Foreign language teaching and learning: A brief sketch
Minh Thi Thuy Nguyen and Willy A Renandya, 26 Sep 2024
Abstract
This chapter delves into the evolution of English language teaching, tracing its path from the grammar-translation method’s dominance in the 19th century to the emergence of communicative language teaching in the mid-20th century. This paradigm shift prioritized real-life communication skills and drew from principles of applied linguistics and SLA (Second Language Acquisition) research. Despite significant progress that has been made, ongoing debates persist as the field endeavors towards a more comprehensive understanding of language learning and development in the 21st century.
Keywords: Foreign language, second language acquisition, communicative competence, task-based, interface hypothesis, input, output, interaction, social identity, multilingualism
Key points
- To trace the evolution of English language teaching methods from grammar-translation to communicative approaches.
- To explore the influence of SLA research on second language (L2) pedagogy.
- To ientify and explore unresolved issues in L2 teaching to guide future research and development efforts.
Introduction
The chapter aims to explore the evolution of English teaching methods, spanning from traditional language-focused approaches to contemporary communication-focussed methodologies. It begins by examining the grammatical emphasis prevalent in English instruction during the 19th century, transitioning towards a communicative approach in the mid-20th century. This shift, informed by advances in SLA research, gave a heavier emphasis on practical communication skills over rote grammar memorization. While this shift has significantly impacted the way English is taught and assessed today, ongoing discussions persist regarding the most effective teaching practices. This ongoing debate not only reflects the complexity of L2 learning but also emphasizes the importance of adapting teaching methodologies in order to meet the evolving needs of learners in the 21st century.
A brief history of foreign language teaching
The history of modern language teaching dates back to the 19th century when foreign languages began to be taught in school curricula, which created the need for some sort of a systematic way of teaching languages. Over the years, different approaches, methods and techniques have emerged. While some gradually fell out of favour, others gained popularity or renewed interest. Today’s language teaching practices are rarely informed by a single set of prescribed techniques or procedures. Rather, teachers often select and combine principles and methods in a way that works best for their classrooms and teaching contexts. This section addresses some of the major movements that are most relevant to FL teaching contexts, from traditional grammar-based methods to more recent developments such as communicative language teaching and task-based teaching.
Grammar-translation
This method stood out as one of the earliest in the history of language teaching. Originally used for teaching classical languages and literatures such as Latin and Greek during the 16th century, the grammar-translation method (GLM) successfully made its way into other FL classrooms in the 19th century. As its name suggests, GLM was based on grammar study and translation exercises as its main techniques (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). In a typical lesson, students would first receive direct grammar explanations and memorise grammar rules and vocabulary. Subsequently, they would practise new language forms by translating disconnected sentences from their first language (L1) to the target language (TL), or vice versa. There was little attention to communicative language skills development. This is because GLM advocates believed that the goal of language teaching was to enable learners to understand literary texts in the TL, rather than to use TL for communication. Due to these shortcomings, GLM was deemed ineffective in preparing second language (L2) learners for real-world language use. As such, the method saw a rapid decline in popularity over time. However, its traces may still be observed in some exam-oriented, grammar-based FL classrooms nowadays.
Audiolingualism
The audiolingual method (ALM), also known as the aural-oral method, was initially developed in the USA during World War II, and later adopted widely around the globe. Unlike the GLM, which lacked a theoretical base, the ALM was rooted in structural linguistics and behaviour psychology (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Advocates of this method viewed language as a system of rules and language learning as the formation of habits through overlearning. The goal of language teaching was then to enable learners to overcome the old habits of their L1 and form new habits in the TL. To achieve this, learners were made to mimic and memorise TL model sentences, often in isolation from meaning and context. Repetitive drill exercises were main classroom activities, and teacher feedback was provided during this process to reinforce correctness and prevent L1 transfer.
There were many problems with the ALM. First, like the GLM, audiolingual teaching focused heavily on accuracy, with little attention to language use in context. Although deliberate practice was used to consolidate grammar knowledge, this kind of practice never extended beyond the sentence-level. Furthermore, there was little tolerance for errors of any kind, and errors were often treated immediately to prevent them from recurring. Nonetheless, such overcorrection could dampen learners’ motivation, and there was no evidence of its effectiveness. As research has shown, errors are a natural and necessary part of language development and can be resistant to correction until learners are developmentally ready. Finally, the ALM was based on the tenet that languages are learned effectively through mimicry and memorisation. However, this account of language learning has been refuted by current second language acquisition (SLA) research, which has demonstrated that language abilities only develop through meaningful communication (Long, 1996; Ellis, 2003). The ALM falls short in this aspect due to the limited opportunities for learners to engage in communicative language use. As the field finally moved on from a structural view of language and behaviourist models of language learning from the 1960s onwards, this method also lost its influence.
