inforteach. Information for teachers of English

ATTITUDES TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT: TWO POLAR OPPOSITES

If pre-packaged methods have flaws and limitations (4), eclecticism has come to mean 'anything goes', experts' opinions are to be taken with a pinch of salt, theory doesn't point clearly towards application and research is about questions more than answers, where does that leave the language teacher?

A strong indication as to which direction the solution lies comes from current research in language teacher education. The consensus has been shifting towards the opinion that it is the teachers' knowledge, skills and attitudes, rather than any methodological package or framework, which have the greatest influence on observable teaching behaviours (see Karavas-Doukas, 1996; Roberts, 1998; Ulichny, 1996; Woods, 1996: 226-239). In other words, it is the teachers' contextualised interpretation of any given methodological framework that is actually put to use in the classroom. Therefore, development "involves changes in knowledge and beliefs and not simply changes in skill" (Elliot & Calderhead, 1995).

Edge (1997: 27) defines development as "a continuing process of self-directed movement" and contents that "one aspect of becoming a teacher is the growth of a commitment to continuing self-development". It seems then that it is important that teachers are willing/motivated to develop. Motivation can be influenced by intrinsic or extrinsic factors. Intrinsic factors may include attitudes towards learning and change, learning skills, and ability to observe, analyse and synthesise. Extrinsic factors may include the teachers' educational context, the criteria for becoming a language teacher in their countries, and the social status and income bracket of language teachers in their community (see Elliot & Calderhead, 1995).

Below, I describe two attitudes towards language teaching and professional development which I see as polar opposites. In terms of potential for development these two profiles are to a large extent congruent with the lower and higher points (respectively) of the five stages of professional development described by Berliner (1994) [For a summary go to: http://www.geocities.com/cgabrielatos/FiveStages]. What I mean is that it is unlikely for 'intuitive' teachers to move away from "novice" level, whereas for principled teachers "expert" level is attainable. Although I have met some language teachers whose attitude could be identified as 'intuitive' or 'principled', in my experience the majority occupies a middle ground.

Intuitive teachers

In an essay on the importance of philosophy for the layperson, Ayn Rand (1974/1984: 6) expresses ideas which are extremely close to my views on the importance of a conscious methodological framework. One excerpt is particularly relevant to the ELT context if 'philosophy' is replaced by 'awareness of theories of language and learning/teaching'. The following adaptation of this excerpt summarises my view of intuitive or 'practical' language teaching.

Teachers who operate only by intuition are like people who are run by a computer, unaware of, or unclear about, the principles behind its programming and unable to make effective use of the information on the monitor or printouts, because they either don't have such access, or lack the knowledge and skills required to accurately decode and interpret the computer's output. At best, they can only hope that the computer software is programmed to address their specific teaching/learning context.

Teachers who dismiss theoretical frameworks and research insights as too academic and impractical invariably fall into the trap of believing that they use a 'theory-free', 'common-sense' and 'practical' methodology. They are unaware of the fact that they are actually implementing a motley selection of principles, which they have subconsciously absorbed from their social, cultural and educational contexts (e.g. received wisdom, previous learning experiences, coursebooks). Consequently, they are in chronic awe (or even terror) of the different theories, methods, materials and procedures available.

As they are uncertain or unaware of the principles behind their own methodology and of alternative methodological frameworks, it is difficult, if not impossible for them to develop through critical evaluation of their actions and the learners' output and reactions. As a result, they are entangled in either of the following two vicious circles. In the first, they avoid experimentation and treat anything outside their immediate grasp and traditional practices as sour grapes. In the second, they adopt popular novel methodologies uncritically and superficially, only to abandon them at the first sign of 'failure' in order to either embrace the next methodological trend, or revert to traditional practices.

Principled teachers

Principled teaching is the result of conscious and informed decisions, and is concerned with the implications of theories and research findings, not their application. The wider and deeper the teachers' knowledge of different theories and approaches, and the history of language teaching, the better use they can make of available elements. Awareness of principles enables principled teachers to match procedures and materials to learning context, and combine relevant, compatible elements (Gabrielatos, 1999, 2000).

