Audio-lingual Method

This article presents information on the Audiolingual Method of teaching foreign languages, including English as a second language. The Audiolingual Method was a popular method used to teach foreign languages in the 1950s and 1960s. The foundations of the method rested on two important theories: the linguistic theory of Structuralism and the educational theory of Behaviorism. Key concepts of the method included a focus on language as speech and an emphasis on imitation, memorization and drill practice. The theoretical underpinnings of Audiolingualism, its historical rise to popularity and the reasons for its decline are examined.

Keywords Army Method; Audiolingual Method; Aural-Oral Approach; Behaviorism; Dialogue; Functional Skills; Grammar-Translation; Informant Method; Language Lab; Oral Approach; Phonetics; Structuralism

English as a Second Language > The Audiolingual Method

Overview

The Audiolingual Method was a method for teaching foreign languages that enjoyed its heyday in the mid-1960s. The approach was partly based on the then-prevalent belief that language learning was a behavioral skill. According to this belief, the learning process involved cultivating habits by reinforcing correct language uses. Students learned language through a series of drills involving imitation, repetition and practice (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). For instance, a typical lesson might include the introduction of a model dialogue read aloud by the teacher; choral repetition of the dialogue with frequent teacher correction of pronunciation; memorization, practice and adaptation of the dialogue; drill practice of grammatical structures; and reading and writing activities related to the vocabulary and forms presented that day (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In the classroom, the target language was the only language spoken by the students, and students were expected to gain an understanding of grammatical forms inductively rather than deductively as was common in traditionally-used methods of the time (Kerper, 1999; Smith, 1970).

Further Insights

Behaviorism

The foundational beliefs underlying the audiolingual or functional skills approach were based on a learning theory called behaviorism and a linguistic theory called structuralism. Behaviorism, developed by American psychologist B. F. Skinner, is a theory that views learning as a process of reinforcing behaviors. According to this theory, when individuals receive positive reinforcement for their behavior, they are likely to repeat those behaviors. When individuals receive negative reinforcement, they are likely to stop producing those behaviors. Thus, in terms of language learning, a behaviorist approach would reward students for correct responses. This idea was incorporated into many of the methods that comprised the audiolingual approach. For instance, one of the principle methods of the approach involved the memorization of dialogues representing situations the student could encounter. It was believed that if students memorized the correct responses of the dialogue and were given positive feedback for their responses, then when students encountered the situation in real life, they would automatically recall the appropriate language for the context (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

Structuralism

The second theory, Structuralism, was a linguistic theory that highly valued the grammar or structure of the language as its starting point. Structuralists believed in paying particular attention to the pronunciation and basic sentence patterns of the language. Because speech is naturally learned first, they believed that language was speech and that writing was a secondary form of language. In their study of language, structuralists began at the phonetic level and moved upward to investigate words and sentences. In this way, they followed the footsteps of Henry Sweet, an influential voice in the late 19th century who contributed greatly to the establishment of linguistics as a science. Sweet believed that the science of language was rooted in phonetics, or the sounds of the language. "Phonetics is to the science of language generally what mathematics is to astronomy and the physical sciences" (cited in Matsuda, 2001, p. 87).

The structuralists with the most impact on the development of audiolingualism were Charles Fries and Leonard Bloomfield. Separately and concurrently these individuals developed techniques of teaching foreign languages that were incorporated into the audiolingual approach. Fries was responsible for the development of the oral approach also known as the aural-oral approach or structural approach. Under the oral approach, students learned grammatical patterns through a series of drills involving imitation and pattern practice (e.g., This is a pen. That is a pencil. That is a book. This is a desk. What is that?) Fries emphasized the differences in patterns that occurred between languages, believing that these were the root of errors in a second language. The oral approach was initially used at the University of Michigan, the site of the first "Intensive English Language Institute" in the country. The goal of the ELI was to help international students develop a mastery of the English sound system and the structure of the spoken system. Students were taught using a limited vocabulary and were expected to be proficient in less than three months (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Bloomfield, like Fries, developed techniques for learning the spoken system of language. In his textbook and pamphlets on language teaching, he developed the principles of mimicry and memorization and introduced the term habit in relation to language learning (Castagnaro, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

