Introduction

The purpose of this article is to analyze the different approaches, methods, and techniques, as well as some of the major issues in teaching foreign and second languages. The author discuses many of the pedagogical and linguistic theories that have been implemented to create and teach these methods. The first thing that language instructors should know is that there is a difference between a method and an approach. It was in 1963 when the linguist Edward Mason Anthony, professor of linguistics at the University of Michigan, pointed out this difference; for him a method is more precise than an approach (Celce-Murcia, 2001). According to him, an approach is based on a model of theory and a hypothesis, and its philosophical standpoint is based on language teaching, such as the one used in the Direct Method. Anthony argues that a method is a set of techniques; therefore, a method is based on the steps teachers follow to teach a second or foreign language. In addition, he considers that a technique is the activity that the language teacher uses in the class, which in some way, can be related to language teaching strategies. Many of the techniques that are used in the different methods for teaching ESL/EFL overlap, such as: listening comprehension, writing, speaking, reading, repetition, etc. This paper also addresses the strengths and the weakness of these methods. However, to this day, the question of which method is the best to follow in any given language program continues to be a contentious topic for linguists and language teachers.

The Grammar Translation Method

The Grammar Translation Method was used for many years to teach second and foreign languages, in formal and informal settings. The advocates of this method believed that learning classical languages, such as Greek and Latin, was relevant to cultivate the mind. Therefore, during this period, the goal for teaching Latin and Greek was not for the learners to achieve oral competency, but rather to be able to read the literature in these languages and to acquire a proper education (Larsen-Freeman, 2000; Richards & Rodgers 2001).

The strategies used for teaching this method are based on grammatical analysis of the rules of the language, and the translation of sentences and texts from one language into another. Therefore, memorization of vocabulary and syntax is paramount in this method. The teaching philosophy focuses more on reading and writing instead of speaking and listening; as a result, it is hard to expect that students will reach communicative competence when using this method. In Grammar Translation, good language learners are those who acquire skills to translate correctly from one language into the other. The teaching of grammar is carried out in a deductive way, so grammar rules are taught explicitly. Since Grammar Translation is teacher-centered, much time is devoted to the explanation of grammatical rules, and the language instructor expects students to listen and take notes from lectures. Consequently, one can observe how in the Grammar Translation Method students do not have a proper interaction and cannot use the language in a communicative context. The students also learn grammatical structures such as verb conjugations, and memorization of native-language equivalents for target language; consequently, a great part of this method relies on memorization of rules and words (Larsen-Freeman, 2000).

According to the linguist Alan Duff, translation is a normal and an essential process to learn a language. In addition, he also argues that the use of translation helps learners to think, and to some degree use the second language. He believes that when doing translation learners understand the target language better (Duff, 1996). However, this idea contradicts the way in which children learn their native language since they do not translate any language in the process of acquisition. Furthermore, can one assume that one language needs to be translated to learn another language, or is it better to learn the language in a direct way? Can one assume that a language learner will have to make more of a mental effort when doing a translation to learn a language? Ironically, the effort may be bigger, taking into account that the learner must think in two languages. It is also ironic that the primary purpose of language is communication, and this method is far from reaching this goal since learners are not being trained to reach communicative competence in the foreign language. The classical method for learning foreign language began in Germany by the end of the eighteenth century, and it was established as the model method during this period. Its main goal was to make language learning easier. One of its features was the replacement of traditional texts by sentences. Grammar Translation was the descendant of German scholarship; their philosophy of language was to know as much as possible about one subject instead of knowing the thing itself (W. H. D. Rouse, quoted in Kelly, 1969). Even though this method seems to have been left behind for most language teachers, many linguists approve this method and would recommend it. In her paper, Translation in the classroom: A useful tool for Second Language Acquisition, Cunningham (2000) argues that some current articles claim that there is no reason translation activities cannot be implemented in a communicative-based lesson. She also states that doing translation work may contribute to the learning process and learners should not be deprived of this strategy (Cunningham, 2000). In addition, H.H, Stern (1992) in his book, Issues and Options in Language Teaching, also suggests that teaching grammar translation helps second language learning.

