TEACHING ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE

Approach, Method and Technique in Language Teaching

Arranged by

Afif Adani (2223160098)

Siti Septia Awalya (2223160113)
Nanda Restu (2223160051)
Fadilah Oktafiansah (2223160115)
Ahmad Solihin (2223160012)
Firda Pratiwi (2223160052)
Maria Ulfah (22231600117)
Rika Nurhikmah (2223160033)

Dr. Syafrizal, M.Pd

SULTAN AGENG TIRTAYASA UNIVERSITY

SERANG – BANTEN

2019
 PREFACE

First of all, thanks to Allah SWT because of the help of Allah, writer finished writing
the paper entitled “Approach, Method and Technique in Language Teaching” right in the
calculated time.

The purpose in writing this paper is to fulfill the assignment that given by Mr. Dr.
Syafrizal, M.Pd as lecturer in English Learning Strategy. In arranging this paper, the writer
trully get lots challenges and obstructions but with help of many indiviuals, those
obstructions could passed. writer also realized there are still many mistakes in process of
writing this paper.
Because of that, the writer says thank you to all individuals who helps in the process
of writing this paper. hopefully allah replies all helps and bless you all.the writer realized tha
this paper still imperfect in arrangment and the content. then the writer hope the criticism
from the readers can help the writer in perfecting the next paper.last but not the least
Hopefully, this paper can helps the readers to gain more knowledge about Teaching English
as Foreign Language.

Serang, February 26th, 2019

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENT
PREFACE...............................................................................................................................1
TABLE OF CONTENT..........................................................................................................2
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................3
1.2 Problems Formulation.................................................................................................4
CHAPTER II
THEORIES
2.1 A Brief History of Language Teaching…………………………………………….5

2.2 Approaches in Language Teaching………………………………………………..10

2.3 The Background of a Methodical History of Language Teaching………………...11

CHAPTER III

DISCUSSION

3.1 Approaches in Language Teaching……………………………………………….12

3.2 Many Methods in a Methodical History of Language Teaching…………………15
3.3 The products in communicative approach to language teaching…………………26
3.4 Beyond Method: National - Functional Syllabuses………………………………31

CHAPTER IV

CLOSING

Conclusion...................................................................................................................33
Reference.....................................................................................................................34

2|Page
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Language teaching has existed over the years and over the centuries, it has
changed. The reasons for learning language are different based on its periods. In some
eras, languages were primarily to people for communication. In others, it was taught
primarily for the purpose of reading. These distinctions effected how language was
taught in various eras. How language teaching brings the trends in the present day? It
has a methodical history of language teaching. A methodical is performed with
method or order. In language teaching it is a way to deliver the material. A methodical
history of language teaching is very needed to understand by teacher, because it is the
basic knowledge that the teacher must know. But in fact, some teachers do not know
about a methodical history of language teaching. So it should be better if all of the
teacher in the world know about a methodical history of language teaching. To teach
foreign language, the teacher must be used the methods in order to learning activity
can run so well.

In a methodical history of language teaching there are approach, method, and

technique. It is important as the pioneer the existing of language teaching. It still use
until the present day. A methodical of language teaching gives changes in field of
language teaching. There are many methods were founded. Language teaching in that
time became popular because many experts contribute in that process.

3|Page
1.2 Problem Formulation

a. What are the various approaches in language teaching? Explain!

b. How many methods and technique in a methodical history of language teaching?
Explain!

1.3 Purpose

a. To know many various approaches of language teaching.

b. To know many methods in a methodical history of language teaching.

CHAPTER II

4|Page
 THEORIES

2.1 A brief history of language teaching

It has been estimated that some sixty percent of today’s world population is
multilingual. Both from a contemporary and a historical perspective, bilingualism or
multingualism is the norm rather than the exception. It is fair, then, to say that
throughout history foreign language learning has always been an important practical
concern. Whereas today English is the world’s most widely studied foreign language,
five hundred years ago it was Latin, for it was the dominant language of education,
commerce, religion, and government in the Western world. In the sixteenth century,
however, French, Italian, and English gained in importance as a result of political
changes in Europe, and Latin gradually became this placed as language of spoken and
written communication.

As the status of Latin diminished from that of a living language to that of an

“occasional” subject in the school curriculum, the study of Latin took on a different
function. The study of classical Latin (the Latin in which the classical work of Virgil,
Ovid, and Cicero were written) and an analysis of its grammar and rhetoric became
the model for foreign language study from the seventeenth and to the nineteenth
centuries. Children entering “grammar school” in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth centuries in England were initially given a rigorous introduction in Latin
grammar, which was taught through rote learning of grammar rules, study of
declensions and conjugations, translation, and practice in writing sample sentences,
sometimes with the use of parallel bilingual texts and dialogue (Kelly 1969; Howatt
1983).

As “modern” language began to enter the curriculum of European schools in

the eighteenth century, they were taught using the same basic procedures that were
used for teaching Latin. Textbook consisted of statements of abstract grammar rules,
lists of vocabulary, and sentences for translation. Speaking the foreign language was
not the goal, and oral practice was limited to students reading aloud the sentences

5|Page
they had translated. These sentences were constructed to illustrated the grammatical
system of the language and consequently bore no relation to the language of real
communication. Students labored over translating sentences like the following:

The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen.

My sons have bought the mirrors of the Duke.

The cat of my aunt is more treacherous than the dog of your uncle.

