Chapter V

Approaches to Language Teaching

Chapters III and IV were devoted to a discussion of the general implications of second
language acquisition theory. Chapter III described the characteristics of optimal input for
acquisition, hypothesizing that language acquisition takes place best when input is provided
that is:

(1) Comprehensible

(2) Interesting and/or relevant to the acquirer.

(3) Not grammatically sequenced.

(4) Provided in sufficient quantity.

The presentation of this input, moreover, should be done in a way that does not put the
acquirer "on the defensive"; it should not raise or strengthen the affective filter. In addition,
acquirers need to be provided with tools to help them obtain more input from the outside
world.

Chapter IV tried to "put learning in its place". Conscious rules should be used only
when they do not interfere with communication. In addition, only a small part of the grammar
is both learnable and "portable" for most people. Rules that seem very transparent to
professional linguists and language teachers may be quite opaque even to "good language
learners". We also concluded that the effects of learning are quite modest in terms of
syntactic accuracy, but that the application of conscious rules may provide a cosmetic effect
that is important for some language students. Chapter IV also discussed the fact that
conscious grammar can be taught as subject matter; acquisition results if such a course is
taught in the target language. This "language appreciation" function, however, needs to be
distinguished from the Monitor function for grammar.

The goal of the first part of this chapter is to analyze some current approaches

125
to language teaching in terms of the conclusions of Chapters III and IV. The results of this
analysis will then be compared with the results of what applied linguistics research has been
done in the area of "method comparisons". My interpretation will be that in this case, current
second language acquisition theory and applied linguistics research come to very similar
conclusions.

The next section examines some alternatives to the traditional classroom, alternatives
that seem to have the advantage of satisfying input requirement #2 (the "interesting/relevant"
requirement) far better than any traditional classroom approach. Next, there is a brief
discussion of the implications these ideas have for second language testing. I will suggest
that we need to carefully consider what effects our achievement tests have on student and
teacher behavior. Our goal in testing is this: when students "study for the test", they should be
doing things that encourage or cause second language acquisition. The final sections of this
chapter deal with what I perceive to be some gaps in materials, and some of the practical
problems in implementing the suggestions made here.

A. Present-day Teaching Methods

The conclusions of Chapters III and IV can be summarized as the matrix in Fig. 5.1.
We can simply ask, for each approach to classroom teaching, to what extent it satisfies the
requirements for optimal input and to what extent it puts learning in its proper place. We will
review what are surely the most widely used methods, grammar-translation, audio-lingualism,
cognitive-code teaching, and one version of the direct method. We will then cover some new
approaches, Asher's Total Physical Response method, Terrell's Natural Approach and
Lozanov's Suggestopedia. (Several very interesting methods are not included, such as
Gattegno's Silent Way and Curren's Counseling-Learning method. This is due to several
factors, including my own lack of familiarity with these methods, the lack of empirical data
comparing these methods to others, and the availability of Stevick's excellent analysis
(Stevick, 1980).) The brief description supplied at the beginning of each analysis is not
intended to be a full and adequate description of each method, but is intended to serve only to
inform the reader

126
 Fig. 5.1. Evaluation schema for methods and materials

Requirements for optimal input

1. Comprehensible
2. Interesting/relevant
3. Not grammatically sequenced
4. Quantity
5. Filter level ("off the defensive")
6. Provides tools for conversational management

Learning

Restricted to:
1. Certain rules; those that are
a. learnable
b. portable
c. not yet acquired
2. Certain people ("Monitor users")
3. Certain situations
a. time
b. focus on form

what my understanding of each method is. It should also be pointed out that this analysis
assumes that the methods are used in their pure forms, a situation which, I am sure, does not
occur in every classroom.

1. GRAMMAR-TRANSLATION

While there is some variation, grammar-translation usually consists of the following

activities:

(1) Explanation of a grammar rule, with example sentences.

(2) Vocabulary, presented in the form of a bilingual list.

(3) A reading selection, emphasizing the rule presented in (1) above

and the vocabulary presented in (2).

(4) Exercises designed to provide practice on the grammar and

vocabulary of the lesson. These exercises emphasize the conscious
control of structure ("focus on", in the sense of Krashen
and Seliger, 1975) and include translation in both directions,
from L1 to L2 and L2 to L1.

Most grammar-translation classes are designed for foreign language instruction and
are taught in the student's first language. We turn now to an analysis of grammar-translation
in terms of the matrix in Fig. 5.1.

127
(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. It can only be claimed that grammar-translation provides scraps of

comprehensible input. The model sentences are usually understandable, but the focus is
entirely on form, and not meaning. The reading selection is the primary source, but the
selections provided are nearly always much too difficult, often requiring what Newmark (1966)
calls "crytoanalytic decoding". Students are forced to read word by word, and consequently
rarely focus completely on the message. The sentences used in the exercises may be
comprehensible, but here again, as in the model sentences, they are designed to focus the
students on form.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. There is usually an attempt, especially in recent years, to

provide topics of interest in the reading selection, but the usual topics fall far short of the
Forgetting Principle (Chapter III). They clearly do not seize the students' attention to such an
extent that they forget that it is written in another language--reports of a trip to France, even if
it includes the Louvre, generally do not provide information that most high school and college
students in the United States are eager to obtain.

(iii) Not grammatically sequenced. Grammar-translation is, of course, grammatically

sequenced, the majority of texts attempting to proceed from what the author considers easy
rules to more complex rules. Each lesson introduces certain rules, and these rules dominate
the lesson.

(iv) Quantity. As discussed above, grammar-translation fails to provide a great deal of

comprehensible input. The small amount of comprehensible input in the model sentences, the
readings, and exercises is, moreover, rarely supplemented by teacher talk in the target
language.

(v) Affective filter level. In Chapter III, it was hypothesized that one way to encourage a
low filter was to be "true" to the Input Hypothesis.

128
Grammar-translation violates nearly every component of the Input Hypothesis, and it is
therefore predicted that this method will have the effect of putting the student "on the
defensive". Students are expected to be able to produce immediately, and are expected to be
fully accurate. Anxiety level, it has been pointed out, is also raised for some students who are
less inclined toward grammar study (under-users), as pointed out by Rivers, 1968.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Grammar-translation makes no attempt,

explicitly or implicitly, to help students manage conversations with native speakers.

(b) Learning

Grammar-translation implicitly assumes that conscious control of grammar is

necessary for mastery. In other words, learning needs to precede acquisition. This
assumption necessitates that all target structures be introduced and explained. There is,
therefore, no limitation of the set of rules to be learned to those that are learnable, portable,
and not yet acquired, as suggested in Chapter IV. There is no attempt to account for
individual variation in Monitor use, nor is there any attempt to specify when rules are to be
used, the implicit assumption being that all students will be able to use all the rules all the
time!

