Selasa, 06 Juli 2010

A CONCISE OVERVIEW OF SOME ESL METHODS

A CONCISE OVERVIEW OF SOME ESL METHODS
(Leela Mohd. Ali)
The English Teacher Vol. XVIII Sept. 1989
http://www.melta.org.my/ET/1989/main2.html

Different theories concerning the nature of language and language learning when applied to the actual ESL situation have given rise to a considerable array of instructional methods. In the sixties, methods were linked to linguistics and psychology, and this was evident in the audio-lingual method. Contemporary methods are based on areas that were unknown or unconsulted by the linguists and psychologists of the fifties and sixties. According to Richards and Rodgers (1985:16) these areas are studies in textual cohesion, language functions, speech-act theory, sociolinguistic variation, presupposition semantics, interaction analysis, ethno methodology and face-face analysis, ethnography of speaking, process analysis, and discourse analysis.

Some contemporary methodologies are the Silent Way, Total Physical Response, Communicative Language Teaching, Counseling Learning, and Suggestopedia.

TERMINOLOGY
Any comparison of language teaching practices immediately runs into the problem caused by the differences in the usage of certain terms. One approach to the problem of certain terms being often used in different ways is to attempt to introduce some sort of standardization, at least for the purposes of the classification. Two of the more widely-known attempts at such standardization are Anthony (1963) and Richards and Rodgers (1985).

Edward M. Anthony (1963: in Allen and Campbell 1972:5) used the terms approach, method, and technique hierarchically. He views an approach as a set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language and the nature of language teaching and learning.

He views a method (1972:6) as 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, a method is procedural.

He views a technique (1972:6) as implementational - that which actually takes place in the 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.

Richards and Rodgers (1985) modified Anthony's terminology and spoke of approach, design, and procedure. These represent "three interrelated elements of organization upon which language-teaching practices are founded".

Method
Approach <----------> Design
Procedure


Richards and Rodgers (1985:17) describe the three levels:
o The first level approach, defines these assumptions, beliefs, and theories about the nature of language and the nature of language learning that operate as axiomatic constructs or reference points and provide a theoretical foundation of what language teachers ultimately do with learners in classrooms.
o The second level in the system - design - specifies the relationship of theories and learning to both the form and function of instructional materials and activities in instructional settings.
o The third level - procedure - comprises the classroom techniques and practices that are consequences of particular approaches and designs.

In this write-up, however, instead of attempting to strictly follow either Anthony or Richard and Rodgers, an attempt has been made to avoid the terminology problem altogether by comparing a number of the better-known methods and approaches in terms of seven different perimeters: principal features, a brief history, objectives, techniques, theoretical bases, student-teacher/ teacher-student interaction, and strengths/ weaknesses.

Among the methods surveyed, some have been developed through the way language or language context is defined and organized in a syllabus or through the application of a theory of language learning processes and instructional procedures, In one place or another in the survey below, structural/ situational, aural/ oral, audio-lingual, notional/ functional, and ESP (English-for-Special Purposes) have made concrete proposals for a language syllabus. Many of these can be adopted by a language teacher at one time or another to help with teaching. Common to many of the methods below is the incorporation of both a psycholinguistic or language-learning dimension and a teaching dimension. Also common to many of the methods surveyed below is a concern for the learner as a total human being, a viewpoint that has given rise to such methods as Total Physical Response, the Silent Way, Counseling Learning, and Suggestopedia.

The traditional and contemporary methods discussed under the various above-mentioned seven subheadings have been worked out to give those interested a concise, general overview of these methods - one in which they can be easily compared with one another. Perhaps this will facilitate the formulation of an eclectic method for practitioners.



1. GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION METHOD
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
GTM emphasizes the teaching of the second language grammar. Its principal practice technique is translation from and into the target language.

