Language Teaching Methodology

Theodore S. Rodgers, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii

Background

Language teaching came into its own as a profession in the last century. Central to this phenomenon was the emergence of the
concept of "methods" of language teaching. The method concept in language teaching—the notion of a systematic set of teaching
practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning—is a powerful one, and the quest for better methods was a
preoccupation of teachers and applied linguists throughout the 20th century. Howatt's (1984) overview documents the history of
changes of practice in language teaching throughout history, bringing the chronology up through the Direct Method in the 20th
century. One of the most lasting legacies of the Direct Method has been the notion of "method" itself.

Language Teaching Methodology Defined

Methodology in language teaching has been characterized in a variety of ways. A more or less classical formulation suggests that
methodology is that which links theory and practice. Theory statements would include theories of what language is and how language
is learned or, more specifically, theories of second language acquisition (SLA). Such theories are linked to various design features of
language instruction. These design features might include stated objectives, syllabus specifications, types of activities, roles of
teachers, learners, materials, and so forth. Design features in turn are linked to actual teaching and learning practices as observed in
the environments where language teaching and learning take place. This whole complex of elements defines language teaching
methodology.

Schools of Language Teaching Methodology

Within methodology a distinction is often made between methods and approaches, in which methods are held to be fixed teaching
systems with prescribed techniques and practices, whereas approaches represent language teaching philosophies that can be
interpreted and applied in a variety of different ways in the classroom. This distinction is probably most usefully seen as defining a
continuum of entities ranging from highly prescribed methods to loosely described approaches.

The period from the 1950s to the 1980s has often been referred to as "The Age of Methods," during which a number of quite detailed
prescriptions for language teaching were proposed. Situational Language Teaching evolved in the United Kingdom while a parallel
method, Audio-Lingualism, emerged in the United States. In the middle-methods period, a variety of methods were proclaimed as
successors to the then prevailing Situational Language Teaching and Audio-Lingual methods. These alternatives were promoted
under such titles as Silent Way, Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning, and Total Physical Response. In the 1980s, these
methods in turn came to be overshadowed by more interactive views of language teaching, which collectively came to be known as
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Communicative Language Teaching advocates subscribed to a broad set of principles such
as these:

• Learners learn a language through using it to communicate.

• Authentic and meaningful communication should be the goal of classroom activities.
• Fluency is an important dimension of communication.
• Communication involves the integration of different language skills.
• Learning is a process of creative construction and involves trial and error.

However, CLT advocates avoided prescribing the set of practices through which these principles could best be realized, thus putting
CLT clearly on the approach rather than the method end of the spectrum.

Communicative Language Teaching has spawned a number of off-shoots that share the same basic set of principles, but which spell
out philosophical details or envision instructional practices in somewhat diverse ways. These CLT spin-off approaches include The
Natural Approach, Cooperative Language Learning, Content-Based Teaching, and Task-Based Teaching.

It is difficult to describe these various methods briefly and yet fairly, and such a task is well beyond the scope of this paper. However,
several up-to-date texts are available that do detail differences and similarities among the many different approaches and methods
that have been proposed. (See, e.g., Larsen-Freeman, 2000, and Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Perhaps it is possible to get a sense of
the range of method proposals by looking at a synoptic view of the roles defined for teachers and learners within various methods.
Such a synoptic (perhaps scanty) view can be seen in the following chart.
 TEACHING METHODS AND TEACHER & LEARNER ROLES
Method Teacher Roles Learner Roles
Context Setter Imitator
Situational Language Teaching
Error Corrector Memorizer
Language Modeler Pattern Practicer
Audio-lingualism
Drill Leader Accuracy Enthusiast
Needs Analyst Improvisor
Communicative Language Teaching
Task Designer Negotiator
Commander Order Taker
Total Physical Response
Action Monitor Performer
Counselor Collaborator
Community Language Learning
Paraphraser Whole Person
Actor Guesser
The Natural Approach
Props User Immerser
Auto-hypnotist Relaxer
Suggestopedia
Authority Figure True-Believer
Figure 2. Methods and Teacher and Learner Roles

As suggested in the chart, some schools of methodology see the teacher as ideal language model and commander of classroom
activity (e.g., Audio-Lingual Method, Natural Approach, Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response) whereas others see the teacher as
background facilitator and classroom colleague to the learners (e.g., Communicative Language Teaching, Cooperative Language
Learning).