A Bottom-Up System

Based on these structuralist ideas, the audiolingual method was designed around a progressive exposure to the language beginning with the spoken system and then moving to the written system. First, students listened in order to learn the sounds of the system. Then students learned to speak by repeating what they had heard. Finally, students read and wrote the same language that they had already used orally. Because the system was designed to move from the bottom-up, students were expected to form their own understanding of the grammar through the processes of making analogies, generalizing and discriminating. This was in direct contrast to the traditional method of the time known as grammar-translation which presented grammatical rules first and followed the rules with practice. Unlike traditional teachers, teachers operating within the audiolingual paradigm did not give explanations of language principles until students were believed to have their own perceptions of how the language worked (Smith, 1970).

Nelson Brooks, originator of the term audiolingual, summarized the practices of an audiolingual teacher as follows:

• The modeling of all content by the teacher.

• The subordination of the mother tongue to the second language by rendering English inactive while the new language is being learned.

• The early and continued training of the ear and tongue without recourse to graphic symbols.

• The learning of structure through the practice of patterns of sound, order, and form, rather than by explanation.

• The gradual substitution of graphic symbols for sounds after sounds are thoroughly known.

• The summarizing of the main principles of structure for the student's use when the structures are already familiar, especially when they differ from those of the mother tongue…

• The shortening of the time span between a performance and the pronouncement of its rightness or wrongness, without interrupting the response. This enhances the factor of reinforcement in learning.

• The minimizing of vocabulary until all common structures have been learned.

• The study of vocabulary only in context.

• Sustained practice in the use of the language only in the molecular form of speaker-hearer-situation.

• Practice in translation only as a literary exercise at an advanced level (Brooks, 1964 as cited in Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

The Army Method

Though audiolingual methods were most popular in the 1960s, the birth of some of the approach's principles grew out of the needs that arose during World War II. During the 1930s, foreign language training in the U.S. followed a reading-based approach. Because most students studying language at that time never expected to use the language in real life, and because few teachers were fluent in the languages they taught, oral skills were deemed to be irrelevant. Instead, students learned by reading text and translating sentences (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Smith, 1970). World War II changed foreign language teaching because it created a need for individuals who could actually speak German, Italian, Japanese and other languages.

In response to this need, the government asked universities to develop new methods that could quickly train military personnel to be conversationally proficient in a second language. The result was the development of the Army Specialized Training Program, also known as the army method. This program was modeled after linguistic programs that were then being used by linguists and anthropologists to learn languages for which there were no textbooks. In this informant method, developed by Bloomfield, a native speaker and a linguist would work together with the learner in an intense environment. The native speaker would provide phrases and sentences to be imitated; the linguist would help elicit the language for imitation. Students studied "10 hours a day, six days a week. There were generally 15 hours of drill with native speakers and 20 to 30 hours of private study spread over two to three 6-week sessions" (Richards & Rodgers, 1986, p. 51). The army adopted this intense method with successful results.

As a result of its success, many colleges and high schools attempted to create courses based on the army method's principles. However, the programs were largely unsuccessful because colleges and universities could not recreate the intensity of the military programs. Nevertheless, the army method had a lasting effect on foreign language teaching in that many linguists came to appreciate the value of oral language training (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

Furthermore, one of the goals of the army method was later adopted by the audiolingual method. This was the goal of near-native-like perfection. That is, to be considered proficient, students had to accurately reproduce the sounds and grammatical forms of a native language speaker. Today, it is recognized that there is no perfect native speaker because there are multiple dialects and native speakers do not always speak with grammatical perfection (Bolton, 2006). It is also recognized that native-like pronunciation is frequently impossible for older language learners to achieve (Long, 2007). However, at the time, it was believed that students could achieve native-like speech if they listened to and imitated native speakers. Thus, one of the instructional tools that blossomed with audiolingualism was the language lab. In the language lab, students could listen to and repeat dialogues, complete drill practice and work without being disturbed by other students. It was recommended that students spend 15-20 minutes a day in language labs exercises. Although no grammatical explanation was recommended following the drills, many teachers felt that grammar explanations enhanced the language lab experience and added them to their programs (Smith, 1970).

