UNIVERSIDADE PEDAGÓGICA

DELEGAÇÃO DE NAMPULA

DEPARTAMENTO DE ENSINO À DISTÁNCIA

DIDACTICS OF ENGLISH
I,II, III AND IV

Supplementary reading material

Compiled by
Bernabé Cachele,MA.
2014

0
 CONTENTS
CHAPTER I : First Language Acquisition

1.1 Introduction………………………….……………………………….………………………1

1.2 First Language ……………………………………………………….………….……………2

1.2.1 Acquisition……………………..……………...…………………………….……………...2
1.2.3 Issues in first language acquisition…….….………………………………….……………..2
1.2.4 Theories of language acquisition….…….………………………………….……………….3
1.2.5 Age factor …………………………………….……………………………….……………6
1.2.6 Approaches to FLA …..…….……………………………………………………………….7
1.2.7 Behaviorism.…………….…………………………………………………………………..7
1.2.8 The Interactionist Position...…………….…………………………………………………..8
CHAPTER II: Factor affecting second language learning
2.1 Factors affecting second language learning…………………………..……………………….9
2.1.2 Age……..…...………………………………………………………….……………………9
2.1.3 Intelligence and aptitude………………...…...…………………………………………….10
2.1.4 Learning styles………...…………………......…………………………………………….12
2.1.5 Motivation and attitudes………………..……...…………………………………………..13
2.1.6 Personality……………...……...…………………………………………………………...15
2.1.7 Self-esteem…………………………...…………………………………………………….15
2.1.8 Inhibition and risk-taking…………………....……..………………………………………16
2.1.9 Anxiety………………………..…………….……………………………………………...16
2.1.10 Empathy and extroversion……....……………………...………………………………..17
CHAPTER III: Approaches and Methods in language teaching
3.1 A brief history of language teaching……………………………...………………………….18
3.1.2 Approach, method, design, procedure (or technique)…………………………………..….19
3.1.3 Three Theories of Language……………………………………………………………………21
3.1.4 The Grammar Translation Method (GTM)……………………………………………………22
3.1.5 The Direct Method ……………………………………………………………………………….23
3.1.6 The Behaviourist Approach and the Audio-Lingual Method………………………………...24
3.1.7 The Silent Way.…………………...…………………………...…………………...…………………25
3.1.8 Suggestopedia..……………………...……………………….…………………………………...…..26
3.1.9The Natural Approach and the Total Physical Response methods in perspective………….27
3.1.10 The natural approach……………..……………………………………………………………….28
3.1.11The communicative approach…….……………..………………………………………29

1
3.1.12 Characteristics of the Communicative Classroom..…………..………………………………30

3.1.13 Classroom Activities in Communicative Language Teaching…………………………….32

CHAPTER IV: Planning
4.1 Strategies for Effective Lesson Planning……….…………...…………………………….35
4.1.1 Steps for Preparing a Lesson Plan..…………….……………………………………….…35
4.1.2 Develop the introduction………………………..…………………………………………36
4.1.3 Plan the specific learning activities (the main body of the lesson)..………………………38
4.1.4 Plan to check for understanding……………………………………..…………………….39
4.1.5 Develop a conclusion and a preview………………………………...…………………….40
4.1.6 Create a realistic timeline…………………………………………..……………………...40
4.1.7 Presenting the Lesson Plan…………………………………………...……………………40
4.1.8. Reflecting on Your Lesson Plan……………………………..……………………………41
CONCLUSION…………………………………...…………………………………………….42
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..43

2
INTRODUCTION

Language acquisition is one of the most impressive aspects of human development. It is an

amazing feat, which has unremittingly attracted the attention of linguists for generations. First
Language Acquisition (FLA) and New Language Learning (NLL) have sometimes been treated
as two distinct phenomena creating controversy due to their variability in terms of age and
environment. Oxford (1990: 4) in distinguishing between FLA and NLL argues that the first
arises from naturalistic and unconscious language use and in most cases leads to conversational
fluency; whereas the latter represents the conscious knowledge of language that happens through
formal instruction but does not necessarily lead to conversational fluency of language. Fillmore
(1989:311) unveils that this definition seems too rigid because some elements of language use
are at first conscious and then become unconscious or automatic through practice. In another
point of view, Brown (1994: 48) argues that both learning and acquisition are necessary for
communicative competence particularly at higher skill levels. For these reasons, it can be argued
that a learning acquisition continuum is more accurate than a dichotomy in describing how
language abilities are developed. The interrelation between learning and acquisition does not
prevent argument around the long list of limitations of NLL in the classroom. Allwright (1987:
209), in his query 'why do not learners learn what teachers teach?', argues that the apparent
failure of teaching to have a significant effect on learning can be ascribed to the failure to realise
that planned teaching is only one part of the input available to classroom language learners, even
outside the four walls of the classroom. Hence, formal and informal language learning are
interwoven, acting as the two axes of language fluency. Native speakers' speed of articulation is
affected not only by their ability of retention, but also by the amount of prefabricated chunks
stored in the long-memory and retrieved when needed, a skill which promotes fluency.
This paper considers five prominent areas of difference between FLA in the pre-school period,
and NLL in the classroom. These are as follows: age factor, input, approaches to FLA, classroom
methodology, and psychological factors. My discussion of NLL in the classroom is influenced
by the progress my own students achieve in their NLL (English) in the classroom, which
represents the main source of input for most of them.

3
2.1 First Language Acquisition
The capacity to learn language is deeply ingrained in us as a species, just as the capacity to walk,
to grasp objects, to recognize faces. We don’t find any serious difference in children isolated
mountain villages, or in privileged suburban villas.
Every language is complex. Before the age of 5, the child knows most of the intricate system of
grammar. Use the syntactic, phonological, and morphological
and semantic rules of the language
-Join sentences
_ Ask questions
_ Use appropriate pronouns
_ Negate sentences
_ Form relative clauses

``Learning to speak and understand a language is different than learning to read and write. “We
are designed to walk.. That we are taught to walk is impossible. And pretty much the same is true
of language. Nobody is taught language. In fact you can’t prevent a child from learning it”
Chomsky, 1994

1.2.3 Issues in first language acquisition

_ How do children acquire such a complex system so quickly and effortlessly?
_ Does a child decide to consciously pursue certain skills? (e.g., walking)
_ Do babies make a conscious decision to start learning a language?
_ We correct children’s errors sometimes. Does it help?
Theories of language acquisition
_ Nature vs. Nurture
_ Behaviorism (1950s)
_ Children learn language through imitation, reinforcement and analogy
_ He go out.
_ A my pencil
_ What the boy hit?
- Nobody don’t like me.
1.2.4 Theories of language acquisition

4
_ Innateness hypothesis
_ Children are equipped with an innate template for language (Language Acquisition Device and
Universal Grammar)
_ Evidence: we end up knowing more about language than what we hear around us.
_ The same stages in all cultures and languages.
Basic requirements
_ Environment and interaction to bring this capacity into operation- E.g. Genie
– cultural transmission
_ The child must be physically capable (being able to hear)
Interaction
_ All these requirements are related.
The acquisition schedule
_ In spite of different backgrounds, different locations, and different upbringings, most children
follow the very same milestones in acquiring language.
_ The biological schedule is related to the maturation of the infant’s brain to cope with the
linguistic input
_ Young children acquire the language by identifying the regularities in what is heard and
applying those regularities in what they say.
Caretaker Speech (motherese)
_ A type of simplified speech adopts by someone who spends time with the child characterized
by:
_ Frequent use of questions
_ Simplified lexicon
_ Phonological reduction
_ Higher pitch- extra loudness
_ Stressed intonation
_ Simple sentences
_ A lot of repetition
_ Oh, goody! Now Daddy will push choo choo!

1.2.4 Theories of language acquisition

Stage Typical age Description

5
cooing 3-5 months Vowel-like sounds
babbling 6-10 months Repetitive CV patterns
One-word stage 12-18 months Single open-class words or
word stems
Two-word stage 18-20 months "mini-sentences" with
simple semantic relations
Telegraphic stage 24-30 months sentence structures of lexical
words no functional or
grammatical morphemes
Later multiword stage 30+ months Grammatical or functional
structures emerge
Adapted from Yule
Cooing
_ Few weeks: cooing and gurgling, playing with sounds. Their abilities are constrained by
physiological limitations
_ They seem to be discovering phonemes at this point.
_ Producing sequences of vowel-like sounds- high vowels [i] and [u].
_ 4 months- sounds similar to velar consonants [k] & [g]
_ 5 months: distinguish between [a] and [i] and the syllables [ba] and [ga], so their perception
skills are good.
Adapted from Yule
Babbling
_ Different vowels and consonants ba-ba-ba and ga-gaga
_ 9-10 months- intonation patterns and combination of ba-ba-ba-da-da
_ Nasal sounds also appear ma-ma-ma.
_ 10-11- use of vocalization to express emotions
_ Late stage- complex syllable combination (ma-da-gaba)
_ Even deaf children babble
_ The most common cross-linguistic sounds and patterns babbled the most, but later on they
babble less common sounds.
The word stage (holophrastic)
_ Single terms are uttered for everyday objects ‘mo-mo-mo’, ‘cookie’, ‘cat’

6
- Produce utterance such as ‘Sara bed’ but not yet capable of producing a phrase.
_ Differ from adult language
_ [da] dog
_ [sa] sock
_ [aj] light
_ [daw] down
_ Convey a more complex message.
Two-word stage
_ Vocabulary moves beyond 50 words
_ By 2 years old, children produce utterances ‘baby chair’, ‘mommy eat’
_ Interpretation depends on context
_ Adults behave as if communication is taking place.
Telegraphic stage
_ By 2 years & a half, they produce multiple-word speech.
_ Developing sentence building capacity.
E.g. ‘this shoe all wet’, ‘cat drink milk’, ‘daddy go bye-bye’
_ Vocabulary continues to grow
_ Better pronunciation.
The acquisition process
_ The child does not acquire the language by imitating adults- trying out constructions and
testing them.
_ CHILD: my teacher holded the baby rabbit and we patted them.
- MOTHER: did you say your teacher held the baby rabbit?
-CHILD: yes. she holded the baby rabbit and we patted them.
-MOTHER: Did you say she held them tightly?
-CHILD: no, she holded them loosely.
Adapted from Yule

1.2.5 AGE FACTOR

7
Do children learn languages better than adults do? Most linguists believe this is the case. Harley
(1986: 4) and Lightbown and Spada (1999) unveil that „…childhood is the golden age for
creating simultaneous bilingual children due to the plasticity and virginity of the child‟s brain to
make for superior ability specifically in acquiring the early sets or units of language (1999: 29).‟
This mental flexibility signifies the privilege attained by children over the adults in learning
languages, which is probably also due to the muscular plasticity used in the articulation of human
speech by children to produce a nativelike accent. Brown (1994) discloses that this ability is
almost missing after puberty and this may explain the difficulty encountered by some adults in
acquiring a native-like accent, regardless of the way in which they learn new languages.
'Children who acquire a second language after the age of five may have a physical advantage in
that phonemic control of a second language is physically possible yet that mysterious plasticity is
still present. It is no wonder that children acquire authentic pronunciation while adults generally
do not, since pronunciation involves the control of so many muscles (Brown, 1994: 51).'

