Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
5 Historical Methods Used in ESL/EFL and
Their Effectiveness Related to SLA theory
Rebecca Roque
TSL 5371
Dr. Aixa Pérez-Prado
October 27, 2013
1
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
2
5 Historical Methods Used in ESL/EFL
and Their Effectiveness Related to SLA theory
This paper explores several published articles and the class texts Techniques and Principles in Language
Teaching by Diane Larsen-Freeman and How Languages are Learned by Lightbrown and Spada in order
to summarize five historical methods used in English as a Second or Foreign Language (ESL/EFL). The
fove methods that will be reviewed in the paper are: Content-Based Learning Instruction (CBLI), TaskBased methods, Communicative, Reading, and Grammar Translation techniques. A summary of these
five methods will be provided as well as an analysis of how one or more parts of each “method” can be
applied in today’s classroom to promote interactive language acquisition as part of an eclectic, creative,
informed, and effective approach.
In Content-Based Language Instruction (CBLI) students are learning the language via a subject of
study, i.e. Math, Geography, Social Studies, and other primary, secondary, or even tertiary subjects—
such as psychology in a high school or university. In this type of method the subject is taught in the
target language and the teacher inspires models and guides the language use in relation to the subject
material/topic. This methodology developed in 1970’s in England for native speakers—when writing and
reading were made a part of other subjects [history, sociology, etc.] as it had been noticed that
“academic subjects provide natural content for language instructions” (Freeman-Larsen, 2000, p. 137).
This idea evolved in English for Academic Purposes (EAP), a branch of EFL/ESL which “grounds the
teaching of English in the cognitive, social and linguistic demands of particular academic contexts”
(Song, 2001, p. 1). CBLI likewise tailors the instruction to meet the specific demands of the students,
developing from a need to “fast-track” learning—especially for those with limited funding/time who
were entering university or the work force in the target language shortly thereafter. This has been called
a sort of “two for one”—increasing both content knowledge and language proficiency simultaneously.
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
3
Sometimes in these types of programs the content is supplemented by “functional based EFL
classes. In some cases they even offer second classes that reinforce the subject class with extra
grammar, note-taking, and term paper-writing support” (Larsen & Freedman, 2000, p. 142-143). This
means that they would have a main subject class, for example, History, but they would also have further
supplemental grammar instruction or writing help in a separate course—that derives its content from
the needs of the principal course in History. In Song’s at Kingsborough Community College of the City
University of New York, wherein he tracked and compared the graduation rates and testing scores in
reading and writing for CBLI programs versus traditional ESL courses—the CBLI method reigned
supreme. In all of the categories, students showed to have more academic success and higher
graduation rates in Content-based courses versus the traditional language instruction (not subject
specific). Sixty-one percent of CBLI participants passed the reading versus 54 percent passed with
traditional instruction, and for writing 62 percent and 44 percent respectively. In regards to graduation,
39 percent graduated in 4 years and only 24% graduated within 4 years in the non-CBLI group ESL
classes. These figures show us an increased language acquisition and learning, shortened time, and also
more thorough and applicable ability to use and test in the target language (Song, 2000, p. 431).
In another study conducted in Taiwan, researchers looked at motivation in regards to CBLI, but
with very young learners as a demographic. This study is an important contribution to the field of ESL as
it is the first of its kind, as all former studies were mainly completed with participants living in Western
culture, and done with slightly older students. In Huang’s study he looked at motivational behavior in
Content-Based instruction versus the traditional ESL format and found once again, using the subject
matter as a methodology of EFL instruction was shown to draw out more authentic communication and
language from the teacher during these types of lessons. Also, over time the students showed to use
more complete sentences and formed more unpredicted questions in CBLI lessons than traditional
language-input sessions, although the frequency of speech almost identical. This shows us that we can
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
4
get students to think more (habits of mind) and express more authentic language when we use the
subject as a derivative rather than as an end product, which is an important take-away for us as we build
an eclectic methodology.
The second methodology of which I will summarize, analyze, and make suggestions for use is
Task-Based Instruction. The Task-Based technique is similar to that of Content-Based instruction in that
relies on the natural communication/interaction necessary when completing a specific task. It is needsbased and therefore has accelerated purpose and meaning (from the desire to complete the task) and
the student can in turn be introduced to new vocabulary and phrases from listening to a partner, their
group, or the class. They may have to guess meaning through context and are constantly being checked
for understanding as they are usually working with someone whose necessity it is to understand them,
or they may have to ask for clarification--a mutually beneficial exercise (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 144).
This type of instruction is extremely effective as it puts a sense of urgency, just like CBLI, on the
necessity to communicate, but usually within a fun, safe, and low-monitored format. Such
manifestations of Task-Based activities could be in the form of presentations, projects, and even games,
where more than the teacher ever thought possible may arise in a natural, almost filter-free, and
meaningful experience. This is seen as ESOL-ish (beneficial and effective to ESL learners), in that the
tasks can be made extremely personal, such as the example in the book on making schedules and
learning about each other’s favorite subjects in Southern India, to having students create a presentation
based on something related to their culture; food, music, dancing, etc. (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, p. 144146). Also it relates to Krashen’s idea of effective SLA as these types of tasks usually produce a low-filter
affect, meaning students are more care-free and natural in the development and completion of their
task because there is perhaps a sense of playfulness, socializing, meaning, personalization, and also
motivation—speeding up speech and allowing for a more realistic pace (although errors may be more
frequent).
