Having trouble motivating your students? Start with why.

As an educator you’ve probably been there.

A well-planned lesson inspired by your best intentions, met by drowsy eyelids and sullen shoulders.

You feel that you have done everything right and you can’t understand why you’re being met with so much resistance. Your approach is sound, but it’s no match for the lack of motivation that’s spreading like an unwanted weed throughout your classroom.

All that you’re trying to do is help your students to learn – and you can’t understand why on earth they are responding so half-heartedly. You would give anything to see your students as dedicated to the lesson as you are, but what can be done to cast some sunlight on this cloud of despair?

Hopefully this idea from a recent TEDtalk can help breathe some life into even the most wearisome of your learners.

In this talk, Simon Sinek claims that across the board, all great leaders motivate others by communicating in the same way.

They start with why.

According to Sinek, while most speakers sell themselves with what they do, only an inspirational few do this by communicating why they do it. This is illustrated by what Sinek calls the golden circle:

Sinek claims that messages which focus on “how” and “what” (the two outer circles) are processed by the neocortex of the brain, but often don’t get the results that we are looking for.

Involved in higher thought, the neocortex makes up the outer layer of the human brain, and is entrusted with the task of sensory perception, rational and conscious thought, and language.  It’s able to analyze a great deal of facts and figures, and process a vast amount of information with ease. When messages focus on ‘what’ and ‘how’, it is the extremely competent neocortex that deals with this information.

Unfortunately, the rational analysis of information doesn’t inspire change in behavior. To motivate change, messages must be targeted beyond the neocortex to the limbic  brains.

Unlike the neocortex, the limbic brains are responsible for feelings of trust and loyalty. They dictate all human behavior and decisions, and have no capacity for language. They aren’t concerned with the ‘what‘ or the ‘how‘, but are very concerned with the ‘why‘ in messages.

When we communicate from the outside in (what to why), people can understand vast amounts of complicated information, facts and figures – but this doesn’t drive behavior. On the other hand, when we communicate from the inside out (why to what), we’re talking directly to the part of the brain that controls behavior, and we allow people to rationalize it with the things we say and do. This is where gut feelings come into play.

“People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it” – Simon Sinek

To start with why, we need to communicate our purpose for doing what we do first. We need to start with what we believe. We need to start with the reason why we get out of bed in the morning and why our audience should care. Once we have taken care of the why, we can follow up with our process and what it is we’re doing.

As an example, let’s consider two ways in which we could sell multivitamins:

Beginning with what:

Our multivitamins contain all of the nutrients which the human body requires. These vitamins are derived from all natural sources and are the purest form of multivitamin available on the market.

Beginning with why:

We believe that you have the right to live a long and illness-free life, to be full of energy from morning until night, and to always operate at your maximum potential. We have developed a multivitamin with this belief in mind, which is derived from all natural sources. Our tablets provide you with the purest form of multivitamin on the market, and meet all of your dietary needs. 

In the field of ELT, this same very simple idea can be used to motivate and inspire our learners:

At any ESL school:

Our school’s mission is to help people from all over the world to upgrade their careers and to receive the education they desire, by helping them to communicate more effectively in English. We believe that the best way to accomplish this is to foreground meaningful communication in all of the courses that we offer, and to put our students’ language needs at the heart of our curriculum. All of these courses are taught by qualified instructors and are available in several different formats.

In an EAP classroom:

The purpose of this course is to ensure that you are able to find employment in your chosen field of expertise, by helping you to prepare for the challenge of not being able to study in your first language. This course accomplishes this by taking a ‘content-based’ approach, giving you the opportunity to practice engaging in English academic discourse in a safe environment, and allowing you to perfect areas of difficulty before meeting them in your content courses.

 In a speaking class:

The purpose of this course is to help you to speak English more confidently and fluently, so that you can communicate better outside the classroom. This course will help you to accomplish this by (insert approach here).