(c) Summary

Grammar-translation, if the above analysis is correct, should result in very low amounts
of acquired competence; what comprehensible input is available faces a high affective filter,
and learning is vastly overemphasized.

2. AUDIO-LINGUALISM

Here are the common features of audio-lingual language teaching. Again, there may be
substantial variation in practice. The lesson typically begins with a dialogue, which contains
the structures and vocabulary of the lesson. The student is expected to mimic the dialogue
and

129
eventually memorize it (termed "mim-mem"). Often, the class practices the dialogue as a
group, and then in smaller groups. The dialogue is followed by pattern drill on the structures
introduced in the dialogue. The aim of the drill is to "strengthen habits", to make the pattern
"automatic".

Lado (1964) notes that audio-lingual pattern drills focus the students' attention away
from the new structure. For example, the student may think he is learning vocabulary in an
exercise such as:

That's a __________. (key, knife, pencil, etc.)

(cued by pictures, as in Lado and Fries, 1958)

but in reality, according to audio-lingual theory, the student is making the pattern automatic.

There are four basic drill types: simple repetition, substitution (as in the example
above), transformation (e.g. changing and affirmative sentence into a negative sentence), and
translation.

Following drill, some audio-lingual classes provide explanation. According to

proponents of audio-lingualism, the explanation is a description of what was practiced, not a
prescription of what to say. The "rules" presented are therefore not to be considered
instructions on how to perform. The explanation section is considered optional, since, in our
terms, it is "language appreciation".

(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. It can be maintained that audio-lingual methodology does provide

comprehensible input. The dialogues and pattern practice are certainly understandable by
most students, although some theorists have said that in early parts of a lesson actual
comprehension is not necessary, that purely mechanical drill is useful.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. While Lado (1964) advises that the dialogue contain "useful"
language, that it be age-appropriate and natural, most dialogues fall far short of the mark of
true interest and relevance. Most pattern practice, of course, makes no attempt to meet this
requirement.

130
 (iii) Not grammatically sequenced. There is a clear sequence in audio-lingual teaching,
based usually on linguistic simplicity, but also influenced by frequency and predictions of
difficulty by contrastive analysis. As is the case with grammar-translation, the entire lesson is
dominated by the "structure of the day".

(iv) Quantity. While audio-lingual teaching is capable of filling an entire class hour with
aural-oral language, it is quite possible to argue that audio-lingualism does not meet this
requirement as well as other methods (see below). While the presentation of a dialogue, for
example, may take up a full period, students spend very little of this time focussing on the
message, which is presented over and over. The goal is the memorization of the dialogue, not
the comprehension of a message. Pattern practice may also be comprehensible in theory, but
students probably do not attend to meaning after the first few repetitions (Lee, McCune and
Patton, 1970). Indeed, according to some practitioners, the idea behind pattern practice is to
avoid meaning altogether. For both dialogues and pattern practice, the entire hour might be
spent with just a few sentences or patterns, as compared to the wide variety real
communication gives.

(v) Affective filter level. Audio-lingual teaching violates several aspects of the Input
Hypothesis: production is expected immediately, and is expected to be error-free. Over-use of
drill and repetition, procedures such as not allowing students access to the written word in
early stages may also add to anxiety (see, for example, Schumann and Schumann (1978) pp.
5-6).

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Audio-lingualism does a slightly better job in
this category than does grammar-translation, as the dialogues do contain material that can be
used to invite input and to control its quality. The applicability of dialogues to free
conversation and to genuine conversational management may be limited, however. Most
dialogues are actually scripts, and are not designed to be used to negotiate meaning.

131
(b) Learning

Theoretically, conscious learning is not an explicit goal of audio-lingualism. The goal,

rather, is to have the student over-learn a variety of patterns to be used directly in
performance. In practice, however, audio-lingual teaching often results in inductive learning,
the student attempting to work out a conscious rule on the basis of the dialogue and pattern
practice, with the explanation section serving to confirm or disconfirm his guess. There is thus
no explicit attempt to restrict learning to rules that are learnable, portable and not yet
acquired, nor is there any attempt to encourage rule use only in certain situations. Despite the
fact that pattern practice attempt to focus students off rules, the requirement of complete
correctness probably encourages Monitor use at all times.

(c) Summary

Some acquisition should result from the use of the audio-lingual method, but nowhere
near what is obtainable with other methods that provide a larger amount of comprehensible
and interesting/relevant input with a low filter. The diet of dialogues and patterns will
occasionally be understood and be at i + 1, and may thus cause some acquisition. If learned
according to plan, students will end up with a stock of sentences and patterns that will be of
occasional use in conversation, and also serve the conversational management goal, to some
extent. Inductive learning is implicitly encouraged (which may raise the filter for some
deductive learners; see Chapter V), but no attempt is made to limit which rules are to be
learned or when they are to be applied.

3. COGNITIVE-CODE

Cognitive-code bears some similarity to grammar-translation, but also differs in some

ways. While the goal of grammar-translation is basically to help students read literature in the
target language, cognitive code attempts to help the student in all four skills, speaking and
listening in addition to reading and writing. The assumptions are similar, however, insofar as
cognitive code posits that "competence precedes

132
performance". In this case, "competence" is not the tacit knowledge of the native speaker, as
originally defined by Chomsky (1965), but is conscious knowledge. Cognitive code assumes,
as mentioned in Chapter III, that "once the student has a proper degree of cognitive control
over the structures of a language, facility will develop automatically with the use of language
in meaningful situations" (Carroll, 1966, p. 102). In other words, learning becomes acquisition.

As in grammar-translation, the lesson begins with an explanation of the rule, and this is
often done, in foreign language situations, in the students' first language. Exercises follow,
and these are meant to help the student practice the rule consciously. In other words, Monitor
use is actively promoted. Exercises are followed by activities labelled "communicative
competence". This term has been used in the literature in several ways; in cognitive-code
literature it appears to be synonymous with "fluency". These activities provide the practice in
meaningful situations referred to in the quote from Carroll above, and include dialogues,
games, role playing activities, etc.

(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. The explanation and exercise section, as is the case with
grammar-translation, will provide very little comprehensible input, as the focus, at all times, is
on form and not meaning. The "communicative competence" section of cognitive-code
promises to provide greater amounts of comprehensible input, but this potential is diminished
if activities are limited by the desire to contextualize the "rule of the day". This practice, as
claimed in Chapter III, limits the structures used (which may deny the student the i + 1 he
needs), limits what can be discussed, and disturbs the naturalness of the communication.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. This depends, of course, on the activities chosen for the
communicative competence section. Regardless of what is chosen, however, the goal
remains the learning of a specific structure, and because of this it is nearly impossible to
satisfy the Forgetting Principle.