Principled teachers do not blame theory (i.e. the construction of frameworks) if existing theories of language or learning appear to be unhelpful for ELT. Their attitude is that well constructed theories are indeed helpful, but not because they can provide them with direct answers to the questions of 'what' and 'how' to teach. They are helpful because, firstly, they "have generality: they extend to situations and events not specifically included in the phenomena that the theory was first set up to explain" and secondly, because they "guide prediction … they are the ground from which hypotheses spring" (McLaughlin, 1987: 14, 7). When faced with a seemingly unhelpful framework, their reaction is not to dismiss it out of hand, but to re-examine their interpretation and views on its potential implications. If the framework still seems inadequate, they attempt to develop it further, or formulate a more appropriate one (see Freeman, 2000; Roberts, 1998: 29-42).

In other words, principled teachers use their knowledge of existing frameworks to interpret their teaching experience and formulate hypotheses, which they test against their experience and new views on, and insights into, language and teaching/learning. They have recognised that there is no end-point in development, and that any answers and solutions are only temporary. They don't regard new views, theories, methodologies, materials and procedures as something they have to adopt or reject, but as food for thought, as more raw material for their flexible frameworks to take into account. In this way they are involved in a virtuous cycle of development. I am not arguing, or course, that their decisions are always correct, only that they are conscious, informed, and have internal consistency.

A note on intuition

Brown (2000: 292-293) provides a more positive view on intuition, but he still cautions that it is "the product, in part, of a firm grounding in what is known, in analytical terms, about how people learn languages and why some people do not learn languages. … Intuitions are formed at the crossroads of knowledge and experience." Similarly, Berliner (1994) presents intuition as one of the attributes of "proficient" and "expert" teachers (the highest two of his five stages of development). According to Berliner, such teachers have the ability to recognise similarities holistically, which allows them "to predict events more precisely".

As I see it, the discrepancy between my negative use of 'intuition' and Berliner's and Brown's positive one is due to terminology rather than concepts. (5) Brown (2000: 292) states that "one of the important characteristics of intuition is its nonverbalizability", that is the inability to explain verbally the rationale behind decisions. Berliner's (1994) "expert" teachers can "bring analytic processes to bear on the situation" when "anomalies occur". Since analytic processes need ability to verbalise, which in turn requires explicit knowledge of concepts and terms, the intuitive teacher is not in a position to analyse with any degree of accuracy - and therefore unable to make informed (i.e. principled) decisions. The quality that Berliner and Brown seem to describe has to do with speed and automatisation, and is more akin to "procedural knowledge" in Anderson's ACT* model (1983). (6)

CONCLUSION

Methodological packages and approaches are only tools. However well constructed, their effectiveness depends much more on the teachers' interpretation than the design of the packages themselves. Pre-prepared guidelines do not equip someone to deal successfully with the complex interaction of numerous, ever shifting factors that is language teaching/ learning. Actually, it seems highly probable that if the use of fixed sets of materials and procedures becomes widespread, the need for principled teachers will diminish. Consequently, courses/programmes for language teachers will tend to become ever-more cursory and superficial. This process will eventually reduce the role and status of language teachers to that of 'materials operators' - with all the attendant negative effects on both the emerging teaching profession and the learners.

Principled teaching is not concerned with the consumption (i.e. application) of theories and pre-packaged methodologies. It involves critical evaluation of the implications of theories, their development, as well as the construction of new theories. Principled teachers do not depend on packaged products, although they are perfectly able to use them flexibly to suit their teaching context. Principled language teachers are aware of different views on the nature and use of language, as well as the rationale behind teaching methodology, they do not only translate theory into practice, they also contribute to the development of the ELT profession.

(4)Most pre-packaged methods lack a comprehensive and clearly defined approach, that is an informing theory of language and/or learning (see Brown, 2001: 18-35; Richards & Rodgers, 1986).
(5)Collins English Dictionary (1998) gives the following definition of 'intuition': 1. Knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception. 2. Instinctive knowledge or belief. 3. A hunch or unjustified belief. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (1995) defines 'intuition' as follows: 1. The ability to understand or know something by using your feelings rather than by carefully considering the facts. 2. An idea about what is true in a particular situation based on strong feelings rather than facts.
(6)ACT* is a model of language generation (Anderson, 1983). It distinguishes between "declarative" knowledge ('what') and "procedural" knowledge ('how'). Declarative knowledge is available to consciousness and can be used as a set of instructions to guide behaviour through "interpretative", "problem-solving", or "analogy-forming" procedures. Procedural knowledge is not conscious and only comes about by repeated use of declarative knowledge in "productions". According to ACT*, knowledge starts as declarative and gradually becomes procedural through "strengthening" and "tuning" processes while using combined units of declarative knowledge in "productions".

