7/27/2019 Action R

1/15

No. problem identification no 2. Evidence to this problem, 3. *xtau*, 4. Data

analysis, 5. Data analysis procedure, 6. conclusion, 7.

How do you say, Que tengas un buen fin de semana in English? How

many times have your students asked you to translate something from

or into their native language?

How often do you have students who translate things in their heads before

answering you? By contrast, how often do you have students who provide a

natural-sounding reply, spontaneously and automatically, without even blinking

an eye? Chances are most of your students still translate in their heads

at least some of the time. Our goal as teachers is to guide students towards

increasingly thinking in English and drop the crutch of translation. But we all

know this is precisely one of the hardest things to achieve. So how do we do

that? How can we effectively get our ESL students to think in English?

Why its so important for ESL students to stop translating and start thinking inEnglish

Consider their main goal. They want to learn to speakEnglish, not

become translators. Theres no point in them speaking their native

language in their heads while theyre trying to learn another.

Its counterproductive. The constant comparison of one language to

another hinders naturally flowing speech. Experienced interpreters are

real pros at this, but your students are not.

Some things are simply too hard to translate. This creates a situationwhere the student is desperately trying to remember how to say the one

word they have in their minds in English, while they should be trying to

recall a recent lesson instead.

Now, that weve established the importance of getting students to think in

English for the duration of the class, lets see ways to help them achieve this

ever-elusive state.

How to Get YOUR Students to Stop Translating and Start Thinking in English

1

Use an English-English Dictionary

If you teach ESL by only speaking English in class, then you often supply

definitions or explanations of words in English. Ask students to use Eng-Eng

dictionaries, and it will contribute to your efforts.

2

Mime Feelings and Actions

7/27/2019 Action R

2/15

When you teach feelings like sad, happy, scared, etcits a lot simpler to

translate them. But its so much more fun to act them out for you and

your class! The same goes for actions like opening closing things, walking,

running, etc.

3

Teach Language in Context

A student a writes a word on the board, points to it and asks what it means. Most

of the time we have no idea where they got it, which leads us to ask questions

about the context. After all, there are plenty of words that have different

meanings in different contexts. This is precisely why language must be taught

in context. For example, would you teach the Past Simple by presenting a list

of verbs and their past forms? What if there are verbs they dont understand?

Your best course of action is tointroduce the context first. Tell students what

you do every day, and then tell them what you did yesterday. This eliminatesany need for translation.

4

Introduce Set Phrases as Set Phrases

Has a student ever asked you to translate the meaning of Youre welcome? In

most languages a literal translation is ridiculous, but providing a similar phrase in

the students native language is not necessary, either. When students ask for

translation simply say a set phrase is a set phrase. Make sure they

understand its a reply to Thank you. They will probably figure out theequivalent in their language, but with some expressions an equivalent is hard to

come by think of proverbs or idiomatic expressions. The goal is for them to

understand the meaning of the phrase and when its used.

5

Use Visual Aids

Like miming, visual aids such as flashcards, illustrations, posters and

even video are great ways to avoid translation.

6

Use Opposites or Synonyms

Use words they already know in lead in questions:Are you happy to see your

friend? Youre gladto see him. Check out these other great ways to teach

vocabulary. No translation needed at all!

7

Teach Language in Groups

http://busyteacher.org/classroom_activities-vocabulary/feelings_and_emotions-worksheets/http://busyteacher.org/3605-how-to-teach-past-simple-reg-irreg.htmlhttp://store.busyteacher.org/esl-flashcards/670_printable_esl_flashcardshttp://store.busyteacher.org/esl-books/esl-poster-packhttp://busyteacher.org/3734-english-video-lessons.htmlhttp://busyteacher.org/4197-5-best-ways-to-introduce-new-vocabulary.htmlhttp://busyteacher.org/4197-5-best-ways-to-introduce-new-vocabulary.htmlhttp://busyteacher.org/classroom_activities-vocabulary/feelings_and_emotions-worksheets/http://busyteacher.org/3605-how-to-teach-past-simple-reg-irreg.htmlhttp://store.busyteacher.org/esl-flashcards/670_printable_esl_flashcardshttp://store.busyteacher.org/esl-books/esl-poster-packhttp://busyteacher.org/3734-english-video-lessons.htmlhttp://busyteacher.org/4197-5-best-ways-to-introduce-new-vocabulary.htmlhttp://busyteacher.org/4197-5-best-ways-to-introduce-new-vocabulary.html

7/27/2019 Action R

3/15

The need for translation will be eliminated if you teach words in groups that

make sense, for example, eat and drink with a list offood items.

