M1 Methods and Trends in ELT

The Distance Delta
Methods and
Trends in ELT
The Distance Delta
©International House London and the British Council
1 © Copyright The Distance Delta

The Distance Delta
Methods and Trends in ELT
Summary
The history of language teaching is sometimes neglected in the profession. Think about your
initial training as a language teacher; you may have had a brief overview of the topic, but not
delved into it in any detail. The Delta is an opportunity to find out more, not simply because
it is of historical interest but also because everything we do now, either when planning or in
the classroom, is a direct result of all sorts of theory and practice, mainstream and
alternative, academic and practical, serious and, at times, perhaps eccentric. However, we
should be under no illusion that we have reached a final consensus as to what constitutes
best possible practice. In the same way that language is in a constant state of flux and
development, so too are language teaching approaches. Aspects of teaching fall out of
favour, while other practices which were censured come back into fashion. New, and
revamped, theory and new practice is emerging all the time.
Objectives
By the end of the input you will:
 know about different methods and approaches over the last hundred years with some
glimpses of even remoter history.
 know how they relate chronologically and developmentally.
 know about the theoretical background to the different methodologies.
 be clear about the principles and practices of the Communicative Approach, which is the
closest thing we have to a current consensus.
 have a clear idea of the plurality of current methodology.

The Distance Delta
Contents
1. Classroom Methodologies
2. History of Language Teaching
2.1 Monastery and Marketplace Traditions
2.2 Grammar Translation
2.3 The Direct Method
2.4 Research into Second Language Acquisition
2.5 Audiolingualism
2.6 The Natural Approach and the Listening Approach
2.7 The Communicative Approach
2.7.1 Theory of Language Acquisition
2.7.2 Description of Language
2.7.3 Educational Philosophy
2.8 A Review of Historical Approaches and Methods
3. Other Methodologies
3.1 Humanistic Approaches
3.2 Task Based Learning or Task Based Approaches
3.3 The Lexical Approach
3.4 Grammar as a Process or Grammaring
3.5 Dogme
3.6 Flipped Classroom or Flip Teaching
3.7 Demand High Teaching
4. Principled Eclecticism
Reading

The Distance Delta
1. Classroom Methodologies
Consider what we do in the classroom. Here are some things that are commonly done by
teachers.
 We tell students not to speak in L1
 We put students into pairs
 We correct ‘at the end’
 We pre-set comprehension Qs
 We tell students to read for gist and not to worry about every word
 We do student-student correction
 We elicit language from students rather than give it to them
But what are the principles implicit in each of them and are they are necessarily always a
good idea? In the case of the first item above, we tell students not to speak in L1 because
the basic principle here is that the L1 should not intercede between the student’s mind and
the L2 i.e. they should ‘think’ in L2. The advantage of this is obvious: lots of focus on the
target language. However, we also need to consider the fact that the mind of a student is
not a blank slate; there is another language there already. And, this language could actually
help the student learn another one.
In relation to the other points in the list above, we can say that learners working in pairs
maximises student talk and creates independence. Correction takes place at the end of a
task so as to avoid interruption and learners are therefore allowed to make mistakes which
provide the teacher with useful diagnostic information. Further to this, we set
comprehension questions to arouse interest and activates schemata. We tell students to
read for gist and not to worry about every word as it reduces anxiety and makes students
read more globally. We do student-student correction to maximises student talk and create
esprit de corps. And finally, we elicit language from students rather than give it to them to
maximise student talking time, to get them thinking and to allow the teacher to assess the
actual state of their knowledge etc.
Everything we do in the classroom, however basic, is informed by some kind of

methodology; it might be a mistaken methodology but it is there. There has always been a
mass of different and contending methodologies, or, in more practical terms: methods,
approaches, and techniques.
2. History of Language Teaching

There has been no even, gradual development of language learning methods, one after the
other, in history. Old methods have not gone away and been replaced by new ones in an
orderly succession; some methods dominate in different areas of the world and some do
not. And of course, any history of language teaching would vary according to the nationality
of the writer. An account written by someone in the US would be significantly different to
this.

The Distance Delta
One assumption we might all have is this: language teaching started out ponderously
academic and gradually became more practical, and more fun, until it culminated in the kind
of teaching we do nowadays. In fact, the truth is more complicated.
2.1 Monastery and Marketplace Traditions
Initially, language teaching was influenced very much by the teaching of Greek and Latin and
was very grammar based and academic. This has been termed the ‘monastery tradition’.
But there was another tradition, the ‘marketplace tradition’ where languages were learned
for the purpose of trade.
Below is a good example of the marketplace tradition. In 1586 Jacques Bellot wrote his
‘Familiar Dialogues’ for the help of Huguenot refugees in London. One such dialogue goes
like this:
B. Peter, where layde you your night cap?
P. I left it upon the bedde
B. Are you ready, Peter?
P. How should I be ready? You brought me a smock instead of my shirt
B. I forgot myself: Holde, here is your shirt.
P. Now you are a good wenche.
(Howatt, A. 2004, A History of English Language Teaching [2nd edition] OUP.)
This is a charming glimpse of Elizabethan domestic life; but in language teaching terms they
are also classic ’situationalised dialogues’ just as we are still using 400 years later. There was
never a ‘Dark Age’ of language teaching.
However, the history that concerns us originates in the nineteenth century when the
methodology of foreign language teaching was first approached thoughtfully and
systematically. So that is where we will begin and the sequence which will bring us up to
date can be expressed most simply thus.

The Distance Delta
Grammar
Translation
The Direct Method
Audiolingualism
The Natural
Approach
The Communicative
Approach
Of course this ‘straight line’ account is of limited use, since there is a whole swathe of
interesting, sometimes eccentric, approaches and methods which branch off it but in the
case of the UK at least, it represents a sequence of the main currents of language teaching
methodology. Other methods will be dealt with after a historical account of these five main
periods.
2.2 Grammar Translation
Grammar Translation was ultimately based on the way that the classical languages (Greek
and Latin) had been taught, and it was applied to the teaching of living languages too.
Indeed, the Grammar Translation Method was elaborated and codified, formally written
down and explained, in the nineteenth century precisely to teach modern languages in
schools. Without wishing to state the obvious, it depends on grammar and translation.
Though somewhat literary in nature, its materials were not necessarily confined to literary
texts. Language was often conveyed by numbered sentences exemplifying a grammatical
structure with an adjacent translation in L1, or the translation from L1 into L2 or vice versa
might be the task of the learner. Typically, such exercises would have been preceded by a
page of rules, or conjugations/declensions etc. For this reason, Grammar Translation takes a
very deductive approach to language: rules before examples. What was not always attended
to was context. Here is a page of examples for learning French. It is easy to spot the
structure being focused on but can you see any unifying context?
 You have put on your stockings.

 I have done my exercise.
 He has spoken wisely.

