# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Resource Description:

After attending a Task-Based Instruction (TBI) workshop at the TESOL International Convention and English Language Expo in March 2015, I began to think about ways that I could implement these ideas in my own adult ESL context. Task-Teach-Task is a simplified TBI framework that focuses on using lead-in tasks (Task 1) to support instructors in diagnosing needs of students and helping learners self-assess their own knowledge. This formative assessment data is then used by the instructor to provide targeted instruction (Teach) based on the focal language feature(s) elicited by the first task (Task 1) and once again demonstrated in a different task (Task 2). In this instructional cycle, tasks are strategically developed with a focus on conveying meaning, eliciting language that is used by the learner for a communicative purpose and facilitating interaction and collaboration while utilizing focal language features. Over the course of six-weeks, I specifically practiced implementing Task-Teach-Task with feedback from other ELT Professionals and developed a template and several lessons.

Materials and Technology: TaskTeachTask_LessonPlanTemplate

TaskTeachTask_SampleLessonPlanwithSupportingMaterials

You will also find these files under the "Uploaded Files" section of this teaching tip.

Ellis, R. (2009). Task‐based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. References: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 221-246.

Plews, J. L., & Zhao, K. (2010). Tinkering with tasks knows no bounds: ESL teachers' adaptations of task-based language-teaching. TESL Canada Journal, 28(1), 41.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language teaching, 36(01), 1-14.

William, S. (2015, February). Task-Based Instruction: Building Bridges from Classroom to Real Life. Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolalis/issues/2015-02-06/7.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Task-Based Instruction: Task-Teach-Task Lesson Plan Template

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Resource Description: After attending a Task-Based Instruction (TBI) workshop at the TESOL International Convention and English Language Expo in March 2015, I began to think about ways that I could implement these ideas in my own adult ESL context.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The natural approach developed by Tracy Terrell and supported by Stephen Krashen is a language teaching approach which claims that language learning is a reproduction of the way humans naturally acquire their native language. The approach adheres to a communicative approach to language teaching and rejects earlier methods such as the audiolingual method and the situational language teaching approach which Krashen and Terrell (1983) believe are not based on "actual theories of language acquisition but theories of the structure of language "

The Natural Approach vs the Direct Method

Although The Natural approach and the Direct Method (also called the natural method) share some features, there are important differences. Like the direct method, the natural approach is

" believed to conform to the naturalistic principles found in second language acquisition. Unlike the direct method, however, it places less emphasis on teacher monologues, direct repetion,and formal questions and answers, and less focus on accurate production of target language sentences" (Richards and Rodgers, 1986:129)

Theory of language

Krashen and Terrell view communication as the primary function of language, and adhere to a communicative approach to language teaching, focusing on teaching communicative abilities rather than sterile language structures.

What really distinguishes the Natural approach from other methods and approaches are its premises concerning the use of language and the importance of vocabulary:

Language is viewed as a vehicle for communicating meaning and messages.

Vocabulary is of paramount importance as language is essentially its lexicon!

This means that language acquisition cannot take place unless the acquirer understands messages in the target language and has developed sufficient vocabulary inventory. In fact, it should be easier to reconstruct a message containing just vocabulary items than one containing just the grammatical structures.

Theory of learning

Krashen grounded the Natural approach on a number of learning tenets.

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

Krashen makes a distinction between acquisition and learning.

Krashen defines acquisition as developing competence by using language for real communication. It is a natural way of developing the abilty to speak a language, paralleling first language development in children and refers to an unconscious process that involves the naturalistic development of language proficiency through understanding language and through using language for meaningful communication.

Learning, however, refers to formal knowledge of a language. It is the process in which conscious rules about a language are developed. It results in explicit knowledge about the forms of a language and the ability to verbalize this knowledge. Formal teaching is necessary for "learning" to occur, and the correction of errors helps with the development of learned rules.

The Monitor Hypothesis

Conscious learning can function only as a monitor or editor that checks and repairs the output of the acquired system. The Monitor Hypothesis states that we may use learned knowledge to correct ourselves when we communicate, but that conscious learning has only this function. Three conditions limit the successful use of the monitor:

1. Time. Sufficient time for a learner to choose and apply a learned rule.

2. Focus on form. Focus on the correctness or on the form of the output.

3. Knowledge of rules. Knowing the rules is a prerequisite for the use of the monitor.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The acquisition of grammatical structures proceeds in a predictable order. Certain grammatical structures or morphemes are acquired before others in first language acquisition of English, and the Natural Order Hypothesis claims that the same natural order is found in second language acquisition. It is also believed that errors are signs of naturalistic developmental processes. Similar developmental errors occur in learners during acquisition (but not during learning) no matter what their native language is

The Input Hypothesis

The Input Hypothesis relates to acquisition, not to learning and states that people acquire language best by understanding input that is slightly beyond their level of competence. Krashen refers to this by the formula L +1 (where L+1 is the stage immediately following L along some natural order.) Comprehension is achieved through linguistic and extralinguistic context clues including knowledge about the world, the context of the situation etc... Comprehension precedes the emergence of speaking as fluency appears only as a result of the provision of sufficient comprehensible input. By comprehensible input, Krashen means the utterances that learners understand based on linguistic and extralinguistic context and which consists of a sort of simplified code. He contends that when there is such comprehensible input, language acquisition proceeds successfully. Krashen also claims that when there is enough of such comprehensible input, L+1will usually be provided automatically and

Affective Filter Hypothesis

There are three types of emotional attitudinal factors that may affect acquisition and that may impede, block or freely passes necessary input for acquisition. These are motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety. Acquirers with a high affective filter are less likely to develop competence.

In a nutshell

Teaching according to the Natural Approach involves the following principles:

Teaching according to the Natural approach focuses on communicative abilities.

One of its objectives is to help beginners become intermediate.

Vocabulary is considered prior to syntactic structures.

A lot of comprehensible input must be provided.

Use of visual aids to help comprehension.

The focus is on listening and reading. Speaking emerges later.

Reducing the high affective filter by

focusing on meaningful communication rather than on form.

providing interesting comprehensible input

The technique used in this approach are often borrowed from other methods and adapted to meet the requirement of the approach. These include:

Conclusion

The Natural Approach belongs to a tradition of language acquisition where the naturalistic features of L1 acquisition are utilized in the L2 acquisition. It is an approach that draws a variety of techniques from other methods and approaches to reach this goal which is one of its advantages. But the originality of this approach does not lie in these techniques but on the emphasis on activities based on comprehensible input and meaningful communication rather than on only grammatical mastery of language.

References:

To read more on the Natural Approach and other methods:

Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Longman

Others sources:
Wikipedia: The Natural Approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Natural Approach to language teaching

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The natural approach developed by Tracy Terrell and supported by Stephen Krashen is a language teaching approach which claims that language learning is a reproduction of the way humans naturally acquire their native language.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Organizations -big or small- are struggling in the harsh business environment riddled with flailing economies, dropping GDPs, and rising demographic challenges. As such, the common mantra across organizations is to strive to be efficient, lean, and productive. Leadership is ready to invest in the training and development of their workforce, but wants proof of Returns on Investment (ROI). Gone are the days of extensive global travel for the Facilitators and Participants or even culture of taking off from work to attend multi-day classroom programs. Learning and Development units are showing a keen interest in measuring and showcasing the outcome of learning programs. They are looking to design learning solutions that minimize time off-the-desk and maximize returns in terms of increased proficiency directly impacting business goals. The focus is not just on how the training programs are conducted, but also on how and by when can their impact be seen. This shift can be observed in most of recent training development proposals that ask for strategies for implementing 70-20-10 framework, measuring ROI, and designing outcome-based learning solutions.

This got me thinking; Can Learning and Development (L&D) alone implement a 70-20-10 model and an outcome-based framework in an organization?

What other functions and areas of governance need to synchronize to realistically implement such a framework?

Let's explore this some more.

1. Examining Organization's Vision And Mission

Where does the journey start? ROI and outcome-based learning dictate that learning objectives must tie back to organizational business goals. After all, the outcome of the training must fulfill some business objective. So the journey really starts from the top.

The organizational vision and mission statements define the essence of its existence and aspirations. Therefore, it is important that there is clear, consistent, and transparent articulation of organization's vision and mission across all levels. A clear vision and an actionable mission provide a direction to the entire organization. Some questions that must be considered are:

Does the organization have clearly articulated vision and mission?

Is there a common interpretation of the vision and mission across all levels of employees?