(Titone 1968: 28)

By the nineteenth century, this approach based on the study of Latin had
become the standard was of studying foreign languages in school. A typical textbook
in the mid-nineteenth century thus considered of chapter or lessons organized around
grammar points. Each grammar point was listed, and the rules on its issue were
explained, and it was illustrated by sample sentences. Nineteenth century textbook
compilers were mainly determined to codify the foreign language into frozen riles of
morphology and syntax to be explained and eventually memorized. Oral works was
reduced to an absolute minimum, while a handful of written exercise, constructed at
random, came as a sort of appendix to the rules. This approach to foreign language
teaching became known as the Grammar-Translation-Method.

The grammar-translation method, as the names of some of its leading

exponent suggest (Johann Seiden-Stucker, Karl Plotz, H.S. Ollendorf, and Johann
Meidinger) grammar translation was the offspring of German scholarship, the object
of which, according to one of its less charitable critics, was “to know everything about
something rather than the thing its self”. The principles characteristics of the
Grammar-Translation Method were these:

6|Page
 1. The goal of foreign language study is to learn a language in order to read its
literature or in order to benefit from the mental discipline and intellectual
development that result from foreign language study.
2. Reading and writing are the major focus; little or no systematic attention is paid to
speaking or listening.
3. Vocabulary selection is based solely on the reading texts used, and words are
taught through bilingual word lists, dictionary study, and memorization.
4. The sentence is the basic unit of teaching and language practice.
5. Accuracy is emphasized. Students are expected to attend high standards in
translation, because of “the high priority attached to meticulous standards of
accuracy which, as well as having an intrinsic moral value, was a pre-requisite for
passing the increasing number of formal written examination that grew up during
the century” (Howatt 1984:132)
6. Grammar is taught deductively-that is, by presentation and study of grammar rules,
which are then practiced through translation exercises.
7. The student’s native language is the medium instruction. It is used to explain new
items and to enable comparison to be made between the foreign language and the
student’s native language.
Grammar Translation dominated European and foreign language teaching from the
1840s to the 1940s, and in modified from it continues to be widely used in some parts
of the world today. In the mid-and late nineteenth century opposition to the grammar-
translation method gradually developed in several European countries. This reform
movement, as it was referred to, laid the foundation for the development of new ways
of teaching languages and raised controversies that have continued to the present day.

Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no parts
of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach. An
approach is axiomatic. A method is procedural (Richards & Rodgers, 1986)

Richards & Rodgers give the statement that in making plan for arranging
delivery of language material there is no oppose and it based on choosing approach.

7|Page
Approach is axiomatic that it contains self-evident that is true and unquestionable. A
method can called procedural. It consists ways to do activity learning, for example
one method of solving a problem. So in delivering the material of language, choosing
method is the foundation and after that can support with the method. It aims the
delivery of language material can run well.

(Brown, 2000) Gave us the definition about method, it has five concepts, namely
methodology, approach, method, curriculum/syllabus, and technique.

Richards and Rogers arranged a reformulation of the concept of “method”. Anthony’s

approach, method, and technique were named, commonly, approach, design, and
procedure. (Richards & Rodgers, 1986)

Edward Anthony (1963) gave us the definition that has admirably withstood the test
of time. His concept of “method” was the second of three hierarchical elements,
namely approach, method, and technique. (Brown, 2000)

Methodology: pedagogical practice in general (including theoretical underpinnings

and related research). Whatever considerations are involved in “how to teach” are
methodological.

Approach: theoretically well-informed positions and beliefs about the nature of

language, the nature of language learning, and the applicability of both to pedagogical
settings.

Method: A generalized set of classroom specifications for accomplishing linguistics

objectives. Method tends to be concerned primarily with teacher and students roles
and behaviors and secondarily with such features as linguistics and subject-matter
objectives, sequencing, and materials. They are almost always taught of as being
broadly applicable to a variety of audiences in a variety of contexts.

Curriculum/syllabus: designs for carrying out a particular language program.

Features include a primary concern with the specification of linguistics and subject-

8|Page
matter objectives, sequencing, and materials to meet the needs of a designed of group
learners in a defined context.(the term “syllabus” is usually used more customarily in
the United Kingdom to refer to what is called a “curriculum” in the United States.

Technique (also commonly referred to by other terms): any of a wide variety of

exercises, activities, or tasks used in the language classroom for realizing lesson
objectives.

Linguist too became interested in the controversies that emerged about the best way
to teach foreign language, and ideas were fiercely discussed and defended in books,
articles, and pamphlets. Henry Sweet (1845-1912) argued that sound methodological
principles should be based on a scientific analysis of language and a study of
psychology. (Richards & Rodgers, 1986)

In his book The Practical Study of Languages (1899) he set forth principles for the
development of teaching method. These included

1. Careful selection of what is to be taught;

2. Imposing limits on what is to be taught;
3. Arranging is what is to be taught in terms of the four skills of listening, speaking,
reading, and writing.
4. Grading materials from simple to complex.

From the fourth principles above, each principles has own their
meaning. The first, tell about the teachers must careful in choosing the material
that will they taught. The second, the teacher must establish the material so there
is no limits to get the knowledge or give the knowledge to the students. The third,
in the material of language, it contains four aspects who taught in the classroom.
They are listening, speaking, writing, and reading. So the teacher must teach the
material that includes all of the aspects above. The last, the teacher must know
about the material’s level. Each material has own of difficulty level. It means the
teacher teach from the simply material to the complex material.

9|Page
 Different theories of language and language learning influence the focus of
the method; that is, they determine what a method sets out to achieve. The
specification of particular learning objectives, however, is a product of design, not of
approach. Some methods focus primarily on oral skills and say that reading and
writing skills are secondary and derive from transfer of oral skills. Some methods set
out to teach general communication skills and give greater priority to the ability to
express oneself meaningfully and to make oneself understood than to grammatical
accuracy of perfect pronunciation. (Richards & Rodgers, 1986).