According to Brown‟s argument, young children can sound similar to their new-language
classmates very quickly and if young enough can become native speakers of the new language,
with all the cultural background that this implies. Adults, on the other hand, can rarely gain the
depth of cultural background that makes a real native speaker of a language. Ehrman (1996:180)
renders this to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), which may lead to adult resistance of
language learning. According to the CPH, adults no longer have the same plasticity as children
that would enable them to cope with new mental activities. The difficulty faced by adults to
attain a nativelike fluency could be due to the fact that the developmental changes in the brain
that affect the nature of language acquisition after the end of the critical period are no longer
based on the innate biological structures claimed by Chomsky (1981) to contribute to FLA or
NLL in early childhood. Vygotsky (1978) explains the CPH in a different way. He argues that
the adults tend to be more analytical in learning languages unlike children who tend to be more
holistic. Children acquire the language as it is formed and produced by others whereas the adults
often think of how a construction is formed before using it in conversation.

1.2.6 Approaches to FLA

8
In FLA, no teaching methodology is apparently used in the pre-school period and children's
acquisition of language comes through unconscious exposure to an unlimited amount of input
from their parents and elder siblings. The use of a teaching methodology is not seen as a normal
part of a parental role in most societies in spite of the conscious attempts parents make to
encourage their young children to talk. Candlin and Mercer (2001: 254) give no prominence to
methodology in the pre-school period. They argue that parents‟ intervention in teaching the
primary language cannot be catalogued under certain methodologies and children's acquisition of
their first language, in normal cases, is eventually inevitable. However, linguists adopt different
points of view on how first language is acquired. Three main theoretical approaches to FLA –
behaviourism, innatism and the interactionist position - are outlined in the following paragraphs.

1.2.7 Behaviourism: Say What I Say

Proponents of behaviourism, such as Ingram (1989: 58), consider that FLA is the result of
imitation, practice, habit formation and appropriate feedback. In their first attempts to speak,
children imitate the sounds and patterns they hear around them and receive positive
reinforcement for doing so. These imitations are not random. Unlike a parrot, children‟s
imitation is often selective and based on what they are currently learning. Ingram's theory is
closer in its features to the psycholinguistic approach, which depends on two axes in language
learning, namely stimulus / response. Children pick out patterns of language mainly through
input from adults and other caregivers and then try to create new forms and new uses of words
until they finally figure out how the forms are used by adults. Their new sentences are often
comprehensible, but not necessarily correct. This view of FLA, however, is strongly opposed by
innatists.
Innatism: It Is All in Your Mind
According to the innatist approach, children are biologically programmed for language and are
born with an innate special ability to discover for themselves the underlying rules of a language
system through the 'Language Acquisition Device' (LAD), later referred to as 'Universal
Grammar' (UG) or the imaginary 'black box'. The role of the environment is to stimulate the
LAD as claimed by Chomsky (1981: 71).

1.2.8 The Interactionist Position: A little Help from My Friends

9
This is the sociocultural theory of human mental processing in which Piaget (1953: 131) and
Vygotsky (1978: 63) take an intermediate position between the ideas of Ingram and those of
Chomsky. This theory emphasises the interrelation between environment and language
development. Real language, according to Vygotsky, is language, which children have acquired
through physical interaction with the environment. Vygotsky cited the story of Jim, the hearing
boy with deaf parents, who was abnormally delayed in FLA because of the lack of one-to-one
interaction. Hence, exposure is not the only factor affecting FLA, but also interaction among
children and their caregivers. Though parents do not appear to use any conscious methodology in
helping children learn the first language, such learning nevertheless is successful in most cases.

10
 CHAPTER II : FACTORS AFFECTING SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING

2.1.2 AGE

Age is one of the factors that influence second language learning. It is generally believed that
children are better at languages than adults. However, only the studies conducted in naturalistic
learning settings provide the evidence that supports this assumption. Researchers have proved
that learners who start learning a foreign language as children achieve a more native-like accent
than those who start as adolescents or adults (Oyama 1976; Asher and Garcia 1969) and they are
also better in the acquisition of grammar (Patkowski 1980; 1990). On the other hand, the
research carried out in formal learning environments give the opposite results. In the case of
classroom learning adults appear to be better both in syntax and morphology, while adolescents
are the best (Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle 1978; Fathman 1975) and they also progress faster. The
studies concerning the age factor were summarised by Ellis (1985) who states that the route of
SLA is not influenced by the starting age, but there is a relationship between the rate of learning
and the age of the learners. Adolescents learn faster than adults and children as far as grammar
and vocabulary are concerned. Although young learners do not learn as fast as older ones, they
are prompt to gain a higher overall success because of a longer exposure to the language. He also
provides some explanations of the research results. The studies do not support the critical period
hypothesis, which states that children can acquire a language naturally and with no effort to some
age. The starting age is important only as far as pronunciation is concerned. Selinger (1978)
claims that there is a possibility of multiple critical periods. Cognitive explanations draw
attention to the differences between children and adults in the relation to their abilities to learn a
language. Older learners are able to apply linguistic rules when they use the language. For
children language is a tool for expressing meaning and they can not respond to it as a form. The
explanation can also lie in affective states of the learners. Neufeld (1978) distinguishes two
levels of language: ‘primary’ - vocabulary,
pronunciation and grammar rules, and ‘secondary’ - ability to handle complex grammatical
structures and different language styles. He states that all people have an inborn ability to acquire
primary levels, but children are more likely to acquire secondary levels and be more successful
in learning a foreign language. Although adults learn faster, children are more motivated because
they want to be accepted by peers. The aim of the studies investigating the age factor was to

11
establish the optimal age of learning a foreign language. It has to be noticed that each age brings
some advantages and disadvantages to the learning process and the decision when to start
learning a foreign language depends on the situation of the individual learner. Students are taught
in all age groups and teachers’ task is to use appropriate methods to suit the demands of a given
age group. The next part of this chapter deals with the issue of intelligence and aptitude that are
believed to be inborn and essential for SLA.

2.1.3 INTELLIGENCE AND APTITUDE

Intelligence is defined and measured in terms of linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities.
Success in life and learning should correlate with high IQ (intelligence quotient) tests scores. The
studies on intelligence show a strong relationship between intelligence and acquisition of a
foreign language but only as far as academic skills are concerned. Learners with high IQ achieve
better results on language tests. It is proved that intelligence can predict the rate and success of
SLA in the formal language classroom (Genesee 1976). “The ability to perform well in standard
intelligence tests correlates highly with school related second language learning, but is unrelated
to the learning of a second language for informal and social functions” (Spolsky 1989:103). It is
assumed that some people are gifted and they learn foreign languages with ease. It was observed
that learners acquire a language with different results despite the fact that they are at the same
age and are equally motivated. It is not just intelligence that can explain these differences.
Students need aptitude - some specific abilities, which are responsible for learning languages.
The first tests that measured aptitude are Carroll and Sapon’s Modern Language Aptitude Test
(1959) and Pimsleur’s Language Aptitude Battery (1966). Carroll describes aptitude as a stable
factor, which can not be trained; it is separate from motivation, achievement and intelligence. It
is an ability that allows to learn a L2 faster and with less effort. He identified four factors in
language aptitude: phonemic coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning
ability and rote learning ability. Later studies conducted by Skehan (1986) were concentrated on
the underlying complexity of language aptitude and its relation to first language acquisition and
second language learning. He has shown two predictors of the language aptitude: ‘a general
language processing capability’ and an ‘ability to use language in a decontextualized way.’
Skehan’s findings show that aptitude consists of abilities identified by earlier researchers and the
ability to deal with context-free language, which is connected with learning academic skills and

12
intelligence (Ellis 1994). It is still not known whether intelligence is a part of attitude or they are
separate notions. Cummins (1983) distinguished language abilities into two: cognitive/academic
language proficiency (CALP) and basic impersonal communication skills (BICS). He suggested
that CALP might be related to general intelligence while BICS to aptitude.

The studies, which were concerned with formal classroom learning and measured academic
language proficiency, found aptitude as a predictor of second language achievement. The
researchers agree that it is necessary to improve and develop new aptitude tests, which will
measure not only cognitive abilities but also communicative competence. Some researchers do
not believe that something like general intelligence can influence learning a foreign language.
All children acquire their first language successfully. Gardner (1983) introduced a theory of
Multiple Intelligences. He described eight types of intelligence:
1. Linguistic (sensitivity to spoken and written language, the capacity to use the language to
accomplish certain goals);
2. Logical-mathematical (ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically);
3. Spatial (ability to recognise and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas);
4. Musical (capacity to recognise and create musical pitches and rhythmic patterns);
5. Bodily-kinaesthetic (ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements);
6. Interpersonal (capacity to understand intentions, motivations and desires of other people);
7. Intrapersonal (ability to understand oneself, to develop a sense of self-identity)
8. Naturalistic (ability to understand the natural world).
He states that every person possesses the eight intelligences, which evolve independently at
different times and to different degrees. Learners should be encouraged to develop all types of
intelligences because they are closely bound and the growth of one area increases the capacity of
the whole. Teachers should use a variety of techniques and materials in order to enable students
to learn using their strengths and achieve better results. He claims that people are intelligent in
different ways and they also learn in different ways. The next part of this chapter describes
different learning styles which cannot be mistaken with multiple intelligences because a learning
style is the way we approach a learning task while intelligence is a capacity to deal with this task.