The Distance Delta
In reality, this is how many of us were first taught French, German or another second
language. It did not seem strange that we spoke English all the time, that we read aloud,
that we translated sentences and chanted je suis, tu es, il est or der, die, das, den, die, das
etc.
Grammar Translation is probably still, in the third millennium, one of the main ways in which
languages are taught. It has, rightly, been criticised for employing contrived marker
sentences and having no communicative underpinning. There are also those who criticise its
synthetic syllabus, that is to say a syllabus that looks at grammatical areas discretely and in a
set order.
But there has also been a return to some of the techniques of Grammar Translation, notably
reference to mother tongue through the use of translation in the classroom. One belief held
by advocates of translation, such as Widdowson, Prodromou, Rinvolucri and Cook, is
grounded in the value of contrastive analysis between English and the student’s mother
tongue. Through translation of extracts or paragraphs of written or spoken text, learners are
encouraged to notice where their languages might be similar in terms of grammatical
structure, syntax, lexis etc. and also where there are key differences. At advanced levels,
activities where learners critically assess the precision of a film’s subtitles can be exploited
where learners need to focus on the communicative meaning of the English of the film to
evaluate the successfulness of the subtitles in their own language. So while the mode of
translation is being used, unlike pure Grammar Translation, there is focus on natural use of
language, and the grammatical and lexical forms used to attain success in meaningful
communication.
For insight on the principles behind use of translation and practical ideas for the classroom,
the following two titles are useful.
 Cook, G. 2010 Translation in English Language Teaching OUP
 Deller, S. and Rinvolucri, M. 2002 Using the Mother Tongue Delta Publishing
2.3 The Direct Method
This is a very general name, but it is usually understood to enshrine two principles:
 The teaching is all in the target language.
 There is an emphasis on speaking.
These two things seem so self-evident now that they look unremarkable, but actually they
are the two fundamental pillars on which all language teaching can be said to be predicated
today, and were at one time radical, and polemic, innovations.
No one person ‘invented’ the Direct Method; it emerged in the 1880s (with glimpses even
earlier) in German state schools as a reaction against Grammar Translation. A group of
practitioners, known as the Reform Movement, felt that language teaching in schools was
ineffective and, more worryingly, that having to learn parts of speech and chant declensions
and conjugations was actually causing strain among schoolchildren. Speaking was reified,
with lots of repetition, question-and-answer sessions and retelling stories all being prized. In
fact, the focus on oral production was such that the Movement believed that the first stages
of language learning should focus exclusively on pronunciation, and it is from this period
that the phonetic alphabet stems.

The Distance Delta
The Direct Method could never be said to have replaced Grammar Translation. We get
glimpses of the Direct Method way back in the first half of the nineteenth century. It worked
alongside Grammar translation for years as indeed it still does. Howatt (op. cit.) gives us the
example of J.S. Blackie in 1845 describing a purely ‘Direct Method’ lesson all conducted in L2
and with realia. This is remarkable. Even more so is the fact that the same pioneer also
looked forward to current Task-Based practice, for he writes: ‘Step 7. Grammar may now be
introduced, or rather deduced out of the preceding practice’
So the Direct Method constituted an important departure in language teaching, but was not
perfect. It continued to have a very grammatical view of the components of language and,
like Grammar Translation, was not always overly concerned with the realness of its
language. One might have expected the Direct Method to have improved in the reality of its
language, and in some ways it had. It was altogether more everyday and practical, more real
but while the language was more real the language acts remained strange. Take the
(in)famous classroom question ‘Is this a pen?’ It looks fairly routine on the surface but try
going up to someone in the street with a pen and asking them this. What communicative
purpose is there in saying ‘Is this a pen?’ to someone who can see it? A lot of Direct Method
language was unrealistic in this way. One Direct Method course book includes the following
sentence, ‘Is this a black pen or a tall policeman?’
However, we should not see the Direct Method as a historical curiosity, and for three
reasons:
It is still around; indeed, it is as well-established worldwide as the Grammar Translation

approach. In language schools all over the world such as the Callan School students are still
taught using this method. It is an effective and stimulating methodology which is conducive
to a busy and kinetic classroom.
Media Box Running Time 35 mins
Optional viewing: An extract from a Callan School lesson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H28vaMFM4As
 Features of the Direct Method are compatible with the more communicative methods
of today. As well as question and answer practice, it involves a lot of repetition work
similar to individual drills.
The Direct Method became theoretically more thought out, and its application extended. It
became the basis for the language teaching programmes of the US Armed Forces during the
Second World War, known colloquially as the G.I. Method. It was at the heart of the
Michigan Oral Approach. It became intimately connected with the Behaviourist theory of
learning and language acquisition.
The form in which it became most identifiable was the Audiolingual method. However the
Audiolingual method was more than the old Direct Method. Basically the same principles lay
behind each, but the Audiolingual method was based on research and theory, notably
theories of language acquisition. Language acquisition theory was rudimentary until the
1950s. Since then, however, it has informed all language teaching methodology. Indeed, the
development of language acquisition studies helps us separate the Direct Method from what
was to come.

The Distance Delta
2.4 Research into Second Language Acquisition
Let us consider briefly what is involved in acquisition, and what the three main stances are.
In short, Behaviourists, under the aegis of BF Skinner, believe that language is acquired
through hearing utterances, then repeating them ourselves. A positive reaction, which might
be receiving something you have just requested, or, more basically, simply communicating a
message effectively, results in our thinking ‘Ah, that was obviously correct!” and the
utterance is acquired.
Noam Chomsky, however, in a review of Skinner’s 1959 book Verbal Behaviour took a
different stance, believing language to develop in the same way as other biological
functions, such as walking. One of Chomsky’s major disagreements with Behaviourism is that
it cannot account for the massive repertoire which native speakers have. If all the utterances
we produce have to have been heard before, or acquired by analogy with something we
have heard before, then we would not be able to produce original utterances
independently. It would be impossible to write poetry, or make puns, or even produce
grammatically accurate, semantically suitable yet highly infrequent utterances such as ‘My
bikini is full of pebbles’. Also, spontaneous speech is full of ungrammatical utterances, false
starts, repetition, non-sequiturs and so on, but these are filtered out and not acquired as
standard. Similarly, the children of uncommunicative parents acquire language as naturally
as those of communicative and supportive parents. We must all, therefore, possess an
inbuilt ability to acquire language, and acquire it correctly, whatever the quality of the input
we receive (the ‘poverty of the stimulus’). Chomsky termed this concept Universal Grammar
(UG) and the part of the brain where this is stored is the Language Acquisition Device (LAD).
Media Box Running time 5 mins
If you are interested in learning more about the Chomsky versus Skinner debate,
follow this link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zobBTuX03D8
A third view of language is that of the psychologists Piaget and Vygotsky. They view language
as emerging when our own physical and emotional development reaches a stage where
language is required. So, for example, children whose experience is the here-and-now need
concrete language such as imperatives, basic verbs and concrete nouns. As we develop, we
are aware of more complex concepts, and so need the language to express these. A small
child may need only to talk about the ‘big dog’ and the ‘small dog’. Yet an older one may
want to compare the two, and notice the comparative structure ‘bigger dog’. The older
child’s cognitive development has led to linguistic development.
Lightbown and Spada show how there have been three major theories about language
acquisition.
The principles can be summarised thus.