As teachers on a day to day basis, we can influence an increase in learner motivation just by changing the way that we communicate what we do and what are courses are designed for. By focusing on outcomes rather than process, students will at least on a subconscious level feel more motivated to participate in lessons.

So tomorrow, when you communicate what the day’s lesson will be about, instead of saying “today we’re talking about …” or “today we’re listening to”, start with why.

/0 Comments/by

A Brief History of ELT: Part 2 – Communicative Language Teaching

In our previous post, we learned that current approaches to language teaching are deeply rooted their history. In this post, we define and explore the history of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), and discuss its strengths and weaknesses as it exists in today’s language classrooms.

CLT was born out of a void created by dissatisfaction for the Grammar-Translation and Audio-Lingual Method, and it is undeniable that it dominates the current sphere of English Language Teaching (ELT). Although the previous methods were proficient in providing their students with the ability to produce accurate models of English, they were unable to assist them in generating fluent, spontaneous, native-like speech (Hall, 2011, p. 93). The purpose of the Communicative Approach was to give these students the opportunity to focus on authentic language in use, and to provide them with the ability to produce ‘real’ language. Richards describes this shift as a movement away from “grammatical competence […] to the knowledge and skills needed to use grammar and other aspects of language appropriately for different communicative purposes” (Richards, 2006, p. 9).

The foundations of Communicative Language Teaching seem to have been influenced by a variety of factors, including Dell Hymes’ definition of communicative competence, Stephen Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, and Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis.

Communicative Competence

 The term ‘communicative competence’ was initially coined by Dell Hymes in 1979 (Hymes, 1979). Criticising Chomsky for the narrow definition that he had given to linguistic competence in his book, Syntactic Structure, Hymes claimed that true mastery of a language required much more (1957, as cited in Hymes, 1979, p. 2). According to Hymes (1979), Chomsky had defined linguistic competence as the “tacit knowledge of language structure, that is, knowledge that is commonly not conscious or available for spontaneous report, but necessarily implicit in what the (ideal) listener can say” (Hymes, 1979, p. 7). Hymes on the other hand, stated that what language teachers should strive for is communicative competence; knowledge of the language structure as well as social knowledge regarding these structures, and the ability to use the language appropriately in a variety of contexts (Hymes, 1979). According to Canale and Swain, communicative competence describes four discrete skills; grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, strategic competence and discourse competence (Canale and Swain, 1980; Canale, 1983).

This can be illuminated by the example question, “Do you drink?” (Thornbury & Slade, 2006). A Chomskian understanding of this phrase would interpret it as a present simple question about a fact, whereas a Hymean understanding could also interpret it as an offer in some contexts. The concept of communicative competence foregrounds the importance of this type of knowledge in conjunction with Chomsky’s linguistic competence.

The Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

 Much like Gouin’s Series Method from the turn of the century, Stephen Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis was based upon what he observed to be similarities between L1 and L2 acquisition. He proposed that by creating an environment that was similar to that of children learning their first language, language lessons would be more successful. Presented as five hypotheses – the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affective filter hypothesis (Krashen, 1977, as cited in Krashen, 1981) – Krashen stated that languages could be acquired simply by exposing learners to “meaningful and motivating input that is just slightly beyond their current level of linguistic competence but sufficiently comprehensible for the learner to understand” (Spada, 2007, p. 274).

Krashen’s claims have since been widely criticised since they cannot be substantiated through empirical testing; however, the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis is often intuitively accepted by language teachers (Spada, 2007). It has undoubtedly had a strong influence on current practices in language teaching.

The Interaction Hypothesis

 Following in Krashen’s footsteps, Michael Long investigated interaction between native and non-native speakers, and between non-native speakers and other non-native speakers in the classroom. His goal was to determine the viability of interaction in the classroom as a form of comprehensible input. Based on his research and several other related studies, Long hypothesized that the process of negotiating meaning alone may be sufficient in acquiring a TL. Long also found that these effects were expedited by interaction which required all of its participants to receive information from each other (Long & Porter, 1985, p. 222).