However, even if translation may benefit the foreign language learners to some extent, most linguists and language teachers around the world disagree with the implementation of this method. On the other hand, there are many linguists and grammar books designers who advocate the teaching of grammar in the language classroom without doing translations. Two of these advocates are the professor of Applied Linguistics Keith Folse from the University of Central Florida and the author of the series Understanding and Using English Grammar, Betty Azar. Both Azar and Folse believe that grammar should be taught explicitly and implicitly, but they never suggest the use of translation to teach grammar (Azar, Folse & Swan, 2016).

The question whether the teacher should use Grammar Translation or not depends more on the type of school and the purpose of learning the foreign language. In the courses of English for Academic Purpose in the USA and Canada, it is forbidden to use this method. Moreover, how would an ESL teacher would be able to apply such a method when there are multilingual students from different countries in the same classroom? Would the ESL teacher have to translate into multiple languages at the same time? Would these schools hire multilingual language teachers only, so they can teach this method? The fact is that the method may be helpful for some settings and some programs, but to say that it can be suitable for all language programs would be a huge pedagogical mistake.

The Direct Method

The Direct Method arose as a challenge to the Grammar Translation Method. One of the first founders of this method was Francois Gouin, who spent time observing how children acquire their native language. Based on his investigation, he implemented the same strategies to teach second languages (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The Direct Method, allows students to use the language in situational contexts. Moreover, the teaching of explicit grammar rules is avoided; students are expected to infer them. In the Direct Method, language learners develop writing skills from the beginning of the course, and students are expected to learn about the cultural values of native speakers, so they learn history, literature, and customs of the native speakers in the target language. Even though in this method the language learners are using language in a more communicative approach than in Grammar Translation, it is still considered a teacher-centered approach.

The language instructor’s role in this method is to explain the vocabulary and its meaning through body language, mimicry, and pictures (Larsen-Freeman, 2000). The lessons are designed in a situational way, so the students can practice real -life skills such as banking, phone calls, a conversation in a store, a post office, and other social settings. In the Direct Method, learners are expected to develop the four skills, but more emphasis is put on speaking skills. The learners’ L1 must be avoided at all cost; therefore, they will be encouraged to speak in the target language only.

The advocates of the Direct Method believe that language instruction is about formation of habits, and not about information on the target language. Language teachers should teach language learners to respond in complete sentence from the beginning of the course, so students can develop these habits. Furthermore, these advocates believe that the teaching of phonetics is part of the language learning process; therefore, teaching learners to use proper intonation becomes natural, and teachers expect students to achieve correct pronunciation in the target language. The teaching of phonetics is directly connected with learning the language and great attention is focused on the sound-combinations and intonation of the language. Pronunciation mistakes are not allowed, and they must be corrected immediately. Even though language teachers receive technical training in phonetics, when teaching this area of linguistics, they are not supposed to teach the theoretical part of it, but apply the phonetic rules to the lessons, using pictures, graphs and the formation of lips and mouth (Krause, 1916).

The Direct Method expects language learners will learn the target language in a direct way, which means the lessons will be conducted without having to use to the leaner’s native language. Advocates of this method believe that it should be taught in a way that there is no second language interference with the L2. However, this is contradictory, because language learners do have a first language, which might interfere in some way or another in learning the target language. Another characteristic of the Direct Method is that the advocates and teachers expect the language learners to think in the target language and not in their native language when they speak with peers and with speakers of the target language (Jones, 1915).

