See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364624498

Methods of English Language Teaching: A Review

Article in Motifs A Peer Reviewed International Journal of English Studies · January 2022
DOI: 10.5958/2454-1753.2022.00011.3

CITATIONS READS

0 4,241

3 authors, including:

Omid Wali
Nangarhar University
9 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Omid Wali on 06 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Motifs
Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022, pp. 86-97 IndianJournals.com
A product of Diva Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

DOI: 10.5958/2454-1753.2022.00011.3

Methods of English Language Teaching: A Review

Omid Wali1*, Kishwar Zafir2 and Sayed Samiullah Saeedi3

1
Research Scholar, 2Assistant Professor, Department of English, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh, India
3
Assistant Professor, Nangarhar University, Jalalabad, NGR, Afghanistan
*Corresponding author email id: omidwali.shirzad@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

The methods of language teaching have gone through tremendous changes due to the controversies
that still exist about their effectiveness and appropriateness. This review paper defines the most
common and influential teaching methods: Grammar Translation Method (GTM), Direct Method
(DM), Audio-lingual Method (ALM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) by indicating
their historical backgrounds and characteristic features along with the analysis of their strengths and
weaknesses for future teaching implications. The paper also tries to find out if the mentioned
methods are successful, especially in Asian countries where modern technologies are not ample.

Keywords: GTM, DM, ALM, CLT, Strengths, Weaknesses

INTRODUCTION

Any study which aims to contribute new ideas and solutions to English Language Teaching
Methods must analyse and evaluate thoroughly the strengths and weaknesses of different
methods of language teaching. In this review paper, an attempt is made to analyse the various
methods that have been in practice from time to time in various parts of the world since the
methods of language teaching have changed throughout history due to the fact that people are
likely to learn foreign/second languages by attending formal education (Zainuddin et al., 64–
77). The analysis of the methods includes the definition and background of the methods, the
key principles and characteristics of the methods, along with the strengths and weaknesses of
every method.

86 Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022

 Methods of English Language Teaching

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS

Grammar Translation Method

The origination of the Grammar Translation Method (GTM) dates back to the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century as a classical method of teaching a foreign language. Once, it was
especially used for teaching the classical Latin and Greek languages. At that time, it was
believed that body and mind were two different entities, and the mind consisted of three parts:
the will, emotions and intellect. It was believed if the intellect was sharpened enough, it could
control the will and emotions. Thus, it was believed that learning classical literature of Greeks
and Romans and mathematics was necessary for mental discipline. Besides this, the goal of
teaching Latin and Greek was not to develop the learner’s ability to speak. It was rather the
aim to develop logical thinking and intellectual capacities in order to improve the standard of
the learner’s native language (Asl 18). Moreover, in the early twentieth century, GTM was used
to help students read and appreciate foreign language literature. It was also expected by GTM
that the study of target language grammar would help learners in terms of better familiarity with
their native language grammar in order to help them write and speak better. Finally, it was even
believed that foreign language learning would even help learners grow intellectually (Freeman
and Anderson 32).

However, it was an attempt to teach foreign languages in the twentieth century, but it is still
practiced in too many educational contexts. However, it does practically nothing to develop a
student’s communicative competence (Brown 19), while it is “remembered with distaste by
thousands of school learners, for whom foreign language learning means a tedious experience
of memorizing endless lists of unusable grammar rules and vocabulary and attempting to
produce a perfect translation of stilted or literary prose” (Richards and Rodgers 6). Besides
this, it is also understood why GTM remains a popular method despite the lack of literature
available to justify its foundation and relationship to any of the linguistics, psychology or
educational theories (Richards and Rodgers 7). The reason behind its popularity is that it
requires few skills on the part of teachers. For instance, tests of grammar rules and translation
are easy to design and score objectively. Even today, there are many standardised tests of
foreign languages that do not attempt to tap into communicative ability (Brown 19). For
instance, Aptis, a standard proficiency test developed by Cambridge University and launched
by the British Council, prescribes grammar and vocabulary as the core skills this test (Aptis
Candidate Guide 3).

