners, though it can be used at higher
levels where preparation becomes an issue for the teacher. It does not give students the opportunity
to express their own thoughts in a creative way. Further, it is easy to overuse TPR-- "Any novelty, if
carried on too long, will trigger adaptation."[18] It can be a challenge for shy students. Additionally, the
nature of TPR places an unnaturally heavy emphasis on the use of the imperative mood, that is to
say commands such as sit down and stand up. These features are of limited utility to the learner,
and can lead to a learner appearing rude when attempting to use their new language. As a TPR
class progresses, group activities and descriptions can extend basic TPR concepts into full
communication situations.
Because of its participatory approach, TPR may also be a useful alternative teaching strategy for
students with dyslexia or related learning disabilities, who typically experience difficulty learning
foreign languages with traditional classroom instruction.[19]

Where is it from?
TPR stands for Total Physical Response and was created by Dr. James J Asher. It is
based upon the way that children learn their mother tongue. Parents have 'language-
body conversations' with their children, the parent instructs and the child physically
responds to this. The parent says, "Look at mummy" or "Give me the ball" and the child
does so. These conversations continue for many months before the child actually starts
to speak itself. Even though it can't speak during this time, the child is taking in all of
the language; the sounds and the patterns. Eventually when it has decoded enough,
the child reproduces the language quite spontaneously. TPR attempts to mirror this
effect in the language classroom.

How can I use it in class?

In the classroom the teacher plays the role of parent. She starts by saying a word
('jump') or a phrase ('look at the board') and demonstrating an action. The teacher
then says the command and the students all do the action. After repeating a few times
it is possible to extend this by asking the students to repeat the word as they do the
 action. When they feel confident with the word or phrase you can then ask the students
to direct each other or the whole class.

It is more effective if the students are standing in a circle around the teacher and you
can even encourage them to walk around as they do the action.

When should I use it?

TPR can be used to teach and practise many things.

 Vocabulary connected with actions (smile, chop, headache, wriggle)

 Tenses past/present/future and continuous aspects (Every morning I clean my teeth, I

make my bed, I eat breakfast)

 Classroom language (Open your books)

 Imperatives/Instructions (Stand up, close your eyes)

 Storytelling

It can be adapted for all kinds of teaching situations, you just need to use your
imagination!

Why should I use it in the classroom?

 It is a lot of fun, students enjoy it and it can be a real stirrer in the class. It lifts the
pace and the mood.

 It is very memorable. It really helps students to remember phrases or words.

 It is good for kinaesthetic learners who need to be active in the class.

 It can be used in large or small classes. It doesn't really matter how many students you
have as long as you are prepared to take the lead, the students will follow.

 It works well with mixed-ability classes. The physical actions get across the meaning
effectively so that all the students are able to understand and use the target language.

 It doesn't require a lot of preparation or materials. As long as you are clear what you
want to practise (a rehearsal beforehand can help), it won't take a lot of time to get
ready.

 It is very effective with teenagers and young learners.

 It involves both left- and right-brained learning.

 A few useful variations
When I use TPR, first I get the students to do the actions and then I do them and drill
the students (chorally and individually) to give them an opportunity to practise making
the sounds. They are then ready to give commands to each other.

A game I like to play is to organize the students into a circle around me, I say the word
and the last person to do the action is out. This person then stands behind me and
watches for the student who does the action last. Eventually there is only one student,
she is the winner.

You can extend this by playing Simon Says. This time when you give a command,
students should only do it if you say "Simon says..." at the start. I might say, "Simon
says, 'slice some bread'" or "Simon says, 'chop an onion'" and the students must do the
action. However if I say, "Whisk an egg" the students shouldn't do this. If anyone does
the action that Simon doesn't say then they are out and have to watch for the mistakes
of the other students.

Are there any disadvantages with using TPR?

 Students who are not used to such things might find it embarrassing. This can be the
case initially but I have found that if the teacher is prepared to perform the actions, the
students feel happier about copying. Also the students are in groups and don't have to
perform for the whole class. This pleasure is reserved for the teacher.

 It is only really suitable for beginner levels.

Whilst it is clear that it is far more useful at lower levels because the target language
lends itself to such activities I have also used it successfully with Intermediate and
Advanced levels. You need to adapt the language accordingly.
For example, it helped me to teach 'ways of walking' (stumble, stagger, tiptoe) to an
advanced class and cooking verbs to intermediate students (whisk, stir, grate).

 You can't teach everything with it and if used a lot it would become repetitive. I
completely agree with this but it can be a successful and fun way of changing the
dynamics and pace of a lesson used in conjunction with other methods and techniques.

 A discussion of the Total Physical Response approach to

language teaching.

 Originally developed by James Asher, an American professor of psychology, in the 1960s, Total
Physical Response (TPR) is based on the theory that the memory is enhanced through association
with physical movement. It is also closely associated with theories of mother tongue language
acquisition in very young children, where they respond physically to parental commands, such as "Pick
it up" and "Put it down". TPR as an approach to teaching a second language is based, first and
foremost, on listening and this is linked to physical actions which are designed to reinforce
comprehension of particular basic items.
 A typical TPR activity might contain instructions such as "Walk to the door", "Open the door", "Sit
down" and "Give Maria your dictionary". The students are required to carry out the instructions by
physically performing the activities. Given a supportive classroom environment, there is little doubt that
such activities can be both motivating and fun, and it is also likely that with even a fairly limited amount
of repetition basic instructions such as these could be assimilated by the learners, even if they were
unable to reproduce them accurately themselves.
  The above examples, however, also illustrate some of the potential weaknesses inherent in the
approach. Firstly, from a purely practical point of view, it is highly unlikely that even the most skilled
and inventive teacher could sustain a lesson stage involving commands and physical responses for
more than a few minutes before the activity became repetitious for the learners, although the use of
situational role-play could provide a range of contexts for practising a wider range of lexis. Secondly, it
is fairly difficult to give instructions without using imperatives, so the language input is basically
restricted to this single form. Thirdly, it is quite difficult to see how this approach could extend beyond
beginner level. Fourthly, the relevance of some of the language used in TPR activities to real-world
learner needs is questionable. Finally, moving from the listening and responding stage to oral
production might be workable in a small group of learners but it would appear to be problematic when
applied to a class of 30 students, for example.
 In defence of the approach, however, it should be emphasized that it was never intended by its early
proponents that it should extend beyond beginner level. (In theory it might be possible to develop it by
making the instructions lexically more complex (for example, "Pick up the toothpaste and unscrew the
cap"), but this does seem to be stretching the point somewhat). In addition, a course designed around
TPR principles would not be expected to follow a TPR syllabus exclusively, and Asher himself
suggested that TPR should be used in association with other methods and techniques. In terms of the
theoretical basis of the approach, the idea of listening preceding production and learners only being
required to speak when they are ready to do so closely resembles elements of Stephen Krashen’s
Natural Approach.
 Short TPR activities, used judiciously and integrated with other activities can be both highly motivating
and linguistically purposeful. Careful choice of useful and communicative language at beginner level
can make TPR activities entirely valid. Many learners respond well to kinesthetic activities and they
can genuinely serve as a memory aid. A lot of classroom warmers and games are based, consciously
or unconsciously, on TPR principles. As with other "fringe" methods, however, wholesale adoption of
this approach, to the total exclusion of any other, would probably not be sustainable for very long.

How to Use
1. Prepare
Select the vocabulary that you are going to teach. Gather any equipment, props or pictures
you will need to illustrate the meaning of the words.
2. Teacher Modeling
Say the new vocabulary word for the students. As you do this, use gestures, facial
expressions, props or body movement to illustrate the meaning of the word.
3. Student Modeling
Have student volunteers mimic the same gestures, facial expressions, use of props or body
movement modeled as you say the word.
4. Student Participation
Have all students mimic the same gestures, facial expressions, use of props or body
movement modeled by the teacher and student volunteers. Ask them to say the word as
they are making the movement. Vary this activity by then doing the action and while
students say the word.
5. Writing
Write the word or phrase where all students can see it so that students can make the
connection between oral and written words.
6. Repetition and Practice
Teach the next word or phrase using the same method. Review and practice words with
students multiple times to ensure learning. Recycle words regularly to make sure that
students do not forget old words.
When to Use
Total Physical Response (TPR) may be used to teach many types of vocabulary but works
best when teaching vocabulary connected with action. It is an effective strategy to use with
English Language Learners as well as with native speakers when learning new words.
Variations
TPR Circles
Organize the students into a circle around the teacher. The teacher says the word and the
last person to do the action is out. This person then stands behind the teacher and watches
for the student who does the action last. Eventually there is only one student, he or she is
the winner.
TPR Simon Says
Play Simon Says. The teacher gives a command and students should only do it if the
teacher "Simon says..." at the start. The teacher might say, "Simon says, 'slice some
bread'" or "Simon says, 'chop an onion'" and the students must do the action. However if
the teacher says, "Whisk an egg" the students shouldn't do this. If anyone does the action
that Simon doesn't say then they are out and have to watch for the mistakes of the other
students.
TPR Sounds
The teacher will first get the students to do the actions connected with each vocabulary
word. Then, the teacher adds a sound related to the word and the students practice
hearing the word and doing the action along with making the sound. The students are then
ready to give commands to each other.

Communicative language teaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Communicative language teaching (CLT), or the communicative approach, is

an approach to language teaching that emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate
goal of study.
Language learners in environments utilizing CLT techniques, learn and practice the target language
through the interaction with one another and the instructor, the study of "authentic texts" (those
written in the target language for purposes other than language learning), and through the use of the
language both in class and outside of class.
Learners converse about personal experiences with partners, and instructors teach topics outside of
the realm of traditional grammar, in order to promote language skills in all types of situations. This
method also claims to encourage learners to incorporate their personal experiences into their
language learning environment, and to focus on the learning experience in addition to the learning of
the target language [1].
According to CLT, the goal of language education is the ability to communicate in the target
language [2]. This is in contrast to previous views in which grammatical competence was commonly
given top priority [3]. CLT also focuses on the teacher being a facilitator, rather than an instructor.
Furthermore, the approach is a non-methodical system that does not use a textbook series to teach
English, but rather works on developing sound oral/verbal skills prior to reading and writing.

Background[edit]
Societal influences[edit]
Language teaching was originally considered a cognitive matter, mainly involving memorization. It
was later thought, instead, to be socio-cognitive, meaning that language can be learned through the
process of social interaction. Today, however, the dominant technique in teaching any language is
communicative language teaching (CLT).[4]
It was Noam Chomsky's theories in the 1960s, focusing on competence and performance in
language learning, that gave rise to communicative language teaching, but the conceptual basis for
CLT was laid in the 1970s by linguists Michael Halliday, who studied how language functions are
expressed through grammar, and Dell Hymes, who introduced the idea of a wider communicative
competence instead of Chomsky's narrower linguistic competence.[4] The rise of CLT in the 1970s
and early 1980s was partly in response to the lack of success with traditional language teaching
methods and partly due to the increase in demand for language learning. In Europe, the advent of
the European Common Market, an economic predecessor to the European Union, led to migration in
Europe and an increased population of people who needed to learn a foreign language for work or
for personal reasons. At the same time, more children were given the opportunity to learn foreign
languages in school, as the number of secondary schools offering languages rose worldwide as part
of a general trend of curriculum-broadening and modernization, and foreign-language study ceased
to be confined to the elite academies. In Britain, the introduction of comprehensive schools, which
offered foreign-language study to all children rather than to the select few in the elite grammar
schools, greatly increased the demand for language learning.[5]
This increased demand included many learners who struggled with traditional methods such
as grammar translation, which involves the direct translation of sentence after sentence as a way to
learn language. These methods assumed that students were aiming for mastery of the target
language, and that students were willing to study for years before expecting to use the language in
real life. However, these assumptions were challenged by adult learners, who were busy with work,
and some schoolchildren, who were less academically gifted, and thus could not devote years to
learning before being able to use the language. Educators realized that to motivate these students
an approach with a more immediate reward was necessary,[6] and they began to use CLT, an
approach that emphasizes communicative ability and yielded better results.[7]
Additionally, the trend of progressivism in education provided further pressure for educators to
change their methods. Progressivism holds that active learning is more effective than passive
learning;[6] consequently, as this idea gained traction, in schools there was a general shift towards
using techniques where students were more actively involved, such as group work. Foreign-
language education was no exception to this trend, and teachers sought to find new methods, such
as CLT, that could better embody this shift in thinking.[6]

