Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I have a theory about educational theory. Let me know if you agree. It seems as
though we can place most (if not all) educational theory either on a continuum, or better
developed and it is promoted as the way. Then along comes another approach which may
be antithetical to the previous approach, but nonetheless it is now hailed as the way. Of
course, enthusiasm for this latest approach wanes and the first approach re-emerges
(often with a new name). Consider the reading controversy. When I was in graduate
school in the early 1990s, literacy programs were touting the benefits of Whole
Language. It was promoted as a solution to address students doing too much decoding
of and not enough engaging with the text. Sounds reasonable and this did come on the
mistakenly equate literacy with decoding. Recently the pendulum has swung back to a
more phonics-based approach because critics contended the Whole Language approach
did not produce the results it promised. I criticize neither side. I do think, though, that
both approaches added to our understanding of what kids do when they read and how we
I suppose it boils down to something I read in the Homer’s The Odyssey a long
time ago, a wise man giving counsel to Odysseus said, “In all things, balance it better.”
Sound advice from a bygone age. I have tried to make it a habit of avoiding extremes in
most situations. Of course avoiding extremes necessitates perspective. We can see the
folly of extremes and blind enthusiasm for a new method but only from perspective; we
2
need distance. This is why I admire those who qualify for social security. They have
seen a lifetime of extremes and somehow this gives them some perspective which more
often than not translates into wisdom. Homer certainly falls into this category.
So what does this have to do with the history of English Language Teaching
(ELT)? ELT is a case study in extremes and pendulum swings. This will be my
metaphor. I wish I created it, but I did not. But I will use it to illustrate the paradigm
shifts that have come and gone in ELT. I believe, and some may disagree, that the
paradigm has revolved around one issue: grammar. Grammar is one of those interesting
issues that everyone has an opinion about. Next time you want to start a lively discussion
ask someone if grammar should be taught in schools. Better yet, say something like, “We
(Andrews, 2001). The grammar issue is even more critical in ELT and this is the issue
that attracts and repulses the pedagogical pendulum. It will be the central issue as I
To understand the history of ELT we must look at the history of teaching foreign
languages because this greatly influenced how English has been taught in the 20th and
21st century. We can start with the 16th century. Latin was the language used throughout
(Richards and Rogers, 1986). The vernacular was beginning to be used more in
educational settings, but Latin was still used as the medium of oral and written
that would change the emphasis of foreign language study. Consider the 17th century.
Michelangelo had finished the Sistine Chapel, Leonardo da Vinci had sketched a flying
machine a century before, and rich patrons were sponsoring the arts. It was a time to
return to Roman and Greek antiquity and search for lost wisdom. It was the Renaissance.
And what embodied the Renaissance more than Latin? However, Latin’s use for
languages, but educators of the day maintained its importance. It became a “subject” in
vocabulary, studying of declensions and conjugations, and translation. The goal was to
develop an ability to read classic texts such as those from Virgil, Ovid, and Cicero. Thus,
reading became the primary focus of foreign language curriculums. This is a major event
and should not be glossed over. Latin was a subject now. It was indeed a foreign
language and it was treated as such and furthermore, a grammatical approach was
appropriate methodology.