There are other global issues to which spokespersons for the various methods and approaches respond in alternative ways. For
example, should second language learning by adults be modeled on first language learning by children? One set of schools (e.g.,
Total Physical Response, Natural Approach) notes that first language acquisition is the only universally successful model of language
learning we have, and thus that second language pedagogy must necessarily model itself on first language acquisition. An opposed
view (e.g., Silent Way, Suggestopedia) observes that adults have different brains, interests, timing constraints, and learning
environments than do children, and that adult classroom learning therefore has to be fashioned in a way quite dissimilar to the way in
which nature fashions how first languages are learned by children.

Another key distinction turns on the role of perception versus production in early stages of language learning. One school of thought
proposes that learners should begin to communicate, to use a new language actively, on first contact (e.g., Audio-Lingual Method,
Silent Way, Community Language Learning), while the other school of thought states that an initial and prolonged period of reception
(listening, reading) should precede any attempts at production (e.g., Natural Approach).

What's Now, What's Next?

The future is always uncertain, and this is no less true in anticipating methodological directions in second language teaching than in
any other field. Some current predictions assume the carrying on and refinement of current trends; others appear a bit more science-
fiction-like in their vision. Outlined below are 10 scenarios that are likely to shape the teaching of second languages in the next
decades of the new millenium. These methodological candidates are given identifying labels in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek style,
perhaps a bit reminiscent of yesteryear's method labels.