133
 (iii) Not grammatically sequenced. Cognitive-code, like grammar-translation, is
sequenced, and the structure of the day dominates all parts of the lesson.

(iv) Quantity. Thanks to the communicative competence section, there is greater

quantity of comprehensible input in cognitive-code, as compared to grammar-translation. It
does not, however, live up to the ideal of a class full of comprehensible input with total focus
on the message, since the communicative competence section is only a part of the program
and even here, the focus is on form.

(v) Affective filter level. Error correction on all output is part of most cognitive-code
classrooms, students are expected to produce right away, and it is expected that this
production will be accurate. This predicts a high filter for many students.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. There is no announced attempt to provide

this, but it is quite possible that some activities in the communicative competence section will
provide some of these tools.

(b) Learning

As is the case with grammar-translation, the assumption of cognitive-code is that

conscious learning can be accomplished by everyone, that all rules are learnable, and that
conscious knowledge should be available at all times. We can only conclude that cognitive-
code encourages over-use of the Monitor, unless all rules "fade away" as soon as the
structures become automatic.

(c) Summary

Cognitive-code should provide greater quantities of comprehensible input than

grammar-translation does, and hence more acquisition, but does not come near to fulfilling
the potential of the classroom. As in grammar-translation, learning is overemphasized.

134
4. THE DIRECT METHOD

The term "direct method" has been used to refer to many different approaches to
second language teaching. I will use it here to refer specifically to de Sauzé's method and its
present day versions, namely Pucciani and Hamel's method for French (see Langue et
Langage), and similar versions for Spanish developed by Barcia.

Here are the characteristics of the direct method, as I understand it. First, all
discussion, all classroom language, is the target language. This includes the language of the
exercises and teacher talk used for classroom management. The method focusses on
inductive teaching of grammar. The goal of the instruction is for the students to guess, or work
out, the rules of the language. To aid in induction, the teacher asks questions that are
hopefully interesting and meaningful, and the students' response is then used to provide an
example of the target structure. If this is well done, it can give a direct method session the
mood of a conversation class. Let me repeat my favorite example from an earlier paper
(Krashen, 1980), one that one of my teachers used in a direct method French class. The goal
of this exercise was to teach the conjunction "bien que", and the fact that its presence
requires the following verb to be subjunctive:

Teacher: Fait-il beau aujour'dhui?

Student: Non, Il ne fait pas beau aujourd'hui.
Teacher: Irez-vous cependent à la plage pendant le week-end?
Student: Oui, j'irai cependent à la plage pendant le week-end.
Teacher: Irez-vous à la plage bien qu'il ne fasse pas beau?
Student: Oui, j'irai à la plage bien qu'il ne ...

My teacher used this particular example on a determined beach-goer, and generally tried to
tailor questions to students' interests.

The direct method insists on accuracy and errors are corrected in class. After several
exchanges of the sort given above, when the teacher considers that enough examples have
been given, the rule is discussed and explained in the target language.

(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. The direct method, with its insistence on the use

135
of the target language at all times, provides a great deal of comprehensible input. As is the
case with the Natural Approach, the entire period is filled with target language use with a
variety of topics and structures utilized.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. As mentioned above, there is an attempt to make the language

use in the classroom of some interest to the students. The goal of the lesson, however, is
grammar teaching, and as discussed earlier, this puts heavy constraints on what can be
discussed. Discussion is always meaningful, but is rarely genuinely communicative.
According to Pucciani and Hamel's manual, sentences such as:

Est-ce que votre pantalon est vieux ou neuf? (198)

Mangez-vous des carottes? (236)
Qui prepare le diner dans votre famille? (237)
Est-ce que vous vous rasez tous les matins? (297)

are recommended to help the student induce various points of grammar. As with other
methods that rely on contextualization (see e.g. discussion of the Silent way), the requirement
that all discussion embed a grammar point makes this requirement hard to meet.

(iii) Not grammatically sequenced. The direct method is strictly sequenced, which
distorts efforts at real communication.

(iv) Quantity. As mentioned above, the direct method meets this requirement as well as
any classroom method can, filling the entire hour with comprehensible input.

(v) Affective filter level. The insistence on grammatical accuracy at very early stages,
the use of error correction, and the grammatical focus of the course may cause anxiety and a
high filter for all but the most dedicated Monitor user.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Students are given the tools for interaction
in the classroom in the target language--they are soon able to initiate discussion with the
teacher and ask questions

136
about grammar. Some of this conversational, or better, "classroom competence" will be useful
on the outside, but some will not. There is no explicit goal of providing tools for conversation
with a more competent native speaker.

(b) Learning

The direct method presumes that conscious control is necessary for acquisition, that
conscious knowledge of grammar can be accessed at all times, and by all students. It
demands full control of late-acquired structures in oral production from the very beginning
(e.g. gender), and may thus encourage over-use of the grammar.

(c) Summary

The direct method provides greater amounts of comprehensible input than many of its
competitors. It remains, however, grammar-based, and this constrains its ability to provide
truly interesting messages, and leads to over-use of the Monitor. The direct method,
according to informal reports, has been very successful with certain populations, among
students who have intrinsic motivation for language study and who believe that the study of
conscious grammar is essential. For these students, the inductive study of grammar is in itself
interesting, and provides all the interest necessary. In other words, grammar is subject matter.
Acquisition, SLA theory predicts, comes from the teacher talk used to present the grammar.
(See Chapter IV for discussion, and Krashen, 1980.)

5. THE NATURAL APPROACH

The Natural Approach was developed by Tracy Terrell at the University of California at
Irvine for foreign language instruction at the university and high school levels. While originally
developed independently of "Monitor Theory", its later development and articulation have
been influenced by the second language acquisition theory presented in this volume. The
method can be described by the following principles:

137
 1. Classtime is devoted primarily to providing input for acquisition.

2. The teacher speaks only the target language in the classroom.

Students may use either the first or second language. If they
choose to respond in the second language, their errors are not
corrected unless communication is seriously impaired.

3. Homework may include formal grammar work. Error correction

is employed in correcting homework.

4. The goals of the course are "semantic"; activities may involve the
use of a certain structure, but the goals are to enable students to
talk about ideas, perform tasks, and solve problems.

