Comparison of Methods in ELT

Methods were attempts to make language learning relevant to the demands of their times. Responding to the specific contexts in society and theory led to the development of various methods in language teaching. A few of the major methods that stand out in the ‘method-boom’ are language centred method, learner centred method, learning centred method and post-method. Each of these have their particular theoretical underpinnings that give them their flavour, strengths and shortcomings because each of them have a particular focus.

Input is the language data the language learner is exposed to. Behaviourist view says that input can be manipulated by stimulus-response paradigm through reinforcement, and is independent of learner-internal factors. Input research faded when behaviourism lost its central position in language learning/teaching theory. Innatist approach believes in the innate capacity of the learner to acquire language. Chomsky’s response to behaviourist approach gave rise to this model where principles are common to all languages and parameters are the language-dependent variables. Minimum input is sufficient for language development in this case. In interactionist approach, input along with the internal mechanisms of the learner are given importance. Interaction with human beings in contexts is an important element of this approach. Learning happens through input, language production and feedback- in short meaningful interaction. Communication according to Gass is the driving force behind language acquisition. Input is absolutely necessary for language learning and it is emphasised in every theory and method that we know of.

In general, one must understand that a learner must reach his/her internal grammar in L2 using available input. These Inter Language stages develop and finally settle for a steady interlanguage level according to the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis. Krashen’s Monitor Model states that comprehensible input at one level higher than the learner’s level is necessary for language development. Teacher ensures that there is sufficient amount of comprehensible input. If input is understood, the underlying grammar will be automatically understood. Here, the talk is about acquisition, not learning.

Interaction is exchange of or negotiation for meaning during communication. This is an important element of meaningful communication. It is an attention-drawing device according to Gass. Learner will be able to concentrate on particular aspects of communication and repair damages online. This language-in-action method enables the learner to test hypotheses formed during the process and gain feedback, thereby strengthening his/her language system. Interaction thus provides comprehensible input to the members of conversation.

            Output is language produced by a learner. Comprehensible output is an important element of language learning according to Swain which along with comprehensible input creates conditions for language learning. Output is not just reproduction of what is learned, but an active process where the learner forms and uses his/her grammar and gains automaticity in it. This shift from meaning-based processing to a syntactic mode is an important function played by output.

 Methods- A Comparison

	Language-centred methods	Learner-centred methods	Learning-centred methods
Primary focus	Linguistic forms	Forms and functions	Process of learning, Meaning, not on form
Method	Repetition, drills	Meaning focussed activities	Meaning focussed communicative activities
Materials	Preselected, pre-sequenced structures in conversations, product based syllabus	Preselected, pre-sequenced structures, communicative functions, product based syllabus	No preselected, pre-sequenced materials, process based syllabus
Language	Discrete elements	Tool for communication
Learning	Additive process through habit formation; Linear and additive; intentional	Communicative process through insight formation; Linear and additive; intentional	Incidental, not intentional; Cyclical and Parallel
Teaching	Selecting, grading, presenting form based materials	Create opportunities to communicate through activities in context	Keep the learner engaged in meaning or information, comprehensible input
Assumption	Preoccupation with forms will lead to mastery of language	Preoccupation with forms and functions will lead to mastery of language	Conscious mind gets meaning, subconscious mind abstracts rules
Teachers’ role	Central	Central	Central
Error correction	Conscious error correction- low tolerance	Corrected as part of communication	Incidental correction, not systematic
	Analogy over analysis	Functional communication	Comprehension over production

Post method sprang from the failure of methods in fulfilling their promises. Methods had exhausted theoretical frameworks and had tried almost all available tactics in language teaching and learning. Each method claimed ultimate stature, but failed to be effective solutions to perennial problems. They were considered ideology neutral, and universally applicable which is not true. With all their shortcomings they were rejected because they did not provide practical solutions for immediate problems in classrooms. Teachers were mere tools who implemented the theory formulated by experts. Their concrete problems in classrooms remained despite methods. So teachers preferred their own eclectic methods over prescribed methods. That is where post method pedagogy tries to implement a pedagogy that tries to take particularity, practicality and possibility into account. Particular situations need particular methods that are tested for their practicality as proposed by Kumaravadivelu. Learners need to develop autonomy and take charge of their own learning using productive strategies. This method acknowledges and uses teachers’ experience and knowledge in classroom decision making. Teacher is expected to build theory of practice based on experience.