13
2.1.4 LEARNING STYLES

Keefe (1979, cited by Ellis 1994:499) described learning styles as “the characteristic cognitive,
affective, and physiological behaviours that serve relatively stable indicators of how learners
perceive, interact with, and respond to the learning environment.” Students’ learning styles can
be influenced by many factors among which are their genetic background, their culture and
previous learning experience. It is said that if teachers match their teaching methods to the
students’ learning styles, the students will be more successful and more interested in the
language. Researchers have developed many different types of the learning styles. Field
dependence/independence is one of the most widely studied classifications. It was proved that
people who are field independent prefer deductive way of introducing a language, and achieve
high level of proficiency in the classroom (Neiman at al. 1978; Abraham 1985). The field
dependent students do better in naturalistic language environment. Brown (1994) states that
neither of styles decides about success or failure in the language learning. Both types of learners
can achieve a lot but in the appropriate conditions of learning. He also suggests that field
dependence/ independence does not have to be a stable factor and some people can change their
style in different contexts and situations.
Another classification is left-/right-brain dominance, which is strongly related to field
dependence/independence. Brown (1994) presents a table listing left and right- brain
characteristics by Torrance (1980). Left-brain dominated students are intellectual, prefer
established, certain information and rely on language in thinking and remembering while right-
brain dominated students are intuitive, process information in a holistic way, rely on drawing and
manipulating to help them think and learn.
Reid (1987) identified four learning modalities: visual (seeing), auditory (listening), kinaesthetic
(moving) or tactile (touching). Visual learners learn through seeing. They prefer to see a teacher
during a lesson, learn by visuals: pictures, wall displays, diagrams, videos. They make notes
during lectures and use lists to organise their thoughts. Auditory learners learn through listening.
They prefer verbal instructions, like dialogues, discussions and plays, solve problems by talking
about them, use rhythm and sound as memory aids. Kinaesthetic learners learn through moving
and doing. They learn best when they are active. It is difficult for them to sit still for long
periods. Tactile learners learn through touching.

14
They use writing and drawing. They learn well in hands-on activities like projects and
demonstrations. The other learning styles are described by Willing (1987), who distinguished:
1. Concrete learning style - direct means of processing information; people-oriented;
spontaneous; imaginative; emotional; dislikes routinized learning; prefers kinaesthetic modality.
2. Analytical learning style - focuses on specific problems and proceeds by means of
hypothetical-deductive reasoning; object oriented; independent; dislikes failure; prefers logical,
didactic presentation
3. Communicative learning style - fairy independent; highly adaptable and flexible; responsive to
facts that do not fit; prefers social learning and a communicative approach; enjoys taking
decisions.
4. Authority-oriented way of learning - reliant to other people; needs teacher’s directions and
explanations; likes a structured learning environment; intolerant to facts that do not fit; prefers a
sequential progression; dislikes discovery learning (Ellis 1994:507).
Ellis (1985: 116) states that “the existing research does not conclusively show that it [cognitive
style] is a major factor where success is concerned.” It was observed that learners produce
different kind of errors, depending on their cognitive style. It is complicated to measure because
learning styles are influenced by other learner factors. Learning styles do not seem to predict the
possible success in L2, but they show the most effective way to achieve the best results. If
students are aware of their learning style, are highly motivated and have positive attitudes, they
are likely to succeed but these factors are discussed in the next part.

2.1.5 MOTIVATION AND ATTITUDES

Motivation is one of the most important factors in second language acquisition. It is obvious that
learners who want to learn are likely to achieve more than those who do not. The role of attitudes
and motivation in SLA has been investigated by Gardner and Lambert (1972), who define
motivation in terms of ‘ the learner's overall goal or orientation’, and attitude as ‘the persistence
shown by the learner in striving for a goal’ (Ellis 1985:117). They distinguish two types of
motivation:
a) integrative - when learners study a language because they are interested in the people and
culture of the target language;

15
b) instrumental - when learners’ goals for learning the second language are functional, for
example they need the language to get a better job. It has been stated that learners can be
influenced by both types of motivation. However, there are situations when one can be more
effective than the other. Integrative motivation plays a major role where L2 is learned as a
'foreign language', while an instrumental motivation is more important where L2 functions as a
'second language'. Gardner (1979) links an integrative motivation to 'additive bilingualism' which
means that learners add a second language to their skills with no harm to their mother tongue.
Instrumental motivation is more likely to be linked to 'substractive bilingualism', where the
learners tend to replace the mother tongue by the target language (Ellis 1985). Stern (1983)
claims that the level and type of motivation is strongly influenced by the social context in which
language learning takes place and the relationship between L1 and L2. For example, if the status
of target language is higher than of L1 the learner can be integratively motivated and wish to
assimilate with the people of the L2 speaking country. The learner can be also negatively
motivated in the form of 'fear of assimilation' (Clement 1979; Taylor et al. 1977) and will learn
only to satisfy instrumental needs.
Motivation can be also distinguished into intrinsic and extrinsic. “Intrinsically motivated
activities are ones for which there is no apparent reward except the activity itself. (...)
Intrinsically motivated behaviours are aimed at bringing about certain internally rewarding
consequences, namely, feelings of competence and self-determination” (Edward Deci 1975:23,
cited by Brown1994:155). Extrinsically motivated behaviours expect a reward, for example
money, a praise or positive feedback. Maslow (1970) and other researchers claim that intrinsic
motivation leads to greater success in learning a foreign language, especially in a long run
(Brown 1994). Gardner and Lambert have investigated a number of different attitudes, which
were classified by Stern (1983: 376-7) into three types:
1) attitudes towards the community and people who speak L2,
2) attitudes towards learning and language concerned,
3) attitudes towards languages and language learning in general.
Certain personality characteristics and general interest in foreign languages of learners can
influence them in a positive or negative way. It is also important how they feel about learning a
particular language in a particular course and from a particular teacher. It is obvious that learners
who have positive attitudes learn more, but also learners who learn well acquire positive

16
attitudes. There is no doubt that motivation and attitude are very important issues as far as
second language learning is concerned. But they themselves are not the key to success. They
depend on success, are not stable and can change during studying the second language. Teachers
should be aware of that and try to develop positive motivation in their students by making the
classroom itself an environment in which they experience success.
2.1.6 PERSONALITY

Personality has been described as a set of features that characterize an individual. It has been
stated that this concept is difficult to define and measure because of its complicated nature.
Studies which investigate personality traits are based on the belief that learners bring to the
classroom not only their cognitive abilities but also affective states which influence the way they
acquire a language. Some of them have been found as benefits while the others as an obstacle in
learning a second language. The most important personality factors are:
introversion/extroversion, self-esteem, inhibition, risk-taking, anxiety and empathy.
2.1.7 SELF-ESTEEM

People need some degree of self-esteem, self-confidence in order to succeed in any activity.
Coopersmith (1967:4-5, cited by Brown 1994:137) provided the following definition of self-
esteem: “By self-esteem, we refer to the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily
maintains with regard to himself; it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval, and
indicates the extent to which an individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful
and worthy.” People develop their sense of self-esteem as a result of the information they receive
about themselves from others. Brown (1994:137) described three levels of self-esteem: global,
situational and task self-esteem. He claims that situational self-esteem “might refer to SLA in
general, and task self-esteem might appropriately refer to one’s self-evaluation of a particular
aspect of the process: speaking, writing, a particular class in a second language, or even a special
kind of classroom exercise.” Wiliams and Burden (1997) present social comparison theory that
claims that classroom interactions have a great influence on how learners perceive their abilities.
Their sense of achievement is strongly affected by the information they get from the teacher and
their peers in the classroom. Teachers should realise that they influence not only students’
academic performance but also their emotional states. They should create such atmosphere in the
classroom that will help to build students’ confidence and lead them to success. The results of
the research suggest that self-esteem is an important variable in SLA. Many studies show a

17
positive relationship between high self-esteem and academic achievement (Brodkey and Shore
1976, Gardner and Lambert 1972).

2.1.8 INHIBITION AND RISK-TAKING

The concept of inhibition is closely related to the notion of self- esteem. All people protect their
ego by building sets of defences. The higher self-esteem the lower walls of inhibition and greater
success in learning a foreign language. It has been suggested that inhibition influences language
learning in a negative way because it discourages the risktaking, which is an essential element in
this process. It is necessary to make mistakes if a person wants to learn a foreign language.
People make hypotheses about the language and then test them out by trial and many errors. If
learners do not want to speak until they are absolutely certain that they are correct they will
never acquire communicative skills (Brown 1994). This is mainly a problem of adults who are
more self-conscious than children are. A child adopts a new language and accent more rapidly
than an older person who is less open to the influences and changes. The next thing that language
learners have to face is the loss of status. They must accept the fact of being depended on others
and sometimes be prepared to reveal their weaknesses or look foolish. “An individual who is
detached, self-critical, and has a sense of humour can cope with this demand of language
learning better than a rigid or status-conscious individual who lacks self-awareness or humour”
(Stern 1983:382). It has been also suggested that tolerance of ambiguity is an advantageous
feature as learning a second language is closely connected with baffling and confusing situations.
“The learner who is capable of accepting with tolerance and patience the frustrations of
ambiguity that second language learning inevitably involves is emotionally in a better position to
cope with them in a problem-solving frame of mind than a student who feels frustrated or angry
in ambiguous situations” (ibid.).

2.1.9 ANXIETY
Anxiety is another important aspect of personality that affects learning a foreign language.
Brown (1994:141) describes anxiety as a state of mind connected with “feelings of uneasiness,
frustration, self doubt and worry.” MacIntyre and Gardner (1991) distinguish anxiety into: trait
anxiety, when some people have some general predisposition to be anxious and state anxiety,
which can be experienced in a particular situation. They also identify three components of
foreign language anxiety: communication apprehension, fear of negative social evaluation and

18
test anxiety. Their studies show that “foreign language anxiety can be distinguished from other
types of anxiety and that it can have a negative effect on the language learning process”
(ibid.p.112, cited by Brown 1994). It is important to differentiate between debilitative and
facilitative anxiety. Although anxiety is regarded as a negative factor which must be avoided, the
concept of facilitative anxiety, “a little nervous tension in the process”, is a positive factor. It
must be remembered that “both too much and too little anxiety may hinder the process of
successful second language learning” (Brown 1994:143). There has been some research that
investigated the reasons of the state anxiety in the classroom. Bailey (1983) found that
competitiveness among students, their relationship with a teacher and tests could increase
anxiety. Skehan (1989) states that it is possible that anxiety can be a result of low achievement.
Poor and average students are prompt to encounter failure because of debilitative anxiety more
often than high-ability students are. It was also suggested that different kind of anxiety appears
depending on the level of students. The more proficient learners are the more facilitating anxiety
they experience (Scovel 1978).
2.1.10 EMPATHY AND EXTROVERSION

The other aspect of personality that has been studied is empathy – “the willingness and capacity
to identify with others” (Stern 1993:381). It is perceived as an important factor in learning a
foreign language but only as far as communication skills are concerned as it involves the
participation in other people’s feelings and ideas. Some studies tried to link empathy with the
acquisition of the native-like pronunciation (Guiora 1972; Guiora et al. 1972) but it is considered
as “an essential factor in the overall ability to acquire a second language rather than simply in the
ability to acquire an authentic pronunciation” (Schumann 1975:226). People need some basic
predisposition in order to acquire a foreign language effectively. Extroversion and introversion
are personality characteristics that can influence language learning in a positive or negative way
depending on the measured aspect. It is believed that extroverts, who are sociable and open to
other people, are more successful in learning languages than introverts, because they have more
contact with L2. On the other hand, well-organised and serious introverts are seen as better
learners as far as the systematic study is concerned (Stern 1983). This assumption has been only
partially confirmed by the research results (Naiman et al.1978; Swain and Burnaby 1976). But,
to be friendly and approachable does help in the development of communicative skills and has
been supported by a few studies (for example Pritchard 1952; Pimsleur et al. 1966).