(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. The entire goal of classroom practice in the Natural Approach is to
provide comprehensible input. Natural Approach teachers utilize realia, pictures, and
students' previous knowledge to make their speech comprehensible from the first day.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. This is a serious problem for a foreign language class. Natural
Approach attempts to capture students' interest by using what Terrell terms "Affective
Acquisition Activities", adapted from Christensen, that encourage discussion of topics of
personal interest to the students (e.g. "Suppose you are a famous person, and there is a
newspaper article about you. Tell at least one thing about yourself which is mentioned in the
article..."). In the early stages of the Natural Approach, classroom discussion focusses on
personal information, the goal being to establish a group feeling. Later, students discuss their
past histories, and eventually they are able to talk about their hopes and plans for the future.

(iii) Not grammatically sequenced. The focus of the class is not on the presentation of
grammar. There is a tendency for certain structures to be used more often in certain stages,
but there is no deliberate sequencing.

(iv) Quantity. Since the entire class period is filled with comprehensible

138
input, the Natural Approach meets this requirement as well as any foreign language teaching
method can.

(v) Affective filter level. Since the Natural Approach attempt to remain "true" to the
Input Hypothesis, many sources of anxiety are reduced or eliminated. Students do not have to
produce in the second language until they feel they are ready. Error correction for form is not
done in the classroom. Also, an attempt is made to discuss topics that are interesting to
students. This predicts lower filter strength than most other methods.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. Some tools for conversational management
are provided in the form of very short dialogues, designed to help students converse with
native speakers on predictable and frequent topics. Also, students are introduced, right from
the beginning, to phrases and expressions that will help them control the teacher's input (e.g.
"I don't understand", "What does _________ mean?", etc.).

(b) Learning

The Natural Approach is designed to be consistent with what is known of Monitor

functioning. The absence of error correction in the classroom is a recognition that there are
constraints on when the conscious grammar is used: students are expected to utilize the
Monitor only at home, when they have time, when they are focussed on form, and when they
know, or are learning, a rule. At the university level, grammar homework is assigned to
everyone, but it is conceivable that the Natural Approach can be adapted for variations in
Monitor use, with varying amounts of homework, or different type homework assignments for
under, or optimal users. While little experimentation has been done with children, SLA theory
predicts that younger children would not profit from grammar homework, while older children
and adolescents might be able to handle limited amounts. (For more detail, see Terrell, 1977.)

139
(c) Summary

The Natural Approach makes a deliberate effort to fit all requirements for both Learning
and Acquisition. Its only weakness, according to SLA theory, is that it remains a classroom
method, and for some students this prohibits the communication of interesting and relevant
topics (see discussion below).

6. TOTAL PHYSICAL RESPONSE

This unique method was developed by James Asher, and is described in many of his
journal papers and his book (Asher, 1977a). Total Physical Response, or TPR, consists
basically of obeying commands given by the instructor that involve an overt physical
response. The instructor, for example, says "stand up" and the class stands up. The
commands become more complex as the class progresses, and Asher claims that it is quite
possible to embed vast amounts of syntax into the form of a command. Students speak only
when they are "ready", which usually occurs at around 10 hours of instruction, and consists of
student commands. In the typical TPR class (as described by Asher, Kusudo, and de la Torre,
1974), the first few months (45 hours in this case) would consist of 70% listening
comprehension (obeying commands), 20% speaking, and 10% reading and writing. Asher
(1977b) lists the three principles of the TPR system:

(i) Delay speech from students until understanding of spoken language "has been
extensively internalized" (p. 1041).

(ii) "Achieve understanding of spoken language through utterances by the instructor in

the imperative" (p. 1041).

(iii) "Expect that, at some point in the understanding of spoken language, students will
indicate a 'readiness' to talk" (p. 1041).1 *

(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. TPR meets this requirement. The total physical response required
of the student is, in effect, a manifestation of his comprehension of the teacher's utterance. It
can, in fact, be argued that a TPR is not necessary for comprehension or for progress in
second

* Superscript numbers refer to Notes at end of chapters.

140
language acquisition, but merely shows that the input has been understood. Asher's own
research supports the view that the use of the TPR is not essential. A series of studies using
children (Asher, 1966; Asher and Price, 1967) and adults (Kunihira and Asher, 1965; Asher,
1965, 1969) shows that students who merely observe a TPR do as well as those who perform
TPR's on tests that demand a TPR. Both groups, those who observed TPR's and those who
performed them, outperformed students who wrote their answers on tests. This suggests that
Asher's second principle may not be necessary, but may be simply an effective device to
focus students on the input and to keep them actively involved.

(ii) Interesting/relevant. The novelty and freshness of the TPR technique probably does
a great deal to make the class experience interesting. It may be difficult to remain interesting
if one holds to the requirement of producing imperatives 100% of the time, however (Asher
nowhere recommends this).

(iii) Not grammatically sequenced. According to Asher's description, each lesson does
have a grammatical focus in TPR. In other words, commands contextualize various points of
grammar. As discussed earlier, this can hinder efforts to meet requirement 2 above. There is
nothing inherent in the TPR approach that demands a grammatical focus, however.

(iv) Quantity. TPR can fill an entire class period with comprehensible input in the form
of commands. It thus has the potential of meeting this requirement fully.

(v) Affective filter level. TPR makes one very important contribution to lowering student
anxiety: students are not asked to produce in the second language until they themselves
decide they are ready. They are, in other words, allowed a silent period. Asher does not state
explicitly whether error correction on early student output is required in TPR; this may vary
from teacher to teacher. It has been pointed out,

141
however, that the necessity of producing overt physical responses right away may provoke
anxiety in some students.

(vi) Tools for conversational management. This is no explicit mention of this in Asher's
papers.

(b) Learning

The assumption of TPR is that grammar will be learned inductively, that is, students will
work out the correct form of the rule during the class activity. In terms of the theory presented
in this book, this can be interpreted as claiming that much of the grammar will be acquired
and/or inductively learned in the technical sense of inductive learning. (See Chapter IV for
discussion of the difference between inductive learning and acquisition.) The emphasis on
listening comprehension and the delay of speech will, in itself, prevent much misuse of
conscious learning: students will tend not to monitor their output for form in inappropriate
circumstances and they will not use rules unsuited for Monitor use if there is less demand for
production.

(c) Summary

Second Language Acquisition theory predicts that TPR should result in substantial
language acquisition, and should not encourage overuse of the conscious Monitor. The use of
TPR insures the active participation of students, helps the teacher know when utterances are
understood, and also provides contexts to help students understand the language they hear.
It may fail to completely satisfy the interesting/relevant requirement, first, since it is a
classroom method, and second, because of constraints imposed by the continuous use of
imperatives and the grammatical focus of lessons. It should, however, do far better than
methods such as audio-lingual and grammar-translation.