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
5
The third method of which I will analyze is Communication language teaching. According to
Larsen-Freeman (2010) the Communicative approach developed from a realization that students were
unable to use their knowledge of the language appropriately, although they were highly aware of
grammar and sentence formation (p. 121). This inability to communicate outside of the class in regards
to social or other use of the language, asking questions, responding to requests, declining invitations,
promising, etc. prompted a large shift from the Linguistic model to the Communicative model in the late
1970’s early 80’s. In this type of learning environment the classroom’s goal is to be able to
communicate—the subject or topic is introduced along with ideally authentic material. The teacher acts
more as an “adviser, answering students’ questions and monitoring their performance” (LarsenFreeman, 2010, p. 128). The teacher’s main goal is to set up scenarios where the students have
meaningful activities to use the language, in which Morrow’s 3 features of communicative activities are
present: “information gap, choice, and feedback” (Larsen-Freeman, 2010, p. 129). Information gap
meaning that the participants must not have all the information and that the activity has meaning—to
be able to obtain needed info through communication. They need to be able to be creative and have
minimal restrictions on what they can creative in order to allow them to practice adjusting for register
based on what they already know in the language, and gain immediate feedback on comprehension via
responses from their partner/group. Teachers circulate and make note of errors for later accuracy work
and do not immediately correct errors. The educator may become involved in the conversation, but the
learning is more student-focused—as the student is more responsible for their own learning.
This type of method, via communication has been revolutionary for the field of ESL and has
prompted student’s ability to use the target language at earlier stages—and helped avoid the
complaints that language learners used to have regarding traditional language instruction. This
technique is seen as more applicable to real life and prepares students to respond to unpredictable life
scenarios by giving great variability and creativity to the practice in class-not limiting responses to one
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
6
correct answer, by showing both the restricted and liberal use of different constructions. The
communicative approach has similarities to the previous methods described in this analysis, via the fact
that the content is used as the basis of the conversation and also where the task at hand (game,
conversation, information gap activity) is meaningful, motivating, and uses the target language
form/vocab being studied. It provides room for more experimenting and thus active practice and
negotiation—with constant assessment and re-evaluation as it is interactive, and therefore ESOLish. It
can also be extremely meaningful if the topic and or game, activity, or practice is seen as something
important, interesting, or personal to the students.
The fourth method of which I will summarize and make suggestions for use is the Reading
approach…
The last approach of which I will review is the Grammar-Translation method, also known as the “Classic
Method.” It was originally taught to help students study grammar of the target language in order to
better understand language in general, and improve their native language, as many were thought not
likely to have the opportunity to use the target language in their experiences. It involves reading and
the translation of vocabulary and grammar in order to gain meaning and was seen as a way to grow
intellectually (Larsen-Freeman, 2010, 12). According to those who use this method they claim a
fundamental reason to learn a language is to “be able to read literature in the target language,” and
essentially not designed to help them use it or communicate with it (Larsen-Freeman, 2010, p.17).
Students analyze grammar structure and rules and are supposed to be able to apply this rule to other
samples of grammar. Translation of entire texts is seen as beneficial and is given quite often as an
assignment along with a heavy usage of repetition and memorization, such as writing a word 5-10 times,
this is something that is debatably ESOL-ish as it does not necessarily allow for much freedom or
variance in activities, but is certainly one way to learn material, as SLA requires a certain degree of
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
7
repetition and practice via writing. This approach is also extremely teacher focused with an emphasis on
one and only one correct answer, which is not something that is viewed as particularly ESOL-ish as it
does not personalize the material nor allow for much interaction in the target language. This type of
method may be met with a lot of skepticism these days especially considering the high level of likeliness
that you will use the target language in your life and that you need to be communicative in it. This
method lies heavily upon the learning patterns described by Anderson, Keyser, and others known as
“declarative vs. procedural” knowledge (Lightbrown & Spada, 2013, p. 109). The learner may know
these grammar rules (declarative) and may even be able to apply them to examples (procedural)-- but it
is to be challenged whether the knowledge would ever become automatic/natural—a principle goal of
EFL/ESL education, due to the lack of practice and real life application. This method may become
effective if the student was then thrust into a long-term immersion program where they may be able to
use their knowledge to analyze the language and eventually produce it, as is the case with most
students who study a foreign language and then travel abroad to practice and acquire it. Nevertheless,
this method does not necessarily draw upon the principles that are known for effective LSA being rote,
ritualistic, and not communicative nor interactive, it would not highly be recommended to absorb too
much of this methodology into your own personal approach to ESL/EFL teaching. Although some of the
points should be retained such as the ability to recognize rules in a reading, repetition as well as
students ability to gain meaning from a text. The grammar studied is also derived from a text in which is
seen as a somewhat progressive idea in grammar presentation and is seen in CBLI and task-based
activities.
In conclusion…
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
8
Running Head: HISTORICAL METHODS USED IN ESL/EFL
9