Like Hymes’ definition of communicative competence, and Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, Long’s Interaction Hypothesis emphasized a focus on meaning over a focus on grammatical forms in the classroom. In combination with the 70s’ thirst for a new approach to language teaching, these ideas seem to have pushed the pendulum towards a preference for meaning-focused instruction. Although it is difficult to directly link these theories to the Communicative Approach, their sentiments are definitely evident in today’s communicative language classrooms (Spada, 2007).

Defining the Communicative Approach

 According to Howatt, two versions of CLT exist; a strong form and a weak form (Howatt, 1984, p. 279). In its weak form, language structures are presented within the context of a specific “‘function’, ‘notion’ or ‘topic’” (Holliday, 1994, p. 170), which are thereafter practiced during a ‘communicative’ activity. Although the four skills are present, emphasis is placed on speaking, maximizing student talking time, and interaction. On the other hand, in the strong version of CLT, the word ‘communication’ is used to describe interaction between the learners and the target language. This is accomplished through input, and by prompting the students to accomplish tasks in the target language (Holliday, 1994, p. 171-172). To put this simply, in a weak approach to CLT, students are “learning to use English,” whereas in a strong approach to CLT they are “using English to learn it” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279).

While the strong version of CLT can still be found in some contexts (Task Based Language Teaching, Content Based Instruction), “it is the weak form that generally dominated, and perhaps still dominates, thinking within Western ELT” (Hall, 2011, p. 94). Without doubt, this is because the weak form of CLT is more practical and applicable to teaching materials than the strong form is. In the weak version of CLT, communicative materials can be built around a backbone of language focused aims, with language-focused activities surrounding “‘real’ and meaningful communication” (Howatt, 1984, p. 279).

Regardless of the version of CLT, Nunan has famously summarized CLT as being characterized by the following features:

  1. An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.
  2. The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.
  3. The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language, but also on the learning process itself.
  4. An enhancement of the learner’s own personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.
  5. An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom. (Nunan, 1991 p. 279)

According to Lightbrown and Spada (1995), in a communicative environment:

  1. There is a limited amount of error correction, and meaning is emphasized over form.
  2. Input is simplified and made comprehensible by the use of contextual cues, props, and gestures, rather than through structural grading.
  3. Learners usually have only limited time for learning. Sometimes, how­ever, subject-matter courses taught through the second language can add time for language learning.
  4. Contact with proficient or native speakers of the language is limited. As with traditional instruction, it is often only the teacher who is a proficient speaker. Learners have considerable expos­ure to the interlanguage of other learners. This naturally contains errors which would not be heard in an environment where the interlocutors are native speakers.
  5. A variety of discourse types are introduced through stories, role playing, the use of ‘real-life’ materials such as newspapers and television broad­casts, and field trips.
  6. There is little pressure to perform at high levels of accuracy, and there is often a greater emphasis on comprehension than on production, especially in the early stages of learning.
  7. Modified input is a defining feature of this approach to instruction. The teacher in these classes makes every effort to speak to students at a level of language they can understand. In addition, other students speak a simpli­fied language. (p.95, as cited in Senior 2006, p. 249)

Task-Based Language Teaching

 Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) is a method which emerged as a natural extension of the strong version of CLT. Unlike in the weak version of CLT, a Task-Based syllabus is governed by a series of meaning-focused tasks – without any premeditated attention to specific language points. Rather than focusing on how to speak, the focus of TBLT is on what is to be said. Tasks become the vehicles of language development (Hall, 2011, p. 95-96).

