<h1 class="page-title" style="text-align: center;">TESOL®- Methodologies: Audiolingual, NFS, CLT, and TPR Methods</h1>
https://youtu.be/Pz0TPDUz3FU

&nbsp;
<h3><strong>The Audiolingual Method</strong></h3>
&nbsp;

In the first half of the XX century, the Direct Method did not take hold in 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 high school and university students did not have to travel far to find opportunities to put 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. Thus, schools' returned in the 1930s and 1940s to Grammar Translation.

Then, World War II broke out, and suddenly the United States was thrust into a worldwide conflict, heightening the need for Americans to become orally proficient in the languages of both their allies and their enemies. The time was ripe for a language teaching revolution.  The U.S. military provided the impetus for funding of special, intensive language courses that focused on the oral skills; these courses came to be known as the Army Specialized, Training Program (ASTP) or, more colloquially, the “Army Method.” Characteristics of these courses were 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 (ALM) was firmly grounded in linguistic and psychological theory. Structural linguists of the 1940s and 1950s were engaged in what they claimed was a « scientific descriptive analysis » of various languages; teaching methodologists saw a direct application of such analysis to teaching linguistic patterns. At the same time, behaviouristic psychologists advocated conditioning and habit formation models of learning that were perfectly matched with the mimicry drills and pattern practices of Audiolingual methodology.

The characteristics of the ALM may be summed up in the following list (adapted from Prator and Celce-Murcia):
<ul>
 	<li>New material is presented in dialogue form.</li>
 	<li>There is dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, and over learning.</li>
 	<li>Structures are sequenced through contrastive analysis and taught one at a time.</li>
 	<li>Structural patterns are taught using repetitive drills.</li>
 	<li>There is little or no grammatical explanation. Grammar is taught by inductive</li>
 	<li>Analogy rather than by reasonable explanation.</li>
 	<li>Vocabulary is strictly limited and learned in context.</li>
 	<li>There is much use of tapes, language labs, and visual aids.</li>
 	<li>Considerable importance is attached to pronunciation.</li>
 	<li>Limited use of the mother tongue by teachers is permitted.</li>
 	<li>Successful responses are immediately reinforced.</li>
 	<li>There is a great effort to get students to produce error-free utterances.</li>
 	<li>There is a tendency to manipulate language and disregard content.</li>
</ul>
For some reason, 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 carefully prepared, tested out, and disseminated to educational institutions. Students could more overtly experience «success» as they practiced their dialogues in off-hours. But the popularity was not to last forever. We discovered that language was not acquired through a process of habit formation over learning, errors should not be avoided at all costs, and the structural linguistics did not tell us everything about the language that we needed to know. While the ALM was a valiant attempt to reap the fruits of language teaching 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

&nbsp;

<strong>Notional-Functional-Syllabuses</strong>

&nbsp;

As some touted the innovative methods of the seventies and criticized by many, some paramount foundations for future growth were being laid in what soon came to be known as the Notional-Functional Syllabus. Beginning with the work of the Council of Europe and later followed by numerous interpretations of "notional" syllabuses, Notional-Functional Syllabuses (NFS) had started to be used in the United Kingdom in the 1970s.

The distinguishing characteristics of the NFS were its attention to functions as the organizing elements of English Language curriculum, and its contrast with the structural syllabus in which sequenced grammatical structures served as the organizers. Reacting to methods that attended too vigorously to grammatical form, the NFS sought to focus sharply- and in some of its interpretations, exclusively - on the practical purposes to which we put language. As such, it was not a method at all. It was close to what we have already described as an approach, but it was more specifically focused on curricular structure than an appropriate approach would be.

"Notions," according to Van Ek and Alexander (Threshold Level English), are both general and precise. General notions are abstract concepts such as existence, space, time, quantity, and quality. They are domains in which we use language to express thought and feeling. Within the general notion of space and time, for example, are the concepts of location, motion, dimension, speed, the length of time, frequency, etc. "Specific notions" correspond more closely to what we have become accustomed to calling "contexts" or "situations." Personal identification, for example, is a specific notion under which name, address, and phone number, and other personal information are subsumed. Other specific notions include travel, health and welfare, education, shopping, services and free time.

The "functional" part of the NFS corresponds to language functions. Curricula are organized around such functions as identifying, reporting, denying, accepting, declining, asking permission, apologizing, etc. Van Ek and Alexander list some seventy different language functions.