Academic influences[edit]
The development of communicative language teaching was bolstered by new academic ideas.
Before the growth of communicative language teaching, the primary method of language teaching
was situational language teaching. This method was much more clinical in nature and relied less on
direct communication. In Britain, applied linguists began to doubt the efficacy of situational language
teaching. This was partly in response to Chomsky's insights into the nature of language. Chomsky
had shown that the structural theories of language prevalent at the time could not explain the variety
found in real communication.[8] In addition, applied linguists such as Christopher Candlin and Henry
Widdowson observed that the current model of language learning was ineffective in classrooms.
They saw a need for students to develop communicative skill and functional competence in addition
to mastering language structures.[8]
In 1966, linguist and anthropologist Dell Hymes developed the concept of communicative
competence. Communicative competence redefined what it meant to "know" a language; in addition
to speakers having mastery over the structural elements of language, they must also be able to use
those structural elements appropriately in a variety of speech domains.[2]This can be neatly summed
up by Hymes's statement, "There are rules of use without which the rules of grammar would be
useless."[5] The idea of communicative competence stemmed from Chomsky's concept of
the linguistic competence of an ideal native speaker.[2] Hymes did not make a concrete formulation of
communicative competence, but subsequent authors have tied the concept to language teaching,
notably Michael Canale.[9] Canale and Swain (1980) defined communicative competence in terms of
three components: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, and strategic competence.
Canale (1983) refined the model by adding discourse competence, which contains the concepts
of cohesion and coherence.[9]
An influential development in the history of communicative language teaching was the work of
the Council of Europe in creating new language syllabi. When communicative language teaching
had effectively replaced situational language teaching as the standard by leading linguists, the
Council of Europe made an effort to once again bolster the growth of the new method. This led to the
Council of Europe creating a new language syllabus. Education was a high priority for the Council of
Europe, and they set out to provide a syllabus that would meet the needs of European
immigrants.[8] Among the studies used by the council when designing the course was one by the
British linguist, D. A. Wilkins, that defined language using "notions" and "functions", rather than more
traditional categories of grammar and vocabulary. The new syllabus reinforced the idea that
language could not be adequately explained by grammar and syntax, and instead relied on real
interaction.[8]
In the mid 1990s, the Dogme 95 manifesto influenced language teaching through the Dogme
language teaching movement. This proposed that published materials stifle the communicative
approach. As such, the aim of the Dogme approach to language teaching is to focus on real
conversations about practical subjects, where communication is the engine of learning. The idea
behind the Dogme approach is that communication can lead to explanation, which will lead to further
learning. This approach is the antithesis of situational language teaching, which emphasizes learning
through text and prioritizes grammar over communication.[10]
A survey of communicative competence by Bachman (1990) divides competency into the broad
headings of "organizational competence", which includes both grammatical and discourse (or
textual) competence, and "pragmatic competence", which includes both sociolinguistic and
"illocutionary" competence.[11] Strategic competence is associated with the interlocutors' ability in
using communication strategies.[11]

Classroom activities[edit]
CLT teachers choose classroom activities based on what they believe is going to be most effective
for students developing communicative abilities in the target language (TL). Oral activities are
popular among CLT teachers, as opposed to grammar drills or reading and writing activities,
because they include active conversation and creative, unpredicted responses from students.
Activities vary based on the level of language class they are being used in. They promote
collaboration, fluency, and comfort in the TL. The six activities listed and explained below are
commonly used in CLT classrooms.[6]
Role-play[edit]
Role-play is an oral activity usually done in pairs, whose main goal is to develop students'
communicative abilities in a certain setting.[5]
Example:

1. The instructor sets the scene: where is the conversation taking place? (E.g., in a café, in a
park, etc.)
2. The instructor defines the goal of the students' conversation. (E.g., the speaker is asking for
directions, the speaker is ordering coffee, the speaker is talking about a movie they recently
saw, etc.)
3. The students converse in pairs for a designated amount of time.
This activity gives students the chance to improve their communication skills in the TL in a low-
pressure situation. Most students are more comfortable speaking in pairs rather than in front of the
entire class.[5]
Instructors need to be aware of the differences between a conversation and an utterance. Students
may use the same utterances repeatedly when doing this activity and not actually have a creative
conversation. If instructors do not regulate what kinds of conversations students are having, then the
students might not be truly improving their communication skills.[5]

Interviews[edit]
An interview is an oral activity done in pairs, whose main goal is to develop students' interpersonal
skills in the TL.[12]
Example:

1. The instructor gives each student the same set of questions to ask a partner.
2. Students take turns asking and answering the questions in pairs.
This activity, since it is highly-structured, allows for the instructor to more closely monitor students'
responses. It can zone in on one specific aspect of grammar or vocabulary, while still being a
primarily communicative activity and giving the students communicative benefits.[12]
This is an activity that should be used primarily in the lower levels of language classes, because it
will be most beneficial to lower-level speakers. Higher-level speakers should be having
unpredictable conversations in the TL, where neither the questions nor the answers are scripted or
expected. If this activity were used with higher-level speakers it wouldn't have many benefits.[12]

Group work[edit]
Group work is a collaborative activity whose purpose is to foster communication in the TL, in a larger
group setting.[13]
Example:

1. Students are assigned a group of no more than six people.

2. Students are assigned a specific role within the group. (E.g., member A, member B, etc.)
3. The instructor gives each group the same task to complete.
4. Each member of the group takes a designated amount of time to work on the part of the task
to which they are assigned.
5. The members of the group discuss the information they have found, with each other and put
it all together to complete the task.
Students can feel overwhelmed in language classes, but this activity can take away from that feeling.
Students are asked to focus on one piece of information only, which increases their comprehension
of that information. Better comprehension leads to better communication with the rest of the group,
which improves students' communicative abilities in the TL.[13]
Instructors should to be sure to monitor that each student is contributing equally to the group effort. It
takes a good instructor to design the activity well, so that students will contribute equally, and benefit
equally from the activity.[13]

Information gap[edit]
Information gap is a collaborative activity, whose purpose is for students to effectively obtain
information that was previously unknown to them, in the TL.[14]
Example:

1. The class is paired up. One partner in each pair is Partner A, and the other is Partner B.
2. All the students that are Partner A are given a sheet of paper with a time-table on it. The
time-table is filled in half-way, but some of the boxes are empty.
3. All the students that are Partner B are given a sheet of paper with a time-table on it. The
boxes that are empty on Partner A's time-table are filled in on Partner B's. There are also
empty boxes on Partner B's time-table, but they are filled in on Partner A's.
4. The partners must work together to ask about and supply each other with the information
they are both missing, to complete each other's time-tables.
Completing information gap activities improves students' abilities to communicate about unknown
information in the TL. These abilities are directly applicable to many real-world conversations, where
the goal is to find out some new piece of information, or simply to exchange information.[14]
Instructors should not overlook the fact that their students need to be prepared to communicate
effectively for this activity. They need to know certain vocabulary words, certain structures of
grammar, etc. If the students have not been well prepared for the task at hand, then they will not
communicate effectively.[15]

Opinion sharing[edit]
Opinion sharing is a content-based activity, whose purpose is to engage students' conversational
skills, while talking about something they care about.[15]
Example:

1. The instructor introduces a topic and asks students to contemplate their opinions about it.
(E.g., dating, school dress codes, global warming)
2. The students talk in pairs or small groups, debating their opinions on the topic.
Opinion sharing is a great way to get more introverted students to open up and share their opinions.
If a student has a strong opinion about a certain topic, then they will speak up and share.[15]
Respect is key with this activity. If a student does not feel like their opinion is respected by the
instructor or their peers, then they will not feel comfortable sharing, and they will not receive the
communicative benefits of this activity.[15]

Scavenger hunt[edit]
A scavenger hunt is a mingling activity that promotes open interaction between students.[16]
Example:
 1. The instructor gives students a sheet with instructions on it. (e.g. Find someone who has a
birthday in the same month as yours.)
2. Students go around the classroom asking and answering questions about each other.
3. The students wish to find all of the answers they need to complete the scavenger hunt.
In doing this activity, students have the opportunity to speak with a number of classmates, while still
being in a low-pressure situation, and talking to only one person at a time. After learning more about
each other, and getting to share about themselves, students will feel more comfortable talking and
sharing during other communicative activities.[16]
Since this activity is not as structured as some of the others, it is important for instructors to add
structure. If certain vocabulary should be used in students' conversations, or a certain grammar is
necessary to complete the activity, then instructors should incorporate that into the scavenger
hunt.[16]

Critiques[edit]
Although CLT has been extremely influential in the field of language teaching, it is not universally
accepted and has been subject to significant critique.[17]
In his critique of CLT, Michael Swan addresses both the theoretical and practical problems with CLT.
In his critique, he mentions that CLT is not an altogether cohesive subject, but one in which
theoretical understandings (by linguists) and practical understandings (by language teachers) differ
greatly. Critique of the theory of CLT includes that it makes broad claims regarding the usefulness of
CLT while citing little data, that it uses a large amount of confusing vocabulary, and that it assumes
knowledge that is predominately language non-specific (ex. the ability to make educated guesses) is
language specific.[17] Swan suggests that these theoretical issues can lead to confusion in the
application of CLT techniques.[18]
Where confusion in the application of CLT techniques is readily apparent is in classroom settings.
Swan suggests that CLT techniques often suggest prioritizing the "function" of a language (what one
can do with the language knowledge one has) over the "structure" of a language (the grammatical
systems of the language).[18] This priority can leave learners with serious gaps in their knowledge of
the formal aspects of their target language. Swan also suggests that, in CLT techniques, whatever
languages a student might already know are not valued or employed in instructional techniques.[18]
Further critique of CLT techniques in classroom teaching can be attributed to Elaine Ridge. One of
her critiques of CLT is that it implies that there is a generally agreed upon consensus regarding the
definition of "communicative competence", which CLT claims to facilitate, when in fact there is not.
Because there is not such agreement, students may be seen to be in possession of "communicative
competence" without being able to make full, or even adequate, use of the language. That an
individual is proficient in a language does not necessarily entail that they can make full use of that
language, which can limit an individual's potential with that language, especially if that language is
an endangered language. This critique is largely to do with the fact that CLT is often highly praised
and is popular, when it may not necessarily be the best method of language teaching.[19]
Ridge also notes that CLT has nonspecific requirements of its teachers, as there is no completely
standard definition of what CLT is; this is especially true for the teaching of grammar (the formal
rules governing the standardized version of the language in question). Some critics of CLT suggest
that the method does not put enough emphasis on the teaching of grammar and instead allows
students to produce utterances which are grammatically incorrect as long as the interlocutor can get
some meaning from them.[19]
Stephen Bax's critique of CLT has to do with the context of its implementation. Bax asserts that
many researchers associate the use of CLT techinques with modernity and, therefore, the lack of
CLT techniques as a lack of modernism. In this way, these researchers consider teachers or school
systems which don't use CLT techniques as outdated and suggest that their students learn the target
language "in spite of" the absence of CLT techniques, as though CLT were the only way to learn a
language and everyone who fails to implement its techniques is ignorant and will not be successful
in teaching the target language.[3]

As the language theories underlying the Audiolingual method and

the Sitiuational Language Teaching method were questioned by prominent
linguists like Chomsky (1957) during the 1960s, a new trend of language
teaching paved its way into classrooms. Communicative Language
Teaching(CLT), which is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign
languages, emphasizes interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of
learning a language. It is also referred to as “Communicative Approach”.
Historically, CLT has been seen as a response to the Audio-Lingual Method
(ALM), and as an extension or development of the Notional-Functional
Syllabus. Task-based language learning, a more recent refinement of CLT,
has gained considerably in popularity.
Shortcomings of structuralism and behaviorism
The theories underlying the audiolingual method and the situational language
teaching were widely criticized during the 1960s. Noam Chomsky, for
instance, rejected the structuralist view of language and demonstrated that
there is a distinction between performance and competence. The goal of the
linguist is to study the linguistic competence native speakers are endowed
with. He also showed, rightly, that structuralism and behaviorism were unable
to account for one fundamental aspect of language, namely the creativity and
uniqueness of individual sentences. A child is able to produce an infinite
number of sentences that s/he has never encountered. This makes the
factors of imitation, repetition and habit formation weak arguments to account
for any language learning theory.