7. SUGGESTOPEDIA

From what I have read in the sources available to me, the "classic" Suggestopedia
class, as conducted in Lozanov's Institute of Suggestology in Sofia, Bulgaria, consists of the
following. Courses are given to

142
small groups, around 12 students at a time, and are intensive, meeting for four hours per day
for one month. Each four-hour class, according to Bancroft (1978), consists of three parts:

1. Review, done via traditional conversations, games, plays, etc. It

may include some exercises and error correction, but does not include
the use of a language lab or pattern drill.

2. Presentation of new material. New material is introduced in the

form of dialogues based on situations familiar to the students.
Bancroft notes that "new material is presented in a somewhat
traditional way, with the necessary grammar and translation" (p.
170). The dialogues are very long. According to Bushman and
Madsen (1976), they run from 10 to 14 pages.

3. This portion is the "truly original feature" of Suggestopedia

(Bancroft, p. 170), and is itself divided into two parts. In the first
part, the active seance, the dialogue is read by the teacher, while
students follow the text and engage in deep and rhythmic Yoga
breathing. These activities are co-ordinated: "In accordance with
the students' breathing, the teacher reads the language materials
in the following order and with the following timing: Bulgarian
(L1) translation (two seconds); foreign language phrase (four
seconds); pause (two seconds). While the foreign language
phrase is being read, the students retain their breath for four seconds,
look at the appropriate part of the text, and mentally repeat
to themselves the given phrase or word-group in the FL.
Concentration is greatly promoted by the retention or suspension
of breath" (Bancroft, p. 171).

The second part, labelled the passive or convert part of the seance, involves music.
The central activity is the teacher's reading of the dialogue "with an emotional intonation"
(Bancroft, p. 171). The students, "with eyes closed, meditate on the text" while baroque music
is played. The musical selections are specifically chosen to contribute to a "state of relaxation
and meditation... that is necessary for unconscious absorption of the language materials"
(Bancroft, p. 172).

In discussing adaptions of the Sofia method, Bancroft notes that "three elements of the
Lozanov Method are considered essential for the system to work effectively: (1) an attractive
classroom (with soft

143
lighting) and a pleasant classroom atmosphere; (2) a teacher with a dynamic personality who
is able to act out the materials and motivate the students to learn; (3) a state of relaxed
alertness in the students..." (p. 172).

In Suggestopedia, each member of the class is given a new name and role to play, "to
overcome inhibitions" (p. 170). Other Suggestopedia techniques and attitudes will be
discussed below, as we work through the analysis according to input requirements for
acquisition.

(a) Requirements for optimal input

(i) Comprehensible. Several Suggestopedia procedures are specifically designed to aid

comprehensibility of input. Initial dialogues are based on situations familiar to the student, and
the use of the students' first language in Part One is partially justified on the ground that it
helps the student confirm that he has indeed understood the text presented in the target
language (Racle, 1979, p. 100).

(ii) Interesting/relevant. The topics of the dialogues are designed not only to be of
inherent interest, but also to be of some practical value and relevant to students' needs. In a
Suggestopedia course designed to teach French to Anglophone public servants in Canada, at
the Public Service Commission in Ottawa, the aim was to take into account both student
interest and their communicative needs in the office situation (Public Service Commission,
1975). Also, Novakov, cited (and translated into French) by Racle, 1979, notes that "Les
situations présentées sont typiques, réelles, contiennent un message et sont proches de
l'expérience des élèves, ce qui facilite leur activité" (p. 99).

(iii) Filter level. While Suggestopedia attempts to meet the other goals discussed both
above and below, its primary focus and greatest apparent success is here. Practically every
feature of Suggestopedia is aimed at relaxing the student, reducing anxieties, removing
mental blocks, and building confidence. Here are just a few more examples:

The design of the classroom is meant to produce "a pleasant and warm environment"
(Public Service Commission, 1975, p. 29). Students are seated on comfortable chairs in a
circle to "encourage informal contact and free natural communication" (Bushman and
Madsen,

144
1976, p. 32). The traditional classroom, it is felt, "calls to mind the frustration, failure, and
artificiality of many previous learning efforts" (Bushman and Madsen, p. 32).

The special breathing exercises have as their goal both increased mental alertness
and reduction of tension. Bancroft reports that American adaptions of Suggestopedia also
utilize physical exercises (stretching and bending), and "mind-calming exercises", in addition
to Yogic breathing to help students achieve the desired state of relaxed alertness.

Music is also used as a means of lowering anxiety and diminishing tension, and
inducing the state of relaxed alertness considered optimal for second language acquisition
(see Racle, 1980, pp. 73-74).

Another key Suggestopedic idea aimed at lowering the filter is the behavior of the
teacher. Suggestopedia considers the "authority" of the teacher to be very important ("an
integral part of the method and not just a desirable characteristic of the teacher"; Stevick,
1980, p. 238). The teacher's behavior is meant to build the students' confidence both in their
own potential for second language acquisition and in the method itself; the teacher should be
confident, but not tyrannical, exercise firm over-all control but also encourage student initiative
(for excellent discussion, see Stevick, 1980, Chapters 2 and 18).

(iv) Not grammatically sequenced. There is a deliberate attempt to include a certain

amount of grammar during the first one month intensive course (Racle, 1978, p. 95 lists the
structures covered for French). It does not appear to be the case, however, that a rigid
sequence is followed. All writers on Suggestopedia I have read emphasize that the focus,
from the very beginning, is on communication, and the dialogues do not seem to focus on
specific points of grammar. According to Bushman and Madsen, "Dialogues are rambling
conversations loosely aggregated around common themes, which cover a great deal of
territory with considerable built-in redundancy" (p. 33). In our terms, Suggestopedia seems to
depend on the net of grammatical structures provided by successful communication.

(v) Quantity. Suggestopedia seems to meet this requirement as well. While there is
some explanation in the first language, the long and varied dialogue dominates the session,
both as pure input and as a basis for communicative use of the L2.

145
 (vi) Tools for conversational management. This is not mentioned explicitly, but may be
covered, since the dialogues attempt to be realistic. Texts used in the Public Service
Commission course in Canada were apparently designed to allow and promote conversation
in Public Service offices as well as elsewhere. There is no explicit mention, however, of giving
students the tools they need to converse with more competent speakers.

(b) Learning

According to Bushman and Madsen (1976), "Content precedes form. Accurate

pronunciation and grammar are to come in due course" (p. 32). While there is error correction
and grammar explanation in part one of each lesson, grammar use in Suggestopedia
apparently does not interfere with communication.

