The evolution of English Language Teaching (ELT) has been a dynamic journey, transforming significantly from the mid-20th century to meet global demands. This comprehensive overview explores the historical shifts, methodological innovations, and theoretical underpinnings that have shaped modern language education, providing a clear summary of its development.
The Post-World War II Context and Demand for English
Following World War II, there was a dramatic increase in the global demand for English. This surge was driven by various factors, including the movement of immigrants and refugees, and a growing number of foreign students seeking educational opportunities.
Major English teaching countries like the UK, Canada, USA, and Australia saw English expand as an international language by the 1950s. Contributing factors included the growth of air travel, international tourism, and the boom in international trade and commerce. Additionally, radio, film, and television played a crucial role in popularizing English worldwide.
Learners in this era increasingly needed a practical command of English, moving beyond a purely academic knowledge. This shift in learner needs prompted a widespread search for new, more effective teaching methodologies.
Early Methodological Responses in English Language Teaching
The initial response from the language teaching profession was to actively seek and develop new teaching methods. The underlying assumption was that changing learner needs necessitated more up-to-date and relevant approaches.
Linguistics, with its emerging theories of language structure, heavily influenced this period. These linguistic theories were applied to create what were considered “scientifically based” methods. The 1950s and 1960s became a period of intense methodological experimentation.
Developments in Britain: Situational Language Teaching
British applied linguistics developed teaching methods based on the oral approach and a graded grammatical and lexical syllabus. This became known as Situational Language Teaching, or the structural situational approach.
Situational Language Teaching was the mainstream method in Britain from the 1950s. While later evolving into the TESL/TEFL approach, it still retained a foundation in structural syllabi and situational methodology.
Developments in the United States: The Audiolingual Method
In the United States, the dominant method during the 1960s was the Audiolingual Method (AM). Stern (1974) famously referred to the period between 1958 and 1964 as the “Golden Age of Audiolingualism.”
AM drew heavily on American structural linguistics and behaviorist psychology. Its core belief was that language learning is essentially habit formation, primarily achieved through constant repetition. As Bloomfield (1942) stated, “Language learning is overlearning.”
Teaching techniques employed in the Audiolingual Method included repetition drills, substitution drills, and pattern practice. The goal was to facilitate the transfer of these learned patterns to new situations. This focus on distinct methods continued for another two decades.
Shifting Focus: Learner Needs and European Policy
Despite the enthusiasm for new methods, criticism of this “method-centred thinking” began to emerge. A key missing factor was insufficient attention to learners’ actual needs.
While focusing on how people learn and what language is, these approaches often neglected why people learn, learner motivation, and the evaluation of learning outcomes. This led to a re-evaluation of foreign language policies across Europe in the 1970s.
Key questions arose regarding which languages to teach, when to introduce them, and how intensively to teach them. The status of classical languages was also reviewed in this context.
The Council of Europe and Learner-Centered Approaches
The Council of Europe, established in 1949 and particularly active in language policy from 1969, aimed to promote cultural and educational cooperation. Its conclusions emphasized that language barriers must be removed, recognizing linguistic diversity as a cultural heritage.
The Council advocated for the widespread study of modern languages, believing they enrich culture and enable international cooperation. This led to a stronger focus on learners’ needs, requiring detailed information to inform policy decisions.
Questions about the necessity of language learning for all citizens, language choice, the number of languages to learn, and the desired level of skill, along with the stability of these needs, became central.
The Unit Credit System and Threshold Level
The Council of Europe proposed the Unit Credit System, which divided language learning into small, clearly defined units. Each unit specified terminal learner behavior and was linked to a credit system. The purpose was to offer flexibility and learner-centered progression.
Within this framework, the Threshold Level was defined as the lowest recognized level of general foreign language ability. Developed by Van Ek and Alexander (1975), it outlined the specific language abilities a learner would need to function at a basic, independent level.