The NFS quickly provided social underpinnings for the development of communicative textbooks and materials and English language courses. A manual like Coffey's Fitting In, for example, was organized around the following sequence of functional topics:
<ul>
 	<li>Introductions, Greetings, Goodbyes</li>
 	<li>Invitations, Apologies, Condolences</li>
 	<li>Gratitude, Compliments, Congratulations</li>
 	<li>Requests, Commands, Warnings, Directions</li>
 	<li>Offers, Seeking Permission</li>
 	<li>Advice, Intentions</li>
 	<li>Pleasure, Displeasure</li>
 	<li>Expressing Your Opinion</li>
 	<li>Asking People to Repeat Themselves</li>
 	<li>Interrupting Someone</li>
 	<li>Changing the Topic of Conversation</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;

A typical unit in this textbook included a presentation of dialogues, conversation practice with a classmate, situations in which the student figures out "what would I say," role plays, and chart work. It could also include multiple-choice exercises on functional considerations, one-sided dialogues where the student fills in responses, nonverbal considerations, discussion activities, and "community practices" for extra-class practice. In this historical sketch of methodology, it is important to recognize that the NFS did not necessarily develop communicative competence in learners, but it did indeed set the stage for bigger and better things.

By attending to the functional purposes of language, and by providing contextual (notional) settings for the realization of those purposes, it provided a link between a dynasty of methods that were now perishing and a new era of language teaching called Communicative.

https://youtu.be/3kRT-rsKxn4

&nbsp;
<h2><strong>Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)</strong></h2>
&nbsp;

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is currently the "recognized approach" and the accepted norm in the field. Beyond grammatical and discourse elements in communication, CLT is probing the nature of social, cultural and pragmatic features of the language. It explores pedagogical means for "real-life" communication in the classroom. Teachers using CLT are trying to get their learners to develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that has so consumed their historical journey. They are equipping their students with tools for generating unrehearsed language performance "out there" when they leave the womb of the classroom. They are concerned with how to facilitate lifelong language learning among their students, not just with the immediate classroom task. They are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative venture. And their classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to reach their fullest potential.

David Nunan offers five features to characterize CLT in his book called Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers:

David Nunan offers five features to characterize CLT in his book called <u>Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers:</u>
<ul>
 	<li>An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language.</li>
 	<li>The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation.</li>
 	<li>The provision of opportunities for learners to focus, not only on language but also on the learning process itself.</li>
 	<li>An enhancement of the learners’ personal experiences as important contributing elements to classroom learning.</li>
 	<li>An attempt to link classroom language learning with language activation outside the classroom.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;

In <u>Materials and Methods in ELl McDonough and Shaw</u> note the following as implications of the Communicative Approach:
<ul>
 	<li>The concept of "being communicative" has to do with what a language has the potential to mean, as well with its formal grammatical properties</li>
 	<li>There is a complex relationship between language form and language function. In more traditional teaching materials, this relationship tends to be simplified, often implying a one-to-one correspondence so that interrogatives are used for "asking questions," imperatives for "giving commands," conditional for "making hypothetical statements" and so on. In a communicative perspective; our views on the properties of language have been explored, expanded and enriched.</li>
 	<li>Form and function operate as part of a wider network of factors since the real-world language in use do not work in a vacuum: So in addition to talking about language' function and language form, there are other dimensions of communication to be considered such as:
<ul>
 	<li>Topics (for example, health, transport, leisure activities, work, ... )</li>
 	<li>Context or setting (for example, personal conversation, business discussion, "situations" such as travel or medical settings, ... )</li>
 	<li>Roles of people involved (for example, stranger/stranger, friend/friend, Employee/boss, customer/person supplying service, ... )</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
Appropriacy of language use has to be considered alongside accuracy. This has implications for attitudes to error since the notion of error is no longer restricted only to incorrect grammar or perhaps a choice of vocabulary. If "being communicative" includes also paying attention to context, roles, and topics, them it is logically possible to make an error at any of these levels.

The Communicative method is relevant to all four language skills, NOT only to speak English. We can group together the oral skills of speaking and listening, and the "paper" skills of reading and writing. III both cases, we have a giver and a receiver of a message, and the ways in which the receiver understands the information in the message is an integral part of communication.