BRIEF HISTORY
The original motivation for this method was reformist. The grammar-translation method was an attempt to adapt the traditional scholastic approach among individual learners in the eighteenth century i.e. to acquire a reading knowledge of foreign languages by studying a grammar and applying this knowledge to the interpretation of texts with the use of a dictionary to the circumstances and requirements of school. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, grammar-translation was attacked as a 'cold and lifeless' approach to language teaching.

OBJECTIVE
GTM was used for reading and appreciating foreign language literature. GTM lays little emphasis on speaking or listening to the second language; it is mainly a book oriented method for learning the grammar of the language. It was thought that the study of the grammar would make students more aware of the grammar of their own language and would help the students grow intellectually.

TECHNIQUE
The textbook presents short chapters of lessons containing a few grammatical points of rules illustrated by examples; technical terms are not avoided. The learner has to memorize rules, paradigms, vocabulary, and lists e.g. of prepositions. Elaborate grammatical explanations and illustrations are followed by practice in the writing of paradigms, in the applying of rules in the construction of sentences, and in the translation of passages of prose from the native to the foreign language. Some exercises practice translation into the first language. As the learner progresses, he advances from translating isolated sentences to translating passages.

THEORETICAL BASE
The target language is primarily viewed as a system of rules to be related to the rules and meanings of the first language. Language learning is implicitly seen as an intellectual activity involving rule learning by means of massive, translation practice. Like learning Latin and Greek, second language learning is viewed as mental training.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
Most of the interaction in the classroom is from teacher to the students. There is little student initiation and little student-student interaction. Learners listen, copy rules and write out exercises and correct them from the blackboard. The average student has to work hard at what he considers laborious and monotonous chores, without much feeling of progress in the mastery of the language, and with very little opportunity to express himself through it. He has a passive role in the classroom. He absorbs and then repeats what he has absorbed to satisfy his teacher.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
Besides the use of the first language as a reference system for the second language learner, there is recognition of the role that the careful use of translation can play in language learning. Thinking about the grammar of the second language and doing translation as a practice technique put the learner in an active problem-solving situation.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
Translation was overused. Also, there was an overemphasis on the language as a mass of rules (and exceptions). The limitations of the practice techniques never freed the learner from the dominance of the first language. The tremendous task of memorization and the lack of coherence with which the language facts were presented to the learner is undoubtedly one of the weaknesses. Certainly the claim made in the nineteenth century that this method provided a safe, easy, practical entry into a second language is false.

2. DIRECT METHOD
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
It is characterized by the use of the target language as a means of instruction and communication in the language classroom, and by the avoidance of the use of the first language and of translation as a technique.

BRIEF HISTORY
The language teaching reforms from 1850-1900 were responsible for the emergence of the direct method. Practical unconventional language reformers such as M. Berlitz (1852-1921) and F. Gonin (1831-1896) developed the direct method in response to the need for better language learning in a new world of industry and international trade and travel. The development of this method is closely linked to the introduction of phonetics into language teaching pedagogy. Hester (1970) and Diller (1975-1978) reaffirmed the direct method as a valid 'cognitive' or rationalist method which emphasizes second language use without translation in the language classroom.

OBJECTIVE
This method shifts the focus in early instruction from the literary language to the spoken language. Speech precedes reading, and even in reading, students are encouraged to connect print and meaning without using translation into the native language. The ultimate aim is developing the ability to think in the language, whether conversing, reading, or writing.



TECHNIQUE
Short, specially constructed textbook passages are usually used with difficult words and expressions explained in the target language with the help of paraphrases, synonyms, demonstrations or context; questions are asked about the text or wall pictures. The grammar is from the text read; the students are encouraged to find the rules involved for themselves. Exercises involve transposition, substitutions, dictation, narrative, and free composition. Good pronunciation is stressed. From the beginning the utterances used form part of a simple discourse. There is no translation; instead, comprehension is tested by questions and answers in the foreign language.