1. Teacher/Learner Collaborates
Matchmaking techniques will be developed which will link learners and teachers with similar styles and approaches to
language learning. Looking at the Teacher and Learner roles sketched in Figure 2, one can anticipate development of a
system in which the preferential ways in which teachers teach and learners learn can be matched in instructional settings,
perhaps via on-line computer networks or other technological resources.
2. Method Synergistics
Crossbreeding elements from various methods into a common program of instruction seems an appropriate way to find
those practices which best support effective learning. Methods and approaches have usually been proposed as idiosyncratic
and unique, yet it appears reasonable to combine practices from different approaches where the philosophical foundations
are similar. One might call such an approach "Disciplined Eclecticism."
3. Curriculum Developmentalism
Language teaching has not profited much from more general views of educational design. The curriculum perspective comes
from general education and views successful instruction as an interweaving of Knowledge, Instructional, Learner, and
Administrative considerations. From this perspective, methodology is viewed as only one of several instructional
considerations that are necessarily thought out and realized in conjunction with all other curricular considerations.
4. Content-Basics
Content-based instruction assumes that language learning is a by-product of focus on meaning--on acquiring some specific
topical content--and that content topics to support language learning should be chosen to best match learner needs and
interests and to promote optimal development of second language competence. A critical question for language educators is
"what content" and "how much content" best supports language learning. The natural content for language educators is
literature and language itself, and we are beginning to see a resurgence of interest in literature and in the topic of
"language: the basic human technology" as sources of content in language teaching.
5. Multintelligencia
The notion here is adapted from the Multiple Intelligences view of human talents proposed by Howard Gardner (1983). This
 model is one of a variety of learning style models that have been proposed in general education with follow-up inquiry by
language educators. The chart below shows Gardner's proposed eight native intelligences and indicates classroom language-
rich task types that play to each of these particular intelligences. The challenge here is to identify these intelligences in
individuallearners and then to determine appropriate and realistic instructional tasks in response.
INTELLIGENCE TYPES AND
APPROPRIATE EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Intellegence Type Educational Activities
Linguistic lectures, worksheets, word games, journals, debates
Logical puzzles, estimations, problem solving
Spatial charts, diagrams, graphic organizers, drawing, films
Bodily hands-on, mime, craft, demonstrations
Musical singing, poetry, Jazz Chants, mood music
Interpersonal group work, peer tutoring, class projects
Intrapersonal reflection, interest centers, personal values tasks
Naturalist field trips, show and tell, plant and animal projects
Figure 3. (Adapted from Christison, 1998)
6. Total Functional Response
Communicative Language Teaching was founded (and floundered) on earlier notional/functional proposals for the description
of languages. Now new leads in discourse and genre analysis, schema theory, pragmatics, and systemic/functional grammar
are rekindling an interest in functionally based approaches to language teaching. One pedagogical proposal has led to a
widespread reconsideration of the first and second language program in Australian schools where instruction turns on five
basic text genres identified as Report, Procedure, Explanation, Exposition, and Recount. Refinement of functional models will
lead to increased attention to genre and text types in both first and second language instruction.
7. Strategopedia
"Learning to Learn" is the key theme in an instructional focus on language learning strategies. Such strategies include, at
the most basic level, memory tricks, and at higher levels, cognitive and metacognitive strategies for learning, thinking,
planning, and self-monitoring. Research findings suggest that strategies can indeed be taught to language learners, that
learners will apply these strategies in language learning tasks, and that such application does produce significant gains in
language learning. Simple and yet highly effective strategies, such as those that help learners remember and access new
second language vocabulary items, will attract considerable instructional interest in Strategopedia.
8. Lexical Phraseology
The lexical phraseology view holds that only "a minority of spoken clauses are entirely novel creations" and that "memorized
clauses and clause-sequences form a high proportion of the fluent stretches of speech heard in every day conversation."
One estimate is that "the number of memorized complete clauses and sentences known to the mature English speaker
probably amounts, at least, to several hundreds of thousands" (Pawley & Syder, 1983). Understanding of the use of lexical
phrases has been immensely aided by large-scale computer studies of language corpora, which have provided hard data to
support the speculative inquiries into lexical phraseology of second language acquisition researchers. For language teachers,
the results of such inquiries have led to conclusions that language teaching should center on these memorized lexical
patterns and the ways they can be pieced together, along with the ways they vary and the situations in which they occur.
9. O-zone Whole Language
Renewed interest in some type of "Focus on Form" has provided a major impetus for recent second language acquisition
(SLA) research. "Focus on Form" proposals, variously labeled as consciousness-raising, noticing, attending, and enhancing
input, are founded on the assumption that students will learn only what they are aware of. Whole Language proponents have
claimed that one way to increase learner awareness of how language works is through a course of study that incorporates
broader engagement with language, including literary study, process writing, authentic content, and learner collaboration.
10. Full-Frontal Communicativity
We know that the linguistic part of human communication represents only a small fraction of total meaning. At least one
applied linguist has gone so far as to claim that, "We communicate so much information non-verbally in conversations that
often the verbal aspect of the conversation is negligible." Despite these cautions, language teaching has chosen to restrict
its attention to the linguistic component of human communication, even when the approach is labeled Communicative. The
methodological proposal is to provide instructional focus on the non-linguistic aspects of communication, including rhythm,
speed, pitch, intonation, tone, and hesitation phenomena in speech and gesture, facial expression, posture, and distance in
non-verbal messaging.

The Communicative Language Teaching Approach

All the methods described so far are symbolic of the progress foreign language teaching ideology underwent in the last century.
These were methods that came and went, influenced or gave birth to new methods - in a cycle that could only be described as
competition between rival methods or even passing fads in the methodological theory underlying foreign language teaching. Finally,
by the mid-eighties or so, the industry was maturing in its growth and moving towards the concept of a broad "approach" to language
teaching that encompassed various methods, motivations for learning English, types of teachers and the needs of individual
classrooms and students themselves. It would be fair to say that if there is any one umbrella approach to language teaching that has
become the accepted "norm" in this field, it would have to be the Communicative Language Teaching Approach. This is also known
as CLT.
Basic Features of CLT

David Nunan (1991:279) lists five basic characteristics of Communicative Language Teaching:

(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 the 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.