The Distance Delta
Theory of L1 Proponent View of View of language

acquisition language acquisition process
Behaviourist Skinner Language is  Imitation

acquired
behaviour  Repetition
 Positive and negative

reinforcement
Innatist Chomsky Language is innate  Hypothesising
 Trial and error
 Creativity
Cognitive- Piaget and Language is  Language acquisition

developmentalist Vygotsky innate, but not grows from language use
separate from
other mental  Embedded in the
developments experiences of its users
This is a simplified tabulation of the issues and you may wish to refine this simplification by
looking at other sources. Bear in mind once more that these theories are concerned with
how native speakers acquire their first language. All application to how adults learn their
second language needs to take this into account.
2.5 Audiolingualism
As we have seen, whether we are aware of it or not, there is a lot of theory underpinning
what we do in the classroom. This has not always been the case. To recap, until the 1950s,
there was little research or theory into how languages are acquired. The Audiolingual
Approach to language teaching was the first to be based on any real theoretical foundation.
The approach has its roots in the United States, when entry into the Second World War
necessitated large numbers of service personnel who could communicate to a high level in
German, French, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Malay and Chinese. There simply were not
enough competent speakers around, nor appropriate teaching programmes, so the army set
up its own system, based around very intensive instruction (10 hours a day, 6 days a week),
and the use of two instructors in class: a native-speaker ‘informer’ and a professional linguist
who managed the classroom. The language focus was purely oral, and produced some
excellent results. Officially entitled the Army Specialised Training Program, it became known
as the Army Method, or the G.I. Method.

The Distance Delta
As mentioned earlier, Audiolingualism developed out of the Direct Method, and shares
many of the same premises, that is, language should be treated inductively, language should
be tightly controlled so that there is no room for errors to be produced, and language should
be presented in natural situations. What differentiates Audiolingualism from the Direct
Method, however, is the fact that it overtly espouses a Behaviourist view of learning, in that
language is a question of habit formation, and that practice makes perfect. It is also
predicated on the use of contrastive linguistic analysis, where errors are predicted and
identified through a study of the structure of both languages, and materials carefully
designed to address these differences. There was also a heavy influence of structural, i.e.
rule-based, linguistics. Charles Fries, at the University of Michigan, integrated data from
structural linguistics and language teaching into one teaching program. His Michigan Oral
Approach eventually led to Audiolingualism, although Fries himself was no Behaviourist. This
emphasis on structure is also a major departure from the Direct Method. Audiolingualism
believes that grammar / structures are the organising principle of language, rather than the
more ‘phrase book’ focus of the Direct Method.
The approach was in vogue until Chomsky’s attack dealt it a blow from which it never fully
recovered. Although theorists and practitioners were aware of the limitations of
Audiolingualism, the lack of viable alternatives led to a vacuum in methodological
development until the early 1980s.
Media Box Running Time: 24 mins
Optional viewing: Diane Larsen-Freeman, author of ‘Techniques and Principles in

Language Teaching’ (OUP), introduces a series of demonstration lessons which show
the main approaches and methods discussed in these materials in practice. Here is the
Audiolingualism method in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz0TPDUz3FU
2.6 The Natural Approach and the Listening Approach
The Audiolingual approach was basically the prevailing mode in British-based language
teaching until the early 1980s, indeed to the present day. In the US and in many parts of
Europe and the world it remains a flourishing and credible method of language teaching.
Recently the publicity of one language school in London declared:
Learning a language, like learning to type or play the piano, is principally a

question of developing a quick reflex… ...a quick reflex can only be developed
by mechanical repetition.
Clearly, however, such a methodology has its limitations. Effective up to a point, it has been
criticised for appearing to lack a human dimension. The Natural Approach provided this.
In the early 1980s, there was a major shift in teaching in general, including language
teaching, towards what we now call more humanistic approaches, which aim to involve the
‘whole’ person in the learning process. In language teaching, this was marked by the growth
of what we now call communicative teaching approaches, where the emphasis is on
message and successful communication rather than linguistic accuracy or prowess. The idea

The Distance Delta
was about learning to use language, not using learnt language. The Natural Approach, and
the associated Listening Approach, is associated with the humanistic approaches in its focus
on context, and on the complexity of the learning process. It is associated with Tracy Terrell
and Stephen Krashen. The former was a teacher of Spanish in California, and Krashen a
University linguist. In 1983, they published a very influential work: The Natural Approach. In
it, they highlight 5 hypotheses which they believe promote effective learning. They all
emulate the factors present in first language acquisition. These 5 hypotheses are:
 The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis: acquisition is rough-tuned and unconscious, and

used to communicate messages. It is not consciously attended to. Learning, however, is
very fine-tuned and refers to a learner’s knowledge of rules and their ability to talk
about them. The Natural Approach values the former.
 The Natural Order Hypothesis: this states that there is an order in which structures are
acquired by learners, irrespective of L1, aptitude or age, for example, learners learn –ing
as a progressive form, then plurals, then to be and so on, which is at odds with the order
of language presented in coursebooks.
 The Monitor Hypothesis: sometimes when we communicate spontaneously in L2, we

want to get our message across and accuracy is sacrificed. At other times, we may wish
to be much more accurate, writing a formal letter, for example. In the latter case, we
employ our Monitor, a kind of accuracy-focus device, to scrutinise our output and make
it is accurate as possible.
 The Input Hypothesis: this does not necessarily mean everything is comprehended, but
the learner should be constantly exposed to reading and listening and this is most
beneficial if it is a notch or two above the learner’s ‘level’.
 The Affective Filter Hypothesis: the student will learn better if s/he feels well-disposed
to the language and to the learning process. In such cases his Affective Filter is low, and
so more input can wash over him. If the filter is high, there is a negative attitude to the
language, stress, linguistic difficulties etc., the filter will be high and so little if any input
will be attended to.
A very important aspect of the Natural Approach, which imitates children acquiring their
first language, is the ‘Right to Silence’, or Silent Period. Speaking should arise as and when
the learner wishes to communicate. There should be no pressure on the student to speak.
You will notice that this is very different from the general assumption of the Communicative
Approach with its emphasis on personal free oral production from day one.
The Listening Approach mentioned earlier is an application of Krashenite ideas through the
language skill of listening; that is, of exposure of the learner to ‘comprehensible input’.
If you would like to learn more about the Natural Approach and the Listening Approach,
read:
 Brown, J.M. & Palmer, A.S. 1988, The Listening Approach, Longman.
 Krashen, S. 1982, Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition, Pergamon.

