The History of English & Methodologies

We have been learning foreign or second languages for centuries and over the years experts have developed a plethora of theories of how we best learn languages.

Approaches to language teaching have changed with the times, reflecting new research, attitudes and developments in the fields of linguistics and psychology. The study of these theories and how they influence language teaching methodology is known as applied linguistics. Professionals working in this field have come up with various hypotheses as to how languages can best be learnt and taught, how language learning is affected by social issues and how to incorporate technology to improve the effectiveness of language teaching and learning.

Language learning and teaching began with the Grammar-Translation Method, which has survived to this day in some parts of the world. However, from the end of the 19th century it started losing popularity as teachers, students and other experts questioned its value and other methods were developed.

By the middle of the 20th century new teaching methods were being tried and tested and then the 1970s saw the introduction of myriad methodologies experimenting with everything from the classroom environment, the use of L1 to teaching resources.

Now, in the 21st century we are finding new theories, especially those focusing on the exploitation of technology in our teaching. Many classrooms and teaching methods nowadays would be unrecognisable to teachers and students from the Grammar-Translation Method era. It is an ever-changing field and who knows what the future of language teaching holds.

The grammar-translation method is one of the oldest and most traditional ways of teaching a foreign language. It dates back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when it was originally used to teach Latin and Greek. With the aim of being able to read and understand the important classical literary works in these ‘dead’ languages, the focus was therefore solely on reading and writing, with lessons given in the native language and discussions about the texts also held in the students’ own language. Students were first given an enormous bilingual vocabulary list to learn, the teacher would then lead a series of mind-numbing translation and grammar drills, followed by an exercise in deconstructing and translating sentences, with the eventual goal of the students being able to translate an entire text from the target language into their mother tongue.

Arguments in favour of the grammar-translation method point how quick and easy it is for the teacher to explain vocabulary (by giving the students the translation), how labour-saving it is (for the teacher) and how even teachers not fluent in the foreign language are able to teach using this method (which might explain why it has remained so popular for so long).

The obvious disadvantage of this method is that it is an unnatural way to learn a foreign language. By neglecting the spoken language students are unable to express themselves effectively and therefore are unable to communicate (surely defeating the objective of learning a language in the first place for many people). Teaching a language through rules alone does not ensure a person can manipulate and adapt the language to suit their communicative needs as the student does not learn many of the valuable skills necessary, skills which need to be practised and not just memorised.

Obviously, the grammar-translation method remained the foremost approach to foreign language learning until the 1960s, when linguists and language teachers began to experiment with other ways of teaching.

The “Direct Method” (or the “Natural Method” as it is sometimes called) appeared towards the end of the 19th century in France and Germany as a reaction to the Grammar-Translation Method. The Direct Method involves immersing the student in the target language and, therefore, forbidding the use of the native language in the classroom. It was founded on the belief that a second language could be learnt in exactly the same way as a first language. The fundamental principle was to focus on speaking and listening only, with no explicit grammar teaching.

The main problem with this method has been the discovery that, in fact, we do not learn a second language in exactly the same way as our native language, especially when exposure to the second language is limited to just a couple of hours a week in a classroom.

However, the Direct Method represented a significant step forward in foreign language teaching and lead to the more communicative, oral-based language teaching we tend to used in many language classrooms today. This is evident in the emphasis placed on listening and speaking, the use of the target language for classroom instructions, and the use of visual aids and realia to illustrate meaning.

The Audiolingual Method (ALM) appeared in the first half of the 20th century and it was, in fact, the outbreak of the Second World War which prompted its sudden rise in popularity. It was seen to be the ideal way to provide large groups of American servicemen with a quick, basic knowledge of a foreign language before sending them off to war and, as a result, it also became known as the “Army Method”.

The Audiolingual Method combines many features of the earlier Direct Method (such as the rejection of the native language and the strong emphasis on speaking and listening) with structured grammar drills. This method focuses on accurate grammar and pronunciation and the ability to respond quickly and accurately to spoken language. Based on structuralist and behaviourist theories, it was believed that learning structure (i.e. grammar) was the starting point for the student and that combining this with repetition and reinforcement led to effective learning. The main activities employed to achieve this included reading dialogues aloud, repetitions of model sentences, and drilling.

Many students saw immediate results using the ALM, through its combination of memorising, imitating and over-learning language patterns and forms and, logically, it remained popular for quite some time. However, by the 1960s and 70s a number of linguists were questioning its effectiveness and pointing out that the method was not successful in terms of producing long-term communicative ability. In spite of this, certain elements of the method (such as drilling) survive today, perhaps not as the basis of a course, but are often used in individual lessons.