Motifs 87
 Omid Wali et al.

Below are the major characteristics features of GTM (Celec-Murcia 3):

1. Classes are taught in the mother tongue; little use of second language.
2. Much vocabulary taught in the form of lists of isolated words.
3. Elaborate explanations of the intricacies of grammar.
4. Reading of difficult classical text began early.
5. Texts treated as exercises in grammatical analysis.
6. Occasional drills and exercises in translating sentences from L1 to L2.
7. Little or no attention to pronunciation.

Keeping the mentioned principles in mind, it can be said that under the GTM, foreign phraseology
is quickly explained, rapid expansion of students’ vocabulary is observed, an average qualified
teacher can use this method, students’ mother tongue knowledge is also promoted and
comprehension is easily tested. Besides these merits, there are a number of demerits to GTM,
which are: it is not a natural method. Speaking as an important method is ignored. Exact
translation is impossible since it only encourages literal translation. It teaches English by rules.
Students in this method are passive, which makes this method boring (Kholi 33).

Direct Method

Like GTM, the Direct Method (DM) is also a classical method. The method came into practice
when GTM was not very effective in preparing students to use target language for communication
(Freeman 23). The language teaching reforms in the nineteenth century, especially in Europe,
were a fundamental change from grammar-translation to the DM (Kumari 56). The proposed
reforms went through various labels and names such as “reform method,” “natural method,”
“psychological method,” “phonetic method,” but the most important term used for was the DM
(Stren qtd. in Kumari 57). The DM has one basic rule: no translation is allowed. The name
derives from the fact that meaning in the target language is directly conveyed through
demonstration and visual aids (Freeman 22). This leads us to understand that Sauveur and other
believers in the Natural Method argued that a foreign language could be taught without translation
or the student’s mother tongue if meaning was conveyed directly through demonstration and
action (Richards and Rodgers 9). The DM was introduced and officially approved in Germany
and France, and it became widely practiced in the commercial schools of the United States by

88 Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022

 Methods of English Language Teaching

Sauveur and Maximilian Berlitz, since Berlitz never called it a DM but rather the Bertlitz Method
(Richards and Rodgers 9).

Richards and Rodgers summarised the following principles of DM (9–10):

1. Classroom instruction was conducted exclusively in the target language.

2. Only everyday vocabulary and sentences are taught.
3. Oral communication skills were built up in a carefully graded progression organised around
question and answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes.
4. Grammar was taught inductively.
5. New teaching points were introduced orally.
6. Concrete vocabulary was taught through demonstration, objects and pictures; abstract
vocabulary was taught by association of ideas.
7. Both speech and listening comprehension were taught.
8. Correct pronunciation and grammar were emphasised.

As a reaction to GTM, the DM was successful in making an accepted immediate appeal

because it overcame two major defects of GTM. First, it substituted language contact in
grammar recitation and language use in translation. Second, the focus on innovations of drill,
vocabulary selection and systematic presentation got appreciation and praise for this method.
In this connection, it is important to note that students using this method receive more
opportunities to listen to oral speech. This way, they will be able to think in the target language
without mother tongue intervention, so the ability to think and speak in the target language will
induce confidence in students’ minds. Besides the mentioned advantages, it was one of the
methods that caused the most controversy and academic discourse (Kumari 60). In the beginning,
the DM enjoyed great prestige in private language schools such as those of the Berlitz chain,
but it was difficult to implement it in public secondary schools. Therefore, the method failed
to pay attention to the ground realities of the classroom. In addition, it lacks the rigorous basis
in applied linguistic theory (Richards and Rodgers10).

Furthermore, teaching through the DM requires teachers who are native speakers and/or those
who must have foreign language fluency like native speakers. It was based on the teacher’s
skills rather than on a textbook. Therefore, all teachers were not proficient enough in the

Motifs 89
 Omid Wali et al.

foreign language to get along well with the principles of the method. In this connection, Roger
Brown, the Harvard psychologist, showed his frustration when he observed a teacher performing
verbal gymnastics to convey the meaning of Japanese words when translation, in this case,
would have been a more effective and easy technique (Richards and Rodgers 11).