Over the years, there has been some variation as to what exactly a definition of task should encompass (Breen, 1987; Ellis, 2003; Ellis, 2009; Littlewood, 2004; Williams and Burden, 1997). Skehan (1998), for example, proposed that a task is “an activity in which meaning is primary, there is a communication problem to solve, and the task is closely related to real-world activities” (Skehan, 1998, as cited in Belgar and Hunt, 2002, p. 100). Ellis (2001), on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive definition:

A task is a workplan that requires learners to process language pragmatically in order to achieve an outcome that can be evaluated in terms of whether the correct or appropriate propositional content has been conveyed. To this end, it requires them to give primary attention to meaning and to make use of their own linguistic resources, although the design of the task may predispose them to choose particular forms. A task is intended to result in language use that bears a resemblance, direct or indirect, to the way language is used in the real world. Like other language activities, a task can engage productive or receptive, and oral or written skills, and also various cognitive processes (p. 16). According to Willis (1996), tasks are organized into three stages:

  • Pre-task: introduction to the topic.
  • Task cycle: learners carry out the task, plan their report back to the whole group and make their reports.
  • Language focus: learners analyse and practice the language that was used. (as cited in Hall, 2011, p. 96)

Belgar and Hunt (2002) write that pre-task activities are “essential for providing adequate support to the learners in their attempts to deal with a series of complex, challenging tasks” (p. 101). It is at this point that the teacher can introduce new vocabulary, grammar points, or knowledge that is pertinent to completing the task effectively. Pre-tasks can help students interpret tasks in a more fluent, complex, and accurate way (Beglar and Hunt, 2002).

The Benefits to Adopting a Communicative Approach

According to the literature, adopting a Communicative Approach has several benefits. The most obvious feature of CLT and perhaps the most beneficial is the fact that “everything is done with a communicative intent” (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 129). According to Morrow (as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2000), this is realized because genuinely communicative activities contain an information gap, choice, and feedback.

For Morrow, information gap occurs when two language learners communicate information that the other does not have. During this process, the learners have the freedom to choose how they wish to articulate themselves, and are able to evaluate the success of their language use depending upon the feedback that they receive from each other. According to Morrow, language development cannot take place without these elements (Morrow, as cited in Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 129). Proponents of the Communicative Approach also assert that language which is meaningful to the learner promotes learning (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

Rather than developing a research agenda, advocates of CLT generally “see their mission as to convince teachers of the correctness of the theory” (Richards & Renandya, 2002, p. 6). In part this is probably due to the nature of the approach. Unlike methods, the principles of CLT are open to interpretation, making it likely to manifest itself differently depending on the context. This is well evidenced by individual language teacher’s interpretations of CLT. When asked, teacher responses are typically different from their peers, and from the literature (Senior, 2006, p. 250). Since the Communicative Approach has not been standardized it would be nearly impossible to produce findings that can be generalized through scientific research. In this, empirical findings that directly support the approach are sparse. Nonetheless, early empirical findings from Allwright, Prabhu, and Swain and Lapkin do support CLT.

Allwright’s findings come from a remedial English course which was taught at the University of Essex in 1974. Despite popular opinion at the time, Allwright had made sweeping changes to the course by adopting a Communicative Approach. Rather than building the course around a structural syllabus, the course was governed by classroom activities that were relevant to the learners, and provided opportunities for spontaneous language production (Allwright, 1979). According to Allwright, the course was extremely successful, and subsequent reports of the account paved the way for future communicative course books (Allwright, 2005, p. 12).

A similar project was carried out in Bangalore, India. Led by Prabhu, the project is notably the first attempt to deliver a language course based solely on a Task-Based syllabus. According to Prabhu, students enjoyed the course thoroughly, while also advancing their language ability at a rate similar to or better than peers learning by more traditional means (Howatt, 1984, p. 346-349).

At the same time in Canada, Swain and Lapkin (1982) were busy synthesizing ten years of research on French immersion programs in Ontario schools. They found that delivering a school curriculum to English speaking students in French progressed students to advanced levels of the language. These findings however, were later partially disputed by Harley and Swain (1985). Although the learners were able to demonstrate proficiency in their receptive ability, their production skills were less than native-like.