2. Translating Vision Into Goals

Next, it is critical to translate the mission into organization's finite goals. The leadership defines this in the form of short-term and long-term goals of the company. The Human Resources plays a critical role here in taking the vision of the organization and reflecting it in the job descriptions, competency model, and sharing the gaps with Learning and Development to facilitate development plans. Some important questions are:

Are the organizational short-term and long-term goals aligned to the vision?

What behaviors, skills, and competencies should the employees demonstrate across various roles to fulfill the vision?

Do the job profiles elucidate these behaviors, skills, and competencies?

What skills and competencies need developed in the workforce to align to the goals?

3. Cascading Goals

The focus is now on distilling the vision and organizational goals to a granular level such that each associate understands the role they play in the big scheme of things. The HR along with the business functions and department heads needs to define and articulate the team goals that are aligned to the organizational goals. This helps in focusing the activity into smaller groups. Let teams take a critical look at their functioning and skills set to identify areas of development. Let them identify the competencies that need to be built within the teams. It is desirable that the goals be cascaded down, right to the level of an Individual so that the growth aspirations of an individual and the organization are aligned.

When this framework is in place, it feeds valuable data and information to Learning and Development to create focused training plans and development initiatives.

4. Identifying The Appropriate Learning Solution

Looking at the training development from another angle, an important question that must be addressed when designing training is; Is training the right solution for the problem/issue?

Many times, as soon as a problem is faced or a negative client feedback is received, everyone stresses the need to train our people. Error data and feedback are collated to push the case for immediate training. However, it is advised to move with caution here. Has a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) been done for the issue? Does it indicate knowledge or a skill gap? If yes, then by all means start designing your training. But if it indicates a breakdown of communication or any other factors, then review carefully if it is the process or systems that need to be reviewed.

In fact, the findings of the RCA can be quite helpful in deciding what kind of training should be designed to address the need. For example, a lack of core knowledge in the team might require a formal classroom, self-paced or blended learning program (the formal 10%). However, a gap in the skills of new on-boarded team members might require planning mentoring sessions with seasoned team members (the collaborative 20%); while an inability of the team to grasp the nuances of an updated process might need creation of job aids to provide performance support (the on-the-job 70%).

5. Aligning The Learning Objectives To Performance Objectives

At a granular level, when you start creating design and content for the training it pays to keep validating whether the performance objectives are being met by the training or learning component. For example, the learning objective: Learners will be able to identify the different sales strategies is a clear objective for the training, but how and where will this knowledge help them when they start talking to customers is something that should be highlighted in the training too! What kind of practice exercises or simulations will help them apply this knowledge in a real life context?

Therefore, you need to design the learning solution and implement Instructional Design strategies keeping the performance objectives in sight.

Final Thoughts

The above examples showcase how the business needs are tied to the outcome expected from the learning.

Last but not the least; the organizational culture is an important deciding factor determining the effectiveness of outcome-based learning. You may design the best learning programs; have most sophisticated Learning Management System and intranet portals offering myriad of services - technology works when people want to make it work. So take a hard look to see if your organizational culture promotes learning and collaboration, encourage voicing of views and suggestions, promotes a robust performance evaluation process that assesses and enables development planning aligned to goals, encourage knowledge sharing, and demonstrates strong ethical values.

This creates a ground for effective implementation of a 70-20-10 framework where:

The formal trainings are aimed at building skills and knowledge.

There are social platforms, like communities, COEs, employee portals that facilitate social collaboration and learning.

Systems are in place to provide on-the-job support and frameworks like mentoring and counselling are established to help people move towards their goals - and thereby contribute towards organizational goals too.

That's when we can effectively implement an outcome-based learning model and truly measure learning framework's ROI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Steps For Implementing An Outcome-Based Learning Framework - eLearning Industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Organizations -big or small- are struggling in the harsh business environment riddled with flailing economies, dropping GDPs, and rising demographic challenges. As such, the common mantra across organizations is to strive to be efficient, lean, and productive. Leadership is ready to invest in the training and development of their workforce, but wants proof of Returns on Investment (ROI).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a teaching method in which complex real-world problems are used as the vehicle to promote student learning of concepts and principles as opposed to direct presentation of facts and concepts. In addition to course content, PBL can promote the development of critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills. It can also provide opportunities for working in groups, finding and evaluating research materials, and life-long learning (Duch et al, 2001).

PBL can be incorporated into any learning situation. In the strictest definition of PBL, the approach is used over the entire semester as the primary method of teaching. However, broader definitions and uses range from including PBL in lab and design classes, to using it simply to start a single discussion. PBL can also be used to create assessment items. The main thread connecting these various uses is the real-world problem.

Any subject area can be adapted to PBL with a little creativity. While the core problems will vary among disciplines, there are some characteristics of good PBL problems that transcend fields (Duch, Groh, and Allen, 2001):

The problem must motivate students to seek out a deeper understanding of concepts.

The problem should require students to make reasoned decisions and to defend them.

The problem should incorporate the content objectives in such a way as to connect it to previous courses/knowledge.

If used for a group project, the problem needs a level of complexity to ensure that the students must work together to solve it.

If used for a multistage project, the initial steps of the problem should be open-ended and engaging to draw students into the problem.

The problems can come from a variety of sources: newspapers, magazines, journals, books, textbooks, and television/ movies. Some are in such form that they can be used with little editing; however, others need to be rewritten to be of use. The following guidelines from The Power of Problem-Based Learning (Duch et al, 2001) are written for creating PBL problems for a class centered around the method; however, the general ideas can be applied in simpler uses of PBL:

Choose a central idea, concept, or principle that is always taught in a given course, and then think of a typical end-of-chapter problem, assignment, or homework that is usually assigned to students to help them learn that concept. List the learning objectives that students should meet when they work through the problem.

Think of a real-world context for the concept under consideration. Develop a storytelling aspect to an end-of-chapter problem, or research an actual case that can be adapted, adding some motivation for students to solve the problem. More complex problems will challenge students to go beyond simple plug-and-chug to solve it. Look at magazines, newspapers, and articles for ideas on the story line. Some PBL practitioners talk to professionals in the field, searching for ideas of realistic applications of the concept being taught.

The problem needs to be introduced in stages so that students will be able to identify learning issues that will lead them to research the targeted concepts. The following are some questions that may help guide this process:

What will the first page (or stage) look like? What open-ended questions can be asked? What learning issues will be identified?

How will the problem be structured?

How long will the problem be? How many class periods will it take to complete?

Will students be given information in subsequent pages (or stages) as they work through the problem?

What resources will the students need?

What end product will the students produce at the completion of the problem?

Write a teacher's guide detailing the instructional plans on using the problem in the course. If the course is a medium- to large-size class, a combination of mini-lectures, whole-class discussions, and small group work with regular reporting may be necessary. The teacher's guide can indicate plans or options for cycling through the pages of the problem interspersing the various modes of learning.

The final step is to identify key resources for students. Students need to learn to identify and utilize learning resources on their own, but it can be helpful if the instructor indicates a few good sources to get them started. Many students will want to limit their research to the Internet, so it will be important to guide them toward the library as well.

The method for distributing a PBL problem falls under three closely related teaching techniques: case studies, role-plays, and simulations. Case studies are presented to students in written form. Role-plays have students improvise scenes based on character descriptions given. Today, simulations often involve computer-based programs. Regardless of which technique is used, the heart of the method remains the same: the real-world problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a teaching method in which complex real-world problems are used as the vehicle to promote student learning of concepts and principles as opposed to direct presentation of facts and concepts. In addition to course content, PBL can promote the development of critical thinking skills, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The intention was that it would integrate translation so that the students would disassociate language learning with risk taking. It's a method that is based on English for communication and is extremely learner-focused. Although each course is unique and student-dictated, there are certain criteria that should be applied to all CLL classrooms, namely a focus on fluency in the early stages, an undercurrent of accuracy throughout the course and learner empowerment as the main focus.

How it works in the classroom

Stage 1- Reflection

Stage 2 - Recorded conversation

Stage 3 - Discussion

Stage 4 - Transcription

Stage 5 - Language analysis

Length of stages

Working with monolingual or multilingual classes

Working with large classes

How it works in the classroom
In a typical CLL lesson I have five stages:

Stage 1- Reflection
I start with students sitting in a circle around a tape recorder to create a community atmosphere.

The students think in silence about what they'd like to talk about, while I remain outside the circle.

To avoid a lack of ideas students can brainstorm their ideas on the board before recording.

Stage 2 - Recorded conversation
Once they have chosen a subject the students tell me in their L1 what they'd like to say and I discreetly come up behind them and translate the language chunks into English.

With higher levels if the students feel comfortable enough they can say some of it directly in English and I give the full English sentence. When they feel ready to speak the students take the microphone and record their sentence.