8

Pretend You Dont Understand

If students try to say things in their own language, simply say you dont

understand. Try to lead them to say what they want to say in English . This

is by far my favorite strategy. If a student speaks to me in Spanish, I love to say,

Yo no hablar espaol with a thick English accent (besides being absolutely

fluent in Spanish, Im also a good actress). Because its funny, it predisposes

students better than a reprimand!

There is still much debate as to whether an ESL class should be English

only or include some elements of the native language.

I have personally had excellent results speaking only English in my classrooms.

There have been very few occasions in which I had to explain something to a

student in Spanish, but those were very special cases or students with some type

of learning difficulty. When I teach Japanese students, I cant use their native

language at all. I cant speak a single word in Japanese, but that doesnt impact

the lesson negatively, in fact, it is very helpful, as students are not tempted to

use their native tongue.

What is your take on this topic? Do you teach in an English-only classroom,or do you also speak students native language? Id love to hear your thoughts on

this!

http://busyteacher.org/classroom_activities-vocabulary/food_and_drinks-worksheets/http://busyteacher.org/classroom_activities-vocabulary/food_and_drinks-worksheets/

7/27/2019 Action R

4/15

A Brief History of ESL Instruction: Theories, Methodologies, and

Upheavals

Source: Joan Taber

(http://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-esl-

instruction.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, second-language 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 first-hand

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/auralcommunication, 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 searchof a theory. Its called having an agenda. But, for the sake of

http://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-esl-instruction.htmlhttp://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-esl-instruction.htmlhttp://www.seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jgeorg/TESLSCCC/BriefHistESL.dochttp://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-esl-instruction.htmlhttp://papersbyjoantaber.blogspot.com/2006/05/brief-history-of-esl-instruction.htmlhttp://www.seattlecentral.edu/faculty/jgeorg/TESLSCCC/BriefHistESL.doc

7/27/2019 Action R

5/15

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 attemptedcoups, 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 inthe 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 thenative 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 thetarget 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 speakersbut they have

had no experience listening to or speaking the language. In fact, ESL

teachers face the challenge of defossilizing incomprehensibledeviations in students pronunciation and inflections. Furthermore,

7/27/2019 Action R

6/15

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 ofstructure.

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 sequesteredin 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 out-perform

his own considerable intellect, he decided to observe his nephew and

other children who were in the process of acquiring language. As aconsequence, 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 door

and 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 thedoor? I am thinking about walking to the door. I am walking to the

7/27/2019 Action R

7/15

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, wasborn 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 hisnaturalistic 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 dictationin 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 heavy-duty 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

7/27/2019 Action R

8/15

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 second-language 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 firstknown 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 theory

and they receive various linguistic stimuli and respond to them. If theyrespond 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 interspersedwith activities such as the reading and memorization of a dialogue. The

7/27/2019 Action R

9/15

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, ALMfocuses 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 first-language 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 grammar-translation,

the Direct Method, and ALM had been tormented long enough. It was

time to compensate for their suffering and devise kinder, gentlerteaching 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 rote-learning 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 so-called 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 andadopted a counselor-client relationship. The idea was to eliminate any

7/27/2019 Action R

10/15

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 byenvironmental 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 whatthe 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. Inthis 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/hethen reads a passage from a text in the target language, trying to

7/27/2019 Action R

11/15

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 objects

specifically, color-coded rodswith phonemes. The teacher is supposed

to be a facilitator who only intervenes in students learning if they arewandering 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 anatmosphere 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 languagelearners have no knowledge of the target language. It has the

7/27/2019 Action R

12/15

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 NaturalApproach, 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 learningobjectives 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, isresponsible 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. Textbooksare 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 actorand prop person and students play the role of guessers and

7/27/2019 Action R

13/15

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 arepermitted 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 indeedtheory-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 administratorsor university chairs insist that CLT is the heaven-sent panacea for

7/27/2019 Action R

14/15

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 arelatively 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 gleanthe 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 kidsare 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 withtheir 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 >.

http://web.csuchico/.edu/~ah24/ausubel.htmhttp://web.csuchico/.edu/~ah24/ausubel.htm

7/27/2019 Action R

15/15