Caleb Gattegno created The Silent Way in the early 1970s as a method for language learning using silence as a teaching technique. In contrast to the earlier Grammar-Translation Method and the Audiolingual Method, translation and rote learning are avoided in the Silent Way classroom. The Silent Way encourages learners to take more responsibility for their own learning by formulating their own hypotheses about the rules of the target language and then testing and applying their hypotheses and therefore understanding their errors. It is thought to be very similar to the way people learn their native language.

The most noticeable feature of the method is, obviously, that the teacher usually remains “silent” most of the time and that students do 90 percent or more of the talking. By the teacher staying silent, the focus of the classroom moves from the teacher to the students and it also enables the teacher to observe the class. The silence can also be used to help students correct their own mistakes and encourage peer correction.

The Silent Way is also well-known for its use of “Cuisenaire” rods and various colour-coded sound charts. It is a unique language teaching method and it was the first to really focus on cognitive principles in language learning.

Community Language Learning (CLL) is a method of foreign language teaching developed by the Psychology professor and Jesuit priest Charles Curran in the 1970s. It was primarily designed for low-level adult learners who may lack confidence and feel embarrassed about speaking another language. This approach allows students to work together on the aspects of the language they would like to learn and therefore shifts the focus of the class, making it extremely student-centred.

In CLL the teacher, who is referred to as the “knower”, plays a similar role to a counsellor (with the students being the clients). As it is the students who determine what is to be learned in the lesson, the teacher is only there to provide support. In a typical CLL classroom, a small group of students (ideally a maximum of 12) sit in a circle with a tape recorder in the middle, with the “knower” standing outside the circle. A student begins by deciding what they want to say in the foreign language and they speak (often in a whisper) to the teacher in their first language. The teacher will then provide the student with the necessary target language and the student repeats this, with the rest of the class listening. When the student is able to say the sentence correctly, it is recorded. Another student will then respond to the first student’s comment in the same way (by asking the teacher to provide the language needed) and eventually recording their comment. This process is repeated until, eventually, a complete dialogue has been recorded. The class then listens to their dialogue and the teacher transcribes it on the board. The final step in the lesson (or in the next lesson) is an analysis of the dialogue with the students able to ask questions about any unfamiliar language areas.

CLL allows students to have autonomy and independence in their language learning and provides a safe and encouraging environment. However, the obvious disadvantage of this method is that it requires a lot of work from the teacher; if the students are at a very low level or are beginners then the teacher will need to be proficient in the students’ native language. It is also quite limited in that it is really only suited to small, monolingual classes and is an inappropriate method for teaching children. However, it is often used by teachers as a one-off lesson to vary from the usual teaching style.

Suggestopedia (or Suggestopaedia in British English) was another teaching methodology to appear during the 1970s. It was developed by a Bulgarian psychologist called Georgi Lozanov and his method is based on the notion that students need to be provided with a relaxed learning environment which allows them to gain confidence and maximise their mental capacity. In a Suggestopedia classroom, students sit in comfortable chairs, in a dimly lit room, listening to baroque music while the teacher reads aloud a text or dialogue. The music is a vital part of Suggestopedia, as it encourages relaxation, increases receptivity and stimulates creativity. Another feature of Suggestopedia is the teacher having complete control and authority over the class, which contrasts with many other methods where the emphasis is on student-centred lessons. Students are also often encouraged to act childishly, sometimes taking on a new name or personality in the target language. Unlike many other teaching methods, there is no recognisable theory of language and no specific order in which the language should be presented. The focus is rather on the classroom environment and the trusting relationship between the students and the teacher which together maximise memorisation.

Suggestopedia depends largely on the students’ belief in its success. Even Lozanov himself admitted that the method could be compared to a placebo, arguing, of course, that placebos are extremely effective. Critics have also questioned the effectiveness of the method’s passive learning, pointing out that other important factors of language acquisition are overlooked. Some professionals also have their doubts about encouraging students to behave in a child-like manner. Despite the criticisms of this so-called “pseudo-science”, Suggestopedia was hailed by UNESCO as “a superior teaching method” and it contains many elements which can be used with (or adapted to suit) a variety of classes, students and subjects.

Total Physical Response, also known as TPR, became popular in the 1970s. Its creator, the psychology professor Dr. James Asher, wanted to establish a language learning method to imitate as closely as possible the way we learn our mother tongue. His method is based on the theory that all human beings are programmed to learn languages and that, as we are listening to new language, we have a “code breaking” process where the language starts to make sense.