Grammar. It was viewed as the key to effective reading. Educators also saw a
strengthened and improved the mind. So studying grammar became good in and of itself
even if the foreign language was never put to any communicative endeavors beyond
reading. It trained and honed the mind. Who could be against that? Whether it was true
was not questioned. I have my doubts, but that’s a different story. The point here is that
the pendulum had swung significantly for the first time and this swing was apocalyptic in
nature. This emphasis on formal grammar has influenced all foreign language instruction
4
in the West to the present day and this emphasis on formal grammar was not without its
that motivational to young minds. It simply was not that exciting. How many young
Lapses in grammatical acumen were often met with swift punishments. Thus, foreign
language study was often equated with boredom and irrelevance. There were voices who
advocated reform (John Locke and Comenius) but they were ignored and so we have a
legacy of a pedagogical method based on, well, itself. “It must work because we’ve
always done it that way.” Not a compelling argument, but it was steeped in so much
So with the demise of Latin in communicative circles, the consequent rise of the
study of its grammar became the precedent for studying foreign language in the Western
World. (To be honest, I don’t know much about what was going on in other parts of the
world. I think this would be a fascinating comparison, but time and space does not
allow.) Even in modern times, school children attended “grammar” school. School
curriculums were influenced by the Medieval reliance on the trivium (grammar, rhetoric,
and dialectic). We derive the word “trivia” from this Latin work. The emphasis on
grammar was not only in foreign language but all aspects of the curriculum. Grammar
educated elite. Students in Great Britain studied not only Latin grammar, but used it as a
5
model for studying the grammar of English. Latin and, to a lesser degree, Greek were the
only foreign languages that were to be studied in a formal educational setting. These
were the languages of the erudite and the religious. These languages allowed one to read
influenced how other foreign languages were taught. Here are some of the main tenets of
Grammar-Translation:
As “modern languages” were introduced into the schools, the precedent had been set.
The die had been cast. The pendulum had already swung towards grammar. Modern
foreign languages were studied in the same grammar-based format that Latin had been
previously. For nearly three centuries this method dominated second language
acquisition (SLA) pedagogy and, though it is not openly endorsed today, it is still
practiced in one form or another in many foreign language programs and classrooms
It’s true. I just skipped three centuries. The reason being, very little changed
during this time. The pendulum was stuck in heavy grammar mode, but that would soon
change. During the late nineteenth century, reformers such as Francois Gouin and
Charles Berlitz began to advocate a shift away from grammar towards meaning. The
main impetus behind this reform attempt was that the grammar method did not develop
communication skills. Also, there was a growing awareness that somehow children
learned their first language with remarkable ease while adults struggled mightily with a
second. Gouin noted that despite his best efforts to learn German using the Grammar-
Translation method, he had no real communicative abilities even after years of study
(Brown, 1994). Gouin had gone to Germany and passed his time studying German
dictionaries and grammar books and much to his dismay he found that he was unprepared
to talk to anyone on the street. When Gouin returned to his native France, he found that
his three year-old nephew had mastered French! His experiences led Gouin to develop
the Series Method which encouraged teachers to use a series of connected sentences
without reference to grammar. Berlitz, who became more well-known than Gouin,
developed the Direct Method which had many of the same principles as the Series
Method. Here are some features of the Series Method and the Direct Method:
• a de-emphasis on translation
7
The pendulum had swung a 180 degrees. Instruction in formal rules of grammar
figure out the grammar on their own from the input they receive in the target language,
was revolutionary because for centuries students had been explicitly taught the grammar
rules of a language. Supporters of the inductive approach claimed it was more efficient,
retention was better, and true communication was possible. They were on to something
of the Grammar-Translation method that led to the reform efforts of Berlitz and Gouin.
The ability to effectively communicate became a higher priority than being able to
memorize grammar rules and vocabulary lists. The Grammar-Translation method slowly
communicative abilities. Unfortunately, the reform efforts of Berlitz and Gouin were
short-lived. The late 19th century lacked vehicles for widespread dissemination of these
pedagogical ideas. U.S. schools failed to value the benefits of conversational skills and
by the early 20th century they had returned to a literature-based and grammar-based
curriculum so that reading would once again be primary. In 1929 a government report
called “The teaching of modern foreign languages in the United States” (often referred to
as the Coleman report) criticized the de-emphasis on reading skills. Gradually educators
returned to grammar-based approaches. The pendulum had swung again. A return to the
Grammar-Translation method remained the most popular approach until World War II.
