The Swing of the Pendulum: The Hunt for a Perfect Method in Language Teaching
In this post, we examine the history of language teaching, and confront the common view that approaches to ELT have progressed in a linear fashion over time.
For centuries, language teaching professionals have been striving to make their lessons more effective, and transforming their craft, often casting a judgmental eye on past approaches in the process. This is in part due to the nature of current teacher training programs, which present the history of language teaching in a linear fashion. It’s easy to fall into the trap of taking a “not too precise glance at assumptions, approaches, methods, courses, syllabuses, [and] examinations of previous times, followed by pious astonishment that their perpetrators could be so obtuse, out-of-touch, ill-informed, or downright foolish” (Rowlinson, 1994, p. 7).
New insights in science and improvements in technology are praised for bringing teaching approaches forever closer to a state of perfection (Thornbury, 2010), yet in actuality the history of language teaching is not progressive at all. Often described as the swing of the pendulum, the ‘best practice’ in language teaching has been redefining itself for centuries. In the process, the same ideas have resurfaced time and time again (Swan, 2006).
Comenius’ swing
This is well illustrated by the professional career of a famous Latin teacher and language teaching methodologist named John Comenius. His story began in 1654, when he had just released the first edition of his ground-breaking book, the Orbis Sensualium Pictus; the first children’s picture dictionary ever to be developed. The pictures were presented in black and white with the hopes that they would be coloured by the students (Rowlinson, 1994, p. 8), and below them short paragraphs presented new vocabulary.
The book was translated into many languages, and the following is from the English edition (note the publication date, over 100 years after the first edition). A picture of a painter at an easel is featured; with a caption that reads (numbers correspond with the objects in the illustration):
Pictures 1. delight the Eyes, and adorn Rooms. The Painter 2., painteth an Image with a Pencil, 3. in a Table, 4.upon a Café-frame, 5. holding his Pallet, 6. in his left hand, on which are the Paints which were ground by the Boy, 7. on a Marble. The Carver and Statuary carve Statues, 8. of Wood and Stone. The Graver and the Cutter grave Shapes, 10. and Characters, with a Graving Chissel, 9. In Wood, Brass, and other Metals. (Comenius , 1777, p. 99 – 100).
Apart from the use of visuals, what is striking about this workbook is that the vocabulary entries are presented in chunks of language. Instead of simply listing the vocabulary, the items are presented in a context where they would naturally appear. Comenius describes these chunks of language as, “the explications of the parts of the Picture, so expressed by their own proper terms, as that same figure which is added to every piece of the picture, and the term of it, always sheweth what things belong one to another” (Comenius, 1777, p. b2).
Explaining how the picture dictionary should be used in the classroom, Comenius states that “the exemplar should always come first, the precept should always follow, and imitation should always be insisted upon” (Comenius, as cited in Rowlinson, 1994, p. 8). By exemplar, he is referring to a model or ideal representation of a language item, by precept he is referring to the rules or structures that govern the correct use of the language item, and by imitation he is referring to practice using the new language item. This demonstrates that in his Orbis Sensualium Pictus, exposure to language in use was essential, and attention to grammar and form was secondary.
Given his attitude to language teaching, it seems that Comenius would have been in good company with many of today’s popular Applied Linguists. Noted linguist, Michael Lewis for example, posits that “language is grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar” (Lewis, 1993, p. vi), meaning that lexis is essential for creating meaning, whereas grammar plays a minor role. He further claims that word choice, not grammar choice, is what dictates the structure of a sentence because language is spoken and learned in ‘chunks’ (Lewis, 1993). Lewis, like Comenius would contend that an exemplar of language should precede the precept.
Comenius’ views are also in line with a Focus on Form approach, which states that teachers can successfully teach language by engaging their learners in meaning-centred communicative activities first, only focusing on forms arising out of that context as they appear (Ellis, 1994, as cited in Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 20). Despite being separated by over 350 years of language teaching history, one can imagine that Comenius’ and modern day classrooms would be very similar.
