This paper surveys and compares five major bilingual education methods that emerged primarily in the twentieth century: the Audiolingual Method, Total Physical Response (TPR), the Silent Way, the Natural Approach, and Suggestopedia. Drawing on foundational works by Brown (1994) and Richards and Rodgers (2001), the paper evaluates the theoretical basis, classroom application, and relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach. It considers factors such as teacher–student dynamics, emphasis on grammar versus communication, suitability for different age groups, and real-world applicability. The analysis demonstrates that no single method is universally superior, and that many successful contemporary programs draw on elements from multiple approaches.
Once upon a time, perhaps, the art of teaching was relatively straightforward. Each teacher used their own style, or that which had been handed down by those they learned from. While a certain degree of theory has always been involved in teaching — after all, the so-called Socratic method was debated centuries before the birth of Christ and is still cited as a controversial pedagogy — it was not until very recently that a great deal of academic attention was turned not just to subject matter in schools, but to the way in which subjects were taught. Even so, the methodology of teaching second languages, as a study separate from general pedagogy, is more recent still. "The designer methods emerged in the 1970s, a period of great enlightenment as many would describe." (Brown, 1994)
According to Jack Richards (2001), "The method concept in teaching — the notion of a systematic set of teaching practices based on a particular theory of language and language learning — is a powerful one, and the quest for better methods was a preoccupation of many teachers and applied linguists throughout the twentieth century."
Today, five significant bilingual education methods deserve to be compared and contrasted so that the benefits of each may be evaluated. These five methods are the Audiolingual Method, the Total Physical Response Method (sometimes referred to in the literature as TPR), the Silent Way Method, the Natural Approach, and the Soviet-inspired Suggestopedia method. Each has been relatively influential in various parts of the world, and many successful bilingual programs today use derivatives of one of these methods, or draw elements from each to compose hybrid styles. As Brown (1994) notes, "None of them has ever been recognized as being the current state of the art, even during its most popular time. Nonetheless, the originality of some of these methods has brought new ideas that are currently used today in the Communicative Approach."
The Audiolingual Method casts the teacher in the role of a language modeler and drill leader (World History, 2001). It has been referred to as the "Army Method" because it was originally developed "through a U.S. Army program called ASTP, standing for 'Army Specialized Training Program,'" which "emphasized pattern drills and conversation practices" (Brown, 1994). In this method, there is a heavy emphasis on mimicry, structure, and memorization. Like many other experimental methods, little emphasis is placed on grammar, and there is similarly little focus on vocabulary. A great deal of focus is, however, placed on pronunciation.
This method has a number of positive attributes. First, its use of mimicry — both of the teacher and of recorded audio and audiovisual material — tends to produce students with highly comprehensible accents and a good grasp of the sound and flow of the language. It also has a reasonable psychological foundation in its use of positive reinforcement for success, which appeals to the behaviorist instincts of many teachers and students. Moreover, the authoritarian relationship established between teachers and students may be positive within certain school or military environments, motivating learners to achieve as much as possible.
Negative aspects are also present, however. Many students may not flourish in such an authoritarian environment, and the pressure created by constant drilling and memorization may not produce learning that translates into real-world usage. There is a meaningful difference between producing a correct answer on a drill and communicating in a genuine conversational environment. A lack of grammatical explanation, combined with limited focus on vocabulary and other content, may leave students with very good accents but very poor conversational abilities.
The Total Physical Response Method, on the other hand, is all about connecting actual situations with the vocabulary one uses within them. While in the TPR method the teacher is still a "commander" (World History, 2001), he or she also becomes an "action monitor" while the student is a "performer" (World History, 2001). This method focuses on "associating language with physical activity" (Brown, 1994). It draws much insight from children's natural language-learning patterns, which is an advantage because such acquisition seems natural, especially for younger students. In a TPR learning environment, students do a great deal of listening and acting out commands, associating words with action.
TPR has been widely acclaimed as a teaching method and may be one of the more popular approaches worldwide. One key advantage is that it creates a fun, relatively low-stress environment for learning while still requiring the learner to work in order to succeed. "It also focused on the ideas that learning should be as fun and stress-free as possible, and that it should be dynamic through the use of accompanying physical activity." (TEFL, 2004) TPR works especially well with young students who are still learning as if for the first time, and for teachers who do not speak much of their students' native language — since one can act out the actions being spoken about, it is possible to teach using TPR with very limited knowledge of the students' first language.
Another advantage is that TPR does not require students to speak before they are comfortable, ensuring that comprehension precedes pronunciation. There are also a few disadvantages. While TPR does an excellent job of teaching how to speak about daily activities, it may do very little to teach proper grammar and pronunciation. Additionally, it may not serve to teach more complex or abstract subjects of dialogue. As one teacher observes, "I therefore view it as an almost prerequisite technique for teaching young students or older students at beginning levels, but a method that needs to be supplemented with other approaches as students progress in proficiency." (English Raven) TPR may also seem repetitive or even pointless to older or more experienced students.
"Discovery learning through problem-solving"
"Mimicking mother-tongue acquisition in class"
"Relaxed environment to boost language receptivity"
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.