1.1. Methods and Approaches in Second Language teaching of all sorts of language items.
The teaching of
Teaching
1.1.1. Teacher-Oriented Methods and Approaches
 Grammar Translation Method - puts emphasis on the
intensive study of grammar for the purpose of enabling
students to translate sentences from and into the target
languages.
The purpose of the method was not to make
students speak the language, but to achieve a reading
proficiency in the target language.
 Sample activities in the Grammar Translation Method
are provided by Villamin, et al. (1994: 5-6):
1. Students are asked to translate, for example,
the Spanish poem ―Adios Patria Adorada‖ by Dr. Jose
Rizal into English or into the native language, or vice
versa.
2. Students answer questions in the target
language based on their comprehension of a story read.
3. Students are directed to find synonyms
and/or antonyms of given words in an essay.
A. Direct method - The Direct Method disallowed
the use of the students‘ own language in the
classroom and, instead, advocated the sole use
of the target language. The method used a lot
of drills in listening and speaking. No
memorization was done, but extensive drills
were executed through imitation ostensibly in
order to bring the target language closer to the
learners.
Specifically, the Direct Method may be
actualized through the following sample classroom
activities (Villamin et al. 1994: 7):
1. Students read aloud a passage on a historical
event in the Philippines.
2. Using a map, students point out places where
the event took place before recounting it.
3. The teacher asks questions in the target
language about the passages read, to which the
students reply in complete sentences; or the students
ask questions to which the teacher or other students
give the answers.
4. The teacher corrects grammar errors made
by the students and briefly explains why such
corrections are necessary.
5. Students work on exercises using the
prepositions taught in the lesson.
B. Situational Language Teaching - insistence on
the use of the concept of situation in the
patterns was characterized by the use of real objects,
gestures, and situations.
C. Audiolingual Method - otherwise known as the
Army Method as its history can actually be
traced to the military campaign of the United
States during and after World War II. With
special funding from the US military, courses for
teaching aural (listening) and oral (speaking)
skills were developed into what came to be
known as the Army Specialized Training
Program (ASTP) or, simply, the Army Method.
The program was heavily oriented towards oral
exercises like rigorous drills in pronunciation
and structural patterns as well as practice in
conversation.
1.1.2. Learning-Oriented Methods and Approaches
A. Series Method - Its major features include the
teaching of language without the aid of
translation and without the use of grammatical
rules and explanations. Without translation, the
mode of teaching was direct; without grammar,
the approach of teaching was conceptual. The
strategy was to teach in a series of sentences
(not isolated, but connected, sentences) which
could easily be perceived by the learners such
that associations between sentences and
experiences could be much more easily
established.
B. Total Physical Response - The Total Physical
Response (TPR) Method was developed by
James Usher from the mid-1960s to the late
1970s. It is one of several humanistic methods
developed in the 1970s, making this decade a
vibrant one for language teaching methodology.
The methods are humanistic in the sense that
they supposedly treat learners primarily as
human beings whose affective (emotional) and
cognitive qualities need to be factored into the
equation of language teaching. Some of these
methods are also called naturalistic in the sense
that they prefer that foreign language teaching
mirror the natural way of learning a language,
such as when young children start to learn their
first language.
The TPR Method is distinguished by its focus on
teaching language through physical action.
 C. Silent Way - aims to develop in the learners a
cognitive map of the target language without
recourse to repetition exercises and mimicry.
The purpose is to develop in the learners self-
awareness such that they will ultimately make
the necessary cognitive connection between
colored rods (and their various combinations)
and the meanings of words and sentences that
they produce.
D. Community Language Learning - this method is
manifested in its insistence on creating a
classroom environment where the affective or
emotional needs of learners are considered a
necessary precondition of successful foreign
language learning. The first thing that needs to
be done in the classroom is to provide learners
the opportunity to engage in a sort of group
dynamics where they are allowed to talk to
each other in their first language.
E. Suggestopedia - Suggestopedia, or
superlearning in the American sense, was
introduced and developed by Bulgarian
psychologist Georgi Lozanov. It was based on a
general theory of learning which claims that
learning achieves its maximum success when
the mind is at its most relaxed state. Given the
right learning conditions, Lozanov claims,
human beings are capable of absorbing an
incredible amount of material, knowledge, or
information.
F. Natural approach - Natural Approach is
premised on the belief that the best way to
learn a language other than your own is through
a simulation in the classroom of the contexts
and conditions of first language acquisition.
1.1.3. Learner-Oriented Methods and Approaches
A. Communicative Language Teaching - this
method treated language as a form of
communication that enables speakers to
accomplish multiple tasks in the world. Thus,
knowledge of forms is not enough to know a
language. Neither is it enough to know what
forms perform particular functions.
