History of English Language

Teaching
Dimitrios Thanasoulas
Introduction

The English language teaching tradition has been subject to

tremendous change, especially throughout the twentieth century.
Perhaps more than any other discipline, this tradition has been
practiced, in various adaptations, in language classrooms all
around the world for centuries. While the teaching of Maths or
Physics, that is, the methodology of teaching Maths or Physics,
has, to a greater or lesser extent, remained the same, this is
hardly the case with English or language teaching in general. As
will become evident in this short paper, there are some milestones
in the development of this tradition, which we will briefly touch
upon, in an attempt to reveal the importance of research in the
selection and implementation of the optimal methods and
techniques for language teaching and learning.
The Classical Method

In the Western world back in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries,
foreign language learning was associated with the learning of Latin
and Greek, both supposed to promote their speakers'
intellectuality. At the time, it was of vital importance to focus on
grammatical rules, syntactic structures, along with rote
memorisation of vocabulary and translation of literary texts. There
was no provision for the oral use of the languages under study;
after all, both Latin and Greek were not being taught for oral
communication but for the sake of their speakers' becoming
"scholarly?" or creating an illusion of "erudition." Late in the
nineteenth century, the Classical Method came to be known as the
Grammar Translation Method, which offered very little beyond an
insight into the grammatical rules attending the process of
translating from the second to the native language.

It is widely recognised that the Grammar Translation Method is still

one of the most popular and favourite models of language
teaching, which has been rather stalwart and impervious to
educational reforms, remaining a standard and sine qua non
methodology. With hindsight, we could say that its contribution to
language learning has been lamentably limited, since it has shifted
the focus from the real language to a "dissected body" of nouns,
adjectives, and prepositions, doing nothing to enhance a student's
communicative ability in the foreign language.
Gouin and Berlitz - The Direct Method

The last two decades of the nineteenth century ushered in a new

age. In his The Art of Learning and Studying Foreign Languages
(1880), Francois Gouin described his "harrowing" experiences of
learning German, which helped him gain insights into the
intricacies of language teaching and learning. Living in Hamburg
for one year, he attempted to master the German language by dint
of memorising a German grammar book and a list of the 248
irregular German verbs, instead of conversing with the natives.
Exulting in the security that the grounding in German grammar
offered him, he hastened to go to the University to test his
knowledge. To no avail. He could not understand a word! After his
failure, he decided to memorise the German roots, but with no
success. He went so far as to memorise books, translate Goethe
and Schiller, and learn by heart 30,000 words in a dictionary, only
to meet with failure. Upon returning to France, Gouin discovered
that his three-year-old nephew had managed to become a
chatterbox of French - a fact that made him think that the child
held the secret to learning a language. Thus, he began observing
his nephew and came to the conclusion (arrived at by another
researcher a century before him!) that language learning is a
matter of transforming perceptions into conceptions and then
using language to represent these conceptions. Equipped with this
knowledge, he devised a teaching method premised upon these
insights. It was against this background that the Series Method
was created, which taught learners directly a "series" of connected
sentences that are easy to understand. For instance,
I stretch out my arm. I take hold of the handle. I turn the handle.
I open the door. I pull the door.

Nevertheless, this approach to language learning was short-lived

and, only a generation later, gave place to the Direct Method,
posited by Charles Berlitz. The basic tenet of Berlitz's method was
that second language learning is similar to first language learning.
In this light, there should be lots of oral interaction, spontaneous
use of the language, no translation, and little if any analysis of
grammatical rules and syntactic structures. In short, the principles
of the Direct Method were as follows:
Classroom instruction was conducted in the target language
There was an inductive approach to grammar
Only everyday vocabulary was taught
Concrete vocabulary was taught through pictures and
objects, while abstract vocabulary was taught by association
of ideas
The Direct Method enjoyed great popularity at the end of the
nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth but it was
difficult to use, mainly because of the constraints of budget, time,
and classroom size. Yet, after a period of decline, this method has
been revived, leading to the emergence of the Audiolingual
Method.
The Audiolingual Method

The outbreak of World War II heightened the need for Americans

to become orally proficient in the languages of their allies and
enemies alike. To this end, bits and pieces of the Direct Method
were appropriated in order to form and support this new method,
the "Army Method," which came to be known in the 1950s as the
Audiolingual Method.
The Audiolingual Method was based on linguistic and psychological
theory and one of its main premises was the scientific descriptive
analysis of a wide assortment of languages. On the other hand,
conditioning and habit-formation models of learning put forward by
behaviouristic phychologists were married with the pattern

practices of the Audiolingual Method. The following points sum up

the characteristics of the method:
Dependence on mimicry and memorisation of set phrases
Teaching structural patterns by means of repetitive drills (??
Repetitio est mater studiorum??)
No grammatical explanation
Learning vocabulary in context
Use of tapes and visual aids
Focus on pronunciation
Immediate reinforcement of correct responses
But its popularity waned after 1964, partly because of Wilga
Rivers's exposure of its shortcomings. It fell short of promoting
communicative ability as it paid undue attention to memorisation
and drilling, while downgrading the role of context and world
knowledge in language learning. After all, it was discovered that
language was not acquired through a process of habit formation
and errors were not necessarily bad or pernicious.
The "Designer" Methods of the 1970s

The Chomskyan revolution in linguistics drew the attention of

linguists and language teachers to the "deep structure" of
language, while psychologists took account of the affective and
interpersonal nature of learning. As a result, new methods were
proposed, which attempted to capitalise on the importance of
psychological factors in language learning. David Nunan (1989:
97) referred to these methods as "designer" methods, on the
grounds that they took a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Let us have
a look at two of these "designer" methods.
Suggestopedia

Suggestopedia promised great results if we use our brain power

and inner capacities. Lozanov (1979) believed that we are capable

of learning much more than we think. Drawing upon Soviet

psychological research on yoga and extrasensory perception, he
came up with a method for learning that used relaxation as a
means of retaining new knowledge and material. It stands to
reason that music played a pivotal role in his method. Lozanov and
his followers tried to present vocabulary, readings, role-plays and
drama with classical music in the background and students sitting
in comfortable seats. In this way, students became "suggestible."
Of course, suggestopedia offered valuable insights into the
"superlearning" powers of our brain but it was demolished on
several fronts. For instance, what happens if our classrooms are
bereft of such amenities as comfortable seats and Compact Disk
players? Certainly, this method is insightful and constructive and
can be practised from time to time, without necessarily having to
adhere to all its premises. A relaxed mind is an open mind and it
can help a student to feel more confident and, in a sense, pliable.
The Silent Way

The Silent Way rested on cognitive rather than affective

arguments, and was characterised by a problem-solving approach
to learning. Gattegno (1972) held that it is in learners' best
interests to develop independence and autonomy and cooperate
with each other in solving language problems. The teacher is
supposed to be silent - hence the name of the method - and must
disabuse himself of the tendency to explain everything to them.
The Silent Way came in for an onslaught of criticism. More
specifically, it was considered very harsh, as the teacher was
distant and, in general lines, the classroom environment was not
conducive to learning.
Strategies-based instruction

The work of O'Malley and Chamot (1990), and others before and
after them, emphasised the importance of style awareness and
strategy development in ensuring mastery of a foreign language.
In this vein, many textbooks and entire syllabi offered guidelines
on constructing strategy-building activities. Below there is an

example of a list of the "Ten Commandments" for good language

learning (taken from Brown, H. D. [2000: 137]):
Teacher's Version

Learner's Version

1 Lower inhibitions

Fear not!

