Chapter 9

CW9.1 AL’s Big Ideas

Here are details of the ideas Rivers (1964) associates with AL:

Primacy of Speech. Methods which preceded AL (like the ‘grammar-translation’ method we see in section 1.5’s Classroom 2) often gave importance to teaching the written language, partly because the teaching of Latin and Classical Greek were used as a model, and these languages only really existed in written form. But AL regards speech as ‘primary’ since it is the first medium the L1 child masters. Speech comes first, and writing follows on. Over time, AL developed firm views about the order in which the four skills should be introduced. It was believed that the so-called receptive skills (listening and reading) should be approached before the corresponding productive skills (speaking and writing). Add this to the primacy of speech idea and you have the order: listening – speaking – reading – writing. This view is found most explicitly in textbooks like the one by Alexander (1968), where the claim is that ‘nothing will be spoken before it has been heard’, and ‘nothing will be written before it has been read’ (p. xi).
Stimulus – Response – Reinforcement (S–R–R) Model. In 3.2.2 we saw that in behaviourism learning was regarded as the development of stimulus–response associations. Giving rewards (reinforcement) is important to the development of these associations – recall how Skinner’s pigeons were rewarded (‘reinforced’) by food when they pushed the table-tennis ball in the right direction (Box 3.3). Food pellets do not generally motivate language learners, but the S–R–R model did make its way into language teaching. In your own language learning experience, you may have come across a kind of ‘four-phase drill’ like this:

Food pellets for language learning

In the four-phase language laboratory drill, a disembodied voice on tape says a cue word. The listening learner puts the word in a sentence, following a given model. The correct answer is then given, and the sequence concludes with the learner repeating this:

Disembodied voice:	Table.	(a)
Learner:	This is a table.	(b)
Disembodied voice:	This is a table.	(c)
Learner:	This is a table.	(d)

(a) is the stimulus and (b) the response. In the example above, the learner response is correct, hence (c) has an element of reinforcement or reward to it; the pleasure of getting something right acts as a mental food pellet. In (d), the learner has the further nourishing pleasure of repeating the right answer.

Habit formation through repetition. Straight behaviourism, again. Here is a quotation from an evangelical advocate of AL, Nelson Brooks (1960: 142): ‘the single paramount fact about language learning is that it concerns not problem-solving but the formation and performance of habits’.
Incrementalism. We also saw in 3.2.2 that to teach a complex behaviour (like table tennis for pigeons), you divide the behaviour into pieces and shape it. The word incrementalism is used to describe this, ‘incremental’ meaning ‘building up’. In language teaching terms, shaping involves dividing the language into structures and then into sentence patterns. You then teach the patterns one by one, only moving to the next when the previous one has been mastered. An important reason for teaching in small bits is to avoid errors. In behaviourism, ‘practice makes permanent’, and errors performed might become engrained.
Contrastive linguistics. As we saw in section 4.2, the behaviourist view of habits was that negative transfer, or interference, could occur from one language to another and that this would prove troublesome for the learner. Heavy reliance was placed on contrastive linguistics to identify trouble spots.
Inductive learning. Because learning is a question of habit formation rather than problem solving, explanation (when it does occur) is always a final stage. As Politzer, a strong advocate of audiolingualism, has it: ‘rules ought to be summaries of behaviours’ (1961: 5). AL is clearly EGRUL, not RULEG. (Look at section 9.2 if you need to remind yourself what these terms mean.)

CW9.2 Dampening the missionary’s zeal

The experiment that Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) describe compared the results of a lengthy period of AL teaching with a similar period of cognitive code teaching. The learners were learning German at the University of Colorado. It was an experiment beset with many difficulties and is indeed sometimes cited as an example of how not to do applied linguistic research. A main difficulty was the sheer size of the experiment and the impossibility of controlling all the variables. In terms of results, these were rather inconclusive and certainly undramatic. The cognitive code group fared better at reading and writing, while the AL group were better in speaking and listening. It is often said that the major effect of the experiment was to quash the missionary zeal of AL supporters. If AL were indeed so vastly superior to any other method, one would expect this to shine through, whatever shortcomings there were in the experiment.

CW9.3 CBI

In recent years, the phrase content-based instruction – CBI for short – has come to be used as a general term to describe the kind of teaching of which bilingual immersion programmes are an example. Brinton et al. (2003) define CBI as ‘the integration of particular content with language-teaching aims’. In their book, they identify three main types of CBI:

Theme-based. The teaching is organized around unrelated topics (e.g. heart disease, noise pollution), or around one major topic (e.g. marketing). In this model, learners for whom the language of instruction is an FL are mixed together with L1 learners.
Sheltered. In this model, FL learners are taught separately from L1 learners. This means that the teacher is able to introduce speech modifications to make the input comprehensible.
Adjunct. Here there are two programmes: a content-based one and a parallel language programme. They complement each other in terms of mutually coordinated assignments.