(pp. 10-30 provide a good synopsis of Krashen’s hypotheses)
 Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. 1983 The Natural Approach, Pergamon.

The Distance Delta
2.7 The Communicative Approach
It would not be possible to complete an account of current language teaching without

dealing with the Communicative Approach or CLT (Communicative Language Teaching), as it
is sometimes called.
The Communicative Approach is notoriously difficult to define. Since it represents such a

sea-change in our perception of how best to teach language, it has been defined by
numerous theoreticians and practitioners, all having slightly different views of what the
approach involves. Supporters of the ‘strong’, ‘deep end’ or ‘pure’ Communicative Approach
would say that language needs no overt focus and that linguistic competence develops
naturally out of focussing on communication through skills work; those who advocate a
‘weaker’, or ‘shallow-end’ version would say that overt focus on form is vital but that focus
on form should lead to focus on meaning through some kind of communicative, meaningful
activity. The latter is what we find in coursebooks, possibly because it fits in with what we
feel we ought to provide for students in class, and in order to meet students’ expectations of
classroom provision.
The Communicative Approach has its roots in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and a
dissatisfaction with the structural focus of Audiolingualism, which was producing learners
who could communicate, but not effectively or, at times, particularly meaningfully. Also, the
expansion and strengthening of the European Economic Community meant that there was a
real need for languages to be learnt, and learnt in such a way as to facilitate real
communication. The Council of Europe commissioned a study which analysed learners’
language needs and published the results of this study in a document which proposed that
language exponents should be taught in meaningful contexts and divided according to the
notions (topics) they express, for example, the weather, time, location etc., and the function
they perform in communication, for example, apologising, greeting people, expressing
gratitude etc. This was a very different organisational principle from that of the grammatical
structures which informed the Audiolingual curriculum. Because of the focus on notions and
functions, the Communicative Approach is sometimes referred to as the Notional-Functional
Approach, or simply the Functional Approach.
The Council of Europe document was followed by a formalised publication, Van Ek’s 1976
The Threshold Level for Modern Language Learning in Schools (Council of Europe /
Longman). This provided a yardstick which students could use to measure their own
linguistic competence. What does this mean? Put it this way: sometimes learners will have
approached you and asked, ‘When will I be able to speak English?’ Of course this is almost
unanswerable and we usually say something encouraging though not very specific, ‘Just
keep coming to class and doing your homework…’ In fact, the learner’s question is one we
should respect, and the Threshold Level provides an answer. We can say to them, ‘When you
know and can use and understand this body of language, this vocabulary, these functions,
these notions, then you can be deemed to be a speaker of English.’
Media Box Running time 1h 20m
Optional viewing: Scott Thornbury and Jeremy Harmer discussing the communicative
approach and its influences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoUx036IN9Q

The Distance Delta
Let us now look at three elements of the Communicative Approach.
2.7.1 Theory of Language Acquisition
The Direct Method and Audiolingual Method tended to reflect a behaviourist account of
how languages are acquired; that is, we learn by imitating, repeating, building up language
habits with the aid of positive (or negative) reinforcement. The Communicative Approach,
however, clearly reflects a different theory of language acquisition: the Cognitive-Mentalist
model. Basically this says that we acquire language through hypothesis, trial and error,
through making mistakes etc.
We should remind ourselves that both these theories of language acquisition were originally
expounded on how babies acquire their first language, not how adults learn their second
language.
2.7.2 Description of Language
Language in the Direct Method / Audiolingual Method view consisted of a set of structural
patterns. The CA sees language as more complex than that. It acknowledges the fact that
there is more to language than just structures. D.A. Wilkins (Notional Syllabuses OUP 1976)
queries the ‘adequacy of grammatical syllabuses’ because ‘when we have described the
structural (and lexical) meaning of a sentence we have not accounted for the way it is used
as an utterance.’ He, like many others, recommended the use of notions and functions as
the basis of a pedagogic language description, rather than structures.
But what are these notions and functions? Because you have been working with current
published materials you are probably already using these, but may not be able to define
them. So, to remind ourselves:
 Notions are similar to topics: language is seen as divisible into topic areas. There is
nothing new in that, Victorian language learning manuals were often divided into
sections such as ‘at the tailors’ or ‘with the dentist’, but notions are more sophisticated
entities. There are some specific notions: sport, house and home etc., but there are also
more general notions: presence / absence, being, distance, etc.
 Functions are the jobs that language does: Linguistics has long recognised that there is
no direct equation between a grammatical structure and the job it is doing. If you come
to my flat and I say, ‘There’s a coke in the fridge’ then clearly I am doing more than
indicating the location of a can of drink. I am offering it to you and therefore ‘offering’ is
the function.
This more complicated, multi-layered view of language is an important (and sometimes

awkward) feature of the CA. For we now have three different categories: Structures,
Functions, Notions. They relate hierarchically:

The Distance Delta
Health
Notion:
Functions: Describing
Sympathising Advising
Complaints
If I were Why Have you

Structures: don’t
you… tried…?
you…?
If you are interested in this area, look at:
 Van Ek, J. 1971, Threshold Report, Council of Europe.

 Widdowson, H. 1972, The Teaching of English as Communication, OUP.
 Wilkins, D. 1976, Notional Syllabuses, OUP.
However, the use of notions and functions as syllabus or coursebook categories is only one
way in which our view of language changed at the time of the Communicative Approach. The
CA insisted naturally enough on an analysis of language that was not merely a surface one.
One of the writers responsible for a new approach to language was Henry Widdowson. In
1972 he had written that it was:
…a radical mistake to suppose that a knowledge of how sentences are put to use in
communication follows automatically from a knowledge of how sentences are
composed and what signification they have as linguistic units.
2.7.3 Educational Philosophy
It is clear that since the 1960s in Europe and in the US we have had an increasingly
‘progressive’ educational philosophy. This is particularly the case in the UK, and this has had
far-reaching, and not always happy, effects on education. Indeed, now ‘trendy teaching’ is
deemed by many to have gone too far and there is a call for a return to basics. Progressive
ideas have naturally found their way into the ELT world; more than any other teaching
context, perhaps. And the Communicative Approach has naturally reflected this in its
concern with, for example:
 learner centredness
 creativity

The Distance Delta
 focus on fluency rather than accuracy
 pair/group work
 fun (for a note on ‘fun’ see Section 4)
2.8 Reviewing historical approaches and methods in ELT

Now that we have covered many of the main approaches to ELT, take some time to review
what you have learnt so far.
Media Box
Select from the following:
1. A trip down memory lane Running Time: 1h