The oral-situational approach
This approach emerged as an alternative to the ALM in the 1960s, starting in the UK and later spreading to other contexts. Although its earlier version, just like the ALM, drew heavily on behaviourist learning theories, what set it apart was its emphasis on teaching grammar in context. Currently, the approach has primarily been informed by skills-acquisition theories (Anderson, 1983; DeKeyser, 2014), and adopted the presentation-practice-production (PPP) procedure as its main methodology. In a PPP lesson, learners first received explicit instruction to build knowledge of the new grammatical structure. They then engaged in controlled practice in order to master the structure, and finally applied the structure in new contexts to further refine their knowledge.
Similar to the ALM, the oral-situational approach has been criticised for being grammar-oriented rather than communication-oriented. The PPP has also faced criticism for teaching discrete language points rather than treating language as a complete system. The PPP was based on the assumption that grammar is learned in a linear, cumulative fashion, where individual forms are mastered one after another. However, SLA research has shown that the language system is acquired as a whole, and learners often work on different aspects of language simultaneously (Ellis, 2003).
Communicative language teaching
Dissatisfaction with grammar-based teaching methods has necessitated a more radical reform in language teaching in the 1970s. As a result, the arrival of communicative language teaching (CLT) was received with much enthusiasm. CLT drew on functional views of language, which emphasised the purposes served by language in social situations (Austin, 1965; Halliday, 1973) and put communicative competence (e.g., Hymes, 1972) in the centre of language teaching. Communicative competence refers to the ability to use language in context. The concept was first introduced by Hymes (1972) in response to the neglect of social dimensions of language in structural linguistics (e.g., see Chomsky, 1957), and was subsequently elaborated further by other scholars as a theoretical model for language teaching and assessment (e.g., Celce-Murcia et al., 1995; Celce-Murcia, 2007).
Today communicative competence is understood as encompassing not only knowledge of linguistic codes (linguistic competence) and formulas (formulaic competence) but also social codes of language use (sociocultural competence), as well as the ability to produce extended discourse (discourse competence) and participate competently in interaction (interactional competence) using appropriate verbal and non-verbal strategies (strategic competence) (Celce-Murcia, 2007). As such, CLT viewed language teaching and learning as involving not only vocabulary and grammar, but also learning to communicate meanings and perform social actions in interaction. Another characteristic of CLT was the equal emphasis on all four language skills, and extensive use of authentic texts and communicative activities (e.g., role-plays, discussions, problem-solving) for language practice.
It should be noted, however, that CLT is not a uniform method, but rather a broad framework that can be interpreted and applied in different ways. Conventionally, there were at least two versions of CLT in practice (Howatt, 1984). The ‘weak’ version was often associated with the notional-functional syllabus (Wilkins, 1976), which was described as a ‘learning to use language’ approach. In this version, classroom materials were organised around notional (e.g., time, space) and functional meanings (e.g., requests, invitations, complaints), and language forms for expressing these meanings were practised progressively from more controlled to freer situations (see the PPP discussed above). This approach has come under scrutiny in recent years, however. Its critics argue that despite a shift from traditional concepts of grammar, the ‘weak’ version still taught fragments of language, rather than teaching language as a whole. Importantly, due to its methodological focus on accuracy, it is said not to differ significantly from traditional grammar-based approaches (Ellis et al., 2019).
The ‘strong’ version of CLT emphasised ‘using language to learn’ it, and was often associated with task-based language teaching (TBT) (Ellis, 2003). Advocates of this approach argued that communicative competence develops primarily from authentic communication; therefore, teaching should replicate this natural language environment. TBLT was built around tasks specially designed to engage learners in using language in the same manner as they would in real-world contexts (e.g., information gathering, reasoning, problem-solving). In TBLT, learners were encouraged to draw on any language resources available to help them achieve the task outcome, rather than restricting themselves to the language features taught in the lesson. This approach helped learners to gradually develop grammar knowledge through using language to achieve communicative goals. Unlike the ‘weak’ version, which broke teaching content into discrete language features, TLBT treated language learning as an organic, integrated process. TBLT prioritised meaning, while also allowing learners to attend to form. However, unlike grammar-based approaches, TBLT supporters maintain that attention to form should only occur in contexts where communication is the primary focus. Although the ‘weak’ version of CLT still underlies many FL classrooms and textbooks today, TBLT has recently gained traction and attracted increased support from teachers in contexts where traditional methods once dominated.