Brinton et al. (2003) note that despite differences between the various approaches, there are common elements, particularly: (a) the view that teaching based on other-than-linguistic content helps learning to occur; (b) the use of authentic materials, though these may be adapted or supplemented by the teacher (take a look at CW5.2 to remind yourself of the ‘authenticity question’ in language teaching); (c) giving some assistance (through simplification, for example) in order to meet learners’ language levels.

CW9.4 A Rough Guide to Some Humanistic Approaches

The Silent Way

The mover and shaker

Caleb Gattegno (1911–88) was an innovator in the field of mathematics teaching. He developed his views into language teaching and general education, working towards what he called his ‘Science of Education’. His writings also have religious overtones. He wrote many books; for one relevant to language teaching, see Gattegno (1972).

The big idea

The teacher keeps silent for much of the time, withdrawing the verbal aid traditionally given to learners.

What it looks like

The teacher says model sentences once only and gets learners to repeat these. Mistakes are not corrected verbally. Various aids are used to make meanings clear.

Main characteristics

It is hard work for the learners, who have to be fully alert to make the most of what the teacher says and to play the major part in the learning. Learning through this method can be exhausting.
The aids used include small coloured rods known as Cuisenaire Rods, introduced into language teaching from mathematics teaching by Gattegno. They can be used as simple pointers or to make shapes, helping the learners deduce meanings for themselves.
The method has many traditional aspects. These include use of structural syllabuses (as discussed in section 11.2). The teacher–learner relationship is also traditional. Roberts (1998: 288) says that ‘though silent, the teacher directs and controls strictly’.

Total Physical Response (TPR)

The mover and shaker

James Asher, psychology professor at San José University, California, developed this method.

The big idea

A link is made between physical actions and learning. This is associated with what happens in L1 acquisition and in general learning. As Roberts (1998: 353) puts it: ‘motor activity strengthens recall’.
Comprehension skills are developed first. Learners do not produce language until well into the course.

What it looks like

See section 1.5’s Classroom 3.

Main characteristics

It goes back to an approach developed by Harold and Dorothy Palmer in their 1925 book English through Actions.
Centrality is given to the imperative as a structure. It is useful because the teacher can employ the imperative to initiate learner actions. Roberts (1998: 353): ‘learners execute teacher commands for about 120 hours before conversation is encouraged’.
The method has traditional elements. The syllabus is grammar-based, and there is teacher control, especially over the input which learners receive.

Dogme

The mover and shaker

Dogme (the French word for dogma) started in 1995 as an avant-garde movement in cinema. A group of Danish directors aimed to ‘purify film-making’ by cutting out all inessentials and concentrating on content. The Dogme 95 group set out ten commandments (their ‘vow of chastity’), including such edicts as ‘special lighting is not acceptable’ and ‘the sound must never be produced apart from the images’. A main mover and shaker in FL teaching is Scott Thornbury, who has produced ‘commandments’ comparable to the filmmakers’.

The big idea

‘Teaching should be done using only the resources that teachers and students bring to the classroom – i.e. themselves’ (Thornbury 2000).

What it looks like

Meddings and Thornbury (2003) ask the question, ‘What does a dogme lesson look like?’ They prefer the question, ‘What does a dogme lesson feel like?’ The answer is that it is a ‘group of people enjoying the freedom of using language to talk about immediate, real concerns’. Meddings (2003) provides a dogme lesson idea. To start with, the participants imagine they are at a party and ask each other the types of questions that they really would ask at a real party.

Main characteristics

Materials and resources are cut down to a minimum.
Lessons focus on the ‘inner life’ of students and on real communication.
Dogme is not an approach but a mindset. Teachers don’t prepare lessons; they are prepared for lessons which are ‘co-authored by people in the room’ (Meddings and Thornbury 2003).

CW9.5 The ‘Natural Approach’

Another approach, quite similar to Prabhu’s, which was being developed at roughly the same time, is Krashen and Terrell’s ‘Natural Approach’. As the name suggests, it is based on ideas about ‘natural’ language acquisition, as conceptualized by Krashen. Refer to sections 5.1 and 5.2 if you want to be reminded of what those ideas are.

Krashen and Terrell (1983) describe the Natural Approach in detail. In its opening pages, its principles are outlined (p. 20). They are:

Comprehension precedes production.
Production ‘emerges’ in its own time.
Speech errors which do not interfere with communication are not corrected.
The syllabus lists communicative goals, not language items. An example of a communicative goal is ‘ordering a meal in a restaurant’.
The affective filter of the learners is lowered. Krashen uses this phrase to describe negative affective features (like anxiety) which prevent the learner from being ‘open’ to input. For acquisition to take place, Krashen argues, the affective filter needs to be lowered to let the new language in.