Getting method’s focus based on different theories of language and language

learning. There is a product of design that gets from the specification of particularly
learning objectives. Primarily, oral skills became focus in some methods and the other
skills, like reading and writing are secondary and derive from the transfer of oral
skills. To express oneself meaningfully and to make oneself understood than to
grammatical accuracy of perfect communication was got from some methods set out
to teach general communication skills and give greater priority for the ability.

2.2 Approaches in Language Teaching

Everyone at some time has witnessed the remarkable ability of children to

communicate. “Behavioristic approaches is a theory based on conditioning and
reinforcement is hard pressed to explain the fact that every sentence you” (Noam,
2017, p.50). Child may acquire frames of linear pattern of sentence elements and learn
the stimulus response equivalence that can be substituted within each frame, e.g.

Lennerberg (1967) stated, “Nativist approach is ”species specific” behavior

an that certain modes of perception, categorizing abilities and other language related
mechanism are biologically determined” (p. 76). The generative framework as a
departure from structural methodology. Generative model is considered as giant step
in the process of LA. The early grammars of child language were refered to as pivot
grammars.

10 | P a g e
 Piaget (1969), described overall development as the result of children
interaction with their environtment. Children learn about language acconding they
already know about the world.

2.3 The Background of a Methodical History of Language Teaching

In the century spanning the mid-1880s to the mid-1980s, the language teaching
profession was involved in a search. That search was for what was popularly called
“methods” or ideally, a single method, generalizable across widely varying audiences
that would successfully teach students a foreign language in the classroom. Historical
accounts of the profession tend therefore to describe a succession of methods, each
of which more or less discarded as a new method takes its place.

CHAPTER III

DISCUSSION

3.1 Approaches in Language Teaching

1. Behavioristic Approach

Three positions in first language acquisition, behavioristic approach, nativist

approach, functional approach. According to Brown (2001) behavioristic approach

11 | P a g e
have some characteristic like children come into this world with a tabula rasa (a clean
slate bearing no preconceived notions about the world or about language) and that
these children are then shaped by the environment and slowly conditioned through
various schedules of reinforcement. Language is a fundamental part of total human
behavior. This approach focused on the immediately perceptible aspects of linguistic
behavior-the publicly observable responses-and the relationships or associations
between those responses and events in the world surrounding them. A behaviorist
might consider effective language behavior to be the production of correct responses
to stimuli. If a particular response is reinforced, it then becomes habitual, or
conditioned. This is true of their comprehension as well as production responses. The
behaviorist view imitation and practice as primary processes in language
development. Imitation: word for word repetition of all or part of someone elses
utterance .e.g. Mother: would you like some bread and peanut butter? Katie: Some
bread and peanut butter. Practice: repetitive manipulation of form. e.g. Michel I can
handle it. Hannah can handle it. We can handle it. Children imitation is selective and
based on what they are currently learning.

2. Nativist Approach

The term nativist is derived from the fundamental assertion that language
acquisition is innately determined, that we are born with a genetic capacity that
predisposes us to a systematic perception of the language around us, resulting in the
construction of an internalized system of language. Noam Chomsky (2017) claims
that children are biologically programmed for language and that language develops
in the child in just the same way that other biological functions develop. Children are
born with a special ability to discover for themselves the underlying rules of a
language system. The environment makes a basic contribution in this case - the
availability of people who speak to the child. The child, or rather, the children
biological endowment, will do the rest.

12 | P a g e
 The language acquisition device (LAD): LAD is the imaginary “black box”
which exists somewhere in the brain. It is thought to contain all and only the principles
which are universal to all human languages. For the LAD to work, the child needs
access only to samples of a natural language. These language samples serve as a
trigger to activate the device. Once it is activated, the child is able to discover the
structure of the language to be learned by matching the innate knowledge of basic
grammatical relationships to the structures of the particular language in the
environment. More recently, Chomsky and his followers no longer use the term LAD,
but refers to the children innate endowment as Universal Grammar (UG).

The three most important contributions of the nativist framework to our

understanding of the first language acquisition: freedom from the restrictions of the
so-called “scientific method” to explore the unseen, unobservable, underlying,
abstract linguistic structures being developed in the child; systematic description of
the children linguistic repertoire as either rule governed or operating out of parallel
distributed processing capacities; the construction of a number of potential properties
of Universal Grammar.

3. Functional Approach

More recently, with an increase in constructivist approaches to the study of

language, there has been a shift in patterns of research. The shift has not been so much
away from the generative/cognitive side of the continuum, but perhaps better
described as a move even more deeply into the essence of language.

Two emphases have emerged:

a. Researchers began to see that language was one manifestation of the

cognitive and affective ability to deal with the world, with others, and with the self.

b. Moreover, the generative rules that were proposed under the nativistic
framework were abstract, formal, explicit, and quite logical, yet they dealt specifically

13 | P a g e
with the forms of language and not with the deeper functional levels of meaning
constructed from social interaction.

* Forms: Morphemes, words, sentences, and the rules that govern them.
Functions: The meaningful, interactive purposes, within a social (pragmatic) context,
that we accomplish with the forms.

Cognition and Language Development

On the functional level, development is paced by the growth of conceptual

and communicative capacities, operating in conjunction with innate schemas of
cognition. On the formal level, development is paced by the growth of perceptual and
information-processing capacities, operating in conjunction with innate schemas of
grammar. (In simple terms: what children know will determine what they learn about
the code for both speaking and understanding messages). Child language researchers
began to tackle the formulation of the rules of the functions of language and the
relationships of the forms of language to those functions. In recent years it has
become quite clear that language functioning extends well beyond cognitive thought
and memory structure.