THEORETICAL BASE
Linguistically, language teaching was to be based on phonetics and on a "scientific" grammar. Language learning was viewed as analogous to first language acquisition, and the learning processes involved were interpreted in terms of associationist psychology. The emphasis was on sounds and simple sentences and association of the language with objects and persons in the immediate environment.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
The initiation of the interaction goes both ways, from teacher to students from students to teacher, although the latter is often teacher-directed. Students converse with one another as well. Students read texts aloud together. The classroom is continually filled with the sound of the foreign language, and all activity is closely linked with its use in speech and writing. The teacher and the students are thought of as partners in the teaching and learning process.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
The direct method abandoned L1 as the frame of reference for L2. Teachers thus developed new non-translational techniques. This gave rise to the focus on a textbook, to illustrating meanings through objects and pictures, to emphasizing questions and answers, to using spoken narratives, to using dictation, and to new grammatical exercises.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
Conveying meaning with no translation at all and prevention of misunderstanding without any reference at all to the L1 were major problems. Another problem was applying the direct method beyond the elementary levels.

3. READING METHOD
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
This method deliberately restricts the goal of language teaching to training in reading comprehension.

BRIEF HISTORY
Advocated by some British and American educators. The Coleman Report (1929) as a result of the Modern Foreign Language Study in the U.S.A. stated that since the majority of American students studied a foreign language for only 2 years, the only realistic objective was the development of the students' reading skills. West (1926), teaching English in India, agreed that learning to read fluently was more important than speaking. Reading, to him had 'the greatest surrender value' for the student in the early stages of language learning. The Reading Method was much criticized during World War II, when spoken language became a national priority in the U.S.A.

OBJECTIVE
It restricted the goal of language learning to one of practical attainable utility. Students were trained to read the foreign language with direct comprehension of meaning, without a conscious effort to translate what they were reading.

TECHNIQUE
Before students were introduced to reading, an oral part thoroughly initiated them into the sound system. The course was divided into intensive and extensive reading. Students were not encouraged to translate; they were trained to infer the meaning of unknown words from the context or from cognates. Special readers were published which conformed to specific levels of word-frequency and idiom counts, and the student was guided by the teacher from level to level. Class projects studied the country where the language was spoken and the customs of the people who spoke the language so that the students might read with greater appreciation of cultural differences.

THEORETICAL BASE
Education activities should be geared to specific ultimate practical objectives.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
There is interaction both ways but it is clearly teacher-directed. Individual students read the text aloud and the question-answer sessions see the teacher interacting with the students and vice-versa. When students worked on projects they worked co-operatively. The extensive reading programme gives students the opportunity to progress at their own rate i.e., students within the same class can work with readers at different levels of difficulty.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
This method introduced some new elements into language teaching: (a) the introduction of teaching geared to specific purposes, in this case, the reading objective; (b) the application of vocabulary control to second language texts, as a means of better grading of texts; (c) the creation of graded 'readers'; and (d) the introduction of techniques of rapid reading to the foreign language classroom.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
Not surprisingly, this method for the most part produced students who were unable to comprehend and speak the language beyond the very simplest of exchanges (W. Rivers 1970:24).

4. AUDIO-LINGUAL METHOD
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
Characteristics:
 separation of the skills, listening, speaking, reading, writing - and the primacy of the audio-lingual over the graphic skills;
 the use of dialogues as the chief means of presenting the language;
 emphasis on certain practice techniques - mimicry, memorization, and pattern drills;
 establishing a linguistic and psychological theory as a basis for the method.

BRIEF HISTORY
The origins are in the 'Army Method' of American wartime language programmes in World War II. It was furthered by Fries and Lado at the English Language Institute of the University of Michigan, by the development of contrastive linguists, by the new technology of the language laboratory, and by generous U.S.A. government funding for language research and development. The term 'audio-lingual' was proposed by Brooks (Brooks 1964:263). The theoretical bases for audio-lingualism were questioned by Carroll, Rivers, Saporta, and Anisfield as early as 1964, and there was a 'prolonged and heated debate' on the audio-lingual methods between 1966 and 1972.