The Direct Method was espoused at the end of the XIX century by Maximilian Berlitz, and its main weight was given to oral communication first, postponing reading and writing for later. The main technology that was incorporated into this method to teach listening comprehension was the phonograph, and vinyl records. This technology that was applied in the teaching of foreign languages, led to the later use of tapes, cassettes, and today’s CDs, and classrooms equipped with computers labs. At the beginning when they started using the Direct Method, many linguists worried about the speed in which learners could learn the foreign language through this method.

However, because the method is based on how children learn their native language, the assumption indicates that second-language learners learn the target language faster since observations show, that children learn their L1 at a great speed. Of course, this also varies depending on where the child learns the language, whether in a native speaking country of the target language or in a foreign country (Jones, 1915).

At one point, linguists and language specialists tried to improve the quality of teaching second and foreign languages. A great contribution to this method was also made by the linguist Edward Anthony Mason who contemplated the language learning process at three levels: focus, method, and strategies (Mason, Anthony, 1963)Although this model was somehow effective, it excluded the role of teachers and language learners (Richards & Rogers, 2001). At the beginning of the implementation of the Direct Method, many linguists opposed it because they were very skeptical; today it is unquestionable that this method was more effective than the previous Grammar Translation method. Consequently, the Direct Method was the starting point for the evolution of methods in foreign language teaching. One of the criticisms of this method was that teachers were not supposed to give any explanation using the students’ native language. Today, this issue is still questioned in many countries. The lessons in the Direct Method are always activity-oriented; hence, both the teacher and the students must create a lively classroom atmosphere. This might be one of the reasons why learners’ level of motivation is high when using this method. Moreover, in the Direct Method, teachers are expected to be very active, so they can maintain the same degree of interest and motivation in all classes throughout the day, something that makes this approach more of a teacher-centered class, instead of learner-centered class.

The Audiolingual Method

The Audiolingual Method goes back to World War II and was created with the idea of expanding the English language to other countries. The method focuses on the teaching of oral communication and listening comprehension with the goal of using the language in a social context. Learners are expected to learn the vocabulary with support of visual aids, such as pictures, photos, filmstrip, and the spoken word. Learners are expected to learn the vocabulary with the support of visual aids, such as pictures, photos, film strip, and the spoken word. One of the strategies to teach this method is to place emphasis on overcorrection, so, the use of drills is paramount. Memorization and practice drills are used extensively to establish the new language skills as habits.

This method does not focus on meaningful communication because communication in a language is not about memorizing dialogues, but using language in a social context. One of the first textbooks created to teach the Audiolingual Method was the Lado series; it was designed to teach lessons with the use of recordings supported by visuals. The Lado textbooks were not based on a meaningful communication approach, so these books were later considered ineffective for learning English as a second and foreign language. The Audiolingual Method was exported to different countries such as Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Venezuela, to teach English as a foreign language. This method focuses on the structural parts of the language and learners learn the phoneme-grapheme relationship before they engage in a conversation.

The following are some of the characteristics of the Audiolingual Method: it focuses on form rather than meaning; therefore, emphasis is more on language structures, memorization of dialogues is paramount in the lessons, drilling of exercises is the main strategy for teaching the target language; in addition, the language does not have to be taught in context. In this method, teachers place much emphasis on pronunciation and reading; writing skills are not introduced until later stages. The Audiolingual Method is a teacher-centered, not student-centered, method. method. The teacher is the director, and controls the learning process in the classroom, and to a higher extent, he/she will try to predict how learners will learn the language.

This method was also influenced by the behaviorist theory of B. F. Skinner, who was a professor of psychology at Harvard University. Skinner believed that to know a language is much more than just to know what the native speakers speak about and how they speak it. The Audiolingual Method is about habit formation where learners of the target language, instead of being creative, focus on doing mechanical repetitions and drilling. Skinner believed that positive reinforcement strengthens the behavior and makes it more likely to happen again (Skinner, 1968). This method focuses on grammatical competence, and grammar explanations are avoided, so learners will not learn much about the rules of the target language, therefore, at the end of the program, they will have a weak command of grammar. In this method, translations, and the use of the learners’ L1 are avoided, so they are encouraged to use the target language only to communicate with others. In the Audiolingual Method, a great emphasis on memorization takes place, so rote learning is vital in the process of learning and teaching the target language. (Brown, 1994).