Social Interaction & Language Development

The second social constructivist emphasis of the functional perspective was

on social interaction & language development. Some research (Berko, 1988; Lock,
1991) looked at the interaction between the child's language acquisition and the
learning of how social systems operate in human behavior. Other investigations of
child language centered on the function of language in discourse. Since language is
used for interactive communication, it is only fitting that one study the
communicative functions of language: What do children know and learn about talking
with others? about connected pieces of discourse (relations between sentences)? the
interaction between hearer and speaker? conversational cues? Within such a
perspective, the very heart of language-its communicative and pragmatic function-is

14 | P a g e
 being tackled in all its variability. This kind of research renewed interest in the
performance level of language. Overt responses, such as hesitations, pauses,
backtracking and other conversational cues, that were carefully observed by
structuralists and hastily weeded out as “performance variables” by generative
linguists, have now returned to the forefront.

3.2 Many Methods in a Methodical History of Language Teaching

A generalized set of classroom specification for accomplishing linguistic
objectives, method tends to be concerned primarily with teacher and student roles and
behaviors and secondarily with such features as linguistic and subject-matter
objectives, sequencing, and materials. They are almost always thought of as being
broadly applicable to a variety of audiences in a variety of contexts. There are have
six methods from the book by Brown HD, include:

1. The Grammar Translation Method

A historical sketch of the last hundred years of language-teaching must be set

in the context of a prevailing, customary language-teaching “tradition.” For centuries,
there were few if any theoretical foundations of language learning upon which to base
teaching methodology. In the western world, “foreign” language learning in school
was synonymous with the learning of Latin or Greek. Latin, thought to promote
intellectuality through “mental gymnastics,” was until relatively recently held to be
indispensable to an adequate higher education. Latin was taught by means of what
has been called the Classical Method: focus on grammatical rules, memorization of
vocabulary and of various declensions and conjugations, translations of texts, doing
written exercises.

As other languages began to be taught in educational institution in the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Classical Method was adopted as the chief
means for teaching foreign languages. Little thought was given at the time to teaching
someone how to speak the language; after all, languages were not being taught

15 | P a g e
primarily to learn oral/aural communication, but to learn for the sake of being
“scholarly or, in some instances, for gaining a reading proficiency in a foreign
language. Since there was little if any theoretical research on second language
acquisition in general or on the acquisition of reading proficiency, foreign language
were taught as any other skill was taught.

In the nineteenth century the classical method came to be known as the

Grammar Translation Method. There was little to distinguish Grammar Translation
from what had gone on in foreign language classroom for centuries beyond a focus
on grammatical rules as the basic for translating from the second to the native
language. Remarkably, the Grammar Translation Method withstood attempts at the
turn of the twentieth century to “reform” language-teaching methodology (see
Gouin’s Series Method and the Direct Method, below), and to this day it is practiced
in too many educational contexts. Prator and Celce-Murcia (1979:3) listed the major
characteristics of Grammar Translation:

1. Classes are taught in the mother tongue, with little active use of the target language

2. Much vocabulary is taught in the form of lists of isolated words.

3. Long, elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar are given.

4. Grammar provides the rules for putting words together, and instruction often
focuses on the form and inflection of words.

5. Reading of difficult classical texts is begun early.

6. Little attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in
grammatical analysis.

7. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the
target language into the mother tongue.

8. Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.

16 | P a g e
 It is ironic that this method has until very recently been so stalwart among
many competing models. It does virtually nothing to enhance a student’s
communicative ability in the language. It is ‘remembered with distaste by thousands
of school learner, for whom foreign language learning meant a tedious experience of
memorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and attempting
to produce perfect translations of stilted or literary prose.”(Richards & Rodgers
1986:4).

On the other hand, one can understand why Grammar Translation remains so
popular. It requires few specialized skills on the part of teachers. Tests of grammar
rules and of translations are easy to construct and can be objectively scored. Many
standardized tests of foreign language still do not attempt to tap into communicative
abilities, so students have little motivation to go beyond grammar analogies,
translation, and rote exercises. And it is sometimes successful in leading a student
toward a reading knowledge of a second language. But, as Richards and Rodgers
(1986:5) pointed out, 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.” As you continue
to examine language-teaching methodology in this book, I think you will understand
more fully the “theory-lessness” of the Grammar Translation Method.

2. Gouin and The Series Method

The history of “modern” foreign language teaching may be said to have begun
in the late 1800s with Francois Gouin, a French teacher of Latin with remarkable
insights. History doesn’t normally credit Gouin as a founder of Language-teaching
methodology because, at the time, his influence was overshadowed by that of Charles
Berlitz, the popular German founder of the Direct Method. Nevertheless, some
attention to Gouin’s unusually perceptive observations about language teaching helps
us to set the stage for the development of language-teaching methods for the century

17 | P a g e
following the publication of his book, The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign
Languages in 1880.

Gouin had to go through a very painful set of experiences in order derive his
insights. Having decided in mid-life to learn German, he took up residency in
Hamburg for one year. But rather than attempting to converse with the natives, in
engage in a rather bizarre sequence of attempts to “master” the language. Upon arrival
in Hamburg, he felt he should memorize a German grammar book and a table of the
248 irregular German verb. He did this in a matter of only ten days, and hurried to
the academy (the university) to test his new knowledge. “But alas!” he wrote, “I could
not understand a single word, not a single word!” (Gouin 1880:11)-Gouin was
undaunted. He returned to the isolation of his room, this time to memorize the German
roots and to memorize the grammar book and irregular verbs. Again he emerged with
expectations of success. “But alas …” the result was the same as before. In the course
of the year in Germany, Gouin in memorized books, translated Goethe and Schiller,
and even memorized 30.000 words in a German dictionary, all in the isolation of his
room, only to be crushed by his failure to understand German afterward. Only once
did he try to ‘make conversation” as a method, but this caused people to laught at
him, and he was too embrassed to continue that method. At the end of the year Gouin,
having reduced the Classical Method to absurdity, was forced to return home, a
failure.

