LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS & APPROACHES – COMPREHENSIVE NOTES

1. Grammar–Translation Method (GTM)

  • Origin & Historical Context
    • Derived from Classical (Latin & Greek) teaching traditions in early 16th century
    • Flourished throughout 18th–19th centuries under faculty-psychology view (mind = will, emotion, intellect; sharpening intellect through classics & mathematics)
    • Applied to modern languages from 19th19^{th} century; popularised by German scholars & U.S. linguist Sears
    • Still dominates many school/university FLT contexts
  • Core Goals
    • Enable reading & word-for-word translation of target-language literature
    • Foster “general mental discipline” / intellectual development
  • Key Principles & Classroom Features (Freeman 2000; Prator & Murcia 1991; Richards & Rodgers 2006)
    • Literary language deemed superior ➔ focus on reading/writing; speaking & listening neglected
    • L1 (mother tongue) is medium of instruction; TL appears meagerly
    • Grammar taught deductively; extensive rule memorisation & contrastive analysis
    • Vocabulary in isolated bilingual lists
    • Authoritarian teacher role → one-way teacher→student interaction; learners passive
    • Drills = translation of disconnected sentences; pronunciation ignored
    • Accuracy in lexical/grammatical forms = measure of proficiency
  • Typical Materials
    • 19th-century textbooks: bilingual wordlists → grammar rules → sentences such as
    • “The philosopher pulled the lower jaw of the hen.”
    • “My sons have bought the mirrors of the Duke.”
  • Advantages
    • Deep understanding of phraseology, idioms, abstract vocabulary through translation
    • Easier comprehension via L1; low requirement for teacher’s specialised skills
    • Improves written accuracy & metalinguistic knowledge
  • Disadvantages / Criticism
    • Little/no communicative competence; minimal content focus; misleading literal translations
    • Students often “overcome by a forest of grammar rules” (Bahlsen)
    • Lacks theoretical foundation in modern linguistics/psychology; “no advocates” (Richards & Rodgers)
    • Monty Python satire “Romanes Eunt Domus” highlights absurdity

2. Direct Method (DM)

  • Historical Emergence
    • Response to dissatisfaction with GTM; coined “Natural Method” (~1900, England)
    • Adopted by Berlitz, Inlingua, U.S. FSI (2012); precursor to Audio-Lingual
  • Fundamental Assumptions
    • TL only; no translation; mirror L1 acquisition process
    • Immediate audiovisual links: word ↔ idea; experience ↔ expression
    • Ultimate aim = oral communication with native-like pronunciation
  • Characteristic Features
    • Inductive grammar discovery via contextualised exposure
    • Concrete vocabulary through realia, pictures, pantomime; abstract via association
    • Q-A patterns central; students talk ext{≈}80 ext{%} of class time
  • 10 Principles
    1. Exclusive TL instruction
    2. Everyday vocab first; grammar/reading/writing later (intermediate phase)
    3. Carefully graded oral progression in small classes
    4. Inductive grammar
    5. New points introduced orally
    6. Demonstration for concrete terms
    7. Parallel teaching of speech & listening
    8. Pronunciation & grammar accuracy emphasised
    9. High student speaking ratio
    10. Students taught to ask as well as answer questions
  • Techniques
    • Question–answer, dictation, reading-aloud, self-correction, conversation practice, paragraph writing
  • Pedagogical Cycle (SHOW → SAY → TRY → MOULD → REPEAT; Syntax drills; Random sequencing X-Y-Z; Review; Observation list)
  • Strengths & Limitations
    • + Builds oral fluency, pronunciation; immersive
    • – Requires small groups, skilled native-like teachers; limited explicit grammar early; may ignore literacy if not transitioned