Audi-Lingual Method

The Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) is historically called the Army Method, The Michigan Method
and New Key. The Army Method is the outcome when the United States of America participated
in the Second World War. During the war, the American authorities realised the need for
interpreters of various languages for the purpose of communication in order to know the
languages of their allies and enemies (Brown 32). Thus, the Army Specialized Training Program
(ASTP) was established in 1942. To take practical measures, 54 American universities, in
addition to Michigan University, were involved in the program by the beginning of 1943. The
very objective of the army method was to train army personnel to achieve conversational
proficiency in various languages, which was not the only objective of the conventional foreign
language courses at the US institutions (Richards and Rodgers 44). The (ASTP) lasted only
for two years, but received considerable attention in the popular press and the academic
community. Therefore, the Army Method along with its suitability in regular language programs
was discussed. Hence, linguists who developed the ASTP program were not interested in its
suitability for regular language learning because an Army method like the DM has intensive
contact with the target language rather than from any well-developed methodological basis
(Richards and Rodgers 44–45).

It ironic to say that various of the foundation stones of the abandoned Directed Method were
borrowed and injected into this new method. In the 1950s, the success of the army method
and revived national interest in foreign languages made educational institutions adopt the new
methodology. Thus, the Army Method was then called the ALM (Brown 23). The term “audio-
lingual” refers to two components that emerged in the process of communication: “audio”
means to emphasise listening and “lingual” stresses speaking. ALM is a reaction to GTM and
a modification of the DM (Abu-Melhim 39).

The ALM, like the DM, is an oral method. But it is very different in the sense that the DM
emphasises vocabulary acquisition through exposure to its use in a situation. In ALM, students
drill grammatical sentence patterns. Besides this, unlike the DM, ALM has a strong foundation
in linguistics and psychology. Charles Fries from the University of Michigan applied the principles

90 Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022

 Methods of English Language Teaching

of structural linguistics in developing this method. Later on, principles of behavioural psychology
were incorporated (Freeman 43). Therefore, structural linguistics (viewing language as a
structured system of formal units such as sentences and syntax) and behavioural psychology
(studying the behaviour of humans and animals) are the first school of thought in Second
Language Acquisition (Brown 9–11).

Freeman and Anderson listed the following major characteristics of ALM (70):

1. The goal of ALM is to use the target language communicatively.

2. The teacher is like an orchestra leader, directing and controlling the language behaviour of
her students. Students are the imitators of the teacher’s model.
3. New vocabulary and structural patterns are presented through dialogues. The dialogues are
learned through imitation and repetition.
4. Grammar is taught inductively.
5. There is student–student interaction in chain drills, but it is always directed by the teacher.
6. Language in ALM has been influenced by descriptive linguists, so every language has its
own unique system. Culture consists of everyday behaviour and lifestyle of the target
language speakers.
7. There is limited focus on vocabulary in context while students are mastering the sound
system and grammatical patterns. The order of skills’ presentation is stick to (listening,
speaking, reading and writing). Here it is believed that language is speech rather than
writing. The underlying theory is that better listeners and speakers make better readers and
writers. Thus, it leads to the advantages of correct pronunciation with special attention on
intonation.
8. Student’s native language is not permitted to hinder the learning process of target language.
9. Successful responses immediately receive reinforcement.
10. Student errors should be avoided if at all possible.

The major contributions of ALM to language teaching, according to Stren cited in Kumari 74,
are: (1) it was among the first theories based on the principles of linguistics and psychology.
(2) It tries to make language learning accessible to large groups of ordinary learners. (3) It
taught the target language using simple techniques rather than translation, and (4) it developed

Motifs 91
 Omid Wali et al.

the separation of language skills into a pedagogical device. However, the 1960s of ALM is
considered a golden age of language learning. By the end of the aforementioned decade, it had
lost its lustre in the realm of language teaching. First, the overemphasis of oral skills as
compared to other skills prompted many scholars to question the method. Albert Valdman was
one of them. Second, the technique of memorisation and drilling can be boring, and only an
imaginative teacher can minimise it. To make it successful, a teacher must be a well-trained
and resourceful person to innovate new ways of presenting the materials (Kumari 75), so
opponents consider the mechanical and rote learning process the major disadvantage of this
method (Abu-Melhim 43).

