Current approaches and teaching methods

COGNITIVE THEORY

In the previous section we have included the Audiolingual and Audiovisual methods under a common
technological feature. But these methods are based on completely different linguistic and psychological
principles. A new perspective on learning as a cognitive process would reject the old behaviorist one
which is based on products; let us say, verbal habits. Understanding and thinking mechanisms had not
been considered because of their risk of being subjective and ambiguous data, that is to say, not
objectively observable, measured, and treated as a scientific discipline demands. As for language
description, syntactic structures could not explain their formation process without any reference to
meaning and the application of creative rules, most of all, when the text and context are eluded. On the
other hand, the audiovisual method laid too much emphasis on peripheral psychological mechanisms,
although its references to meanings and context are positive. An appeal to a broader perspective both in
the linguistic and psychological fields is claimed. The cognitive theory is the first response to provide a
more complete perspective on how we learn. Its proposal of a similar position on linguistic grounds
would come through transformational-generative grammar.

1. Theoretical background

The Cognitive Theory arose not as an explicit teaching method, but as a reaction to Structuralism and to
behavioral principles. A set of new beliefs of L1 language and learning involving the notions of
universality, creativity and innateness constitute some of the arguments that led to the demise of the
Structuralist and Audiolingual framework.
These new principles came from two fields: the psychological and the linguistic frameworks. One of the
most representative figures of this model is Chomsky (1959), who, in answer to Skinner’s postulates
(1957), provided some facts that rejected the previous position. Psychologically speaking, language
learning started to be considered as a product of rule formation and hypothesis testing. That is to say,
when acquiring a language, the child and the learner form hypotheses about that language, test them and
turn them into rules if they are later contrasted to the incoming input. Thus, language learning was
thought to be a creative process in which the learner is engaged in hypothesis construction, but not, as
structuralism would say, imitation or habit formation. This process was innate and universal, that is to say,
similar for all children (and possibly, learners), because of two reasons. First, children were thought to be
endowed with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which is an innate predisposition to induce the
rules of the target language from the input they are exposed to. Second, it was considered that all children
(and possibly, learners) made the same developmental errors, as in the overgeneralization “eated”, which
indicates that the learner is learning the rules of the language, even if they are incorrectly applied. Thus,
the mentalist orientation (see Chomsky, 1959) constituted a contrast to the previous behavioral orientation
which considered learning as a process of memorization, repetition and association in which the
individual was regarded as an empty vessel.
The second theoretical axis of the Cognitive theory came from Linguistics and the development of the
Generative-Transformational (GT) and the Universal Grammars (UG). In opposition to the previous
Structuralist approaches in which a description of particular languages was made, language for the UG
consisted of a set of universal features, rules and transformations forming the linguistic system or
grammar. The Universal Grammar was an attempt to discover what it is that all children, regardless of the
environmental stimuli (the language) they hear around them, bring to the language acquisition process.
Studies were carried out in order to discover universal features, and, among others, structures such as
questions, negations, word order, relative clauses and discontinuity of embedded clauses were
investigated. Following the GT view, each language had a shallow and a deep structure, the latter being
the universal aspect represented by the shallow structure in each individual language. In a second stage,
Chomsky (1965) also distinguished between competence and performance, origin of the notion of
communicative competence and the communicative teaching approaches (see section 8).
The gap between competence, or knowledge of an idealized listener-speaker that does not manifest
memory limitations, distractions, attention loss, loss of interest, mistakes, doubting phenomena, fillers,
false starts, pauses or omissions, and performance, that is to say, the actual implementation of that
knowledge, led to the study of the learners’ interlanguage and the errors they make. A distinction between
mistakes, which the learner is able to self-correct, and errors, showing the learner’s lack of knowledge,
was first carried out, and then Corder (1967, 1981) distinguished between interlingual (transference of
knowledge from the L1) and intralingual (overgeneralization) errors. Richards (1971) would then add
developmental errors, or errors induced by overteaching.