2 Encourage risk-taking

Dive in

3 Build self-confidence

Believe in yourself

4 Develop intrinsic motivation

Seize the day

5 Engage in cooperative learning Love thy neighbour

6 Use right-brain processes

Get the BIG picture

7 Promote ambiguity tolerance

Cope with the chaos

8 Practice intuition

Go with your hunches

9 Process error feedback

Make mistakes work FOR you

10 Set personal goals

Set your own goals

These suggestions cum injunctions are able to sensitise learners to

the importance of attaining autonomy, that is, taking charge of
their own learning, and not expecting the teacher to deliver
everything to them.
Communicative Language Teaching

The need for communication has been relentless, leading to the

emergence of the Communicative Language Teaching. Having
defined and redefined the construct of communicative
competence; having explored the vast array of functions of
language that learners are supposed to be able to accomplish; and
having probed the nature of styles and nonverbal communication,
teachers and researchers are now better equipped to teach (about)
communication through actual communication, not merely
theorising about it.
At this juncture, we should say that Communicative Language
Teaching is not a method; it is an approach, which transcends the
boundaries of concrete methods and, concomitantly, techniques. It
is a theoretical position about the nature of language and language
learning and teaching.

Let us see the basic premises of this approach:

Focus on all of the components of communicative
competence, not only grammatical or linguistic competence.
Engaging learners in the pragmatic, functional use of
language for meaningful purposes
Viewing fluency and accuracy as complementary principles
underpinning communicative techniques
Using the language in unrehearsed contexts
Conclusion

From all the above we can see that the manageable stockpile of
research of just a few decades ago has given place to a systematic
storehouse of information. Researchers the world over are
meeting, talking, comparing notes, and arriving at some
explanations that give the lie to past explanations. As Brown
(2000: ix) notes, "Our research miscarriages are fewer as we have
collectively learned how to conceive the right questions". Nothing
is taken as gospel; nothing is thrown out of court without being
put to the test. This "test" may always change its mechanics, but
the fact remains that the changing winds and shifting sands of
time and research are turning the desert into a longed-for oasis.
Reference
Brown, H. D. (2000) Principles of Language Learning and
Teaching. New York: Longman.
Dimitrios Thanasoulas 2002
https://www.englishclub.com/tefl-articles/history-english-language-teaching.htm

A Brief History of ESL

Instruction: Theories,
Methodologies, and Upheavals

Source: Joan Taber

(http://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-eslinstruction.html)

Printer-Friendly on Microsoft Word

Since the 1940s, the definitive solution to successful ESL instruction has been
discovered many times. Like bestsellers, pop stars, and ice-cream flavors, secondlanguage theories and methodologies enjoy a few afternoons or years in the spotlight
and then stumble into the dusk of old age. There is always another tried-and-true
methodology from yet another expert theorist who may or may not have had firsthand experience learning a second language. Before the late nineteenth century,
second-language instruction mirrored the so-called Classical Method of teaching Latin
and Greek; lessons were based on mental-aerobics exercisesrepetition drills and
out-of-context vocabulary drills as well as lots of reading and translations of ancient
texts. Brown notes that languages were not being taught primarily to learn oral/aural
communication, but to learn for the sake of being scholarly orfor reading
proficiency (15). Theories of second-language acquisition didnt start to pop up until
the instructional objective became oral competence.
THEORY-FREE METHODOLOGY
According to T. Rogers, the very concept of method involves the notion of a
systematic set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and
language learning (paragraph 1). However, it is possible to develop a set of
teaching practices and then go in search of a theory. Its called having an agenda. But,
for the sake of classification, let us include non-theory-based practices under the
heading of methods.

Grammar-Translation
From the turn of the nineteenth century until the late 1940s, the grammar-translation
method ruled. In the few instances of attempted coups, it lost some ground, but
academia always beckoned it back. Despite its antiquity, or because of it, the
grammar-translation method is still alive and well in language classrooms throughout
Europe, Asia, and even in the Americas. It is easy to teach; it requires no more than
the ability to memorize lists of isolated vocabulary words; and it aims low in terms of
oral communication and aural comprehensionno one teaching or learning a target
language is required to speak, pronounce, or even understand the spoken language.
Because the target language is taught in the students native language, it is possible for
students to have studied it for years without having been required to participate in the
most elementary conversation. Indeed, the only real challenge confronting students
and teachers in the grammar-translation classroom is overcoming boredom.
A typical one-hour class might begin with ten minutes of synchronized verb
declensions. This might be followed by the instructors explanation of a particular

grammatical feature of the target language. The instructor might then assign students
a series of fill-in-the-blank exercises or sentence constructions that demonstrate the
grammar point. Other features of the grammar-translation class include translations
of literary passages from the target language into the native language, identifying
antonyms and synonyms, drilling vocabulary words, memorizing vocabulary lists,
creating sentences with the new vocabulary words, and writing compositions in the
target language. Except for the repetition drills, most of the above work is written.
One might wonder why this obviously antiquated method is still used. Aside from the
aforementioned virtue of being easy for both teacher and student, some claim it is the
most effective way to introduce literature in the target language. That is, in learning
how to read in the target language, students are exposed to a variety of grammatical
structures, thousands of vocabulary words in context, and they learn to translate
across linguistic borders. It does not
Most ESL instructors have witnessed the results of the grammar-translation method
in students who have studied English as a foreign language in their native countries.
They are often able to read and write Englishsometimes better than native speakers
but they have had no experience listening to or speaking the language. In fact, ESL
teachers face the challenge of defossilizing incomprehensible deviations in students
pronunciation and inflections. Furthermore, grammar-translation students are
accustomed to doing fill-in-the-blank exercises, learning grammar rules before
applying them, memorizing lists of vocabulary words, and creating artificial sentences
to prove their mastery of the lexicon and syntax. When they are exposed to more
creative methods of language instruction, they often find it difficult to perform and, as
a result, lament the ostensible lack of structure.
Some theorists maintain that because the grammar-translation method is not
research-based, it has no academic status. But, as we know, one can always find a
matching theory. Grammar-translations theoretical base might be called
behavioristicthat is, habit formation via repetition and reinforcement. This is a
stretch in the sense that the method is really centuries old, having been employed long
before Pavlov began torturing dogs to measure their saliva output.
PRE-BEHAVIORISM
The first theory-based methods of second-language instruction started with Franois
Gouin in the mid-nineteenth century. And even though his work did not win universal
and lasting recognition, it set the stage for later theorists.