A webinar by Chia Suan Chong which forms a review of different approaches to ELT
over the years.
http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/webinars/chia-suan-chong-a-trip-down-
memory-lane-methodology
2. M is for Method Running Time: 4 mins

From Scott Thornbury’s blog A-Z of ELT where he muses on the idea that methods
are dead and buried, on the difference between methods and methodology, and
asks the question ‘Has the coursebook taken the place of a teaching method?’
http://scottthornbury.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/m-is-for-method/
3. Other Methodologies
Earlier we represented the simplified history of language teaching thus:
The Natural Communicative

Grammar Translation Direct Method Audiolingualism
Approach Approach
There is a flaw here, of course. We have seen from this history of language teaching that it is
not just a matter of one method succeeding gracefully to another. As we have seen,
Grammar Translation and Direct Method have not by any means gone away; they are
flourishing the world over and why not? They have proved to be effective. A very important
issue to bear in mind when considering these methodologies is that they are all
communicative (note the small ‘c’). In all of them, promoting meaningful language use is key
and is more important than the mechanical learning of structures. How they differ is in the
classroom events and procedures they espouse in order to achieve this goal. The most

The Distance Delta
recent of these methodologies, the Lexical Approach, is described by its originator, Michael
Lewis, as fully compatible with the practices of the communicative approach (or
‘approaches’ as he prefers to call them).
Let us look at these methods or approaches. One group is routinely united under the
heading:
3.1 Humanistic Approaches
 Suggestopaedia
 Total Physical Response
 The Silent Way
 Community Language Learning (to a lesser extent)
 Neurolinguistic Programming
The first four are all over 40 years old. They are all still ‘alternative’, albeit showing their age
somewhat. They have probably played a larger part in the US than the UK history of
language teaching.
Suggestopaedia
This is now sometimes known as ‘Desuggestopaedia’. This perhaps indicates that the original
choice of name was ill-advised. The new name, cumbersome though it is, is a better one: it
refers to a language teaching method that wants to dissuade the student (to desuggest him)
from thinking that language learning is difficult. For Lozanov, the Bulgarian originator of this
approach in the 1970s, believed that we are actually capable of learning far more and far
more quickly than was previously thought. This, he claimed, could be achieved by an
atmosphere of relaxation, low lights, sonorous, almost singsong readings of texts by the
teacher perhaps to a background of music. Later, students will do readings and acting out of
situations etc. play games, do role-plays and so on. The actual learning process will be
‘peripheral’ to everything else that is happening in the classroom.
To watch a Suggestopedia lesson see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rkrvRlty5M
Total Physical Response
This method is based on the theories of James Asher. Total Physical Response is more or less
clear from its name. It is based primarily on the doing of enjoyable actions in the classroom
in response to teacher directions, and later directions from the students themselves. It is
kinetic, fun and lends itself best to younger students and lower levels. Clearly a frequently
used structure in TPR is the imperative but it lends itself less readily to the 3rd conditional.

The Distance Delta
To watch a TPR lesson see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuS3ku-PSL8
The Silent Way
The Silent Way is based on the assumption that ‘Teaching should be subordinated to
Learning’ as its originator Caleb Gattegno puts it. The teacher is busy throughout but not
talkative. Indeed the teacher remains largely silent, even slightly formal in manner, with the
help of coloured pronunciation charts (Fidel Charts) and Cuisenaire rods drawing language
out of the students; students correct one another under the aegis of the teacher. There is an
argument that the principles of the Silent Way are most closely reflective of what became
the Communicative Approach.
Media Box
1. To watch a Silent Way lesson see: Running Time: 17 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqLzbLCpack
2. Fidel Chart Running Time: 8 mins

To see a demonstration of how to use a Fidel Chart, a colour coded chart used in
Silent Way lessons to help students with their pronunciation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvyoevK-dh0
Community Language Learning
CLL is clearly ‘humanistic’ in its insistence that we teach the ‘whole person’. Students sit
around a voice recorder and are themselves in charge of the recording procedure. They,
perhaps hesitantly at first, build up a tape recording together. L1 can be used but the
teacher will translate or make suggestions before the utterance is committed to tape.
Gradually an improvised conversation is built up. When it is long enough it is listened to,
with learners remembering what comes next. The conversation is then written up, line by
line on the board, special features are underlined, problems translated etc. You will notice
that there are no compunctions about using L1 in this methodology, which makes it in some
senses quite traditional.
Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP)
The whole of language acquisition/learning is of course a psychological process, though so

far we have only mentioned psychology in the context of theories of language acquisition.
Our final item under humanistic approaches is NLP or Neurolinguistic Programming which
has a more comprehensive view of the role of psychology, in its broadest sense, in relation
to language learning and whose emphasis is on learning not teaching.
First we require a definition of neurolinguistics: it is, according to the Longman Dictionary of

Applied Linguistics:

The Distance Delta
The study of the function the brain performs in language learning and
language use. Neurolinguistics includes research into how the
structure of the brain influences language learning, how and in which
part of the brain language is stored…etc.
In terms of classroom practice NLP means a methodology that is based on the world of the
imagination, the emotional, the kinaesthetic, the associative, the personal, the holistic and
the natural. These of course are all already components of today’s best communicative
practice. NLP practitioners follow these concerns to their logical limits and the classroom
they have created may perhaps not be one that would suit all learner types. If you are
interested in reading more about NLP, follow the link to the Pegasus website for a list of all
the NLP techniques that it has become well known for.
http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/tips-n-tech.htm
A Note on ‘Fun’
Common to the Communicative Approach and some of the methods and approaches
described above is a belief in fun; the idea that learning should be fun and that fun facilitates
learning e.g. engaging learners and ensuring they enjoy lessons are important. In the name
of fun, however, activities are sometimes proposed that some might not at all think of as fun
or not their kind of fun. The key consideration should be to be aware of different learner
preferences and to ensure a balance of activity that caters to these different preferences.
We may here be looking at the excesses of the communicative-humanistic tendency in

language teaching but we should think seriously of the advisability of such ideas. For
example, a teacher in the Suggestopaedia lesson is described by Larsen-Freeman as reaching
into her bag and bringing out fun hats for the students to wear, ‘…with a great deal of
playfulness, they are distributed.’ we are told. All the following have been seen in the
language teaching classroom or proposed in recent articles and clearly come from the
communicative and humanistic end of language teaching spectrum. However, consider how
you yourself would feel about them and whether you would be happy to do them. Consider
also whether we should be asking our adult students to do anything we would feel
uncomfortable with.
 wearing a ‘funny’ hat
 throwing a teddy bear round in a circle as part of a getting to know you activity
 sitting on the floor acting out a role play in front of the class
 discussing politics
 doing a circle dance round a vase of carnations
 having post-its stuck to your face indicating parts of the body e.g. nose, mouth
 stroking crystals
 jumping up and down patting parts of your body in time to a tambourine
 miming everyday activities
 singing with other students
 making a poster with big coloured pens