Table 1: Summary of theoretical background in Cognitive theory

2. Features of the ‘Method’: Cognitive Code Learning

If the study of learners’ errors, or Error Analysis, was the outcome of the distinction between competence
and performance in connection with research, Cognitive Code learning was, rather than a method in itself,
a reaction against the Audiolingual one. Thus, rote learning was deemphasized, together with techniques
such as mimicry and memorization (Nunan, 1991b). Substitution and transformation drills were used, but
they were introduced with a rationale different from behaviourist drills: to infer the rules of the target
language, to actively engage the learner in a problem-solving process, to link new learning to prior
knowledge and to reflect about the way the target language operates. Also, errors were contemplated in a
different way: making mistakes was part of the learning process, rather than a dangerous habit to be
discouraged because of the risk of learning those deviant forms.
Some other features of the method included the possibility of presenting lessons deductively or
inductively. In the first approach, the new structure or item was embedded in a meaningful context;
learners were told the rule and given the opportunity to apply it to several examples. In the second
approach, learners were given a number of examples and then told to infer the rule through guided
discovery. In both cases the aim was to formulate the rule in a conscious way and to reflect about it, rather
than foster rote-learning and positive habits.
 Table 2: features of Cognitive Code learning

3. The Mentalist layout in perspective

Even if there was a solid psychological and linguistic background behind Cognitive Code learning, the
transformational grammar and mentalist/cognitive learning paradigms did not exactly give way to a
method with a set of explicit step-by-step classroom procedures and techniques, unlike the previous
method, very popular for teachers because of its explicit guidelines. That is why this layout did not attain
the prominence of Audio-lingualism, as it did not have a clear classroom implementation. Besides, its
major outcome, Error Analysis, also suffered some drawbacks, as it overstressed production data and paid
too much attention to learners’ errors but was not able to account for avoidance phenomena. However,
mentalism took the individual and his/her attempt at creating a language into account, rejected the notion
of the learner as an empty organism, accepted the importance of prior knowledge and distinguished the
dichotomy of competence and performance, origin of communicative approaches. It also studied universal
aspects common for all learners and languages. Besides, it constituted the origin of the second language
acquisition tradition and the humanistic approaches, both described in the following sections.

Table 3: Cognitive Code learning in perspective

THE SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION TRADITION

1. Introduction

The empirical research into first and second language acquisition, the identification of L1 and L2 learning
and the attempt to apply these notions to the second language classroom (Nunan, 1991b), together with
the principles already developed in the previous mentalist framework, led to the development of two
methods: The Natural Approach (Krashen and Terrell, 1983) and Total Physical Response (Asher, 1988).
Both methods share some theoretical beliefs:

• Language is considered a creative process of rule formation and hypothesis testing.

• Input is used to confirm or reject those rules/hypotheses about language.
• Language learning is a universal process and it is innate, because all children develop their language around
the same age, regardless of the concrete language.
• LAD (Language Acquisition Device): The roots of language are pre-programmed in the minds of children
when they are born, so that they would be able to acquire a language no matter whether he receives input or
not. Learners should use that LAD for acquiring the target language.
• Identity hypothesis (L1=L2): The process of learning a second language is very similar to how the mother
tongue is learnt. That is why many processes of L1 learning can also be applied to L2 acquisition.

Thus, the search for learning and language universals and the notion of language as a creative process
constitute the two main arguments that led to the study of the similarities in L1 and L2 learning, which
has been termed the Identity Hypothesis, at the core of both methods. The two attach great importance to
input as a source to trigger learning and, following the Identity Hypothesis, they try to imitate the way
children learn their mother tongue.
The Natural Approach

1. Theoretical background

Krashen (1985; Dulay Burt and Krashen, 1982) studied the conditions underlying all successful language
acquisition, mainly based on the way children learn their first language, proposing the Monitor Theory, at
the source of the classroom method. This model consists of five hypotheses:

1. Acquisition versus learning hypothesis

There are two different ways to ‘learn’ a language: a subconscious process, natural, identical to the one
children learning their mother tongue use, and effective –acquisition-, and a second process –learning-, which
is conscious and consists of learning grammar rules.
2. Natural Order hypothesis
Second language rules are acquired in a fixed way, pre-established, determined by innate mechanisms and not
by linguistic complexity or explicit teaching.
3. Monitor Hypothesis
The monitor only controls learning, not acquisition. The monitor plans, edits and corrects the learner’s
production when there is time. It sometimes interferes with the process of acquisition.
4. Input Hypothesis
It explains how language is acquired. A second language is acquired processing comprehensible input, that is,
input that has been listened to and understood. If that input is beyond the level of the student and he/she does
not understand it, then that input is useless. For acquisition to take place the input has to be slightly superior
to the level of the learner (i+1) and comprehensible. To achieve comprehension, the learner can use some
help, through the context, pictures, mime, etc. To achieve acquisition the learner must use innate mechanisms
(LAD), triggered when input is heard and understood.
5. Affective filter Hypothesis
It considers the role in acquisition of several factors, such as motivation, self-confidence or anxiety. These
factors foster or impede acquisition, though they do not produce acquisition. To be more concrete, lack of
motivation or self-esteem can raise the affective filter so that comprehensible input is not able to trigger the
LAD and acquisition becomes impossible.