The Series Method

As the story goes, Gouins theory of language acquisition rose out of the ashes of his
own failure to learn German. The modern observer can only wonder why he bothered
spending a year in Germany sequestered in his study, memorizing thousands of verb
declensions and vocabulary words, and all the while, avoiding conversation with
native speakers of German. Imagine trying to learn a foreign language by shunning
interaction with the very people who speak it. Well, it was the nineteenth century.

Discouraged and effectively monolingual, he returned to his native France and

discovered that during his twelve-month absence, his three-year-old nephew had
become miraculously fluent in French. Wondering how a toddler could so easily outperform his own considerable intellect, he decided to observe his nephew and other
children who were in the process of acquiring language. As a consequence, he was able
to theorize that the language one uses is related to ones actions at the time of the
utterance. On these bases, he developed the Series Method, which sought to teach
second language by recreating conditions in which children learn a first language.
Specifically, the teacher does an activitywalking to the doorand simultaneously
verbalizes the process of walking to the door: I walk toward the door. I draw near to
the door. I draw nearer to the door. I get to the door. I stop at the door (Brown 44).
The student then mimics the instructor. As time goes on, the student is able to expand
his/her linguistic skills: Am I walking to the door? Did I walk to the door? I am
thinking about walking to the door. I am walking to the window.
Although the method was deemed successful, it faded after a brief hour of glory and
the good old grammar-translation method returned in full-dress regalia. Nonetheless,
as shall see, the Series Method was gone, but would one day enjoy a resurrection of
sorts. Gouin, if seems, was born in the wrong century.

The Direct Method

Second-language theorists maintain that the first real method of language teaching
was the Direct Method, which was developed as a reaction against the monotony and
ineffectiveness of grammar-translation classes. The Direct Method was the brainchild
of Charles Berlitz, a nineteenth-century linguist whose schools of language learning
are famous throughout the world. It borrowed and applied Gouins findings of the
previous generation, seeking to imitate his naturalistic approach. In light of Gouins
miserable failure in German, Berlitz wanted to immerse students in the target
language. He believed, as did Gouin, that one could learn a second language by
imitating the way children learn their first language; that is, directly and without
explanations of grammatical points and using only the target language. Therefore,
grammar was taught inductively. The objectives were speaking and listening
comprehension, not translation; for this reason, vocabulary was introduced in context
and through demonstrations and pictures; and an emphasis was placed on correct
usage and pronunciation. Students learned to write by taking dictation in the target
language.
A typical Direct Method class had few students. Students might first take turns
reading aloud, preferably a dialogue or anecdotal passage. To test for understanding,
the teacher would then ask questions in the target language and students would have
to respond appropriately in the target language. Following the question-response
session, the instructor might dictate the passage to the students three times. Students
would then read the dictation back to the class.
The Direct Method was popular in Europe and the United States, especially during
the first quarter of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, its very intensity and

necessarily small class sizes made the method impossible for public schools. In
addition, it was considered a weak method because it was not supported by heavyduty theories and it depended too much on teachers ability to teachGod forbidas
well as their fluency in the target language. So, it was back to the old reliable
grammar-translation method until behaviorism began to shine its light on the field of
second-language teaching.
BEHAVIORISM
We can thank researchers such as Pavlov, Skinner, and Watson for behaviorism-based
techniques employed in US classrooms as well as the Audiolingual Method of secondlanguage instruction. Skinners theory of operant conditioning is based on the concept
that learning results from a change in overt behavior. Applied to language acquisition,
one learns language by emitting an utterance (operant), which is reinforced by a
response by another (consequence). If the consequence of the imitated behavior is
negative, one does not repeat the behavior; if the response is positive, one repeats the
behavior. Repetition then leads to habit formation. Thus, behaviorists agree with the
likes of Francis Bacon and John Locke that one is born a tabula rasa, a blank slate,
and all learning is the result of outside stimuli. From this thinking sprang the popular
Audiolingual Method, which left grammar-translation by the wayside.
The Audiolingual Method (ALM)The Audiolingual Method was first known as the
Army Method because it had been adopted by the military during the Second World
War when it became evident that most Americans were hopelessly monolingual. ALM
is not unlike the Direct Method in that its purpose is to teach students to communicate
in the target language. The Audiolingual Method is a purely behavioristic approach to
language teaching. It is based on drill work that aims to form good language habits,
and it makes use of extensive conversation practice in the target language. Students
enter the target-language classroom with their cognitive slates entirely blankat least
in theoryand they receive various linguistic stimuli and respond to them. If they
respond correctly, they enjoy a reward and repeat the response, which promotes good
habit formation. If they respond incorrectly, they receive no reward and therefore
repress the response, which represses the response. Voila! Fluency.
Its theoretical support also comes from post-war structural linguists. Structural
linguists analyze how language is formed, not in a historical-descriptive, or
diachronic, sense, but as it is currently spoken in the speech community (Stafford
paragraph 3). Language was now seen as a set of abstract linguistic units that made
up a whole language system. The realization that all languages are complex, unique
systems allowed linguists to understand the multifaceted, singular structure of English
without comparing it to Latin, which had long been the paragon of excellence among
prescriptive grammarians. This led to new thinking in terms of how language should
be taught. Individual structures should be presented one at a time and practiced via
repetition drills. Grammar explanations should be minimal or nonexistent, for
students will learn grammatical structures by inductive analogy.
A typical ALM class consists of ten-minute drill periods interspersed with activities