Emergence of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) emerged during this period, fundamentally shifting the focus away from an obsession with methods. Instead, it emphasized the goals of language teaching, the nature of language use, and the learning processes involved.
Learner and societal needs became the starting point, with learning targets defined only after a thorough needs analysis. This approach reflected the emergence of backward design, where desired outcomes guide the curriculum development.
CLT, developing in the late 1960s and 1970s, responded to new views on language and learning, as well as the changed needs in Europe. It led to a reappraisal of teaching goals, the nature of language use, and learning processes.
Shift Away from Grammar-Centred Teaching
A central tenet of CLT was questioning the traditional, central role of grammar. The focus moved toward communicative outcomes and the development of communicative skills. CLT emphasizes communication itself as the organizing principle for teaching.
CLT is not a single method but rather a broad approach, representing a profound change in assumptions about language, teaching goals, objectives, and syllabus design. It also included a search for suitable methodologies aligned with its communicative principles.
Linguistic Background of CLT
CLT was heavily influenced by linguistic developments in the 1970s, which saw a shift away from grammar as the sole core of language study. Instead, there was an emphasis on language use, communicative purposes, and the specific situations in which language is used.
This led to the concept of communicative competence: the ability to use language appropriately and effectively in a given context, rather than just knowing grammatical rules. This distinction highlighted the difference between grammatical competence (knowledge of rules) and communicative competence (appropriate use).
Consequently, a new syllabus model was needed to teach communicative competence effectively.
The Search for New Syllabus Models
Wilkins and the Notional Syllabus
David Wilkins (1976) directly addressed the challenge of teaching communicative competence. He contrasted traditional grammar syllabuses, which he categorized as synthetic approaches, with a new vision.
- Synthetic Approaches: Characterized by teaching small units of language step-by-step, gradually building up the whole. Grammar syllabuses are typically synthetic.
- Analytic Approaches: Do not impose strict control over language input. They are organized around real language use, purposes, and performance. Learners are exposed to language chunks and encouraged to analyze them.
Wilkins' Notional Syllabus proposed categories such as semantico-grammatical meaning, modal meaning, and communicative functions. Of these, communicative functions proved to be the most practical and widely adopted.
The Functional Syllabus in Threshold Level
The Threshold Level, developed by the Council of Europe, incorporated a functional syllabus. It included 126 communicative functions, grouped into categories like information, attitudes, action decisions, socializing, discourse, and repair.
This focus on communicative units significantly impacted applied linguistics. It led to many proposals for functional and communicative syllabuses. Yalden (1987) further addressed deficiencies of grammar-based syllabuses, arguing that a communicative syllabus should encompass a wide range of elements:
- Purposes
- Settings
- Roles
- Events
- Functions
- Notions
- Discourse skills
- Varieties
- Grammar
- Vocabulary
This framework mirrored the comprehensive scope seen in the Threshold Level.
English for Specific Purposes (ESP)
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) emerged in the 1960s–1970s as a response to the need to make language courses more relevant to specific learner contexts. Its development was driven by practical reasons, such as preparing students for university study, professional needs, business purposes, and the job requirements of immigrants.
ESP fundamentally differs from General English. While General English focuses on learning for its own sake, ESP targets learning for specific roles or domains. A key criticism of pre-ESP teaching was its heavy focus on structure, neglecting communication and the real-world needs of learners.
Register and Discourse Analysis in ESP
ESP relies heavily on concepts like Register (language variety based on use) and Discourse Analysis (the study of longer texts, their coherence, and rhetorical patterns). These analytical tools help pinpoint the specific language features required for a particular field.
Needs Analysis in ESP
Needs analysis is essential in ESP, reflecting a backward design approach where the purpose of learning is the starting point. General English syllabuses are often insufficient for these specific needs, which are defined in terms of desired learner performance.
Multiple stakeholders are typically involved in defining these needs, utilizing tools like questionnaires and interviews. Munby (1978) proposed a systematic model for needs analysis, developing a