Over the last few decades many new methods or teaching techniques have emerged in English second language (ESL) teaching, and most of them have their origins in either the Language-Centered Method (or Audiolingual) of the Learner-Centered Method (LCM).

Audiolingual came first and focused primarily on the structure of the language – teaching students through repetition, drills, and grammar lectures. Language was seen as a system and through enough beating into their heads, students would have a language drilled into them. Language learning was likened to riding a bike and viewed principally as a mechanical process. Teachers were trying to instill an automatic response from their students. Learning was viewed as a linear process. Lessons were scaffolded and additive; each class would build upon the work of the last.

Today, many of the techniques in the Audiolingual method are viewed as antiquated. The method overlooked cultural and communicative realities surrounding language. Language was viewed rigidly as something to be distilled and administered to students. The method also overlooked the malleability and adaptability of language. The English language in this context was essentialized. There was correct English, and there were ‘broken’ and ‘dirty’ forms of English. Communication was not the guiding principle, language precision was.

As the world began to organize into larger socio-political communities (such as the European Economic Community, predecessor to the European Union), the ability to communicate in multiple languages became more important than exact proficiency. Consequently, the Learner-Centered Method (LCM) emerged which focused on communication, culture, and connection rather than language structure and purity. This had a large impact on in-class teaching techniques. Teachers were no longer only teaching grammar, engaging students in drills, and conducting rote repetition. They started to have discussions, debates, and role-play games. The LCM represents much of what is currently popular in ESL classrooms.

However, grammar instruction and error correction still had (and have) a place in an LCM classroom. The main difference is that instead of starting with a grammatical point and building an activity or lesson around it, teachers begin with communication games or role play and provide grammar and correction when necessary. These sorts of classes are usually accompanied by a grammar book, which aids the student in their grammar and language growth. The shift from language-centered to learner-centered has brought on an influx of novel classroom activities and shifted focus from language as coded system, to language as means of communication.

So which teaching method is better? Should instructors focus on language first and foremost or on communication? Does it matter if students use “irregular” or “non-traditional” English to achieve their goals in context or should language be seen as something to be perfected?

Before beginning a Masters of Education, I did not even know that there were labels for these two approaches. I had not been formally taught how to teach. For five years I taught English and French as second and foreign languages with no idea of what I was doing. And I quickly became very good at it. But I was ignorant. I have seen many teachers fail where I have succeeded. What did I do that was different? I think it was just luck and – later – experience that made me a good teacher. I was lucky that I didn’t make the mistake of listening to everyone who tried to tell me how to teach. I was lucky to be a person who questions everything and does not take anything at face value. For honestly, the ESL industry can be detrimental to teachers and students alike. I learned through negative education. I learned what not to do, not what to do. It was my life experience and love for people that helped me find my way. It was my background in anthropology and my humanistic education that anchored my empathy and understanding for my students. I think that being an outsider in the field of education allowed me to view it as those inside could not.

The answer is, both approaches have value, and both can be used effectively. Teaching a second language has far less to do with the approach and much more to do with the student. Some students need discipline, repetitions, and structured lessons. Others need games, role-play, and focus on communication. It is the teacher’s job to guide students in the way that best suits their individual needs. Most students won’t know what works best for them. It is the teacher’s responsibility to help them find the best way for them, support them in their growth, and nudge them in the most effective ways.

I have no problem drilling students all class long. Neither do I mind playing games all class and not correcting a single error. I will usually combine some of both and use my best judgement as to which course to follow. What I do mind is students not improving. What bothers me is students with horror stories of previous classes and teachers. What irks me is that some institutions and teachers believe in a one-size-fits-all technique. If ever a teacher or school tells you that they have a method or technique that works for everyone, find another place to learn a language.

Please reach out to me to speak about language learning, teaching, or classes. I am always happy to share ideas and discuss these topics. The English Business House was created to support you in your language and professional goals. Regardless of how you learn best, we will be here to support and guide you through the process.