-
Methodology Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
1
页
《英语教学法》
资
源
库
使用教材：
A Course in English
Language Teaching
编者：
张思锐
Reference Source
Of Methodology
Based on
“
A Course in English
Language Teaching
”
Part One
Teaching
Methods
Approach, Method,
technique
In the
century
spanning the mid 1880s
to
the mid 1980s, the language teaching
profession
was
involved
in
a
search.
That
search
was
for
what
has
popularly
been
called
“
methods,<
/p>
”
or
ideally,
a
single
method,
generalizable
across
widely
varying
audiences, that
would successfully teach students a foreign
language in the classroom.
Historical
accounts
of
the
profession
tend
therefore
to
describe
a
succession
of
methods
each
of
which
is
more
or
less
discarded
in
due
course
to
time
as
a
new
method
takes its place. We will turn to that
“
methodical
”
history of language teaching
in a
moment, but first, we should try to understand
what we mean by method.
What is a method? Three
decades ago Edward Anthony gave us a definition
that
has quite admirably withstood the
test of time. His concept of method was the second
of
three
hierarchical
elements,
namely,
approach,
method,
and
technique.
An
approach
, according to
Anthony, is a set of assumptions dealing with the
nature of
language,
learning,
and
teaching.
Method
is
an
overall
plan
for
systematic
presentation of
language based upon a selected approach.
Techniques
are the specific
activities manifested in the classroom
that are consistent with a method and therefore
in harmony with an approach as well.
To
this day, for better or worse,
Anthony
?
s terms are still in
common use among
language
teachers.
A
teacher
may,
for
example,
at
the
approach
level,
affirm
the
ultimate importance of learning in a
relaxed state of mental awareness just above the
threshold
of
consciousness.
The
method
that
follows
might
resemble,
say,
1
Methodology Reference
Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
2
页
Suggestopedia.
Techniques
could
include
playing
Baroque
music
while
reading
a
passage
in
the
foreign
language,
getting
students
to
sit
in
the
yoga
position
while
listening
to
a
list
of
words,
learners
adopting
a
new
name
in
the
classroom,
or
role-playing that new
person.
A
couple
of
decades
later,
Jack
Richards
and
Theodore
Rodgers
proposed
a
reformulation of the concept of method.
Anthony
?
s approach, method,
and technique
were
renamed,
respectively,
approach,
design,
and
procedure,
with
a
super-ordinate
term to
describe this three-step process now called
method. A method, according to
Richard
and
Rodgers
“
is
an
umbrella
term
for
the
specification
and
interrelation
of
theory and about the
nature of language and language learning. Designs
specify the
relationship of those
theories to classroom materials and activities.
Procedures are the
techniques and
practices that are derived from
one
?
s approach and design.
Through
their
reformulation,
Richards
and
Rodgers
made
two
principal
contributions to our understanding of
the concept of method:
(1)
First,
they
specified
the
necessary
elements
of
language
teaching
“
designs
”
that
had
theretofore
been
left
somewhat
vague.
Their
schematic
representation
of
“
method
”
reveals six important features of
“
designs
”
< br>: objectives, syllabus, activities,
learner
roles,
teacher
roles,
and
the
role
of
instructional
materials.
The
latter
three
features
have
occupied
a
significant
proportion
of
our
collective
attention
in
the
profession for the last decade or so.
(2)
Second, Richards and Rodgers nudged us into at
last relinquishing the notion
that
separate,
definable,
discrete
methods
are
the
essential
building
blocks
of
methodology.
By
helping
us
to
think
in
terms
of
an
approach
that
undergirds
our
language
designs,
which
are
realized
by
various
procedures,
we
could
see
that
methods,
as
we
still
use
and
understand
the
term,
are
too
restrictive,
too
pre-programmed,
and
too
”
pre-packaged.
”
Virtually
all
language
teaching
methods
make the
oversimplified assumption that what teachers
“
do
”
in the classroom can be
conventionalized
into
a
set
of
procedures
that
fits
all
contexts.
We
are
now
all
too
aware that such is clearly not the
case.
The whole concept of separate methods
is no longer a central issue in language
teaching
practice.
Instead,
we
currently
make
ample
reference
to
“
methodology
”
as
our
super-ordinate umbrella term, reserving the term <
/p>
“
method
”
for somewhat specific,
identifiable
clusters of theoretically compatible classroom
techniques.
So. Richards and
Rodgers
?
reformulation of
the concept of methods was soundly
conceived; however, their attempt to
give new meaning to an old term has not caught
on
in
the
pedagogical
literature.
What
they
would
like
us
to
call
“
method
”
is
more
comfortably referred to as
“
methodology,
”
in
order to avoid confusion with what we
will no doubt always think of as those
separate entities that are no longer at the center
of our teaching philosophy.
Another
terminological problem lies in the use of the term
“
designs
”
< br>; instead, we
more comfortably refer
to curricula or syllabuses when we refer to design
features of
a language program
What
are
we
left
with
in
this
lexicographic
confusion?
Interestingly,
the
terminology of the
pedagogical literature in the field appears to be
more in line with
2
Methodology Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
3
页
Anthony
?
s
original
terms,
but
with
some
important
additions
and
refinements.
Following is a set of definitions that
reflect the current usage.
Methodology:
The
study
of
pedagogical
practices
in
general.
Whatever
considerations are
involved in
“
how to
teach
”
are methodological.
Approach:
Theoretical
positions
and
beliefs
about
the
nature
of
language,
the
nature of language learning, and the
applicability of both to pedagogical settings.
Method:
A
generalized
set
of
classroom
specifications
for
accomplishing
linguistic
objectives. Methods tend to be primarily concerned
with teacher and student
roles and
behaviors and secondarily with such features
linguistic and subject-matter
objectives,
sequencing,
and
materials.