(c) Summary

While I have attempted to fit the Suggestopedia system, as I understand it, into my
schema, and have omitted mention of several aspects of Suggestopedia philosophy that its
practitioners would undoubtedly consider to be very important, it appears that Suggestopedia
comes very close to completely matching the requirements for optimal input. Elements that
Lozanov might consider to invoke hyper- or super-memory, or that "desuggest" limitations,
are, in our terms, conditions that lower the affective filter and that allow the subconscious
language acquisition system to operate at full, or near full capacity and efficiency.
Suggestopedia also seems to put grammar in its proper place.

B. Applied Linguistics Research

We turn now to attempts to empirically test teaching methods via "applied linguistics
research". I defined applied linguistics research in Chapter I as research aimed at solving a
practical problem, with or

146
without reference to an underlying theory. A portion of applied linguistics research has
consisted of empirical comparisons of language teaching methods, and the purpose of this
section is to review the major findings of these studies in order to make the following points:

1. When older methods such as grammar-translation, cognitive-code,

and audio-lingual are compared with each other, we see
small differences, or no differences in terms of efficacy. Cognitive-code,
in some studies, shows a very slight superiority for
adult students when compared to audio-lingual, and no differences
are seen when adolescents are compared.

2. Data are not as plentiful as we would like them to be for newer

methods, but the results we do have are quite consistent with our
theoretical analysis of the previous section. Newer approaches,
such as Total Physical Response, produce significantly better
results than older approaches.

We will conclude that we see little difference between older methods since they all fail
many of the requirements for optimal input and overemphasize conscious learning. The
newer methods put to the method comparison test satisfy the requirements better, and are
also shown to outperform their rivals.

1. REVIEW OF METHOD COMPARISON STUDIES

Before proceeding directly to the studies, it should be pointed out that classroom
research, while it often produces valuable and interesting data, does not produce "definitive"
data. This is because of the many "confounding variables" that prevent us, in nearly all cases,
from concluding that it must have been a particular treatment or method that was responsible
for the results obtained. It may be useful to list some of these potential confounds here.

If students in approach A did better in achievement tests than students in approach B,

assuming they were equal to start with, it may be the teacher rather than the actual method
that was responsible for the difference. Even if the same teacher taught both classes, the
teacher may have preferred one approach to the other, or may have even liked the students
in one class better! Class A might have been taught early in the morning, and class B right
after lunch. Thus, students in class A

147
 Table 5.1. American studies comparing foreign language teaching methods
___________________________________________________________________________________
Study Methods TL n Tests: Speaking LC Reading Write Attitude
toward
method
___________________________________________________________________________________
Scherer & GT, AL German 130, 150 Year 1: AL AL GT GT AL
Wertheimer Year 2: nd AL nd GT AL

Chastain & CC, AL Spanish 51, 48 Year 1: AL nd CC CC

Woerdehoff1 35, 31 Year 2: AL nd nd nd

Mueller CC, AL French not CC CC CC CC

given (fewer
dropouts)
___________________________________________________________________________________

AL = audio-lingual
GT = grammar-translation
CC = Cognitive code
nd = no difference

1 Includes both Chastain & Woerdehoff (1968) and Chastain (1970).

148
might have been more alert. Class B might have been located near the athletic field, causing
more distractions. Texts may have made a difference. There might also have been a selection
bias on the part of the students; some may have deliberately enrolled in class A because they
knew it was "special". The teacher can certainly add other potential confounds. (For more
technical discussion, see Campbell and Stanley, 1963.)

Many of the methodological problems can be reduced. If approach A consistently does

better in many studies, involving different classrooms with many students in different schools,
that is, if A is reliably superior in a variety of conditions using a variety of measures, the
results of classroom experiments are at least worth considering, especially if they are
consistent with conclusions derived from other sources, e.g. second language acquisition
theory.

(a) American studies of AL, GT, and CC

Table 5.1 summarizes several comparisons of teaching methods all of which lasted
one or two years. These studies were all concerned with foreign language teaching in the
United States, comparing the audio-lingual system with either grammar-translation (GT) or
cognitive-code (CC).

Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) found some differences between audio-lingual (AL)
and grammar-translation (GT) after year one, differences that appeared to reflect the modality
each method emphasized. These differences were attenuated after the second year, and
combined scores for sub-tests showed no significant differences between the two methods. It
was concluded that students tend to do well in those areas emphasized in the teaching
method.

Chastain and Woerdehoff (1968) and Chastain (1970) found similar results after
comparing audio-lingual and cognitive-code teaching, finding some differences after year one,
differences that could plausibly be traced to those skills emphasized in the method used, but
no differences after year two. Chastain (1970) also noted that males tended to do better with
AL, while females did better in CC sections. We return to these interesting findings later.

Mueller (1971) limited his study to one year, comparing AL and CC

149
teaching. For those skills tested, CC was superior, while AL classes scored at national (MLA)
norms. The results of previous studies force us to ask whether this advantage would have
been maintained in the second year.

Table 5.2 gives us some idea as to the degree of superiority shown by one method
over another. What is obvious is that both methods result in some progress; students do
better at the end of the course than at the beginning. While differences are occasionally
significant, they are certainly not huge.

Table 5.2
Degree of superiority shown in comparative method studies (American series)
____________________________________________________________________________
Listening
MLA Cooperative Tests: Reading1 Writing1 comp. Speaking2
____________________________________________________________________________
AL 26 59 25 51
CC 30 64 26 49
____________________________________________________________________________

1: Significant difference in favor of CC.

2: Significant difference in favor of AL.

From: Chastain and Woerdehoff (1968)

Tests administered after one year of university level study of Spanish.

(b) The GUME project

The first group of studies looked at language teaching efficacy over one or two years,
using proficiency tests. Another group of studies focussed rather on specific structures over a
shorter time span. These studies are the result of the GUME project, which dealt with English
as a foreign language in Sweden. The GUME project studies are summarized in Table 5.3.

The GUME project aimed to compare AL type teaching with "cognitive" methods, the
latter being quite similar to the cognitive-code system. I will not present their results study-by-
study, but will attempt instead to summarize the overall results; the interested reader can refer
to Table 5.3 for details, or to the studies themselves (see especially von Elek and Oskarsson,
1975, for a complete review of the adult studies).

150
Stated very simply, the GUME project found no overall differences between what they termed
"implicit" methods (similar to AL) and "explicit" methods (similar to CC for adolescent
subjects. For adult subjects, explicit methods were found to be somewhat better. The
difference for adults was statistically significant, but not very large.