Current issues in foreign language teaching and learning
Since the 20th century, the field of language teaching has established itself as a strand within applied linguistics, drawing its principles and theories primarily from SLA research. SLA is concerned with how people learn a L2, from both a cognitive and social perspective. Over the past decades, SLA theories have rapidly evolved to contribute to our understanding of L2 acquisition processes and directly influence language pedagogy. However, most researchers today concur that the field is still far from reaching a stage where a full account of language learning and development can be provided. As the field continues to develop, some issues also remain the object of ongoing inquiry and debate. This section addresses some of the key issues in language teaching and learning in relation to current SLA research.
The interface between explicit and implicit knowledge
Language learning is a complex endeavour, involving both cognitive and social factors. From a cognitive perspective, a central question is whether L2 learning is primarily implicit or requires some level of consciousness; in other words, whether explicit learning plays any role in L2 development (Ellis, 2014). This question is related to the development of two types of linguistic knowledge. Implicit (procedural) knowledge refers to the type of knowledge that native speakers possess about their own language, that is intuitive, unconscious knowledge available for automatic language use. This knowledge allows learners to use the TL fluently. Explicit (declarative) knowledge is the conscious understanding of how language works.This knowledge helps learners recognise and explain why a sentence is correct, but because it is accessed through controlled processing, language performance using it can be slow and error-prone. While it is widely accepted that implicit knowledge should be the ultimate goal of language teaching, different theories exist regarding what type of teaching facilitates its development, and whether the teaching of explicit knowledge (e.g., through grammar instruction) has any values (Ellis, 2014).
The non-interface position (e.g., Krashen, 1981), which assumes no direct link between the two types of knowledge, suggests that since implicit knowledge is acquired through communication, all that learners require is meaning-focused teaching. Explicit learning through grammar instruction, while contributing to the development of explicit knowledge, has little impact on implicit knowledge. Language teaching approaches informed by this position prioritise meaning-based communication over conscious learning of forms (e.g., the TBTL). Conversely, the strong interface position, drawing on skills-acquisition theories (e.g., DeKeyser, 2014), proposes that TL knowledge is initially explicit, but it can gradually be transformed into implicit knowledge if learners have ample practice opportunities. This approach can be observed in methodology such as the PPP, which is based on deliberate learning of forms and systematic practice. Finally the weak interface position (e.g., Ellis, 1993) maintains that although explicit knowledge cannot be directly turned into implicit knowledge through deliberate practice, it does facilitate ‘noticing’, which is essential for L2 acquisition (Schmidt, 1993). According to this position, therefore, while the primary focus of teaching should be on meaning-based communication, some attention to grammar is necessary. This approach supports the use of consciousness-raising tasks to help learners deduce grammatical rules from language data. Currently, while tensions continue to exist regarding the relationship between explicit and implicit knowledge, there is a growing consensus among researchers that conscious attention to form is beneficial for language learning (Ellis, 2014). However, grammar should not be the main focus of teaching as is the case in traditional grammar-based methods.
The role of input, output and interaction
Another key issue in SLA research revolves around the role of language input versus output and interaction in language learning. Again, there exist different theoretical positions on this matter. Researchers such as Krashen (1981), for example, suggest that just like children acquiring their first language in input-rich environments, L2 learners also need substantial exposure to comprehensible input (i.e., language input modified to match learners’ levels) to develop their language competence. Krashen goes even further to argue that comprehensible input is the only driving factor in L2 acquisition, while output production plays no role, but is a mere sign of acquisition. The Natural Approach proposed by Krashen and Terrell (1983) emphasises comprehension-based activities (e.g., listening tasks) during the early stage of language learning to ensure learners receive sufficient input. Output production activities (e.g., speaking activities), on the other hand, can be postponed until learners have acquired some language through comprehension.
To date, while the role of input is generally acknowledged, not all researchers agree that naturalistic exposure would suffice for L2 acquisition to take place. Researchers such as Schmidt (1993) argue that learners must consciously attend to a language form in order to acquire it. If a language form is not noticed by the learner, it is unlikely to be processed further and integrated into the learner’s long term memory. Similarly, VanPatten (1996) calls for a teaching approach that allows learners to deeply process form in relation to meaning in order to learn from input.