They
are
almost
always
thought
of
as
being
broadly
applicable to a variety of audiences in a variety
of contexts.
Curriculum/syllabus:
Designs
for
carrying
out
a
particular
language
program.
Features
include
a
primary
concern
with
the
specification
of
linguistic
and
subject-matter objectives, sequencing,
and materials to meet the needs of a designated
group of learners in a defined context.
Technique:
Any of
a wide variety
of exercises,
activities, or devices
used in
the
language classroom for
realizing lesson objectives.
Changing Winds and Shifting Sands
A
glance
through
the
past
century
or
so
of
language
teaching
will
give
an
interesting picture of how varied the
interpretations have been of the best way to teach
a
foreign
language.
As
disciplinary
schools
of
thought---psychology,
linguistics,
education,
for
example---have
come
and
gone,
so
have
language
teaching
methods
waxed and waned in popularity. Teaching
methods, as
“
approaches in
action,
”
are of
course the practical application of
theoretical findings and positions. In a field
such as
ours that is relatively young,
it should come as no surprise to discover a wide
variety
of
these
applications,
some
in
total
philosophical
opposition
to
others,
over
the
last
hundred
years.
Albert
Marckwardt
saw
these
“
changing
winds
and
shifting
sands
”
as
a
cyclical
pattern in which a new method emerged
about every quarter of a century. Each new
method
broke
from
the
old
but
took
with
it
some
of
the
positive
aspects
of
the
previous
practices. A good example of this cyclical nature
of methods is found in the
“
revolutionary
”
Audiolingual
method of the mid-twentieth century, the Direct
Method,
while breaking away entirely
from the Grammar Translation Method. Within a
short
time, however, ALM critics were
advocating more attention to thinking, to
cognition,
and to rule learning, which
to some smacked of a return to Grammar
Translation!
What follows is s sketch of those
changing winds and shifting sands of language
teaching over the years.
The Grammar Translation
Method
A historical sketch of the last hundred
years of language teaching really must be
set
in
the
context
of
a
prevailing,
customary
language
teaching
“
tradition.
”
For
3
Methodology Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
4
页
centuries,
there
were
few
if
any
theoretical
foundations
of
language
learning
upon
which
to
based
teaching
methodology.
In
the
western
world,
“
foreign
”
language
learning
in
schools
was
synonymous
with
the
learning
of
Latin
or
Greek.
Latin,
thought
to
promote intellectuality through
“
mental
gymnastics,
”
was
until
relatively
recently
held to be indispensable to an adequate higher
education. Latin was taught by
means
of
what
has
been
called
the
Classical
Method
:
focus
on
grammatical
rules,
memorization of vocabulary and of
various declensions and conjugation, translations
of texts, doing written exercises.
As
another
language
began
to
be
taught
in
educational
institutions
in
the
eighteenth
and
nineteenth
centuries,
the
Classical
Method
was
adopted
as
the
chief
means
for teaching foreign languages. Little thought was
given at the time to teaching
someone
how
to
speak
the
language;
after
all,
languages
were
not
being
taught
primarily
to
learn
oral/aural
communication
but
to
learn
for
the
sake
of
being
“
scholarly<
/p>
”
or,
in
some
instances,
for
gaining
a
reading
proficiency
in
a
foreign
language.
Since
there
was
little
if
any
theoretical
research
on
second
language
acquisition in
general or on the acquisition of reading
proficiency, foreign languages
were
taught as any other skill was taught.
In the
nineteenth century the Classical Method came to be
known as the
Grammar
Translation Method
. There
was little to distinguish Grammar Translation from
what
had
gone
on
in
foreign
language
classrooms
for
centuries
beyond
a
focus
on
grammatical rules as the
basis for translating from the second to the
native language.
Remarkably, the
Grammar Translation Method withstood attempts at
the turn of the
twentieth
century
to
“
reform
language
teaching
methodology,
and
to
this
day
it
is
practiced in some isolated, or, shall
we say, unenlightened educational contexts. Prator
and Celce-Murcia listed the major
characteristics of Grammar
Translation
”
:
(1)
Classes
are
taught
in
the
mother
tongue,
with
little
active
use
of
the
target
language.
(2)
Much vocabulary is taught in the form
of lists of isolated words.
(3)
Grammar
provides the rules for putting words together, and
instruction often
focuses on the form
and inflection of words.
(4)
Long elaborate explanations of the
intricacies of grammar are given.
(5)
Reading of
difficult classical texts is begun early.
(6)
Little
attention is paid to the content of texts, which
are treated as exercises in
grammatical
analysis.
(7)
Often the only drills are exercises in
translating disconnected sentences from
the target language into the mother
tongue.
(8)
Little or no attention is given to
pronunciation.
It is ironic that this
method has until very recently been so stalwart
among many
competing
models.
It
does
virtually
nothing
to
enhance
a
student
?
s
communicative
ability
in
the
language.
It
is
“
remembered
with
distaste
by
thousands
of
school
learners,
for
whom
foreign
learning
meant
a
tedious
experience
of
memorizing
endless
lists
of
unusable
grammar
rules
and
vocabulary
and
attempting
to
produce
perfect translations
of stilted or literary
prose
”
.
On the
other hand, one can understand why Grammar
Translation is so popular. It
4
Methodology Reference
Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
5
页
requires few specialized skills on the
part of teachers. Tests of grammar rules and of
translations
are easy to
construct
and
can
be objectively scored. Many standardized
tests of foreign language still do not
attempt to tap into communicative abilities, so
students have little motivation to go
beyond grammar analogies, translations, and rote
exercises.