A shift towards communicative proficiency

The increasing interdependency between the European countries
necessitated a need for a greater effort to teach adults the principal languages
of the continent. New goals were set in language teaching profession:

 The paramount importance of communication aspects of language.

 The increasing interest in meaningful learning.
 The growing centrality of the learner in teaching processes.
 The subordinate importance of structural teaching of language.
Notional / functional dimension of language
Applied linguists and philosophers addressed another fundamental dimension
of language: the functional and communicative potential of language. The
speech act theory showed that we do something when we speak a language.
We use language ( cf Halliday 1975)

 to get things,
 to control behavior,
 to create interaction with others,
 to express personal feelings,
 to learn,
 to create a world of imagination,
 to communicate information.
Besides applied linguists emphasized a teaching of language based on
communicative proficiency rather than mastery of structures. instead of
describing the core of language through traditional concepts of grammar and
vocabulary, they (Van Ek & Alexander, 1975; Wilkins, 1976) attempted to
show the systems of meaning underlying the communicative use of language.
They described two kinds of meanings.

 Notional categories: concepts such as time, sequence; quantity, location,

frequency.
 Functional categories: requests offers, complaints, invitation …
In other words, a “notion” is a particular context in which people communicate.
A “function” is a specific purpose for a speaker in a given context. For
example, the “notion,” of shopping requires numerous language “functions,”
such as asking about prices or features of a product and bargaining.
One language competence or numerous
competences?
For Chomsky the focus of linguistics was to describe the linguistic
competence that enables speakers to produce grammatically correct
sentences. Dell Hymes held, however, that such a view of linguistic theory
was sterile and that it failed to picture all the aspects of language. He
advocated the need of a theory that incorporate communication competence. It
must be a definition of what a speaker needs to know in order to be
communicatively competent in a speech community.
Later Canale and Swaine (1980) described four dimensions of communicative
competence.
 Grammatical competence: refers to what Chomsky calls linguistic
competence.
 Sociolinguistic competence: refers to an understanding of the social context
in which communication takes place (role relationships, shared beliefs and
information between participants …)
 Discourse competence: refers to the interpretation of individual messsage
elements in terms of their interconnectedness and how meaning is
represented in relationship to the entire discourse or text.
 Strategic competence: refers to the coping strategies that participants use to
initiate terminate, maintain, repair and redirect communication
Learning theory
According to the the communicative approach, in order for learning to take
place, emphasis must be put on the importance of these variables:

 Communication: activities that involve real communication promote

learning.
 Tasks: activities in which language is used to carry out meaningful tasks
supports the learning process.
 Meaning: language that is meaningful and authentic to the learner boosts
learning.
Acquiring or learning?
Stephen Krashen later advocated in his language learning theory that there
should be a distinction between learning and acquiring. He sees acquisition as
the basic process involved in developing language proficiency and
distinguishes this process from learning. Acquisition is an unconscious
process that involves the naturalistic development of language proficiency
while learning is the conscious internalization of the rules of language. It
results in explicit knowledge about the forms of language and the ability to
verbalize this knowledge. Learning according to Krashen can not lead to
acquisition.
Syllabus
Communicative language teaching syllabus organizes the teaching according
to the notional and functional categories of language rather than according to
its structures.It concentrates on the following:

 Interactions: using language to communicate,

 Tasks: using language to perform meaningful tasks
 Learner: putting the learner’s interests, needs in the forefront.
Merits of CLT
There are many advantages in teaching according to the communicative
approach:

 CLT is a holistic approach. It doesn’t focus only on the traditional structural

syllabus. It takes into consideration communicative dimension of language.
 CLT provides vitality and motivation within the classroom.
 CLT is a learner centered approach. It capitalizes on the interests and needs
of the learner.
 In a world where communication of information and information technology
have broken new considerable ground, CLT can play an important role in
education.
Criticism
 Notional syllabus was criticized as merely replacing one kind of list, namely a
list of grammatical structures, with another list of notions and functions.
 The various categories of language functions are overlapping and not
systematically graded like the structures of the language.
 The communicative approach focuses on the use of language in everyday
situations, or the functional aspects of language, and less on the formal
structures. There must be a certain balance between the two.It gives priority
to meanings and rules of use rather than to grammar and rules of
structure. Such concentration on language behavior may result in negative
consequences in the sense that important structures and rules would be left
out.
 The approach relies extensively on the functional-notational syllabus which
places heavy demands on the learners.
 A major principle underlying this approach is its emphasis on learners’ needs
and interests. This implies that every teacher should modify the syllabus to
fit the needs of the learners.
 The requirements are difficult. Not all classrooms can allow for group work
activities and for teaching aids and materials.
In spite of its critics, CLT has gained widespread acceptance in the world of
language study. CLT can succeed, as long as teachers don’t completely reject
the need for the structure provided by grammar. Teachers must strive for
moderation and shouldn’t neglect the merits of other methods. CLT, in the
hands of a balanced teacher, can bring new life and joy to the classroom. Its
vitality makes it an important contributor to language learning approaches.
 Communicative Approach
One way to think about teaching ELLs is to use the communicative approach, also
called communicative language teaching. You'll probably notice right off the bat that the name has
a lot in common with the word 'communication.' That's not by accident: the communicative approach
focuses on teaching language through communication.
Of course, the goal of any language instruction is to learn how to communicate. But
in communicative language teaching, communication is not only the goal but the method of teaching.
The teacher in a communicative language classroom acts as a guide or facilitator and students
engage in class activities to learn the language.
For example, Lilah might set up an activity where she asks students what their favorite holiday is and
why. She can pair the students up and have them talk to one another about it while Lilah walks
around the room and helps the pairs out. Through this activity, the students are learning the
language through their discussion with other students. That is, they are learning through
communication.
Notice that this is very different than if Lilah stood at the front of the classroom and explained the
rules of English grammar to her students and then gave them worksheets. That method might also
be focused on teaching students how to communicate, but the actual work in the classroom (the
teacher explaining, the worksheets) is not communication, so it is not the communicative approach.

The Communicative Method is in reality an umbrella term – a broad approach rather than a specific
teaching methodology, and has now become the accepted ‘standard’ in English language teaching.
Communicative Language Teaching is a natural follow-on from the reaction during the 70s against
previous methods which over-focused on teaching grammatical structures and template sentences,
and which gave little or no importance to how language is actually used practically.

Explanation
Emphasizes the ability to communicate the meaning of the message, instead
of concentrating on grammatical perfection.

The Communicative approach emphasizes the ability to communicate the message in terms of its
meaning, instead of concentrating exclusively on grammatical perfection or phonetics. Therefore, the
understanding of the second language is evaluated in terms of how much the learners have
developed their communicative abilities and competencies.

In essence, it considers using the language to be just as important as actually learning the language.

The Communicative Language Teaching method has various characteristics that distinguish it from
previous methods:

 Understanding occurs through active student interaction in the foreign language

 Teaching occurs by using authentic English texts

 Students not only learn the second language but they also learn strategies for understanding

 Importance is given to learners’ personal experiences and situations, which are considered as an
invaluable contribution to the content of the lessons

 Using the new language in unrehearsed contexts creates learning opportunities outside the
classroom

Misconceptions
As the method is a broad approach to teaching English, rather than a rigid series of activities, there
are some popular misconceptions of what CLT involves.

Learning a language is interactive, co-operative, learner-centered and content-based, but the

approach does not mean that learning a second language involves just ‘conversation‘.

Using the Method

The most common educational model applied in the context of the Communicative Method is the
Functional-Notional approach, which emphasizes the organisation of the syllabus.

This breaks down the use of language into 5 functional categories that can be more easily analyzed:
personal (feelings, etc.), interpersonal (social and working relationships), directive (influencing
others), referential (reporting about things, events, people or language itself), and imaginative
(creativity and artistic expression).

These 5 broad functions are then delivered by the teacher in the classroom using the ’3 Ps’ teaching
model, which stand for Presentation, Practice and Production.

LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE APPROACH

The Language Experience Approach and Adult Learners

Marcia Taylor, JobLink 2000

June 1992
The language experience approach (LEA) is a whole language approach that
promotes reading and writing through the use of personal experiences and
oral language. It can be used in tutorial or classroom settings with
homogeneous or heterogeneous groups of learners. Beginning literacy
learners relate their experiences to a teacher or aide, who transcribes them.
These transcriptions are then used as the basis for other reading and writing
activities.
The LEA, first developed for Maori-speaking (Ashton-Warner, 1963) and
native-English-speaking children (Spache & Spache, 1964; Stauffer, 1965),
has also been used successfully with learners of all ages. Adult learners
entering ESL programs may or may not have previous educational or literacy
experiences; nonetheless, all come to class with a wealth of life experiences.
This valuable resource for language and literacy development can be tapped
by using the LEA. The approach develops literacy not only with the whole
learner in mind, but also the whole language.
Features of the Language Experience Approach
The LEA is as diverse in practice as its practitioners. Nonetheless, some
characteristics remain consistent (Hall, 1970):

 Materials are learner-generated.

 All communication skills--reading, writing, listening, and speaking--are
integrated.
 Difficulty of vocabulary and grammar are determined by the learners own
language use.
 Learning and teaching are personalized, communicative, creative.

LEA With ESL Learners

Krashen and Terrell (1983) recommend two criteria for determining whether
reading materials are appropriate for ESL learners: The reading must be 1)
at a comprehensible level of complexity and 2) interesting to the reader.
Reading texts originating from learners' experiences meet these two criteria
because 1) the degree of complexity is determined by the learner's own
language, and 2) the texts relate to the learner's personal interests.
Both criteria are of particular importance in adult beginning ESL classes,
where the paucity of reading materials can be problematic. Many books
written in simplified English are either too juvenile or too uninteresting to be
considered appropriate reading material for adults.
Two Variations of LEA
The Personal Experience
The most basic, and in fact the original, form of the LEA is the simple
transcription of an individual learner's personal experience. The teacher or
aide (or in a mixed-ability class, a more proficient learner) sits with the
learner so that the learner can see what is being written. The session begins
with a conversation, which might be prompted by a picture, a topic the
learner is interested in, a reading text, or an event the learner has
participated in. Once a topic evolves, the learner gives an oral account of a
personal experience related to that topic. The transcriber may help the
learner expand or focus the account by asking questions.
In most forms of the LEA, the experience is transcribed as the learner
dictates it, without transcriber corrections to grammar or vocabulary. This
technique keeps the focus on the content rather than the form of what is
written and provides concrete evidence of the learner's language growth
over time (Heald-Taylor, 1989). Errors can be corrected later, during
revising and editing stages of the writing process. The relationship between
the transcriber and learner should be well established before attempting the
LEA, and the transcriber should be supportive of what the learner has to say.
The Group Experience
Groups may also develop language experience stories together. An
experience can be set up and carried out by the group, or stories can grow
out of experiences and stimuli from any part of the learners' personal, work,
or classroom lives. The following steps are often involved:
1. Choosing the experience or stimulus. In collaboration with the learners,
choose a prompt or activity that can be discussed and written up in some
form. This might include pictures, movies, videotapes, songs, books or
articles, class projects, field trips, holidays or celebrations, or an activity
designed for this purpose.
2. Organizing the activity. Develop a plan of action with the class. This might
include what you will do and when, and what you will need. The plans can be
written on the board to provide the first link between the activity itself and
the written word.
3. Conducting the experience. The following activities might be done in the
classroom or in the community.
In the classroom In the community