It's best if you can use a microphone as the sound quality is better and it's easier to pick up and put down.

Here they're working on pace and fluency. They immediately stop recording and then wait until another student wants to respond. This continues until a whole conversation has been recorded.

Stage 3 - Discussion
Next the students discuss how they think the conversation went. They can discuss how they felt about talking to a microphone and whether they felt more comfortable speaking aloud than they might do normally.

This part is not recorded.

Stage 4 - Transcription
Next they listen to the tape and transcribe their conversation. I only intervene when they ask for help.

The first few times you try this with a class they might try and rely on you a lot but aim to distance yourself from the whole process in terms of leading and push them to do it themselves.

Stage 5 - Language analysis
I sometimes get students to analyse the language the same lesson or sometimes in the next lesson. This involves looking at the form of tenses and vocabulary used and why certain ones were chosen, but it will depend on the language produced by the students.

In this way they are totally involved in the analysis process. The language is completely personalised and with higher levels they can themselves decide what parts of their conversation they would like to analyse, whether it be tenses, lexis or discourse.

With lower levels you can guide the analysis by choosing the most common problems you noted in the recording stages or by using the final transcription.

Length of stages
The timing will depend entirely on the class, how quickly they respond to CLL, how long you or they decide to spend on the language analysis stage and how long their recorded conversation is. Be careful however that the conversation isn't too long as this will in turn make the transcription very long

For and against CLL

Learners appreciate the autonomy CLL offers them and thrive on analysing their own conversations.

CLL works especially well with lower levels who are struggling to produce spoken English.

The class often becomes a real community, not just when using CLL but all of the time. Students become much more aware of their peers, their strengths and weaknesses and want to work as a team.

In the beginning some learners find it difficult to speak on tape while others might find that the conversation lacks spontaneity.

We as teachers can find it strange to give our students so much freedom and tend to intervene too much.

In your efforts to let your students become independent learners you can neglect their need for guidance.

Working with monolingual or multilingual classes
I have used CLL with both monolingual and multilingual classes and found that it works well with both. With the multilingual low-level classes I, as the teacher-counsellor, reformulated their English in the same way you might do with higher levels. However, the first few attempts at CLL work better with a monolingual class as the instructions can be given in L1. It's important that the learners understand their and your new roles in the language learning process.

Working with large classes
For the first lesson it's important to record the conversation as a whole class even though this can limit student-speaking time. It's more practical in terms of giving instructions before you start and for moving from one student to another when they need you to translate or reformulate what they want to say. The next time you use CLL however, you could split the class into two groups. This gives them more speaking time.

Make sure the groups are far enough away from each other for the recording stage but not so far that you can't move freely from one group to another.

A further alternative is that they swap tapes for the transcription stage. The language is obviously less personalised but their listening skills are being challenged in a different way and they still feel part of a whole class community.

Conclusion
Although CLL is primarily meant as a 'whole' approach to teaching I have found it equally useful for an occasional lesson, especially with teenagers. It enables me to refocus on the learner while my students immediately react positively to working in a community. They take exceptionally well to peer-correction and by working together they overcome their fear of speaking. I have also found quieter students able to offer corrections to their peers and gladly contribute to the recording stage of the lesson. It's a teaching method which encompasses all four skills while simultaneously revealing learners' styles which are more or less analytical in their approach to language learning. All of which raises our awareness as a teacher and that of our students.

Once you have tried CLL with your class, it's a good idea to evaluate the method. Here are some possible questions you could ask.

Download evaluation task.pdf

Further Reading
Charles A. Curran is the name most associated with CLL. He was a priest and psychologist who derived his ideas from 'Counselling Learning', a humanistic concept introduced by Carl Rogers in the 1950s. CLL has been categorised alongside The Silent Way and Suggestopedia because of its humanistic tendencies.

Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching by J Richards and T Rodgers CUP 2002
CLL: A Way Forward? by Rod Bolitho taken from ELT documents 113 - Humanistic Approaches: An Empirical View The British Council (1982)
Communicating Naturally in a Second Language by Wilga M. Rivers CUP 1986
Introducing Innovations into your Teaching by Denise Ozdeniz taken from Challenge and Change in Language Teaching Ed. Jane Willis and Dave Willis Macmillan Heineman 1998
Language Teaching Methodology by David Nunan Prentice Hall 1998
Reformulation and Reconstruction: Tasks that Promote 'Noticing' by Scott Thornbury taken from ELT documents 51/4 October 1997
Working with Teaching Methods by Earl W. Stevick ITP Co. 1998

Jo Bertrand, Teacher, Materials writer, British Council Paris

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The intention was that it would integrate translation so that the students would disassociate language learning with risk taking. It's a method that is based on English for communication and is extremely learner-focused.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"It works beautifully. We tried it with a Minimoog, Synthesizers.com modular, Odyssey, Roland SH-101 and even the notoriously cantankerous EMS VCS3. Silent Way was able to get each one to play nicely for at least three octaves." "For us, Silent Way is a no-brainer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Audio Lingual Method: What It Is, Pros and Cons, How to Use It and More | FluentU Educator Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The audio-lingual method focuses on teaching a foreign language structure naturally. Click here to learn what it is, how it's used, its origins, pros and cons and more. Explore three ways you can use the ALM in your classroom (such as drill exercises and dialogues), and download this guide as a free PDF.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Outcome-Based Learning Project - About OBL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional method of hands-on, active learning centered on the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems.

Contributors

Late 1960s at the medical school at McMaster University in Canada

Key Concepts

Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach and curriculum design methodology often used in higher education and K-12 settings[1][2].

The following are some of the defining characteristics of PBL:

Learning is driven by challenging, open-ended problems with no one "right" answer

Problems/cases are context specific

Students work as self-directed, active investigators and problem-solvers in small collaborative groups (typically of about five students)

A key problem is identified and a solution is agreed upon and implemented

Teachers adopt the role as facilitators of learning, guiding the learning process and promoting an environment of inquiry

Rather than having a teacher provide facts and then testing students ability to recall these facts via memorization, PBL attempts to get students to apply knowledge to new situations. Students are faced with contextualized, ill-structured problems and are asked to investigate and discover meaningful solutions.

Proponents believe that PBL:

develops critical thinking and creative skills

improves problem-solving skills

increases motivation

helps students learn to transfer knowledge to new situations

History

PBL's more recent influence can be traced to the late 1960s at the medical school at McMaster University in Canada[3][4]. Shortly thereafter, three other medical schools - the University of Limburg at Maastricht (the Netherlands), the University of Newcastle (Australia), and the University of New Mexico (United States) took on the McMaster model of problem-based learning. Various adaptations were made and the model soon found its way to various other disciplines - business, dentistry, health sciences, law, engineering, education, and so on.

Criticisms

One common criticism of PBL is that students cannot really know what might be important for them to learn, especially in areas which they have no prior experience[3]. Therefore teachers, as facilitators, must be careful to assess and account for the prior knowledge that students bring to the classroom.

Another criticism is that a teacher adopting a PBL approach may not be able to cover as much material as a conventional lecture-based course[3]. PBL can be very challenging to implement, as it requires a lot of planning and hard work for the teacher. It can be difficult at first for the teacher to "relinquish control" and become a facilitator, encouraging the students to ask the right questions rather than handing them solutions.

Additional Resources and References

Resources

References

1. Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem?based learning methods.Medical education, 20(6), 481-486.

2. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational technology, 35(5), 31-38.

3. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning. Psychology Press.

4. Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem?based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New directions for teaching and learning, 1996(68), 3-12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an instructional method of hands-on, active learning centered on the investigation and resolution of messy, real-world problems. Late 1960s at the medical school at McMaster University in Canada Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach and curriculum design methodology often used in higher education and K-12 settings[1][2].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

In the last twenty years or so, language teaching has changed to incorporate a higher proportion of meaning-based activities, in contrast to the era in which form was primary and a concern for meaning only followed the establishment of control over specific forms. Now, a wide range of classroom options are available for participant organization, content incorporation, and the units by which teaching is organized. In order to locate task-based work within such a range of options, it is necessary to address definitional issues at the outset, since many different contemporary options give task a central role. For the purposes of this chapter, a task is regarded as an activity which satisfies the following criteria:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Task-Based Instruction | Annual Review of Applied Linguistics | Cambridge Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics In the last twenty years or so, language teaching has changed to incorporate a higher proportion of meaning-based activities, in contrast to the era in which form was primary and a concern for meaning only followed the establishment of control over specific forms. Now, a wide range of classroom options are available for participant organization, content incorporation, and the units by which teaching is organized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has strong connections to project work, task-based learning and a holistic approach to language instruction and has become particularly popular within the state school secondary (11 - 16 ye

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The intention was that it would integrate translation so that the students would disassociate language learning with risk taking. It's a method that is based on English for communication and is extremely learner-focused. Although each course is unique and student-dictated, there are certain criteria that should be applied to all CLL classrooms, namely a focus on fluency in the early stages, an undercurrent of accuracy throughout the course and learner empowerment as the main focus.