And
it
is
sometimes
successful
in
leading
a
student
toward
a
reading
knowledge
of
second
language.
But,
as
Richards
and
Rodgers
point
out,
“
it
has
no
advocates.
It is a method for which there is no theory. There
is no literature that offers
a
rationale
or
justification
for
it
or
that
attempts
to
relate
it
to
issues
in
linguistics,
psychology,
or
educational
theory
.”
As
you
continue
to
examine
language
teaching
methodology,
you will
understand more fully the
“
t
heory-
lessness”
of the Grammar
Translation
Method.
Gouin and the
Series Method
As we begin our look now at the history
of
“
modern
”
foreign language teaching,
beginning in the late 1880, we look in
on Francois Gouin, a French teacher of Latin
whose insights and writings were truly
remarkable. History doesn
?
t
normally think of
Gouin
as
a
founder
of
language
teaching
methodology
because
at
the
time
his
influence was
overshadowed by that of Charles Berlitz, the
popular German founder
of the Direct
Method. Nevertheless, some attention to
Gouin
?
s unusually
perceptive
observations
about
language
teaching
helps
us
to
set
the
stage
for
development
of
language teaching methods for the
century following the publication of his book, The
Art of Learning and Studying Foreign
Language, in 1880.
Gouin had to go through a
very painful set of experiences in order to derive
his
insights.
Having
decided
in
his
mid-life
to
learn
German,
he
took
up
residency
in
Hamburg
for
one
year.
But
rather
than
attempting
to
converse
with
the
natives,
he
engaged
in
a
rather
bizarre
sequence
of
attempts
to
“
master
”
the
language.
Upon
arrival in Hamburg he
felt he should memorize a German grammar book and
a table
of
the
248
irregular
German
verbs!
He
did
this
in
a
matter
of
only
ten
days,
and
hurried to
“
the
academy
”
to test his new
knowledge.
“
But
alas!
”
he wrote,
“
I could
not
understand a single word, not a single
word!
”
Gouin was undaunted.
He returned
to
the
isolation
of
his
room,
this
time
to
memorize
the
German
roots
and
to
re-memorize
the
grammar
book
and
irregular
verbs.
Again
he
emerged
with
expectations of success.
“
But
alas!
”
The result was the
same as before. In the course
of the
year in Germany, Gouin memorized books, translated
Goethe and Schiller, and
even memorized
30,000 words in a German dictionary, all in the
isolation of his room,
only to be
crushed by his failure to understand German
afterwards. Only once did he
try to
“
make
conversation
”
as a method,
but this caused people to laugh at him and he
was too embarrassed to continue that
method. At the end of the year Gouin, having
reduced the classical method to
absurdity, was forced to return home, a failure.
But
there
is
a
happy
ending.
Upon
returning
home
Gouin
discovered
that
his
three-yare-old
nephew
had,
during
that
year,
gone
through
that
wonderful
stage
of
child
language
acquisition
in
which
he
went
from
saying
virtually
nothing
at
all
to
become a veritable chatterbox of
French. How as it that this little child succeeded
so
5
Methodology
Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
6
页
easily,
in
a
first
language,
in
a
task
that
Gouin,
in
a
second
language,
had
found
impossible? The child
must hold the secret to learning a language! So
Gouin spent a
great deal of time
observing his nephew and other children and came
to the following
conclusions: Language
learning is primarily a matter of transforming
perceptions into
conceptions.
Children
use
language
to
represent
their
conceptions.
Language
is
a
means of
thinking, of representing the world to oneself.
So
Gouin
set
about
devising
a
teaching
method
that
would
follow
from
these
insights.
And
thus
the
Series
Method
was
created,
a
method
that
taught
learners
directly and
conceptually a
“
series
”
of connected sentences that are
easy to perceive.
The first lesson of a
foreign language would thus teach the following
series of fifteen
sentences:
I
was towards the door. I draw near to the door. I
draw nearer to the door.
I get to the door. I stop
at the door.
I stretch out my arm. I take hold of
the handle. I turn the handle. I open the
door. I pull the door.
The door moves.
The door turns on its hinges. The door turns and
turns. I open
the door wide. I let go
of the handle.
The
fifteen
sentences
have
an
unconventionally
large
number
of
grammatical
properties,
vocabulary item, word orders, and complexity. This
is no simple
“
V
oici la
table
”
lesson!
Yet Gouin was successful with such lessons because
the language was
so easily understood,
stored, recalled, and related to reality.
Unfortunately, he was a
man
ahead
of
his
time,
and
his
insights
were
largely
lost
in
the
shuffle
of
Berlitz
?
s
popular Direct Method. But as we look
back now over a century of language teaching
history we can appreciate the insights
of this most unusual language teacher.
The Direct Method
The
“
naturalistic
”
---simulating
the
“
natural
”
way
in
which
children
learn
first
languages---approaches of Gouin and a
few of his contemporaries did not take hold
immediately. A generation later,
applied linguistics finally established the
credibility
of
such
approaches.
Thus
it
was
that
at
the
turn
of
the
century
the
direct
Method
became quite widely known and
practiced.
The
basic
premise
of
the
Direct
Method
was
similar
to
that
of
Gouin
?
s
Series
Method,
namely,
that
second
language
learning
should
be
more
like
first
language
learning---lots
of
oral
interaction,
spontaneous
use
of
the
language,
no
translation
between
first
and
second
languages,
and
little
or
no
analysis
of
grammatical
rules.
Richards and Rodgers summarized the
principles of the Direct Method:
(1)
Classroom
instruction was conducted exclusively in the
target language.
(2)
Only everyday vocabulary and sentences
were taught.
(3)
Oral
communication
skills
were
built
up
in
a
carefully
traded
progression
organized
around
question-and-answer
exchanges
between
teachers
and
students in small, intensive classes.