But there was a happy ending. After returning home, Gouin discovered that
his three-year-old nephew had, during that year, gone through the wonderful stage of
child language acquisition in which we went from saying virtually nothing at all to
becoming a veritable chatterbox of French. How was it that this little child succeeded
so easily, in a first language, in a task that Gouin, in a second language, had found
impossible? The child must hold the secret to learning a language! So Gouin spent a
great deal of time observing his nephew and other children and came to the following-
conclusions: language learning is primarily a matter of transforming perception into
conception. Children use language to represent their conceptions. Language is a

18 | P a g e
mean as thinking, of representing the world on oneself (see PLLT, Chapter 2). This
insights, remember, were formed by a language teacher more than a century ago!

So Gouin set about devising a teaching method that would follow from these
insights. And thus the series Method was created, a method that taught learners
directly (without translation) and conceptually (without grammatical rules and
explanations) a “series” of connected sentences that are easy to perceive. That first
lesson of a foreign language would thus teach the following series of fifteen
sentences:

I walk towards the door. I draw near to the door. I draw nearer to the door. I get to the
door. I stop at the door.

I stretch out my arm. A take hold of the handle. I turn the handle. I open the door. I
pull the door.

The door moves. The door turns on its hinges. The door turns and turns. I open the
door wide. I let go of the handle.

The fifteen have an unconventionally large number of grammatical properties,

vocabulary items, words, and complexity. This is no simple Voici la tabe lesson! Yet
Gouin was successful with such lesson because the language was so easily
understood, stored, and related to reality. Yet he was a man unfortunately ahead of
his time, and his insights were largely lost in the shuffle of Berlitz’s popular Direct
Method. But as we look back now over more than a century of language-teaching
history, we can appreciate the insights of this most unusual language teacher.

3. The Direct Method

The“naturalistic”-simulating the “natural” way in which children learn first

language-approaches of Gouin and a few of his contemporaries did not take hold
immediately. A generation later, applied linguistics finally established the credibility

19 | P a g e
of such approaches. Thus it was that at the turn of the century, the Direct Method
became quite widely known and practiced.

The basic premise of the Direct Method was similar to that of Gouin’s Series
Method, namely, that second language learning should be more like first language
learning-lots of oral interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation
between first and second language, and little or no analysis of grammatical rules.
Richards and Rodgers (1986:9-10) summarized to the principles of the Direct
Method:

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 traded 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 taught through modeling and practice.

6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, object, 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.

The Direct Method enjoyed considerable popularity at the beginning of the

twentieth century. It was most widely accepted in private language schools where
students were highly motivated and where native-speaking teachers could be
employed. One of the best known of it’s popularize was Charles Berlitz (who never
used the term Direct Method and chose instead to call his method the Berlitz Method).

20 | P a g e
To this day “Berlitz” is a household word; Berlitz language schools are thriving in
every country of the world.

But almost any “method” cans success when clients are willing to pay high
prices for small classes, individual attention, and intensive study. The direct Method
did not take well in public education, where the constraints of budget, classroom size,
time, and teacher background mad such a method difficult to use. Moreover, the
Direct Method was criticized for eats weak theoretical foundations. It is success may
have been more a factor of the skill and personality of the teacher than of the
methodology itself.

By the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century, the use of the Direct
Method had declined both in Europe and in US. Most language curricula returned to
the Grammar Translation Method or to a “reading approach” that emphasized reading
skills in foreign languages. But it is interesting that by the middle of the twentieth
century, the Direct Method was revived and redirected into what was probably the
most visible of all language teaching “revolutions” in the modern era, the Audio-
lingual Method (see below), so even this somewhat short-lived movement in language
teaching would reappear in the changing winds and shifting sands of history.

4. The Audio-lingual Method

In the first half of twentieth century, the Direct Method did not take hold in
the US the way it did in Europe. While one could easily find native-speaking teachers
of modern foreign languages in Europe, such was not the case in the US. Also
European High School and university students did not have to travel far to find
opportunities to put the oral skills of another language to actual, practical use.
Moreover, US educational institutions had become firmly convinced that a reading
approach to foreign languages was more useful than an oral approach, given the
perceived linguistic isolation of the US at the time. The highly influential Coleman
Report (Coleman 1929) had persuaded foreign language teacher that it was
impractical to teach oral skills and that reading should become the focus. Thus

21 | P a g e
schools returned in the 1930s and 1940s to Grammar Translation, “the handmaiden
of reading’ (Bowen, Madseu, & Hilferty 1985).

Bowen, Madseu, & Hilferty has cite from Coleman 1929 that was convinced
that teaching oral skill as the focus on the learning was unrealistic ,Because in fact
the students would not able to travel far to meet foreign and practice their oral skill
of another language . the teacher should be more focus on the reading approach of
another language because they will learn to translate I grammatically, that will be
more useful to know te meaning of another language by reading.

Then World War II broke out, and suddenly the US was thrust into a
worldwide conflict, heightening the need for Americans to become orally proficient
in the languages of both their allies and their enemies. The time was ripe for a
language-teaching revolution. The US military provided the impetus with funding for
special, intensive language courses that focused on aural/oral skills; these courses
came to be known as the Army Specialized Training Program (ASTP) or, more
colloquially, the “army Method.” Characteristic of these courses was a great deal or
oral activity-pronunciation and pattern drills and conversation practice-with virtually
none of grammar and translation found in traditional classes. It is ironic that numerous
foundation stone of the discarded Direct Method were borrowed and injected into this
new approach. Soon, the success of the Army Method and the revived national
interest in foreign languages spurred educational institutions to adopt the new
methodology. In all its variations and adaptations, the Army Method came to be
known in the 1950s as the Audio-lingual Method.