From: Costas Gabrielatos

Source: http://www.developingteachers.com/articles_tchtraining/eltshop4_costas.htm

Teaching English as a Foreign Language is a science, and like all sciences, it has a set of underlying principles upon which it is based. However, unlike the better-known sciences such as biology, chemistry and physics, TEFL is not quantifiable to the point of being either objective or equation based in its approach. Therefore, TEFL, like psychology and sociology, must rely on subjectivity in order to formulate its principles. These principles, in turn, define the relationships that exist between either the teacher and the student or the student and other students.

In order to teach English effectively, an EFL teacher must subscribe to one (or more) of the current approaches to teaching English as a foreign language and incorporate its language-learning strategies and techniques into each of his or her lessons.

What follows are descriptions of nine of the principle approaches to teaching English as a foreign (second) language. Without doubt, the reader will have experienced one or more of these approaches in his or her own classroom learning history. Though there is no one correct approach, most teachers usually find themselves more comfortable using one or the other of the approaches listed and described. Though there is nothing overtly wrong with this, it must be remembered that students differ greatly, not just in age but also in mentality, thus they may respond differently to any given approach to language teaching. Because of different learning styles, the effective teacher must be prepared to adapt his or her teaching to the needs and preferences of each class. Our advice is to 'find yourself' with respect to the approaches listed below. That said, don't be afraid to experiment with and/or adapt your style of teaching. In the end, you may discover that the best approach is eclectic in nature and includes bits of this and bits of that.

So as to give some depth of understanding as to the evolution of ideas that has marked the emergence of newer and different approaches to language teaching, we have tried to place the following list of methodological approaches in chronological order.

Grammar Translation Method
Direct Method
Audio-Lingual Method
Silent Way
Total Physical Response (TPR)
Community Language Learning (CLL)
Suggestopedia (Suggestology)
Communicative Approach
Natural Approach
Grammar Translation Method: Latin and Ancient Greek are known as "dead languages", based on the fact that people no longer speak them for the purpose of interactive communication. Yet they are still acknowledged as important languages to learn (especially Latin) for the purpose of gaining access to classical literature, and up until fairly recently, for the kinds of grammar training that led to the "mental dexterity" considered so important in any higher education study stream.

Latin has been studied for centuries, with the prime objectives of learning how to read classical Latin texts, understanding the fundamentals of grammar and translation, and gaining insights into some important foreign influences Latin has had on the development of other European languages. The method used to teach it overwhelmingly bore those objectives in mind, and came to be known (appropriately!) as the Classical Method. It is now more commonly known in Foreign Language Teaching circles as the Grammar Translation Method.

It is hard to decide which is more surprising - the fact that this method has survived right up until today (alongside a host of more modern and more "enlightened" methods), or the fact that what was essentially a method developed for the study of "dead" languages involving little or no spoken communication or listening comprehension is still used for the study of languages that are very much "alive" and require competence not only in terms of reading, writing and structure, but also speaking, listening and interactive communication. How has such an archaic method, "remembered with distaste by thousands of school learners" (Richards and Rodgers, 1986:4) persevered?

It is worth looking at the objectives, features and typical techniques commonly associated with the Grammar Translation Method, in order to both understand how it works and why it has shown such tenacity as an "acceptable" language teaching philosophy in many countries and institutions around the world.

Direct Method: Towards the end of the late 1800s, a revolution in language teaching philosophy took place that is seen by many as the "dawn" of modern foreign language teaching. Teachers, frustrated by the limits of the Grammar Translation Method in terms of its inability to create "communicative" competence in students, began to experiment with new ways of teaching language. Basically, teachers began attempting to teach foreign languages in a way that was more similar to first language acquisition. It incorporated techniques designed to address all the areas that the Grammar Translation did not - namely oral communication, more spontaneous use of the language, and developing the ability to "think" in the target language. Perhaps in an almost reflexive action, the method also moved as far away as possible from various techniques typical of the Grammar Translation Method - for instance using L1 as the language of instruction, memorizing grammatical rules and lots of translation between L1 and the target language.