The first four of these principles have made an appearance in some form or another earlier in this book. You might like to locate these appearances. Also notice how similar many of these principles are to Prabhu’s.

CW9.6 Six task types

Willis’s six task types (1996) are listed below in column one, with explanatory comments in column two. Below the table are some examples of each task type (mostly taken from Willis, though sometimes considerably modified). Decide which tasks exemplify which types. You can write the letters A, B, C, etc. in column three if you wish. A warning: some of the examples fit in more than one category, in which case they will appear in column three more than once. Possible matchings are given underneath.

Task type	Explanation	Examples
1. Listing	Making a list is often the first stage in a task which involves one of the other task types.
2. Ordering and sorting	This involves the sequencing, ranking, categorizing and classifying of activities, objects, people or concepts.
3. Comparing	Learners are given similar information from different sources and asked to compare/contrast it, for example.
4. Problem solving	Logic or real-life problems are used.
5. Sharing personal experiences	Learners talk about themselves and share experiences.
6. Creative tasks	These are larger-scale projects, often combining other task types.

These examples of the task types would all be carried out as pair or group work:

Think of some outstanding teachers you remember well and decide what qualities they possess. Does your partner admire the same qualities?
Tell your partner the names of your close family and have your partner tell you theirs. Then, draw a family tree for your partner’s family.
Describe some of the presents that you have received in your life and compare them with those your partner has received. What do your lists reveal about you and your partner as people?
Imagine you are working for a company which is at present facing a particular problem. With your partner, decide on a course of action to solve the problem.
Write down some of the things found in a room in your house (e.g. your kitchen). Compare your list with your partner’s.
You are asked to undertake a survey of why people travel by plane (for business, pleasure, etc.). Prepare a questionnaire and plan a visit to the airport.
An old man wants to cross a river with a wolf, a goat and a cabbage. His boat is small and he can only carry two things at a time. How does he do it? (An everyday, real-life problem this!).
Produce a class magazine.
How many ways can you find to classify the food you eat daily?
Learners are given different accounts of a car accident and diagrams illustrating each account. Your task is to say how the accounts differ and to identify the diagram associated with each.
You are given a list of instructions for doing an activity (such as making an international phone call) or the steps for doing a magic trick. The instructions are in the wrong sequence, and your task is to put them in the right order.
What were your favourite subjects at school? What did you like about them? Compare your list with your partner’s.

Possible matchings

Example A involves 3 (comparing) and also has an element of 5 (sharing personal experiences). B involves 1 (listing) and has an element of 2 (ordering) in it. C involves 5, but also has elements of 3 and 1 (and even perhaps 2). D involves 4 (problem solving). E involves 1 and 3. F involves 6 (creativity) and is likely to involve other task types too. G involves 4 (and could also become a larger-scale task – 6). H involves 6 (and is likely to involve other task types too). I involves 2. J involves 3. K involves 2. L involves 5, but also has elements of 3 and 1 (and even perhaps 2).

CW9.7 TBT: reasons and realizations

The three most common rationales for TBT are associated with different aspects – and indeed different views – of language learning:

Learning form through message-focus. Form is best learned when there is focus on message. In tasks, ‘meaning (message) is primary’ (a view found in Prabhu 1987).
Information processing. In tasks, fully proceduralized knowledge is required, so doing tasks helps to proceduralize knowledge. If we can ‘grade tasks’ (something discussed at the end of section 9.9.2), then we can move towards proceduralization in a ‘graded’ way (a view found in Johnson 1996).
Negotiation for meaning (NfM). A task presents learners with ‘a communication problem to solve’. In this situation it is likely that negotiation will have to take place. So tasks provide plenty of opportunities for NfM; and episodes of NfM are useful for the process of language acquisition (a view found in Long 1983).

Just as there are many different rationales for TBT, so there are multifarious ways in which it is practised in the classroom. A common sequence of events in the TBT class is based on Prabhu’s (1987) model of pre-task → task → post-task. Learners prepare for the task, do it, then are given various follow-up activities. Willis (1996) puts forward a version of this model using slightly different terminology. She has a pre-task, in which the topic of the task about to be done is explored and time is spent making sure learners know what to do. In her version (though not Prabhu’s), a degree of form-focus is permitted at this stage, and language items which will be useful in undertaking the task are highlighted. Then comes the task itself, or what Willis calls the task cycle, in which the learners do the task in groups or pairs and report back to the class on what they have done. Then, at the post-task stage, there is language focus, where language items which proved difficult when the task was being done are identified and perhaps practised, if this is felt necessary.

Willis’s sequence illustrates very well that in her version of TBT, meaning is indeed ‘primary’, but that this does not exclude a degree of form-focus (at her pre-task and language focus stages). Other practitioners will have different standpoints on the degree of form-focus allowed in their TBT. Prabhu, for example, will allow form-focus only if the learners themselves request it or if it somehow comes naturally out of the task (Prabhu 1987).