It should be noted that near the end of his career Comenius found himself on the periphery of a brand new era of thinking – the Age of Reason. Unlike in the previous Renaissance period, the man of the Age of Reason was analytical and his view of language was prescriptive. People were expected to speak adhering to the preordained grammar of a language, and were looked down upon when they were not able to. The manipulation of the structures of a language was thought to cultivate the mind, and the centrality of this as an approach to language learning rested well with the era’s romanticism of logic. There was little place for Comenius’ approach to language teaching, and ultimately he recanted his previous methods in exchange for a method which focused primarily on pre-learned rules and translation (Rowlinson, 1994).
This method from the Age of Reason is now referred to as the Grammar-Translation Method. Originally it emerged as a way give scholars access to literature which only existed in Latin and Greek, but as the study of modern languages gained in popularity, the method was used for them as well. Today, there is little support for the Grammar-Translation Method, and it is criticised because there is “no literature that offers a rationale or justification for it or that attempts to relate it to issues in linguistics, psychology, or educational theory” (Richards & Rodgers, 1999, p. 5).
Although Comenius’ initial outlook on language teaching appeared to be in line with current thinking, he later realigned himself with a method that contemporary thinking views as outdated and useless. His story very clearly demonstrates the impact that the external environment has on the approaches taken to language teaching. Of course, from Comenius’ perspective, the new Grammar-Translation Method must have seemed superior to his previous method. Inherent to the notion of ‘method,’ is the indication that it will provide students with the most efficient route to language proficiency (Prabhu, 1990, p. 168).
The Persistence of the Grammar-Translation Method
There were relatively few challengers to the Grammar-Translation Method for a very long time. It wasn’t until late in the 19th century that discontent and rejection of the method began to surface. Increased interaction among Europeans created a need for spoken language proficiency that Grammar-Translation couldn’t offer, and a new approach was necessary. To address this, scholars such as Henry Sweet, Wilhelm Vietor and Paul Passy began seriously considering language teaching, giving rise to the field of Applied Linguistics. Simultaneously, language teachers began exploring other options for teaching, drawing the pendulum once again away from grammar focused teaching (Howatt, 1984).
Of these teachers, the insights gained by the Frenchman Francis Gouin over 100 years ago are notable. Keen on learning German, he had decided to move to Hamburg, Germany for a year of study. Being a Latin teacher back home, he attempted the methods common to the time; memorizing a German grammar book and a table of 248 irregular German verbs. After 10 days of this, he joined a lecture at the University to test his comprehension. Much to his shock and dismay he could not understand a single word. Later he wrote,
But alas! in vain did I strain my ears; in vain my eye strove to interpret the slightest movements of the lips of the professor; in vain I passed from the first class room to a second; not a word, not a single word would penetrate my understanding. Nay, more than this, I did not even distinguish a single one of the grammatical forms so newly studied; I did not recognise even a single one of the irregular verbs just freshly learnt, though they must certainly have fallen in crowds from the lips of the speaker. (Gouin, 1892, p. 11)
Not discouraged, Gouin made several additional attempts to learn German over the next year. He memorized German roots and books, translated Goethe and Schiller, and memorized a 30,000 word German dictionary by rote. Nonetheless, despite his mental anguish and motivation, he could not learn German this way. Ultimately, having discredited the usefulness of his method, he returned home a failure (Brown, 2007, p. 49). To put the final nail in the coffin, Gouin discovered that while he had been studying German to no avail, back home his three year old nephew had become quite proficient in French. With this, he stumbled upon an insight which echoed the early views of Comenius:
Alas! I can say it now; it all depended upon a very small error. I had simply mistaken the organ. The organ of language – ask the little child – is not the eye; it is the ear. The eye is made for colours, and not for sounds and words. […] I had studied by the eye, and I wished to understand by my ears. I had set myself to represent printed characters instead of representing real facts and living ideas. I had wearied my arms to strengthen my legs. (Gouin, 1892, p. 33)
Out of this realization, came Gouin’s methodology book, The Art of Teaching and Studying Languages (1892). Unknowingly resurfacing many of the ideas found in Comenius’ work, Gouin outlined his Series Method, a method where learners tackled the target language (TL) without the aid of their first language (L1), and without the use of grammatical rules or explanations. Using his method, learners were to study whole sentences which depicted a ‘series’ of interconnected events that were easy for the mind to imagine. Mimicking the natural way in which children learn their first language, Gouin paved the way for the more popular and long standing Direct Method.