How it works in the classroom

Stage 1- Reflection

Stage 2 - Recorded conversation

Stage 3 - Discussion

Stage 4 - Transcription

Stage 5 - Language analysis

Length of stages

Working with monolingual or multilingual classes

Working with large classes

How it works in the classroom
In a typical CLL lesson I have five stages:

Stage 1- Reflection
I start with students sitting in a circle around a tape recorder to create a community atmosphere.

The students think in silence about what they'd like to talk about, while I remain outside the circle.

To avoid a lack of ideas students can brainstorm their ideas on the board before recording.

Stage 2 - Recorded conversation
Once they have chosen a subject the students tell me in their L1 what they'd like to say and I discreetly come up behind them and translate the language chunks into English.

With higher levels if the students feel comfortable enough they can say some of it directly in English and I give the full English sentence. When they feel ready to speak the students take the microphone and record their sentence.

It's best if you can use a microphone as the sound quality is better and it's easier to pick up and put down.

Here they're working on pace and fluency. They immediately stop recording and then wait until another student wants to respond. This continues until a whole conversation has been recorded.

Stage 3 - Discussion
Next the students discuss how they think the conversation went. They can discuss how they felt about talking to a microphone and whether they felt more comfortable speaking aloud than they might do normally.

This part is not recorded.

Stage 4 - Transcription
Next they listen to the tape and transcribe their conversation. I only intervene when they ask for help.

The first few times you try this with a class they might try and rely on you a lot but aim to distance yourself from the whole process in terms of leading and push them to do it themselves.

Stage 5 - Language analysis
I sometimes get students to analyse the language the same lesson or sometimes in the next lesson. This involves looking at the form of tenses and vocabulary used and why certain ones were chosen, but it will depend on the language produced by the students.

In this way they are totally involved in the analysis process. The language is completely personalised and with higher levels they can themselves decide what parts of their conversation they would like to analyse, whether it be tenses, lexis or discourse.

With lower levels you can guide the analysis by choosing the most common problems you noted in the recording stages or by using the final transcription.

Length of stages
The timing will depend entirely on the class, how quickly they respond to CLL, how long you or they decide to spend on the language analysis stage and how long their recorded conversation is. Be careful however that the conversation isn't too long as this will in turn make the transcription very long

For and against CLL

Learners appreciate the autonomy CLL offers them and thrive on analysing their own conversations.

CLL works especially well with lower levels who are struggling to produce spoken English.

The class often becomes a real community, not just when using CLL but all of the time. Students become much more aware of their peers, their strengths and weaknesses and want to work as a team.

In the beginning some learners find it difficult to speak on tape while others might find that the conversation lacks spontaneity.

We as teachers can find it strange to give our students so much freedom and tend to intervene too much.

In your efforts to let your students become independent learners you can neglect their need for guidance.

Working with monolingual or multilingual classes
I have used CLL with both monolingual and multilingual classes and found that it works well with both. With the multilingual low-level classes I, as the teacher-counsellor, reformulated their English in the same way you might do with higher levels. However, the first few attempts at CLL work better with a monolingual class as the instructions can be given in L1. It's important that the learners understand their and your new roles in the language learning process.

Working with large classes
For the first lesson it's important to record the conversation as a whole class even though this can limit student-speaking time. It's more practical in terms of giving instructions before you start and for moving from one student to another when they need you to translate or reformulate what they want to say. The next time you use CLL however, you could split the class into two groups. This gives them more speaking time.

Make sure the groups are far enough away from each other for the recording stage but not so far that you can't move freely from one group to another.

A further alternative is that they swap tapes for the transcription stage. The language is obviously less personalised but their listening skills are being challenged in a different way and they still feel part of a whole class community.

Conclusion
Although CLL is primarily meant as a 'whole' approach to teaching I have found it equally useful for an occasional lesson, especially with teenagers. It enables me to refocus on the learner while my students immediately react positively to working in a community. They take exceptionally well to peer-correction and by working together they overcome their fear of speaking. I have also found quieter students able to offer corrections to their peers and gladly contribute to the recording stage of the lesson. It's a teaching method which encompasses all four skills while simultaneously revealing learners' styles which are more or less analytical in their approach to language learning. All of which raises our awareness as a teacher and that of our students.

Once you have tried CLL with your class, it's a good idea to evaluate the method. Here are some possible questions you could ask.

Download evaluation task.pdf

Further Reading
Charles A. Curran is the name most associated with CLL. He was a priest and psychologist who derived his ideas from 'Counselling Learning', a humanistic concept introduced by Carl Rogers in the 1950s. CLL has been categorised alongside The Silent Way and Suggestopedia because of its humanistic tendencies.

Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching by J Richards and T Rodgers CUP 2002
CLL: A Way Forward? by Rod Bolitho taken from ELT documents 113 - Humanistic Approaches: An Empirical View The British Council (1982)
Communicating Naturally in a Second Language by Wilga M. Rivers CUP 1986
Introducing Innovations into your Teaching by Denise Ozdeniz taken from Challenge and Change in Language Teaching Ed. Jane Willis and Dave Willis Macmillan Heineman 1998
Language Teaching Methodology by David Nunan Prentice Hall 1998
Reformulation and Reconstruction: Tasks that Promote 'Noticing' by Scott Thornbury taken from ELT documents 51/4 October 1997
Working with Teaching Methods by Earl W. Stevick ITP Co. 1998

Jo Bertrand, Teacher, Materials writer, British Council Paris

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The intention was that it would integrate translation so that the students would disassociate language learning with risk taking. It's a method that is based on English for communication and is extremely learner-focused.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction
The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable. First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993). Krashen's theories on second language acquisition have also had a huge impact on education in the state of California, starting in 1981 with his contribution to Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework by the California State Department of Education (Krashen 1981). Today his influence can be seen most prominently in the debate about bilingual education and perhaps less explicitly in language education policy: The BCLAD/CLAD teacher assessment tests define the pedagogical factors affecting first and second language development in exactly the same terms used in Krashen's Monitor Model (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 1998).
As advertised, The Natural Approach is very appealing – who wouldn't want to learn a language the natural way, and what language teacher doesn't think about what kind of input to provide for students. However, upon closer examination of Krashen's hypotheses and Terrell's methods, they fail to provide the goods for a workable system. In fact, within the covers of "The Natural Approach", the weaknesses that other authors criticize can be seen playing themselves out into proof of the failure of Krashen's model. In addition to reviewing what other authors have written about Krashen's hypotheses, I will attempt to directly address what I consider to be some of the implications for ES/FL teaching today by drawing on my own experience in the classroom as a teacher and a student of language. Rather than use Krashen's own label, which is to call his ideas simply "second language acquisition theory", I will adopt McLaughlin's terminology (1987) and refer to them collectively as "the Monitor Model". This is distinct from "the Monitor Hypothesis", which is the fourth of Krashen's five hypotheses.

The Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis

First is the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, which makes a distinction between "acquisition," which he defines as developing competence by using language for "real communication" and "learning." which he defines as "knowing about" or "formal knowledge" of a language (p.26). This hypothesis is presented largely as common sense: Krashen only draws on only one set of references from Roger Brown in the early 1970's. He claims that Brown's research on first language acquisition showed that parents tend to correct the content of children's speech rather than their grammar. He compares it with several other authors' distinction of "implicit" and "explicit" learning but simply informs the reader that evidence will be presented later.
Gregg (1984) first notes that Krashen's use of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) gives it a much wider scope of operation than even Chomsky himself. He intended it simply as a construct to describe the child's initial state, which would therefore mean that it cannot apply to adult learners. Drawing on his own experience of learning Japanese, Gregg contends that Krashen's dogmatic insistence that "learning" can never become "acquisition" is quickly refuted by the experience of anyone who has internalized some of the grammar they have consciously memorized. However, although it is not explicitly stated, Krashen's emphasis seems to be that classroom learning does not lead to fluent, native-like speech. Gregg's account that his memorization of a verb conjugation chart was "error-free after a couple of days"(p.81) seems to go against this spirit. The reader is left to speculate whether his proficiency in Japanese at the time was sufficient enough for him to engage in error-free conversations with the verbs from his chart.
McLaughlin (1987) begins his critique by pointing out that Krashen never adequately defines "acquisition", "learning", "conscious" and "subconscious", and that without such clarification, it is very difficult to independently determine whether subjects are "learning" or "acquiring" language. This is perhaps the first area that needs to be explained in attempting to utilize the Natural Approach. If the classroom situation is hopeless for attaining proficiency, then it is probably best not to start. As we will see in an analysis of the specific methods in the book, any attempt to recreate an environment suitable for "acquisition" is bound to be problematic.
Krashen's conscious/unconscious learning distinction appeals to students and teachers in monolingual countries immediately. In societies where there are few bilinguals, like the United States, many people have struggled to learn a foreign language at school, often unsuccessfully. They see people who live in other countries as just having "picked up" their second language naturally in childhood. The effort spent in studying and doing homework seems pointless when contrasted with the apparent ease that "natural" acquisition presents. This feeling is not lost on teachers: without a theoretical basis for the methods, given any perceived slow progress of their students, they would feel that they have no choice but to be open to any new ideas
Taking a broad interpretation of this hypothesis, the main intent seems to be to convey how grammar study (learning) is less effective than simple exposure (acquisition). This is something that very few researchers seem to doubt, and recent findings in the analysis of right hemisphere trauma indicate a clear separation of the facilities for interpreting context-independent sentences from context-dependent utterances (Paradis, 1998). However, when called upon to clarify, Krashen takes the somewhat less defensible position that the two are completely unrelated and that grammar study has no place in language learning (Krashen 1993a, 1993b). As several authors have shown (Gregg 1984, McLaughlin 1987, and Lightbown & Pienemann 1993, for a direct counter-argument to Krashen 1993a) there are countless examples of how grammar study can be of great benefit to students learning by some sort of communicative method.

The Natural Order Hypothesis

The second hypothesis is simply that grammatical structures are learned in a predictable order. Once again this is based on first language acquisition research done by Roger Brown, as well as that of Jill and Peter de Villiers. These studies found striking similarities in the order in which children acquired certain grammatical morphemes. Krashen cites a series of studies by Dulay and Burt which show that a group of Spanish speaking and a group of Chinese speaking children learning English as a second language also exhibited a "natural" order for grammatical morphemes which did not differ between the two groups. A rather lengthy end-note directs readers to further research in first and second language acquisition, but somewhat undercuts the basic hypothesis by showing limitations to the concept of an order of acquisition.
Gregg argues that Krashen has no basis for separating grammatical morphemes from, for example, phonology. Although Krashen only briefly mentions the existence of other parallel "streams" of acquisition in The Natural Approach, their very existence rules out any order that might be used in instruction. The basic idea of a simple linear order of acquisition is extremely unlikely, Gregg reminds us. In addition, if there are individual differences then the hypothesis is not provable, falsifiable, and in the end, not useful.
McLaughlin points out the methodological problems with Dulay and Burt's 1974 study, and cites a study by Hakuta and Cancino (1977, cited in McLaughlin, 1987, p.32) which found that the complexity of a morpheme depended on the learner's native language. The difference between the experience of a speaker of a Germanic language studying English with that of an Asian language studying English is a clear indication of the relevance of this finding.
The contradictions for planning curriculum are immediately evident. Having just discredited grammar study in the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis, Krashen suddenly proposes that second language learners should follow the "natural" order of acquisition for grammatical morphemes. The teacher is first instructed to create a natural environment for the learner but then, in trying to create a curriculum, they are instructed to base it on grammar. As described below in an analysis of the actual classroom methods presented in the Natural Approach, attempting to put these conflicting theories into practice is very problematic.
When one examines this hypothesis in terms of comprehension and production, its insufficiencies become even more apparent. Many of the studies of order of acquisition, especially those in first language acquisition, are based on production. McLaughlin also points out that "correct usage" is not monolithic – even for grammatical morphemes, correct usage in one situation does not guarantee as correct usage in another (p.33). In this sense, the term "acquisition" becomes very unclear, even when not applying Krashen's definition. Is a structure "acquired" when there are no mistakes in comprehension? Or is it acquired when there is a certain level of accuracy in production? First language acquisition is very closely linked to the cognitive development of infants, but second language learners have most of these facilities present, even as children. Further, even if some weak form of natural order exists for any learners who are speakers of a given language, learning in a given environment, it is not clear that the order is the same for comprehension and production. If these two orders differ, it is not clear how they would interact.

The Monitor Hypothesis

The role of conscious learning is defined in this somewhat negative hypothesis: The only role that such "learned" competence can have is an editor on what is produced. Output is checked and repaired, after it has been produced, by the explicit knowledge the learner has gained through grammar study. The implication is that the use of this Monitor should be discouraged and that production should be left up to some instinct that has been formed by "acquisition". Using the Monitor, speech is halting since it only can check what has been produced, but Monitor-free speech is much more instinctive and less contrived. However, he later describes cases of using the Monitor efficiently (p. 32) to eliminate errors on "easy" rules. This hypothesis presents very little in the way of supportive evidence: Krashen cites several studies by Bialystok alone and with Frohlich as "confirming evidence" (p.31) and several of his own studies on the difficulty of confirming acquisition of grammar.
Perhaps Krashen's recognition of this factor was indeed a step forward – language learners and teachers everywhere know the feeling that the harder they try to make a correct sentence, the worse it comes out. However, he seems to draw the lines around it a bit too closely. Gregg points (p.84) out that by restricting monitor use to "learned" grammar and only in production, Krashen in effect makes the Acquisition-Learning Hypothesis and the Monitor Hypothesis contradictory. Gregg also points out that the restricting learning to the role of editing production completely ignores comprehension (p.82). Explicitly learned grammar can obviously play a crucial role in understanding speech.
McLaughlin gives a thorough dissection of the hypothesis, showing that Krashen has never demonstrated the operation of the Monitor in his own or any other research. Even the further qualification that it only works on discrete-point tests on one grammar rule at a time failed to produce evidence of operation. Only one study (Seliger, cited on p.26) was able to find narrow conditions for its operation, and even there the conclusion was that it was not representative of the conscious knowledge of grammar. He goes on to point out how difficult it is to determine if one is consciously employing a rule, and that such conscious editing actually interferes with performance. But his most convincing argument is the existence of learners who have taught themselves a language with very little contact with native speakers. These people are perhaps rare on the campuses of U.S. universities, but it is quite undeniable that they exist.
The role that explicitly learned grammar and incidentally acquired exposure have in forming sentences is far from clear. Watching intermediate students practice using recasts is certainly convincing evidence that something like the Monitor is at work: even without outside correction, they can eliminate the errors in a target sentence or expression of their own ideas after several tries. However, psycholinguists have yet to determine just what goes into sentence processing and bilingual memory. In a later paper (Krashen 1991), he tried to show that high school students, despite applying spelling rules they knew explicitly, performed worse than college students who did not remember such rules. He failed to address not only the relevance of this study to the ability to communicate in a language, but also the possibility that whether they remembered the rules or not, the college students probably did know the rules consciously at some point, which again violates the Learning-Acquisition Hypothesis.

The Input Hypothesis

Here Krashen explains how successful "acquisition" occurs: by simply understanding input that is a little beyond the learner's present "level" – he defined that present "level" as i and the ideal level of input as i +1. In the development of oral fluency, unknown words and grammar are deduced through the use of context (both situational and discursive), rather than through direct instruction. Krashen has several areas which he draws on for proof of the Input Hypothesis. One is the speech that parents use when talking to children (caretaker speech), which he says is vital in first language acquisition (p.34). He also illustrates how good teachers tune their speech to their students' level, and how when talking to each other, second language learners adjust their speech in order to communicate. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that often the first second language utterances of adult learners are very similar to those of infants in their first language. However it is the results of methods such as Asher's Total Physical Response that provide the most convincing evidence. This method was shown to be far superior to audiolingual, grammar-translation or other approaches, producing what Krashen calls "nearly five times the [normal] acquisition rate."
Gregg spends substantial time on this particular hypothesis, because, while it seems to be the core of the model, it is simply an uncontroversial observation with no process described and no proof provided. He brings up the very salient point that perhaps practice does indeed also have something to do with second language acquisition, pointing out that monitoring could be used as a source of correct utterances (p. 87). He also cites several studies that shed some doubt on the connection between caretaker speech in first language acquisition and simplified input in second language acquisition.
McLaughlin also gives careful and thorough consideration to this part of Krashen's model. He addresses each of the ten lines of evidence that Krashen presents, arguing that it is not sufficient to simply say that certain phenomenon can be viewed from the perspective of the Input Hypothesis. The concept of a learner's "level" is extremely difficult to define, just as the idea of i +1 is (p.37). Further, there are many structures such as passives and yes/no questions that cannot be learned through context. Also, there is no evidence that a learner has to fully comprehend an utterance for it to aid in acquisition. Some of the first words that children and second language learners produce are formulaic expressions that are not fully understood initially. Finally McLaughlin points out that Krashen simply ignores other internal factors such as motivation and the importance of producing language for interaction.
This hypothesis is perhaps the most appealing part of Krashen's model for the language learner as well as the teacher. He makes use of the gap between comprehension and production that everyone feels, enticing us with the hope of instant benefits if we just get the input tuned to the right level. One of Krashen's cleverest catch-alls is that other methods of teaching appear to work at times because they inadvertently provide this input. But the disappointment is that he never gives any convincing idea as to how it works. In the classroom a teacher can see when the students don't understand and can simplify his or her speech to the point where they do. Krashen would have the teacher think that this was all that is necessary, and it is just a matter of time before the students are able to express themselves freely. However, Ellis (1992) points out that even as of his 1985 work (Krashen 1985), he still had not provided a single study that demonstrated the Input Hypothesis. Over extended periods of time students do learn to understand more and even how to speak, but it often seems to take much longer than Krashen implies, indicating that there are perhaps many more factors involved. More importantly, even given this beginning of i, and the goal of i + 1, indefinable as they are, the reader is given no indication of how to proceed. As shown above the Natural Order Hypothesis holds no answers, especially as to how comprehension progresses. In an indication of a direction that should be explored, Ellis's exploratory study (ibid.) showed that it is the effort involved in attempting to understand input rather than simple comprehension that fuels acquisition.