The TPR method involves students responding to the teacher’s commands in a physical way, through actions and gestures, similar to when a baby listens silently, absorbing and internalising new language and initially only responding to its parents’ speech with movements rather than words. In the same way, the teacher does not expect the students to be able to produce new language immediately but, more importantly, to show understanding through their actions (e.g. stand up, touch your nose).

TPR can be adapted to teach many language areas and is especially popular with young children. It has also proven to be very effective when teaching students with learning disabilities such as dyslexia. Not only do many students (including adults) enjoy TPR activities but it is also flexible; no matter the size of the class or the age and ability of the students, the teacher can find a way to use TPR in the lesson. However, the critics say that TPR stifles the students’ creativity, and is often overused by many teachers. Nevertheless, it is a valued and popular method of teaching language, employed regularly in many classrooms around the world.

The Communicative Approach to language teaching developed out of a general dissatisfaction with the teaching methods available prior to the 1970s (particularly the Grammar-Translation Method and the Audiolingual Method). Many language teachers, linguists and other educational professionals recognised that the fundamental purpose of learning a language is communication and that teaching methodologies should reflect this. They felt that students were not able to communicate effectively using appropriate “real” language and the Communicative Approach was the result of a move towards more interactive, functional language teaching to solve this problem.

Along with the new communicative teaching, there was a shift away from the previous focus on accuracy. Fluency became the centre of attention and grammar was almost completely discarded for a period during the 1970s. When students’ accuracy started to become a problem it was conceded that there had to be a balance of both accuracy and fluency in all language learning and the approach was then adapted to accommodate a dual focus on usage (manipulation of grammar) and use (appropriateness of language).

In the Communicative classroom authentic language is used to engage students in real interactions with each other. Lessons are student-centred with teacher talk reduced to a minimum. Classes are often lively and loud as students move around speaking to one another, using real language to find out information using authentic material as much as possible. Communicative lessons are usually theme or topic based, built around authentic situations in the real world (e.g. a job interview, buying tickets, making a phone call, etc.) and students are able to appreciate the direct benefits of these activities. Although there are students who may not appreciate the advantages of this method, if they are used to more traditional ways of learning (i.e. grammar-focused rote-learning), generally as a result of the increased participation in class and practising the language through role plays and interactive group work, students often find they gain confidence in using the target language and become more autonomous learners.

Task-Based Learning (TBL) was developed by N. Prabhu in Bangalore, India and is based on the principle that students will learn more effectively if their minds are focused on the task instead of on the language they need to use. Traditionally, teachers use tasks as follow-up exercises to a grammar or vocabulary based lesson and these activities are often little more than extension and practice. Task-Based Learning differs from many other methodologies because the tasks are central to the learning activity, turning the conventional (Presentation-Practice-Production) lesson on its head. The students are first set a task which they must carry out in the foreign language with no linguistic support from the teacher. When the task is complete students report to the rest of the class with the results. Only at this point does the teacher draw attention to the language used and help the students to express what they want to say. The next step in the lesson is often the students listening to native speakers doing the same or a similar task. They then analyse the language used before repeating the task with the aim of improving on their first attempt.

Task-Based Learning has proven to be very valuable at intermediate level and above, but many teachers are unsure of its effectiveness at lower levels when students are in need of greater teacher input. TBL completely transforms the traditional teacher’s role, as the teacher does not introduce and present language or help the students while they carry out the task. The teacher is merely an observer during the task phase and is only able to provide support during the later stages of the lesson. It can be difficult for some teachers to adapt to this method as their natural instinct is to step in and often “interfere”.

A clear advantage of this methodology is that, rather than concentrating on one specific structure or vocabulary area, it exploits a much wider variety of language, with students required to focus on communicative function and not only linguistic form. The learner-centred, practical tasks of a TBL lesson with their tangible, achievable goals actively engage students, allowing them more freedom and autonomy which leads to improved student motivation.

Over recent years an increasingly popular language teaching methodology has developed across the educational spectrum in many parts of the world. It is a system where the teaching and learning of curricular subjects happens in a foreign or a second language. There are various labels for these programmes such as CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), Foreign Language Immersion Education and CBI (Content-Based Instruction). CLIL is the term most widely used throughout Europe and has become synonymous with bilingual education and target language immersion in the classroom. CLIL, therefore, is the teaching of geography, history or science for example through a foreign language, with the students learning the subject content while simultaneously learning the target language.