The Audio-lingual Method (ALM) was firmly grounded in linguistic and

psychological theory. Structural linguists of the 1940s and 1950s were engages in
what they claimed was a “scientific descriptive analysis” of various languages;
teaching methodologists saw a direct application of such analysis to teaching
linguistic pattern (Fries 1945). At the same time, behavioristic psychologists (PLLT,
Chapter 4) advocated conditioning and habit-formation models of learning that were

22 | P a g e
perfectly married with the mimicry drills and pattern practice of audio-lingual
methodology.

The characteristics of the ALM may be summed up in the following list (adapted from
Prator & Celce-Murcia 1979):

1. New material is presented in dialogue form.

2. There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and over-learning.

3. Structures are sequenced by means of contrastive analysis and taught one at a

time.

4. Structural pattern are taught using repetitive drills.

5. There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive

analogy rather than by deductive explanation.

6. Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context.

7. There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids.

8. Great importance is attached to pronunciation.

9. Very little use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted.

10. Successful responses are immediately reinforced.

11. There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterance.

12. There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.

For a number of reasons, the ALM enjoyed many years of popularity, and
even to this day, adaptations of the ALM are found in contemporary methodologies.
The ALM was firmly rooted in respectable theoretical perspectives of the time.
Materials were carefully prepared, tested, and disseminated to educational
institutions. “Success” could be overtly experienced by students as they practiced

23 | P a g e
their dialogues in off-hours. But the popularity was not to last forever. Challenged by
Wilga Rivers’s (1964) eloquent criticism of the misconceptions of the ALM and by
its ultimate failure to teach long-term communicative proficiency, ALM’s popularity
waned. We discovered that language was not really acquired through a process of
habit formation and over-learning, that errors were not necessarily to be avoided at
all costs, and that structural linguistics did not tell us everything about language that
we needed to know. While the ALM was a valiant attempt to reap the fruits of
language-teaching methodologies that had preceded it, in the end it still fell short, as
all methods do. But we learned something from the very failure of the ALM to do
everything it had promised, and we moved forward.

5. Cognitive Code Learning

The age of audiolingualism, with is emphasis on surface forms and on the rote
practice of scientifically produced patterns, began to wane when the Chomskyan
revolution in linguistics turned linguistics and language teachers toward the “deep
structure” of language. Increasing interest in generative transformational grammar
and focused attention on the rule-governed nature of language and language
acquisition led some language-teaching programs to promote a deductive approach
rather than the inductivity of the ALM. Arguing that children subconsciously acquire
a system of rules, proponents of a cognitive code learning into language (see Carroll
1966) began to inject more deductive rule learning into language classes. In an
amalgamation of Audio-lingual and Grammar Translation techniques, class retained
the drilling typical of ALM added healthy doses of rule explanations and reliance on
grammatical sequencing of material.

Cognitive code learning was not so much a method as it was an approach that
emphasized a conscious awareness of rules and their applications to second language
learning. It was a reaction to the strictly behavioristic practices of the ALM, and
ironically, a return to some of the practices of Grammar Translation. As teachers and
materials developers saw that incessant parroting of potentially rote material was not

24 | P a g e
 creating communicatively proficient learners, a new twist was needed, and cognitive
code learning appeared to provide just such a twist. Unfortunately, the innovation to
the rules, paradigms, intricacies, and exceptions of a language overtaxed the mental
reserves of language students.

The profession needed some spice and verve, and innovative minds in the
spirited 1970s were up to the challenge.

6. “Designer” Methods of The Spirited 1970s

The decade of the 1970s was historically significant on two counts. First,
perhaps more than in order decade in “modern” language-teaching history, research
on second language learning and teaching grew from an offshoot of linguistics to a
discipline in its own right. As more and more scholars specialized their efforts in
second language acquisition studies, our knowledge of how people learn languages
inside and outside the classroom mushroomed. Second, in this spirited atmosphere of
pioneering research, a number of innovative if not revolutionary methods were
conceived. These “designer” methods (to borrow a term from Nunan 1989a:97) were
soon marketed by entrepreneurs as the latest and greatest applications of the
multidisciplinary research finding of the day.

Today, as we look back at these methods, we can applaud them for their
innovative flair, for their attempt to rouse the language-teaching world out of its
audio-lingual sleep, and for their stimulation of even more research as we sought to
discover why were not to godsend that their inventors and marketers hoped they
would be. The scrutiny that the designer method underwent has enabled us today to
incorporate certain elements thereof in our current communicative approaches to
language teaching. Let’s look at five of these products of the spirited 1970s.

3.3 The products in communicative approach to language teaching of the spirited

1970s

25 | P a g e
 1. Community Language Learning

By the decade of the 1970s, as we increasingly recognized the importance of

the affective domain, some innovative methods took on a distinctly affective nature.
Community Language Learning is a classic example of an affectively based method.

2. Suggestopedia

Other new methods of the decade were not quite as strictly affective as CLL.
Suggestopedia, for example, was a method that was derived from Bulgarian
psychologist Georgi Lozanov’s (1979). Contention that the human brain could
process great quantities of material if given the right conditions for learning, among
which are a state of relaxion and giving over of control to the teacher. The central of
this method is music. Lozanov (1979:272) described the concert session portion of a
Suggestopedia language class:

• At the beginning of the session, all the conversation stops,

• The teacher listens to the music coming from the tape recorder,

• After several passages, the teacher begins to read the new text,

• The students follow the text in their text books where each lesson is translated into
the mother tongue,

• Before the second part of the concert, there is several minutes of silence,

• The teacher reads the next text and the students close their text books while
listening to the teacher,

• At the end the students leave the room silently without any homework.