Like the Series Method, the aim of Maximilian Berliz’s Direct Method was for learners to acquire the second language (L2) in a similar fashion to the way in which they had learned their L1; through “lots of active oral interaction, spontaneous use of the language, no translation between first and second languages, and little or no analysis of grammatical rules” (Brown, 2007, p. 50). Like Comenius, Gouin and Berlitz developed an approach to language teaching that was appropriate for the needs of the learners at the time.
The hunt for the perfect method, however, was far from over. The Direct Method enjoyed moderate success until the 1920s, when the pendulum again began to favor Grammar-Translation. In the 1950s behaviourism and the Audio-Lingual Method entered the stage, enjoying over twenty years in the spotlight before being rejected. In the void that this created, the 70s brought on a flurry of new methods such as the Silent Way, the Natural Approach, and Total Physical Response. Some serenity has since been found under the umbrella of the Communicative Approach, however, several attempts have been made since the early 90s to knock it from the limelight as well (Richards & Rodgers, 1999).
The Plea for a Historical Perspective in ELT
By now it is clear that ELT practices have not been improved upon over time, but have been adapted to suit different needs at different points in history. Given the variety of contexts under which ELT can be found today, perhaps it is not surprising that there is still very little consensus on what the best approach to language teaching is:
Despite all the work that has been done on first – and second-language acquisition, we know surprisingly little about how languages are learnt, and even less about how they can best be taught. Theories come and go, assertions are plentiful, facts are in short supply. […] Research on methodology is inconclusive, and has not shown detectable and lasting effects, for instance, for implicit or explicit instruction, for inductive verses explicit instruction, or for separated-out-study of structure verses incidental focus on form during communicative activity. (Swan, 2006)
Although rather bleak, an important point is realized here. Seeing that methods have fluctuated so frequently in the history of ELT, and since there is no conclusive evidence in support of a certain approach to language teaching, the burden rests (at least partially) outside the realm of science to make the best of the situation.
Unlike Comenius and Gouin, however, today’s langauge teachers have the advantage of a greater variety of tools to choose from when developing their theory of practice. As Brown (2002) articulates, “we have emerged well beyond the dark ages of language teaching when a handful of prepackaged elixirs filled up a small shelf of options” (p. 17). Today, pedagogical decisions can be made based on an understanding of a variety of options with a sound knowledge of how those options have unfolded in the past.
Stern (1983) points out that language teachers and language theorists have all had their own personal learning experiences, which have shaped their beliefs and assumptions about teaching. Likewise, he asserts that the pedagogical assumptions and beliefs of the profession as a whole are deeply engrained in its history. Since language teachers, theorists, and their profession have been constructed over time, they are intricately linked to their past. Unfortunately, “language teaching theory has a short memory. Perhaps because of our involvement in current problems and polemics, we have tended to ignore the past or to distort its lessons, and to re-enact old battles over and over again” (1983, p. 76-77). By connecting with these beliefs and assumptions, Stern believes that we can come to a more comprehensive understanding of the issues surrounding the pedagogical decisions which need to be made. Stern strongly urges us to closely examine the history of language teaching so that we can learn from our blunders and successes, and have a better understanding of the pedagogical options that are available.
In a recent talk, speaking about the history of ELT methods, Thornbury (2010) stated that irrespective of previous methods, good teaching has always existed and has always been based on good principles at that time. In respect to the notion of method itself, Thornbury suggests that it is actually irrelevant:
What we have experienced is a kind of disaffection with the term method. It sounds too scientist. The notion that there’s a one size fits all method for all particular contexts simply does not wash with the diversity of contexts in which English or any language is taught or experienced. (Thornbury, 2010).