The appearance of the "Direct Method" thus coincided with a new school of thinking that dictated that all foreign language teaching should occur in the target language only, with no translation and an emphasis on linking meaning to the language being learned. The method became very popular during the first quarter of the 20th century, especially in private language schools in Europe where highly motivated students could study new languages and not need to travel far in order to try them out and apply them communicatively. One of the most famous advocates of the Direct Method was the German Charles Berlitz, whose schools and "Berlitz Method" are now world-renowned.

Still, the Direct Method was not without its problems. As Brown (1994:56) points out, "(it) did not take well in public education where the constraints of budget, classroom size, time, and teacher background made such a method difficult to use." By the late 1920s, the method was starting to go into decline and there was even a return to the Grammar Translation Method, which guaranteed more in the way of "scholastic" language learning orientated around reading and grammar skills. But the Direct Method continues to enjoy a popular following in private language school circles, and it was one of the foundations upon which the well-known "Audio-lingual Method" expanded from starting half way through the 20th century.

Audio-Lingual Method: The next "revolution" in terms of language teaching methodology coincided with World War II, when America became aware that it needed people to learn foreign languages very quickly as part of its overall military operations. The "Army Method" was suddenly developed to build communicative competence in translators through very intensive language courses focusing on aural/oral skills. This in combination with some new ideas about language learning coming from the disciplines of descriptive linguistics and behavioral psychology went on to become what is known as the Audio-lingual Method (ALM).

This new method incorporated many of the features typical of the earlier Direct Method, but the disciplines mentioned above added the concepts of teaching "linguistic patterns" in combination with "habit-forming". This method was one of the first to have its roots "firmly grounded in linguistic and psychological theory" (Brown 1994:57), which apparently added to its credibility and probably had some influence in the popularity it enjoyed over a long period of time. It also had a major influence on the language teaching methods that were to follow, and can still be seen in major or minor manifestations of language teaching methodology even to this day.

Another factor that accounted for the method's popularity was the "quick success" it achieved in leading learners towards communicative competence. Through extensive mimicry, memorization and "over-learning" of language patterns and forms, students and teachers were often able to see immediate results. This was both its strength and its failure in the long run, as critics began to point out that the method did not deliver in terms of producing long-term communicative ability.

The study of linguistics itself was to change, and the area of second language learning became a discipline in its own right. Cognitive psychologists developed new views on learning in general, arguing that mimicry and rote learning could not account for the fact that language learning involved affective and interpersonal factors, that learners were able to produce language forms and patterns that they had never heard before. The idea that thinking processes themselves led to the discovery of independent language "rule formation" (rather than "habit formation") and that affective factors influenced their application paved the way toward the new methods that were to follow the Audiolingual Method.

Silent Way: In addition to "affective" theories relative to language learning, another challenge to the Audio-lingual Method was under way already in the sixties in the form of the "Cognitive Code" and an educational trend known as "Discovery Learning." These concepts most directly challenged the idea that language learning was all about mimicry and good "habit-formation." An emphasis on human cognition in language learning addressed issues such as learners being more responsible for their own learning - formulating independent hypotheses about the "rules" of the target language and testing those hypotheses by applying them and realizing errors. When students create their own sets of meaningful language rules and concepts and then test them out, they are clearly learning through a discovery/exploratory method that is very different from rote-learning. This appears to have much more in common with the way people learn their native language from a very early age, and can account for the way children come out with new language forms and combinations that they have never heard before. The underlying principles here are that learners become increasingly autonomous in, active with and responsible for the learning process in which they are engaged.

Caleb Gattegno founded "The Silent Way" as a method for language learning in the early 70s, sharing many of the same essential principles as the cognitive code and making good use of the theories underlying Discovery Learning. Some of his basic theories were that "teaching should be subordinated to learning" and "the teacher works with the student; the student works on the language". The most prominent characteristic of the method was that the teacher typically stayed "silent" most of the time, as part of his/her role as facilitator and stimulator, and thus the method's popular name. Language learning is usually seen as a problem solving activity to be engaged in by the students both independently and as a group, and the teacher needs to stay "out of the way" in the process as much as possible.

The Silent Way is also well-known for its common use of small colored rods of varying length (Cuisinere rods) and color-coded word charts depicting pronunciation values, vocabulary and grammatical paradigms. It is a unique method and the first of its kind to really concentrate on cognitive principles in language learning.