&nbsp;

The concept of communication takes us beyond the level of the sentence. A theory of communication can handle whole conversations, or paragraphs, or even longer texts. Categories for describing language have developed, in recent years, based on the broad notion of discourse. This concept gives us the possibility of showing how different parts of a text or a conversation or any stretch of language arc interlinked.

Communication can refer both to the properties of language and to behaviour, patterns of interaction. This behavioural "how" covers the kinds of activities we carry out and the tasks we perform in real-life.

&nbsp;

One of the most comprehensive lists of CLT features came some time ago from Finocchiaro and Brunt in The Functional-Notional Approach: From Theory to Practice in a comparison of Audio-lingual methodology with what they called the Communicative Approach.

&nbsp;

Because of its practicality and its detail, ALM is partially reproduced below:

<strong> </strong>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="221"><strong>Audio-lingual Method</strong></td>
<td width="221"><strong>Communicative Language Teaching</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Attends to structure and form more than, meaning</td>
<td width="221">Meaning is paramount</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Language items are not necessary

contextualized</td>
<td width="221">Contextualization is a basic premise</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Language learning is learning structures, sounds or words</td>
<td width="221">Language learning is learning to communicate</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Drilling is a central technique</td>
<td width="221">Drilling may occur, but peripherally</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Native-speaker-like pronunciation is sought</td>
<td width="221">Comprehensible pronunciation is sought</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">The Grammatical explanation has avoided</td>
<td width="221">Any device which helps the learners is accepted varying according to their age, interest, etc.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">The use of the student's native language is forbidden</td>
<td width="221">Judicious use of the mother tongue is accepted where feasible</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">The translation is forbidden at early levels</td>
<td width="221">The translation may be used where students may benefit from it</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Reading and writing are deferred until the speech is mastered.</td>
<td width="221">Reading and writing can start from the first day if desired</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">"Language is a habit" so the error must be prevented at all costs</td>
<td width="221">Language is created by the individual often through trial and error</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="221">Accuracy, in terms of formal correctness, is a primary goal</td>
<td width="221">Fluency and acceptable language is the primary goal</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<strong> </strong>

Indeed, there are many reasons why a communicative approach is an attractive one, providing a richer teaching and learning environment. It can:

&nbsp;
<ul>
 	<li>Include wider considerations of what is appropriate as well as what is accurate</li>
 	<li>Handle a wider range of languages, covering texts and conversations as well as sentences</li>
 	<li>Provide realistic and motivating language practice</li>
 	<li>Use what learners know about the functions of language from their experience with their mother tongues</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;

And while CLT is currently accepted as the recognized approach in the field of Second Language teaching, beware of:
<ul>
 	<li>Giving lip service to the principles of CLT (and related principles of cooperative learning, interactive teaching, learner-centred classes, content-centred education, whole-language, etc. See below) but not truly grounding your teaching techniques in such principles. No one these days would admit to disbelief in principles of CLT, but if you believe the term characterizes your teaching, then make sure you do indeed understand and practice your convictions.</li>
 	<li>Overdoing particular CLT features. For example, you engage in the real-life, authentic language in the classroom to the total exclusion of any potentially helpful controlled exercises, grammatical pointers, and other analytical devices. Or you simply simulate the real world out there but refrain from "interfering" in the ongoing flow of language. A healthy application of CLT principles requires moderation and the common sense to take advantage of the facilitative elements in the classroom context.</li>
 	<li>Numerous interpretations of what CLT is, because it is a catch-all term, it is tempting to figure that everyone agrees on its interpretation. They don't. In fact, some of those in the profession, with good reason, feel uncomfortable using the term. As long as you are aware of many possible versions of CLT, it is a term that can continue to capture current language teaching approaches.</li>
 	<li>Now, take a look at any recent ESL textbook and try to find one that is NOT "learner-centred," "cooperative," "interactive," "whole-language based," or, of course, "communicative"! Those are all concepts closely related to CLT, the latest fads in language teaching. They can also be qualified as legitimate attempts to label current concerns within the CLT framework. Here is a brief summary of each concept:</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
<ol>
 	<li><strong>Learner-centred Teaching.</strong></li>
</ol>
<h4>Learner-centred instruction includes:</h4>
<ul>
 	<li>
<h4>Techniques that focus on or account for learners' needs styles and goals.</h4>
</li>
 	<li>
<h4>Techniques that give some control to the student (group work, for example)</h4>
</li>
 	<li>
<h4>Curricula that include the consultation and input of students and that do not presuppose objectives in advance.</h4>
</li>
 	<li>
<h4>Techniques that allow for student creativity and innovation.</h4>
</li>
 	<li>
<h4>Techniques that enhance a student's sense of competence and self-worth.</h4>
</li>
</ul>
<h4>Because language teaching is a domain that so often presupposes classrooms where students have very little language proficiency with which to negotiate with the teacher, some teachers shy away from the notion of giving learners the power associated with a learner-centred approach. Such restraint is not necessary because even in beginning level classes, teachers can offer students certain choices. All of these efforts help to give students a sense of "ownership" of their learning and thereby add to their intrinsic motivation.</h4>
&nbsp;
<ol>
 	<li>
<h2><strong>Cooperative Learning</strong></h2>
</li>
</ol>
A curriculum or classroom that is cooperative and therefore NOT competitive usually involves the above learner-centred characteristics. As students work together ill pairs or groups, they share information and come to each other’s aid. The term "cooperative" also emphasizes the collaborative efforts of students and teachers are working together to pursue goals and objectives.