While some students may take a while to adjust to CLIL lessons, research shows that they are usually highly motivated and focused, often performing better than in their “normal” lessons. There are many benefits to teaching through CLIL, such as increased learner confidence (in both the language and the subject being taught), the growth of intercultural knowledge and understanding and improved communication and cognitive skills. The European Commission has recognised the value of this educational practice and has set up a project to develop CLIL in schools, along with a programme to train CLIL teachers. Teachers of CLIL are specialists in their own discipline rather than actual language teachers, although they are ideally fluent speakers of the target language (either bilingual or native speakers). The evident weaknesses to this scheme are the lack of teachers who have both the subject knowledge and the language skills necessary and an opposition or unwillingness on the part of many subject specialists to teach in another language. CLIL represents a (much needed) step forward in the way languages are taught and it is hoped that the teacher training issues can be resolved (along with the development of appropriate teaching materials) so that we may see its full potential.

Tracy Terrell began developing the Natural Approach in 1977 and it was, in fact, a revival and revamp of the old Direct (or Natural) Method of the late 1800s. It quickly received support from Stephen Krashen and the method is heavily based around his theory and research into first and second language acquisition. The basic principles of the Natural Approach are Krashen’s following five theories:

• The Acquisition/Learning Hypothesis: language acquisition (an unconscious process) is completely different from language learning (consciously learning or studying), and it is only through acquisition that we can achieve language proficiency.

• The Natural Order Hypothesis: the acquisition of grammatical rules follows a natural predictable order, regardless of the learner’s mother tongue, age or surroundings and it is therefore pointless to try to alter this process.

• The Monitor Hypothesis: learners should be dissuaded from automatically mentally editing and correcting what they say (using their internal “monitor”) as this lack of spontaneity shows they have consciously learnt, not acquired, the language and it also impedes communication.

• The Input Hypothesis: we acquire language best by understanding messages or by receiving “comprehensible input” (words and expressions that the learner understands based on the context and the language used) that is slightly beyond our current level of competence.

• The Affective Filter Hypothesis: the learner’s emotional state or attitude can act as a filter that blocks or impedes input that is necessary to acquisition. A low affective filter is desirable, since it allows more of this necessary input to get through.

In line with these hypotheses, the Natural Approach primarily regards language as a vehicle for communicating messages and therefore it follows a lexical course, avoiding explicit analysis of grammatical structures. It is designed to develop basic communication skills (both oral and written) and enable students to function adequately in the target language, expressing meaning clearly but not necessarily being accurate in all aspects of grammar. The Natural Approach teacher is the key source of comprehensible input in the target language and the method’s focus is on exposure rather than practice. The teacher must promote a friendly and stimulating classroom atmosphere using Natural Approach methods such as not correcting student errors, not expecting the students to speak before they are ready and supplying material of interest to the learners.

Although the Natural Approach has been questioned by many critics as being unworkable, it incorporates and promotes tried and tested techniques from other methods in an attempt to construct a comprehensive methodology. Combining elements of the Communicative Approach, the Direct Method and TPR, it results in an attractive language learning system and, as a result, Krashen has had a massive influence on language education research and development over the last few decades.

Blended Learning is by far the most recent and modern development in teaching methodologies. It combines traditional face-to-face classroom lessons with online learning (also known as e-learning) activities, capitalising on the resources we have at our disposal nowadays in order to provide the most effective learning experience. Although it is a new term, the concept is not new and has previously been called integrative learning, hybrid learning, mixed-mode learning and multi-method learning.

This integrated approach to teaching and learning provides a flexibility which would previously have been impossible to even imagine. Students take responsibility for their learning and are able to access online resources or complete activities from wherever they have internet access at whatever time suits them. Blended Learning has not yet been concretely defined and there are many versions and visions of how it can be used. Due to the lack of “rules”, Blended Learning is being implemented in a range of educational institutions, each with their own programme designed to suit the needs of their teachers and students, and depending on the resources they have at their disposal.

Many people have been concerned about “teacherless” classes and worried that students will spend too much time in front of the computer and therefore miss out on collaborative work.

However, Blended Learning is proving to be very popular and its use is on the rise due to public demand. It is convenient and accessible for both students and teachers as its flexibility makes the traditional rigid school timetable a thing of the past. Another benefit is in its adaptability, making it possible to provide lessons to suit a variety of learning styles and needs. It has also proven to be effective for teacher workshops, student feedback and online assessment, among other things.