OBJECTIVE
The emphasis is placed on the four language learning skills. Listening and speaking are given priority and these precede reading and writing. Audio-Iingualism tries to develop target language skills without reference to the mother tongue. The ideal outcome of this method is a co-ordinate command of the second language.

TECHNIQUE
New vocabulary and structures are presented through dialogues. Dialogues are learned through imitation and repetition. Drills/pattern drills are presented in the dialogue. The correct responses of pupils are positively reinforced. Grammar rules are not provided. Cultural information is contextualized in the dialogues or is presented by the teacher. Students' reading and written work is based upon the oral work they did earlier.

THEORETICAL BASE
The ALM is based on descriptive, structural, and contrastive linguistics of the fifties and sixties. It is based on behaviorist psychology, mainly following Skinner and influenced by neo-behaviorists such as Osgood. It interprets language learning in terms of stimulus-response operant conditioning and reinforcement with an emphasis on error-free learning in small well-prepared steps and stages.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
There is student-to-student interaction in chain drills and when students take different roles in dialogues, but this interaction is teacher-directed. Most interaction is between teacher and students and is initiated by the teacher. The teacher is like an orchestra leader, directing and controlling the language behavior of her students. She is responsible for providing her students with a good model for imitation. Students are imitators of the teacher's model or the tapes she supplies of model speakers. They follow the teacher's directions and respond as accurately and as rapidly as possible.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
It was based on declared linguistic and psychological principles. It was concerned with syntax, not just with vocabulary and morphology. It developed simple techniques, without translation, of varied, graded, and intensive practice of specific features of a language. It used separation of language skills as a pedagogical device. It introduced techniques for auditory and oral practice.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
Empirical research did not conclusively establish its superiority. Teachers using audio-lingual materials and applying the audio-lingual method conscientiously complained about the lack of effectiveness of techniques in the long run and the boredom engendered among the students in the short run.

5. SILENT WAY
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
In language learning/acquisition learners use their thinking processes - cognition - to discover the rules of the language they are acquiring, by formulating hypotheses. Errors are inevitable and are signs that the learners are testing their hypotheses. Learners are actively responsible for their own learning. "Teaching should be subordinated to learning".

BRIEF HISTORY
Caleb Gattengo is the originator of the Silent Way. In the following books, he conveyed his ideas on the Silent Way.

1972 Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools: The Silent Way
1975 On Being Freer
1976 The Mind Teaches the Brain
1977 Evolution and Memory
1977 The Science of Education
1977 On Love
1978 On Death
1979 Who Cares about Health?

OBJECTIVE
Students should be able to use the language for self-expression i.e. to express their thoughts, perceptions, and feelings. Learners need to develop independence from the teacher and develop their own criteria for correctness.

TECHNIQUE
Students learn the language through its sounds. The color-coded Fidel Charts are used to help students learn spellings that correspond to sounds and progress to reading and pronouncing words correctly. The teacher sets up situations that focus student attention on structures, and provides a vehicle for students to perceive meaning. The teacher uses the students' errors to ascertain the language the students are unclear about, and determines what to work on based on this. Students receive a great deal of practice with a structure without repetition for its own sake. They gain autonomy in the language by exploring it and making choices. Students take responsibility for their own learning.

THEORETICAL BASE
In the Silent Way, students use their own thinking processes to discover the rules of the language they are acquiring. The individual is "an evolving system endowed with awareness and the capacity for self-education". Silence is a tool; like many of the techniques, it helps to focus and to develop individual initiative and autonomy.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
For much of the student-teacher interaction, the teacher is silent. He is still very active, however, setting up situations to "force awareness", listening attentively to students' speech, and silently working with them on their production. When the teacher does speak, it is to give clues, not to model the language. Student-student verbal interaction is desirable and is therefore encouraged. The teachers' silence is to allow for this. The teacher constantly observes the students and helps them overcome negative feelings which might interfere with learning.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
The teacher provides challenges based on the student's current abilities, while remaining silent and non-interfering as the student works to learn the material that the teacher has presented to him. The learners are viewed as whole, complex people and not "simple few-dimensional simplifications". The Silent way rejects any idea of trying to "protect" students from making errors.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
There is the possibility of confusion about the meaning of words. Students used to relying on the teacher for confirmation are sometimes reluctant to place any faith in their own judgment. The grammatical sequencing, which is crucial, requires a tremendous amount of ability on the part of the teacher.