19
Many researchers believe that personality has an important influence on success in language
learning. Ellis (1985) claims that the effects of personality on SLA are difficult to investigate
because these factors are not easy to define and measure as most of the tests used lack validity.
Most of personality traits are not stable and may change depending of a situation. The same
student may behave differently in a similar setting only because of some external reasons like
mood or tiredness. Personality is said to influence only the acquisition of speaking skills and it
cannot predict the overall success in learning a language. It is true that talkativeness and
responsiveness help a lot to improve the acquisition of communicative competence but it does
not mean at all that a shy person who prefers studying alone has no chance to master a language.
Everything depends on how hard he works, how much time he spends studying a language and
what motivates him to do it. It is important for a teacher to recognise students’ personality in
order to supply them with suitable instructions and create the accurate atmosphere for learning.

20
 CHAPTER III
3.1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF LANGUAGE TEACHING
This chapter, in briefly reviewing the history of language teaching methods, provides a
background for discussion of contemporary methods and suggests the issues we will refer to in
analyzing these methods. From this historical perspective we are also able to see that the
concerns that have prompted modern method innovations were similar to those that have always
been at the center of discussions on how to teach foreign languages. Changes in language
reaching methods throughout history have reflected recognition of changes in the kind of
proficiency learners need, such as a move toward oral proficiency rather than reading
comprehension as the goal of language study; they have also reflected changes in theories of the
nature of language and of language learning. Kelly (1969) and Howatt (1984) have demonstrated
that many current issues in language teaching are not particularly new. Today's controversies
reflect contemporary responses to questions that have been asked often throughout the history of
language teaching.

3.1.2 APPROACH, METHOD, DESIGN, PROCEDURE (OR TECHNIQUE)

As an introduction a simplified set of definitions of the main concepts would be:
A method refers to the overall plan for the proper presentation of language material. It is based
on selected approach and procedure. It includes three parts
Approach
Design
Procedure.
What is an Approach?
An approach is concerned with the theory of the Nature of Language and Language Learning.

What is a Design?
A Design concerns with the general specific objective of the course.
A syllabus model
Types of learning and learning tasks.
Role of learners and teachers
Role of learning materials.

What is a Procedure (Technique)?

21
A procedure is the actual happening of the classroom techniques, practices and behaviours.

Approach, Method and Technique / Procedure

When linguists and language specialists sought to improve the quality of language teaching in
the late nineteenth century, they often did so by referring to general principles and theories
concerning how languages are learned, how knowledge of language is represented and organized
in memory, or how language itself is structured.
In 1963, the American applied linguist Edward Anthony identified three levels of
conceptualization and organization, which he termed approach, method, and technique. The
arrangement is hierarchical. The organizational key is that techniques carry out a method which
is consistent with an approach.
An Approach is a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language
teaching and learning. An approach is axiomatic (obviously true). It describes the nature of the
subject matter to be taught.
Method is an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no part of
which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach. An approach is
axiomatic (self-evident), a method is procedural. Within one approach, there can be many
methods.
A Procedure or technique is that which actually takes place in a classroom. It is a
particular trick, stratagem, or contrivance used to accomplish an immediate objective.
Techniques must be consistent with a method, and therefore in harmony with an approach as
well. (Anthony 1963:63-7)
According to Anthony's model, approach is the level at which assumptions and beliefs
about language and language learning are specified; method is the level at which theory is put
into practice and at which choices are made about the particular skills to be taught, the content
to be taught, and the order in which the content will be presented; technique is the level at
which classroom procedures are described.
In order to provide a more comprehensive model for the discussion and analysis of
approaches and methods, a revised and extended version of the original Anthony model is
presented here. The primary areas needing further clarification are, using Anthony's terms,
method and technique. We see approach and method treated at the level of design, that level in
which objectives, syllabus, and content are determined, and in which the roles of teachers,
learners, and instructional materials are specified. The implementation phase (the level of
technique in Anthony's model) we refer to by the slightly more comprehensive term procedure.
Thus, a method is theoretically related to an approach, is organizationally determined by
a design, and is practically realized in procedure.

22
In the remainder of this chapter we will elaborate on the relationship between approach, design,
and procedure, using this framework to compare particular methods and approaches in
language teaching.
3.1.3 Three Theories of Language
Approach refers to theories about the nature of language and language learning that serve as
the source of practices and principles in language teaching. We will examine the linguistic and
psycholinguistic aspects of approach in turn.
At least three different theoretical views of language and the nature of language
proficiency explicitly or implicitly inform current approaches, the nature of approaches and
methods and methods in language teaching: the structural view, the functional view and the
interactional view of Language
The following collection of passages from various sources serves as a general summary
of the theories and methods developed over the past centuries.

3.1.3.1 The Structural View of Language

The first and the most traditional of the three language views is the structural view, the view that
language is a system of structurally related elements for the coding of meaning. The target of
language learning is seen to be the mastery of elements of this system, which are generally
defined in terms of phonological units (e.g., phonemes), grammatical units (e.g., clauses,
phrases, sentences), grammatical operations (e.g., adding, shifting, joining, or transforming
elements), and lexical items (e.g., function words and structure words). The structural view of
language has produced the following Approaches and Methods: The Grammar Translation
Method and The Audio-lingual Method.

3.1.3.2 The Functional view of Language

The second view of language is the functional view. This view that language is a vehicle for the
expression of functional meaning and most English course books in the 50s and 60s were based
on a functional/notional syllabus, which emphasizes the semantic and communicative dimension
rather than merely the grammatical characteristics of language, and leads to a specification and
organization of language teaching content by categories of meaning and function rather than
by elements of structure and grammar. This view resulted into the Oral Approach, Situational
Language Teaching and Directed practice or Direct Method

3.1.3.3 The Interactional View of Language

The third view of language can be called the interactional view. It sees language as a vehicle for
the realization of interpersonal relations and for the performance of social transactions between
individuals. Language is seen as a tool for the creation and maintenance of social relations.
Areas of inquiry being drawn on in the development of interactional approaches to language

23
teaching include interaction analysis, conversation analysis, and ethno-methodology
interactional theories focus on the patterns of moves, acts, negotiation, and interaction found in
conversational exchanges. Language teaching content, according to this view, may be specified
and organized by patterns of exchange and interaction or may be left unspecified, to be shaped
by the inclinations of learners as inter-actors. Communicative approaches are based on this view,
such as the designer methods of the 1970s and Communicative Language Teaching.
3.1.4 The Grammar Translation Method (GTM)

The oldest method based on this theory of language is the grammar – translation method.
It is a cross lingual technique used in language learning. Grammar is given more importance in
this method. Learners understand the grammar rules better. The exercises in this method put
the learner into an active problem-solving situation. In the schools, the teachers often follow the
traditional method of translation technique. It is an easy way to explain things. Reading and
writing are the major focus. Reading of difficult texts is begun early in the course of study. Little
attention is paid to the content of texts, which are treated as exercises in grammatical
analysis. Often the only drills are exercises in translating disconnected sentences from the target
language into the mother tongue, and vice versa. Little or no attention is given to pronunciation.
Vocabulary selection is based solely on the text used. The words are introduced through
bilingual word lists dictionary and memorization. The grammar rules are presented. A list of
vocabulary items is presented with their translation meanings. Translation exercises are
prescribed. Grammar is taught inductively. Mother tongue is the medium of instruction.

Steps Involved in the Grammar Translation Method

 The teacher asks the students to read few lines from the text. He asks them to translate
into L1 and he helps them with new words.
 The teacher answers all their questions in L1
 The students write the answers for the questions
 The answers are checked by them. Mistakes are corrected by the teacher. He speaks in L1
 The students are asked to translate the words listed into their L1. The teacher helps them
in synonyms, Antonyms and Meanings for these words.
 The teacher works the grammar exercises and he presents grammar rules. The students
do the exercises and translate the sentences into L1.
 The students translate the lines from the text into L1. They memorize the read out listed
words and frame sentences for the vocabulary items.
 Students write a composition based on the passage.

24
 Disadvantages
 This GTM was in use for 100 years from 1840 to 1940. It had its own drawbacks.
 It failed to produce oral fluency in English.
 Students found the method boring as they had to memorize words and rules.
 It does not develop confidence among the learners.
 The use of L1 is more predominant in the class.
 No link between the text words and real life situations.
 The learner was unable to use English in day to day Communication
 This method focused only in reading and writing. Little attention is paid to speaking.

3.1.5 The Direct Method

The Direct Method, which dates back to the nineteenth century, is a reaction against the method
of constantly having to translate L2 to L1. Learners are directly exposed to L2 and the method
was perceived to be a practical approach to get large numbers of immigrants to Europe in the
Economic boom of the seventies communicating in European languages. The Direct Method was
introduced in France and Germany in the sixties and very popular in the seventies. In the U.S., it
is known as Berlitz Method, since it is used by Berlitz language learning institutes. The main aim
of this method is to help the students to speak the target language (L2) fluently and correctly.
In this method, lessons begin with a dialogue using a modern conversational style in the
target language. Material is first presented orally with actions or pictures. The mother tongue is
NEVER, NEVER used. There is no translation. The preferred type of exercise is a series of
questions in the target language based on the dialogue or an anecdotal narrative. Questions are
answered in the target language. Question-answer sessions, interaction exercises, intensive
classroom drills, dictation, free composition, pronunciation are done in the classroom to develop
and strengthen L2. Advanced students read literature for comprehension and pleasure. Literary
texts are not analyzed grammatically. The culture associated with the target language is also
taught inductively. Culture is considered an important aspect of learning the language.