For sociolinguist Dell Hymes (i.e., 1979),
language teaching and learning need to take into
account rules of use because, without them, rules of
grammar are useless. He questions Chomsky‘s idea of
competence because it assumes that all it takes for us
to know a language is to know its grammar. Instead,
Hymes proposes a broad theory of competence— the
theory of communicative competence. It is a
communicative
framework of four competences in second language
teaching, namely:
1. Grammatical Competence: Knowledge of
grammar and vocabulary of language
2. Sociolinguistic Competence: Knowledge of
how to use language appropriately in different
situations
3. Discourse Competence: knowledge of how to
use and respond to different types of speech acts
4. Strategic Competence: Verbal and non-verbal
strategies to handle breakdown in communication or
enhance effective communication
B. Cooperative Language Learning - based on a
more general theory of collaborative learning,
hopes to make full use of the cooperative
potential of activities like group and pair work.
A major push for this kind of approach to
language teaching is the belief that traditional
structures of classroom interaction where the
teacher controls almost everything, promotes
competition rather than cooperation. It is when
students and teachers cooperate with one
another that learning is maximized.
C. Content-Based Instruction - Content-Based
Instruction deals with the teaching of language
through content. Language is taught indirectly
through content or subject matter which
students are expected to know in learning the
target language in the first place. To put this
another way, Content-Based Instruction
believes that language learning is best
facilitated when learners are taught the content
of language, and not language per se.
D. Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) - Task-
Based Language Teaching is organized around
the concept of tasks as the central unit of
language planning, teaching and use.
According to the proponents of this method,
what learners accomplish tasks inside and outside the
classroom and both are needed for efficient language
learning. Moreover, TBLT views language as primarily a
process of making meaning and a system of structures
and functions that organize interaction.
The 5 hypotheses of Krashen's Theory of Second
Language Acquisition
The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most
fundamental of the five hypotheses in Krashen's theory
and the most widely known among linguists and
language teachers. According to Krashen there are two
independent systems of foreign language performance:
'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The
'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a
subconscious process very similar to the process children
undergo when they acquire their first language. It
requires meaningful interaction in the target language -
natural communication - in which speakers are
concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in
the communicative act.
The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of
formal instruction and it comprises a conscious process
which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the
language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. A
deductive approach in a teacher-centered setting
produces "learning", while an inductive approach in a
student-centered setting leads to "acquisition".
According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than
'acquisition'. (See here our in-depth analysis of the
Acquisition/Learning hypothesis and its implications).
The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship
between acquisition and learning and defines the
influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring
function is the practical result of the learned grammar.
According to Krashen, the acquisition system is the
utterance initiator, while the learning system performs
the role of the 'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts
in a planning, editing and correcting function when three
specific conditions are met:
1. The second language learner has sufficient time
at their disposal.
2. They focus on form or think about correctness.
3. They know the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is
somewhat limited in second language performance.
According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is minor,
being used only to correct deviations from "normal"
speech and to give speech a more 'polished' appearance.
Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation
among language learners with regard to 'monitor' use. He
distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all the
time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or
who prefer not to use their conscious knowledge (under-
users); and those learners that use the 'monitor'
appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the
person's psychological profile can help to determine to
what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-
users, while introverts and perfectionists are over-users.
Lack of self-confidence is frequently related to the over-
use of the "monitor".
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain
how the learner acquires a second language – how
second language acquisition takes place. The Input
hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not
'learning'. According to this hypothesis, the learner
improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when
he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step
beyond his/her current stage of linguistic competence.
For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then acquisition
takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible
Input' that belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the
learners can be at the same level of linguistic
competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that
natural communicative input is the key to designing a
syllabus, ensuring in this way that each learner will
receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her
current stage of linguistic competence.
The Affective Filter hypothesis embodies Krashen's
view that a number of 'affective variables' play a
facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language
acquisition. These variables include: motivation, self-
confidence, anxiety and personality traits. Krashen
claims that learners with high motivation, self-
confidence, a good self-image, a low level of anxiety and
extroversion are better equipped for success in second
language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem,
anxiety, introversion and inhibition can raise the
affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents
comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In
other words, when the filter is 'up' it impedes language
acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is
necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to
take place.
Finally, the less important Natural Order hypothesis is
based on research findings (Dulay & Burt, 1974;
Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987)
which suggested that the acquisition of grammatical
structures follows a 'natural order' which is predictable.
For a given language, some grammatical structures tend
to be acquired early while others late. This order seemed
to be independent of the learners' age, L1 background,
conditions of exposure, and although the agreement
between individual acquirers was not always 100% in
the studies, there were statistically significant similarities
that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of
language acquisition. Krashen however points out that
the implication of the natural order hypothesis is not that
a language program syllabus should be based on the
order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical
sequencing when the goal is language acquisition.