such as the reading and memorization of a dialogue. The instructor then examines a
grammar point by contrasting it with a similar point in the students native language.
(The teacher speaks in the native language, but discourages its use among students.)
This is followed by more drillschain drills, repetition drills, substitution drills.
Target language vocabulary is introduced and learned in context, and teachers make
abundant use of visual aids. Like its predecessors, ALM focuses on the surface forms
of language and rote learning.
While some students, especially those who could memorize dialogues, did well in the
classroom, they still were not able to use the target language with any proficiency.
UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
The 1960s shook up traditional thinking about the need to avoid errors and the idea
that language learning was a matter of developing good habits by mimicry, repetition,
and over-learning. Noam Chomsky entered the scene with a brand new view of firstlanguage acquisition, which had a resounding effect on theories and methods of
second-language acquisition. No longer did babies begin life with a tabula rasa; in
fact, it was just the oppositethey are born with an innate system of grammar
already fired up and ready to go. Behaviorism went right out the window. Humanistic
thinkers such as Carl Rogers insisted that people arewellpeople. Everyone is a
unique individual who responds in her/his unique way to any given situation. No
wonder no one had been able to learn a second language! Victims of grammartranslation, the Direct Method, and ALM had been tormented long enough. It was
time to compensate for their suffering and devise kinder, gentler teaching
methodologies.
David Ausubel was there to help. Influenced by Piaget and other cognitive
psychologists, Ausubel theorized that the most important factor influencing learners is
what the learner already knows (cf Bowen paragraph 3). He repudiated the old rotelearning methods in favor of meaningful, or relevant, methods of instruction. When
material is meaningful, students are able to relate, or subsume, the new information to
elements in their cognitive structure (Brown 84). Consequently, a new series of socalled designer methods of second-language teaching was developed during the
1970s (Brown 103). Their initial popularity was short-lived; but many linger on the
periphery of current methodologies, and some still make cameo appearances in
classroom mini-lessons. The underlying message in cognitive language learning is that
individual learners must be gently guided toward their own comprehension of
prescriptive rules.

Community Language Learning

Developed by Charles Curan in 1972, Community Language Learning dispensed with
the hierarchical student-teacher relationship and adopted a counselor-client
relationship. The idea was to eliminate any sense of challenge or risk-taking from the
emotionally delicate client, which theoretically would free him/her to learn a second
language without really trying. The counselor would translate and gently facilitate all
learning activity. Community Language Learning was inspired by Rogers theory that
all living creatures are motivated to live up to their potential; but, human beings are

often blocked by environmental and personal problems. Once the problems are
eliminated, the individual can live up to his/her potential. We will see that this
thinking was further developed during the 1980s by Stephen Krashen in his
examination of affective filters. In terms of second-language acquisition, certain
affective factorselements in the environment or in the students psychemay cause
a mental block that prevents input (target language) from reaching the language
acquisition device (cf Cook paragraph 5).
In a typical session, clients (AKA students) and counselor (AKA teacher) are seated
in a circle. The counselor begins by explaining what the clients will be doing. When
moved by the spirit, one client will raise his/her hand, a signal for the counselor to
approach. The client then says a phrase in her/his native language, which the
counselor repeats in the target language. The client then repeats the phrase in the
target language. The target-language portion of this conversation is recorded. The
class listens to the recording. The counselor then writes the clients portion of the
conversation on the board and the most courageous fellow clients volunteer to
translate the sentences into their native language. All the while, clients receive tender
reassurance from the counselor.

Suggestopedia
Yet another you-dont-have-to-work-for-anything theory was developed by Georgi
Lozanov in 1979. It states that when the mind and body are relaxed, the brain absorbs
knowledge without effort. Thus, another academic panacea was applied in the
language classroom, producing yet another group of graduates who couldnt speak the
target language. The Suggestopedia classroom uses musicparticularly Baroque
music with its ideal sixty beats per minuteto help soothe students as teachers
employ various language-learning activities. In this classroom, even adult learners are
encouraged to behave as pliable, suggestible children, and to regard their teacher as a
super-mentor parental figure. Imagery, music, suggestion, relaxation, comfy
armchairs, and dim lighting are the essential ingredients of the Suggestopedia
classroom. With soft music playing in the background, students role-play and learn
vocabulary under the guidance of the all-powerful teacher.
In a typical lessonor concertthe teacher plays a piece of music, preferably
Baroque, but any emotionally charged music will do. S/he then reads a passage from a
text in the target language, trying to harmonize with the music while maintaining a
slow, rhythmic pace. Students follow along with their own texts and translation.
Students then return their translations to the teacher, close their eyes and settle back
to listen to a replay of the music and reading performance.

The Silent Way

The Silent Way found its way into classrooms following the publication of Gattegnos
text, also called The Silent Way. According to Sidhakara, the Silent Way is based on
a theory of learning and teaching rather than on a theory of language (paragraph 1).
The objective is to make learning automatic by encouraging students to discover,
rather than memorize, the lexicon and prescriptive rules of the target language. This

is achieved by teaching students to associate physical objectsspecifically, colorcoded rodswith phonemes. The teacher is supposed to be a facilitator who only
intervenes in students learning if they are wandering hopelessly off course. In
addition to the colored rods, classroom materials include a sound/color wall chart,
with each color representing a phoneme; a 500-word color-coded word chart; a
spelling chart, or Fidel, that color-codes all possible spellings for every phoneme; and
wall pictures that represent everyday scenes.
While the Silent Way encourages students to become active discoverers, it also leaves
them to their own limited communicative devices. Once the uniqueness of the
phonemic rods wears off, the [Silent Way classroom] resembles any other language
classroom (Brown 106).

Total Physical Response (TPR)

In the nothing-is-gone-forever category, Total Physical Response harkens back to
Gouins Direct Method of the mid-nineteenth century. James Asher reasoned that
since children in the process of acquiring their native language seem to listen more
than they speak and often react physically to speech, second-language learners might
learn a target language in the same way. In addition, he felt that language classes were
too stressful for learners, and he wanted to create an atmosphere in which learners
didnt have to do anything other than respond to imperatives such as Go to the
door! or Walk slowly to the chalkboard! Students could absorb other linguistic
forms, such as questions by watching and imitating the teacher shrug his/her
shoulders, look confused, and ask, Where is the book? In these ways, students
magically begin asking questions and creating their own commands. In theory, this
process guides them to fluency in the target language.
TPR can be an effective methodology in small doses when language learners have no
knowledge of the target language. It has the advantage of getting students out of their
seats, which alleviates boredom and allows students to associate specific actions with
specific language.
ALONG CAME KRASHEN
In 1983, Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell published The Natural Approach, which
set forth both the theory and application of the Natural Approach to language
teaching. They had the unique idea that the purpose of language is to communicate
meanings and messages (Kiymazarslan II.1), which can be achieved simply by
learning the lexicon of the target language. Krashen and Terrell felt that the initial
silent period should be honored until students begin to speak naturally; that is,
when speech in the target language emerges of its own accord. This is supposed to
occur when teachers create a non-risky environment by incorporating TPR at the
beginning level, and by aiming low in terms of communicative skills; that is, by
limiting learning objectives to basic interpersonal communicative skills.
The Natural Approach is supported by Krashens famous Monitor Model of Language
Acquisition, a set of five hypotheses:

The Acquisition vs. Learning Hypothesis distinguishes the subconscious process of

first-language acquisition in children from the conscious process language learning in
adults.
The Natural Order Hypothesis states that morphemes are acquired in a predictable
order ([-ing] is the first acquired morpheme in English).
The Monitor Hypothesis maintains that acquisition, not learning, is responsible for
fluency. Learningfor example, knowledge of grammar and other linguistic
structuresfunctions as a monitor, or editor during and after the acquisition process.
The Input Hypothesis asserts that language is acquired when students receive
comprehensible input that is a tad beyond their level of competence.
The Affective Filter Hypothesis claims that one cannot acquire a language unless
one feels confident, relaxed, and diverted.
The typical Natural Approach classroom is teacher-centered. Textbooks are not used
and it is the teachers responsibility to make the classroom experience enjoyable and
unchallenging. Students are not expected to be responsible for their own learning.
Their role is to absorb the input provided by teachers. The trick is not to tell the
students they are learning or to suggest they are capable of making an error. The
order of business is to give students a steady flow of comprehensible input and just
enough extra information to help them acquire, rather than consciously learn, the
target language.
In the Natural Approach classroom, the teacher plays the role of actor and prop
person and students play the role of guessers and immersers (Rogers fig. 2). The
teacher/actor is called upon to create a comfortable, welcoming atmosphere and to
develop units of studyor, guessingbased on topics that interest the students
(Reynor paragraph 3). Students are encouraged to express their thoughts, opinions,
and feelings in the target language. The teacher speaks only in the target language;
but, in keeping with the no-pressure approach, students are permitted to use their
native language. Theoretically, in this way, students acquire language without effort.
THE COMMUNICATIVE METHOD (CLT)
In perusing the literature regarding second-language methodologies and their
supporting theories, it is almost impossible to make sense out of the discrepancies in
terminology and theoretical bases. For some, the Direct Method is without theoretical
basis; for others, it belongs to behaviorism. For some, the grammar-translation
method is not a method, but a non-theory-based approach; for others, it is indeed
theory-based, because it teaches by rote and assumes that repetition will lead to the
formation of correct linguistic habits. For some, the Communicative Method was
developed during the 1960s; for others it is a more recent phenomenon that comprises
all sorts of methodologies; and still others consider it another name for the Natural
Approach. In my own experience as an instructor of foreign language, the only
difference between the Natural Approach and the Communicative Method is that in
the Communicative classroom, students are expected to avoid using their native
language.

The Communicative Method was the flavor of the decade during the 1990s, at least
when classroom doors were open. CLT does not teach about language; rather, it
teaches language. It is often associated with the Functional-Notional Approach; that
is, the emphasis is on functions such as time, location, travel, measurements. In short,
it seeks to recreate real-life social and functional situations in the classroom to guide
students toward communicative competence. The linguistic accuracy that was deemed
so essential in grammar-translation, the Direct Method, and other approaches is a
mere trifle in the Communicative classroom. Ideally, grammar is not taught at all.
Teachers avoid upsetting their students by requiring them to identify or recognize
nouns, verbs, or direct objects; instead, they guide them to second-language
proficiency by employing the three Ps presentation, practice, and production.
Teachers present the target language via everyday situations; they give students time
to practice the language via structured situational dialogues; and, finally, they step
aside for students production of the languagethe phase in which they are able to
function independently in the target language.
In truth, many teachersespecially those whose school administrators or university
chairs insist that CLT is the heaven-sent panacea for second-language teachingfind
the method excessively superficial, uninspiring, and hopelessly without structure.
Many close the classroom door and support their teaching units with mini-grammar
lessons. Because theorists and administratorssome of whom have never taught or
achieved fluency in a second languagesupport the Communicative Method, in terms
of theory years, it has enjoyed a relatively long life. But, it is hardly the superhighway
to linguistic competence or proficiency.
CONCLUSION
Second-language instruction has come a long way since the bad old days of rote
learning. Still, it has a long way to go. The trend since the late 1990s has been toward
eclecticism, and this is probably the healthiest approach for it accommodates many
styles of learning and endeavors to do more than elicit monosyllabic utterances from
students. Furthermore, an eclectic approach allows teachers to glean the effective
elements from many methods that really work in the classroom. A little TPR is a great
warm-up activity; a little prose translation is often a welcome relief from guided
conversation in the target language; and a five-minute session of target-language only
can give students a sense of true accomplishment.
Language learning methodologies certainly mirror the times in which they thrive; but
some have claimed to have virtues that are not evident beyond their theoretical
framework. I have attended many faculty meetings in which the chair insisted that
teachers make sure the kids are having fun in language classas though having fun
were the one and only criterion for success. On the other end of the spectrum, I have
observed language classes whose professors demean learners who dont respond to
their textbook approach to language instruction. Neither extremefun or miseryis
laudable or effective.
The eclectic approach takes the best that theorists have to offer and incorporates it

with techniques that work. Language learning is difficult business. Students attitudes
about school and authority, their home situations, literacy, self-confidence, academic
level, identification with their native language and country are only a few factors that
affect their ability to learn or acquire a new language. In the end, teachers have a
tremendous challenge in trying to give their students the tools with which to function
on all levels in the target language.

WORKS CITED
Bowen, Barbara. Educational Psychology: David Ausubel.
< http://web.csuchico/.edu/~ah24/ausubel.htm>.
Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 4th edition. New
York: Addison, Wesley, Longman, 2000.
Cook, Vivian. Krashens Input Model of L2
Learning. Http://privatewww.essexac.uk~vcook/Krashen.htm>.
Reyhner, Jon Language Immersion for Indigenous Language Revitalization.
Teaching
Indigenous Languages. December 2002.
Rogers, Theodore. Language Teaching Methodology. ERIC Digest Sept. 2001 Issue
Paper
Sidhakarya, I. Wayan. The Silent Way Plus: The Search of a Method and
Curriculum.
Stafford, Amy. Structural Linguistics: Its History, Contributions and Relevance.
Vedat Kiymazarslan The Natural Approach: What is it? 1995.
http://seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jgeorg/TESLSCCC/ABriefHistory.htm

18th century[edit]
The study of modern languages did not become part of the curriculum of European schools
until the 18th century. Based on the purely academic study of Latin, students of modern
languages did much of the same exercises, studying grammatical rules and translating
abstract sentences. Oral work was minimal, and students were instead required to memorize
grammatical rules and apply these to decode written texts in the target language. This traditioninspired method became known as the grammar-translation method.[1]

19th20th century[edit]

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United
States and do not represent a worldwide viewof the
subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk
page. (November 2010)

Henry Sweet was a key figure in establishing theapplied linguistics tradition in language teaching