&nbsp;
<ol>
 	<li>
<h2><strong>Interactive Learning</strong></h2>
</li>
</ol>
At the heart of current theories of communicative competence is the essentially interactive nature of communication. When you speak, for example, the extent to which your intended message is received is a factor of both your production and the listener's reception. Interactive classes will most likely be found:
<ul>
 	<li>Doing a significant amount of pair work and group work.</li>
 	<li>Receiving valid language input in real-world contexts.</li>
 	<li>Producing language for genuine, meaningful communication.</li>
 	<li>Performing classroom tasks that prepare them for actual language use "out there."</li>
 	<li>Practicing oral communication through the give and take and spontaneity of real conversations.</li>
 	<li>Writing to and for real audiences, not imaginary ones.</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
<h2><strong>Whole Language Education</strong></h2>
One of the most attractive terms currently sweeping through our profession, "whole language" has been so widely interpreted that it, unfortunately, is on the verge of losing its impact. Initially, the term was used to emphasize (1.) the "wholeness" of language as opposed to views that fragmented language into bits and pieces or phonemes and words.  (2.) It was used for the interaction and interconnections between oral language and written language; (3.) and the importance of the written code as natural and developmental, just as the oral code is. The whole language is a label that has been used to describe:
<ul>
 	<li>Cooperative learning</li>
 	<li>Student-centred learning</li>
 	<li>Focus on the community of learners</li>
 	<li>Focus on the social nature of language</li>
 	<li>Use of authentic, natural language</li>
 	<li>Meaning-centred language</li>
 	<li>Integration of the four skills</li>
</ul>
With all these interpretations, it is hard to distinguish it from CL T in general. Its original intent, however, was to refer to the wholeness of language itself. Language is NOT the sum of its many dissectible and discrete parts. And since part of the wholeness of language includes interrelationships of the four skills, we are compelled to attend conscientiously to the integration of two or more of these skills in our classrooms

https://youtu.be/bkMQXFOqyQA
<h2><strong>Total Physical Response (TPR)</strong></h2>
Total Physical Response is a teaching method built around the coordination of speech and action. It attempts to teach language through motor (physical) activity.

Developed by James Asher at San Jose State University, California, its origins go back to the 1920's, and it draws on several traditions, including developmental psychology, learning theory, and humanistic pedagogy. Like Krashen, Asher sees successful adult second language learning as running along parallel lines to that of mother tongue acquisition in children. Again, comprehension is put before production. As with the Natural Approach, many hours may pass before the student produces speech utterances.

At the early stages, students will act out the requests made by the teacher.  Everybody raise their left arms. Maria, walk slowly to the door.  As students progress in understanding and confidence, more complex patterns are introduced.

Sandro, pass the white block to the student with a red ribbon in her hair. Elaine, take a sip of water and pass the cup to Suzannah.

It is claimed that TPR reduces the stress felt by second language learners and, therefore, efficient acquisition can take place. Towards the end of a course, which can last up to 160 hours, students may be invited to verbalize their intentions.

Pedro, ask Carmen to open the door. Pierre, tell Mommy you're sorry.
<p class="page-title"></p>

<div class="page" title="Page 4">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<h3></h3>
<h3 id="quiz_title" style="text-align: center;"></h3>
<ul id="quiz_student_details"></ul>
<div class="description user_content student-version enhanced">

&nbsp;

</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>