Preparing food (sandwich, Taking field trips (to the bank,

French toast, salad, market, malls, library, city
popcorn) hall)
Making cards (thank you Mapping the school or the
notes, get well cards, holiday neighborhood.
cards)
Class projects (simulations,
bulletin boards, skits)
If the experience takes place within the classroom, the teacher can narrate it
as it unfolds, repeating key words and phrases.
For more advanced learners, discussions, as well as actual experiences, can
evolve into group-produced texts. Discussion topics might include work,
adult education, adjustment to life in the U.S., or current local and world
events. Again, the teacher might write key words and phrases on the board
as they are mentioned in the discussion.
4. Discussing the experience, including all learners in the discussion and
writing key words and phrases on the board. The class might, for example,
reconstruct the sequence of events that took place. Some learners may be
capable of describing an entire experience or generating an extended text
about a prompt, while others may only be able to answer questions about it.
The teacher may need to stimulate or focus the discussion by asking wh-
questions--Who was involved? When did this take place? What did we do
first? Regardless of the level of active participation of various learners, it is
crucial that all understand the discussion.
5. Developing a written account. The class works together to develop a
written account of what was done or discussed. Before actually writing a
text, the class might do some planning activities like brainstorming, webbing
or mapping, listing, or sequencing ideas. Learners may dictate a description
or sequence of events in an activity while the teacher or aide writes it down,
or a group of students may work together in groups to produce an account.
Regardless of who does the writing, it should be easily visible to all learners-
-on the board, on a flip chart pad, or on an overhead transparency.
The teacher does not correct the learners' language at this point, although
learners may correct themselves or each other as they work together.
Formal correction can be done later, as part of the revising and editing
stages.
With beginning students, written compositions may be very simple, just a
sentence or two if this represents their level of English proficiency. Length is
not significant.
6. Reading the account. Once the written text is complete, the teacher or a
learner can read it aloud to the class, focusing on key words and phrases,
and then learners can read it silently on their own. Of course, oral reading of
the account does not need to occur only at this stage, but can be done at
many different points during its production, thus promoting rethinking and
revision throughout its evolution.
7. Extending the experience. Many language and literacy activities beyond
rereading can be based on the written text. The following possibilities can be
selected and adapted according to learners' proficiency levels.
With beginning learners, teachers can

 have students copy the story themselves;

 have students match words with pictures or definitions;
 delete every nth word (4th, 5th, 6th, etc.) to create a cloze exercise. Have the
students fill in the blanks either with or without the assistance of a word bank,
depending on their literacy level;
 select words from the story for vocabulary, spelling, or sound-symbol
correspondence activities;
 use the texts to review a grammar point, such as sequence of tenses, word
order, or pronoun referents;
 dictate the story for learners to write;
 write the sentences in scrambled order and have students rewrite them,
restoring the correct sequence;
 scramble key words and have students unscramble them.
More advanced learners can

 use the group-produced text as the basis for individually written texts about the
same topic, about a similar experience, or as a critique of this experience. Then
they might read each others' texts;
 revise and edit the texts and prepare them for publication;
 read other texts related to the topic;
 generate comprehension questions for classmates to answer;
 write other types of texts--songs, poems, letters (for example, a letter to the
editor), or directions for how to do something.

In a class with learners at different proficiency levels, the teacher can use
the more basic activities with the learners at lower levels while the more
proficient learners work on the more advanced activities individually or in
groups, with less teacher help.
Conclusion
Although the LEA was developed primarily as a tool for reading
development, this technique can be used successfully to develop listening,
speaking, and writing as well. This integrated approach is unique in that it
begins with students' individual or shared experiences as a basis for
discussion, writing, and finally reading. As students see their personal
experiences transcribed into the written word, they also gain a greater
understanding of the processes of writing and reading and can make the
bridge to reading and writing independently.
The Language Experience Approach (LEA) is a literacy development method that has long been used for early
reading development with first language learners. It is also perfect for diverse classrooms. It combines all four
language skills: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Working on the four language skills side by side aids
fluency.
An LEA lesson is centered around a learner-generated text. The rationale behind LEA is that materials with familiar
vocabulary and ideas are more meaningful and accessible than texts found in pre-prepared books. For teachers
wanting to work on reading fluency with emergent readers, learner-generated texts are ideal.
The following sections describe the steps of an Language Experience Approach lesson.
STEP #1: A Shared Experience3
The LEA process begins with something the class does together, such as a field trip, an experiment, or some other
hands-on activity. If this is not possible, a sequence of pictures (that tell a story) can be used, as can a student
describing a sequence of events from real life.
STEP #2: Creating the Text
Next, the teacher and students, as a group, verbally recreate the shared experience. Students take turns volunteering
information, as in a large-group discussion. The teacher transcribes the student’s words on the board in an organized
way to create the text.
STEP #3: Read & Revise
The class reads the story aloud and discusses it. The teacher asks if the students want to make any corrections or
additions to the story. Then she marks the changes t4hey suggest and makes further suggestions, if needed.
STEP #4: Read and Reread
The final story can be read in a choral or echo style, or both. Students can also read in small groups or pairs, and
then individually.
STEP #5: Extension3
This text can be used for a variety of literacy activities like illustrations or creating comprehension questions.
How can you use this approach in your classroom?
The Language Experience Approach (LEA) is a method for teaching literacy based on a child's
existing experience of language.
Some of the components of the LEA were used in the 1920s, and this approach to initial literacy has
been more widely used for the past thirty years. Especially in the context of open learning, teachers
use the students' existing language and prior experiences to develop reading, writing and listening
skills.[vague]
Roach Van Allen, first described his approach in the 1960s; he indicated how this strategy could
create a natural bridge between spoken language and written language by stating:
What I can say, I can write
What I can write, I can read
I can read what I write and what other people can write for me to read.

Examples[edit]
The language experience approach can be traced back to the work of Ashton-Warner (1963) and
Paulo Freire (1972) with underprivileged children and adults. It now is in use in many countries in the
context of open learning. More recent conceptions (cf. for overviews: Allen 1976; Dorr 2006) have
been developed in the U.S., especially by Richgels (2001) and McGee/Richgels (2011), and in
Germany by Brügelmann (1986) and Brügelmann/Brinkmann (2013) stimulating invented spelling as
a means of self-expression in print ("writing to reading").
It often is suggested that the teacher should provide some type of common experience that will
inspire students to express their thoughts utilizing any prior experience they might have had relating
to the particular topic of choice. Examples of these experiences could include a trip to the beach,
planting seeds, the necessity to prepare for a class party or even a visit to the dentist or doctor. One
of the main functions of teachers is to motivate and inspire their students.
The language experience strategy can be used to teach reading and comprehension to
older ESOL struggling readers, and students with special needs. LEA can be used with a small
group of students or individual students. It is important that when using this strategy, the teacher
records exactly what the student contributes without correcting grammar; however, the spelling
should be correct and not written in the student's dialect.
The student dictates to the teacher his/her understanding of a particular topic selected by
the teacher. The teacher then records the student's narration exactly as the student dictates it; after
the teacher records the student's contribution, the teacher then reads it orally in its entirety.

WHOLE LANGUAGE APPROACH

Whole language describes a literacy philosophy which emphasizes that children should focus
on meaning and strategy instruction. It is often contrasted with phonics-based methods of
teaching reading and writing which emphasize instruction for decoding and spelling.
However, from whole language practitioners' perspective, this view is erroneous and sets up
a false dichotomy. Whole language practitioners teach to develop a knowledge of language
including the graphophonic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic aspects of language. Within a
whole language perspective, language is treated as a complete meaning-making system, the
parts of which function in relational ways. It has drawn criticism by those who advocate
"back to basics" pedagogy or reading instruction because whole language is based on a
limited body of scientific research.[1] Overview[edit]
Whole language is an educational philosophy that is complex to describe, particularly because it is
informed by multiple research fields including but not limited to education, linguistics, psychology,
sociology, and anthropology (see also Language Experience Approach). Several strands run
through most descriptions of whole language:

 focus on making meaning in reading and expressing meaning in writing;

 constructivist approaches to knowledge creation, emphasizing students' interpretations of text
and free expression of ideas in writing (often through daily journal entries);
 emphasis on high-quality and culturally diverse literature;
 integrating literacy into other areas of the curriculum, especially math, science, and social
studies;
 frequent reading
 with students in small "guided reading" groups
 to students with "read alouds"
 by students independently;
 reading and writing for real purposes;
 focus on motivational aspects of literacy, emphasizing the love of books and engaging reading
materials;
 meaning-centered whole to part to whole instruction where phonics are taught contextually in
"embedded" phonics (different from Synthetic phonics or Analytical phonics); and
 emphasis on using and understanding the meaning-making role of phonics, grammar, spelling,
capitalization and punctuation in diverse social contexts.

Underlying premises[edit]
Cognitive skills of reading[edit]
Sub-lexical reading
Sub-lexical reading[2][3][4][5] involves teaching reading by associating characters or groups of characters
with sounds or by using phonics learning and teaching methodology. Sometimes argued to be in
competition with whole language methods.
Lexical reading
Lexical reading[2][3][4][5] involves acquiring words or phrases without attention to the characters or
groups of characters that compose them or by using Whole language learning and teaching
methodology. Sometimes argued to be in competition with phonics methods, and that the whole
language approach tends to impair learning how to spell.

Learning theory[edit]
The idea of "whole" language has its basis in a range of theories of learning related to
the epistemologies called "holism". Holism is based upon the belief that it is not possible to
understand learning of any kind by analyzing small chunks of the learning system. Holism was very
much a response to behaviorism, which emphasized that the world could be understood by
experimenting with stimuli and responses. Holists considered this a reductionist perspective that did
not recognize that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Analyzing individual behaviors,
holists argued, could never tell us how the entire human mind worked. This is—in simplified terms—
the theoretical basis for the term "whole language."[citation needed]

Chomsky and Goodman[edit]

The whole language approach to phonics grew out of Noam Chomsky's ideas about language
acquisition. In 1967, Ken Goodman had an idea about reading, which he considered similar to
Chomsky's, and he wrote a widely cited article calling reading a "psycholinguistic guessing game".
He chided educators for attempting to apply what he saw as unnecessary orthographic order to a
process that relied on holistic examination of words.[6]
Goodman thought that there are four "cueing systems" for reading, four things that readers have to
guess what word comes next:

1. graphophonemic: the shapes of the letters, and the sounds that they evoke (see phonetics).
2. semantic: what word one would expect to occur based on the meaning of the sentence so far
(see semantics).
3. syntactic: what part of speech or word would make sense based on the grammar of the
language (see syntax).
4. pragmatic: what is the function of the text
The "graph" part of the word "graphophonemic" means the shape or symbol of the graphic input, i.e.,
the text. According to Goodman, these systems work together to help readers guess the right word.
He emphasized that pronouncing individual words will involve the use of all three systems (letter
clues, meaning clues from context, and syntactical structure of the sentence).
The graphophonemic cues are related to the sounds we hear (the phonological system including
individual letters and letter combinations), the letters of the alphabet, and the conventions of spelling,
punctuation and print. Students who are emerging readers use these cues considerably. However, in
the English language there is a very imprecise relationship between written symbols and sound
symbols.[7] Sometimes the relationships and their patterns do not work, as in the example
of great and head. Proficient readers and writers draw on their prior experiences with text and the
other cueing systems, as well as the phonological system, as their reading and writing develops.
Ken Goodman writes that, "The cue systems are used simultaneously and interdependently. What
constitutes useful graphic information depends on how much syntactic and semantic information is
available. Within high contextual constraints an initial consonant may be all that is needed to identify
an element and make possible the prediction of an ensuing sequence or the confirmation of prior
predictions."[8] He continues with, "Reading requires not so much skills as strategies that make it
possible to select the most productive cues." He believes that reading involves the interrelationship
of all the language systems. Readers sample and make judgments about which cues from each
system will provide the most useful information in making predictions that will get them to meaning.
Goodman[8] provides a partial list of the various systems readers use as they interact with text. Within
the graphophonemic system there are:

 Letter-sound relationships
 Shape (or word configuration)
 Know ‘little words’ in bigger words
 Whole know words
 Recurrent spelling patterns
The semantic cuing system is the one in which meaning is constructed. "So focused is reading on
making sense that the visual input, the perceptions we form, and the syntactic patterns we assign
are all directed by our meaning construction."[9] The key component of the semantic system is
context. A reader must be able to attach meaning to words and have some prior knowledge to use
as a context for understanding the word. They must be able to relate the newly learned word to prior
knowledge through personal associations with text and the structure of text.
The semantic system is developed from the beginning through early interactions with adults. At first,
this usually involves labeling (e.g. This is a dog). Then labeling becomes more detailed (e.g., It is a
Labrador dog. Its coat is black.) The child learns that there is a set of "dog attributes" and that within
the category "dog", there are subsets of "dog" (e.g. long-hair, short-hair). The development of this
system and the development of the important concepts that relate to the system are largely
accomplished as children begin to explore language independently. As children speak about what
they’ve done and play out their experiences, they are making personal associations between their
experiences and language. This is critical to success in later literacy practices such as reading
comprehension and writing. The meaning people bring to the reading is available to them through
every cuing system, but it’s particularly influential as we move from our sense of the syntactic
patterns to the semantic structures.[8]
To support the reader in developing the semantic system, ask, "Does that make sense"?
The syntactic system, according to Goodman and Watson,[7] includes the interrelation of words and
sentences within connected text. In the English language, syntactic relations include word order,
tense, number, and gender. The syntactic system is also concerned with word parts that change the
meaning of a word, called morphemes. For example, adding the suffix "less" or adding "s" to the end
of a word changes its meaning or tense. As speakers of English, people know where to place
subjects, which pronoun to use and where adjectives occur. Individual word meaning is determined
by the place of the word in the sentence and the particular semantic or syntactic role it
occupies.[10] For example: The mayor was present when he received a beautiful present from the
present members of the board.
The syntactic system is usually in place when children begin school. Immersed in language, children
begin to recognize that phrases and sentences are usually ordered in certain ways. This notion of
ordering is the development of syntax. Like all the cueing systems, syntax provides the possibility of
correct prediction when trying to make sense or meaning of written language. Goodman notes the
cues found in the flow of language are:[8]