Innovation in foreign language teaching began in the 19th century and became very rapid in
the 20th century. It led to a number of different and sometimes conflicting methods, each trying
to be a major improvement over the previous or contemporary methods. The earliest applied
linguists included Jean Manesca, Heinrich Gottfried Ollendorff (18031865), Henry
Sweet (18451912), Otto Jespersen (18601943), and Harold Palmer(18771949). They
worked on setting language teaching principles and approaches based on linguistic and
psychological theories, but they left many of the specific practical details for others to devise. [1]
Those looking at the history of foreign-language education in the 20th century and the methods
of teaching (such as those related below) might be tempted to think that it is a history of failure.
Very few students in U.S. universities who have a foreign language as a major manage to
reach something called "minimum professional proficiency". Even the "reading knowledge"
required for a PhD degree is comparable only to what second-year language students read
and only very few researchers who are native English speakers can read and assess
information written in languages other than English. Even a number of famous linguists are
monolingual.[2]
However, anecdotal evidence for successful second or foreign language learning is easy to
find, leading to a discrepancy between these cases and the failure of most language programs,
which helps make the research of second language acquisition emotionally charged. Older
methods and approaches such as the grammar translation method or the direct method are
dismissed and even ridiculed as newer methods and approaches are invented and promoted
as the only and complete solution to the problem of the high failure rates of foreign language
students.
Most books on language teaching list the various methods that have been used in the past,
often ending with the author's new method. These new methods are usually presented as

coming only from the author's mind, as the authors generally give no credence to what was
done before and do not explain how it relates to the new method. For example, descriptive
linguists[who?] seem to claim unhesitatingly that there were no scientifically based language
teaching methods before their work (which led to the audio-lingual method developed for the
U.S. Army in World War II). However, there is significant evidence to the contrary. It is also
often inferred or even stated that older methods were completely ineffective or have died out
completely when even the oldest methods are still used (e.g. the Berlitz version of the direct
method). One reason for this situation is that proponents of new methods have been so sure
that their ideas are so new and so correct that they could not conceive that the older ones have
enough validity to cause controversy. This was in turn caused by emphasis on new scientific
advances, which has tended to blind researchers to precedents in older work. [2](p. 5)
There have been two major branches in the field of language learning, the empirical and
theoretical, and these have almost completely separate histories, with each gaining ground
over the other at one point in time or another. Examples of researchers on the empiricist side
are Jesperson, Palmer, and Leonard Bloomfield, who promote mimicry and memorization with
pattern drills. These methods follow from the basic empiricist position that language acquisition
basically results from habits formed by conditioning and drilling. In its most extreme form,
language learning is seen as basically the same as any other learning in any other species,
human language being essentially the same as communication behaviors seen in other
species.
On the theoretical side are, for example, Francois Gouin, M.D. Berlitz, and Elime de Sauz,
whose rationalist theories of language acquisition dovetail with linguistic work done by Noam
Chomsky and others. These have led to a wider variety of teaching methods ranging from the
grammar-translation method to Gouin's "series method" to the direct methods of Berlitz and de
Sauz. With these methods, students generate original and meaningful sentences to gain a
functional knowledge of the rules of grammar. This follows from the rationalist position that man
is born to think and that language use is a uniquely human trait impossible in other species.
Given that human languages share many common traits, the idea is that humans share
a universal grammar which is built into our brain structure. This allows us to create sentences
that we have never heard before but that can still be immediately understood by anyone who
understands the specific language being spoken. The rivalry of the two camps is intense, with
little communication or cooperation between them.[2]

Teaching foreign language in classrooms[edit]

Main article: Methods of teaching foreign languages

High School Spanish taught as a second Language to a class of nativeEnglish speakers at

an Americanprivate school in Massachusetts.

Language education may take place as a general school subject or in a specialized language
school. There are many methods of teaching languages. Some have fallen into relative
obscurity and others are widely used; still others have a small following, but offer useful
insights.
While sometimes confused, the terms "approach", "method" and "technique" are hierarchical
concepts.
An approach is a set of assumptions about the nature of language and language learning, but
does not involve procedure or provide any details about how such assumptions should be
implemented into the classroom setting. Such can be related to second language acquisition
theory.
There are three principal "approaches":
1. The structural view treats language as a system of structurally related elements to code
meaning (e.g. grammar).
2. The functional view sees language as a vehicle to express or accomplish a certain
function, such as requesting something.
3. The interactive view sees language as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of
social relations, focusing on patterns of moves, acts, negotiation and interaction found
in conversational exchanges. This approach has been fairly dominant since the 1980s.
[1]

A method is a plan for presenting the language material to be learned, and should be based
upon a selected approach. In order for an approach to be translated into a method, an
instructional system must be designed considering the objectives of the teaching/learning, how
the content is to be selected and organized, the types of tasks to be performed, the roles of
students, and the roles of teachers.

1. Examples of structural methods are grammar translation and the audio-lingual method.
2. Examples of functional methods include the oral approach / situational language
teaching.
3. Examples of interactive methods include the direct method, the series
method, communicative language teaching, language immersion, the Silent
Way, Suggestopedia, the Natural Approach, Total Physical Response, Teaching
Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling and Dogme language teaching.
A technique (or strategy) is a very specific, concrete stratagem or trick designed to accomplish
an immediate objective. Such are derived from the controlling method, and less directly, from
the approach.[1]

Online and self-study courses[edit]

Hundreds of languages are available for self-study, from scores of publishers, for a range of
costs, using a variety of methods.[3] The course itself acts as a teacher and has to choose a
methodology, just as classroom teachers do.

Audio recordings and books[edit]

Audio recordings use native speakers, and one strength is helping learners improve their
accent.[4] Some recordings have pauses for the learner to speak. Others are continuous so the
learner speaks along with the recorded voice, similar to learning a song. [5]
Audio recordings for self-study use many of the methods used in classroom teaching, and
have been produced on records, tapes, CDs, DVDs and websites.
Most audio recordings teach words in the target language by using explanations in the
learner's own language. An alternative is to use sound effects to show meaning of words in the
target language.[6][7] The only language in such recordings is the target language, and they are
comprehensible regardless of the learner's native language.
Language books have been published for centuries, teaching vocabulary and grammar. The
simplest books are phrasebooks to give useful short phrases for travelers, cooks, receptionists,
[8]

or others who need specific vocabulary. More complete books include more vocabulary,

grammar, exercises, translation, and writing practice.

Also, various other "language learning tools" have been entering the market in recent years.
There are as simple examples as Vocabulary Stickers, but also technologically complex
augmented reality translation apps.