3. Audio-Lingual Method (ALM)

  • Roots
    • Behaviourism (B.F. Skinner): learning = habit formation through stimulus-response-reinforcement
    • Structural linguistics (Bloomfield) + WWII “Army Method”; University of Michigan ELI (Fries)
  • Key Tenets
    • TL only; no explicit grammar explanations; focus on accurate pattern drills before vocabulary breadth
    • Skills sequenced: listening → speaking → reading → writing
    • Dialogues = core syllabus; memorisation & mimicry
  • Drill Types
    • Repetition, Inflection, Replacement, Restatement (e.g., “There’s a cup on the table… Spoon … Book… On the chair…”)
  • Classroom Characteristics
    • Teacher-centred; language labs; positive/negative feedback cycle; pronunciation accuracy paramount
  • Advantages
    • Rigorous listening/speaking practice; effective for large groups; visual aids support vocab; structure mastery
  • Disadvantages / Decline
    • Behaviourist theory discredited (Chomsky 1959); ignores communicative competence & meaning; mechanical, passive learners; post-1970 decline though still used for isolated lessons
    • Pennsylvania Project (1965–69) showed cognitive/grammar approaches outperform ALM

4. Total Physical Response (TPR)

  • Developer: James Asher (San José State Univ.)
  • Theoretical Hypotheses
    1. Language learned primarily by listening
    2. Right-brain (physical, holistic) involvement essential
    3. Stress-free learning environment critical
  • Method Overview
    • Teacher issues imperative commands in TL ➔ learners respond with whole-body actions; listening precedes speaking until spontaneous output emerges
    • Grammar/vocab learned implicitly (code-breaking); suits idioms & phrasal verbs
  • Procedure
    • Gradual vocabulary loading (≈1212–3636 words/hr)
    • Novel recombinations after comprehension stage
    • Role-plays, slide shows later; dialogs only after ≈120120 hours
    • Minimal error correction (parent-child analogy)
  • Materials: realia, props, charts; lesson plans list exact commands
  • Advantages: engaging for beginners/children; rapid comprehension; low affective filter
  • Limitations: limited beyond beginner stage; heavy teacher preparation; physical constraints

5. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) / Communicative Approach

  • Central Aim: develop communicative competence (interaction = means & goal)
  • Pedagogical Shifts
    • Prioritises function/meaning over explicit form; authentic texts; learner personal experiences; teacher = facilitator
    • Non-methodical: oral/aural skills before reading/writing; textbook optional
  • Common Classroom Activities
    • Role-play, Interviews, Group Work, Information-Gap, Opinion-Sharing, Scavenger Hunt
    • Design features: collaboration, unpredictable responses, real-world tasks, comfort in TL
  • Practical Tips
    • Abundant pair/group communicative tasks with clear context & purpose
    • Balance formal/informal registers; personalised tasks; digital tools for speaking recordings (e.g., Sanako Connect)
  • Criticism (Swan, Ridge, Bax)
    • Theoretical vagueness; neglects explicit grammar leading to structural gaps
    • Overlooks learner L1; variable definitions of “communicative competence”
    • Assumed modernity; contexts may limit efficacy

6. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT)

  • Position: Branch of CLT; emphasises meaningful tasks & real-world outcomes
  • Influencers: N.S. Prabhu (Bangalore Project), Teresa P. Pica, Michael Long, Martin East
  • Task Definitions & Features (Ellis, Willis)
    • Primary focus on pragmatic meaning; presence of a gap\text{gap} (information, reasoning, opinion)
    • Learners select linguistic resources; clear non-linguistic outcome
  • Basic Lesson Framework
    1. Pre-Task – introduce topic, possible model, light priming
    2. Task – group performance; teacher = observer/counselor
    3. Planning – prepare report
    4. Report – present findings; peer & teacher feedback
    5. Analysis – focus on language noticed/needed
    6. Practice – target forms; Review – peer critique of tangible outputs
  • Task Types (Prabhu)
    • Information-Gap (transfer data, e.g., incomplete pictures)
    • Reasoning-Gap (derive new info, e.g., best route)
    • Opinion-Gap (personal stance, e.g., discuss social issue)
  • Pros & Cons
    • + Built-in interaction; real-life relevance; boosts fluency, confidence, deeper processing
    • – High planning demand; risk of reverting to PPP; possible TL avoidance if poorly designed or low motivation