Communicative Language Teaching

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a reaction to the classical methods (GTM and
ALM) when linguists felt that students did not know how to use the target language
communicatively. The CLT approach was developed by Robert Langs in the early 1970s and
soon gained popularity and has been adopted at the elementary, middle, secondary and post-
secondary levels. CLT, according to Kumaravadilvelu, is “... the driving force that shapes the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of English language teaching (ELT) programs in most
parts of the world” (12). The emergence of CLT occurred when the field of language teaching
was looking for a change since traditional language syllabuses such as grammatical and situational
syllabuses failed to develop learners’ ability to use language for communication, so linguists
attempted to design a syllabus that could accomplish the communicative goals of language
teaching (Richards and Rodgers 64).

Wilkins’s notional syllabus had a significant impact on the development of CLT. In order to
facilitate the communicative ability of learners, Wilkins included communication functions such
as requests, denials, offers, complaints, etc. into the notional syllabus. The notional syllabus
is superior to the grammatical syllabus because it develops the communicative competence and
sustains the motivation of learners. It is further superior to the situational syllabus because it
covers all kinds of language functions regardless of limitations (Wilkins 19). Here, the scope
of CLT can be linked to the emergence of many independent European countries, where
education became one of the activities of the Council of Europe. It encouraged conferences
on language teaching and the publication of books and monographs to develop alternative
methods different from the ALM and Situational Language Teaching (Kumari 86).

92 Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022

 Methods of English Language Teaching

The theory of communicative competence introduced by Hymes (84) and the multi-functional
theory of Holliday (56) were the supporting and guiding theories for developing the foundation
of CLT.

The goal of CLT is to develop the communicative competence of learners (Richards 3), while
the GTM develops the grammatical competence of learners. Grammatical competence is our
ability to produce sentences in a language and its building blocks such as (parts of speech,
tenses, phrases, clauses, sentence patterns) (Richards 3). Grammatical competence is the
subject matter of many grammatical books, which initially present the rules of grammar on one
page and their exercises on the other. The unit of analysis and practice is the sentence
(Richards 3). Besides this, grammatical competence is an important aspect of language learning,
but it does not involve what is important for communication. For instance, one can master the
rules of sentence formation in a language but still be unable to use the language for effective
and meaningful communication. This is better achieved by developing the communicative
competence of learners (Richards 4). According to Canale and Swain, communicative competence
is a combination of an underlying system of knowledge and skills needed for communication
(qtd. in Bagaric and Djigunvic 96). The concept of communicative competence was developed
within sociolinguistics (Richards 8).

Jack C. Richards listed the following aspects of language knowledge within the communicative
competence (4):

1. Knowing how to use language for a range of diûerent purposes and functions.
2. knowing how to vary our use of language according to the setting and the participants (e.g.
knowing when to use formal and informal speech or when to use language appropriately
for written as opposed to spoken communication).
3. Knowing how to produce and understand diûerent types of texts (e.g. narratives, reports,
interviews, conversations).
4. Knowing how to maintain communication despite having limitations in one’s language
knowledge (e.g. through using diûerent kinds of communication strategies).