To go into slightly more detail for the adolescents, despite the overall findings of no
differences, some sub-groups did better using explicit methods: (1) an "accelerated" class in
Levin's study, (2) females, in von Elek and Oskarsson, a finding similar to that of Chastain
(1970). One class in von Elek and Oskarsson's study, described as being lower than the norm
in "verbal intelligence" (von Elek and Oskarsson, 1975, p. 29) was reported to have had more
trouble than other classes with the explicit method.

In addition to simple comparisons of explicit and implicit methods, von Elek and
Oskarsson also compared various combinations of these methods. They found that IMEX
(see Table 5.3) was superior to IM alone; in other words, adding some grammatical
explanation to a method based totally on pattern drills was helpful (see footnote two on Table
5.3). However, EXIM was not superior to EX: adding pattern drills to a cognitive approach did
not help.

Table 5.4 is included to give the reader an idea of the degree of superiority the explicit
methods showed with adult subjects in the GUME studies. As is the case with American
studies described in the previous section, the differences are not large. Clearly, both groups
make progress.

2. SOME PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS TO METHOD COMPARISON

STUDIES

Taken as a whole, American and Swedish studies show only small differences, if at all,
between the methods they investigated. Students make at least some progress no matter
what method is used, a result that had two different kinds of reactions in the field of language
teaching. Stevick (1976) noted the implicit contradiction, which he stated in the form of a
riddle:

"In the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical contradiction of Method B: if
the assumptions from which A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work, and vice-
versa. yet one

151
 Table 5.3. GUME project research comparing teaching methods
___________________________________________________________________________________
Study Method Students Materials Results
___________________________________________________________________________________
Olsson, 1969 Implicit1 Age 14 One structure No differences
EX Swedish (passive)
EX English

Levin, 1972 Implicit Ages 14-15 No overall difference;

EX English "advanced" group excels in
EX Swedish EX Swedish

Levin, 1972 Implicit Age 13 No overall difference;

EX Swedish more "able" students do well
EX English with EX Swedish,
but less able do worse

Von Elek & IM2 Adults Ten lessons EXPLICIT significantly better
Oskarsson, EX n = 125
1975

Von Elek & IM Adults As above EXPLICIT significantly better

Oskarsson, ex N = 91
1975

Von Elek & IM Age 12 As above No difference, due to low

Oskarsson, EX performance of one
1975 EXPLICIT class
___________________________________________________________________________________

152
Table 5.3.--Continued
___________________________________________________________________________________
Study Method Students Materials Results
___________________________________________________________________________________
Von Elek & EX, IM, Adults 4 lessons on EX superior to IM;
Oskarsson, EXIM, IMEX3 n = 277 2 structures IMEX better than IM,
1975 but not significant;
EX superior to EXIM
(not predicted)

Von Elek & EX, IM, Age 12 4 lessons on

Girls tend to conform
Oskarsson, EXIM, IXEM n = 335 2 structures
to the adult pattern
1975 (see above) but boys
do not
___________________________________________________________________________________

1: IM = "implicit" (pattern drills only). EX = "explicit" (pattern drills in combination with

explanation). EX Swedish = explanation in Swedish.
EX English = explanation in English.

2: IM = "structured and graded pattern drills, performed on the basis of situational pictures
projected on a screen in front of the class... no explicit explanations, comparisons with the
source language, or translation exercises " (von Elek and Oskarsson, 1975, p. 16). EX =
"students were given explicit information about the syntactic characteristics of the structures
being practiced... comparisons were made with the corresponding structures in Swedish...
grammar was taught deductively... explanations and directions were given before main practice
with the structure under study... exercises were mostly of the fill-in type or translation... no
pattern drills were performed" (von Elek and Oskarsson, 1975, p. 16-17).

3: IMEX = identical to IM with the addition of explanation. EXIM = identical to EX with

addition of oral pattern drills.

153
 TABLE 5.4
The degree of superiority shown in comparative
method studies (GUME project)
_________________________________________________________________
Group Test Pre-test SD Post-test SD Progress
_________________________________________________________________

IM A 26.94 8.61 33.00 9.31 6.06

B 23.75 7.64 27.53 7.79 3.78
C 5.86 3.40 9.40 4.16 3.54
EX A 25.71 6.61 36.59 9.17 10.88
B 21.82 5.19 29.18 8.14 7.36
C 5.65 3.28 11.84 4.39 6.19
_________________________________________________________________

Description of tests:
A: 60 items: Students listen to oral conversation. They choose
one of three alternatives to fill in missing part of last
exchange (no more than two words).
B: 50 items: described as an "ordinary multiple choice test"
(p. 66)
C: 20 items: written production test; students "fill in the
crucial element in incomplete English sentences. The
meaning of each sentence was clarified either by the
complete Swedish equivalent, or by a cure word" (p. 66).

From: Von Elek and Oskarsson (1972).

colleague is getting excellent results with A and another is getting excellent results with B.
How is this possible?" (p. 104).

To apply this riddle to the results of comparative method research, we can ask how the
cognitive approach, which assumes that learning becomes acquisition, can give results
comparable to audio-lingual teaching, which is based on the hypothesis that we learn
language by conditioning and habit-strengthening.

Before turning to a possible answer, it should be noted that there was a different
reaction: not everyone saw the contradiction Stevick saw. Many methodologists and teachers
simply assumed that the solution was simply to be eclectic, to choose parts of each system in
the belief that the answer must be somewhere in the middle. As fair minded as this sounds, it
often resulted, in my opinion, in teachers choosing the worst from each, the parts least likely
to encourage language acquisition: pattern drill from the audio-lingual system, and rule
explanation from the cognitive and grammar-translation approach!

In my interpretation, the results of method comparison studies using audio-lingual,

grammar-translation, and cognitive code are quite consistent with the theoretical analysis of
these methods presented in the previous section: according to this analysis, none of these
methods does a particularly effective job in encouraging subconscious language acquisition,
although each will provide at least some, and the cognitive

154
methods will allow somewhat more learning. This predicts the close similarly in effectiveness,
and the slight superiority cognitive systems show for older subjects and the more "verbal"
adolescents. It also predicts that other methods should do much, much better. Unfortunately,
we do not have detailed method comparison data on all the newer methods, but some is
available, and the results are quite consistent with this prediction.

3. MORE RECENT METHOD COMPARISON STUDIES

We turn now to studies that involve the newer methods, methods with better report
cards, according to second language acquisition theory, than grammar-translation, audio-
lingual, or cognitive-code. We do not have detailed reports on every method compared to
every other, and some of the new approaches have never been tested. The studies that have
been performed, however, indicate that those methods that provide more of the input
necessary for acquisition, and that "put grammar in its place", are superior to older
approaches.