6. SUGGESTOPEDIA
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
This method has been developed to help students eliminate the feeling they cannot succeed by helping them overcome the psychological barriers to learning; learning involves both the conscious and the unconscious. The learner is seen as a person whose physical, emotional, and intellectual sides are intertwined. People can learn much faster than they usually do.

BRIEF HISTORY
Suggestopedia was developed by Georgi Lozanov in Lozanov's Institute of Suggestology in Sofia, Bulgaria. Stevick describes this method as "not a fixed system, but only an area of Dr. Lozanov's ongoing research". It is discussed in Lozanov's book Suggestology and the Principles of Suggestology (1979).

OBJECTIVE
Teachers hope to accelerate the process by which students learn to use a foreign language for everyday communication. More of the students' mental powers must be tapped in order to do so. The principal strategy employed by this method is to "desuggest" the limitations of students and to suggest how easy it will be for them to succeed at language learning.

TECHNIQUE
Ideally courses are conducted in a comfortable room with music to ensure a relaxing environment. During the course, students select target language names and create whole biographies to get along with their new identities. The strategy of Suggestopedia is to remove inhibiting tensions among students and to ensure success at language learning. The teacher has i) psychological, ii) artistic and iii) pedagogical "tools" for helping the learner. Direct and indirect positive suggestions are made to enhance students' confidence and to convince them that success is attainable. According to Bushman and Madsen (1976:32), "Content precedes form. Accurate pronunciation and grammar are to come in due course".



THEORETICAL BASE
Learning involves the unconscious as well as the conscious functions. People can learn much faster than they usually do. Learning is held back by (a) expectations and limitations, (b) the lack of a harmonious, relaxed learner, and (c) the consequent failure to make use of powers which lie idle in most people most of the time (Stevick 1980).

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
The teacher initiates interactions with the whole group of students and with individual right from the beginning of a language course. Initially, the students only respond non-verbally or with a few target language words they have practiced. Later the students have more control of the target language and respond more appropriately and may initiate interaction themselves. Students interact with each other from the beginning in various activities directed by the teacher. The teacher is the authority in the classroom. The students must trust and respect her in order for the method to succeed.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
It deals with the students own often quite harmful and often quite negative feelings about their own abilities. It sets up a non-evaluative classroom atmosphere; thus it also avoids both criticizing and praising. The processes of desuggestion and resuggestion require the teacher to make deliberate and skillful use of the general learning atmosphere. Teachers need to be lively, cheerful, and efficient.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
Teacher needs to be well-trained and have the right personality; otherwise, this method will not be completely effective. It is unclear how successful this method would be with younger children.


7. COMMUNITY LANGUAGE LEARNING
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
The formula SAARRD summarizes this method: S-Security, A-Assertion, A-Attention, R-Reflection, R-Retention, and D-Discrimination. Students are viewed as whole persons; thus, the relationships and understanding among learners as a "knower-counselor" and the learner as a learner are responsible for bringing their own unique resources to the learning experience.

BRIEF HISTORY
The Community-Learning method and its principles were developed by Charles A. Curran. Among the more readable descriptions of the method are those of Jenny Belle, Dan Travel, and Pat Tirone, who worked closely with Curran at the Counseling-Learning Institute. Curran's books include the following:
1968 Counseling and Psychotherapy: The Pursuits of Value
1972 Counseling-Learning: A Whole-Person Approach for Education
1976 Counseling-Learning in Second Languages
Earl Stevick and his students have also experimented with this method and they have made adaptations.