The Affective Filter Hypothesis

This concept receives the briefest treatment in "The Natural Approach". Krashen simply states that "attitudinal variables relate directly to language acquisition but not language learning." He cites several studies that examine the link between motivation and self-image, arguing that an "integrative" motivation (the learner want to "be like" the native speakers of a language) is necessary. He postulates an "affective filter" that acts before the Language Acquisition Device and restricts the desire to seek input if the learner does not have such motivation. Krashen also says that at puberty, this filter increases dramatically in strength.
Gregg notes several problems with this hypothesis as well. Among others, Krashen seems to indicate that perhaps the affective filter is associated with the emotional upheaval and hypersensitivity of puberty, but Gregg notes that this would indicate that the filter would slowly disappear in adulthood, which Krashen does not allow for (p.92). He also remarks on several operational details, such as the fact that simply not being unmotivated would be the same as being highly motivated in this hypothesis – neither is the negative state of being unmotivated. Also, he questions how this filter would selectively choose certain "parts of a language" to reject (p.94).
McLaughlin argues much along the same lines as Gregg and points out that adolescents often acquire languages faster than younger, monitor-free children (p.29). He concludes that while affective variables certainly play a critical role in acquisition, there is no need to theorize a filter like Krashen's.
Again, the teacher in the classroom is enticed by this hypothesis because of the obvious effects of self-confidence and motivation. However, Krashen seems to imply that teaching children, who don't have this filter, is somehow easier, since "given sufficient exposure, most children reach native-like levels of competence in second languages" (p.47). This obviously completely ignores the demanding situations that face language minority children in the U.S. every day. A simplification into a one page "hypothesis" gives teachers the idea that these problems are easily solved and fluency is just a matter of following this path. As Gregg and McLaughlin point out, however, trying to put these ideas into practice, one quickly runs into problems.

Curriculum Design

The educational implications of Krashen's theories become more apparent in the remainder of the book, where he and Terrell lay out the specific methods that make use of the Monitor Model. These ideas are based on Terrell's earlier work (Terrell, 1977) but have been expanded into a full curriculum. The authors qualify this collection somewhat by saying that teachers can use all or part of the Natural Approach, depending on how it fits into their classroom.
This freedom, combined with the thoroughness of their curriculum, make the Natural Approach very attractive. In fact, the guidelines they set out at the beginning– communication is the primary goal, comprehension preceding production, production simply emerge, acquisition activities are central, and the affective filter should be lowered (p. 58-60) – are without question, excellent guidelines for any language classroom. The compilation of topics and situations (p.67-70) which make up their curriculum are a good, broad overview of many of the things that students who study by grammar translation or audiolingual methods do not get. The list of suggested rules (p.74) is notable in its departure from previous methods with its insistence on target language input but its allowance for partial, non-grammatical or even L1 responses.
Outside of these areas, application of the suggestions run into some difficulty. Three general communicative goals of being able to express personal identification, experiences and opinions (p.73) are presented, but there is no theoretical background. The Natural Approach contains ample guidance and resources for the beginner levels, with methods for introducing basic vocabulary and situations in a way that keeps students involved. It also has very viable techniques for more advanced and self-confident classes who will be stimulated by the imaginative situational practice (starting on p.101). However, teachers of the broad middle range of students who have gotten a grip on basic vocabulary but are still struggling with sentence and question production are left with conflicting advice.
Once beyond one-word answers to questions, the Natural Approach ventures out onto thin ice by suggesting elicited productions. These take the form of open-ended sentences, open dialogs and even prefabricated patterns (p.84). These formats necessarily involve explicit use of grammar, which violates every hypothesis of the Monitor Model. The authors write this off as training for optimal Monitor use (p.71, 142), despite Krashen's promotion of "Monitor-free" production. Even if a teacher were to set off in this direction and begin to introduce a "structure of the day" (p. 72), once again there is no theoretical basis for what to choose. Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of any reference to the Natural Order Hypothesis, which as noted previously, contained no realistically usable information for designing curriculum.
Judging from the emphasis on exposure in the Natural Approach and the pattern of Krashen's later publications, which focused on the Input Hypothesis, the solution to curriculum problems seems to be massive listening. However, as noted before, other than i + 1, there is no theoretical basis for overall curriculum design regarding comprehension. Once again, the teacher is forced to rely on a somewhat dubious "order of acquisition", which is based on production anyway. Further, the link from exposure to production targets is tenuous at best. Consider the dialog presented on p.87:

. . . to the question What is the man doing in this picture? the students may reply run. The instructor expands the answer. Yes, that's right, he's running.

The exchange is meant to illustrate how allowing for errors, while at the same time providing corrected input can help students in "acquisition". To the student, however, the information in the instructor's response is completely contained in the word "Yes". Krashen makes no comment on how, even if it is comprehended, the extra information of "He's running" enters the student's production. If simple exposure is the answer, then "that's right" is more likely to be "acquired" given its proximity to the carrier of meaning "Yes".
This issue is the subject of extensive psycholinguistic research in sentence processing and bilingual lexical memory, and conclusive answers have not yet been found. The length of the path from 1) understanding the above question to 2) giving a one-word answer, to 3) being able to give a full sentence answer, and then 4) being able to ask a similar question is quite unclear. Especially if the teacher is to rely on input alone, it is very conceivable that the students could be working their way through the intermediate steps for quite some time. Teachers would perhaps be better served by a less dogmatic approach that informed them of not only single steps, but what exactly has been found in current research. This of course includes hypotheses and findings that have not been conclusively proven yet, but a more balanced approach than the present one would allow teachers to use their valuable experience in the classroom to make informed judgments about curriculum. In attempting to teach a subject whose process is not clearly known, it seems obvious that a well-rounded awareness of the theoretical issues involved is necessary. For this reason concurrent teacher education in language education is essential to insure the needs of all students are met.
Conclusions

Krashen seemed to be on the right track with each of his hypotheses. Anyone who has learned a language, and especially those who have seen the grammar-translation method in action seems to have a gut level feeling that the road to proficiency runs somewhere outside of textbooks and classrooms. Indeed, in the literature, every reviewer makes a special effort to acknowledge the incredible contribution that Krashen had made to language education. Kramsch (1995) points out that the input metaphor may be a relic of the prestige of the physical sciences and electrical engineering, but that Krashen's acquisition-learning dichotomy cuts at the heart of academic legitimation. She advocates a more productive discourse between applied linguists and foreign language teachers to explore and question the historical and social forces that have created the present context.
Krashen's conclusion to his presentation at the 1991 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics (Krashen, 1991) is especially telling about what he is trying to achieve: "It is possible that 'no pain, no gain' does not apply to language acquisition" (p. 423). Certainly this may be true for some learners and in all likelihood it is true for more communicative methods when compared to older methods. But the majority of us have had to struggle to be able to understand and speak a language, no matter how much exposure to "comprehensible input" we have had. And the particular circumstances of language minority students in the U.S. and many other countries certainly indicate that those children have formidable barriers to overcome just to understand the first things their teacher is saying. To propagate such an "easy way" philosophy in the policy of state educational boards, EFL textbooks and general teacher guides is to demean the effort that less able students have to make every day. To institutionally impart such a concept to new teachers whose responsibility it is to understand these adults and children is a disservice to all parties involved. Despite the pressing need of policy to provide a workable teacher training system, it is imperative that, at the very least, there is no misinformation. Second language learning is a very complex process, with many make or break factors involved and there is simply no comprehensive theory to guide teachers and students at the moment.
This does not mean, however, that teachers should be sent to their classrooms with no direction, or worse yet, back to a grammar-based or audiolingual approach. The issue of exactly what and how to tell teachers to teach is one of the most complex and sensitive issues that policy has to implement. It is only through basic research into a wide variety of areas such as the role of exposure in comprehension and production that we can begin to develop the policies to create the best practices for the classroom.