 Patterns of words (or function order)

 Inflection and inflectional agreement
 Function words such as noun markers (the, a, that)
 Intonation (which is poorly represented in writing by punctuation)
To support a reader in developing the syntactic system, ask, "Can we say it that way? Does that
sound right?"
The pragmatic system is also involved in the construction of meaning while reading. This brings
into play the socio-cultural knowledge of the reader. It provides information about the purposes and
needs the reader has while reading. Yetta Goodman and Dorothy Watson state that, "Language has
different meaning depending on the reason for use, the circumstances in which the language is
used, and the ideas writers and readers have about the contextual relations with the language users.
Language cannot exist outside a sociocultural context, which includes the prior knowledge of the
language user. For example, shopping lists, menus, reports and plays are arranged uniquely and are
dependent on the message, the intent, the audience, and the context."[7]
By the time children begin school, they may have developed an inferred understanding of some of
the pragmatics of a particular situation. For example, turn taking in conversation, reading poetry or a
shopping list. "While different materials may share common semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic
features, each genre has its own organization and each requires certain experiences by the
reader."[7]
To support the reader in developing the pragmatic system ask, "What is the purpose and function of
this literacy event?"
Goodman performed a study where children first read words individually, and then read the same
words in connected text. He found that the children did better when they read the words in
connected text. Later replications of the experiment failed to find effects, however, when children did
not read the same words in connected text immediately after reading them individually, as they had
in Goodman's experiment.[11][12]
Goodman's theory has been criticized by other researchers who favor a phonics-based approach,
and present research to support their viewpoint. Critics argue that good readers use decoding as
their primary approach to reading, and use context to confirm that what they have read makes
sense.

Application of Goodman's theory[edit]

Goodman's argument was compelling to educators as a way of thinking about beginning reading and
literacy more broadly. This led to the idea that reading and writing were ideas that should be
considered as wholes, learned by experience and exposure more than analysis and didactic
instruction. This largely accounts for the focus on time spent reading, especially independent
reading. Many classrooms (whole language or otherwise) include silent reading time, sometimes
called DEAR ("Drop Everything And Read") time or SSR (sustained silent reading). Some versions
of this independent reading time include a structured role for the teacher, especially Reader's
Workshop. Despite the popularity of the extension of Chomsky's linguistic ideas to literacy, there is
some neurological and experimental research that has concluded that reading, unlike language, is
not a pre-programmed human skill. It must be learned. Dr. Sally Shaywitz,[13] a neurologist at Yale
University, is credited with much of the research on the neurological structures of reading.

Contrasts with phonics[edit]

Because of this holistic emphasis, whole language is contrasted with skill-based areas of instruction,
especially phonics and synthetic phonics. Phonics instruction is a commonly used technique for
teaching students to read. Phonics instruction tends to emphasize attention to the individual
components of words, for example, the phonemes /k/, /æ/, and /t/ are represented by
the graphemes c, a, and t. Because they do not focus exclusively on the individual parts, tending to
focus on the relationship of parts to and within the larger context, whole language proponents do not
favor some types of phonics instruction. Whole language advocates state that they do teach, and
believe in, phonics, especially a type of phonics known as embedded phonics. In embedded
phonics, letters are taught during other lessons focused on meaning and the phonics component is
considered a "minilesson". Instruction in embedded phonics typically emphasizes
the consonants and the short vowels, as well as letter combinations called rimes or phonograms.
The use of this embedded phonics model is called a "whole-part-whole" approach because,
consistent with holistic thinking, students read the text for meaning first (whole), then examine
features of the phonics system (part) and finally use their new knowledge while reading the text
again (whole). Reading Recovery is a program that uses holistic practices with struggling readers.
Most whole language advocates see that children go through stages of spelling development as they
develop, use and gain control over written language. Early literacy research conducted by Piagetian
researcher, Emilia Ferreiro and published in her landmark book, Literacy Before Schooling, has
been replicated by University of Alabama professor, Maryann Manning. Based on this research
"invented spelling" is another "whole-part-whole" approach: children learn to read by writing in a
meaningful context, e.g. by writing letters to others. To write a word they have to decompose its
spoken form into sounds and then to translate them into letters, e.g. k, a, t for the phonemes /k/, /æ/,
and /t/. Empirical studies[14] show that later orthographic development is fostered rather than hindered
by these invented spellings – as long as children from the beginning are confronted with "book
spellings", too.[15]

Rise of whole language and reaction[edit]

After its introduction by Goodman, whole language rose in popularity dramatically. It became a major
educational paradigm of the late 1980s and the 1990s. Despite its popularity during this period,
educators who believed that skill instruction was important for students' learning and some
researchers in education were skeptical of whole language claims and said so loudly. What followed
were the "Reading Wars" of the 1980s and 1990s between advocates of phonics and those of Whole
 Language methodology, which in turn led to several attempts to catalog research on the efficacy of
phonics and whole language. Congress commissioned reading expert Marilyn Jager Adams to write
a definitive book on the topic. She determined that phonics was important but suggested that some
elements of the whole language approach were helpful.[16][17] Two large-scale efforts, in 1998 by
the United States National Research Council's Commission on Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children[18][19] and in 2000 by the United States National Reading Panel,[20][21]catalogued the
most important elements of a reading program. While proponents of whole language find the latter to
be controversial, both panels found that phonics instruction of varying kinds, especially analytic
and Synthetic Phonics, contributed positively to students' ability to read words on tests of reading
words in isolation. Both panels also found that embedded phonics and no phonics contributed to
lower rates of achievement for most populations of students when measured on test of reading
words in isolation. The Panel recommended an approach it described as "scientifically-based
reading research" (SBRR), that cited 5 elements essential to effective reading instruction, one of
which was explicit, Systematic Phonics instruction (phonological awareness, reading
comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency were the other 4).
In December 2005 the Australian Government endorsed the teaching of synthetic phonics, and
discredited the whole language approach ("on its own"). Its Department of Education, Science and
Training published a National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy. [1] The report states "The
evidence is clear, whether from research, good practice observed in schools, advice from
submissions to the Inquiry, consultations, or from Committee members’ own individual experiences,
that direct systematic instruction in phonics during the early years of schooling is an essential
foundation for teaching children to read." Pg 11. See Synthetic phonics#Acceptance in Australia

State of the debate[edit]

Despite these results, many whole language advocates continue to argue that their approach,
including embedded phonics, has been shown to improve student achievement. Whole language
advocates sometimes criticize advocates of skill instruction as "reductionist" and describe the use of
phonics as "word calling" because it does not involve the use of meaning. The United States
National Reading Panel is criticized especially harshly by some in the whole language community for
failing to include qualitative research designs that showed benefits for embedded phonics (the panel
only considered experiments and quasi-experiments). On the other hand, some parents and
teachers have objected to the de-emphasis on phonics in whole language-based curricula such as
Reading Recovery and advocated their removal from schools.[22]
Adoption of some whole language concepts[edit]
While rancor continues, much of whole language's emphasis on quality literature, cultural diversity,
and reading in groups and to students is widely supported[who?] by the educational community. The
importance of motivation, long a central focus of whole language approaches, has gained more
attention in the broader educational community in the last few years. Prominent critic of whole
language Louisa Cook Moats has argued, however, that the foci on quality literature, diversity,
reading groups, and motivation are not the sole property of whole language.[23] She, and others[who?],
contend these components of instruction are supported by educators of diverse educational
perspectives. Moats contends that the properties essential to Whole Language, and those that
render it ineffective and unfit for reading education are the principles that children learn to read from
exposure to print, the hostility to drilling in phonics and other forms of direct instruction, and the
tendency to endorse the use of context-clues and guess-work to decipher a word rather than
phonemic decoding. In these and certain other tenets lie the essence and the error of Whole
Language. Emphases on cultural diversity and quality literature is neither limited to Whole Language
nor fundamental to it.

Definition
 The whole language approach is an instructional philosophy on teaching reading and writing. It
is based on three constructivist assumptions: (1) learning cannot be separated from its context,
(2) each learner’s purpose for learning is integral to what is learned, and (3) knowledge gained
by each learner is socially constructed through negotiation, evaluation, or transformation [1].

Description
Instruction in classrooms that follow the whole language approach is planned around thematic
units integrating various disciplines. Spelling, reading, writing, speaking, and grammar are
integrated into the instruction and are not taught as separate components. The planned literacy
events serve functions and are authentic, not skill-based lessons. The activities planned must
include the four dimensions of...

FOUR-PRONGED APPROACH

THE FOUR – PRONGED APPROACH (BASILISA MANHIT)

GENUINE LOVE FOR READING
It aims to immerse the child in the literature and develop a deep and lasting love for
reading. Finding a good story or poem is the first step of this prong. The story/poem
should be suitable to the age, interest, and vocabulary level of the child. The important
details of the story/poem that may hinder the child’s understanding should be identified.
Unlocking of difficulties may be made through variety of ways such as demonstrations,
concrete objects, drawings, and other forms of representation.
On the other hand, the children must also have a need and desire to read or listen. To
do this, the teacher needs to look for an interesting quality reading material, which is
familiar to the children. From this, the children can be motivated to share their personal
experiences and feelings. Meanwhile, the teacher should be artistic enough in reading
the story or poem to sustain the interest of the children.

CRITICAL THINKING
In this prong, the teacher asks motive questions, which can lead the children to discover
the events and beauty of the story/poem. The teacher should employ the art of
questioning so that children will able to understand the story/poem to their own pace of
realization. It is stressed by Raidis Laudiano that the children are trained to reflect on
the story to be adapted to critical thinking. The teacher should prepare creative
exercises to enhance children’s critical thinking.
Through this method of sharing literature, vocabulary is developed, attention span is
lengthened, listening comprehension is honed, and critical thinking, applied daily
becomes a habit.

MASTERY OF THE STRUCTURES OF THE FILIPINO/ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Literature is an excellence source of examples of good language. The children will catch
this language and use it in their conversation in and out of the school. The story/poem
gives the children experiences that they can talk about. Besides, the content of the
story/poem helps the children to learn new languages and its structures.

TRANSFER STAGE
Children who have become used to listening stories will want to read on their own.
Pretending to scan any storybooks is one of the manifestations, that the child is ready
for the beginning reading instruction, or the transfer stage. This is the prong where
reading readiness activities are given to the child.

More than two thirds of new teachers nationwide enroll in university teacher-preparation
programs. By and large these programs are doing a very good job of preparing the
nation's teachers to provide high-quality instruction, particularly in the application of the
new Common Core State Standards and Next Generation Science standards. Research
has shown that strong practice-based models of teacher education provide the best
foundation for entering the classroom, so university programs prepare novice teachers
through a series of courses and in-class practices.

Christian J. Faltis
Most university-based teacher education programs focus on four essential elements:
strong pedagogical content knowledge, ongoing assessment of student learning during
instruction, engagement of students in various participation structures, and a deep
knowledge of how students learn.

Solid pedagogy depends on deep content knowledge combined with specific practices
for how to teach children and youth in the content. Included is an understanding of a
range of the intense language demands permeating the new era of standards, which
move away from a focus exclusively on content knowledge and toward a display of
knowing and doing enacted through oral and written language. This is true for math and
science as well. At UC Davis, we carefully select and admit students who have content
discipline knowledge; with that solid foundation, they receive methods instruction and
guided practice with mentor-teachers to arm them with pedagogical content knowledge
to address the needs of all learners when they enter the profession.
The second essential element involves the constant monitoring of student learning
through assessment. Credential students learn to recognize and use various forms of
student data to monitor learning on a regular basis to inform their teaching to meet
students' learning needs. This essential element is reinforced throughout students'
preparation, and it is embedded into the teacher performance assessment system used
in UC teacher preparation.