3. The Silent Way

26 | P a g e
 Like suggestopedia, the silent way rested on more cognitive that affective
argument for its theoretical sustenance. While Caleb Gattegno, it is founder, was said
to be interested in a “humanistic” approach (Chamot & McKeon 1984:2) to education,
much of the silent Way was characterized by a problem-solving approach to learning.
Richards and Rodgers (1986:99) summarized the theory of learning the Silent Way:

a. Learning is facilitated if the learner discovers or creates rather than remembers and
repeats what is to be learned.

b. Learning is facilitated by accompanying (mediating) physical objects.

c. Learning is facilitated by problem solving involving the material to be learned.

Richards and Rodgers made the summarized in this above. The Silent Way is
a Methodology of teaching language based on the idea that teachers should be a silent
as possible during a class but learners should be encouraged to speak as much as
possible. In learning, students can find or create their own imagination in the learning
process. Students must be more creative in expressing their own opinions, and
students more difficult if we as the teacher to remember the material and repeat what
has been learned. In the learning process, the teacher must prepare the media for a
tool in the classroom, so the students can understand what is being learned, such as
learning in Elementary Schools using media Origami paper, they can draw as they
like and create their own imagination. In the learning process, the teacher can give
students so solve problems in the material and if the student doesn’t understand can
ask the teacher to solve problems together. For example, the teacher shows the
learners a small red toy cars and the bigger blue one and the students says “the blue
one is bigger than the red one”. The learners repeat this. The teacher then substitutes
the toy cars to produce other models, and finally encourages the learners to produce
their own comparisons.

4. Total Physical Response

27 | P a g e
 James Asher (1997) the developer of Total Physical Response (TPR), actually
began experimenting with TPR in the 1960s, but it was almost a decade before the
method was widely discussed in professional circles. Today TPR, with simplicity as
its most appealing fact, is a household word among language teachers.

TPR combined a number of other insights in its rationale. Principles of child

language acquisitions were important. Asher (1977) noted that children, in learning
their first language, appear to do a lot of listening before they speak, and that their
listening is accompanied by physical responses (reaching , grabbing, moving,
looking, and so forth). He also gave some attention to right-brain function that should
precede left-brain language processing. Asher was also convinced that language
classes were often the locus of too much anxiety, so he wished to device a method
that was as stress-free as possible, where learner would not fill overly self-conscious
and defensive. The TPR classroom, then, was one in which student did a great deal
of listening and acting. The teacher was very directive in orchestrating a performance.
“The instructor is the director of a stage play in which the students are the actors”
(Asher 1977:43).

The teacher as a director and instructor, it means the teacher on duty for giving
the instruction to their students like giving the task, homework, quiz, and so on.
Meanwhile, the students as actors it means, the student does the activity that was
ordered by their teacher. Both of them have the role in language learning activity. It
aims the methods use in the language learning activity.

Typically, TPR heavily utilized the imperative mood, even into more advanced
proficiency levels. Commands were an easy way to get learners to move about and to
loosen up: open the window, close the door, stand up, sit down, pick up the book,
give it to John and so on. No verbal response was necessary. More complex syntax
could be incorporated into the imperative: draw a rectangle on the chalk-board, walk
quickly to the door and bit it. Humor is easy to introduce: walk slowly to the window
and jump, put your toothbrush in your book (Asher 1977:55). Interrogatives were also

28 | P a g e
 easily dealt with: where is the book? Who is john? (Students pointed to the book or
to John). Eventually students, one by one, would feel comfortable enough to venture
verbal responses to question, than to ask question themselves, and to continue the
process.

Like every other method we have encountered, TPR has its limitation. It seemed
to be especially effective in the beginning level of language proficiency, but it lost its
distinctiveness as learners advance in their competence. In TPR classroom, after
student overcome the fear of speaking out, classroom conversation and other
activities proceeded as in almost any other communicative language classroom. In
TPR reading and writing activities, students are limited to spinning off from the oral
work in the classroom. Its appeal to the dramatic or theatrical nature of language
learning was attractive. (See Smith 1984 and Stern 1983 for discussion of the use of
drama in foreign language classrooms), but soon learner’s needs for spontaneity and
unrehearsed language must be met.

5. The Natural Approach

Stephen Krashen’s (1982, 1997) theories of second language acquisition have
been widely discussed and hotly debated over the years (PLLT, Chapter 10). The
major methodological offshoot of Krashen’s views was manifested in the natural
approach, developed buy one of Krashen’s colleagues, Tracy Terrell (Krashen and
Terrell 1983). Acting on many of the claims that Asher made for a comprehension
based approach such as TPR, Krashen and Terrell felt that learners would benefit
from delaying production until speech “emerges,” that learners should be as relaxed
as possible in the classroom, and that a great deal of communication and “acquisition”
should take place, as opposed to analysis. In fact, the natural approach advocated the
use of TPR activities at the beginning level of language learning when
“comprehensible input” is essential for triggering the acquisition of language.
The natural approach was aimed at the goal of basic personal communication skills,
that is, everyday language situation-conversation, shopping, listening to the radio, and
the like. The initial task of the teacher was to provide comprehensible input, that is,