The salient features of the Direct Method are:

 The use of everyday vocabulary and structures is the object of language teaching.
 The learner is expected to use the language related to the outside situations.
 Oral skills are developed in this method. (Question-answer session, Interaction exercises
and intensive drills). Speech habits are developed by initiation drill.
 Grammar is taught inductively
 It focuses on the second language learning in a natural way.
 Concrete meanings are taught through situational approach. The meaning of a word is
not given in L1 & L2.
 Abstract meanings are taught through association of ideas.
 Both oral and listening skills are taught.
 Translation method is avoided.

25
  Good pronunciation is aimed at.
 Writing skill is secondary.

Disadvantages
Its procedures and techniques were difficult.
Teachers had difficulty in explaining the difficult words.
Fluency in L2 is necessary.
No selection and grading of vocabulary and structures.
It was a success in private language schools but not in public secondary schools.
There was less time and less opportunity available in the classroom.

3.1.6 The Behaviourist Approach and the Audio-Lingual Method

The Audio-lingual Method is also based on a structural view of language in the sense that it
takes grammar and phonetics as a starting point for the design of class room procedures. These
procedures are based on the principles of behaviour psychology. Behaviourism a
psychological theory originating from the early 20th century which assumed that the most
marked feature of humans is their behaviour, which can be trained by drilling or conditioning
(i.e. behaviour is learnt by stimulus, response and reinforcement). Language learning was not
seen as a mental process but behaviour and language “habits” were drilled by constant
repetition. This was successful in certain conditions such as crash courses designed for military
people who were to be sent into the Second World War and needed a basis of French and
German. It was later heavily criticised by scholars such as Chomsky (see next section).
New material is presented in the form of a dialogue. Based on the principle that
language learning is habit formation, the method fosters dependence on mimicry, memorization
of set phrases and over-learning, for which language laboratories were needed in which
students interacted with taped voices endlessly repeating similar grammar patterns with a series
of substitutions for one or two core words, drilling students to a level at which they were
expected to be able to automatically use these structures correctly.
Structures are sequenced and taught one at a time. Structural patterns are taught using
repetitive drills. Little or no grammatical explanations are provided; grammar is taught
inductively. Skills are sequenced: Listening, speaking, reading and writing are developed in
order. Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context. Teaching points are determined by
contrastive analysis between L1 and L2. There is abundant use of language laboratories, tapes
and visual aids. There is an extended pre-reading period at the beginning of the course. Great
importance is given to precise native-like pronunciation. Use of the mother tongue by the
teacher is permitted, but discouraged among and by the students. Successful responses are
reinforced; great care is taken to prevent learner errors. There is a tendency to focus on
manipulation of the target language and to disregard content and meaning.

26
 Some Disadvantages of the Audio-lingual Method
The method fails to offer learners an element of discrimination or choice. Drills which lean
heavily on automatic responses without reference to appropriate contexts may give rise to little
or no naturalistic speech. Choice (by the learner) of vocabulary is needed to permit individual
control over the meaning of the information conveyed. When not permitted there's a danger
that all that is being practised is pronunciation.
The artificiality of the stimulus (in drills) may give rise to a kind of "structure-speech";
which is marked by lack of interaction in a real sense. No information is conveyed which is not
already known.
The content presented by "meaningless drills" may teach learners that listening is a waste
of time. Only hearing is required to complete meaningless drills. Language learning may be
presented as a tedious process.
Behaviourists unapologetically set out to minimize the role of understanding in order to
focus attention on structure. e.g. Don't worry about the meaning of these minimal pairs (watch
wash; batch bash). I want you to get your tongue round the sounds.

Counter Arguments
When using "meaningless drills" e.g. minimal pairs for pronunciation, teachers should remember
to convince learners of the importance of phonology, stress and intonation or any other features
of language systems which might be isolated from meaning for the purpose of practice.
Students should be given the rationale behind any attempt to focus on some feature of
paragraph, sentence or word. e.g. Watching v Washing the TV. Awkward consonant clusters or
diphthongs. Communication often fails at motor skill level (e.g. poor pronunciation of certain
phonemes).

3.1.7 The Silent Way

Gattegno, C. (1972).Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way. New York City:
Educational Solutions.
Procedures
This method created by Caleb Gattegno begins by using a set of coloured rods and
verbal commands in order to avoid the use of L1. Therefore, it starts with simple linguistic
situations that remain under the complete control of the teacher, who passes on to the learners
the responsibility for the utterances of the descriptions of the objects shown or the actions
performed. The teacher concentrates on what the students say and how they are saying it,
drawing their attention to the differences in pronunciation and the flow of words. The teacher
generates a serious game-like situation in which the rules are implicitly agreed upon by giving
meaning to the gestures of the teacher and his mime. To permit almost from the start a switch
from the lone voice of the teacher using the foreign language to a number of voices using it.
This introduces components of pitch, timbre and intensity that will constantly reduce the impact

27
of one voice and hence reduce imitation and encourage personal production of one's own
brand of the sounds.
To provide the support of perception and action to the intellectual guess of what the
noises mean, thus bring in the arsenal of the usual criteria of experience already developed and
automatic in one's use of the mother tongue. To provide a duration of spontaneous speech
upon which the teacher and the students can work to obtain a similarity of melody to the one
heard, thus providing melodic integrative schemata from the start.

Materials
The complete set of materials utilized as the language learning progresses include:
A set of coloured wooden rods; a set of wall charts containing words of a "functional"
vocabulary and some additional ones; a pointer for use with the charts in Visual Dictation; a
colour coded phonic chart(s); tapes or discs, as required; films; drawings and pictures, and a set
of accompanying worksheets; transparencies, three texts, a book of stories, worksheets.

3.1.8 Suggestopedia
Suggestopedia is a method developed by the Bulgari an psychiatristeducator Georgi Lozanov.
Suggestopedia is a specific set of learning recommendations derived from Suggestology, which
Lozanov describes as a "science . .. concerned with the systematic study of the nonrational and,
ou nonconscious influences" that human beings are constantly responding to (S tevick 1976: 42).
Suggestopedia tries to harness these influences and redirect them so as to optimize learning. The
most conspicuous characteristics of Suggestopedia are the decoration, furniture, and arrangement
of the classroom, the use of music, and the authoritative behavior of the teacher. The method has
a somewhat mystical air about it, partially because it has few direct links with established
learning or educational theory in the West, and partially because of its arcane terminology and
neologisms, which one critic has unkindly called a " package of pseudo-scientific gobbledygook"
(Scovel 1979: 258).

Suggestopedia was based on the theory that the brain can process a big amount of material if
given the right condition for learning. In this method the aim was to relax the states of mind
therefore there could be a more retention and for this the playing of music during classes was
essential as well as having a comfortable environment. Having these two elements is difficult in
normal conditions of education and this method became more useful to teach memorization
techniques instead of making the learners comprehend.

The claims for suggestopedic learning are dramatic. "There is no sector of public life where
suggestology would not be useful" (Lozanov 1978: 2). "Memori zation in learning by the
suggestopedic method seems to be accelerated 25 times over that in learning by conventional
methods" (Lozanov 1978: 27). Precise descriptions of the conditions under which Suggestopedia
experiments were run are as hard to come by as are precise descriptions of "successful"

28
classroom procedures. For example, Earl Stevick, a generally enthusiastic supporter of
Suggestopedia, notes that Suggestopedia teachers are trained to read dialogues in a special way.
"The precise ways of using voice quality, intonation, and timing arc apparently both important
and intricate. I have found no one who could give a first-hand account of them" (Stevick 1976:
157).

3.1.9 The Natural Approach and the Total Physical Response methods in perspective

Humanism and an identification of L2 and L1 learning are at the core of both methods.
Moreover, many of their postulates are still applied in our days, such as the notions of input
before output, the silent period, the question of comprehensible input, the reduction of the
affective filter, and, for the Natural Approach, its selection of activities and its focus on meaning,
rather than form. In this sense this method can be said to be the origin of the notional-functional
approaches (see Section 8) that led to the Communicative move. In contrast, the TPR method
goes back towards structuralist and grammatical positions in its notion of language –considered
as a set of structures and vocabulary- and learning –regarded as an association of stimulus and
response through physical action-.

In general, the two methods have shown some problems, such as the fact that they were not
designed by experts, and it has not been possible to verify their theoretical background or
hypotheses. Besides, the distinction of learning versus acquisition as two separate mechanisms,
one conscious and ‘unadvisable’ and the other one unconscious and ‘advisable’ is, though
accepted by a widespread range of language teachers, feeble. Moreover, the role of interaction
and the function of output for learning were not considered in detail. In addition, the TPR
method, though popular in our days as a classroom procedure or technique, proved to be very
demanding on teachers, provided a very limited range of materials and procedures, and made
teaching difficult structures nearly impossible.
Total Physical Response
Asher, J.C. (1979). Learning Another Language Through Actions. San Jose, California: Accu
Print.
James J. Asher defines the Total Physical Response (TPR) method as one that combines
information and skills through the use of the kinaesthetic sensory system. This combination of
skills allows the student to assimilate information and skills at a rapid rate. As a result, this
success leads to a high degree of motivation.
The basic tenets are: Understanding the spoken language before developing the skills of
speaking. Imperatives are the main structures to transfer or communicate information. The
student is not forced to speak, but is allowed an individual readiness period and allowed to
spontaneously begin to speak when the student feels comfortable and confident in
understanding and producing the utterances.

29
 Technique
Step I The teacher says the commands as he himself performs the action.
Step 2 The teacher says the command as both the teacher and the students then perform the
action.
Step 3 The teacher says the command but only students perform the action
Step 4 The teacher tells one student at a time to do commands
Step 5 The roles of teacher and student are reversed. Students give commands to teacher and to
other students.
Step 6 The teacher and student allow for command expansion or produces new sentences.