The Distance Delta
 doing a running dictation
 being roped to a fellow student and asked to describe the experience.
3.2 Task Based Learning or Task Based Approaches
First a brief note on the word ‘task’. It has been a popular term over the last thirty years of
language teaching. Indeed during this period much of what was done in the classroom
consisted of tasks, students doing things together rather than sitting listening to the teacher.
Also, during this period the word ‘task’ became popular in conjunction with the receptive
skills. Instead of just listening to or reading texts, the students were given questions the
answers to which they had to listen out for or look out for. These were seen as tasks.
The ‘tasks’ of TBL are something rather more specific than the simple task-giving described
above. Indeed in its earliest forms it was a radical methodology. One of the first books to
deal with this area was Second Language Pedagogy, Prahbu OUP 1987. In this book the
author described the so-called Bangalore Project in which children in India were taught
English through tasks. This may sound unremarkable but in Prabhu’s strong version of TBL
there would not be any focus on language. In a more moderate application of TBL there
might be language focus but it will come at the end. Jane Willis describes such a lesson in
Challenge and Change Heinemann 1996 ed. Willis and Willis
Learners begin with a holistic experience of language in use. They end with
a closer look at some of the features naturally occurring in that language.
By that point, the learners will have worked with the language, and
processed it for meaning. It is then that the focus turns to the surface
forms that have carried the meanings.
Current TBL however means language activities in which the focus is on the satisfactory
completion of the task, with whatever language the learners have to hand, rather than with
any specific language target. Perhaps, on completion of the task, a review as to what
language the students had used could be done and indeed the teacher may suggest some
language that might usefully have been used. Perhaps the learners could then do the task
again using the suggested language. In ‘weaker’ models of TBL language focus may be a part
of the lesson, but what is presented may be an ad hoc response to the learners’ needs and
abilities there and then. Language focus might simply be based on what learners come up
with, imperfectly, in the doing of a task.
A variation on TBL has involves a recorded (or live) demonstration of two native speakers
doing the task. Subsequently learners do the same task. There are many different versions of
TBL and, like the Communicative Approach, of which it could be seen as an extension, it is
causing some confusion in its various manifestations. At present the best theoretical and
practical description of it can be found in:
 Edwards, C. and Willis, J. (eds.) 2005, Teachers Exploring Tasks, Palgrave.
 Willis, D. and Willis, J. 2007, Doing Task-based Teaching, OUP.
In terms of language teaching materials a practical application of features of task based

learning can be found in course-book form in the New Cutting Edge Intermediate (and other
levels) by Sarah Cunningham and Peter Moor, Pearson Longman 2005.

The Distance Delta
Media Box
Created by Dave Willis and currently run by Jane Willis, the site has lesson plans, articles
and a question and answer section on task-based learning.
http://www.willis-elt.co.uk/
3.3 The Lexical Approach
A major and radical ‘methodology’ over the last decade has been the Lexical Approach,
associated almost exclusively with the name of Michael Lewis. While its very name suggests
an entirely different approach, its originality lies more in its approach to language (and its
categorization) rather than to methodology. Indeed Lewis himself has said that it is entirely
compatible with the Communicative Approach methodology; he is simply proposing a new
way of looking at language. At the heart of Lewis’s ideas is ‘collocation’ or ‘word
partnerships’. As he says under his opening section, Key Principles:
Language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalised grammar.
The kinds of activities, exercises, interaction and so on and the manner of their delivery,
learner-centred, exploratory etc., are perfectly orthodox communicative practice. However,
the view of language is new and certainly an enrichment of how language can be seen for
pedagogical purposes. This is explored in depth in Lexis 1.
3.4 Grammar as a Process or Grammaring
Over the last 20 years or so, in the same way that attitudes to lexis have changed, attitudes
to grammar have also undergone revision. Batstone in Grammar (1994) was the first to
describe grammar as a process as opposed to a product and Diane Larson-Freeman in her
influential book From Grammar to Grammaring (2003) suggested that it is better to think of
grammar less as a product and more as a dynamic process. ‘Grammaring’, as she called it,
should be regarded as the ‘fifth skill’, that is the ability to use grammatical structures
accurately, meaningfully, and appropriately. With this approach, grammar lessons are no
longer about knowing language systems (declarative knowledge) which regard grammar as
an inert body of hard facts and rules. Grammaring is instead more about knowing how to
use language (procedural knowledge) and what you do with the language in real
communicative situations.
In practical terms, it is the process by which a sequence of words is fine-tuned in order to

create shades of meaning and a level of complexity more than the words alone can express.
In this regard, grammaring imitates first language learning: consider the utterance ‘All gone
milk’ made by a young child. Over time basic utterances such as these are ‘grammaticised’ to
produce more acceptable forms such as ‘All my milk’s gone’. In the classroom, this can
manifest itself in the teacher upgrading students’ language, doing text reconstruction
activities but also in procedures like dictogloss. With a dictogloss procedure, students are
read a text, they note the important words they hear then collaboratively try to reassemble
the text. The students then compare their text with the original version. The point of this is
for students to notice the gap between what they produce and the original thus highlighting
weaknesses and deficiencies in their output. What that gap actually is could potentially be
any of the wide range of grammatical structures contained within the text. These gaps can

The Distance Delta
also form a subsequent language analysis stage in a lesson if the teacher wishes. (See
Approaches to Language Focus)
Thornbury echoed much of what Larsen Freeman exposits in Uncovering Grammar (2001)
and he emphasised the ‘uncovering’ of grammar, rather than the teacher and class
‘covering’ it. That is, rather than systematically working through a syllabus of discrete items
of language there is more value in uncovering and exploiting all the grammar found within a
message, as he puts it, ‘letting the grammar out and placing one’s trust in the emergent
properties of language’. Thornbury criticised the prevailing methodology in ELT and its
overemphasis on communicative competence and excessive focus on fluency often at the
expense of accuracy. Whilst acknowledging the importance of the fluency and genuine
communication, there are times when the situation demands accuracy, perhaps because of
the complexity of the message and a lack of contextual clues. In other cases, accuracy is a
requirement of the genre and there is a level of prestige associated with it.
To read a review of Diane Larson-Freeman’s book see:

http://ihjournal.com/teaching-language-from-grammar-to-grammaring
3.5 Dogme
Taking its name from the DOGME 95 avant-garde Danish film movement, Dogme ELT argues
for ‘a pedagogy of bare essentials… unburdened by an excess of materials and technology’.
Triggered by a Scott Thornbury article in 2000, he drew parallels between DOGME 95’s
reaction to modern film-making and what he was advocating for ELT. DOGME 95 rejected
the excesses of mainstream cinema and its overreliance on technology, technique and
special effects and espoused the need to get back to the basics of telling good stories with
minimal means. In a similar vein, Dogme ELT claimed that real communication and the
concerns and lives of the people in the classroom had become side-lined. The teacher, ever
burdened by the proliferation of teaching materials and technology, had forgotten ‘the
story’ and the inner lives of those who they were supposed to be teaching. Thornbury
lamented that the prevailing methodology in ELT was one in which ‘…the people in the room
were somehow incidental to the process of teaching, where the learners were simply
frogmarched down a one-way grammar street, or the lesson was filled to overflowing with
‘activities’, at the expense of learning opportunities…’ Some nine years after the initial
article where he invited others to join him in ‘a vow of chastity’, Thornbury and Luke
Meddings published Teaching Unplugged. The book outlined Dogme’s three central tenets:
Dogme is about teaching that is conversation-driven; Dogme is about teaching materials-
light; Dogme is about teaching that focuses on emergent language.
Thornbury and Meddings believed that the real communication in a class, conversation, was
often dismissed as frivolous chat and therefore bookended the ‘lesson proper’ instead of
forming the basis of it. The importance of conversation stems from the fact it is the
fundamental universal form of communication yet teachers often fail to regard conversation
as a prerequisite for language acquisition but more as a product of it. In this way Dogme
reflects naturalistic learning conditions which moves from fluency to accuracy rather than
from accuracy to fluency. There are obvious parallels here with Task-based instruction but
the key distinction is not ideological but methodology: Meddings and Thornbury consider
the task an unnecessarily cumbersome addition to a lesson when students’ conversation is
linguistically fertile enough.

The Distance Delta
Dogme is often accused of advocating the ‘burning of coursebooks’ but many of its
proponents are in fact more moderate and are more concerned with reducing their use and
in some cases using more locally produced, and therefore relevant, materials instead.
Without pre-planned input, Dogme lessons are based on whatever emerges from the
conversation between the people in the room, and not necessarily just between the teacher
and students. Classes are learner-centred and the teacher uses a variety of techniques, like
recasting and scaffolding, to exploit the learners output. The point here is that a Dogme
‘syllabus’ does not attempt to anticipate the learners’ communicative needs and ‘cover’ any
specific material per se, but responds directly to them.
Dogme’s critics view Thornbury’s vow of chastity as unnecessarily purist and cite that
working without materials can be challenging for less experienced and non-native teachers.
Moreover, learning that does not follow some sort of book is not always culturally
appropriate or in-line with student expectations. To counter some of these criticisms, the
writers suggest ‘Dogme moments’ in lessons and not necessarily adopting it wholesale as
well as the teacher explaining to the class what they are doing and why. In this sense,
Dogme is not so much anti-materials but pro-learner.
To read the original Thornbury article paste this link into your browser:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/fa3dc70521483b645f4b932209f9db17?AccessKeyId=186A535D1B
A4FC995A73&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
To read about coursebooks and emergent language see:

http://eltresourceful.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/eaj29-1_how_to_use_a_coursebook.pdf
To watch Scott Thornbury talking about doing Dogme for an Experimental Practice
lesson see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5ZPlrMajDA
3.6 Flipped Classroom or Flip Teaching
Applicable to a broad range of subjects on the curriculum and not exclusively to ELT, Flip
Teaching (or Flipped Classroom) is a form of blended learning that is seen as a core part of
the ‘EdTech agenda’. Its name comes from the reversal of the ‘standard’ model of teaching
by delivering instruction to students at home through self-study materials and moving the
‘homework’ element to the classroom. The idea is that the knowledge transmission aspect
of a traditional lesson or lecture can be done more effectively through self-study using
various technological means, but typically involves videoing lectures or lessons and making
them available online. In this way, students are able to work at their own pace until they
have grasped the essentials: what used to be homework (assigned problems) is now done in
class with the teacher offering more personalised guidance and interaction with students,
instead of teacher-fronted activity like lecturing.
The advantages of flipping the classroom are as follows:

The Distance Delta
 Students get more one-to-one time with their teacher and this in turn builds the
student/teacher relationship.
 Posting materials online allows teachers to easily share information with other faculties,
substitute teachers, students, parents and the community.
 It allows students to catch up on missed lessons, as well as work at their own pace.
 It creates a collaborative learning environment in the classroom since more time is spent
engaging with the concepts being learned rather than sitting listening to the teacher.
 Students get instant feedback on practice activities and if they encounter difficulties
with their ‘homework’ they have a teacher, as well as the other students, on hand to
assist.
 Students can build a list of questions as they watch the online material and bring them in
to class for the teacher to go through with them.
In terms of its application to ELT, it could be argued that students watching a series of video
clips is not in line with more communicative approaches to teaching and is a return to a
more teacher-centred transmission model of learning. The interactivity that has come to
characterise many ‘input stages’ in ELT classrooms would be lost and in effect, it is telling the
students to go home and study something until they understand it. Critics also point out that
as an approach the Flipped Classroom is more suitable for knowledge-based subjects, for
example, Maths and Science and less so for subjects such as language learning.
However, in reality the ELT teacher would probably devote more of the class time to
focusing on communicative activities and dealing with difficult questions than being the
source of ‘input’ This can place greater demands on the teacher when planning and
managing the lesson and it could be challenging for less experienced or less motivated
teachers, or those not used to the Communicative Approach. To counter the lack of
involvement whilst working at home, materials could be made more interactive but certainly
classroom activities like reading and listening might lend themselves more to a flipped
model than other systems or skills for example, speaking.
Media Box
1. Flipped Institute Video Running Time: 2 mins

A promotional video for Flipped Institute.org using animated student penguins
and Walrus teacher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQWvc6qhTds
2. Flipped ELT Classroom Article

An article by Russell Stannard on the relevance of the flipped classroom to ELT.
http://eflmagazine.com/is-the-flipped-classroom-relevant-to-
elt/?utm_content=buffer0ad67&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.c
om&utm_campaign=buffer
3.7 Demand High Teaching
Conceived jointly by Jim Scrivener and Adrian Underhill in 2012, Demand High’s basic
premise is that learners are capable of much more than they are often asked and the tasks