There is also less consensus among researchers regarding the role of output. From the perspective of skills-acquisition theories, output practice is required for turning explicit knowledge into implicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2014). Classroom instruction, therefore, should create opportunities for systematic output practice to facilitate these acquisition processes. Other scholars such as Swain (1995) argue that output is not only useful but also necessary because it enables learners to ‘notice the gap’ in their linguistic knowledge. This occurs particularly when learners encounter difficulties conveying meaning, which brings to their attention what they need to work further on. Additionally, the act of producing language also allows learners to test their knowledge of the TL. An example of this can be seen when learners overgeneralise language rules and make errors. Sometimes when this happens, learners may receive feedback to modify their output, which can lead to conscious reflection on their language use, and as a result, enhanced metalinguistic awareness. This is similar to the concepts of negotiation of meaning and interactional modifications discussed by researchers such as Long (1996) and Pica (1994). In particular, interactional modifications happen when communication breaks down, leading participants to negotiate meaning to re-establish mutual understanding. Researchers argue that this type of negotiated input provides greater opportunities for gap noticing, hence more beneficial for L2 development than premodified input (e.g., simplified texts). It follows that classroom teaching should incorporate more interaction-based activities (e.g., communicative tasks) to facilitate these processes.
The social dimension of language learning
Since the late 1990s, SLA has expanded to integrate social and multilingual approaches in its theoretical orientations and research paradigms. These approaches have contributed to reshaping our understanding of the nature of language use and learning as socially situated phenomena, and reconceptualising a number of key constructs from cognitive theories. For example, from socially-oriented SLA perspectives, language competence is not solely the result of language learning, or mental representation, but is demonstrated through language practices deployed by participants in interaction (Hellerman & Lee, 2014). Interactional competence (the ability to participate as social members, using the L2) is thus emphasised over abstract grammar knowledge as the primary goal of language learning and teaching. Furthermore, rather than viewing language learning as an individual endeavour, social approaches to SLA emphasise social cognition, or what learners do and achieve together within specific ‘learning-in-interaction’ processes (Firth & Wagner, 2007). In other words, learners are seen as social actors who have agency to shape their learning process and outcomes.
From the multilingual perspective, learners are also recognised as ‘multicompetent’ speakers (Cook, 1999) with distinct identities, subjectivities and individuality who may only seek to add the L2 to their linguistic repertoires rather than aiming to emulate native-speaker competence. This has resulted in the shift in SLA research from comparing L2 use against monolingual speakers’ standards to describing how learners draw on a range of meaning-making resources to accomplish social goals, and how they develop the ability to do so. In other words, the goal of language learning is no longer understood as learning to use the L2 in the way that is appropriate for the cultural values and ideologies of the native speaker. Instead, it is to enable learners to use L2 resources flexibly to meet their specific communicative needs and navigate complexities of social contexts without losing the sense of self and identity. In English teaching, for example, there is an increasing recognition of the diverse sociocultural contexts in which English is used as well as the need to move beyond monocultural English models in curriculum materials, teaching and assessment practices (McKay, 2003).
Conclusion
This chapter has presented a brief overview of the history of English language teaching and learning, ranging from traditional teaching methodologies such as grammar translation, audio-lingual, and aural situational approaches (which primarily emphasize the learning of language structures), to contemporary methodologies such as communicative and task-based language teaching (which prioritize communication skills development). These newer approaches mark a shift towards more interactive and student-centred learning environments, i.e., approaches that foster authentic language use and meaningful communication. The chapter has also brought to light unresolved issues that have generated lively debates in the professional literature. These include the debate on implicit versus explicit language knowledge, the significance of input, interaction, and output, and the influence of social contexts on language acquisition. We envision that, with the rapid advancements in educational technology, future language teaching methodologies will be greatly shaped by its integration.
References
Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press.
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5–35.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. Alcón-Soler & M.P. Safont-Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning pp. (41–57). Springer.
Chomsky, N. (l957) Syntactic structures. De Gruyter.
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2014). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). Routledge.
Ellis, R. (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2014). Principles of instructed second language learning. In M. Celce-Murcia, D.M. Brinton, & M.A. Snow (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (4th ed., pp. 31-45). National Geographic Learning.
Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788920148
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold.
Hellerman, J., & Lee, Y. A. (2014). Members and their competencies: Contributions of ethnomethodological conversation analysis to a multilingual turn in second language acquisition. System, 44, 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.006
Howatt, A. (1984). A history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (l972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp 269–293). Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach. Language acquisition in the classroom. Alemany Press.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
McKay, S. L. (2003). Toward an appropriate EIL pedagogy: Re-examining common
ELT assumptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 1–22.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 44, 493–527.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024532
Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43–57). Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Ablex.