Method, Approach and Technique: From Anthony Edwards to Richards and Rogers

Abstract:

The terms mentioned in the title, are often confused with each other while having a discussion on language teaching and learning. With the wide range of advancements in the field of language teaching and learning, it becomes quite difficult to distinguish one term from the other. However, long before these advancements happened, three of the major contributors to the field tried to clarify the ambiguities to a certain extent. Them being: Richards & Rogers and Anthony Edwards. What actually does the word ‘method’ mean for the language teaching and learning classes? is the major concern of the two essays, namely, “Method: Approach, Design and Procedure” & “Approach, Method & Technique”, are taken into consideration by this assignment for the purpose of discussion.

Method: Approach, Design and Procedure

                                                                                                  -Jack C Richards & Ted Rogers

“The concept of such conceptualization of the learning process didn’t exist until the late nineteenth century. Before that second language instruction mirrored the so-called Classical Method of teaching Latin and Greek; lessons were based on mental-aerobics exercises- repetition skills and out of context vocabulary skills as well as lots of reading and translation of ancient texts. Theories of second language acquisition didn’t start to come up until the instructional objective became oral competence.” (Taber) But it is important to note that since then there have been so many new methodologies contributing to the language learning course that more and more options are available for the learners as well as teachers to choose a theory which suits them. And this is where the essay by Jack Richards and Ted Rogers becomes significant.

According to them, “In the fifties and sixties language teaching represented a reasonably unified body of theory and practice. It was clearly linked in its theoretical foundations to linguistics and psychology. The methodology of language teaching was identified with the orthodoxy of audiolingualism.” (Rogers) So, in the fifties and sixties, in a normal language learning class would be one where the teacher would give tasks involving listening and speaking skills to the students; considering the fact that listening the target language, would help the learners acquire the language faster; since, as infants we learn our mother tongue by listening the people (specifically our family members or parents) around us.

Richards and Rogers further argue about the advancements made in the field of language teaching during their time (i.e. 1980s). These advancements include, “studies in textual cohesion, language functions, speech act theory, sociolinguistic variation, presuppositional semantics, interaction analysis, ethno methodology and face to face analysis, ethnography of speaking, process analysis, and discourse analysis.” (Rogers) Hence, the studies which now are considered as building blocks of language teaching methodologies were developed during this time. Indeed, the nineteen eighties mark a wide range of advancements in the field of linguistics as well as language teaching; since what we now know as modern methods, such as Silent Way, Total Physical Response, Suggestopedia, etc, have their roots in the eighties.

Departing from all this, Rogers moves to the matter of our concern, which is to discuss the three part structure of language teaching practices. In their endeavour to contrast their opinion from the one argued by Anthony Edwards, in his, Approach, Method and Technique. Edwards writing about the practices within a language classes mentions a hierarchical structure of the three terms. Therefore, for Edwards, the organizational key for the hierarchical structure was, “techniques carry out a method which is consistent with an approach.” (Edwards) Thus, for Edwards, approach became the umbrella term, the root of all techniques and methods employed in the classroom; since for him, approach was a ‘set of correlative assumptions dealing with the nature of language and the nature of language teaching and learning.’

However, Rogers presents an interrelated structure of the terms, wherein method becomes the umbrella term. The structure becomes of a correlation of approach, design and procedure. This structure of the terms has proved beneficial even to the contemporary understanding of the language classroom activities than Edwards’ hierarchical structure; and has been followed still for the same. Following is Rogers’ explanation of the structure:

“The first level, approach, defines those assumptions, beliefs, and theories about the nature of language and the nature of language learning which operate as axiomatic constructs or reference points and provide a theoretical foundation for what language teachers ultimately do with learners in classrooms. The second level in the system, design, specifies the relationship of theories of language and learning to both the form and function of instructional materials and activities in instructional settings. The third level, procedure, comprises the classroom techniques and practices which are consequences of particular approaches and designs.” (Rogers)

If we observe closely Rogers and Edwards seem to agree on the nature of approach; both of them understand approach as a set of assumptions or axioms or beliefs regarding the nature of language and that of language teaching and learning. At a time when new and new methods of language teaching are emerging, Rogers’ interdependent system of the three terms helps a lot in understanding, how one method differs from the other. To put in Rogers’ words, “ a framework which can be used to describe, evaluate, and compare methods in language teaching.” (Rogers) Thus, it becomes easy to analyze how Silent Way differs from Suggestopedia and what are their distinctive approaches and designs concerning the nature of language and that of language teaching and learning.

The interdependent structure also implies that, to put it in Rogers’ words, “the ideal methodological development proceeds, rather neatly, from approach, to design, to procedure.” (Rogers) Thus, there is a possibility that the discovery of a procedure would lead to the discovery of a new approach towards language teaching and learning all together. This is where Richards and Rogers completely differ from Edwards. The former understands the process of language teaching and learning as a free flow of interdependence whereas the later considers it as a very formulaic concept of activities.

Moving on, to the focus of our discussion, i.e. Method. As mentioned earlier, Method, for Rogers whereas for Edwards, it is a stage of the structure. Edwards, describes Method as, “an overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material, no part of which contradicts, and all of which is based upon, the selected approach.” (Edwards) A closer look at the description would reveal a stark similarity between the ‘method’ of Edwards and the ‘design’ of Rogers. Both the stages being the stages of organization and management of content as well as of the axioms of the selected approach. An important matter to note here, is the fact that both the conceptual structures, take into account the roles of the learner and the teacher, during the learning process.

Rogers applies this structure to the Total Physical Response method. The following are the application points which Rogers discusses in the article:

1)      At the approach level, Asher, the founder of the TPR, seems to believe that ‘language can be learned through motor activity’.

2)      At the design level, from the roles of the learners as well as the teachers, to the syllabus and the type of content are decided. Learners are instructed to physically respond to the commands of the teacher. “The syllabus is sentence-based, primarily lexical and grammatical. Items are selected according to the ease with which they may be used in the imperative form to initiate actions.” (Rogers)

3)      At the procedure level, the command based drills are carried out. Meaning, in Rogers’ words, ‘ is communicated by gesture, mime and demonstration. The procedure would involve both, individual and group activities. Both written and spoken material can be used at this level. Errors are not paid much attention; since comprehension is prioritized over production.

Conclusion:

It seems as if for Richards and Rogers, method is equal to methodology, since they use it as an umbrella term for the language acquisition process. Coming to the contemporary times, with triple the advancements which took place during Rogers’ time, one might question the relevance of the model they provided. It is true, that language learning is no longer restricted to the four walls of a classroom and that it is possible in the 21^st century that one can learn language through online courses and internet; and therefore there’s no need to bring back these conceptual structures of language teaching and learning. However, it is equally true, that the courses one enrolls on the internet today for language learning today, still follow one or the other module of this structure presented by Richards and Rogers. And this is why a clear understanding of this structure is necessary.

Works Cited

Edwards, Anthony. "Approach, Method and Technique." English Language Teaching (ELT) Journal 17 (1963): 63-67. 7 October 2019.

Rogers, Jack C Richards and Ted. "Method: Approach, Design and Procedure." TESOL Quarterly June 1982: 153-168. web. 7 October 2019. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586789>.

Taber, Joan. A Brief History of ESL Instruction: Theories, Methodologies and Upheavals. May 2006. web. 7 October 2019. <http://faculty.seattlecentral.edu/jgeorg/TESLSCCC/ABriefHistory.htm>.