(4)
Grammar was taught inductively.
(5)
New teaching
points were taught through modeling and practice.
6
Methodology
Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
7
页
(6)
Concrete
vocabulary was taught
through
demonstration, objects,
and pictures;
abstract vocabulary was taught by
association of ideas.
(7)
Both speech and listening comprehension
were taught.
(8)
Correct pronunciation and grammar were
emphasized.
The
direct
Method
enjoyed
considerable
popularity
through
the
end
of
the
nineteenth
century and well into 20
th
century. It was most widely accepted in private
language
schools
where
students
were
highly
motivated
and
where
native-speaking
teachers could be employed. One of the
best known of its popularizers was Charles
Berlitz.
To
this
day
“
Berlitz
”
is
a
household
word;
Berlitz
language
schools
are
thriving in every country of the world.
But almost any
“
m
ethod
”
can succeed when
clients are willing to pay high prices
for small classes, individual
attention, and intensive study. The direct Method
did not
take well in public education
where the constraints of budget,
classroom size, time,
and
teacher
background
made
such
a
method
difficult
to
use.
Moreover,
the
Direct
Method
was criticized for its weak theoretical
foundations. Its success may have been
more a factor of the skill and
personality of the teacher than of the methodology
itself.
By
the
end
of
the
first
quarter
of
last
century
the
use
of
the
direct
Method
had
declined both in Europe and in United
States. Most language curricula returned to the
Grammar
Translation
Method
or
to
a
“
reading
approach
”
that
emphasized
reading
skills in foreign
languages. But interestingly enough, by the middle
of the century the
Direct Method was
revived and redirected into what was probably the
most visible of
all language teaching <
/p>
“
revolutions
”
in the modern era, the Audiolingual Method. So
even this somewhat short-lived
movement in language teaching would reappear in
the
changing winds and shifting sands
of history.
The
Audiolingual Method
In the first half of last century, the
Direct Method did not take hold of the United
States the way it did in Europe. While
one could easily find native-speaking teachers
of modern foreign languages in Europe,
such was not the case in the United States.
Also, European light school and
university students did not have to travel far to
find
opportunities
to
put
the
oral
skills
of
another
language
to
actual,
practical
use.
Moreover,
U.S
educational
institutions
had
become
firmly
convinced
that
a
reading
approach
to
foreign
languages
was
more
useful
than
an
oral
approach,
given
the
perceived linguistic isolation of the
United States at the time. The highly influential
Coleman
Report
of
1929
had
persuaded
foreign
language
teachers
that
it
was
impractical
to
teach
oral
skills,
and
that
reading
should
become
the
focus.
Thus
schools returned in the
1930s and 1940s to Grammar Translation,
“
the handmaiden of
reading
”
.
Then
World
War
II
broke
out
and
suddenly
the
United
States
was
thrust
into
worldwide conflict, heightening the
need for Americans to become orally proficient in
the language of both their allies and
their enemies. The time was ripe for a language
teaching revolution. The U.S. military
provided the impetus with funding for secial,
intensive language courses that focused
on the aural/oral skills: these courses came to
7
Methodology
Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
8
页
be
known as the Army Specialized Training Program or,
more colloquially, the Army
Method.
Characteristic
of
these
courses
was
a
great
deal
of
oral
activity
---pronunciation
and
pattern
drills
and
conversation
practice---with
virtually
none of the
grammar and translation found in traditional
classes. Ironically, numerous
foundation
stones
of
the
discarded
Direct
Method
were
borrowed
and
injected
into
this new approach. Soon, the success of
the Army Method and the revived
national
interest
in
foreign
languages
spurred
educational
institutions
to
adopt
the
new
methodology.
In
all
its
variations
and
adaptations,
the
Army
Method
came
to
be
known in
the 1950s as the Audiolingual Method.
The
Audiolingual
Method
was
firmly
rounded
in
linguistic
and
psychological
theory.
Structural linguists of the 1940s and 1950s were
engaged in what they claimed
as
“
scientific descriptive
analysis
”
of various
languages: teaching methodologists saw
a direct application of such analysis
to teaching linguistic patterns. At the same time,
behavioristic
psychologists
advocated
conditioning
and
habit-formation
models
of
learning
that
were
perfectly
married
with
mimicry
drills
and
pattern
practices
of
audiolingual methodology.
The
characteristics of the AlM may be summed up in the
following list :
(1)
New material is presented in dialog
form.
(2)
There
is
dependence
on
mimicry,
memorization
of
set
phrases,
and
overlearning.
(3)
Structures are sequenced by means of
contrastive analysis and taught one at a
time.
(4)
Structural
patterns are taught using repetitive drills.
(5)
There is little or no grammatical
explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive
analogy rather than deductive
explanation.
(6)
V
ocabulary is strictly
limited and learned in context.
(7)
There is much
use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids.
(8)
Great importance is attached to
pronunciation.
(9)
Very little
use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted.
(10)
Successful responses are immediately
reinforced.
(11)
There is a great effort to get students
to produce error-free utterances.
(12)
There is
tendency to manipulate language and disregard
content.
For a number of reasons the
ALM enjoyed many years of popularity, and even to
this day, adaptations of the ALM are
found in contemporary methodologies. The ALM
was firmly rooted in respectable
theoretical perspectives at the time. Materials
were
carefully6
prepared,
tested
out,
and
disseminated
to
educational
institutions.
“
Success
”
could
be
more
overtly
experienced
by
students
as
they
practiced
their
dialogs in off-hours.