The Limitations of Adopting a Communicative Approach

 Despite the said benefits of adopting a communicative approach, CLT has not gone without criticism. Very early on the Communicative Approach was eloquently attacked by Michael Swan (1985) for being too prescriptive, and for focusing exclusively on meaning to the detriment of form. Since, the Communicative Approach has been questioned for a variety of reasons.

Criticism of Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

With regard to the Comprehensible Input Hypothesis, Skehan (1998) contends that Krashen oversimplifies the connection between comprehension, the development of the interlanguage and production. Skehan claims that when individuals hear language, a variety of strategies are used to interpret the information. Content words for example are given priority over less informative words in an utterance. He argues that language is not parsed word for word, as this would be too exhaustive during communication (especially in the L2). Instead, meaning is often found by combining language input, context and schematic knowledge. In this, “the comprehension process can be partly detached from the underlying syntactic system and from production” (Skehan, 1998, p. 15). In other words, it may be possible for a learner to understand utterances in the L2 without any attention to the language’s grammar. Learners have already developed their ability to derive meaning from contextual cues and schematic knowledge, as they do this in their L1 as well. It seems likely therefore that when learners are confronted with input in the L2, they are more likely to search for meaning through contextual and schematic knowledge than through their structural knowledge of the target language. This would explain why Swain and Lapkin’s (1982) French immersion students were capable of native-like French comprehension but unable to produce the language accurately.

Criticism of Long’s Interaction Hypothesis

Skehan also questioned CLT’s stance on the role of output and interaction in the classroom. While he agrees that output is paramount to language development, he is skeptical about whether language structures can be acquired through this alone. According to its advocates (Gass and Varonis, 1994 and Pica, 1994, as cited in Skehan, 1998), the negotiation of meaning between learners will create difficulties in producing language which will motivate them to modify their output to avoid conversation breakdown. This in turn is thought to illuminate limitations in the learners’ language ability, allowing them to improve upon gaps in their language ability precisely when they are having difficulty.

Skehan maintains however that extensive negotiation of meaning can be frustrating for learners and is unlikely to occur in natural communication. He asserts that the cognitive faculty required for negotiating meaning may overload students, making it unlikely that they will consolidate their accomplishments. Language development would require learners to communicate utterances in their L2, while simultaneously comprehending input, objectively monitoring what has been said, and committing it to memory (Skehan, 1998).

The Shift towards Form Focused Instruction

The limitations of exclusively focusing on meaning in CLT have been addressed by a shift in how CLT is taught. Although CLT is often criticised for giving all of its attention to developing learner fluency to the detriment of learner accuracy, this is not in line with the view of most applied linguists and TBLT. Contrary to popular criticism, the goal of the Communicative Approach is to include communication, not to exclude form (Spada, 2007 p. 275-276). These misconceptions are perhaps the result of CLT’s theoretical foundation, and early CLT programs which focused primarily on meaning (see above). Most applied linguists today, however, tend to agree that “the inclusion of form-focused instruction leads to improvement in students’ knowledge and their ability to use that knowledge” (Norris and Ortega, 2000 & Spada, 1997, as cited in Spada, 2007, p. 276).

In CLT, form-focused instruction is usually accomplished with a Focus on Form, rather than a Focus on Forms approach. While a Focus on Forms approach addresses form from a pre-determined sequence of grammar points, a Focus on Form approach contends that these points can emerge at any time during a lesson “as a consequence of the learners’ engagement in meaningful communication” (Hall, 2011, p. 70). Summarizing the argument for a Focus on Form, Harmer (2007) writes,

Students acquire language best when they have focused on it either because they need it, or have come across it in a meaning-focused communicative task, or because in some other way they have noticed language which is relevant to them at a particular time. (p. 54, as cited in Hall, 2011, p. 70)