29 | P a g e
 spoken language there is understandable to the learner or just a little beyond the
learners level. Learners need not say anything during this “silent period” until they
feel ready to do so. The teacher was the source of the learners input and the creator
of an interesting and stimulating variety of classroom activities-commands, games,
skits, and small group work.
In the Natural Approach, learners presumably move through what Krashen
and Terrell defined as three stages: (a) the preproduction stage is the development of
listening comprehension skills. (b) The early production stage is usually marked with
errors as the student’s struggles with the language. The teacher focuses on meaning
here not on form, and there for the teacher just not make a point of correcting errors
during this stage (unless they are gross errors that block or hinder meaning entirely.
(c) The last stage is one of extending production into longer stretches of discourse
involving more complex games, rule plays, open-ended dialogues, discussion, and
extended small group work. Since the objective in this stage is to promote fluency,
teachers are asked to be very sparse in their correction of error. The most controversial
aspects of the Natural Approach were its advocacy of a “silent period” (delay of oral
production) and its heavy emphasis on comprehensible input. The delay of oral
production until speech “emerges” has shortcomings (See Gibbons 1985)

3.4 BEYOND METHOD: NATIONAL-FUNCTIONAL SYLLABUSES

As the innovative methods of the 1970s were being touted by some and
criticized by many; some significant foundation for future growth were being laid in
what soon came to popularly known as the Notional-Functional Syllabus.
Beginning with the work of the council of Europe (Van Ek & Alexander1975) and
later followed by numerous interpretations of “notional” syllabus (Wilkins 1976).
Notional-Functional Syllabuses (hereafter referred to as NFS) began to be used in the
United Kingdom in the 1970s.

The distinguishing characteristics of the NFS were its attention to functions

as the organizing elements of English language curriculum, and its contrast with a

30 | P a g e
structural syllabus in which sequenced grammatical structures served as the
organizers. Reacting to methods that attended too strongly to grammatical form, the
NFS focused strongly –and in some the pragmatic purpose to which we put language.
As such it was not a method at a it was close to what we can call approach “. But it
was more specially focused on curricular structure than a true approach would be.
Notion,” according to Van Ek and Alexander (1975), are both general and specific.
General notions are abstract concepts such as existence, space, time, quantity and
quality.

They are domains and which we use language to express thoughts and feeling.
Within to general notion of space and time, for example , are the concepts of location
,motion, dimension, speed, length of time, frequency, etc. “specific notions”
correspond more closely to what we have become accustomed to calling contexts or
“situations.” A specific notion under which name, address, phone number, and other
personal information is sub-summed. Other specific notions include travel, health and
welfare, education, shopping, service, and froe time the functional part of the NFS
corresponded to language functions. Curricula were organized around such functions
are identifying, reporting, denying, accepting, declining, asking permission,
apologizing, etc. Van Ek and Alexander listed some seventy different language
function the NFS quickly provide popular under spinning for the development of
communicative textbook and materials in English language courses. The functional
bass of language programs has continued to the present day in brown (1999), for
example, the following functions are covered in the first several lessons of an advance
beginner’s textbook.

1. Introducing self and other people

2. Exchanging personal information
3. Asking how to spell someone’s name
4. Giving command
5. Apologizing and thanking
6. Identifying and describing people

31 | P a g e
 7. Asking for information changing personal information

A typical unit in this textbook includes an eclectic blend of conversation

practice with a classmate, interactive group work, role-plays, grammar and
pronunciation focus exercise, information-gap techniques, internet activities, and
extra class interactive practice. It is important to emphasize, I this historical sketch of
methodology, that the NFS did not necessarily develop communicative competence
in learners. First, it was not a method, which would specify how you would teach
something; it was syllabus, and while it was clearly a precursor to what we now call
communicative language teaching, as a syllabus it still presented language as an
inventory of units-functional rather than grammatical units but units nonetheless.
Communicative competence implies a set of strategies for getting messages sent and
received and for negotiating meaning as an interactive participant in discourse,
whether spoken or written. Therefore, the danger that the NFS could simply be
‘structural lamb served up as national-functional mutton’ (Campbell 1978:18) was
ever-present. However, the NFS did indeed set the stage for bigger and better things,
by attending to the functional purpose of language and by providing contextual
(national) settings for the realization of those purposes.

CHAPTER IV

CLOSING

Conclusion

Language teaching has existed over the years and over the centuries, it has changed.
A methodical is performed with method or order. In language teaching it is a way to deliver
the material. A methodical history of language teaching is very needed to understand by
teacher, because it is the basic knowledge that the teacher must know. In a methodical history
of language teaching there are approach, method, and technique.

32 | P a g e
 The Kinds of method such as The Grammar Translation Method, means focus on
grammatical rules, memorization of vocabulary and of various declensions and conjugations,
translations of texts, doing written exercises. Second Gouin and The Series Method Is a
method that taught learners directly or without translation and conceptually without
grammatical rules and explanations. Then the Direct Method, that is a second language
learning should be more like first language learning-lots of oral interaction, spontaneous use
of the language, no translation between first and second language, and little or no analysis of
grammatical rules. Next, The Audio-lingual Method, is firmly grounded in linguistic and
psychological theory. The fifth Cognitive Code Learning, It was a reaction to the strictly
behavioristic practices of the ALM, and ironically, a return to some of the practices of
Grammar Translation. The last is Designer” Methods of the Spirited 1970s. Method of The
Spirited 1970s has five products that are: Community Language Learning, Suggestopedia,
The Silent Way, Total Physical Response, The Natural Approach, Beyond Method: National-
Functional Syllabuses.

Reference

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy,

Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.

Harmer, J, (2002). The practice of English Language Teaching Malaysia : Pearson Education
Limited.

33 | P a g e
Harmer, J, (2007). How to teach English, china : Pearson Education Limited

Herrell, A L & Jordan, M, (2012), 50 strategies for teaching english language learners,
Boston ; Pearson Education Limited.

Brown, H. D. (2000). TEACHING BY PRINCIPLES. San Fransisco: Longman.

Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34 | P a g e