The Distance Delta
and techniques used in class become rituals and ends in themselves. Like Thornbury,
Demand High has called for teachers to do less ‘covering’ of material and instead focus on
the potential for ‘deep learning’. This is achieved through teachers making ‘small tweaks and
adjustments’ to their existing classroom practice, changes which result in getting greater
depth of tangible engagement and learning which shifts an activity into the ‘challenge zone’.
Scrivener and Underhill are keen to point out that Demand High is not a method and it is not
anti any method. Whilst the name might suggest making classes more difficult, they
distinguish between ‘un-doable demand’ and ‘doable demand’. In the case of the former, if
the teacher makes a task too difficult, it causes learners to struggle and has limited results.
‘Doable demand’ comes precisely at the point where the learner is capable of making the
next steps forward and it is about helping them to meet that demand, rather than avoiding
it. In practical terms, this may mean pushing students to upgrade their language and
improve their skills or shifting the focus from ‘successful task’ to ‘optimal learning’.
Demand High Teaching is still in its infancy and it remains to be seen whether it captures the
imagination of the ELT profession. Having two high profile names behind it, has done much
to ensure it has gained attention and whilst the general reaction has been favourable,
whether it has sustained influence, remains to be seen. Its newness does mean that the
available literature is limited.
To read the Underhill and Scrivener blog see: http://demandhighelt.wordpress.com/
To hear Jim Scrivener talking about Demand High Teaching see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePXmeK1BvYk
4. Principled Eclecticism
The present ‘scene’ in language teaching is a rather confused one. The Communicative
Approach is over 40 years old. It is not the latest thing. If anything this is a post-
communicative era; which does not mean anti-communicative but rather that the
Communicative Approach has existed for long enough now for practitioners to have a critical
perspective on it. There is even a tendency to support its tenets with other older, possibly
contradictory practices.
All sorts of ideas seem to be simultaneously current. And instinctively or deliberately,

teachers pick and choose from various methodologies. Choral drilling is common and often
combined with more communicative practice, for example. Yet the beliefs about learning
held by the original proponents of these practices conflict. Similarly, there are activities
where teachers insist on use of L2 exclusively; but the same teachers may quickly translate
something or contrast L1 and L2 use of language.
This apparent inconsistency in classroom decision-making led to the introduction of the term
Principled Eclecticism. Teachers choose an eclectic variety of techniques and activities from
different methodologies and approaches. But the key factor is that the choices are made for

The Distance Delta
principled reasons. In short, however implicitly, the teacher understands how these choices
are of benefit to the learners and the learning process. Since it is akin to selecting the
shiniest elements from what surrounds them, Principled Eclecticism is sometimes referred
to as the Magpie Approach.
In this age of globalisation and growing cultural awareness, there is increasing appreciation
that different cultures, and in particular different educational cultures, need different
methodologies. This new sensitivity to other cultures, in particular other educational
cultures is an appropriate place to conclude this history. Principled Eclecticism might not be
such a rag-bag after all; it may be the best way to cater respectfully to this diversity.

The Distance Delta
Reading
Although not essential to your Module 1 preparation, if you would like to explore this area
further we suggest the following:
Suggested Reading
Richards, J. and Rogers, T. 1986, Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching, CUP.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Anderson, M. 2011, Techniques and Principles in Language

Teaching (3rd edition), OUP.
Lewis, M. 1996, The Lexical Approach, LTP. (the first 30 pages contain Lewis’ own forthright
overview of issues of the last 30 or so years)
Additional Reading
Cairn, R. Jan. 2000, Total Physical Response, English Teaching professional
Batstone, R. 1994, Grammar, OUP.
Brown, J.M. & Palmer A.S, 1988, The Listening Approach, Longman.
Fletcher, M. Apr.2000, Suggestopaedia, English Teaching professional
Howatt, A. 1984, A History of English Language Teaching, OUP.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T, 1995, The Natural Approach, Prentice Hall.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003, From Grammar to Grammaring, Thomson Heinle.
Lewis, M. 1996, The Lexical Approach, LTP (passim).
Littlewood, W. 1984, Foreign and Second Language Learning, CUP.
Marshall, S. and Baker, J. July 2000, Community Language Learning, English Teaching
professional
McArthur, T. 1983, A Foundation Course for Language Teachers, CUP.
Meddings, L. and Thornbury, S. 2009, Teaching Unplugged, Delta.
Prabhu, 1987, Second Language Pedagogy, OUP.
Revell, J. and Norman, S. 1997, In your Hands NLP in ELT, Saffire.
Revell, J. and Norman, S. 1997, Powerful Language, English Teaching Professional.
Richards, J. Platt, J. Platt, H. 1999, Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics,
Longman
Rossner, R, 1990, Currents of Change in LT, OUP.
Thornbury, S. 2005, Uncovering Grammar, MacMillan.
Van Ek, J. 1971, Threshold Report Council of Europe, CUP

The Distance Delta
Widdowson, H. 1972, The Teaching of English as Communication, OUP.
Wilkins, D. 1976, Notional Syllabuses, OUP.
Willis, J. and Willis, D. 1996, Challenge and Change, Heinemann.
Willis, J. 1996, Framework for Task Based Learning, Longman.
Willis, D. and Willis J. 2007, Doing Task-Based Teaching, Oxford Handbooks.

M1 Methods and Trends in ELT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

M1 Methods and Trends in ELT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M1 Methods and Trends in ELT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Distance Delta

The Distance Delta

©International House London and the British Council

1 © Copyright The Distance Delta

Methods and Trends in ELT

 know how they relate chronologically and developmentally.

 know about the theoretical background to the different methodologies.

 have a clear idea of the plurality of current methodology.

2 © Copyright The Distance Delta

2. History of Language Teaching

2.1 Monastery and Marketplace Traditions

2.2 Grammar Translation

2.3 The Direct Method

2.4 Research into Second Language Acquisition

2.6 The Natural Approach and the Listening Approach

2.7 The Communicative Approach

2.7.1 Theory of Language Acquisition

2.7.2 Description of Language

2.7.3 Educational Philosophy

2.8 A Review of Historical Approaches and Methods

3.1 Humanistic Approaches

3.2 Task Based Learning or Task Based Approaches

3.3 The Lexical Approach

3.4 Grammar as a Process or Grammaring

3.6 Flipped Classroom or Flip Teaching

3.7 Demand High Teaching

3 © Copyright The Distance Delta

 We tell students not to speak in L1

 We put students into pairs

 We correct ‘at the end’

 We elicit language from students rather than give it to them

Everything we do in the classroom, however basic, is informed by some kind of

2. History of Language Teaching

4 © Copyright The Distance Delta

2.1 Monastery and Marketplace Traditions

B. Peter, where layde you your night cap?

P. I left it upon the bedde

B. Are you ready, Peter?

P. How should I be ready? You brought me a smock instead of my shirt

B. I forgot myself: Holde, here is your shirt.

P. Now you are a good wenche.

(Howatt, A. 2004, A History of English Language Teaching [2nd edition] OUP.)

5 © Copyright The Distance Delta

The Direct Method

2.2 Grammar Translation

 You have put on your stockings.

6 © Copyright The Distance Delta

 Cook, G. 2010 Translation in English Language Teaching OUP

2.3 The Direct Method

 The teaching is all in the target language.

 There is an emphasis on speaking.

7 © Copyright The Distance Delta

It is still around; indeed, it is as well-established worldwide as the Grammar Translation

Media Box Running Time 35 mins

Optional viewing: An extract from a Callan School lesson:

8 © Copyright The Distance Delta

2.4 Research into Second Language Acquisition

Media Box Running time 5 mins