But the popularity was not to last forever. Led by
Wilga Rivers
?
eloquent
criticism
of
the
misconceptions
of
the
ALM
and
by
its
ultimate
failure
to
teach
long-term communicative proficiency, its
popularity waned. We discovered that
language
was
not
really
acquired
through
a
process
of
habit
formation
and
overlearning,
that
errors
were
not
necessarily
to
be
avoided
at
all
costs,
and
that
structural linguistics did not tell us
everything about language that we needed to know.
While
the
ALM
was
a
valiant
attempt
to
reap
the
fruits
of
language
teaching
8
Methodology
Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
9
页
methodologies that had preceded it, in
the end it still fell short, as all methods do.
But
we
learned
something
from
the
very
failure
of
the
ALM
to
do
everything
it
had
promised,
and we moved forward.
“
Designer
”
Methods of the Spirited Seventies
The
decade
of
the
seventies
was
historically
significant
on
two
counts.
First,
perhaps more than in
other decade, research on second language learning
and teaching
grew from an offshoot of
linguistics to a discipline in its own right. As
more and more
scholars
specialized
their
efforts
in
second
language
acquisition
studies,
our
knowledge
of
how
people
learn
languages
inside
and
outside
of
the
classroom
mushroomed. Second, in this spirited
atmosphere of pioneering research, a number of
innovative
if
not
revolutionary
methods
were
conceived.
These
“
designer
”
methods
were
soon
marketed
by
entrepreneurs
as
the
latest
and
greatest
applications
of
the
multidisciplinary research findings of
the day.
Today,
as
we
look
back
at
these
methods,
we
can
applaud
them
for
their
innovative
flair,
for
their
attempt
to
rouse
the
language
teaching
world
out
of
its
Audiolingual sleep, and
for their stimulation of even more research as we
sought to
discover why they were not
the godsend that their inventors and marketers
hoped they
would be. The scrutiny that
the designer methods underwent has enabled us
today to
incorporate
certain
elements
thereof
in
our
current
communicative,
interactive,
eclectic
approach
to
language
teaching.
Let
?
s
look
at
five
of
these
products
of
the
spirited
seventies.
1. Community Language
Learning
The age of
audiolingualism,
with its emphasis
on surface forms
and on the
rote
practice
of
scientifically
produced
patterns,
began
to
wane
when
the
Chomskyan
revolution
in
linguistics
turned
linguists
and
language
teachers
toward
the
“
deep
structure
”
of
language and when psychologists began to recognize
the fundamentally
affective and
interpersonal nature of all learning. By the
decade of the 1970s, as we
increasingly
recognized
the
importance
of
the
affective
domain,
some
innovative
methods took on a distinctly affective
nature. Community Language Learning was a
classic example of an affectively based
method.
In his
“
Counseling-
Learning
”
model of
education, Charles Curran was inspired by
Carl Rogers
?
s
view of education in which learners in a classroom
are regarded as a
“
group
”
rather than a
“
class
”
---a group in
need of certain therapy and counseling. The
social dynamics of such a group are of
primary importance. In order for any learning
to take place, as has already been
noted, in Carl Rogers
?
model, what is first needed is
for
the
members
to
interact
in
an
interpersonal
relationship
in
which
students
and
teacher
join
together
to
facilitate
learning
in
a
context
of
valuing
and
prizing
each
individual in the group.
In
such a surrounding each person lowers the defenses
that
prevent
open
interpersonal
communication.
The
anxiety
caused
by
the
education
context is
lessened by means of the supportive community. The
teacher
?
s presence is
not
perceived
as
a
threat,
nor
is
it
the
teacher
?
s
purpose
to
impose
limits
and
9
Methodology Reference
Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
10
页
boundaries,
but
rather,
as
a
true
counselor,
to
center
his
or
her
attention
on
the
students
and their needs.
“
Defensive<
/p>
”
learning is made
unnecessary by the empathetic
relationship
between
teacher
and
students.
Curran
?
Counseling-Learning
model
of
education
thus
capitalizes
on
the
primacy
of
the
needs
of
the
learners
who
have
gathered together in
the educational community to be counseled.
Curran
?
s
Counseling-Learning
model
of
education
was
extended
to
language
learning
contexts
in
the
form
of
Community
Language
Learning
(CLL).
While
particular
adaptations
of CLL
are numerous, the
basic methodology is
explicit.
The
group
of
learners,
having
first
established
in
their
native
language
an
interpersonal
relationship
and trust, are seated in a circle with counselor
(teacher) on the outside of
the circle.
The clients (students) may be complete beginners
in the foreign language.
When one of
the clients wishes to say something t the group or
to an individual, he or
she says it in
the native language and the counselor translates
the utterance back to the
learner
in
the
second
language.
The
learner
then
repeats
that
(English)sentence
as
accurately as possible. Another client
responds, in English; the utterance is translated
by the counselor; the client repeats
it; and the conversation continues. If possible
the
conversation is taped for later
listening, and at the end of each session, the
learners
inductively attempt together
to glean information abut the new language. If
desirable,
the counselor may take a
more directive role and provide some explanation
of certain
linguistic rules or items.
The first stage of intense struggle and
confusion may continue for many sessions
but
always
with
the
support
of
counselor
and
of
the
fellow
clients.
Gradually
the
learner
becomes
able
to
speak
a
word
or
phrase
directly
in
the
foreign
language,
without translation. This is the first
sign of the learner
?
s moving
away from complete
dependence upon the
counselor. As the learners gain more the more
familiarity with
the foreign language,
more and more direct
communication can
take place with
the
counselor providing less and less
direct translation and information until after
many
sessions,
perhaps
many
months
or
years
later,
the
learner
achieves
fluency
n
the
spoken language. The learner has at
that point became independent.