While World War II brought an emphasis on oral skills to foreign language teaching, the audiolingual method did not develop as a specific program until the late 1950s. At that time, the launching of the first Russian satellite raised fears that the U.S. would fall behind other countries in making scientific advancements. Therefore, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 expanded funds for the study of languages and how to teach them. As part of these efforts, language specialists combined the linguistic theory of structuralism, the educational theory of behaviorism, and the techniques developed by Fries and Bloomfield into what we now call the audiolingual method (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

Viewpoints

New Theories

Audiolingualim remained popular in the 1950s and 1960s, but in the mid-1960s, new ideas in linguistic and educational theory challenged the approach. The most influential criticism came from within the field of linguistics. Linguist Noam Chomsky rejected the structuralist and behaviorist foundations of audiolingualism. He argued that language learning cannot be a habit because it involves considerable innovations. In other words, individuals regularly create new sentences and language patterns that go beyond the language input that they have received. Given this innovation, Chomsky reasoned that there must be something innate within the mind that allows an individual to acquire and organize linguistic principles. He dubbed this language acquisition device "universal grammar" and proposed that while much of one's language knowledge is already present at birth, abstract mental processes must be engaged in order to facilitate learning (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; White, 2007).

Cognitive theorists in psychology and education also rejected aspects of the audiolingual method. David Ausubel's work in educational psychology highlighted the importance of deductive methods for successful academic achievement. His work with advance organizers demonstrated how presenting a general overview of a principle before giving students task-based practice enhanced learning. It was, and still is, believed that advance organizers help the student to integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge and mental structures (Kearsley, 2007). This notion was in direct contrast to the inductive method of audiolingualism. Furthermore, cognitive scientists rejected the rote learning of phrases during drills and the use of natural-native speaking speeds with beginning level students. They argued that language learning can be aided by the use of the student's native language, and they rejected the audiolingualist's insistence on using only the target language in the classroom (Smith, 1970).

An Ineffective Method

Along with new theoretical perspectives came evidence that audiolingual methods were quantitatively ineffective. One of the earliest studies to raise doubts about the popular oral methods of training was conducted in the late 1940s. Agard & Dunkel (1948) found that in aural-oral programs, students were not becoming "spontaneously fluent" in the amount of time allotted and their reading skills were weak compared to students in traditional groups (as cited in Smith, 1970).

Concern about whether audiolingual programs were measuring up to expectations led the state of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Office of Education to establish a longitudinal project comparing three teaching methodologies. The project compared grammar-translation, audiolingual, (which they called functional skills), and functional skills plus grammar programs. The project encompassed 58 secondary schools and 104 teachers its first year with 61 classes continuing through the first two years. Additional funding allowed the project to continue for four years though student samples were smaller as fewer students progressed through the advanced levels of foreign language study. Students taking French and German were assessed on their listening comprehension, speaking fluency, reading and writing skills. Though the investigators admitted to an initial expectation that audiolingual programs would outperform traditional ones, this did not occur.

Instead, the results of the study were devastating for audiolingualism. At the end of each year of study, students in the traditional grammar-translation classes performed significantly better on reading comprehension tests. At the end of the second year, there were no significant differences among the three strategies on measures of listening, speaking and writing, but this changed by year three when students in traditional programs also outperformed the others in listening. Along with these blows to audiolingualism, the study found that language labs did not have a significant positive impact on student achievement (Smith, 1970). Thus, with research challenging the effectiveness of audiolingual methods and educational and linguistic theorists moving to new paradigms, audiolingualism was soon replaced in the U.S. by new methods (Smith, 1970).

Remnants of audiolingualism can still be found in the classroom. Textbooks are still produced with dialogues that can be practiced; tapes and CDs offer students the chance to listen to native voices at natural speeds; and in some classes, there are still grammar drills. But for the most part, these methods are used not as a program unto themselves, but as part of an eclectic classroom that uses a variety of methods to meet differing student needs. In the few instances where research can still be found comparing audiolingualism to other methods of instruction, audiolingualism continues to underperform its counterparts (Kiany, Ali Salimi & Afshari, 2004).