Input, Interaction and Output in Methods

            Input is of absolute importance in any language learning method. Input is how a learner comes in contact with target language. In language centred (form focussed) methods, input is given in the form of dialogues. The method was developed to teach languages to military personnel who went abroad during second world war. Spoken language was the most important element in that context. Therefore, language was served in dialogues with the good intention of giving contextual information. Such input was drilled in practice sessions with explicit focus on form. Elements of language form were selected, graded and presented one by one to the learner through structural patterns. Learners were expected to practice them using mechanical, meaningful and communicative drills and link these discrete elements on their own in real life contexts. Input is carefully controlled by the teacher. Such input was considered necessary and sufficient for language development.

            In learner centred methods, the focus is on forms and functions. They follow a functional syllabus. Language is for communication which in turn is based on the sociocultural norms of interpretation in context. Therefore, there is no limit as to what materials can be used and can be modified to suit the learner. But usually input is standardised functions exemplified in stereotypical contexts. Such input expects to enable the learner to take classroom learning to real life situations.

            In learning centred methods, comprehensible input is talked about. Language input has to be understood by the learner because the focus of the method is on meaning. Comprehending the input provided by the teacher is of utmost importance. Comprehensible input is defined as that at ‘i+1’ level where ‘i' is the current level of the learner. This level is a teacher-decision, made in classroom. Sequencing and selection of input are also teacher decisions. Various activities (information gap, reasoning gap and opinion gap) are used to provide manageable linguistic input. Input is provided by the teacher. Also, teacher has to be flexible so as to simplify or make complex the input depending on learners’ response.

            Post methods criticise the way input is controlled by methods and support the use of teacher autonomy in skilfully deciding what works and what doesn’t. Classroom situation is available only to the teacher, not to the theoretician. Therefore, teacher has the privilege and responsibility of shaping context sensitive input for learners.

            Interaction in language centred methods doesn’t have much scope since it is strictly form focussed and uses drills and repetition to instil grammar in the learner. In the three stages of presentation, practice and production, the little interaction that can occur is between the teacher and the learner. Interaction is a textual activity. Production/output in these methods is also limited. Repetition of given forms, practice of memorised chunks of dialogues, etc. form production in these methods with an intention to minimise errors.

            In learner centred methods, there are meaning focussed activities to practice linguistic structures and functions. Language learning is seen as a process that grows out of meaningful interaction. This is facilitated using pair, group work, role plays, debated, etc. Interaction also focuses on the social propriety of language use. Thus interaction has a greater role in this method than language centred methods. Output has a limited sense here, but since communication is given importance in activities, one must say that language output is considered useful as can be observed in the attitude to error correction.

            In learning centred methods, interaction is seen as a meaning-focused activity directed by the teacher. Interaction is the source of language in classroom. Hence syllabus is not very important. Prabhu’s CTP does not allow much interaction is promoted among learners while Natural Approach support interaction in pair/group wok. But as an ideational activity, interaction is not given importance at all. Teacher-talk is more important than learner interaction and production. Teacher interacts with learners to guide them to achievement of language goal. There is no two-way communication. The basic assumption is that input leads to acquisition (Krashen). Therefore, output is also not considered important for second language development. One of the criticisms of these methods is that there isn’t much interaction and output.

            In post method paradigm, where the teacher is given much freedom to experiment and interpret, interaction is of utmost importance. One of the macro strategies suggested by Kumaravadivelu is ‘facilitate negotiated interaction’. By negotiating meaning in interaction, learners develop their language. Many micro strategies are suggested. Output is embedded in such interaction. Production helps learners to focus on form, pay attention to relationship between form and meaning, and overall dynamics of communication. Every opportunity is exploited to create interaction and output in learning situations.