Total Physical Response (TPR): Already in the late 1800s, a French teacher of Latin by the name of Francois Gouin was hard at work devising a method of language teaching that capitalized on the way children naturally learn their first language, through the transformation of perceptions into conceptions and then the expression of those conceptions using language. His approach became known as the Series Method, involving direct conceptual teaching of language using "series" of inter-connected sentences that are simple and easy to perceive, because the language being used can be directly related to whatever the speaker is doing at the immediate time of utterance (i.e., one's actions and language match each other). His thinking was well ahead of his time, and the Series Method became swamped in the enthusiasm surrounding the other new approach at the time in the form of the Direct Method.

Some 80 years later, in the 1960s, James Asher began experimenting with a method he called Total Physical Response, and its basic premise had a lot in common with Gouin's. The method was to become well known in the 70s, and it drew on several other insights in addition to the "trace theory" that memory is stimulated and increased when it is closely associated with motor activity. The method owes a lot to some basic principles of language acquisition in young learners, most notably that the process involves a substantial amount of listening and comprehension in combination with various "physical responses" (smiling, reaching, grabbing, looking, etc) - well before learners begin to use the language orally. 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. Asher (1977) also had a lot to say about right-brained learning (the part of the brain that deals with motor activity), believing it should precede the "language processing" element covered by the left-brain.

TPR is now a household name among teachers of foreign languages. It is widely acclaimed as a highly effective method at beginning levels, and a standard requirement in the instruction of young learners. It is also admired as a method due to its inherent simplicity, making it accessible to a wide range of teachers and learning environments.

Community Language Learning (CLL): In the early seventies, Charles Curran developed a new education model he called "Counseling-Learning". This was essentially an example of an innovative model that primarily considered "affective" factors as paramount in the learning process. Drawing on Carl Rogers' view that learners were to be considered not as a "class", but as a "group", Curran's philosophy dictated that students were to be thought of as "clients" - their needs being addressed by a "counselor" in the form of the teacher. Brown (1994:59), in commenting on this approach also notes that "In order for any learning to take place ... what is first needed is for the members to interact in an interpersonal relationship in which students and teacher join together to facilitate learning in a context of valuing and prizing each individual in the group." Curran was best known for his extensive studies on adult learning, and some of the issues he tried to address were the "threatening" nature of a new learning situation to many adult learners and the anxiety created when students feared making "fools" of themselves. Curran believed that the counseling-learning model would help lower the instinctive defenses adult learners throw up, that the anxiety caused by the educational context could be decreased through the support of an interactive "community" of fellow learners. Another important goal was for the teacher to be perceived as an empathetic helping agent in the learning process, not a threat.

The Counseling-Learning educational model was also applied to language learning, and in this form it became known as Community Language Learning. Based on most of the principles above, Community Language Learning seeks to encourage teachers to see their students as "whole persons", where their feelings, intellect, interpersonal relationships, protective reactions, and desire to learn are addressed and balanced. Students typically sit in a circle, with the teacher (as counselor) outside the ring. They use their first language to develop an interpersonal relationship based on trust with the other students. When a student wants to say something, they first say it in their native language, which the teacher then translates back to them using the target language. The student then attempts to repeat the English used by the teacher, and then a student can respond using the same process. This technique is used over a considerable period of time, until students are able to apply words in the new language without translation, gradually moving from a situation of "dependence" on the teacher-counselor to a state of independence.

Suggestopedia (Suggestology): In the late 70s, a Bulgarian psychologist by the name of Georgi Lozanov introduced the contention that students naturally set up psychological barriers to learning - based on fears that they will be unable to perform and are limited in terms of their ability to learn. Lozanov believed that learners may have been using only 5 to 10 percent of their mental capacity, and that the brain could process and retain much more material if given "optimal" conditions for learning. Based on psychological research on extrasensory perception, Lozanov began to develop a language learning method that focused on "desuggestion" of the limitations learners think they have, and providing the sort of relaxed state of mind that would facilitate the retention of material to its maximum potential. This method became known as "Suggestopedia" - the name reflecting the application of the power of "suggestion" to the field of pedagogy.

One of the most unique characteristics of the method was the use of soft Baroque music during the learning process. Baroque music has a specific rhythm and a pattern of 60 beats per minute, and Lozanov believed it created a level of relaxed concentration that facilitated the intake and retention of huge quantities of material. This increase in learning potential was put down to the increase in alpha brain waves and decrease in blood pressure and heart rate that resulted from listening to Baroque music. Another aspect that differed from other methods to date was the use of soft comfortable chairs and dim lighting in the classroom (other factors believed to create a more relaxed state of mind).

