Language Learning Approaches: Unity in Diversity

Mansoor Koondhar, Elizabeth M.A, Insaf A. Siming, Tariq H. Umrani

Abstract


This is a conceptual paper based on the existing literature related to three famous language learning theories; Audio-lingual Method, Communicative method and the hypotheses of Stephen D. Krashen. These three schools of thought are not usually seen as similar or it is not common to find much literature regarding these theories having any common traits. The individual criticism on each of these theories focuses on many of their individual aspects but not on similarities among these three. The researchers however, after studying these theories closely, have been able to extract some striking similarities in spite of all the commonly known differences. The aim of this paper is to invite more focus and more research on similarities shared by these apparently independent schools of thought and consequently exploit the maximum fruits of these powerful theories. The findings suggest that the multiple similarities among the three schools of thought under study can jointly be named as one very vividly common trait: stress on the communicative skills involving listening and speaking to be the key towards successful language learning.

Keywords


Audio-Lingual Method, Natural Method, Communicative Method, Second Language Learning, Communication

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bai-yu, C. H. E. N. (2001). The" Input-Output" Theory and Audio-Lingual-Visual Approach [J]. Journal of Guangzhou University, 4, 015.

Chunsuvimol, B., & Charoenpanit, P. (2017). Effectiveness of the Audiolingual Method: A Further Synthesis of Research Through 2015.

Fan, J. I. N. (2016). A Brief Introduction to Communicative Language Teaching. 海外英语, 17, 106.

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

Ellis, R. (2002). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, 17-34.

Ghofur, A. (2016). THE EFFECT OF COMMUNICATIVE LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD AND THE AUDIO-LINGUAL METHOD FOR STUDENTS’ENGLISH SPEAKING SKILL.

Ghofur, A., Degeng, I. N. S., Widiati, U., & Setyosari, P. (2017). The Effect Of Communicative Language Teaching And Audio-Lingual Method On English Speaking Skill Across Different Learning Styles. KnE Social Sciences, 1(3), 1-7.

Hinkel, E., & Fotos, S. (2002). From theory to practice: A teacher’s view. New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms, 1-12.

Fand, R. (1985). The compatibility of the Natural Approach and the Communicative Approach. Cross Currents, 12(2), 1-14.

Fernandes, M. H. B. (1989). Utilization of the Natural Learning Sequence Within Communicative Syllabus Implementation(Doctoral dissertation, University of Newcastle).

Matamoros-González, J. A., Rojas, M. A., Romero, J. P., Vera-Quiñonez, S., & Soto, S. T. (2017). English Language Teaching Approaches: A Comparison of the Grammar-translation, Audiolingual, Communicative, and Natural Approaches. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11), 965-973.

Nita, S. A., & Syafei, A. F. R. (2012). Involving Audio-lingual Method (ALM) and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) in Teaching Speaking Skill at Junior High School. Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(1), 65-73.

Ögeyik, M. C., & Dogruer, S. (2009). An Evaluation of the Communicative Approach and Audio-Lingual Method in Teaching Grammar in a Private High School in Turkey. Language in India, 9(3).

Rahman, M. F., & Begum, M. (2006). Audio-Lingual Method: A Rethinking on the Effective Use of its Principles in Communicative Language Classroom. Teacher’s World, 28, 29, 31.

Rohani, R. (2014). KRASHEN‟ S LANGUAGE ACQUISITION HYPOTHESES: A CRITICAL REVIEW. In UNNES International Conference on ELTLT (English Language Teaching, Literature, and Translation) (pp. 660-665).

Samawiyah, Z., & Saifuddin, M. (2016). Phonetic Symbols through Audiolingual Method to Improve the Students’ Listening Skill. Dinamika Ilmu: Jurnal Pendidikan, 16(1), 35-46.

Saito, A. (2013). Revisiting Natural Approach and Communicative Language Teaching: A Reflection through Richards and Rodgers' Model of Method. 八戸工業大学紀要, 32, 175-181.

Schekochihina, S. V. (2016). SOME PRINCIPLES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION FROM STEPHEN D KRASHEN. In 21 век: фундаментальная наука и технологии (pp. 59-61).

Hughes, C. L. (1998). The natural approach: a great landmark in the exploration of communicative language teaching methods (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi).

Tambunan, I. R., & Gintings, E. M. (2012). The effect of communicative and audio lingual Method On Student’s Conversational Achievement. Linguistica, 1(1).

Te-jung, L. O. (2009). A Study on the Application of Audio-Lingual Method and Communicative Approach in Mandarin Teaching at the Elementary Level. Journal of College of Chinese Language and Culture of Jinan University, 1, 008.

Zhiming, B., & Wee, L. (1998). Functionalism in Education: A Critique of the Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Text in Education and Society, 91.

Zimmerman, C. B. (1997). Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. Second language vocabulary acquisition, 5-19.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.6p.34

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.