It has commonly been assumed that once linguistic competence is acquired, communicative competence will follow automatically. However, there have been many opponents of this method. Clear examples are Johnson and Morrow (1981) who argue that the students coming out of the traditional classrooms are likely to become "structurally competent but communicatively incompetent"(p. 1). The behaviorist approach, a discipline of psychology, was also applied to the Audiolingual Method. This approach was developed by the famous structural linguists Harold Palmer and Leonard Bloomfield who took the idea from behaviorism that learning a language is habit formation. They believe that learning happens when there is a connection between a stimulus and a response, therefore when the learner gives the correct response to the stimuli, the teacher assumes that the learners have learned that structure (Bolinger, 1975).

The Natural Approach

In the nineteenth-century, François Gouin was one of the linguists who tried to build a methodology by observing how children learn their native language. Likewise, other linguists at the end of this century, focused on a more natural approach for learning and teaching second and foreign languages; consequently, they are often considered the pioneers of the Natural Method. In the history of language teaching, many endeavors have been made to make second language learning look similar to the way a first language is learned. Among those who experimented with the natural principles of language learning was L. Sauver (Richards & Rogers, 2001). He opened a language school in Boston at the end of the 1860s, and his method was known as the Natural Method and some of his followers believe that the Natural Method could be taught without translation, or the use of the learner's native language. As a result, they refuted the approaches used by the Grammar Translation Method. Consequently, the lessons were focused on demonstrations and action, and not on analysis of structures that focus on explanation of grammar rules.

However, although some linguists like Gouin and Sauveur had ideas on how to implement strategies in language teaching that pertained to the natural way of language learning, this approach is credited to (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). This approach focuses on communication as the primary function of language; language learners should be able to make themselves understood even if they have grammatical errors. In the Natural Approach learners are expected to express their feelings and needs, and lessons are not designed based on grammatical structures. This approach also uses tasks from other approaches. For example, command-based tasks from Total Physical Response, a method that is based on command and actions and pair work from the Communicative Language Teaching approach (Richards & Rogers, 2001).

It is also relevant to point out that this approach is based on Steven Krashen’s hypothesis of second language acquisition. According to Krashen and Terrell (1988) there are two ways to achieve competence in a second language, one is the acquisition of language, which occurs when the language is acquired in a subconscious way. For example, when a child acquires his first language, the child does not learn the grammatical rules of the language, but has an exposure to the language, and acquires it by listening to parents and other adults that he or she is in contact with. Other skills learners develop are writing and reading classified job ads, taking notes, etc. Krashen’s view of second language acquisition is that language learning occurs in one direction only, which is the input theory. For him, people learn language when they understand it, not when they speak; therefore, language teachers should provide plenty of input in their classrooms to foster language learning.

Krashen and Terrell (1988), believe that language is better learned when it is used to convey messages and not when it is explicitly taught in a conscious way. They also argue that using pictures and visual aid supports in the lessons is very useful. In the Natural Approach, the role of grammar is as relevant as language input, even when the language teacher teaches some grammar structures. Even at advanced levels where learners are trying to understand complex syntax structures, the main point is that learners practice the input, even if they are not able to apply the grammatical structure being taught, (Krashen & Terrell, 1988).

The Natural Approach is based on five language acquisition principles. First, there is the dichotomy in acquisition and learning. The second principle is the natural order hypothesis, which focus on minimum correction of students’ errors. Krashen and Terrell (1988) argue that language learners are not going to produce language structures that they are supposed to learn later at the early stage of learning. Another hypothesis that Krashen points out in this approach is the built-in monitor that leaners have. Next is the input hypothesis, which is paramount in this approach since the methodology is based on input first, and at a later stage, output will take place.