Terms & Concepts

Army Method: An intensive foreign language learning system that involved team teaching between a native speaker and a trained linguist and intense contact with the language – up to 10 hours a day for several weeks.

Behaviorism: A learning theory developed by American psychologist B.F. Skinner. In this theory, all learning is described as a behavior and desired behaviors can be cultivated by using positive and negative reinforcement.

Dialogue: A conversation consisting of two or three people speaking in a natural situation was the principle teaching tool of the Audiolingual Method. Students were expected to study the language by imitating, practicing, memorizing and adapting the dialogue.

Grammar-Translation: A method of language learning derived from the traditional ways of teaching Latin. In this method, students are given general rules of grammar and then practice using those rules by translating sentences.

Informant Method: A language learning method in which a native speaker and a trained linguist work together to teach the spoken language. The native speaker provides words and phrases for students to imitate; the linguist elicits the forms from the speaker.

Language Lab: A popular tool used by teachers in the 1960s and 1970s. In language labs, students had the chance to listen to native speakers speaking at their natural rates and to complete drill exercises focusing on grammatical patterns.

Negative Reinforcement: Within the theory of behaviorism, negative reinforcement is anything that is done to prevent an undesirable behavior from reoccurring. For example, denying a student candy for an incorrect response in a game would be considered negative reinforcement.

Oral Approach: A method of foreign language teaching developed by Charles Fries. The approach is based in structuralism and is closely associated with contrastive analysis.

Phonetics: The sound system of a language.

Positive Reinforcement: Within the theory of behaviorism, positive reinforcement is anything that is done to encourage the repetition of a desired behavior. For example, giving a student candy for a correct response in a game would be considered positive reinforcement.

Structuralism: A linguistic theory that pays particular attention to the phonetic system of a language and to the grammatical patterns of the language. The audiolingual method was based on many of the principles of structuralism.

Bibliography

Abu-Melhim, A. (2009). Re-evaluating the effectiveness of the audio-lingual method in teaching english to speakers of other languages. International Forum of Teaching & Studies, 5, 39-45.Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=54279420&site=ehost-live

Bolton, K. (2006). Varieties of World Englishes. In B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of World Englishes (pp. 289-312). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Castagnaro, P. (2006). Audiolingual Method and Behaviorism: From misunderstanding to myth. Applied Linguistics, 27 , 519-526. Retrieved July 18, 2007 from EBSCO Online Education Research Complete Database. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22104397&site=ehost-live

Demirezen, M. (2011). The foundations of the communicative approach and three of its applications. Journal of Language & Linguistics Studies, 7, 57-71. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=64286650&site=ehost-live

Kearsley, G. (2007). Subsumption Theory (D. Ausubel). In Explorations in learning and instruction: The Theory into Practice database. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://tip.psychology.org/ausubel.html.

Kerper, J. (1999). Second-language teaching methods. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://coe.sdsu.edu/people/jmora/ALMMethods.htm

Kiany, G.R., Ali Salimi, E. & Afshari, H. (2004). Vocabulary learning and recall of Iranian elementary EFL learners in audiolingual and total physical response methods. Review of Applied Linguistics, 145, 289-304.

Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Matsuda Paul, K. (2001). Reexamining audiolingualism: On the genesis of reading and writing in L2 studies. In D. (a.i.). Belcher, A. (a.i.). Hirvela & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 84-105). Ann Arbor, MI: U of Michigan P, xii.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P. D., Jr. (1970). A comparison of the cognitive and audiolingual approaches to foreign language instruction: The Pennsylvania foreign language project. Hispania, 54 , 216-217.

White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, Universal Grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.). Theories in second language acquisition. (pp.37-55). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Suggested Reading

Kearsley, G. (2007). Explorations in learning and instruction: The Theory into Practice database. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from http://tip.psychology.org/ausubel.html.

Munoz, C. (2006). The effects of age on foreign language learning: The BAF Project. In C. Munoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 1-40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.