CLL
reflects
not
only
the
principles
of
Carl
Rogers
?
view
of
education
but
also
basic
principles of the dynamics of counseling, in which
the counselor through careful
attention
to
the
client
?
s
needs
aids
the
client
in
moving
from
dependence
and
helplessness to
independence and self-assurance.
There
are
advantages
and
disadvantages
to
a
method
like
CLL.
The
affective
advantages are
evident. CLL is an attempt to put Carl
Rogers
?
philosophy into
action
and to overcome some of the
threatening affective factors in second language
learning.
The threat of the all-knowing
teacher, of making blunders in the foreign
language in
front of classmates, of
competing against peers---all threats that can
lead to a feeling
of
alienation
and
inadequacy---are
presumably
removed.
The
counselor
allows
the
learner
to
determine
the
type
of
conversation
and
to
analyze
the
foreign
language
inductively. In situations in which
explanation or translation seems to be impossible,
it
is often the client-learner who
steps in and becomes a counselor to aid the
motivation
and capitalize on intrinsic
motivation.
But
there
are
some
practical
and
theoretical
problems
with
CLL.
The
counselor
10
Methodology Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
11
页
teacher can become too nondirective.
The student often needs direction, especially in
the first
stage, in
which
there is
such seemingly
endless
struggle within the foreign
language. Supportive but assertive
direction from the counselor could strengthen the
method.
Another
problem
with
CLL
is
its
reliance
upon
an
inductive
strategy
of
learning. It is noted that deductive
learning is both a viable and efficient strategy
of
learning and that adults
particularly can benefit from deduction as well as
induction.
While some intense inductive
struggle is a necessary component of second
language
learning, the initial grueling
days and weeks of floundering in ignorance in CLL
could
be alleviated by more directed,
deductive learning
“
by
being-g told.
”
Perhaps only
in
the second or third stage, when the
learner has
moved to
more
independence, is
an
inductive
strategy
really
successful.
Finally,
the
success
of
CLL
depends
largely
on
the
translation
expertise
of
the
counselor.
Translatio9n
is
an
intricate
and
complex
process
that
is
often
“
easier
said
than
done
”
;
if
subtle
aspects
of
language
are
mistranslated,
there
could
be
a
less
than
effective
understanding
of
the
target
language.
Despite
its
weaknesses,
CLL
is
a
potentially
useful
method
for
the
foreign
language classroom
as long as teachers are willing to adapt it to
their own curricular
constraints. That
adaptation requires a relaxing of certain aspects
of the method. For
example, you might
avoid the initial, complete-dependence stage by
using CLL in an
intermediate
language
class.
Or
you
might
provide
more
defectiveness
than
CLL
advocates.
As
is
the
case
with
virtually
any
method,
if
you
have
solid
theoretical
foundations---a
broad, cautiously enlightened, eclectic view---you
can derive valuable
insights from
diverse points of view and apply them creatively
to your own situation.
2.
Suggestopedia
Other
new
methods
of
the
decade
were
not
quite
as
strictly
affective
as
CLL.
Suggestopedia,
for
example,
was
a
method
that
was
derived
from
Bulgarian
psychologist
Georgi Lozanov
?
s (1979)
contention that the human brain could process
great quantities of material if simply
given the right
conditions for
learning, among
which are a state of
relaxation and giving over of control to the
teacher. According to
Lozanov, people
are capable of learning much more than they give
themselves credit
for.
Drawing
on
insights
from
Soviet
psychological
research
on
extrasensory
perception and
from yoga, Lozanov created a method for learning
that capitalized on
relaxed states of
mind for maximum retention of material. Music was
central to his
method.
Baroque music, with its 60 beats per minute and
its specific rhythm, created
the
kind
of
“
relaxed
concentration
”
that
led
to
“
superlearning
”
(Ostrander
and
Schoroeder,
1979:65).
According
to
Lozanov,
during
the
soft
playing
of
Baroque
music,
one can take in tremendous quantities of material
due to an increase in alpha
brain waves
and a decrease in blood pressure and pulse rate.
In
applications of Suggestiopedia to
foreign language learning, Lozanov and
his
followers
experimented
with
the
presentation
of
vocabulary,
readings,
dialogs,
role-plays,
drama,
and
a
variety
of
other
typical
classroom
activities.
Some
of
the
classroom
methodology
did
not
have
any
particular
uniqueness.
The
primary
11
Methodology Reference
Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
12
页
difference lay in
a
significant
proportion of
activity carried out
in
soft,
comfortable
seats in relaxed states of
consciousness. Students were encouraged to be as <
/p>
“
childlike
”
as
possible,
yielding
all
authority
to
the
teacher
and
sometimes
assuming
the
roles
(and
names)
of
native
speakers
of
the
foreign
language.
Students
thus
became
“
suggestab
le.
”
Lozanov
(1979:272)
described
the
concert
session
portions
of
Suggestopedia language
class:
At the beginning of the
session, all conversation stops for a minute or
two,
and
the
teacher
listens
to
the
music
coming
from
a
tape-recorder.
He
waits
and listens to several
passages in order to enter into the mood of the
music
and
then
begins
to
read
or
recite
the
new
text,
his
voice
modulated
in
harmony
with
the
musical
phrases.
The
students
follow
the
text
in
their
textbooks
where
each
lesson
is
translated
into
the
mother
tongue.
Between
the first and second part of the
concert, there are several minutes of solemn
silence. In some cases, even longer
pauses can be given to permit the students
to stir a little. Before the beginning
of the second part of the concert, there are
again
several
minutes
of
silence
and
some
phrases
of
the
music
are
heard
again before the teacher begins to read
the text. Now the students close their
textbooks and listen to the
teacher
’
s reading. At the
end, the students silently
leave the
room. They are not told to do any homework on the
lesson they have
just
had
except
for
reading it
cursorily
once before
going
to
bed
and
again
before getting up in
the morning.