Bibliography

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Home Page. Revised Knowledge and Skill Areas Assessed on Tests 1-3 of the (Bilingual) Crosscultural, Language and Academic Development (CLAD/BCLAD). 1998. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. 14 December 2000.
< http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/clad_bclad_revisions/clad_bclad_revisions.html>

Ellis, R. (1992). Comprehension and the acquisition of grammatical knowledge in a second language. In Courchãene, R.J. Comprehension-based second language teaching. Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press.

Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.

Kramsch, C. (1995). The applied linguist and the foreign language teacher: Can they talk to each other? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,1. 1-16.

Krashen, S.D. (1981). Bilingual education and second language acquisition theory. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. (p.51-79). California State Department of Education.

Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, Longman.

Krashen, S.D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In James E. Alatis (ed.) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 409-431.

Krashen, S.D. (1993a). Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction. Another educator comments . . . . TESOL Quarterly, 26, No. 2. 409-411

Krashen, S.D. (1993b). The effect of formal grammar teaching: Still peripheral. TESOL Quarterly, 26, No.3. 722-725.

Krashen, S.D. & Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. London: Prentice Hall Europe.

Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lightbown, P.M. & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen's "Teaching Issues: Formal grammar instruction." TESOL Quarterly, 26, No.3. 717-722.

McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

Paradis, M. (1998). The other side of language: Pragmatic competence. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11, Nos. 1-2. 1-10.

Terrell, T.D. (1977). "A natural approach to the acquisition and learning of a language". Modern Language Journal, 61. 325-336.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Krashen and Terrell's "Natural Approach"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction The influence of Stephen Krashen on language education research and practice is undeniable. First introduced over 20 years ago, his theories are still debated today. In 1983, he published The Natural Approach with Tracy Terrell, which combined a comprehensive second language acquisition theory with a curriculum for language classrooms. The influence of Natural Approach can be seen especially in current EFL textbooks and teachers resource books such as The Lexical Approach (Lewis, 1993).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Throughout history, many trends in the world of language teaching have come and gone.

Some have graced us with just a brief visit.

Others have stood the test of time and become part of the training of language teachers the world over.

Hovering wordlessly in a category all by itself is a powerful but somewhat oddball method known as the "Silent Way."

This approach has the weight of history behind it, having been around since the early 1970s. But like its name, the specifics of this obscure method have seemed largely absent from discourse about how to teach language.

Yet it still has a following of faithful educators who use it in their classrooms and love it.

So what exactly is the Silent Way? And how can you use it?

Download: This blog post is available as a convenient and portable PDF that you can take anywhere.Click here to get a copy. (Download)

What is the Silent Way?

This unconventional method was developed alongside Afro hairstyles and platform shoes back in the 1970s by mathematician (yes, we said mathematician) Caleb Gattegno. It was based upon ideas outlined in his book "Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools the Silent Way," published in 1963. Like most cultural events of the 60s and 70s, it was a reaction to previous approaches and methods that were considered excessively rigid and constricting.

The basic method that underlies this approach is simple but potentially quite powerful: In contrast to traditional methods, the emphasis is on the student's learning rather than the teacher's teaching. In fact, it is not uncommon for the teacher to remain silent for parts of a lesson.

In the absence of the teacher dominating the lesson, the student takes an active role in the learning process, and their input guides the learning trajectory. The teacher redirects and corrects when necessary, but the teacher grants students greater autonomy and fosters the development of independent problem-solving skills.

The role of the teacher is to direct students' focus, facilitate self-reflection and provide verbal and nonverbal feedback when necessary. Students, on the other hand, are encouraged to speak as much as possible.

Most of the traditional tools for language instruction (textbooks, worksheets, verb conjugation tables) are completely absent from this method. In their place, instruction takes place through the medium of Cuisenaire rods (colored rods traditionally used in the teaching of math to primary school students) and charts that indicate the correct pronunciation of certain letters without the teacher having to teach pronunciation through rote memorization or call-and-response exercises.

Why might you decide to use the Silent Way method?

We know how you feel. Teaching a language with silence? How could that possibly work?

Don't be too quick to judge. There are plenty of great reasons to at least give this method a try.

Improved problem-solving skills. Without your input, students are forced to figure out all kinds of things on their own, mimicking some of the real-life problem-solving situations they might find themselves facing if immersed in the target language. These are skills that they will not have the opportunity to develop if the teacher always does the figuring out for them.

Increased engagement. Learning basic vocabulary and pronunciation can often feel monotonous to students. With the Silent Way, students are engaged in the learning process, discovering words and sounds instead of having these drilled into them. Students become more engaged and invested in the process as they assume more responsibility for their own learning, and tasks have more relevance.

A positive, safe learning environment. Limited input from the teacher means almost no criticism... which means students feel that it is safe to make mistakes, a necessary step in language learning.

It can supplement further student-centered work. Including the above features in your students' learning will complement deeper interactive and independent work with the language. For example, they might do such work when using FluentU, a platform that offers students a unique and culturally authentic way to engage with real-world content at their own pace.

As you can probably imagine, though, the Silent Way is not without its drawbacks.

Potential problems with the Silent Way

The Silent Way is not for everyone. Here are some valid reasons for deciding not to use it.

It may feel strange and scary to some students. It is safe to say that your students have never experienced anything quite like the Silent Way before. Without adequate explanation or preparation, they might be unsure of how to handle it, especially in the beginning.

It may be challenging for some students. If a student has an IEP, or requires extra coaching or scaffolding due to special needs of any kind, they can really struggle with the Silent Way. These students need frequent interactions with their teacher in order to be successful.

Students may feel that they are not getting enough feedback. While traditional teaching methods make extensive use of verbal and written feedback, the Silent Way does not. This means that students will have to adjust to the new way of receiving feedback, and they may feel insecure about the lack of verbal positive or negative reinforcement in the beginning.

Progress may look different than with other methods. Advocates of the Silent Way will tell you that the focus is on learning a few things well rather than "covering" the material, but the Silent Way aims for quality rather than quantity. In other words, it may feel like students spend a lot of time learning the basics of vocabulary and pronunciation rather than progressing quickly through these topics, but remember that learning a language means developing many skills simultaneously. In fact, some skills such as accurate pronunciation may take years to master.

Strategies to make the Silent Way work for you and your students

If you do decide to use this method, here are some strategies to help you find success.

Educate students thoroughly from the outset about this method and why you are using it. Once you have achieved student buy-in, you can begin implementing this method without fear of scaring them away.

Check in individually with students who need it from time to time, to make sure that they are okay. You can schedule regular meeting times with them, or check in discreetly during class. This will help them feel more confident about their progress.

Give feedback non-verbally. Practice conveying a message with body language, gestures and facial expressions. You will be amazed at how much you can communicate to students without saying a word.

Emphasize quality rather than quantity. Clearly articulate that attaining mastery, rather than simply covering everything in the curriculum, is the priority.

Now that you understand the basics of the Silent Way and how it works, let's begin to put it into practice with an actual activity.

A Silent Way-inspired sample activity

There is a wealth of literature on the techniques and methods of the Silent Way. If you want to become an expert, we recommend starting with Gattegno's original book, Teaching Foreign Languages in Schools the Silent Way (which is available for free online) and then working your way up from there.

However, even if you don't become formally trained as an expert in the Silent Way, you can still utilize some Silent Way methodologies in your language classroom.

First, you'll need the right equipment:

You can find Cuisenaire rods at most educational supply stores that sell classroom manipulatives. One great online resource is Hand2Mind, a site where you can easily find and order a wide variety of classroom resources. You can look for whatever you need under "Grade" or a category like "Math," "Science" or "Literacy" (in this case, you could go to "Math" and scroll down to "Manipulatives") or simply use the search field. There are over 40 options for Cuisenaire rods alone that you can browse through and choose from based on factors like class size.