OBJECTIVE
Students are considered as "whole persons". Students learn to use the target language communicatively. Students take responsibility for their own learning. Students' feelings and intellect have to be considered; an understanding of their instinctive protective reactions, and their desire to know are integral to language learning (and language teaching).

TECHNIQUE
At the beginning students speaking the native language and the teacher helps them express what they want to say by supplying them with the target language translations in chunks. The chunks which the students produce are recorded, and when replayed sound like a conversation. Later a transcription is made and it becomes the "text" with which students work. Various activities are then conducted (e.g. examination of a grammar point, working on the pronunciation of a particular phrase, or creating new sentences with words from the transcript) that allow the students to further explore the language they generated. During the course of the lesson, students are invited to say how they feel.

THEORETICAL BASE
In the beginning experience knowing and feeling are closely interwined with each other. Both the "knower"/ teacher and the learner are responsible for bringing to the language learning task the resources that they alone possess. This is a relationship with a constantly shifting equilibrium, not a relationship of fixed roles. Power is evenly distributed between the "knower" and the learner. (Stevick 1980).

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
It is neither student-centered not teacher-centered but rather teacher-student centered with both making decisions in the class. Building a relationship with and among students is very important. In a trusting relationship, the threat that students feel is reduced, and non-defensive learning is promoted. Students learn from their interaction with the teacher. A spirit of cooperation, not competition must prevail. At times the teacher facilitates the students' ability to express themselves, and at times the teacher is in-charge and providing direction. Thus the nature of student-teacher interaction changes within the lesson and over time.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
By having the students work with the content of their own choice and creation, the students are intimately involved with the material. Meanwhile, the teacher attends more closely to the structuring of the class and to the highlighting of the materials. By listening to the students in structured feedback sessions, the teacher establishes an atmosphere of security which helps minimize behavior problems.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
If the teacher lacks emotional or intellectual sensitivity or lacks skill at teaching, this method will be rendered ineffective. The teacher needs to be very good at both languages.

8. TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
Like all of the "comprehension" methods, TPR emphasizes listening comprehension while it delays speech production. The main teaching device is the use of commands through which the teacher directs students' behavior. Meaning in the target language is taught through actions. TPR was developed in order to reduce the stress that learners feel when studying a foreign language.

BRIEF HISTORY
TPR, one of several "comprehension-based" methods is now most closely associated with James A. Asher (1972), although as early as 1925, H.E. Palmer and D. Palmer stressed the importance of "imperative drills" in English Through Actions. Asher's Learning Another Language Through Actions: Complete Teachers' Guidebook (1977) is written to assist teachers in implementing TPR. Asher compared students taught through TPR and students taught through audio-lingual methods and found that those taught through TPR"progressed nearly five times faster" (Krashen 1984: 155). Krashen and Terell (1983:75) also use TPR in their Natural Approach as a technique to provide beginners with input in a realistic way.

OBJECTIVE
Learners must enjoy the language learning experience i.e., learning to communicate in a foreign language. The method was developed' to reduce the stress that people feel when studying a foreign language with the hope that they will persist in their attempt to study a language beyond a beginning level of proficiency.

TECHNIQUE
In the first phase of the lesson, the instructor issues commands to students, then performs the actions with them. In the second phase, students demonstrate that they understand the commands by performing them on their own. The teacher then combines elements from different commands to allow students to develop flexibility in understanding unfamiliar utterances. After learning to respond to oral commands, the students learn to read and write them. When students are ready to speak they issue the commands. Students speak only when they are ready to do so; this avoids anxiety.

