Traditional Methods, Communicative Approach And The Action-Based Approach

2. TRADITIONAL METHODS, THE COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH AND THE ACTION-BASED APPROACH

In this task I shall present an account of different methodologies or approaches to second language learning that have been used from this last century to these days, in order to draw on the main similarities and differences. For clarifying purposes, this similarities and differences are further stated a table.2.1 GRAMMAR TRANSLATION
Grammar Translation – also known as the Prussian Method in the States – was born in the 19th century from a group of German scholars (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 5-6) for the study of classical languages such as Latin and Greek (Lightbown & Spada, 2004, 138). Its main goal was to read literature through the translation of texts. Language language was based ongrammar rules students were presented with and bilingual word lists. A structure-based approach and a major focus on the formal aspect of language, specially in writing and reading was set, and consequently little or no attention was paid to listening and speaking (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 6). In a typical lesson, students would be asked to translate a text sentence by sentence from the targetlanguage to the native language. They were the responsible for the auto-correction of their translations, a high level of accuracy was demanded and hence, errors should be corrected. Occasionally, they would be asked to draw attention to certain grammar rule, and then asked to complete and exercise by filling the blanks, or to answer comprehension questions in the native language (Lightbown &Spada, 2004, 138). Therefore, the native language remained as the vehicular language, and the class had a strongly teacher-based component as s/he was the possessor of knowledge. Students´ role was reduced to memorize vocabulary and to learn by heart grammar rules to later apply to the translation of texts. The fact that most of the times students failed to produce any oral nor written output throughGrammar Translation, and the growing ideas that a new methodology with more psychological and linguistic insights – which this method lacked – lead to the Reform Movement (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 9).

2.2 DIRECT METHOD
Gouin settled the bases for a new approach to language teaching through the observation of child language learning (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 11) and shaped by thebehaviourist theories of the time. However it was Sauveur who widely used what it came to be known as the Direct Method. The goal of the Direct Method was to develop oral proficiency by acquiring the language in the way native language was learned. Therefore, first speaking was taught, then reading and eventually writing. As the major focus was to develop language skills, only the target languagewas used in class, and the teacher would replace the textbook at the onset of the course. As Sauveur put it, conversation was at the heart of natural language acquisition (Howatt, 2004, 210). So, unlike the Grammar Translation method, students were expected to speak from the very first lesson and only later reading and writing would be encouraged. Through the spontaneous and direct use of language,learners would be able to induce grammar rules, and hence it was not necessary to explain or memorize them as in the Grammar Translation method. Another major difference in relation with Grammar Translation was that vocabulary was presented through demonstration, mime or pictures (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 11). Accuracy on pronunciation was very important whereas errors should not be correctedbecause they were not offenses against the target language, but investigations (Howatt, 2004, 219). However, other sources point out that errors should not be imitated, but always corrected (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, 12). As Grammar Translation, the Direct Method had a strongly teacher-based component as the success of this method largely depended on the proficiency and skills of the...