During the war, there was a growing need for “Americans to become orally proficient
in the languages of both their allies and their enemies" (Brown, 1994, p. 57). The
8
National Defense Education Act of 1958 was a direct result of the Russian launching of
Sputnik. America was behind and it was time to catch up in math, science, and foreign
languages. Therefore, the U.S. military developed the Army Specialized Training
Program (ASTP) or the "Army Method." This method was based on behaviorists ideas as
promulgated by B.F. Skinner. It borrowed heavily from the Direct Method, prospered
after the war in educational institutions and later became known as the Audiolingual
Again, the pendulum swung and this time I’m not sure where it landed. Maybe my
analogy breaks down, but maybe I can salvage it. Grammar was taken away as the
central focus, but other structures (such as formulaic responses) became central. There
was heavy emphasis on dialogues to help foreign language students internalize patterns.
So, maybe my pendulum analogy still works. Grammar was dismissed as the be all and
end all FL instruction and what happened next sent the FL world on its ear but it was a
The polarization of foreign language teaching between two extremes was brought
to new levels with Noam Chomsky and the Chomskyan revolution that took place after
the publication of his 1957 work Syntactic Structures. Though Chomsky is a theoretical
linguist and not a second language pedagogue, his theories about the nature of language
9
radically altered the field of SLA. When Chomsky's theories were being disseminated in
the early 1960's, the Grammar-Translation Method (the “old” way) and ALM (the “new”
way) were still widely used in schools because it was easy to design a school-based
curriculum using these methods. Both the Grammar-Translation and ALM were based
on the notion that language learning was like any other kind of learning. The Chomskyan
revolution challenged this notion by claiming that language was an innate physical trait
and no amount of overt teaching affects a child's first language acquisition because the
from the environment. Chomsky's theories hinge on the notion that there is a language
acquisition device (LAD) designed to process input and develop a linguistic competence
This view of language not only challenged the prevailing structuralism theories of
linguistics, but also had enormous implications in second and foreign language teaching.
If, as Chomsky claimed, language was innate and there was a LAD, would it still be
accessible to adolescents and adults learning a second language? Also, if overt grammar
teaching was ineffective in developing linguistic competence, as Gouin and Berlitz had
postulated, then should not language teachers abandon grammar instruction and form-
based instruction in the classroom? Many L2 classroom teachers had continued with
and they thought it would lead to more grammatical accuracy, but there was growing
evidence (both anecdotal and scientific) that form-based methods were ineffective.
10
As for Noam Chomsky, he was dubious that any of his ideas could be applied to
SLA. In fact, he tried to discourage those in pedagogy from basing their ideas on his
theories. They did anyway. Today, Chomsky is credited with a revolution in SLA that
he never intended.
There are those SLA theorists who have based their work on the Chomskyan
notion that the principles of language acquisition are innate and that linguistic input
allows the child to develop an internal grammar specific to the language input s/he hears.
In other words, a little bit of input goes a long way. If children learn a language just by
listening and interacting with adults and other children, then maybe that’s what is needed
for someone (child or adult) to learn a second language. It’s not hard to see that formal
grammar instruction was going to take a back seat for a while. Chomsky had forced a
pendulum swing. The effects of this swing produced a myriad of new language teaching
methodologies during the 1970s. David Nunan has referred to these as “designer
methods” because these are one size fits all. When these approaches appeared they were
touted as the perfect way in all situations. I think all our teaching radars go up (or should
So what did these new methods look like? Here’s a sampling. Suggestopedia
tries to use meditation-type activities to relax the learner so that they can absorb the new
language input. Soft music is played and learners close there eyes while listening to the
language. I wouldn’t recommend this for high schoolers…they may just fall asleep. The
Another method that received some attention was that of the Silent Way. The
idea here is that teachers talk as little as possible (a novel concept!). Instead of
instructing the language learners using grammar and exercises, the instructor sets up
situations in which the learners have to work together to solve language problems.
Again, in an ideal world this may work very well, but I think in most teaching situations,
it just is not that feasible particularly with students who may not be that motivated.
James Asher's Total Physical Response (1977) is still used in many contexts today
because it not only included sound theory but was very practical. In Total Physical
Response (TPR) learners say very little; they simply respond to verbal commands by the
language teacher in the target language. Here’s a few commands from easy to hard (and
You get the idea. The learner is supposed to be processing and not being forced to speak
until he/she is ready, much in the same way was infants and toddlers do when they are
learning to speak. This is a great start for beginners but it’s utility in more advanced
stages is questionable.