Internet and software[edit]

Software can interact with learners in ways that books and audio cannot:
1. Some software records the learner, analyzes the pronunciation, and gives feedback. [9]
2. Software can present additional exercises in areas where a particular learner has
difficulty, until the concepts are mastered.
3. Software can pronounce words in the target language and show their meaning by using
pictures[10] instead of oral explanations. The only language in such software is the
target language. It is comprehensible regardless of the learner's native language.
Websites provide various services geared toward language education. Some sites are
designed specifically for learning languages:
1. Some software runs on the web itself, with the advantage of avoiding downloads, and
the disadvantage of requiring an internet connection.
2. Some publishers use the web to distribute audio, texts and software, for use offline.
3. Some websites offer learning activities such as quizzes or puzzles to practice language
concepts.
4. Language exchange sites connect users with complementary language skills, such as
a native Spanish speaker who wants to learn English with a native English speaker
who wants to learn Spanish. Language exchange websites essentially treat knowledge
of a language as a commodity, and provide a marketlike environment for the
commodity to be exchanged. Users typically contact each other via chat, VoIP, or
email. Language exchanges have also been viewed as a helpful tool to aid language
learning at language schools. Language exchanges tend to benefit oral proficiency,
fluency, colloquial vocabulary acquisition, and vernacular usage, rather than formal
grammar or writing skills.
Many other websites are helpful for learning languages, even though they are designed,
maintained and marketed for other purposes:
1. All countries have websites in their own languages, which learners elsewhere can use
as primary material for study: news, fiction, videos, songs, etc. In a study conducted by
the Center for Applied Linguistics, it was noted that the use of technology and media
has begun to play a heavy role in facilitating language learning in the classroom. With

the help of the internet, students are readily exposed to foreign media (music videos,
television shows, films) and as a result, teachers are taking heed of the internet's
influence and are searching for ways to combine this exposure into their classroom
teaching.[11]
2. Translation sites let learners find the meaning of foreign text or create foreign
translations of text from their native language.[12][13]
3. Speech synthesis or text to speech (TTS) sites and software let learners hear
pronunciation of arbitrary written text, with pronunciation similar to a native speaker.
4. Course development and learning management systems such as Moodle are used by
teachers, including language teachers.
5. Web conferencing tools can bring remote learners together; e.g. Elluminate Live.
6. Players of computer games can practice a target language when interacting
in Massively multiplayer online games and virtual worlds. In 2005, the virtual
world Second Life started to be used for foreign language tuition, sometimes with
entire businesses being developed.[14][15] In addition, Spains language and cultural
institute Instituto Cervantes has an "island" on Second Life.
Some Internet content is free, often from government and nonprofit sites such as BBC Online,
Book2, Foreign Service Institute, with no or minimal ads. Some is ad-supported, such as
newspapers and YouTube. Some requires a payment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_education
Direct method (education)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (August 2013)
The direct method of teaching, which is sometimes called the natural method, and is often
(but not exclusively) used in teaching foreign languages, refrains from using the
learners' native language and uses only the target language. It was established in Germany
and France around 1900 and contrasts with the Grammar translation method and other
traditional approaches, as well as with C.J.Dodson's bilingual method. It was adopted by key
international language schools such as Berlitz and Inlingua in the 1970s and many of the
language departments of the Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. State Department in 2012. [1]

In general, teaching focuses on the development of oral skills.[2] Characteristic features of the
direct method are:

teaching concepts and vocabulary through pantomiming, real-life objects and other
visual materials

teaching grammar by using an inductive approach (i.e. having learners find out rules
through the presentation of adequate linguistic forms in the target language)

centrality of spoken language (including a native-like pronunciation)

focus on question-answer patterns

Contents
[hide]

1 Principles

2 Pedagogy

3 Historical context

4 See also

5 Notes

6 References

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

I. Introduction of new word, number, alphabet character, sentence or concept (referred to as

an Element) :
SHOW...Point to Visual Aid or Gestures (for verbs), to ensure student clearly understands
what is being taught.
SAY...Teacher verbally introduces Element, with care and enunciation.
TRY...Student makes various attempts to pronounce new Element.
MOLD...Teacher corrects student if necessary, pointing to mouth to show proper shaping of
lips, tongue and relationship to teeth.
REPEAT...Student repeats each Element 5-20 times.
NOTE: Teacher should be aware of "high frequency words and verbs" and prioritize teaching
for this. (i.e. Teach key verbs such as "To Go" and "To Be" before unusual verbs like "To Trim"
or "To Sail"; likewise, teach Apple and Orange before Prune and Cranberry.)
II. Syntax, the correct location of new Element in sentence:
SAY & REPEAT...Teacher states a phrase or sentence to student; Student repeats such 5-20
times.
ASK & REPLY IN NEGATIVE...Teacher uses Element in negative situations (e.g. "Are you
the President of the United States?" or "Are you the teacher?"); Students says "No". If more
advanced, may use the negative with "Not".
INTERROGATIVES Teacher provides intuitive examples using 5 "w"s (Who, What, Where,
Why, When) or How". Use random variations to practice.
PRONOUNS WITH VERBS Using visuals (such as photos or illustrations) or gestures,
Teacher covers all pronouns. Use many random variations such as "Is Ana a woman?" or "Are
they from France?" to practice.
USE AND QUESTIONS...Student must choose and utilize the correct Element, as well as
posing appropriate questions as Teacher did.
III. Progress, from new Element to new Element (within same lesson):
A. Random Sequencing:
1. After new Element (X) is taught and learned, go to next Element (Y).
2. After next Element (Y) is taught and learned, return to practice with Element (X).
3. After these two are alternated (X-Y; Y-X; Y-Y, etc), go to 3rd Element (Z).
4. Go back to 1 and 2, mix in 3, practice (X-Y-Z; Z-Y-X; Y-Y-Z, etc.) and continue building up to
appropriate number of Elements (may be as many as 20 per lesson, depending on student,
see B.1), practicing all possible combinations and repeating 5-20 times each combination.
B. Student-Led Limits:
1. Observe student carefully, to know when mental "saturation" point is reached, indicating
student should not be taught more Elements until another time.
2. At this point, stop imparting new information, and simply do Review as follows:

C. Review: Keep random, arbitrary sequencing. If appropriate, use visuals, pointing quickly to
each. Employ different examples of Element that are easy to understand, changing country/city
names, people names, and words student already knows. Keep a list of everything taught, so
proper testing may be done.
D. Observation and Notation: Teacher should maintain a student list of words/phrases that
are most difficult for that student. The list is called "Special Attention List"
IV. Progress, from Lesson to Lesson:
LESSON REVIEW The first few minutes of each lesson are to review prior lesson(s).
GLOBAL REVIEW Transition from Lesson Review to a comprehensive review, which should
always include items from the Special Attention List.
V. Advanced Concepts:
Intermediate and Advanced Students may skip some Element introduction as appropriate;
become aware of student's language abilities, so they are not frustrated by too much review. If
Student immediately shows recognition and knowledge, move to next Element.
Non-Standard Alphabets: Teaching Student to recognize letters/characters and reading
words should employ same steps as in above Aspect I. and alphabet variations may be taught
using Aspect III. Writing characters and words should initially be done manually, either on
paper or whiteboard.
Country Accents: Any student at intermediate stages or higher should be made aware of
subtle variations in pronunciation, which depend on geography within a country or from country
to country.
It should be noted that an integral aspect of the Direct Method is varying the setting of
teaching; instructors try different scenarios using the same Element. This makes the lessons
more "real world," and it allows for some confusing distractions to the student and employ
organic variables common in the culture and locale of language use.[3]
Historical context[edit]
The direct method was an answer to the dissatisfaction with the older grammar translation
method, which teaches students grammar and vocabulary through direct translations and thus
focuses on the written language.
There was an attempt to set up conditions that imitate mother tongue acquisition, which is why
the beginnings of these attempts were called the natural method. At the turn of the 18th and
19th centuries, Sauveur and Franke proposed that language teaching should be undertaken
within the target-language system, which was the first stimulus for the rise of the direct method.
[4]