Suggestopedia has been
criticized on a number of fronts. Scovel (1979)
showed
quite eloquently that
Lozanove?
s experimental
data, in which he reported astounding
results
with
Suggestopedia,
were
highly
questionable.
Moreover,
the
practicality
of
using Suggetopedia is an issue that
teachers must face where music and comfortable
chairs
are
not
available.
More
serious
is
the
issue
of
the
place
of
memorization
in
language
learning.
Scovel
(1979:260-261)
noted
that
Lozanove
?
s
“
innumerable
references
to
…
memorization
…
to
the
total
exclusion
of
references
to
?
understanding
?
and/or
?
creative
solutions
of
problems
?
convinces
this
reviewer
at
least
that suggestopedy
…
is an
attempt to teach memorization techniques and is
not
devoted to the far more
comprehensive enterprise of language
acquisition.
”
Like
some
other
designer
methods
(CLL
and
the
Silent
Way,
for
example),
Suggestopedia
became a business enterprise of its own. As such,
it made claims in the
advertising world
that were not completely supported by research.
And endorsement
by
Parade
magazine
(March12,
1978)
did
not
necessarily
signify
the
advent
of
the
last
word
in
language
teaching.
We
must,
as
language
teachers,
try
to
extract
from
such
methods
that
which
is
insightful
and
fruitful,
then
adapt
those
insights
to
our
own teaching contexts.
Despite its criticisms, Suggestopedia
gave the language teaching profession some
insights. We learned a bit about how to
believe in the power of the human brain. We
learned
that
deliberately
induced
stated
of
relaxation
may
be
beneficial
in
the
classroom. And numerous teachers have
at times experimented with various forms of
music as a way to get students to sit
back and relax.
12
Methodology Reference
Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
13
页
3.
The Silent Way
Like
Suggestopedia,
the
Silent
Way
rests
on
more
cognitive
than
affective
arguments for its theoretical
sustenance. While Caleb Gttegno, its founder, was
said to
be interested in a
“humanistic”
approach
(Chamot and McKeon, 1984:2) to education,
much of the Silent Way was
characterized by a problem-solving approach to
learning.
Richards and Rodgers (1986:
99) summarizes the theory of learning behind the
Silent
Way:
(1)
Learning
is
facilitated
if
the
learner
discovers
or
creates
rather
than
remembers and repeats
what is to be learned.
(2)
Learning is facilitated
by accompanying (mediating) physical objects.
(3)
Learning
is
facilitated
by
problem
solving
involving
the
material
to
be
learned.
“
Discovering
learning,
”
a
popular educational trend of the 1960s, advocated
less
learning
“
by
being told
”
and more
learning by discovering for oneself various facts
and
principles.
In
this
way,
students
construct
conceptual
hierarchies
of
their
own
which are a product of the time they
have invested. Ausubel
?
s
“
subsumption
”
(
PLLT
,
Chapter
4)
is
enhanced
by
discovery
learning
since
the
cognitive
categories
are
created
meaningfully
with
less
chance
of
rote
learning
taking
place.
Inductive
processes are also
more encouraged in discovery learning methods.
The
Silent
Way
capitalized
on
such
discovery-learning
procedures.
Gattegno
(1972)
believed
that
learners
should
develop
independence,
autonomy,
and
responsibility. At the
same time, learners in a Silent Way classroom had
to cooperate
with
each
other
in
the
process
of
solving
language
problems.
The
tea
che
r
—
a
stimulator but not a hand-
holde
r
—
was silent
much of the time, thus the name of the
method. Teachers had to resist their
instinct to spell everything out in black and
whit
e
—
to come to
the aid of students at the slightest
downfal
l
—
and they
had to
“
get out of
the way
”
while
students worked out solutions.
In
a
language
classroom
the
Silent
Way
typically
utilized
as
materials
a
set
of
Cuisinere
rods
—
small colored rods of
varying lengths
—
and a series
of colorful wall
charts. The rods were
used to introduce vocabulary (colors, numbers,
adjectives [
long
,
short
and so on], verbs
[
give
,
take
,
pick
up
,
drop
]) and
syntax (tense, comparatives,
pluralization, word order, and the
like). The teacher provided single-word stimuli,
or
short
phrases
and
sentences,
once
or
twice
and
then
the
students
refined
their
understanding and
pronunciation among themselves with minimal
corrective feedback
from the teacher.
The charts introduced pronunciation models,
grammatical paradigms,
and the like.
Like Suggestopedia, the Silent Way has
had its share of criticism. In one sense,
the Silent Way was too harsh
a method, and the
teacher
too
distant,
to
encourage a
communicative
atmosphere. Students often need more guidance and
overt correction
than
the
Silent
Way
permitted.
There
are
a
number
of
aspects
of
language
that
can
indeed be
“
told
”
to students to their benefit; they need not, as in
CLL as well, struggle
for hours or days
with a concept that could be easily clarified by
the teacher
?
s direct
guidance. The rods and charts wear thin
after a few lessons, and other materials must
13
Methodology
Reference Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
14
页
be
introduced,
at
which
points
the
Silent
Way
can
look
like
any
other
language
classroom.
However, the
underlying principles of the Silent Way were
valid. All too often
we
?
re tempted as
teachers to provide everything for our students,
all neatly served up
on a silver
platter. We could benefit from injecting healthy
doses of discovery learning
into our
classroom activities and from providing less
teacher talk than we usually do
to let
the students work things out on their own.
4. Total Physical Response
James Asher (1977), the developer of
Total Physical
Response (TPR), actually
began experimenting with TPR in the
1960s, but it was almost
a decade
before the
method was widely discussed
in professional circles. Today TPR, with its
simplicity
as its most appealing facet,
is a household word among language teachers.