2. Features of the method: The Natural Approach

Krashen’s Monitor Theory constitutes the theoretical background of this method, together with Terrell’s
school experience (Krashen and Terrell, 1983). The Natural approach considers language as
communication, so meaning, rather than grammar, is at the core of their notion of language. Thus, the
focus is not on explicit analysis of structures either by the teacher or learner. Following the notion that the
process of learning a second language should be similar to the way children learn their mother tongue,
comprehensible input is provided using visual and kinaesthetic aids, and students are not asked to produce
output immediately, as they usually go through a silent period in which they understand but are not able
to use the target language, in a way similar to L1 learners. There are several types of activities introduced
in the lessons:
-Affective humanistic activities, intended to reduce the learners’ affective filter and involve their feelings, ideas and
experiences, such as dialogues, interviews, preference ranking, personal charts, etc.
-Problem-solving activities, in which students have to find a correct answer to a situation or problem.
-Games, considered as an important element in the acquisition process and not as a way to fill up students’ lessons.
-Content activities, which focus on learning something else besides language, including mathematics, science, etc.,
for example, music, films, television reports, news broadcasts, and the like.

These activities provide meaningful and comprehensible input in the form of listening and reading.
Production –speaking and writing- are left for a second stage, when the students have undergone their
silent period and are ready to speak. The activities introduce a focus on unconscious acquisition rather
than learning, and can be used to lower the students’ affective filter, because they centre on the students’
personal experience and opinions.

Table 5: features of the Natural approach

Total Physical Response

1. Theoretical background

Asher (1977) focused on several characteristics of first language acquisition to develop this method: the
first is that children have to comprehend a lot of input before they learn how to speak. The second is that,
when they are young, children receive input in which a lot of physical manipulation and action is involved
(Nunan, 1991b). This association between movement and language facilitates spontaneous acquisition
because of the association between stimulus and response. In this sense, this model has a clear
audiolingual orientation. Asher also incorporated some humanistic principles: as in the Natural approach,
it is essential to eliminate affective filters such as anxiety or stress, which could impede acquisition.
Although there is a structured psychological basis behind this method which is similar to that of the
Natural approach, its linguistic orientation differs from that of Krashen and Terrell’s, and can be said to
be based on a structuralist or even grammatical position (Sánchez, 1997), as input is selected using
grammatical and lexical criteria.

2. Features of the method: Total Physical Response

Several key principles derived from the L1=L2 hypothesis constitute the basis of this teaching method
(Nunan, 1991b):
- Comprehension should come before production, particularly at the beginning levels of second language instruction.
- The classroom should promote a relaxed climate and increase the interest and motivation of students through a well-
chosen range of activities.
- The ‘here-and-now’ principle should organize all classroom teaching.
- Input should be provided through commands in the imperative form.
- The teacher is the instructor, and decides when, how and why to teach.
- Learning is inductive rather than deductive.
- The first group of activities should involve commands, then interaction dialogues, and afterwards dramatization and
role-plays. All must include physical action.

Table 6: Features of Total Physical Response

3. The Natural Approach and the Total Physical Response methods in perspective

Humanism and an identification of L2 and L1 learning are at the core of both methods. Moreover, many
of their postulates are still applied in our days, such as the notions of input before output, the silent period,
the question of comprehensible input, the reduction of the affective filter, and, for the Natural Approach,
its selection of activities and its focus on meaning, rather than form. In this sense this method can be said
to be the origin of the notional-functional approaches (see Section 8) that led to the Communicative move.
In contrast, the TPR method goes back towards structuralist and grammatical positions in its notion of
language –considered as a set of structures and vocabulary- and learning –regarded as an association of
stimulus and response through physical action-.
In general, the two methods have shown some problems, such as the fact that they were not designed by
experts, and it has not been possible to verify their theoretical background or hypotheses. Besides, the
distinction of learning versus acquisition as two separate mechanisms, one conscious and ‘unadvisable’
and the other one unconscious and ‘advisable’ is, though accepted by a widespread range of language
teachers, feeble. Moreover, the role of interaction and the function of output for learning were not
considered in detail. In addition, the TPR method, though popular in our days as a classroom procedure
or technique, proved to be very demanding on teachers, provided a very limited range of materials and
procedures, and made teaching difficult structures nearly impossible.

Table 7: the Natural approach and TPR in perspective