Learning happens in classrooms where students engage in multiple participation

structures, from one-to-whole-class instruction to small groupwork and individual
learning. Learning to manage complex instruction in classrooms of 30 or more students
requires repeated practice and attention to interaction and engagement in the various
structures. The ultimate goal is to ensure students gain equitable access to,
participation in, and benefit from high-quality learning opportunities.

Last but not least, learning to teach well requires a deep understanding of learners and
their development, which includes ways to support students who have learning
differences or difficulties. This also includes knowing how to support student learning of
language and content for students who are in the process of learning English. How well
new teachers manifest these elements in their classrooms is the most important
measure of their success.
 LITERATURE-BASED APPROACH

What is Literature-Based Instruction?

Literature-based instruction is the type of instruction in which authors' original
narrative and expository works are used as the core for experiences to support
children in developing literacy. The types of activities done with the literature are the
natural types of things children and adults would do when reading and responding to
any good book. For example, it is natural to share and talk about a good book after
reading it; it is not natural to answer ten questions about the book. The teacher's role
becomes one of planning and supporting authentic learning experiences.

Literature-based instruction is much more than giving students quality literature; it is

doing the authentic things with the literature that all writers and readers would
naturally do, and giving students support with these activities as they need it. As
Wells (1990) indicates, children and young adults develop literacy (reading, writing,
thinking) by having real literacy experiences and getting support from more-
experienced individuals, who may be adults or peers. Research clearly shows that
literature-based instruction helps all students become better readers, writers, and
thinkers (Tunnell & Jacobs, 1989).
Reading instruction continues to be one of the most debated topics in education. Some experts
tout the importance of basal-based instructional methods, which include learning phonetic
rules methodically, reading stories written based on those phonics rules, and answering
questions about each story. Others, however, maintain that a literature-based approach, in
which students are exposed to real, authentic literature in a natural setting, is a more effective
way to teach reading in the classroom.
Advantage: Authenticity
Proponents of literature-based instruction usually focus on the importance of using authentic
literature, rather than the "canned" variety found in basal textbooks and other programs.
Books that are written to teach children to read tend to be boring, contrived and less vibrant
than authentic literature. Authentic literature can also open doors for students by introducing
them to different cultures, social structures and story lines.
Advantage: Higher Level Thinking Skills
Many teachers choose literature-based instruction because they feel that it addresses higher
level thinking skills than basal level instruction. Rather than forcing children to give pat
answers to basic questions about a story, literature-based instruction encourages children to
think deeply and share their thoughts about a story. Reading authentic literature can improve
vocabulary, reading comprehension, reading ability and language growth. In addition,
literature-based instruction is much more child-centered, with the teacher as the facilitator or
coach, rather than "the sage on the stage."
Disadvantage: Teacher's Perspective
From the teacher's perspective, teaching using a literature-based approach can be more
difficult than using other approaches. First-time teachers may find it especially challenging,
since literature-based approaches inherently have less structure than many other approaches.
Teachers also may struggle with effectively assessing a child's progress. Because literature-
based instruction is less widely used than other forms of instruction, teachers often spend
hours choosing literature selections, as well as developing activities and evaluations that reflect
the content.
Disadvantage: Scope and Sequence
Finding appropriate literature selections that address the skills that students need to learn can
be challenging, and finding selections that actually build from one year to the next is virtually
impossible. This means that using literature-based instruction may prevent students from
building their skills in a systematic fashion, and they may miss out on some skills entirely.
Especially as students advance to the next grade, they will feel a lack of continuity, which can
prevent them from growing as readers, writers and thinkers.

Literature-Based Instruction Approaches

Literature based instruction (LBI) approaches brings back the need for high-quality texts in
the classroom. In classroom that use an LBI approach students select their own high interest text
to read independently. When using LBI it is critical that teachers offer choice and a variety of
fiction and nonfiction texts. Students often feel more investment and increased enjoyment in their
independent reading books if they are able to personalize book choice to their interests. Another
aspect of the LBI approach is that teachers meet one on one with students to discuss their
independent reading in order to get students thinking deeply about the text. The goal of these
meetings is not to question whether or not students are completing reading assignments but rather
to ask them to think about the text by making predictions, making inferences or to perhaps share
an interesting fact or excerpt of their independent reading book.

LBI approaches can start in kindergarten and be used through the 12th grade. It is appropriate
for students if varying abilities. LBI allows for flexible grouping in which teachings can move
students from group to group or students can work independently according to their own
strengths, interests and needs. In addition LBI has a strong focus on reading comprehension but as
with almost all reading strategies it can encourage predicting and can increase a student's
vocabulary through independent reading and in class activities.

In most cases LBI approaches are used as part of a school wide program. Schools might have
guided reading selections or sets of leveled books that teachers can checkout and use with their
students. Teachers can create flexible groups based on student need. By using frequent and
ongoing formative assessment teachers can increase their students decoding skills and reading
comprehension through effective use of LBI approaches. In other cases teachers might use LBI
approaches in their own classroom and not as part of a school wide initiative. For example, a
middle school teacher might have students select a book based on a topic or theme. Students
might analyze different text structures or character development through stories they have selected
based on their own interests.

LBI is a very effective approach in reading instruction. It accounts for student choice and
allows students to select books that also interest them. In addition students are able to work with a
variety of genres and structures. For one unit students might be working independently whereas in
another unit they might be working in a small group or as a whole class. By using LBI approaches
teachers are constantly changing their instructional practices and the dynamics of their
classrooms. It is important that students can work in a variety of different structures and this
approach creates that type of learning environment. LBI encourages students to read for both
enjoyment and educational purposes. As educators we have a responsibility to foster a love of
 literature in our students and this approach helps to foster that appreciation. In order for LBI
approaches to be completely effective in a classroom the teacher must be constantly assessing
each student and is also requires that teachers are knowledgeable and familiar with all of the texts
their students are reading. LBI really encompasses many of the aspects of teaching that we know
to be best practices for educators.

Mother Tongue- Based Multilingual

Education (MTB-MLE)
Mother Tongue- Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE)
One of the changes in Basic Education Curriculum brought about by the new K-12 program is the introduction of

Mother Tongue- Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) specifically in Kindergarten, Grades 1, 2 and 3 to support

the goal of “ Every Child- A- Reader and A –Writer” by Grade 1.”

MTB-MLE refers to “first-language-first” education that is, schooling which begins in the mother tongue and

transitions to additional languages particularly Filipino and English. It is meant to address the high functional illiteracy

of Filipinos where language plays a significant factor. Since the child’s own language enables her/ him to express

him/herself easily, then, there is no fear of making mistakes. It encourages active participation by children in the

learning process because they understand what is being discussed and what is being asked of them. They can

immediately use their mother tongue to construct and explain their world, articulate their thoughts and add new

concepts to what they already know.

Currently, there are twelve (12) major languages or lingua franca that shall be language of instruction.

The major languages are a) Tagalog b) Kapampangan c) Pangasinense d) Iloko e) Bikol f) Cebuano g)

Hiligaynon h) Waray i) Tausug j) Maguindanaoan k) Maranao; l) Chabacano.

With this challenge posted about MTB- MLE, Capitol University, College of Education plans to institute the MTB-MLE
Teacher Development Program through its Center for Professional and Continuing Education (CPCE) with focus on

teaching reading in the mother tongue and the production of reading materials. Local stories, poems, biographies,

folktales, legends, jokes, riddles as well as the traditional oral literature will be put into writing that will become part of

the leaching-learning repertoire. The plan is to localize the Cebuano/Visayan materials to Cagayan de Oro context

and linguistic use. Next focus will be the production of materials of the Indigenous Peoples found in the region.
This is where the Department of Education (DepEd) gets inspiration in its inclusion of Mother
Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) as a feature of the Enhanced Basic Education
Program. It mandates the use of the language that students are familiar with (their first language) as
medium of instruction to allow them to grasp basic concepts more easily.

Currently, DepEd uses 19 languages in MTB-MLE: Tagalog, Kapampangan, Pangasinan, Iloko, Bikol,
Ybanag, Sinugbuanong Binisaya, Hiligaynon, Waray, Bahasa Sug, Maguindanaoan, Maranao,
Chavacano, Ivatan, Sambal, Akianon, Kinaray-a, Yakan, and Sinurigaonon. The MTB-MLE is
 implemented in two modules: 1) as a learning/subject area and 2) as medium of instruction.

Developmentally appropriate

As a subject, mother tongue education focuses on the development of speaking, reading, and
writing from Grades 1 to 3 in the mother tongue. As a medium of instruction, the mother tongue is
used in all learning areas from Kinder to Grade 3 except in teaching Filipino and English subjects.

Filipino is introduced in the second quarter of Grade 1 for oral fluency (speaking). For reading and
writing purposes, it will be taught beginning in the third quarter of Grade 1. The four other macro
skills which are listening, speaking, reading, and writing in Filipino will continuously be developed
from Grades 2 to 6.

The purpose of a multilingual education program is to develop appropriate cognitive and reasoning
skills, enabling children to operate equally in different languages - starting with the first language of
the child.

“Researchers have proven even during our education with the Thomasites that the child’s first
language really facilitates learning, as emphasized by Dr. Monroe, that we should be educated in our
mother tongue. This gave birth to the Iloilo experiment and the result of that study was very
remarkable,” said Ms. Rosalina Villaneza, Chief of Teaching and Learning Division of DepEd.

Major Findings of the Three Language-Teaching Experiments

The results of first Iloilo Experiment (1948-1954) along with the experiments in Rizal (1960-1966) and
Iloilo (1961-1964) reflected the value of holistic approach to language in combination with other
languages.

In the first Iloilo Experiment, experimental group of Grades 1 and 2 pupils were taught subject matter
using Hiligaynon as the medium of instruction, while the control group received English instruction.
Results showed that pupils in the experimental group were significantly superior in proficiency
(language and reading tests) and subject matter (arithmetic and social studies tests) than their
counterparts in the control group.

In the Rizal Experiment, the teacher training was concentrated in English and Tagalog; the teaching
materials for the Tagalog-based lessons were anchored on the English materials. After completing
Grade 6, the all-English group showed higher levels of proficiency in English, social studies, health
and science, and arithmetic—significantly greater than the achievement of the groups that used the
Tagalog medium.

However, despite under the limitations of training and materials, tests at the end of Grade 4 showed
native-language teaching to possess significant strength. Receiving instruction in English, the all-
English group attained the highest score in language, reading, social studies, health and science, and
arithmetic computation. However, for arithmetic problems, the all-Tagalog group (Tagalog medium
in Grades 1-4) obtained the highest level of achievement. In the Tagalog version of the tests, the
three groups showed about the same proficiency levels in the reading test, but it was the all-Tagalog
group that obtained the highest achievement levels in social studies, health and science, and
arithmetic problems.

The part played by the factors of training and materials were further shown by the Iloilo Experiment
II. The literacy rate of the experimental classes in Hiligaynon that the Bureau of Public Schools
obtained in 1965 was 75.99%, showing a holding strength within the 1961 level of 53.28% for the
country’s vernaculars.

The Iloilo Experiment II showed that the best medium of instruction to introduce Tagalog and English
simultaneously in Grade 1 is Hiligaynon. There is reason to believe that, especially at an early age,
using the mothertongue helps the learning process by introducing concepts to students in the
language they are most used to.

Four Aspects of Development

The MTB-MLE strengthens the development of the appropriate cognitive and reasoning skills
enabling children to operate equally in different languages—starting with the mother tongue.

Language Development. Students will establish a strong educational foundation in the language
they know best; they will build a good “bridge” to the school language(s), and they will be prepared
to use both/all of their languages for success in school and for life-long learning.

Cognitive Development. School activities will engage learners to move well beyond the basic
questions of who, what, when, and where to cover all higher order thinking skills in the learners’
language of thought.

These higher order thinking skills will: (1) transfer to the other languages once enough Filipino or
English has been acquired to use these skills in thinking and articulating thought; and (2) be used in
the process of acquiring English and Filipino more effectively.

Academic Development. Students will achieve the necessary competencies in each subject area
and, at the end of the program, they will be prepared to enter and achieve well in the mainstream
education system.