3.1.10 The Natural Approach

The Natural Approach and the Communicative Approach share a common theoretical and
philosophical base. The Natural Approach to L2 teaching is based on the following hypotheses:
1. The acquisition-learning distinction hypothesis
Adults can "get" a second language much as they learn their first language, through informal,
implicit, subconscious learning. The conscious, explicit, formal linguistic knowledge of a
language is a different, and often non-essential process.
2. The natural order of acquisition hypothesis
L2 learners acquire forms in a predictable order. This order very closely parallels the acquisition
of grammatical and syntactic structures in the first language.
3. The monitor hypothesis
Fluency in L2 comes from the acquisition process. Learning produces a "monitoring" or editor
of performance. The application of the monitor function requires time, focus on form and
knowledge of the rule.
4. The input hypothesis
Language is acquired through comprehensible input. If an L2 learner is at a certain stage in
language acquisition and he/she understands something that includes a structure at the next
stage, this helps him/her to acquire that structure. Thus, the i+1 concept, where i= the stage of
acquisition.
5. The affective hypothesis
People with certain personalities and certain motivations perform better in L2
acquisition. Learners with high self-esteem and high levels of self-confidence acquire L2 faster.
Also, certain low-anxiety pleasant situations are more conducive to L2 acquisition.
6. The filter hypothesis
There exists an affective filter or "mental block" that can prevent input from "getting
in." Pedagogically, the more that is done to lower the filter, the more acquisition can take
place. A low filter is achieved through low-anxiety, relaxation, non-defensiveness.
7. The aptitude hypothesis
There is such a thing as a language learning aptitude. This aptitude can be measured and is
highly correlated with general learning aptitude. However, aptitude relates more
to learning while attitude relates more to acquisition.
8. The first language hypothesis

30
The L2 learner will naturally substitute competence in L1 for competence in L2. Learners should
not be forced to use the L1 to generate L2 performance. A silent period and insertion of L1 into
L2 utterances should be expected and tolerated.
9. The textuality hypothesis
The event-structures of experience are textual in nature and will be easier to produce,
understand, and recall to the extent that discourse or text is motivated and structured
episodically. Consequently, L2 teaching materials are more successful when they incorporate
principles of good story writing along with sound linguistic analysis.
10. The expectancy hypothesis
Discourse has a type of "cognitive momentum." The activation of correct expectancies will
enhance the processing of textual structures. Consequently, L2 learners must be guided to
develop the sort of native-speaker "intuitions" that make discourse predictable.

3.1.11 The Communicative Approach

Nowadays, communicative language teaching methodology is one of the most important
methods that language instructors use in their classroom (Little wood 1981) and Brown (1994).
Proponent of the Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach argues that English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) students are in need of CLT methodology in order to gain facility and
confidence in using the language. The CLT methodology discourages extensive teacher-
controlled drills, quizzing of memorized material, and extended commentary on forms of
English. The instructors who teach language have to develop interest towards using CLT
methodology as well as various types of active learning methods that fit with the different
learning style and strategies of the students. In spite of many challenges to implementing a
communicative approach, there remains a strong rational for pursuing CLT methodology,
especially when instruction envisions learners moving on to use the language for further
education or career advancement. Ellis (1996), Brown (1994) and Larsen–Freeman (2000)
identified that teachers revert to traditional teacher-centred routines, lack of students pre-
requisites skills, continued use of traditional examinations, etc are the main problems to use CLT
methodology. Thus, it appears that even instructors who are well versed in the theory and
fundamentals of communicative language teaching face an uphill battle in English as a foreign
language setting.. Today’s language teachers mostly manipulate much more information in
several different areas of knowledge. The problem lies not only in the amount of information to
be mastered, but in the organization and application of that knowledge to a practical situation. In
other words, how teachers can use the knowledge of linguistics, psychology, sociology and
pedagogy to help the students learn the language is an important point to be considered.
Therefore, the use of CLT methodology assists the students in order to develop confidence in
using the language for effective interaction in social contexts. Examining the problem related to
the methods they have been using currently and revising for their future use in line with the
present technological development is the main responsibility of the language instructors,
especially at higher institution. Different scholars like Richards and Rodgers (1986), Larsen-Free

31
man (1986) and other discussed in detail about methods like grammar translation, direct method,
audio-lingual, silent way, suggestopedia, community language learning, total physicalTeacher
centred approach is dominated by continuous teacher lecture while the students are passively
following him. The teachers also act as all knowing and want to pour knowledge to students
considering them as empty vessels. It is the impact of the way the teachers themselves learnt that
can be reflected in their teaching learning process. The teacher himself/herself accomplishes the
planning, design, adjusting and delivering the course for the students. The students do not have a
say in the teaching–leaning process. Larsen-Freeman (2000) states that teacher-centred approach
focuses on extensive teacher-controlled drills, quizzing of memorized activities and extended
commentary on the forms of the language. Whatever the case, students end up doing less
communication activity. In other words, excessive teacher talk hampers the emergence of
sustained purposeful student talk. Unquestionably, teacher talk is essential for initiating learning
activities, setting standards, assessing performances, and providing some forms of feedback.
However, he/she has to identify the extent to which this variable of his/her talk limits the
realization of authentic communication among students in the classroom. On the other hand,
student-centred approach is a paradigm shift from teacher-centred approach to student-centred
approach where the students practice more, assess their own progress, develop confidence, etc in
using the language for meaningful interaction. As it has been stated by different writers, student-
centred approach assists the learners in developing independence, discovery approach and
bearing responsibility for their own learning. In this approach the teacher also develops effective
knowledge of designing tasks, organizing activities, selecting appropriate classroom setting and
assessment criteria to see the behavioural change of students.

Objectives of CLT
 To produce effective communicative competence in learners.
 The focus is on meanings and functions of the language.
 More importance on the learner and his learning.
 Language is acquired in CLT.
 The teacher is a facilitator in language acquisitions.
 Involve the learner in the learning process through problem solving, tasks, participation
and interaction.
 All the four LSRW skills are equally treated.
 No single uniform method is prescribed
 Different techniques are followed in the process of learning
It is an eclectic approach. CLT involves many classroom activities like group work, pair work,
language games, role play, question-answer sessions. It is not confined to any set of text books.
The learners are mostly introduced task based and problem solving situations.

What is Communicative Competence?

32
  Communicative competence is the progressive acquisition of the ability to use a language
to achieve one's communicative purpose.
 Communicative competence involves the negotiation of meaning between two or more
persons sharing the same symbolic system.
 Communicative competence applies to both spoken and written language.
 Communicative competence is context specific based on the situation, the role of the
participants and the appropriate choices of register and style. For example: The variation
of language used by persons in different jobs or professions can be either formal or
informal. The use of jargon or slang may or may not be appropriate.
 Communicative competence represents a shift in focus from the grammatical to the
communicative properties of the language; i.e. the functions of language and the process
of discourse.
 Communicative competence requires the mastery of the production and comprehension
of communicative acts or speech acts that are relevant to the needs of the L2 learner.

Characteristics of the Communicative Classroom

 The classroom is devoted primarily to activities that foster acquisition of L2. Learning
activities involving practice and drill are assigned as homework.
 The instructor does not correct speech errors directly.
 Students are allowed to respond in the target language, their native language, or a
mixture of the two.
 The focus of all learning and speaking activities is on the interchange of a message that
the acquirer understands and wishes to transmit, i.e. meaningful communication.
 The students receive comprehensible input in a low-anxiety environment and are
personally involved in class activities. Comprehensible input has the following major
components:
a. a context
b. gestures and other body language cues
c. a message to be comprehended
d. a knowledge of the meaning of key lexical items in the utterance

A major element in CLT is that classes are task-based with the teacher being a mediator or
facilitator for his students who are busy comprehending, manipulating, producing or interacting
in the target language (LT) while their attention is mainly on MEANING rather than FORM.
The components of a task are:
 goals
 input
 activities
 teacher role
 learner role

33
  settings
The starting point for task design should be the goals and objectives which are set out in
the syllabus or curriculum guidelines which underpin the teaching programme.
The next step is selecting or creating input for Ss to work with. The use of authentic input is a
central characteristic of communicative tasks. Where possible, it is desirable to build up a "bank"
of data.

Implications for Methodology

As well as rethinking the nature of a syllabus, the new communicative approach to teaching
prompted a rethinking of classroom teaching methodology. It was argued that learners learn a
language through the process of communicating in it, and that communication that is
meaningful to the learner provides a better opportunity for learning than through a grammar-
based approach. The over arching principles of communicative language teaching methodology
at this time can be summarized as follows:
 Make real communication the focus of language learning.
 Provide opportunities for learners to experiment and try out what they know.
 Be tolerant of learners’ errors as they indicate that the learner is building up his or her
communicative competence.
 Provide opportunities for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency.
 Link the different skills such as speaking, reading, and listening together, since they
usually occur so in the real world.
 Let students induce or discover grammar rules.
In applying these principles in the classroom, new classroom techniques and activities were
needed, and as we saw above, new roles for teachers and learners in the classroom. Instead of
making use of activities that demanded accurate repetition and memorization of sentences and
grammatical patterns, activities that required learners to negotiate meaning and to interact
meaningfully were required.

Classroom Activities in Communicative Language Teaching

Information-Gap Activities
An important aspect of communication in CLT is the notion of information gap. This refers to the
fact that in real communication, people normally communicate in order to get information they
do not possess. This is known as an information gap. More authentic communication is likely to
occur in the classroom if students go beyond practice of language forms for their own sake and
use their linguistic and communicative resources in order to obtain information.
strategies to complete a task. The following exercises make use of the information-gap
principle An example is:

34
 Students are divided into A-B pairs. The teacher has copied two sets of pictures. One set
(for A students) contains a picture of a group of people. The other set (for B students) contains a
similar picture but it contains a number of slight differences from the A-picture. Students must
sit back to back and ask questions to try to find out how many differences there are between
the two pictures.

Jigsaw Activities
These are also based on the information-gap principle. Typically, the class is divided into groups
and each group has part of the information needed to complete an activity. The class must fit
the pieces together to complete the whole. In so doing, they must use their language resources
to communicate meaningfully and so take part in meaningful communication practice. The
following is an example of jigsaw activities:
The teacher takes a narrative and divides it into twenty sections (or as many sections as there
are students in the class). Each student gets one section of the story. Students must then move
around the class, and by listening to each section read aloud, decide where in the story their
section belongs. Eventually the students have to put the entire story together in the correct
sequence.

Other Activity Types in CLT

Many other activity types have been used in CLT, including the following:
Task-completion activities: puzzles, games, map-reading, and other kinds of classroom tasks in
which the focus is on using one’s language resources to complete a task.
Information-gathering activities: student-conducted surveys, interviews, and searches in which
students are required to use their linguistic resources to collect information.
Opinion-sharing activities: activities in which students compare values, opinions, or beliefs,
such as a ranking task in which students list six qualities in order of importance that they might
consider in choosing a date or spouse.
Information-transfer activities: These require learners to take information that is presented in
one form, and represent it in a different form. For example, they may read instructions on how to
get from A to B, and then draw a map showing the sequence, or they may read information about
a subject and then represent it as a graph.
Reasoning-gap activities: These involve deriving some new information from given information
through the process of inference, practical reasoning, etc.
For example, working out a teacher’s timetable on the basis of given class timetables.
In so doing, they will draw available vocabulary, grammar, and communication Role plays:
activities in which students are assigned roles and improvise a scene or exchange based
on given information or clues.