7. Project Work / Project-Based Learning (PBL)

  • Definition
    • Students investigate & respond to authentic, complex questions/problems over extended periods (week–semester) ➔ public product/presentation
  • Outcomes
    • Deep content knowledge + 44 C’s: critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, communication; contagious engagement
  • “Main-Course” vs “Dessert” Projects
    • PBL embeds curriculum & instruction; not an add-on at unit’s end
  • Gold Standard PBL (PBLWorks)
    • 7 Essential Design Elements: Challenging Question, Sustained Inquiry, Authenticity, Student Voice & Choice, Reflection, Critique & Revision, Public Product
    • 7 Teaching Practices: Design & Plan, Align to Standards, Build Culture, Manage Activities, Scaffold Student Learning, Assess, Engage & Coach

8. Self-Access Approach (SAA)

  • Concept
    • Learner-centred language study via resources (photocopied exercises → software) in self-access centres (SACs); fosters autonomy
  • Centre Variability & Examples
    • Simple resource room → sophisticated multimedia labs
    • NKFUST (Taiwan): 6060 computers, counselling rooms; goals = course support, listening/speaking practice, autonomy
    • Offutt AFB (USA): resources in 5757 languages, 2222 computers
  • Advantages
    • Flexible pacing, level, content; empowers learners; improves motivation & independent strategies
  • Challenges
    • Learners may crave structure: 73%73\% prefer scheduled lab w/ teacher presence
    • Teachers may resist loss of control; institutional constraints; resource cost
  • Models
    • Fully Independent: students set curriculum; teacher = counselor
    • Semi-Guided: tutors support; positive affective responses
    • Writing-Centre Integration: combined SAC + writing support (e.g., NTU, FJU, NSYSU)
    • Online SAC: e-portfolios, advisory sessions (Auckland, “My English” Bangkok)
    • KELP Project (Japan): every classroom becomes SAC; learning contracts; teacher as facilitator

9. ICT Integration & Pedagogical Frameworks

  • Purpose: enhance quality of teaching/learning; equip 21st21^{st}-century skills; technology serves pedagogy

9.1 TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge)

  • Domains
    • CK (Content), PK (Pedagogy), TK (Technology)
    • Intersections: PCK, TCK, TPK, culminating in TPACK (integrated expertise)
    • XK (Contextual Knowledge, Mishra 2019): policies, demographics, resources influencing integration
  • Implications
    • Teachers must navigate dynamic relationships; no one-size-fits-all; develop sensitivity to context

9.2 SAMR Model (Puentedura)

  • Levels of Tech Integration
    1. Substitution – tech replaces tool, no functional change (e.g., typewriter → word-processor)
    2. Augmentation – tech substitute + functional improvement (e.g., spell-check)
    3. Modification – significant task redesign (e.g., shared Google Doc collaborative editing)
    4. Redefinition – create novel tasks previously inconceivable (e.g., global video-conferenced project)
  • Use: evaluate if tech enhances or transforms learning
  • Examples of Tech Tools: apps, IWBs, podcasts/video, wikis/Google Docs, social media, blogs/e-portfolios

Cross-Method Connections & Ethical/Practical Considerations

  • Shift from form-focused (GTM) → meaning-focused (CLT/TBLT) mirrors broader educational philosophy changes
  • Behaviourist vs Cognitivist vs Constructivist underpinnings shape teacher/learner roles and materials
  • Ethical implications: ensuring learner agency (SAA, PBL), reducing anxiety (TPR), equitable access to ICT (TPACK – XK)
  • Practical: teacher training demands escalate with DM, ALM labs, ICT frameworks; resource allocation critical for SACs & PBL