The audio-lingual method was developed in an attempt to address some of the perceived
weaknesses of the direct method.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_method_(education)#Historical_context

The Direct Method

Background
Natural Method

Principles
Guidelines for teaching

Critics

Background
Gouin had been one of the first of the nineteenth-century reformers to attempt to build a
methodology around observation of child language learning. Other reformers toward the
end of the century likewise turned their attention to naturalistic principles of language
learning, and for this reason they are sometimes referred to as advocates of a "natural"
method. In fact at various times throughout the history of language teaching, attempts have
been made to make second language learning more like first language learning. In the
sixteenth century, for example, Montaigne described how he was entrusted to a guardian
who addressed him exclusively in Latin for the first years of his life, since Montaigne's
father wanted his son to speak Latin well. Among those who tried to apply natural
principles to language classes in the nineteenth century was L. Sauveur (1826-1907), who
used intensive oral interaction in the target language, employing questions as a way of
presenting and eliciting language. He opened a language school in Boston in the late 1860s,
and his method soon became referred to as the Natural Method.
Sauveur and other believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could
be taught without translation or the use of the learner's native tongue if meaning was
conveyed directly through demonstration and action. The German scholar F. Franke
wrote on the psychological principles of direct association between forms and meanings in
the target language (1884) and provided a theoretical justification for a monolingual
approach to teaching. According to Franke, a language could best be taught by using it
actively in the classroom. Rather than using analytical procedures that focus on explanation
of grammar rules in classroom teaching, teachers must encourage direct and spontaneous
use of the foreign language in the classroom. Learners would then be able to induce rules of
grammar. The teacher replaced the textbook in the early stages of learning.
Speaking began with systematic attention to pronunciation. Known words could be used to
teach new vocabulary, using mime, demonstration, and pictures.
These natural language learning principles provided the foundation for what came to be
known as the Direct Method, which refers to the most widely known of the natural
methods. Enthusiastic supporters of the Direct Method introduced it in France and
Germany (it was officially approved in both countries at the turn of the century), and it
became widely known in the United States through its use by Sauveur and Maximilian
Berlitz in successful commercial language schools. (Berlitz, in fact, never used the term; he
referred to the method used in his schools as the Berlitz Method.)
In practice it stood for the following principles and procedures:
1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.
2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences were taught.
3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded progression organized
around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive

classes.
4. Grammar was taught inductively.
5. New teaching points were introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects, and pictures; abstract
vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasized.
These principles are seen in the following guidelines for teaching oral language, which are
still followed in contemporary Berlitz schools:
Never translate: demonstrate
Never explain: act
Never make a speech: ask questions
Never imitate mistakes: correct
Never speak with single words: use sentences
Never speak too much: make students speak much
Never use the book: use your lesson plan
Never jump around: follow your plan
Never go too fast: keep the pace of the student
Never speak too slowly: speak normally
Never speak too quickly: speak naturally
Never speak too loudly: speak naturally
Never be impatient: take it easy

Critics
The Direct Method was quite successful in private language schools, such as those of the
Berlitz chain, where paying clients had high motivation and the use of native-speaking
teachers was the norm. But despite pressure from proponents of the method, it was difficult
to implement in public secondary school education. It overemphasized and distorted the
similarities between naturalistic first language learning and classroom foreign language
learning and failed to consider the practical realities of the classroom. In addition, it lacked
a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory, and for this reason it was often criticized by the
more academically based proponents of the Reform Movement. The Direct Method
represented the product of enlightened amateurism. It was perceived to have several
drawbacks. First, it required teachers who were native speakers or who had nativelike
fluency in the foreign language. It was largely dependent on the teacher's skill, rather than
on a textbook, and not all teachers were proficient enough in the foreign language to adhere
to the principles of the method. Critics pointed out that strict adherence to Direct Method
principles was often counterproductive, since teachers were required to go to great lengths
to avoid using the native tongue, when sometimes a simple brief explanation in the
student's native tongue would have been a more efficient route to comprehension.

The Harvard psychologist Roger Brown has documented similar problems with strict Direct
Method techniques. He described his frustration in observing a teacher performing verbal
gymnastics in an attempt to convey the meaning of Japanese words, when translation would
have been a much more efficient technique to use.
By the 1920s, use of the Direct Method in noncommercial schools in Europe had
consequently declined. In France and Germany it was gradually modified into versions that
combined some Direct Method techniques with more controlled grammar-based activities.
The European popularity of the Direct Method in the early part of the twentieth century
caused foreign language specialists in the United States to attempt to have it implemented
in American schools and colleges, although they decided to move with caution. A study
begun in 1923 on the state of foreign language teaching concluded that no single method
could guarantee successful results. The goal of trying to teach conversation skills was
considered impractical in view of the restricted time available for foreign language teaching
in schools, the limited skills of teachers, and the perceived irrelevance of conversation
skills in a foreign language for the average American college student. The study - published
as the Coleman Report - advocated that a more reasonable goal for a foreign language
course would be a reading knowledge of a foreign language, achieved through the gradual
introduction of words and grammatical structures in simple reading texts. The main result
of this recommendation was that reading became the goal of most foreign language programs in the United States (Coleman 1929). The emphasis on reading continued to
characterize foreign language teaching in the United States until World War II.
Although the Direct Method enjoyed popularity in Europe, not everyone had embraced it
enthusiastically. The British applied linguist Henry Sweet had recognized its limitations. It
offered innovations at the level of teaching procedures but lacked a thorough
methodological basis. Its main focus was on the exclusive use of the target language in the
classroom, but it failed to address many issues that Sweet thought more basic. Sweet and
other applied linguists argued for the development of sound methodological principles that
could serve as the basis for teaching techniques.
In the 1920s and 1930s applied linguists systematized the principles proposed earlier by the
Reform Movement and so laid the foundations for what developed into the British approach
to teaching English as a foreign language.
Subsequent developments led to Audio-lingualism in the United States and the Oral
Approach or Situational Language Teaching in Britain.