Emphasis on Pair and Group Work

35
Most of the activities discussed above reflect an important aspect of classroom tasks in CLT,
namely that they are designed to be carried out in pairs or small groups. Through completing
activities in this way, it is argued, learners will obtain several benefits:
 They can learn from hearing the language used by other members of the group.
 They will produce a greater amount of language than they would use in teacher-fronted
activities.
 Their motivational level is likely to increase.
 They will have the chance to develop fluency.
 Teaching and classroom materials today consequently make use of a wide variety of
small-group activities.
Role plays: activities in which students are assigned roles and improvise a scene or
exchange based on given information or clues.

Emphasis on Pair and Group Work

Most of the activities discussed above reflect an important aspect of classroom tasks in CLT,
namely that they are designed to be carried out in pairs or small groups. Through completing
activities in this way, it is argued, learners will obtain several benefits:
 They can learn from hearing the language used by other members of the group.
 They will produce a greater amount of language than they would use in teacher-fronted
activities.
 Their motivational level is likely to increase.
 They will have the chance to develop fluency.
 Teaching and classroom materials today consequently make use of a wide variety of
small-group activities.

CONCLUSION
This fourth chapter has allowed us to review the methodological history of language teaching. It
has shown teachers’ reflections on how to improve FL teaching. The manner in which methods
have evolved is the referential issue to search for and find more effective responses. The
Grammar-translation method gave way to direct and oral methods. Both poles have proposed an
eclectic solution based on the learners’ needs, as the Reading method claimed. Technological
and scientific advances in linguistic and psychological studies provided new tools and different
criteria on content and techniques, with which the Audiolingual and Audiovisual methods have
contributed. Anyway, the task was limited and more insights were necessary.

Cognitive Code Learning, as a reaction to Audiolingualism, started to recognize learning as a

creative process, and looked for the universal features underlying all languages. This search for
universal patterns led to the Second Language Acquisition tradition, in which L2 teaching

36
imitated L1 learning modes. Parallel to these developments, humanistic/designer methods such
as the Silent Way, Suggestoppedia and Community language learning, removed from
psychological and linguistic frameworks, continued the search for the ideal teaching method.
Their failure, together with the view of language as a social process, led to Communicative
Language Teaching, with its emphasis on meaning, fluency, and real-life communication, which
then became the recognized approach to language teaching for several decades. This is the case
until we enter the post-communicative period, when the theoretical and practical deficits of this
approach are voiced and when a disciplined and cautious eclecticism is favoured. Pedagogical
approaches to language teaching continue to proliferate in this era, the most notable of which we
have examined:

1. The Task-based Approach, with its focus on tasks and its view of language and teaching as a
process.

2. The Lexical Approach, with its emphasis on the lexical chunk, lexical phrase drills, the
provision of input, or discovery-learning procedures.

3. Neuro-linguistic Programming and Multintelligencia, with their interest in appealing to all

possible cueing systems involved in general and language learning.

4. Cooperative learning, which makes use of structured group work and stresses cooperation
rather than competition.

5. Content-based instruction, where language acquisition is a by-product of subject matter

learning. Such subject content is the main focus and the target language, the medium of
instruction.

37
CHAPTER IV: Strategies for Effective Lesson Planning

A lesson plan is the instructor’s road map of what students need to learn and how it will be done
effectively during the class time. Before you plan your lesson, you will first need to identify the
learning objectives for the class meeting. Then, you can design appropriate learning activities
and develop strategies to obtain feedback on student learning. A successful lesson plan addresses
and integrates these three key components:

 Objectives for student learning

 Teaching/learning activities
 Strategies to check student understanding

Specifying concrete objectives for student learning will help you determine the kinds of teaching
and learning activities you will use in class, while those activities will define how you will check
whether the learning objectives have been accomplished (see Fig. 1).

4.1.1 Steps for Preparing a Lesson Plan

Below are six steps to guide you when you create your first lesson plans. Each step is
accompanied by a set of questions meant to prompt reflection and aid you in designing your
teaching and learning activities.

38
4.1.2 Steps for Preparing a Lesson Plan

The first step is to determine what you want students to learn and be able to do at the end of
class. To help you specify your objectives for student learning, answer the following questions:

 What is the topic of the lesson?

 What do I want students to learn?
 What do I want them to understand and be able to do at the end of class?
 What do I want them to take away from this particular lesson?

Once you outline the learning objectives for the class meeting, rank them in terms of their
importance. This step will prepare you for managing class time and accomplishing the more
important learning objectives in case you are pressed for time. Consider the following questions:

 What are the most important concepts, ideas, or skills I want students to be able to grasp
and apply?
 Why are they important?
 If I ran out of time, which ones could not be omitted?
 And conversely, which ones could I skip if pressed for time?

4.1.3 Develop the introduction

Now that you have your learning objectives in order of their importance, design the specific
activities you will use to get students to understand and apply what they have learned. Because
you will have a diverse body of students with different academic and personal experiences, they
may already be familiar with the topic. That is why you might start with a question or activity to
gauge students’ knowledge of the subject or possibly, their preconceived notions about it. For
example, you can take a simple poll: “How many of you have heard of X? Raise your hand if
you have.” You can also gather background information from your students prior to class by
sending students an electronic survey or asking them to write comments on index cards. This

39
additional information can help shape your introduction, learning activities, etc. When you have
an idea of the students’ familiarity with the topic, you will also have a sense of what to focus on.

Develop a creative introduction to the topic to stimulate interest and encourage thinking. You
can use a variety of approaches to engage students (e.g., personal anecdote, historical event,
thought-provoking dilemma, real-world example, short video clip, practical application, probing
question, etc.). Consider the following questions when planning your introduction:

 How will I check whether students know anything about the topic or have any
preconceived notions about it?
 What are some commonly held ideas (or possibly misconceptions) about this topic that
students might be familiar with or might espouse?
 What will I do to introduce the topic?

4.1.4 Plan the specific learning activities (the main body of the lesson)

Prepare several different ways of explaining the material (real-life examples, analogies, visuals,
etc.) to catch the attention of more students and appeal to different learning styles. As you plan
your examples and activities, estimate how much time you will spend on each. Build in time for
extended explanation or discussion, but also be prepared to move on quickly to different
applications or problems, and to identify strategies that check for understanding. These questions
would help you design the learning activities you will use:

 What will I do to explain the topic?

 What will I do to illustrate the topic in a different way?
 How can I engage students in the topic?
 What are some relevant real-life examples, analogies, or situations that can help students
understand the topic?
 What will students need to do to help them understand the topic better?

40
4.1.5 Plan to check for understanding

Now that you have explained the topic and illustrated it with different examples, you need to
check for student understanding – how will you know that students are learning? Think about
specific questions you can ask students in order to check for understanding, write them down,
and then paraphrase them so that you are prepared to ask the questions in different ways. Try to
predict the answers your questions will generate. Decide on whether you want students to
respond orally or in writing. You can look at Strategies to Extend Student Thinking,
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/P4_4.php to help you generate some ideas and you can also ask
yourself these questions:

 What questions will I ask students to check for understanding?

 What will I have students do to demonstrate that they are following?
 Going back to my list of learning objectives, what activity can I have students do to
check whether each of those has been accomplished?

An important strategy that will also help you with time management is to anticipate students’
questions. When planning your lesson, decide what kinds of questions will be productive for
discussion and what questions might sidetrack the class. Think about and decide on the balance
between covering content (accomplishing your learning objectives) and ensuring that students
understand.

4.1.6 Develop a conclusion and a preview

Go over the material covered in class by summarizing the main points of the lesson. You can do
this in a number of ways: you can state the main points yourself (“Today we talked about…”),
you can ask a student to help you summarize them, or you can even ask all students to write
down on a piece of paper what they think were the main points of the lesson. You can review the
students’ answers to gauge their understanding of the topic and then explain anything unclear the
following class. Conclude the lesson not only by summarizing the main points, but also by
previewing the next lesson. How does the topic relate to the one that’s coming? This preview
will spur students’ interest and help them connect the different ideas within a larger context.

41
4.1.7 Create a realistic timeline

A list of ten learning objectives is not realistic, so narrow down your list to the two or three key
concepts, ideas, or skills you want students to learn. Instructors also agree that they often need to
adjust their lesson plan during class depending on what the students need. Your list of prioritized
learning objectives will help you make decisions on the spot and adjust your lesson plan as
needed. Having additional examples or alternative activities will also allow you to be flexible. A
realistic timeline will reflect your flexibility and readiness to adapt to the specific classroom
environment. Here are some strategies for creating a realistic timeline:

 Estimate how much time each of the activities will take, then plan some extra time for
each
 When you prepare your lesson plan, next to each activity indicate how much time you
expect it will take
 Plan a few minutes at the end of class to answer any remaining questions and to sum up
key points
 Plan an extra activity or discussion question in case you have time left
 Be flexible – be ready to adjust your lesson plan to students’ needs and focus on what
seems to be more productive rather than sticking to your original plan

Presenting the Lesson Plan

Letting your students know what they will be learning and doing in class will help keep them
more engaged and on track. You can share your lesson plan by writing a brief agenda on the
board or telling students explicitly what they will be learning and doing in class. You can outline
on the board or on a hand-out the learning objectives for the class. Providing a meaningful
organization of the class time can help students not only remember better, but also follow your
presentation and understand the rationale behind in-class activities. Having a clearly visible
agenda (e.g., on the board) will also help you and students stay on track.

42
Reflecting on Your Lesson Plan

A lesson plan may not work as well as you had expected due to a number of extraneous
circumstances. You should not get discouraged – it happens to even the most experienced
teachers! Take a few minutes after each class to reflect on what worked well and why, and what
you could have done differently. Identifying successful and less successful organization of class
time and activities would make it easier to adjust to the contingencies of the classroom. For
additional feedback on planning and managing class time, you can use the following resources:
student feedback, peer observation, viewing a videotape of your teaching, and consultation with
a staff member at CRLT (see also, Improving Your Teaching: Obtaining Feedback,
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/P9_1.php and Early Feedback Form,
http://www.crlt.umich.edu/gsis/earlyfeedback.pdf).

Conclusion

To be effective, the lesson plan does not have to be an exhaustive document that describes each
and every possible classroom scenario. Nor does it have to anticipate each and every student’s
response or question. Instead, it should provide you with a general outline of your teaching goals,
learning objectives, and means to accomplish them. It is a reminder of what you want to do and
how you want to do it. A productive lesson is not one in which everything goes exactly as
planned, but one in which both students and instructor learn from each other.