One of the better known methods in recent times is the Natural Approach and
Stephen Krashen (1983) is the name most often associated with this method. In many
ways this method is very similar to TPR. To utilize the Natural Approach, which many
researchers and practitioners do today, Krashen claims that a distinction must be made
competence is the internalized linguistic ability a native speaker has in her language.
Linguistic performance is actually what a speaker says, which may be full of stops,
pronunciation errors, grammar mistakes due to fatigue or other factors. For Krashen,
learning is the prescriptive grammar rules that L2 students memorize, and acquisition is
the comprehensible input that the student receives in a low anxiety environment.
in the target language. The overt grammar rules are useless in language acquisition and
at best serve only to monitor output which will emerge after enough comprehensible
classroom teachers, substantial criticism exists. Richards and Rodgers (1986) note that
Krashen and other supporters of direct methodologies ignore the practical realities of the
input to all students in a limited time. A more serious theoretical criticism is that
Krashen ignores any possible interface between learned grammar rules and acquired
language (Brown, 1994). In other words, it is possible that the explicit grammatical rules
that students learn could do more than simply monitor output; they may also be capable
of helping the learner understand the input. To make things more problematic, Krashen
never explains the notion of comprehensible input (Ellis 1994) and what differentiates
applications. This approach is the Communicative Approach which has its roots in Dell
convinced that Chomsky's abstract notion of the ideal speaker developing linguistic
competence was too narrow because it neglected the social and cultural skills that an L1
attempts to incorporate these elements into its L2 teaching pedagogy by focusing on the
communicative nature of language. Savignon (1983) points out that this method is more
to achieve this end. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is defined in many ways,
but a four-part definition developed by Canale and Swain (1980) remains a starting point
for all discussion. The four parts these authors discuss are
• grammatical competence,
• discourse competence,
• sociolinguistic competence
• strategic competence.
Teachers employing this approach focus on all of these competences instead of giving
priority to any one. Today CLT is the most dominant approach in L2 programs (Brown,
While the Grammar Translation Method, the Series Method, the Direct Method,
TPR, the Natural Approach and the Communicative Approach have all been used in
various ways, there remains little consensus of opinion about which method is best. The
debate concerning the role of explicit grammar instruction has had enormous effect on
how teachers design and implement language curriculum. Today one often hears phrases
such as informed eclecticism (Brown, 1994) in which the teacher used parts of all these
methods to fit their specific need. This only makes sense. Certainly methods that were
developed during the Renaissance may have relevance in 2003, but then again they may
So where are we today? What are some of the issues that dominate English
Language Teaching today and influence specific teaching methodologies? One of the
biggest issues is technology. Computers and the internet have begun to profoundly
influence how second languages are taught. Students have more access to language
through the internet. There are all sorts of different soft-ware and internet sites to teach
English. I remain hopeful but skeptical in regards to what these developments may bring.
I think one of the biggest challenges remains how to make the language access real and
meaningful.
There are also new program configurations and new specialized programs to meet
the needs of the language learner. There are English for Specific Programs (ESP) and
English for Academic Programs (EAP). These are immensely important for student
15
success because they target specific kinds of English that students may need for
education or job.
There are also some societal issues. One of these is a new developing field
known as World Englishes. By some estimates as many as 1 billion people use English
on a daily basis (Crystal, 1997, p. 61). If this is the case then by necessity the pendulum
There are too many people on the planet using English for too many purposes to limit
ourselves to one method particularly one that claims to fit all needs.
some people in the world may reject it because they see it as too dominating and too
imperialistic. In fact, some countries that were once an English colony and have a strong
English language tradition are seeking to give greater importance to national languages
despite English’s status as a global language. This would obviously affect how someone
So, the pendulum swinging may have slowed, but in many ways the quest has just
and may shift the emphasis in ELT. One thing is certain, there is a growing awareness
that the context and goal in language learning should determine the methodology and not
References
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Krashen, S. & Terrel, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the
classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
University Press.