Silent Way charts are a bit more difficult to find. A website called Educational Solutions is the sole supplier of them. But it is also completely feasible to look at examples of them and create your own. Examples of English pronunciation charts can be found here. Links to pronunciation charts in other languages, such as Chinese, Japanese and French, can be reached via the website of Donald Cherry, a long-time practitioner and advocate of the Silent Way. You can also find other resources on TED Ed to help you get set up for using this method in your classroom.

You will begin by instructing your students on pronunciation using a chart with multicolored rectangles. What do rectangles have to do with pronunciation, you ask? Well, each color represents a different sound. Once the students have learned, through repetition, what these sounds are, you can move on to charts that have short words, with letters that are color-coded to represent the sounds. (See, for example, these charts from Pronunciation Science.)

Once students have connected the colors to the sounds, you can teach the pronunciation of simple words without almost no verbal intervention at all. It is just a matter of pointing to the correct sound on the chart and indicating to the student, through your body language, whether they are pronouncing it correctly or not. At this point, you'll also want to solicit feedback among students, which is an important part of Silent Way teaching. You can tap one sound harder than the others if you need to show students which syllable of a word to stress.

Once students have learned which sound corresponds to which color, you can walk them through a simple activity.

Call a student to the front of the room and hand them a rod. Using the pronunciation chart, point out the sounds to help students form the words: "Put the rod on the table."

Ask the class (through gesture) to repeat the instruction: "Put the rod on the table."

The student then follows the direction and puts the rod on the table.

Next point out another direction using the chart: "Put the rod under the table."

Follow the same process outlined in Steps 2-3.

Continue by asking students to direct each other to put rods in different places ("on the chair," "in front of the window," etc.)

The wonderful thing about this activity is that it gets students talking and problem-solving together in the target language... with virtually no verbal intervention from you.

Practical considerations for everyday use of the Silent Way

As you can tell, there are certainly advantages to this unconventional method. After all, every teacher's ultimate goal is to equip their students with the tools to manage the content independently, with limited teacher intervention.

But is the Silent Way really practical? How much will your students learn?

The answer depends on you and your students. Some teachers use the Silent Way religiously. They and their students will tell you that they have found it far superior to any other method.

At the other extreme, some will tell you it is nonsense.

As with most things in education and in life, a balanced approach is key.

Especially when you first begin using it, it may be preferable to combine aspects of the Silent Way with some of the best practices taken from other methods.

In fact, if you examine the Silent Way closely, it does bear some resemblance to other more popular methods. Like TPR, it gets students moving, speaking and constructing meaning independently without textbooks and drills. Like with task-based language learning, the focus is taken away from learning language for its own sake, and instead becomes all about functionality and accomplishing a task together.

In short, the Silent Way perhaps has more advantages than we have given it credit for, and deserves (at the very least!) a second look.

Download: This blog post is available as a convenient and portable PDF that you can take anywhere.Click here to get a copy. (Download)

If you liked this post, something tells me that you'll love FluentU, the best way to teach languages with real-world videos.
Sign up for free!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Silent Way: An Unconventional Language Teaching Method

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Throughout history, many trends in the world of language teaching have come and gone. Some have graced us with just a brief visit. Others have stood the test of time and become part of the training of language teachers the world over.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the outbreak of World War II armies needed to become orally proficient in the languages of their allies and enemies as quickly as possible. This teaching technique was initially called the Army Method, and was the first to be based on linguistic theory and behavioral psychology.

View large version with all methods

Explanation

Based on Skinner's Behaviorism theory, it assumed that a human being can be trained using a system of reinforcement. Correct behaviour receives positive feedback, while errors receive negative feedback.

This approach to learning is similar to the Direct Method, in that the lesson takes place entirely in the target language.

Emphasis is on the acquisition of patterns in common everyday dialogue.

The Audio-lingual Method was widely used in the 1950s and 1960s, and the emphasis was not on the understanding of words, but rather on the acquisition of structures and patterns in common everyday dialogue.

These patterns are elicited, repeated and tested until the responses given by the student in the foreign language are automatic.

Some characteristics of this method are:

Drills are used to teach structural patterns

Set phrases are memorised with a focus on intonation

Grammatical explanations are kept to a minimum

Vocabulary is taught in context

Audio-visual aids are used

Focus is on pronunciation

Correct responses are positively reinforced immediately

Modern Usage

The Audio-lingual Method is still in use today, though normally as a part of individual lessons rather than as the foundation of the course. These types of lessons can be popular as they are relatively simple, from the teacher's point of view, and the learner always knows what to expect.

Some of the most famous supporters of this method were Giorgio Shenker, who promoted guided self learning with the Shenker method in Italy, and Robin Callan, who created the Callan method.

Developments & Problems

This extensive memorization, repetition and over-learning of patterns was the key to the method's success, as students could often see immediate results, but it was also its weakness.

It was discovered that language was not acquired through a process of habit formation.

The method's insistence on repetition and memorization of standard phrases ignored the role of context and knowledge in language learning. As the study of linguistics developed, it was discovered that language was not acquired through a process of habit formation, and that errors were not necessarily bad.

It was also claimed that the methodology did not deliver an improvement in communicative ability that lasted over the long term.

Summary

When - 1950 to 1970, some sporadic or selective use today
Focus - Sentence and sound patterns
Characteristics - Listening and speaking drills and pattern practice only in English
Supporters - B.F. Skinner, Leonard Bloomfield, Robin Callan

By Alex Taylor

Learn more:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Audio-lingual Method of Teaching English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the outbreak of World War II armies needed to become orally proficient in the languages of their allies and enemies as quickly as possible. This teaching technique was initially called the Army Method, and was the first to be based on linguistic theory and behavioral psychology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An article discussing the grammar-translation approach to language learning.

At the height of the Communicative Approach to language learning in the 1980s and early 1990s it became fashionable in some quarters to deride so-called "old-fashioned" methods and, in particular, something broadly labelled "Grammar Translation". There were numerous reasons for this but principally it was felt that translation itself was an academic exercise rather than one which would actually help learners to use language, and an overt focus on grammar was to learn about the target language rather than to learn it.

As with many other methods and approaches, Grammar Translation tended to be referred to in the past tense as if it no longer existed and had died out to be replaced world-wide by the fun and motivation of the communicative classroom. If we examine the principal features of Grammar Translation, however, we will see that not only has it not disappeared but that many of its characteristics have been central to language teaching throughout the ages and are still valid today.

The Grammar Translation method embraces a wide range of approaches but, broadly speaking, foreign language study is seen as a mental discipline, the goal of which may be to read literature in its original form or simply to be a form of intellectual development. The basic approach is to analyze and study the grammatical rules of the language, usually in an order roughly matching the traditional order of the grammar of Latin, and then to practise manipulating grammatical structures through the means of translation both into and from the mother tongue.

The method is very much based on the written word and texts are widely in evidence. A typical approach would be to present the rules of a particular item of grammar, illustrate its use by including the item several times in a text, and practise using the item through writing sentences and translating it into the mother tongue. The text is often accompanied by a vocabulary list consisting of new lexical items used in the text together with the mother tongue translation. Accurate use of language items is central to this approach.

Generally speaking, the medium of instruction is the mother tongue, which is used to explain conceptual problems and to discuss the use of a particular grammatical structure. It all sounds rather dull but it can be argued that the Grammar Translation method has over the years had a remarkable success. Millions of people have successfully learnt foreign languages to a high degree of proficiency and, in numerous cases, without any contact whatsoever with native speakers of the language (as was the case in the former Soviet Union, for example).

There are certain types of learner who respond very positively to a grammatical syllabus as it can give them both a set of clear objectives and a clear sense of achievement. Other learners need the security of the mother tongue and the opportunity to relate grammatical structures to mother tongue equivalents. Above all, this type of approach can give learners a basic foundation upon which they can then build their communicative skills.

Applied wholesale of course, it can also be boring for many learners and a quick look at foreign language course books from the 1950s and 1960s, for example, will soon reveal the non-communicative nature of the language used. Using the more enlightened principles of the Communicative Approach, however, and combining these with the systematic approach of Grammar Translation, may well be the perfect combination for many learners. On the one hand they have motivating communicative activities that help to promote their fluency and, on the other, they gradually acquire a sound and accurate basis in the grammar of the language. This combined approach is reflected in many of the EFL course books currently being published and, amongst other things, suggests that the Grammar Translation method, far from being dead, is very much alive and kicking as we enter the 21st century.

Without a sound knowledge of the grammatical basis of the language it can be argued that the learner is in possession of nothing more than a selection of communicative phrases which are perfectly adequate for basic communication but which will be found wanting when the learner is required to perform any kind of sophisticated linguistic task.