Socio-Cultural Development. Students will be proud of their heritage language and culture, and
respect the languages and cultures of others; they will be prepared to contribute productively to
their own community and to the larger society.
 Furthermore, students will learn and develop holistically. When learners are first instructed in the
language they know best, they are able to build a good “bridge” toward learning another language.
Multilinguals also enjoy benefits that go beyond linguistic knowledge. They are also able to learn
with more flexibility.

Teachers’ testimonies

At first, Teacher Regina of Pasig Elementary School, who has been teaching Grade 3 Mathematics for
17 years, was apprehensive to use the mother tongue. She was mainly worried about how
mathematical concepts and terminologies could be translated to the mother tongue.

However, this concern was negated by the more active participation of the children when they
started using the mother tongue in her classes. She noticed that the children became more confident
in conceiving and explaining content, and more articulate in expressing their ideas. She saw how
using the mother tongue enables her learners to immediately construct ideas, explain without fear of
making mistakes, and add new concepts to those they already know.

Teacher Nemia, a Grade 3 Science teacher of 12 years, had the same apprehensions. “It was a very
unwelcome idea to use the mother tongue in teaching Science. It seemed difficult. I also thought of
the extra effort I might need to exert in using terms that would match the exact translation of
scientific terms in the mother tongue,” she said.

“However, when we started teaching in the mother tongue, we were surprised by how effective it
was. The pupils were more attentive in class discussion. They are also able to explain their answers
well when responding to questions. Furthermore, it makes them more confident to converse,” added
Teacher Nemia.

ollaborative learning is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something
together.[1] Unlike individual learning, people engaged in collaborative learning capitalize on one
another's resources and skills (asking one another for information, evaluating one another's ideas,
monitoring one another's work, etc.).[2][3] More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the
model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by
sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles.[4] Put differently, collaborative learning refers
to methodologies and environments in which learners engage in a common task where each
individual depends on and is accountable to each other. These include both face-to-face
conversations[5] and computer discussions (online forums, chat rooms, etc.).[6] Methods for examining
collaborative learning processes include conversation analysis and statistical discourse analysis.[7]
Thus, collaborative learning is commonly illustrated when groups of students work together to search
for understanding, meaning, or solutions or to create an artifact or product of their learning. Further,
collaborative learning redefines traditional student-teacher relationship in the classroom which
results in controversy over whether this paradigm is more beneficial than harmful.[8][9] Collaborative
learning activities can include collaborative writing, group projects, joint problem solving, debates,
study teams, and other activities. The approach is closely related to cooperative learning.

Theoretical background[edit]
Collaborative learning is rooted in Lev Vygotsky's concept of learning called zone of proximal
development. Typically there are tasks that learners can and cannot accomplish. Between these two
areas is the zone of proximal development, which is a category of things that a learner can learn but
with the help of guidance. The zone of proximal development gives guidance as to what set of skills
a learner has that are in the process of maturation. In Vygotsky's definition of zone of proximal
development, he highlighted the importance of learning through communication and interactions with
others rather than just through independent work.[10] This has made way for the ideas of group
learning, one of which being collaborative learning.
Collaborative learning is very important in achieving critical thinking. According to Gokhale (1995),
individuals are able to achieve higher levels of learning and retain more information when they work
in a group rather than individually, this applies to both the facilitators of knowledge, the instructors,
and the receivers of knowledge, the students.[11] For example, Indigenous communities of the
Americas illustrate that collaborative learning occurs because individual participation in learning
occurs on a horizontal plane where children and adults are equal.[12]

Differences from cooperative learning[edit]

There has been a split regarding to the differences between collaborative and cooperative learning.
Some believe that collaborative learning is similar, yet distinct from cooperative learning. While both
models use a division of labor, collaborative learning requires the mutual engagement of all
participants and a coordinated effort to solve the problem whereas cooperative learning requires
individuals to take responsibility for a specific section and then coordinate their respective parts
together.[13] Another proposed differentiation is that cooperative learning is typically used for children
because it is used to understand the foundations of knowledge while collaborative learning applies to
college and university students because it is used to teach non-foundations of learning. Another
believed difference is that cooperative learning is a philosophy of interaction where collaborative
learning is a structure of interaction.[14]
However, many psychologists have defined cooperative learning and collaborative learning similarly.
Both are group learning mechanisms for learners to obtain a set of skills or knowledge. Some
notable psychologists that use this definition for both collaborative and cooperative learning are
Johnson & Johnson, Slavin, Cooper and more.

Classroom[edit]
Often, collaborative learning is used as an umbrella term for a variety of approaches
in education that involve joint intellectual effort by students or students and teachers by engaging
individuals in interdependent learning activities.[15] Many have found this to be beneficial in helping
students learn effectively and efficiently than if the students were to learn independently. Some
positive results from collaborative learning activities are students are able to learn more material by
engaging with one another and making sure everyone understands, students retain more information
from thoughtful discussion, and students have a more positive attitude about learning and each other
by working together.[16]
Encouraging collaborative learning may also help improve the learning environment in higher
education as well. Kenneth Bruffee performed a theoretical analysis on the state of higher education
in America. Bruffee aimed to redefine collaborative learning in academia. Simply including more
interdependent activities will help the students become more engaged and thoughtful learners, but
teaching them that obtaining knowledge is a communal activity itself.[17]
When compared to more traditional methods where students non-interactively receive information
from a teacher, cooperative, problem-based learning demonstrated improvement of student
engagement and retention of classroom material.[18] A meta-analysis comparing small-group work to
individual work in K-12 and college classrooms also found that students working in small groups
achieved significantly more than students working individually, and optimal groups for learning
tended to be three- to four-member teams with lower-ability students working best in mixed groups
and medium-ability students doing best in homogeneous groups. For higher-ability students, group
ability levels made no difference.[19] In more than 40 studies of elementary, middle, and high school
English classrooms, discussion-based practices improved comprehension of the text and critical-
thinking skills for students across ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.[20] Even discussions
lasting as briefly as ten minutes with three participants improved perceived understanding of key
story events and characters.[21]

Workplace[edit]
The popularity of collaborative learning in the workplace[22] has increased over the last decade. With
the emergence of many new collaborative tools, as well as the cost benefit of being able to reinforce
learning in workers and in trainees during collaborative training, many work environments are now
looking toward methods that involve collaborating with older employees and giving trainees more of
a hands-on approach. Most companies are transitioning from traditional training programs that
include instructor-led training sessions or online guided tutorials. Collaborative learning is extremely
helpful because it uses past experiences from prior employees to help new trainees get over
different challenges.
There are many facets to collaboration in the workplace. It is critical to helping worker's share
information with each other and creating strategic planning documents that require multiple inputs. It
also allows for forms of vertical integration to find effective ways to synchronize business operations
with vendors without being forced to acquire additional businesses.[23]
Many businesses still work on the traditional instructor and trainee model and as they transition from
one model to another there are many issues that still need to be debugged in the conversation
process:

 Need to understand actual interests and concerns regarding collaborating processes, activities
and tools
 Reigning leaders and managers must better understand the collaborative tools and processes
that can boost productivity
 Become better equipped to design, implement and evaluate collaborative learning environment
Web technologies have been accelerating learner-centered personalized learning environments.
This helps knowledge be constructed and shared, instead of just passed down by authorities and
passively consumed or ignored. Technologies such as discussion threads, email or electronic
bulletin boards by sharing personal knowledge and ideas do not let others refine individual ideas so
we need more collaborative tools. Now these tools on Web 2.0 have been able to enhance
collaborative learning like no other because it allows individuals to work together to generate,
discuss and evaluate evolving ideas. These tools allow for them to find people that are like minded
and collaborate with them effortlessly.
According to a collaborative learning study conducted by Lee & Bonk (2014), there are still many
issues that are still being resolved when dealing with collaborative learning in a workplace. The goal
was to examine corporate personnel, including learning managers and instructors, plus the tools that
they use for collaboration. The researchers conducted an online survey to see what aspects of
collaborative learning should be investigated, followed by an open discussion forum with 30
corporate personnel. The results showed that collaboration is becoming very necessary in
workplaces and tools such as wikis are very commonly used. There is implication for a lot of future
work, in order to have collaborative learning be highly effective in the workplace. Some of the
unsolved problems they identified:
 1. Cultural diversity, and accordingly a lack of awareness of cultural norms
2. Geographical distance and time zone differences
3. Member isolation in virtual teams
4. Generation gaps and age differences in the acceptance of collaboration tools
5. Lack of technology support for learners
6. Lack of learners' awareness about effective collaboration processes and strategies
7. Lack of learners' technological skills and knowledge about collaboration tools [22]
It is crucial to consider the interactive processes among people, but the most critical point is the
construction of new knowledge brought about through joint work.

Technology[edit]
Technology has become an important factor in collaborative learning. Over the past ten years, the
Internet has allowed for a shared space for groups to communicate. Virtual environments have been
critical to allowing people to communicate long-distances but still feel like they are part of the group.
Research has been conducted on how technology has helped increase the potential of collaborative
learning.One study in particular conducted by Elizabeth Stacey looked at how technology affected
the communication of postgraduate students studying a Master of Business Administration (MBA)
using computer-mediated communication (CMC). Many of these students were able to still remotely
learn even when they were not present on their university campus. The results of the study helped
build an online learning environment model but since this research was conducted the Internet has
grown extensively and thus new software is changing these means of communication.[24]
There has been a development of new technology that support collaborative learning in higher
education and the workplace. These tools allow for a strong more power and engaging learning
environment. Chickering identified seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education
developed by Chickering.[25] Two of these principles are especially important in developing
technology for collaboration.

1. "Good practice develops reciprocity and cooperation among students,"

2. Good practice uses active learning techniques.[25]
Some examples of how technology is being increasingly integrated with technology are as follows:
Collaborative networked learning: according to Findley (1987) "Collaborative Networked Learning
(CNL) is that learning which occurs via electronic dialogue between self-directed co-learners and
learners and experts. Learners share a common purpose, depend upon each other and are
accountable to each other for their success. CNL occurs in interactive groups in which participants
actively communicate and negotiate learning with one another within a contextual framework which
may be facilitated by an online coach, mentor or group leader.
Computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) is a relatively new educational paradigm within
collaborative learning which uses technology in a learning environment to help mediate and support
group interactions in a collaborative learning context.[26][27] CSCL systems use technology to control
and monitor interactions, to regulate tasks, rules, and roles, and to mediate the acquisition of new
knowledge.
Collaborative learning using Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an example of how collaborative learning tools
have been extremely beneficial in both the classroom and workplace setting. They are able to
change based on how groups think and are able to form into a coherent idea based on the needs of
the Wikipedia user.
Collaborative learning in virtual worlds by their nature provide an excellent opportunity for
collaborative learning. At first learning in virtual worlds was restricted to classroom meetings and
lectures, similar to their counterparts in real life. Now collaborative learning is evolving as companies
starting to take advantage of unique features offered by virtual world spaces - such as ability to
record and map the flow of ideas,[17] use 3D models and virtual worlds mind mapping tools.