You
will
recall
from
earlier
in
this
chapter
that
over
a
century
ago
Gouin
designed his Series
Method on the premise that a series of simple
action associated
with language will be
easily retained by learners. Much later,
psychologists developed
the
“
trace
theory
”
of learning in which
it was claimed that memory is increased if it is
simulated,
or
“
traced,
”
through
association
with
motor
activity.
Over
the
years,
language teachers have intuitively
recognized the value of associating language with
physical activity. So while the idea of
building a method of language teaching on the
principle of psychomotor associations
is not at all new, it was this very idea that
Asher
capitalized upon in developing
TPR.
TPR
combines
a
number
of
other
insights
in
its
rationale.
Principles
of
child
language acquisition
are important. Asher (1977) noted that children,
in learning their
first language,
appear to do a lot of listening before they speak,
and that their listening
is
accompanied by physical
responses (reaching,
grabbing, moving, looking, and so
forth).
He
also
gave
some
attention
to
right-brained
learning.
According
to
Asher,
motor
activity
is
a
right-brain
function
that
should
precede
left-brain
language
processing. Asher
was also convinced that language classes
were often the locus of
too
much anxiety and wished to devise a method that
was as stress-free as possible,
where
learners
would
not
feel
overly
self-conscious
and
defensive.
The
TPR
classroom, then, was one
in which students did a great deal of listening
and acting.
The teacher was very
directive in orchestrating a performance:
“
The instructor is the
director of a stage play in which the
students are the actors
”
(Asher, 1977:43).
Typically, TPR
heavily utilized the imperative mood, even into
more advanced
proficiency levels.
Commands are an easy way to get learners to move
about and to
loosen up: Open the
window, Close the door, Stand up, Sit down, Pick
up the book,
Give it to John, and so
on. No verbal response is necessary. More complex
syntax can
be
incorporated
into
the
imperative:
Draw
a
rectangle
on
the
chalkboard,
Walk
quickly to the door and
hit it. Humor is easy to introduce: Walk slowly to
the window
and jump, Put your
toothbrush in your book (Asher, 1977:55).
Interrogatives are also
easily dealt
with: Where is the book? Who is John? (students
point to the book or to
John).
Eventually
students,
one
by
one,
would
feel
comfortable
enough
to
venture
14
Methodology Reference
Source
教学法资源库
共
31
页，第
15
页
verbal
responses
to
questions,
then
to
ask
questions
themselves,
and
the
process
continued.
Like
every
other
method
or
approach
we
have
encountered,
TPR
had
its
limitations.
It
seemed
to
be
especially
effective
in
the
beginning
levels
of
language
proficiency,
but
then
it
lost
its
distinctiveness
as
learners
advanced
in
their
competence.
In a TPR
classroom,
after students
overcame the fear of speaking out,
classroom
conversation
and
other
activities
proceeded
as
in
almost
any
other
communicative
language
classroom.
In
TPR
reading
and
writing
activities,
students
are
limited
to
spinning
off
from
the
oral
work
in
the
classroom.
Its
appeal
to
the
dramatic
or
theatrical
nature
of
language
learning
was
attractive.
(See
Smith,
1984,
and
Stern, 1983, for discussions of the use of drama
in foreign language classrooms.)
But
soon learners
?
needs for
spontaneity and unrehearsed language must be met.
5. The Natural Approach
Stephen
Krashen
?
s
theories
of
second
language
acquisition
have
been
widely
discussed
and
hotly
debated
over
the
years.
The
major
methodological
offshoot
of
Krashen
?
s
view
was
manifested
in
the
Natural
Approach,
developed
by
one
of
Krashen
?
s
colleagues, Tracy Terrell. Acting on many of the
claims that Asher made for
TPR, Krashen
and Terrell felt that learners would
benefit
from
delaying
production
until speech
“
emerges,
”
that learners should be as relaxed as possible in
the classroom,
and
that
a
great
deal
of
communication
and
“
acquisition<
/p>
”
should
take
place,
as
opposed to analysis. In fact, the
Natural Approach advocated the use of TPR
activities
at the beginning level of
language learning when
“
comprehensible
input”
is essential
for triggering the acquisition of
language.
There are number of
possible long-range goals
of language
instruction.
In some
cases
second languages are learned for oral
communication. In other cases for written
communication, and in still other may
be an academic emphasis on, say, listening to
lectures,
speaking
in
a
classroom
context,
or
writing
a
research
paper.
The
Natural
Approach
was
aimed
at
the
goal
of
basic
personal
communication
skills,
that
is,
everyday language situations---
conversations, shopping, listening to the radio,
and the
like.
The
initial
task
of
the
teacher
was
to
provide
comprehensible
input,
that
is,
spoken
language
that
is
understandable
to
the
learner
or
just
a
little
beyond
the
learner
?
s level.
Learners need not say anything during this
“
silent
period
”
until they
feel ready to do so. The teacher was
the source of the learners
?
input and the creator of
an
interesting
and
stimulating
variety
of
classroom
activities---commands,
games,
skits, and small-
group work.
In the Natural Approach,
learners presumably moved through what Krashen and
Terrell
defined
as
three
stages:
(1)
The
preproduction
stage
is
the
development
of
listening comprehension skills. (2) The
early production stage is usually marked with
errors as the student struggles with
the language. The teacher focuses on meaning here,
not
on
form,
and
therefore
the
teacher
does
not
make
a
point
of
correcting
errors
during
this
stage.
(3)
The
last
stage
is
one
of
extending
production
into
longer
stretches of discourse, involving more
complex games, role-plays, open-ended dialogs,
15