(a) The TPR series

Asher has done a thorough job in putting his method to the empirical test. He has
compared TPR to other methods using foreign language classes and second language
classes, using children and using adults. Here is a brief survey.

The TPR series with adults begins with Asher (1972), which compared students in a
TPR German course with controls in a "standard" college course. Asher reported that after
only 32 hours of TPR instruction, TPR students outperformed controls, who had had 150
hours of classtime, in a test of listening comprehension, and equaled controls in tests of
reading and writing. Asher's students progressed nearly five times faster! This is in contrast to
the very small differences seen in older comparative method experiments comparing audio-
lingual, cognitive-code, and grammar-translation.

Asher, Kusudo and de la Torre (1974) compared TPR students studying Spanish at the
first year university level with AL controls. After 45 hours of TPR instruction, students
outperformed controls who had had 150 hours in listening comprehension, and equaled
controls' performance on a reading test (Pimsleur Spanish Proficiency Test).

155
After 45 additional hours of instruction, TPR students performed beyond the 50th percentile
on a Spanish proficiency test designed for students with 150 hours on all skills

Asher (1977a) compared 30 ESL students using TPR to controls using audio-lingual
instruction, and reported that TPR students outperformed controls who had had the same
amount of training (120 hours) but who had started at a higher level class.

TPR studies have also been done using children as subjects. Asher (1977b) is really
three experiments in one, all involving Spanish as a foreign language in grades five through
nine. In Experiment I, TPR classes in grade six, and a class consisting of seventh and eighth
graders were compared to grade nine controls. The controls covered similar material, but their
instruction focussed on repetition, and formal instruction in reading and writing, "emphasizing
Spanish grammar". All groups had a total of 40 hours of classtime. All TPR classes (seven
different classes in all)exceeded the controls on a test of written production (subjects were
asked to write a short story based on a cartoon, and were graded on the number of
meaningful expressions produced).

In Experiment II, nine elementary school TPR classes, from grades five through eight,
and an adult education TPR class, were compared with two control classes from grades
seven through nine. This time, TPR classes had only 20 hours of instruction while controls
had 200 hours of instruction similar to that described in Experiment I. The test used was the
"Spanish Picture Test for Listening", which asked students to judge whether a given sentence
was true or false in relation to a picture. All TPR classes, with the exception of grade five,
outperformed controls after 100 hours, and the adult class, after only 20 hours, outperformed
controls after 200 hours. Similar results were obtained using a reading test.

In Experiment III, fifth and sixth grade TPR and control classes were compared on
tests that measured fluency (e.g. "Write as many Spanish orders or sentences as you can
recall..."). Both groups had equal classtime. TPR students did significantly better than controls
on both fluency tasks.

The TPR results are clear and consistent, and the magnitude of superiority of TPR is
quite striking. Even the one sub-group that did not turn out to be superior (grade five in
Experiment II above) can be explained: the TPR advantage was outweighed by the fact that
the controls

156
were older, and, as mentioned in Chapter II, older children are known to be faster acquirers
(Krashen, Long and Scarcella, 1979).

(b) Other input methods compared

A variety of studies have been done examining the efficacy of methods that, like TPR,
focus on providing comprehensible input and do not force early production. None of these
methods has been analyzed in the previous section, since they are not "standard" or widely
used, but they strengthen both the case for TPR and the hypothesis that methods allowing a
silent period will do better than methods that do not, even when "speaking skills" are tested
directly.

Gary (1975) examined children studying Spanish as a foreign language over a period
of five months. Her experimental group did not speak at all for the first 14 weeks but, instead,
had to produce "active responses" that demonstrated comprehension. Also, they were not
forced to speak for much of the next seven weeks. The experimental group was shown to be
superior to the control group in listening comprehension and equal in speaking, despite the
fact that the controls had more "practice" in speaking.

Postovsky (1974) used students at the Defence Language Institute, studying Russian
in an intensive 12 week course, six hours per day, in a fairly standard audio-lingual course.
The "experimental" group did not speak for the first four weeks, but wrote their responses.
The two groups were combined after four weeks. At mid-terms, the experimental group
excelled in reading, writing, and speaking tests (especially with respect to "control of
grammar" and "reading aloud"), and after 12 weeks, they were significantly better in listening
comprehension.

Swaffer and Woodruff (1978) examined the effects of a first year college German
course taught at the University of Texas. As is the case with the studies just cited, their
approach was not exactly any of the standard ones described in the first part of this chapter,
but it fits the requirement for providing optimal input for acquisition and for putting learning in
its place very well. The first four weeks of the course were TPR based, with the emphasis
switching to reading "for global meaning" (p. 28). Students were not required to speak at all in
German for the first two weeks of the class, and "thereafter students were encouraged to
speak on a voluntary basis" (p. 28). Also, "overt corrections of

157
beginning students' production errors (was) kept at a minimum" (p. 28). Low filter strength
was further encouraged by the use of relaxation exercises and yoga breathing. Also, "except
for a brief (five-minute) question and answer period at the close of each hour, German was
the exclusive language of instruction" (p. 28). No drill was used, and the only grammar taught
was those features "considered essential for listening and reading comprehension" (p. 30).
Swaffer and Woodruff's method thus appears to supply comprehensible input in quantity,
using techniques that encourage a lower affective filter, and does not encourage the over-use
of the Monitor.

The Swaffer and Woodruff program was evaluated in several ways, and all indicated
clearly that the method was a huge improvement over other approaches. First, as compared
to previous years, more students continued on to second semester German. Second, German
courses taught the new way received much better evaluations from the students. Third,
students completing the course performed well above the national norms on the Modern
Language Association reading and listening tests (70th and 69th percentiles), and last,
student self-report of their own abilities was, in my opinion, amazing: 78% of the students
finishing the first year "expressed confidence that they could read German and grasp main
ideas at least most of the time" (p. 32); 48% said they could understand spoken German at
least most of the time. I do not know of control data for this last question, but from experience,
these responses are quite unusual.2

(c) Suggestopedia research

While there have been reports of students learning 1000 words per day using
Suggestopedia, in the normal one month intensive course, students cover about 2000 words.
Lozanov is quoted as saying that "after completing the course, the students can express
themselves freely within the framework of their lexical capacity, and can read newspapers
and books." (Interview published in Pravda, reprinted in Ostrander and Schroeder, 1976, p.
74) These are excellent results, but are not superhuman--the month's course, as noted
earlier, is quite intensive, meeting four hours per day, six days a week, for a total of nearly
100 hours. In terms of classhours alone, this is equivalent to more than one year of study at
the university level. If students can indeed

158