Simply put, Focus on Form can be defined as “any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to form either implicitly or explicitly . . . within meaning-based approaches to L2 instruction [and] in which a focus on language is provided in either spontaneous or predetermined ways” (Spada, 1997, p. 73, as cited in Spada, 2011, p. 226). In the classroom, Focus on Form can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including recasts (“repeating the learner’s incorrect utterance, but reformulating it into a correct form, phrase or sentence” (Hall, 2011, p. 250)), elicitation, corrective feedback, drilling, putting language to use in new contexts, high frequency exposure to a particular language feature, drawing a learners attention to a particular language feature by enhancing it in text, and even overt board work (Spada, 2011; Thornbury, 2011a, 2011b). According to Spada (2011), however, explicit attention to form is more effective than implicit attention to form, meaning that Focus on Form works best when teachers provide “overt instruction and corrective feedback, including the use of meta-language and clear signals to the learners that there was a right and a wrong way to say/write something” (Spada, 2011, p. 227).

Criticism towards the Notion of Authenticity in CLT

Although there has been some turbulence in defining authentic language (Gilmore, 2007), there seems to be agreement that authentic language is created by proficient speakers of a target language, with a social purpose which exists outside the classroom. Incorporating such materials in the classroom is thought to increase learner motivation, as they give learners the opportunity to interact with the target language as it exists in the real world (Guariento and Morley, 2011).

Although there is a general consensus in language teaching that authenticity in texts and tasks is imperative to language development, CLT has been accused of being inauthentic on both fronts. Widdowson (1998) contends that despite the appeal of authenticity in the classroom, it is actually impossible to accomplish. He suggests that any real world task that is emulated in the classroom lacks authenticity because it has been removed from its natural context and placed into a context of learning. Likewise, Widdowson maintains that texts which are removed from their natural social context and intended for learning are equally as artificial (Widdwson, 1998). What others would define as an authentic text, Widdowson refers to as a “textual trace” (p. 712). He upholds that textual traces are not authentic, because they cannot interact with their intended “contextual conditions to realise discourse” (p. 712). Widdowson states that the only way in which a text can “be made pragmatically real as discourse is if it is reconnected up with context of some kind” (p. 712), however, “one obviously cannot reinstate the original contexts from which it came” (ibid.). This is especially true in EFL, where any interaction with the target language is likely to occur within the classroom. Since the ‘textual trace’ of texts used for instruction originated in another country (perhaps on the other side of the world), there is a massive disconnect between their intended context and how they are being used in the classroom. Widdowson states that if the communicative approach really aims to deliver authentic learning experiences, it must find a way to localise exemplars of the target language so that the learners “can engage with it as discourse” (ibid). Since CLT has not found a way to do this, it can be argued that any interaction with the language in the language classroom is pretend, and may be too far removed from authentic exemplars of the language to be useful.

Although not the dominant position, it has also been suggested that authenticity may not be the best path to language development (Cook, 1997; Widdowson, 1998). Cook (1997) asserts that the authentic speech of native speaking adults is a poor model for learners to imitate, as they are unlikely to ever reach such levels of authenticity themselves. Especially for English learners, he suggests that since English is a language of international communication, native-like speech may actually hamper a learner’s ability to communicate (Cook, 1997).

Questioning the cultural appropriateness of CLT

Despite near global acceptance for the Communicative Approach, a disparity still exists between policy and practice (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Littlewood, 2007; Nunan, 2003). All over the world, studies have demonstrated that teachers still opt for traditional approaches to language instruction, even when they are expected to instruct their classes using CLT (Chowdhry, 2010; Li, 1998; Littlewood, 2007; Nunan, 2003). This is as a result of three factors: the ideology of these teachers and their society (Burnaby & Sun, 1989; Li, 1998), large class sizes and low proficiency students (Li, 1998; Yu, 2001), and students who are preparing for exams (Li, 1998; Yu, 2001).