Other characteristics of Suggestopedia were the giving over of complete control and authority to the teacher (who at times can appear to be some kind of "instructional hypnotist" using this method!) and the encouragement of learners to act as "childishly" as possible, often even assuming names and characters "in" the target language. All of these principles in combination were seen to make the students "suggestible", and therefore able to utilize their maximum mental potential to take in and retain new material.

Communicative Approach: All the "methods" described so far are symbolic of the progress foreign language teaching ideology underwent in the last century. These were methods that came and went, influenced or gave birth to new methods - in a cycle that could only be described as "competition between rival methods" or "passing fads" in the methodological theory underlying foreign language teaching. Finally, by the mid-eighties or so, the industry was maturing in its growth and moving towards the concept of a broad "approach" to language teaching that encompassed various methods, motivations for learning English, types of teachers and the needs of individual classrooms and students themselves. It would be fair to say that if there is any one "umbrella" approach to language teaching that has become the accepted "norm" in this field, it would have to be the Communicative Language Teaching Approach. This is also known as CLT.

The Communicative approach does a lot to expand on the goal of creating "communicative competence" compared to earlier methods that professed the same objective. Teaching students how to use the language is considered to be at least as important as learning the language itself. Brown (1994) aptly describes the "march" towards CLT:

"Beyond grammatical discourse elements in communication, we are probing the nature of social, cultural, and pragmatic features of language. We are exploring pedagogical means for 'real-life' communication in the classroom. We are trying to get our learners to develop linguistic fluency, not just the accuracy that has so consumed our historical journey. We are equipping our students with tools for generating unrehearsed language performance 'out there' when they leave the womb of our classrooms. We are concerned with how to facilitate lifelong language learning among our students, not just with the immediate classroom task. We are looking at learners as partners in a cooperative venture. And our classroom practices seek to draw on whatever intrinsically sparks learners to reach their fullest potential."

CLT is a generic approach, and can seem non-specific at times in terms of how to actually go about using practices in the classroom in any sort of systematic way. There are many interpretations of what CLT actually means and involves. See Types of Learning and The PPP Approach to see how CLT can be applied in a variety of 'more specific' methods.

Natural Approach: Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell developed the "Natural Approach" in the early eighties (Krashen and Terrell, 1983), based on Krashen's theories about second language acquisition. The approach shared a lot in common with Asher's Total Physical Response method in terms of advocating the need for a "silent phase", waiting for spoken production to "emerge" of its own accord, and emphasizing the need to make learners as relaxed as possible during the learning process. Some important underlying principles are that there should be a lot of language "acquisition" as opposed to language "processing", and there needs to be a considerable amount of "comprehensible input" from the teacher. Meaning is considered as the essence of language and vocabulary (not grammar) is the heart of language.

As part of the Natural Approach, students listen to the teacher using the target language communicatively from the very beginning. It has certain similarities with the much earlier Direct Method, with the important exception that students are allowed to use their native language alongside the target language as part of the language learning process. In early stages, students are not corrected during oral production, as the teacher is focusing on meaning rather than form (unless the error is so drastic that it actually hinders meaning).

Communicative activities prevail throughout a language course employing the Natural Approach, focusing on a wide range of activities including games, role-plays, dialogs, group work and discussions. There are three generic stages identified in the approach: (1) Preproduction - developing listening skills; (2) Early Production - students struggle with the language and make many errors which are corrected based on content and not structure; (3) Extending Production - promoting fluency through a variety of more challenging activities.

Krashen's theories and the Natural approach have received plenty of criticism, particularly orientated around the recommendation of a "silent period" that is terminated when students feel ready to "emerge" into oral production, and the idea of "comprehensible input". Critics point out that students will "emerge" at different times (or perhaps not at all!) and it is hard to determine which forms of language input will be "comprehensible" to the students. These factors can create a classroom that is essentially very difficult to manage unless the teacher is highly skilled. Still, this was the first attempt at creating an expansive and overall "approach" rather than a specific "method", and the Natural Approach led naturally into the generally accepted norm for effective language teaching: Communicative Language Teaching.

Source: http://www.languagelink.ru/e/tefl/methodologies.php