Opposed to a view of ELT’s history as a succession of methods, Thornbury suggests that the changes which have occurred in ELT are actually just “different configurations of the same basic options” (Pennycook, 1989, as cited in Thornbury, 2010). Thornbury suggests that these configurations – or parameters as he calls them – are as follows:
Form <–> Function
Analytic <–> Experiential
Accuracy <–> Communication
System <–> Skills
Segregated <–> Integrated
Cognitive <–> Affective
Transmissive <–> Dialogic
Deductive <–> Inductive
Monolingual <–> Bilingual
Rather than applying a methodological label, Thornbury contends that past methods can be mapped onto these nine spectra. Grammar-Translation, for example, would fall on the left end of these nine spectra, whereas Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) would fall to the right. Thornbury suggests that it would be ideal if in the future, language teachers were able to continuously recalibrate their approach to match the needs of their learners.
As it turns out, many of the principles accepted to represent good teaching can be found in dated English teaching course books and methodology books. Throughout his career as a language teacher and trainer, Thornbury has been collecting these materials from all over the world. He does this because he sees it as an opportunity to develop a deeper knowledge of the roots of his profession, and as a way to unearth good ideas from before his time. The following quotes were all unearthed in these dated materials (Thornbury, 2010):
1910s
Find your point of contact in the daily experience of the foreigner, and lead him as speedily as possible into touch with the language of daily life…”
- Roberts, P. 1918. English for Coming Americans: Teachers Manual. p. 19
1940s
“Learn by Speaking. – Do not merely think the words … say them as if they were real; act them; language is not a set of words; it is a form of behaviour.”
- West, M. 1948. Improve Your English. p. 11.
“They should feel that each lesson is their lesson, not the teacher’s…. In an English class which is well run, the teacher is only a guide.”
- French, F. 1949. The Teaching of English Abroad: Part II The Junior Course. p.31.
1950s
“We teach grammar through conversation and not, as some school teachers attempt, conversation through grammar.”
- Halbrich, J.O. 1953. Toil and Chat: English for Beginners, p. 93.
“A command of structure is more easily acquired by reading, speaking and writing the language than by hearing and studying explanations.”
- Gurrey, P. 1955. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. p. 80.
“Every teacher of languages should devise ways and methods of getting the new language used as it in real life, that is, language that performs some useful purpose”.
- Gurrey, P. 1955. Teaching English as a Foreign Language. p. 51.
“Language is not a sterile subject to be confined to the classroom. One of two things must be done: either life must be brought to the classroom or the class must be taken to life.”
- Strevens, P. Spoken Language. 1956, p. 69
1960s
“The teacher must really be himself and give himself, talking to real people about real things and then training his pupils to talk to one another about real things.”
- Billows, L. 1961. The Techniques of Language Teaching. p. 56.
“The language must not be allowed to stay imprisoned between the pages of a book.”
- Billows, L. 1961. The Techniques of Language Teaching. p. 71.
How might a historical perspective apply to the modern day language classroom?
In this post, we have presented a brief history of language teaching, and closely examined the notion of method. The notion of a ‘best method’ for language teaching has been called into question, as has the claim that approaches to language teaching are evolving with time. Instead, it has been suggested that a close look at ELT’s methodological history will reveal more than a mere succession of methods – rather the continuous recalibration of a finite set of principles, with several useful insights which can still be put into practice today.
Prabhu appeals for an “eclecticism in language pedagogy – not an argument that different contexts should use different methods, but an argument that the same context should use a number of different methods” (1990, p. 166). This approach is well demonstrated by a sample lesson idea which was posted by Thornbury on his discussion board (Thornbury, 2001). In this post, Thornbury replies to a message asking how to respond to emergent language that arises in the classroom:
To accomplish this he creates a scenario where a student answers the question, “What are your plans for next month?” with “Next month, I plan go to San Francisco for sightseeing.” Thornbury writes that at this point there are a variety of choices available to the teacher. The teacher can ignore the error and focus on the content, or focus on the error in a variety of ways. The teacher can correct the student, elicit “a self-correction or a peer-correction” or the teacher can focus on “both meaning and form together, by asking for clarification.” Of course, the teacher can also correct the error through a recast.