Cultural variations[edit]
There also exists cultural variations in ways of collaborative learning. Research in this area has
mainly focused on children in indigenous Mayan communities of the Americas or in San Pedro,
Guatemala and European American middle-class communities.
Generally, researchers have found that children in indigenous Mayan communities such as San
Pedro typically learn through keenly observing and actively contributing to the mature activities of
their community.[28] This type of learning is characterized by the learner's collaborative participation
through multi-modal communication verbal and non-verbal and observations.[28] They are highly
engaged within their community through focused observation.[29] Mayan parents believe that children
learn best by observing and so an attentive child is seen as one who is trying to learn.[29] It has also
been found that these children are extremely competent and independent in self-maintenance at an
early age and tend to receive little pressure from their parents.[29]
Research has found that even when Indigenous Mayan children are in a classroom setting, the
cultural orientation of indigenous learners shows that observation is a preferred strategy of
learning.[30] Thus children and adults in a classroom setting adopt cultural practice and organize
learning collaboratively.[30] This is in contrast to the European-American classroom model, which
allocates control to teachers/adults allowing them to control classroom activities.[31]
Within the European American middle-class communities, children typically do not learn through
collaborative learning methods. In the classroom, these children generally learn by engaging in
initiation-reply-evaluation sequences.[28] This sequence starts with the teacher initiating an exchange,
usually by asking a question. The student then replies, with the teacher evaluating the student's
answer.[32] This way of learning fits with European-American middle-class cultural goals of autonomy
and independence that are dominant in parenting styles within European-American middle-class
culture.[28]

Examples from Indigenous communities in the Americas[edit]

Although learning happens in a variety of ways in indigenous communities, collaborative learning is
one of the main methods used in indigenous learning styles instead of using European-American
approaches to learning. These methods include learning in a horizontal plane where children and
adults equally contribute to ideas and activities.
For example, Mayan people of San Pedro use collaboration in order to build upon one another's
ideas and activities. Mayan mothers do not act as teachers when completing a task with their
children, but instead collaborate with children through play and other activities.[33] People of this
Mayan community use the shared endeavors method more than European-Americans who tend to
use the transmit-and-test model more often.[34] The shared endeavors model is when people go off of
others ideas[clarification needed] and learn from them, while the transmit-and-test model is what is used in
most American schools when a teacher gives students information and then tests the students on
the information.[34] The shared endeavors model is a form of collaborative learning because everyone
learns from one another and are able to hear and share others' ideas.
In Nocutzepo, Mexico, indigenous heritage families form collective units where it is generally agreed
that children and youth engage in adult cooperative household or community economic practices
such as food preparation, child care, participating in markets, agriculture, animal herding, and
construction to name a few.[35] During planting and harvesting season, entire families are out in the
fields together where children usually pitch into the activity with smaller tasks alongside adults;
however, are always observant when it comes to activities done by adults, such as driving a tractor
or handling an axe.[35] These children learn through imitation, observation, listening, pitching in, and
doing activities in a social and cultural context.[34] When children begin to participate in the daily
family/community activities, they form a sense of belonging, especially when they collaborate with
adults establishing a more mature integration with their family and community.
Indigenous people of the Americas utilize collaborative learning through their emphasis on role
sharing and responsibility sharing within their communities. The Mayan community of San Pedro,
Guatemala utilizes flexible leadership that allows children to have an active role in their
learning.[36] Children and adults work as cohesive groups when tackling new projects.[36] Collaborative
learning is prevalent in Indigenous communities due to the integration of children in the daily lives of
the adults.[37] Age is not a determining factor in whether or not individuals are incorporated into
collaborative efforts and learning that occurs in indigenous communities.
Participation of learner is a key component to collaborative learning as it functions as the method by
which the learning process occurs. Thus collaborative learning occurs when children and adults in
communities switch between "knowledge performers" and "observing helpers".[38] For example, when
parents in an indigenous Mazahua community where assigned the task of organizing children to
build a roof over a market stand in such a way that they would learn to do it themselves, parents and
children both collaborated on a horizontal structure. Switching between knowledge performer and
observing helper, adults and children completed the task peacefully, without assigned roles of
educator/student and illustrated that children still took initiative even when adults were still
performing.[38]
Adults and children in indigenous communities of the Americas participate in a horizontal
organizational structure; therefore when they work together with one another they are reciprocals of
each other.[39] This horizontal structure allows for flexible leadership, which is one of the key aspects
of collaborative learning. The indigenous communities of the Americas are unique in their
collaborative learning because they do not discriminate upon age, instead Indigenous communities
of the Americas encourage active participation and flexible leadership roles, regardless of age.
Children and adults regularly interchange their roles within their community. In addition, Indigenous
communities consider observation to be a part of the collaborative learning process.[38]
Collaborative learning can also be incorporated into university settings. For example, the
Intercultural Maya University of Quintana Roo, Mexico, has a system that incorporates elders, such
as grandparents to act as tutors and as a resource for students to discuss information and
knowledge regarding their own language and culture. The elders give their recommendation at the
end of a semester in the decision of passing or failing a student, based on his/her behavior in the
community and how well he/she is learning Maya. The system is called IKNAL, a mayan word that
implies companionship in the learning and doing process that involves several members of the
community.[40]

Examples from around the world[edit]

Collaborative learning varies across the world. The traditional model for learning is instructor based
but that model is quickly changing on a global standpoint as countries fight to be at the top of the
economy. A country's history, culture, religious beliefs and politics are all aspects of their national
identity and these characteristics influence on citizen's view of collaboration in both a classroom and
workplace setting.[41]
Germany[edit]
The culture in Germany values formality, neatness, and traditional style of education so you will most
likely find individualized approach to teaching where the teacher will lecture a group of students.
They also value a strong work ethic making learning very competitive so they do not usually
collaborate naturally.[citation needed]
Abu Dhabi[edit]
Culture is very much mixed with religion in Abu Dhabi. Many of the rules that are followed are based
on Islam. The rules regarding modesty and strong gender segregation. This does not help
collaboration between genders. An example is having Emirati employees in a room and only women
were allowed to attend. Much more structured than anywhere else.[citation needed]
China[edit]
They place a high value on education and hard work. There is always a competitive drive to
succeed. It is very similar to the United States but it is considered impolite to question a teacher. We
need to break the silence mindset, once the interaction happens it will be incredibly valuable.[citation
needed]

Japan[edit]
While the empirical research in Japan is still relatively sparse, many language educators have taken
advantage of Japan's natural collectivism and experimented with collaborative learning
programs[42][43][44][45] More recently, technological advancements and their high adoption rate among
students in Japan [46] have made computer supported collaborative learning
accessible.[47][48][49] Japanese student's value for friendship and their natural inclination towards
reciprocity seems to support collaborative learning in Japan.[50]

Examples[edit]
 Collaborative learning development Enables developers of learning systems to work as a
network. Specifically relevant to e-learning where developers can share and build knowledge
into courses in a collaborative environment. Knowledge of a single subject can be pulled
together from remote locations using software systems.[citation needed]
 Collaborative learning in thesis circles in higher education is another example of people learning
together. In a thesis circle, a number of students work together with at least one professor or
lecturer, to collaboratively coach and supervise individual work on final (e.g. undergraduate or
MSc) projects. Students switch frequently between their role as co-supervisor of other students
and their own thesis work (incl. receiving feedback from other students).[citation needed]
 Collaborative learning in a composition classroom can unite students when assigned open-
tasks. Kenneth Bruffee introduced the learning method, Classroom Consensus Group, in which
the instructor allocates groups of three to five (three being ideal) students and assigns a problem
to be solved or question to be answered. There are two directions the nonfoundational task can
be presented: as an indistinct, no right answer that generates discussion or propose an answer
and request questions and a process of how the answer came to be. Once the task is assigned,
the instructor backs off in order to resist the urge to intervene in students' conversation. The goal
is to remove focus of the instructor's authority. The instructor must keep time to ensure the
students are centered on analogizing, generalizing, and bridging their comprehension with
others. Following group discussion, the instructor is to evaluate, not judge, the students' work.
Ideas should be presented to the entire class thus allowing the small groups to come together as
a whole. It is then that the answers can be compared, gaps can be filled, and authority is not on
one individual.[51]
 Collaborative scripts structure collaborative learning by creating roles and mediating interactions
while allowing for flexibility in dialogue and activities.[52][53] Collaborative scripts are used in nearly
all cases of collaborative learning some of which are more suited for face-to-face collaborative
learning—usually, more flexible—and others for computer-supported collaborative learning—
typically, more constraining.[52][53] Additionally, there are two broad types of scripts: macro-scripts
and micro-scripts. Macro-scripts aim at creating situations within which desired interactions will
occur. Micro-scripts emphasize activities of individual learners.[52]
Collaborative learning is also employed in the business and government sectors. For example,
within the federal government of the United States, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) is employing a collaborative project management approach that focuses
on collaborating, learning and adapting (CLA). CLA involves three concepts:[54]

 collaborating intentionally with stakeholders to share knowledge and reduce duplication of effort,
 learning systematically by drawing on evidence from a variety of sources and taking time to
reflect on implementation, and
 adapting strategically based on applied learning.
 What does collaborate mean? Like so many of our English words, it comes from
two Latin words – col (meaning ‘together’) and laborare (meaning ‘to work’). The
concept of working together is an interesting one. Working together is not always
true collaboration. Working alongside one another, round a table in a classroom,
or at a single desk facing the teacher in rows, doesn’t instantly suggest
collaboration.
 More than ever, we are seeing the education environments we work with strive to
create situations for learning which mirror the world of work and prepare students
for life after school or university. A recent customer visit to The University of
Leeds’ Laidlaw Library was a great example – a 1500 student capacity learning
environment which had more in common in terms of layout and purpose with a
large corporate office than a traditional library. The collaborative ethos was at its
heart – opportunity after opportunity, enabled by technology, for students to work
together.
 In primary and secondary education, the concept of the collaborative classroom
was, until recently, a theory – an emerging trend being tested by the innovative
few. However, this article is being written at an unprecedented moment in time.
Education secretary Nicky Morgan has just announced plans to Academise all
schools. The business and academic benefits of collaboration between schools
and across groups of academies is at the centre of this government mandate.
Collaboration is now unavoidable, and this comes with all the questions,
concerns and hopes that naturally occur, from parents, teachers and pupils alike.
 Under the new education strategy, whole schools, not just classrooms, will
become collaborative environments. Best practice, technology services,
curricular resources and pedagogical data will be shared, as is the financial
responsibility for their delivery and upkeep.
 Technology supporting collaboration across the whole school system
 The way children learn, who from, and what digital resources they use to learn
with, is going to change. The hope is that good resources (such as a really
successful teaching resource) will be shared between classrooms, or schools in
the same multi-academy trust (MAT). The manner in which they are shared will
change – cloud storage, accessible by all those connected with the school via a
secure system, will hold that teaching resource and make it downloadable.
Specific broadband networks, designed for each MAT, according to their needs,
will deliver the potential for location-independent learning, freeing pupils from the
classroom, giving them wifi access that is flexible and controlled. Multiple
devices, whether it be through a one-on-one scheme, BYOD, or any other, mean
that pupils and teachers can collaborate digitally as well as physically. The
 possibilities, underpinned by technology, are endless, and make collaboration in
the classroom appear a natural and positive development.
 Collaboration across MATs also has the potential to improve pupil safety and the
continuity of their education and community care. Records can, and will be
shared between primary and secondary schools, so that children can be
educated and supported in more appropriate ways. The safety of their records,
their digital footprints in school will be improved as a greater focus is put on
digital safeguarding and data security.
 Developing and sharing is key, and already happening
 Of course, schools who are currently not academies are already using
technology to the same collaborative effect. And who’s to say that, without this
government strategic development, pockets of collaboration between
classrooms, schools and even local authorities wouldn’t have become
commonplace and produced some notable results in terms of improved curricular
delivery, standardised testing results, and budgetary savings. Tibshelf School in
Derbyshire, one of our customers using technology services to great effect to
improve collaboration, has the ‘developing and sharing’ of quality teaching and
marking strategies as one of the objectives in its current school improvement
plan.
 Anecdotally, we asked for teacher feedback in preparation for what the
collaborative classroom meant to them at the moment, and understanding was at
quite a low level. Teachers share resources between them by email, download
content from popular education portals and flag them to their colleagues, and
discuss their successes in the classroom at staff or departmental meetings. But,
in our experience at Stone, the collaborative classroom is happening, and the
typical learning environment is changing at a good pace. I just don’t believe that
it’s been labeled as such by the schools where it’s taking place. Sharing,
improved communication, group working, but maybe not collaboration.
 Does collaboration have its roots in education, after all?
 So, how do we learn collaboration as children and young adults? Do we learn to
work together at school, or do we learn to work alongside each other? Can the
collaborative classroom concept help better prepare us for the world of work in
this regard? Using technology as a platform over which to collaborate is an
intrinsic life skill, from social apps like Snapchat to project management software
such as Basecamp, it’s how we collaborate now. Putting such apps, tools and
opportunities in the classroom would prepare students for the world of
employment without the need to even learn their use or attain a standard – it’s
natural collaboration, almost.
 Responding to the comments on Mumsnet after education secretary Nicky
Morgan’s guest article which set out the new Academies plan, a Department for
Education spokesperson said, “We are determined to make sure every child has
access to the best opportunities and to help them grow into well-rounded adults”.
 I’d argue that well rounded students have been exposed to more than one
learning environment, making the idea of location independent learning,
facilitated by collaborative technology, so important. I’d also argue that well-
rounded students have experienced working together (collaboration in the true
 dictionary definition sense) to achieve an aim, but have also been given the
space and support to work alone, but side by side with fellow students.
Technology that allows educators to work with their students in this way is
enabling true collaboration.