According to Richards, the decisions on the content of the course, including what grammar
and vocabulary to teach at the novice, intermediate, and advanced levels, and which skills and
micro-skills to teach in what sequence, are related to the syllabus or course design, and the
decisions about how best to teach the mentioned contents of the course are related to the field

Motifs 93
 Omid Wali et al.

of methodology. Hence, language teaching has gone through various changes in the last fifty
years, and CLT encouraged a rethinking of approaches to syllabus design and methodology.
Richards classified the trends in language teaching into three phases. They are (1) traditional
approaches up to the late 1960s, (2) classic CLT from the 1970s to the 1990s, and (3) current
CLT from the late 1990s to the present. Traditional approaches to language teaching (i.e., ALM)
emphasised grammatical competence as the foundation of language teaching, whereas CLT was
a reaction to the concept (the centrality of grammar in language teaching) because it was
argued that language teaching entailed more than grammatical competence. It is communicative
competence that facilitates the learners’ ability to use language communicatively (6–8). According
to Brown, “Given that communicative competence is the goal of a language classroom, instruction
needs to point toward all its components: organisational, pragmatic, strategic, and psychomotor.”
Communicative goals are best achieved by giving due attention to language use, not just usage;
to fluency, not just accuracy; to authentic language, not contexts; and to students’ eventual
need to apply classroom learning to previously unrehearsed contexts in the real world (79).

In addition to the skill-based and functional syllabuses proposed by CLT advocates, they
recognised (ESP) that many learners needed English for specific occupational and academic
purposes, so it is important and efficient to teach them the specific communicative skills they
needed for specific roles (e.g. medical doctor, flight attendant, geologist, engineer, etc.) rather
than English for more general purposes (EGP). This led to the discipline of need analysis in
order to identify the types of communication students would need to develop if they were in
specific professional roles, so the need analysis focuses on determining the specific characteristics
of language when it is used for a specific purpose. These differences may include differences
in vocabulary choice, grammar, kinds of texts commonly occurring, functions, and the need
for particular skills (Richards 10–11).
Freeman and Anderson listed the following key characteristics of CLT (161-165)
1. The goal of CLT is to enable learners to communicate in the target language.
2. The major responsibility of teacher is to facilitate communication in the classroom. His role
is as an advisor and sometimes co-communicator engaging in communicative activity along
with students (Little Wood qtd. in Freeman and Anderson 161). Students are above all
communicators.
3. All of the activities which are done in the classroom are based on communicative intention.
Activities that are truly communicative have three features (information gap, choice and
feedback) in common (Johnson and Morrow qtd. in Freeman and Anderson 161).

94 Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022

 Methods of English Language Teaching

4. Students are given the opportunity to express their individual opinion on regular basis.
There are always cooperative interactions among the students and teacher to enhance
students’ security.
5. Language is for communication, so linguistic competence (forms and their meaning) is
only one part of communicative competence. Another aspect of communicative competence
is the knowledge of functions that language is used for. Besides this, culture is the
everyday lifestyle of people who use the language has certain aspects which are really
important for communication.
6. Language functions are emphasised over the forms. Students work on all four skills from
the beginning.
7. Judicious use of the students’ native language is allowed in CLT, so target language is seen
a vehicle of communication not an object to be studied.
8. Teacher evaluates both his students’ accuracy and fluency informally in his role as an
advisor while for formal evaluation; teacher is likely to use an integrative test, which has
real communicative function.
9. Students’ errors are tolerated in fluency-based activity. Teacher can correct them once the
class is in the accuracy-based activity.

CONCLUSION

The methods discussed so far have attempted to contribute to and deal with some issues of
language learning and teaching. These methods were brought into practice at different times
due to the needs of learners. GTM, as a classical method, focuses on the teaching of grammar
and translation as its principal techniques. Practically, GTM emphasises reading and writing
while there is no systematic attention to listening or speaking. The teacher is the authority in
the class, and the students are the passive learners, so it is a teacher-centric method of
language teaching.

On the contrary, the language teaching reforms in the 19th century, especially in Europe, were
a fundamental shift from GTM to the DM because GTM was unable to facilitate learners to
use the target language communicatively. The DM insists on speech and listening comprehension,
and correct pronunciation and grammar are further emphasised. In addition, the DM empowers
learners to think in the target language without the intervention of native language translation.
This will induce confidence in the learner’s mind. In the beginning, the DM enjoyed great

Motifs 95
 Omid Wali et al.