THEORETICAL BASE
Language learning is more effective when it is fun. Feelings of success combined with low anxiety facilitate learning. Meaning in the target language can often be conveyed through actions. Memory is activated through learner response.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
The teacher interacts with the whole group of students and with individual students. Initially, the interaction is characterized by the teacher speaking and the students responding nonverbally. Later on, the students become more verbal and the teacher responds nonverbally, Students perform actions together or individually. Students learn from each other. As students begin to speak, they issue commands to, their peers as well as to the teacher.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
TPR ensures the active participation of students, helps the teacher know when utterances are understood, and also provides a context to help students understand the language they hear. TPR lowers students' anxiety as they are not required to produce in the second language until they themselves decide they are ready; that is, they are allowed a silent period.

ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
It is often criticized because of the "constraints" imposed by the continuous use of imperatives, although in actual practice an imaginative teacher finds embedding other structures in the imperative relatively easy. It is also criticized because of the grammatical focus of the lessons.

9. COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH
PRINCIPAL FEATURE
Learners need to use the target language forms, meanings, and functions in negotiating meaning. Foreign language teaching must be concerned with reality, including real communication as it takes place outside and inside the classroom. The learning atmosphere must be supportive and must promote opportunities for expression.

BRIEF HISTORY
Since the 1970's, this approach has been influential in foreign language teaching. Munby (1978) proposes a model for defining the communicative needs of learners of English for Specific Purposes in the form of inventories. Wilkins (1979), has had a wide influence in the field of communicative syllabus design. Others include Brumfit and Johnson (1979), Johnson and Morrow (1978), and J. Yalden (1984). The nature of communicative ability is discussed in detail by Candlin (1976), Leeson (1975), Littlewood (1979) and Widdowson (1978), among others.

OBJECTIVE
The main objective is to have students become competent i.e., able to use the language appropriate to a social context.

TECHNIQUE
Almost everything is done with a communicative intent. Students use language through communicative activities such as games, role-plays, and problem-solving tasks. Communicative activities have three features: information gap, choice, and feedback. Another characteristic of this approach is the use of authentic materials in order to give students an opportunity to develop strategies for understanding language as it is actually used. Communicative activities are carried out by students in small groups to ensure that each student has maximum time to interact in order to learn to negotiate meaning.

THEORETICAL BASE
The communicative approach helps match the content more closely with the actual communicative purposes that learners have to use the language for. Their communicative ability develops through processes "inside the learner". Students will be more motivated to study a foreign language since they feel they are learning to do something useful with the language that they are studying.

INTERACTIONS: STUDENT-TEACHER, STUDENT-STUDENT
The teacher is the initiator of activities but he does not always interact with the students himself. Sometimes, he is co-communicator but more often he establishes situations that prompt communication between and among the students. Students interact a great deal with one another. They interact in pairs, triads, small groups and as a whole class. Students are seen as communicators actively engaged in trying to make themselves understood. The teacher is a facilitator of his students' learning.

ASSESSMENT OF THE STRENGTH
It contextualizes language learning and focuses on meaning rather than on the linguistic form. This means that the teacher extends the range of situations in which the learner performs with the focus on meaning, without being hindered by the attention he must pay to linguistic form. This helps make the linguistic content of a course more relevant to learners' needs.


ASSESSMENT OF THE WEAKNESS
The Communicative Approach is not so much a method as a way to augment and improve existing techniques. Nonetheless, certain potential weaknesses may arise from an attempt to use this approach exclusively. At times attention to form is valuable for students. At times, having to deal with both a new form and with a new communicative situation at the same time imposes too much of a burden.













BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen,H.B. and Campbell,R.N. 1971. Teaching English as a Second Language. London: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.
Blair, W. Robert (Ed.). 1982. Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Brumfit, C.J. and Robert, J.T. 1983. Language and Language Teaching. London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.
Howatt; APR. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
Larson - Freeman, D. 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. London: Cambridge University Press.
Littlewood, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
McArthur, Tom. 1983. A Foundation Course for Language Teachers. London: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J.C. 1985. The Context of Language Teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, Wilga, M. 1981. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Stern, H.H. 1983. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.
Stevick, E.W. 1979. Teaching Language: A Way and Ways. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers Inc.