STEPS TO DESIGN MATERIAL

In this essay, I shall present three methods of language teaching in a sequence which corresponds roughly to its historical development, but it should not be assumed that each method in turn was abandoned in favor of its successor.  The situation is more complex than that.  To begin with, it is certainly true that all three methods have survived intact and are still being used by teachers somewhere in the world.  Moreover, the methods themselves have been modified by teachers and textbook writers, while still remaining recognizably the same basic method.  Then there have been considerable borrowings from one method by another so that some amalgamated versions have resulted.  The three following methods are classic examples and offer a clear picture of the way language teaching has developed.

The grammar translation method was only called a method by later methodologists who were pointing out its weaknesses.  For a long time, it was uncritically assumed that this was the only way languages should be taught.  The method consisted of giving the students grammatical rules and lists of forms arranged according to a grammatical pattern.  Students were also given lists of vocabulary together with their translation equivalents in the mother tongue.  First, the students had to memorize all these facts about the language and they were often tested on their knowledge by being asked to recite the grammatical rules or give the translation of words.  Next, the students were made to put their knowledge to use by translating sentences or texts from mother tongue to foreign language or vice-versa.  In retrospect, there were some serious, and of course, obvious disadvantages to this method.

Firstly, the grammatical analysis was very satisfactory for the grammarians who had devised it, but it often made facts about the language very confusing to the students.   Secondly, the method put a tremendous strain on student’s memories.  Additionally, word-to-word translations were often unsatisfactory.  The students had to learn a lot of grammatical terms.  In fact, they had to learn a new language for talking about language.

The direct method, often called the oral method or the natural method, was apparently developed as a reaction to the grammar translation method, or at least, it is what has been pointed out.  The simple idea behind the direct method is that we learn languages by hearing them spoken and engaging in conversation: reading and writing can be developed later.  Practitioners of this method immersed their students in a flow of examples of the spoken language, while actively demonstrating the meaning of what they were saying, if possible suiting their actions to the words.  At the same time they would encourage their students to speak, often by asking questions.

The audio-lingual method consists of presenting an oral model to the student and carrying out a series of pattern drills based on the model.  To start, students should first listen; then speak, then read; and finally write the language.  In second place, the grammar should be presented in the form of model patterns or dialogues.  In third place, Drilling consisted of forming new utterances on the basis of the original pattern.  Students should always be rewarded when they responded correctly by seeing that they had gotten the answer right.  Students should proceed by very easy steps, starting with simple repetition and going on to simple drills, then more complex drills and so on.  Ideally, the possibility of a student making an error should be avoided altogether.  Finally by repeating the stages of stimulus-response-reinforcement students would develop correct language habits.