REFERENCES

43
Abelló Contesse, C. (ed.). (1998): “Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Issues and
Perspectives”, in GRETA. Revista para Profesores de Inglés, 6, 2: 31-37.
Alameda Hernández, A. (2002): “Content-Based Language Teaching: Some Practical Issues”, in
GRETA. Revista para Profesores de Inglés, 10, 2: 37-40.
Amaya, M.J. (2001): “Implementing a Content-Based Language Teaching Programme”, in
García Sánchez, M.E. (ed.): Present and Future Trends in TEFL. Almería: Universidad
de Almería, pp. 135-165.
Aronson, A. (1978): The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Asher, J. (1977): Learning Another Language through Actions: The Complete Teacher’s
Guidebook. Los Gatos, CA.: Sky Oaks Productions.
Bosco, F.J. and DiPietro, R.J. (1970): “Instructional strategies: their psychological and linguistic
bases”, in I.R.A.L. 8: 1-19.
Brown, H.D. (1994): Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents.
Carter, R. And McCarthy, M. (eds.). (1988): Vocabulary and Language Teaching. London:
Longman.
Cerezal, F. (1996): “Foreign language teaching methods”, in McLaren, N. and Madrid, D. (eds.):
A Handbook for TEFL. Alcoy: Marfil, pp. 161-185
Chafe, A. (1998): “Cooperative Learning and the Second Language Classroom”. [Internet
document available at http://www.cdli.ca/~achafe/cooplang.html]
Checa Marín, A. (2002): “Communicative Language Teaching in Secondary Education. Myths
and Realities”, in Bueno González, A., Luque Agulló, G., Molina Navarrete, F., Ortega
Cebreros, A. M., and Pérez Cañado, M.L. (eds.): Studies in Applied Linguistics and
English Teaching. Jaén: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Jaén, pp. 11-30.
Chomsky, N. (1959): “Review of verbal behavior by B.F. Skinner”, in Language, 35: 26-58.
Chomsky, N. (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Corder, S.P. (1967). “The significance of learners’ errors”, in International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5,4: 161-170.
Corder, S.P. (1981): Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crandall, J. (1994): “Content-Centered Language Learning”, in CAL Digest, January 1994: 1-6.
Curran, Ch. (1972): Counseling Learning: A Whole Person Model for Education. New York:
Grune y Stratton.
Curtain, H. (1995): “Integrating Foreign Language and Content Instruction in Grades K-8”, in
CAL Digest, April 1995: 1-7.
De Vega, M. & F. Cuetos. (1999): “Introducción: los desafíos de la psicolingüística”, in de Vega,
M. and Cuetos, F. (eds.): Psicolingüística del español. Madrid: Trotta, pp.13-52.

44
 Gattegno, C. (1972): Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way. New
York: Educational Solutions, Inc.

Hill, J. (1999): “Collocational Competence”, in English Teaching Professional, 11: 3-15.

Hirst, L. A. and Slavik, C. (1990): “Effective Language Education Practices”, in Reyhner, J.
(ed.): Native American Language Issues. Choctaw: NALI Board of Executors and Jon
Reyhner, pp. 133-142.
Howatt, A. (1984): A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1999): “Making Cooperative Learning Work”, in Theory into
Practice, 38, 2: 67-73.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Holubec, E.J. (1994): Cooperative Learning in the
Classroom. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kagan, S. (1994): Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Kagan, S. (1995): “We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classroom”, in
ERIC Digest: 1-4.
Kavaliauskiene, G. (2004): “Research into the Integration of Content-Based Instruction into the
ESP Classroom”, in Journal of Language and Learning, 2, 1: 1-8.
Krashen, S. & Terrell, T. (1983): The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the
Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. (1985): The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. and Seliger, H. (1975): “The essential contribution of formal instruction in adult
second language learning”, in TESOL Quarterly, 9: 173-83.
La Forge, P.G. (1983): Counselling and Culture in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Lado, R. (1964): Language Teaching. A Scientific Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lam, A. (2001): “Bilingualism”, in Carter, R. & Nunan, D. (eds.): The Cambridge Guide to
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 93-100.
Lewis, M. (1993): The Lexical Approach. The State of ELT and a Way Forward. Hove:
Language Teaching Publications.

45
Deutsch, M. (1949): “A Theory of Cooperation and Competition”, in Human Relations, 2: 129-
152.
Deutsch, M. (1973): The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dulay, M., M. Burt & S. Krashen. (1982): Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.
Estaire, S. & J. Zanón. (1990): “El diseño de unidades didácticas mediante tareas: principios y
desarrollo”, in Comunicación, Lenguaje y Educación, 7: 55-90.
Gardner, H. (1983): Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gass, S. (1999): “Discussion: Incidental Vocabulary Learning”, in Studies of Second Language
Acquisition, 21: 319-333. Lewis, M. (1997a): “Pedagogical Implications of the Lexical
Approach”, in Coady, J. and Huckin, T. (eds.): Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. A
Rationale for Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 255-270.

Lewis, M. (1997b): Implementing the Lexical Approach. Putting Theory into Practice. Hove:
Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (ed.). (2000): Teaching Collocation. Further Developments in the Lexical Approach.
Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Littlewood, W. (1981): Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lozanov, G. (1978): Suggestology and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers.
Madrid Fernández, D. and García Sánchez, ME. (2001): “Content-based Second Language
Teaching”, in García Sánchez, M.E., (ed.): Present and Future Trends in TEFL. Almería:
Universidad de Almería, pp. 101-134.
McCarthy, M. (1990): Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McDonald, B. A. (1997): “The Impact of Content-Based Instruction: Three Studies”, in Focus on
Basics, 1, D: 1-6.
Moulton, W. G. (1961): Linguistics and language teaching in the United States: 1940-1960. In
Mohrmann, C., Sommerfelt, A., and Whatmough, J. (eds): Trends in European and
American Linguistics: 1930-1960. Utrecht: Spectrum, pp: 82-109.
Muñoz, C. (ed.) (2000): Segundas lenguas. Barcelona: Ariel.

46
Nunan, D. (1991a): “Communicative Tasks and the Language Curriculum”, in TESOL
Quarterly, 25, 2: 279-295.
Nunan, D. (1991b): Language Teaching Methodology. Sidney: Prentice Hall.
Nunan, D. and Lam, A. (1998): Teacher Education for Multilingual Contexts: Models and
Issues, in J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds.): Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and
Multilingual Education. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 117-140.
Ogden, C.K. (1930): Basic English. A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar. London:
Keagan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.
Olsen, R. E. and Kagan, S. (1992): “About Cooperative Learning”, in C. Kessler (ed.):
Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Palmer, H.E. (1922/1964): The Principles of Language Study. London: Oxford University Press.
Puchta, H. and Rinvolucri, M. Multiple Intelligences in EFL. Exercises for Primary, Secondary and Adult
Students. (In press).
Revell, J. and Norman, S. (1999): In Your Hands. NLP in ELT. London: Saffire Press.
Richards, J. (1971): “Error analysis and second language strategies”, in Language Sciences, 17: 12-22.
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T.S. (1986/2001): Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching: A
Description and Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. (1964): The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher. Chicago and London:
University of Chicago Press.
Rivers, W. (1981): Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Second edition. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Robinson, P. (2001): “Task complexity, cognitive resources, and syllabus design: A triadic
framework for examining task influences on SLA”, in Robinson, P. (ed.): Cognition and
Second Language Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 287-318.
Rodgers, T. S. (2001): “Language Teaching Methodology”, in CAL Digest, September 2001: 1-8.
Rogers, C. (1980): A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Roulet, E. (1972): Théories Grammaticales, Descriptions et Enseignement des Langues. Paris:
Fernand Nathan; Bruxelles: Labor. (English translation, (1975), Linguistic Theory,
Linguistic Description and Language Teaching, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scrivener, J. (1998): Learning Teaching. Oxford: MacMillan Heinemann English Language
Teaching.

47
Segalowitz, N. and Lightbown, P. M. (1999): “Psycholinguistic Approaches to SLA”, in Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 19: 43-63.
Singleton, D. (1997): “Learning and Processing L2 Vocabulary”, in Language Teaching, 30, 4:
213-225.
Skehan, P. (1998): A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skinner, B.F. (1957): Verbal Behaviour. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slavin, R. E. (1992): Cooperative Learning: Student Teams. Washington, D. C.: National
Education Association.
Slavin, R. E. (1995): Cooperative Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. E. (1996): “Research for the Future: Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement.
What We Know, What We Need to Know”, in Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 1: 43-69.
Snow, C. (1999): “Bilingüismo y adquisición de una segunda lengua”, in Berko-Gleason, J. and
Bernstein, N. (eds.): Psicolingüística. Madrid: McGraw Hill, pp. 477-508.
Stack, E.M. (1960): The Language Laboratory and the Modern Language Teaching. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1983): Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stevick, E. (1980): A Way and Ways. Boston, Massachusets: Heinle.
Swan, M. (1985a): “A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach (1)”, in ELT Journal, 39, 1: 2-12.
Swan, M. (1985b): “A Critical Look at the Communicative Approach (2)”, in ELT Journal, 39, 2: 76-87.
Sweet, H. (1899/1964): The Practical Study of Languages: A Guide for Teachers and Learners. Reedited
by R. Mackin. London: Dent.
Tanner, R. (2001a): “Teaching Intelligently”, in English Teaching professional, 20: 40-41.
Tanner, R. (2001b): “MI and You”, in English Teaching professional, 21: 57-58.
Thorndike, E.L. (1921): The Teacher’s Word Book. New York: Teachers College.
Nattinger, J.R. andTroncale, N. (2002): “Content-Based Instruction, Cooperative Learning, and
CALP Instruction: Addressing the Whole Education of 7-12 ESL Students”. Internet document
available at http://www.tc.columbia.edu/tesolalwebjournal/nicole.pdf]

Ur, P. (1996): “The Communicative Approach Revisited”, in GRETA. Revista para Profesores
de Inglés, 4, 2: 5-7.
Van Ek, J. and Alexander, L. G. (1980): Threshold Level English. Oxford: Pergamon.

48
West, M.P. (1926): Learning to Read a Foreign Language: An experimental study. New York:
Longmans, Green & Co. Brooks, N. (1960): Language and Language Learning. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Willis, D. & J. Willis. (2001): “Task-based language learning”, in Carter, R. and Nunan, D.
(eds.): The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173-179.
Willis, J. (1996): A Framework for Task-based Learning. Essex: Longman.
Willis, J. and Willis, D. (1996): Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. London:
Heinemann.
Zaro Vera, J. J. (1995): “El Eclecticismo como Culminación: Los Métodos en la Enseñanza de
Lenguas Extranjeras”, in GRETA. Revista para Profesores de Inglés, 3, 1: 9-16.

49