Thornbury suggests first making a mental note of the error, or recording it on a piece of paper and waiting until “more errors of a similar type […] have emerged.” Once this has occurred, Thornbury suggests several techniques for dealing with the error.
To start, he suggests “boarding” the errors and eliciting the corrections from the students, encouraging them to make connections between their errors and the rules. Once the corrections have been made, he recommends putting the students into small groups, having them write as many substitutions for the content words as possible in a set amount of time, and then drilling them for “fluid pronunciation.” Then to consolidate what has been learned, he suggests asking the students to “translate the corrected sentences into their L1,” and then back into the English.
In the remainder of Thornbury’s sample lesson, students are asked to recall when the target phrases were spoken, and to re-enact the conversation – first in writing, then in a role-play. The students are then instructed to create new conversations using the target language, and to design a test which can be exchanged and evaluated. Following this, are several suggestions for freer practice, such as role plays are summative writings.
To summarize his sample lesson, Thornbury writes,
The important thing, I think, is to capture text, whether sentences, bits of talk or whole conversations, and then put it to work, improving it, rehea[rs]ing it, performing it, re-formulating it in another mode (speech to writing, writing to speech) or register (formal, public or informal, private). And there must be some focused attention on the language – but not just the weaknesses, also the strengths. And there must be some kind of summarising activity, for the record. (Thornbury, 2001)
In this sample lesson, many of the flavours of ELT’s history can be found. The incidental focus on the emergent language begins the lesson by taking a Focus on Form approach, which soon shifts into an Audio-Lingual, and Grammar-Translation lesson when the target phrases are drilled and translated into the students’ L1s. As the lesson moves towards freer practice of the target forms, a Communicative Approach is taken. Thornbury has not subscribed to any particular method, but instead has recalibrated his approach at different points in the lesson to accommodate the needs of the students.
In the next post
In Part 2, we move away from the history of language teaching and turn to current practices in language teaching. We begin with an exploration of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), where we will identify the strengths of the approach, and highlight its weaknesses. These limitations will then be contrasted with recent attempts to improve upon CLT, in hopes of identifying the optimal route to language proficiency.
More Reading:
In order of appearance
Rowlinson, W. (1994). The Historical Ball and Chain. In Swarbrick, A. (Eds.), Teaching Modern Languages (p. 7 – 17). New York: Routledge.
Thornbury, S. (2010). D is for Dogme [Web Log Message]. Retrieved from http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/d-is-for-dogme.
Thornbury, S. (2010). RE: Why I teach unplugged but don’t do Dogme. [Web Log Comment]. Retrieved from http://jasonrenshaw.typepad.com/jason_renshaws_web_log/2010/10/why-i-teach-unplugged-but-dont-do-dogme.html.
Thornbury, S. (Video Lecture) (2010). The secret history of methods: A discussion with Scott Thornbury. [Web]. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/L2q9B2BEV2U.
Swan, M. (2006). Teaching Grammar – Does Grammar Teaching Work? Modern English Teacher 15(2), 5-13.
Comenius, J. (1777). Orbis Sensualium Pictus. London: Printed for S. Leacroft, at the Globe, Charing-Cross.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and the way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language teaching. Peaslake: Delta Publishing.
Richards, J. C. & Rodgers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Prabhu, N. (1990). There Is No Best Method-Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), p. 161-176.
Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gouin, F. (1892). The Art of Teaching and Studying Languages. London: George Philip and Son.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2002). English Language Teaching in the “Post Method” Era: Toward Better Diagnosis, Treatment, and Assessment. In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (p. 9 – 18). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornbury, S. (2001). Making a lesson [Yahoo Discussion Board Comment]. Retrieved from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dogme/message/582.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[…] our previous post, we learned that current approaches to language teaching are deeply rooted their history. In this […]
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!