prestige in private language schools, but it was difficult to implement it in public secondary
schools because it failed to pay attention to the ground realities of the classroom and lacked
a rigorous basis in applied linguistic theory. Besides this, it is usually difficult to find native
teachers or native-like teachers to execute the DM. The ALM is regarded as a reaction to GTM
and a modified form of the DM, both of which have a close relationship to communicative use
of the target language. There is little focus on vocabulary in context while students master the
sound system and grammatical patterns. The order of skills presentation is stuck to (listening,
speaking, reading, and writing). As an army method, it was developed to train army personnel
to achieve conversational proficiency in various languages. However, linguists did not recommend
ALM to be used in the regular language learning process. The CLT approach was developed
as a reaction to the classical methods (i.e., GTM and ALM) when linguists felt that students
did not know how to use the target language communicatively. CLT, a recent method of
language teaching, aims to develop the communicative competence of students. The four
language skills are taught right from the beginning. It is a student-centred model of teaching.
The method is widely used for teaching English across the world. Finally, the above methods
are found to be the most influential methods of language teaching (Qing-xue and Jin-Fang 69),
even in a context that is not facilitated by advanced technology.

WORKS CITED

Abu-Melhim, Abdel-Rahman. “Re-evaluating the Effectiveness of the Audio-lingual Method in Teaching

English to Speakers of Other Languages.” International Forum of Teaching and Studies, Vol. 5,
No. 2, 2009, pp. 39–45.
Asl, Esmaeil Heydari. “Comparative Study of Grammar Translation Method (GTM) and Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) in Language Teaching Methodology.” International Journal of Science
and Research Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2015, pp. 13–18.
Bagaric, Vesna, and Jelena Mihaljevi Djigunovic. “Defining Communicative.” Metodika, Vol. 8, No. 1,
2007, pp. 94–103. file:///D:/Downloads/Bagaric_i_Mihaljevic_Djigunovic_ENG.pdf.
British Council. Aptis Candidate Guide. July 2018, http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/
britishcouncil.uk2/files/aptis-candidate-guide-web.pdf.
Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. USA: Pearson Longman Press,
Inc, 2007. Print.
Brown, H. Douglas. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. USA:
Pearson Longman Press, Inc. NY, 2007. Print.
Celce-Murcia, Marianne. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. 3rd ed. USA: Heinle &
Heinle., NY. 2000. Print.

96 Volume 8, Number 1, January-December 2022

 Methods of English Language Teaching

Halliday, Michael Alexander. “Learning How to Mean—Explorations in the Development of Language.”

USA: Pearson Longman Press, Inc., NY. 1975. Print.
Hymes, Dell. “On Communicative Competence.” Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings. Ed. J. B. Pride
and J. Holmes, 1972. 269–93.
Kohli, A. L. Techniques of Teaching English. 6th ed. New Delhi: Dhanpat Rai Publishing Company.
2012. Print.
Kumaravadivelu, Bala. “Maximizing Learning Potential in the Communicative Classroom.” ELT Journal,
Vol. 47, No. 1, 1993, pp. 12–21. doi:10.1093/elt/47.1.12.
Kumari, S. K. R. “English Language Teaching: Methods and Approaches.” Unpublished thesis.
University of Calicut, Kerala, India, 2002.
Freeman, Diane Larsen, and Anderson Martin. Technique & Principles in Language Teaching. 3rd
ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011.
Freeman, Diane Larsen. Technique & Principles in Language Teaching. 2rd ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 2000. Print.
Qing-xue, Li., and S. Jin-fang. “An Analysis of Language Teaching Approaches and Methods-
Effectiveness and Weakness.” US-China Education Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2007, pp. 69–71.
Richards, Jack C. Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2006. Print.
Richards, Jack C., and Theodore Rodgers. Approaches and Methods of in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge Language Teaching Library. 1986. Print.
Richards, Jack C., and Theodore Rodgers. Approaches and Methods of in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. Print.
Wilkins, David Arthur. Notional Syllabuses. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1976. Print.
Zainuddin, et al. Fundamentals of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages in K-12
Mainstream Classrooms. 3rd ed. Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company. 2011, pp. 64–73.

Motifs 97