- 4 -
had to avoid surface errors such as spelling for fear of punishment or disdain. Such an emphasis
on accuracy allowed little to no time for fluency, but proved relatively successful in teaching
reading and writing in L1 contexts—a modern version of this method is English for Academic
Purposes (EAP) courses in which students often develop reading skills without learning to speak
the language. However, even in writing, the Grammar-Translation Method did not achieve
universal success among students (Rivers, 1964). Rivers explains:
In an endeavor to practice the application of rules and the use of exceptional forms, the student is
often trained in artificial forms of language, some of which are rare, some old-fashioned, many of little
practical use. The language learned is mostly of a literary type, and the vocabulary is detailed and
sometimes esoteric. The average student has to work hard at what he considers laborious and monotonous
chores—vocabulary learning, translation, and endless written exercises—without much feeling of progress
in the mastery of the language and with very little opportunity to express himself through it. (pp. 17-18)
When ESL instruction developed a concern with fluency after World War II, new methods had to
be created. The Audio-lingual Method (ALM), resulting from a “marriage of structural
linguistics and behaviorist psychology,” as Omaggio puts it, started off as the “Army
Specialized Training Program” in the 1940’s and dominated academic programs in the US in the
1950’s and 1960’s, with the help of funds from the National Defense Education Act (Omaggio,
1986). Avoiding explicit grammar instruction (e.g. parsing and translation) and changing the
focus from written to oral communication, ALM reinforced repetition, drilling, error correction,
and structural syllabi (Rivers, 1968; Ommagio, 1986; Krashen and Terrell, 1983). As
behaviorists claimed, learning occurs through imitation of correct models. They believed that if
a structure (linguistic behavior) was practiced over and over through rote learning, it could be
automatized. Following Skinner’s (1957) Verbal Learning theory, ALM emphasized behavior
modification (error correction) and highly controlled instruction. Structures were taught from
simple to complex ones, and production was minimal because teachers believed that students’
errors could contribute to the formation of bad habits. This “scientific” approach, advocated by
Lado (1964), reached world-wide popularity and is still used in many schools around the globe.
However, given its great emphasis on overlearning, the Audio-lingual Method tended to become
boring and, to a certain degree, ineffective. Omaggio (1986) explains its decline:
The enthusiasm with which second language teachers had originally received this revolutionary
methodology was dampened within a relatively short time. First, the method did not deliver what it had
promised: bilingual speakers at the end of instruction. [...] Furthermore, both teachers and students found
the avoidance of grammar discussions frustrating and time consuming. The continuous repetition required
for overlearning and memorization was monotonous and was a considerable physical strain on both
teachers and students. (p. 64)
Because ALM did not facilitate proficiency as claimed, most language schools, following
advances in generative linguistics and cognitive psychology, have turned to alternative methods
the most important of which is CLT.
Communicative Language Teaching
CLT is currently being used in most ESL programs throughout the world. This method (or
approach, as many prefer to call it), focusing on general linguistic ability, has integrated the
language arts (reading, listening, and so forth) and incorporated other advances in linguistics and
cognitive psychology into language instruction (e.g. Chomsky, 1965; Ausubel 1963).
Linguists beginning with Chomsky (1965) have argued convincingly that first language
learning is creative rather than repetitive and based solely on positive evidence, not negative
evidence. His studies of child language acquisition and universal grammar (UG), along with
Lenneberg’s (1967) critical period hypothesis (where the ability to acquire a first language ends