The swinging pendulum is often used as a metaphor to describe the changing theoretical perspectives that underpin a language teaching method.
Just like a pendulum that swings left and right, numerous language teaching methods have also been swinging back and forth, with a shifting emphasis on either form or meaning.
The audiolingual method that was born some 50 years ago, for example, placed a heavy emphasis on language form. The key assumption is that learning a language is about learning how to master its structural property, i.e., sounds, words, and sentences.
The main job of the teacher is to teach these structural properties to the students. The rest, i.e., how to use these for communication, is left to the students to work out on their own.
Clearly, the pendulum swung to the left giving language elements a prominent place in language teaching.
Soon after, as a reaction to the overemphasis on language forms, the Natural Approach with its emphasis on meaning was born. Language should not be broken up into small pieces in order to be acquired piece by piece. This is not how people acquire their first language. Language should be presented in meaningful chunks. As long as the language is meaningful and comprehensible, learning will take place quite naturally.
This time, the pendulum swung to the right; meaning should come first and language should be presented holistically in meaningful ways. And language acquisition will take care of itself with minimal intervention or instruction from teachers.
Language teaching methods that came into the ELT scene after the Natural Approach have tended to give a heavier emphasis on meaning, while acknowledging the role of form in language learning. These include the Communicative Language Teaching and its variant, the Task-based Language Teaching.
More recently, the Genre-based Approach came into being, with its proponents coming mostly from Australia. In a nutshell, this approach is best described as a method of language teaching that gives a balanced emphasis on form and meaning.
Language is first presented in meaningful chunks (e.g., a dialogue, a narrative etc.). Key language elements are then extracted for focused instruction. Afterward, students are shown another similar meaningful language chunks (e.g., dialogue, a narrative etc) for them to appreciate and experience.
We are currently experiencing a state of equilibrium where language teaching methods are concerned. The pendulum seems to have stopped moving to the left or right. We are neither leaning towards form or meaning. Both have claimed their rightful place in our attempt to help our students acquire language in the classroom.
Will this state of equilibrium continue for years to come? I doubt it. Despite extensive research into the nature of instructed language learning, we know very little about the actual processes that enable people to learn to use a new language accurately, fluently and appropriately.
I hope in the next 10 or 20 years, advances in neuroscience and artificial intelligence may shed lights on the more precise description of second language acquisition, and give rise to a new language teaching methodology that allows for a higher degree of customization to cater to the needs of a wide range of learners who learn the language for different purposes.