The Communicative approach does a lot to expand on the goal of creating communicative competence compared to earlier methods
that professed the same objective. Teaching students how to use the language is considered to be at least as important as learning
the language itself. Brown (1994:77) aptly describes the "march" towards CLT:

"Beyond grammatical discourse elements in communication, we are probing the nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of
language. We are exploring pedagogical means for 'real-life' communication in the classroom. We are trying to get our learners to
develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that has so consumed our historical journey. We are equipping our students with
tools for generating unrehearsed language performance 'out there' when they leave the womb of our classrooms. We are concerned
with how to facilitate lifelong language learning among our students, not just with the immediate classroom task. We are looking at
learners as partners in a cooperative venture. And our classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to
reach their fullest potential."
CLT is a generic approach, and can seem non-specific at times in terms of how to actually go about using practices in the classroom
in any sort of systematic way. There are many interpretations of what CLT actually means and involves. See Types of Learning and
The PPP Approach to see how CLT can be applied in a variety of 'more specific' methods.

Communicative language teaching

What Is Communicative Language Teaching?
Communicative language teaching (CLT) is generally regarded as an approach to language teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001). As
such, CLT reflects a certain model or research paradigm, or a theory (Celce- Murcia 2001). It is based on the theory that the primary
function of language use is communication. Its primary goal is for learners to develop communicative competence (Hymes 1971), or
simply put, communicative ability. In other words, its goal is to make use of real-life situations that necessitate communication.

Defining communicative competence

Communicative competence is defined as the ability to interpret and enact appropriate social behaviors, and it requires the active
involvement of the learner in the production of the target language (Canale and Swain1980; Celce-Murcia et al. 1995; Hymes 1972).
Such a notion encompasses a wide range of abilities: the knowledge of grammar and vocabulary (linguistic competence); the
ability to say the appropriate thing in a certain social situation (sociolinguistic competence); the ability to start, enter, contribute
to, and end a conversation, and the ability to do this in a consistent and coherent manner (discourse competence); the ability to
communicate effectively and repair problems caused by communication breakdowns (strategic competence). As frequently
misunderstood, CLT is not a method per se. That is to say, it is not a method in the sense by which content, a syllabus, and teaching
routines are clearly identified (see Richards and Rodgers 2001). CLT has left its doors wide open for a great variety of methods and
techniques. There is no single text or authority on it, nor any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative (Richards and
Rodgers 2001). By and large, it uses materials and utilizes methods that are appropriate to a given context of learning. CLT has
spawned various movements such as proficiency-based or standard-based instruction. While the early days of CLT were concerned
with finding best designs and practices, the proficiency-based movement contributed to the field of language teaching by putting
forward a set of proficiency guidelines (see American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages [ACTFL] guidelines in Chapter 8,
Developing Oral Communication Skills). These guidelines describe language ability and are meant to be used to measure competence
in a language (Omaggio- Hadley 2001). In this sense, the proficiency-based movement focused on measuring what learners can do in
functional terms. By providing evaluative descriptions, that is, by specifying what students should know and how they should be able
to use language within a variety of contexts and to various degrees of accuracy at different stages, it provided a set of broadly stated
goals and thus a sense of direction for curriculum designers. The standard-based movement attempted to further streamline
descriptions of what students should know and be able to do after completing a particular grade level or curriculum to meet national
standards in foreign language education from kindergarten to university. In this way, both movements positively influenced and
strengthened the development and implementation of communicativeoriented teaching practices. As far as theories of learning and
effective strategies in teaching are concerned, CLT does not adhere to one particular theory or method. It draws its theories about
learning and teaching from a wide range of areas such as cognitive science, educational psychology, and second language acquisition
(SLA). In this way, it embraces and reconciles many different approaches and points of view about language learning and teaching,
which allows it to meet a wide range of proficiency-oriented goals and also accommodate different learner needs and preferences.
Despite the lack of universally accepted models, from early on, there has been some degree of consensus regarding the qualities
required to justify the label “CLT,” which Wesche and Skehan (2002) describe as: • Activities that require frequent interaction among
learners or with other interlocutors to exchange information and solve problems. • Use of authentic (non-pedagogic) texts and
communication activities linked to “real-world” contexts, often emphasizing links across written and spoken modes and channels. •
Approaches that are learner centered in that they take into account learners’ backgrounds, language needs, and goals and generally
allow learners some creativity and role in instructional decisions (p. 208). With no one particular method or theory that underlies their
practical and theoretical foundation, CLT methodologies are best described as a set of macro-strategies (Kumaradivelu 1994) or
methodological principles (Doughty and Long 2003). The following section describes such principles in more detail.

