Audio-lingual Communicative Language Teaching 1. Attends to structure and form more than meaning. 2. Demands memorization of structure-based dialogs. 3. Language items are not necessarily contextualized, 4. Language learning is learning structures, sounds, or words. 5. Mastery, or “over – learning” is sought. 6. Drilling is a centra! technique, 7. Native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought, 8. Grammatical explanation is avoided. 9. Communicative activities only come after a long process of rigid drills and exercises. 10. The use of the student’s native language is forbidden. 11. Translation is forbidden at early levels. 12. Reading and writing are deferred till speech is mastered, 13. The target linguistic system will be learned through the overt teaching of the patterns of the system, 14. Linguistic competence is the desired goal. 15. Varieties of language are recognized bur not emphasized. 16. The sequence of turns is determined solely by principles of lingnhtic coinplesiiy. 17. The teacher controls the learners and prevents them from doing anything that conflicts with the theory. 18. “Language is habit” so errors must be prevented at all costs. 19. Accuracy, in terms of formal correctness, is a primary goal. Meaning, is paramount. Dialogs, if used, center around communicative functions and are not normally memorized. Contextualization Ỉ5 a basic premise. Language learning is learning to communicate, Effective communication is sought. Drilling may occur, but peripherally. Comprehensible pronunciation is sought. Any device which helps the learners is accepted - varying according to their age, interest, etc Attempts to communicate may be encouraged from the very beginning. Judicious use of native language is accepted where feasible. Translation may be used where students need or benefit from it. Reading and writing can start from the first day, if desired,: The target linguistic system will, be learned best through the process of struggling to communicate. Communicative competence is the desired goal (Le. the ability to use the linguistic system effectively and appropriately). Linguistic variation is a central concept in materials, and methodology. Sequencing is determined by any consideration of content, function, or meaning; which mat mauls interest, Teachers help learners in any way that motivates them to work with the language. Language is created by the
Krashen and Terrell (1983) approach course organization from two points, of vkw. hirst, thrv list some typical goals for language courses and suggest which of these goals are the ones at which the Natural Approach aims. They list such goals under four areas: Basic personal communication skills: oral (e.g,, listening to announcements in public places) Basic personal communication skills: written (e,g., reading and writing personal letters) Academic learning skills: oral (e.g., listening to a lecture) Academic learning skills: written (e.g., taking notes in class) Of these, they note that the Natural Approach is primarily “designed to develop basic communication skills - both oral and written (1983: 67). They then observe that communication goals “may be expressed in terms of situations, functions and topics” and proceed to order four pages of topics and situations “which are likely to be most useful to beginning students” (1983: 67). The functions are not specified or suggested but are felt to derive naturally from the topics and situations. This approach to syllabus design would appear to derive to some extent from threshold level specifications (see Chapter 5). The second point of view holds that “the purpose of a language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular interests” (Krashen and Terrell 1983: 65). The goals of a Natural Approach class are based on an assessment of student needs. We determine the situations in which they will use the target language and the sorts of topics they will have to communicate information about. In setting communication goals, we do not expect the students at the end of a particular course to have acquired a certain group of structures or forms. Instead we expect them to deal with a particular set of topics in a given situation. We do not organize the activities of the class about a grammatical syllabus. (Kfashen and Terrell 1983:71) From this point of view it is difficult to specify communicative goals that necessarily fit the needs of all students. Thus any list of topics and situations must be understood as syllabus suggestions rather than as specifications.
pill that will cure them, so teachers tell students that Suggestology is a science chat will teach them. And Lozanov maintains that placebos do both cure and teach when the patient or pupil credits them with the power to do so. Perhaps, then, it is not productive to tiither belabor the science/non- science, data/double-talk issues and instead, as Bancroft and Stevick have done, try to identify and validate those techniques from Sufcgesfopedk that appear effective and that harmonize with other successful techniques in the language teaching Inventory. Bibliography Bancroft, w. J. 1972. The psychology of suggestopedia or learning without stress. The Educational Courier Feb.: 16-19. Bancroft, w. J. 1978. The Lozanov method and its American adaptions. Modern Language Journal 62(4): 167-75. Blair, R. w. (ed ). 1982 Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Gaston, E. T. (ed,). 1968. Music in Therapy. New York: Macmillan. Hammerly, H. 1982. Synthesis m Second Language Teaching, British Columbia: Second Language Publications. Lozanov, G. 1978. Suggestohgy and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New York: Gordon and Breach. Ostrander, s„ L, Schroeder, and N. Ostrander. 1979. Superlearnmg. New York: Deli. Scovel, T. 1979. Review of Stíggestoỉogỵ and Outlines ofSuggesiopedy, TESOL Quarterly 13: 255-66. Stevtck, E. w. 1976. Memory> Meaning and Method: Some Psychological Perspectives on Language teaming. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, Stevick, E. w. 1980. Teaching LanguagesỈ A Way and Ways, Rowley, Mass: Newbury House,