It seems however, that even when the Communicative Approach is accepted by an institution, the principles behind the approach are still not guaranteed. Looking at transcripts from communicative classrooms, Nunan (1989) concluded that interaction was anything but communicative. This observation was echoed by Thornbury (1996), based on his observations as a teacher trainer in Barcelona. Citing Legutke and Thomas (1991), he writes:

In spite of trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers’ manuals, very little is actually communicated in the L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not seem to stimulate the wish of learners to say something, nor does it tap what they might have to say […] Learners do not find room to speak as themselves, to use language in communicative encounters, to create text, to stimulate responses from fellow learners, or to find solutions to relevant problems. (Legutke & Thomas, 1991, p. 8-9, as cited in Thornbury, 1996, p. 279)

Final Thoughts

Based on the above points, it is evident that despite the obvious benefits of adopting a communicative approach, it isn’t the panacea for all ELT ills that some would have us believe. While CLT has enjoyed decades in the spotlight in language classrooms, it seems that its days at the forefront could be numbered. In our next post, we explore the murky waters of the post method condition, in hopes of shining some more light on what it means for CLT.

Further Reading

In order of appearance

Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. New York: Routledge.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. H. (1979). On Communicative Competence. In Brumfit, C. J., & Johnson, K. (1979). The communicative approach to language teaching (p. 1 – 26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Canale, M. (1983): From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J.C., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and Communication (2 – 27). London: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Spada, N. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching: Current Status and Future Prospects. In Cummins, J., & Davison, C. (Eds.), International handbooks of English language teaching. (Vol. 15, p. 271 – 288). New York: Springer Science Business Media, LLC.

Long, M. H. & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), p. 207-228.

Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate Methodology and Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howatt, A. P. R. (1984). A history of English language teaching. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Task for the communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1995). Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), p. 279-295.

Senior, R. M. (2006) The Experience of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3): 221-246.

Littlewood, W. (2004). The task-based approach: Some questions and suggestions. ELT Journal 58(4): 319-26.

Williams, M. & Burden, R. L. (1997). Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social Constructivist Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beglar, D., & Hunt, A. (2002). Implementing task-based language teaching. In Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (p. 96-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Allwright, R. L. (2003). Exploratory practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113–141.

Allwright, R. (2005). From Teaching Points to Learning Opportunities and Beyond. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 9-32.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evaluating Bilingual Education: A Canadian Case Study. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Swan, M. (1985a). A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach (1). ELT Journal, 39(1), p. 2-12.

Swan, M. (1985b). A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach (2). ELT Journal, 39(2), p. 76-87.

Thornbury, S. (2011a). F is for Focus on Form. [Web Log Message]. Retrieved from http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/f-is-for-focus-on-form.

Thornbury, S. (2011b). F is for Focus on Form (2). [Web Log Message]. Retrieved from http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/f-is-for-focus-on-form-2.

Spada, N. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching, 44(2), 225-236.

Gilmore, A. (2007). Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40(2), p. 97-118.

Guariento, W. & Morely, J. (2011). Text and task authenticity in the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55(4), 347-353.

Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, Community, and Authentic Language. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 705-716.

Cook, G. (1997). Learning to ¬¬¬play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51(3), 224-231.

Burnaby, B. & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers’ views of Western language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219- 238.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(3), 243-249.

Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asian-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.

Chowdhury, R. (2010, September 12). International tesol training and efl contexts: the cultural disillusionment factor. Retrieved from http://www.eltworld.net/times/2010/09/international-tesol-training-and-efl-contexts-the-cultural-disillusionment-factor.

Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.

Yu, L. (2001). Communicative language teaching in China: Progress and resistance. TESOL Quarterly, 35(1), 194-179.

Thornbury, S. (1996). Teachers research teacher talk. ELT Journal, 50(4), 279–288.

/1 Comment/by

A Brief History of ELT: Part 1 – Beginnings

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.

 

 

/1 Comment/by