Communicative language teaching (CLT) is an approach to the teaching of second and foreign languages that emphasizes
interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of learning a language. It is also referred to as “communicative approach to the
teaching of foreign languages” or simply the “communicative approach”.

Overview of CLT

As an extension of the notional-functional syllabus, CLT also places great emphasis on helping students use the target language in a
variety of contexts and places great emphasis on learning language functions. Unlike the ALM, its primary focus is on helping learners
create meaning rather than helping them develop perfectly grammatical structures or acquire native-like pronunciation. This means
that successfully learning a foreign language is assessed in terms of how well learners have developed their communicative
competence, which can loosely be defined as their ability to apply knowledge of both formal and sociolinguistic aspects of a language
with adequate proficiency to communicate.

CLT is usually characterized as a broad approach to teaching, rather than as a teaching method with a clearly defined set of
classroom practices. As such, it is most often defined as a list of general principles or features. One of the most recognized of these
lists is David Nunan’s (1991) five features of CLT:

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 Management process.
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 activities outside the classroom.

INVENTORY OF PRINCIPLES FOR COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING

SOUTH ASIA SUMMER LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
1) Maximize use of the target language. Am I giving classroom instructions in English? Am I falling back on English to explain
grammar points that might be presented inductively? Am I
modeling grammar rather than giving a linguistics lesson? Am I creating in-class assignments and tasks that directly or indirectly
encourage English questions or statements from students? Do I permit students to use English in situations where they could/should
use the target language?

2) Analyze student needs. Am I presenting language most likely to be needed by students or focusing too much on aspects that I
enjoy: linguistics, literature/poetry, grammar, dialectical
variants, etc.? Am I designing assignments and classroom activities that help students learn about the cultural contexts of language
use, how to connect language to other areas of knowledge, and how to find communities that use the language?

3) Focus on content and task-based exercises. Am I teaching the forms, patterns, and vocabulary that my students are likely to
need to use in their daily lives, or am I teaching forms
or aspects of the language that are hardly used, archaic, or otherwise marginal to common communication situations?? Am I
encouraging students actually to practice accomplishing things with the language themselves or just to observe things being done
with the target language? Am I allowing an inferior textbook to dictate my lesson plans simply because it’s easier? Am I emphasizing
practice in using the language or do I spend large amounts of class time (more than 2-3 minutes at any time) explaining grammar
and syntax? Do I sufficiently vary the types of activities and assignments in and out of class in terms of input medium (recording,
website, print, etc.), technology required, group size, length, purpose, and the like? Are my students motivated because they love me
or because they love the language?

4) Tolerate mistakes and encourage experimentation. Do I unintentionally discourage student creativity by frequent
interruptions to correct their mistakes in speaking? Is it really essential that the mistake be corrected at that point, or could I address
the point at a later time? Do I simply and quickly “unstick” or facilitate conversations or oral presentations, as appropriate to the
activity, or do I impose correct forms and models inflexibly?

5) Attend to affective issues in the class. Am I aware of and attentive to different learning styles that are present among my
students? Do I know about any personal issues—work, family matters, etc.—that may be affecting a student’s work? Have I addressed
heritage issues and level discrepancies in a way that makes creative use of the students’ skills?

6) Diversify dynamics, skills, and activities. Do I do most of the talking in class? Are students interacting mostly with me or do
they have chances to interact with classmates in pairs, in small groups, or with guests? Am I dividing classtime and homework
appropriately to the different language skills – speaking, listening, reading, writing? Am I balancing guided vs. open-ended practices –
i.e. guided language drills that focus on language form (e.g., memorization, repetition drills) vs. interactive practice (creating
personal meaning, negotiating message and information gaps, simulating real-world tasks).