The final hypothesis is concerned with the affective filter. Krashen and Terrell, (1988) indicate that humans have an affective filter that allows learners to acquire the language easier. When the affective filter is low, learners will acquire the language much better, since the level of stress and fear will be reduced. Therefore, it is the language teacher’s duty to create a classroom environment that helps language learners to lower the affective filter, so language acquisition can take place in an effective way. One of the suggestions that Krashen gives is to avoid overcorrection of students to prevent inhibition when they speak, and he suggests that corrections be made indirectly.

Krashen and Terrell were also advocates of naturalistic principles; they have tried to show that this method is more suitable for teaching second languages to children and young adults. As was mentioned above, they also base their theory on how children learn their first language, stating that children do not receive grammatical explanations nor second language instruction when they are learning their L1; therefore, this strategy can also be applied when teaching second languages. Different from the Direct Method, the Natural Approach creates less stress on teacher-centered lessons, direct repetition, and does not demand accurate production from the learners. The Natural Approach focuses more on the exposure to the target language and input; therefore, it is normal for language learners to go through a silent period when they are learning the target language. Moreover, those who advocate this approach are against the teaching of phonetics, since at this stage language learners need to focus more on relevant elements of the language. According to these advocates, language learners are not expected to learn phonological rules, nor follow a repetition drill. In fact, they argue that language learners will improve their pronunciation after three or four years of exposure in the target language (Krashen & Terrell, 1988).

While Krashen and Terrell oppose the explicit teaching of pronunciation, on the other hand, Judy Gilbert (2008) argues that this practice must be conducted in the classrooms, because of the relationship that exists between speaking and listening comprehension.

Teaching applied phonetics can bring great results for these language learners and they will achieve good pronunciation in the target language; moreover, research and evidence shows that teaching pronunciation is also useful for increasing listening comprehension. Gilbert (2008) points out that language learners who are taught about English prosodic patterns, usually affirm that the teaching of pronunciation helps them understand the language spoken on TV, movies, radio, and in conversations with native speakers. She also states that one of the reasons why this is useful is that when the learners are prosodically-trained, it is easier for them to understand the rhythm, intonation and cues that are used to convey the intended massage. Moreover, she addresses that many English learners who lack proper training in listening comprehension, complain that native speakers speak too fast. This is a comment that the author has also heard from many students taking speaking and listening courses in the USA and Canada.

In addition, Avery and Ehrlich (2002) point out that one of the factors that cause poor listening comprehension is the lack of the learner’s phonetic knowledge. This can be noticed when a learner confuses the sounds in English. Many English language learners might confuse words such as ship for sheep, pen for pin, reach for rich, and hot for hat. Hence, it is recommendable to teach English phonetics to English language learners, so they become familiar with the sound system of the English language. Based on the studies conducted by Gilbert (2008), Avery and Ehrlich (2002), one can conclude that the teaching philosophy of the Natural Approach in avoiding the teaching of explicit pronunciation can be questionable, since second language learners can profit from explicit phonetic lessons. In fact, it can help them gain language proficiency because they will learn how to articulate the sounds of the target language properly.

Therefore, learners in the Natural Approach will benefit if the teacher implements the teaching of applied phonetics in the course. Of course, this does not mean that language teachers need to make the lessons complicated with too many phonetics rules. Moreover, teachers should recommend books and courses to learners who want to improve their accent and who wish to sound more like native speakers of the target language. There are books, which aim to improve English pronunciation. In addition, many colleges, and universities offer courses in accent reduction that English language learners can take to improve their pronunciation.

Communicative Language Teaching Approach

The main goal of this approach is to focus on the teaching of communicative functions rather than on forms; learners should be able to convey their meaning clearly, and they must be able to function in the target language. The Communicative Language Teaching Approach (CLTA) expects learners to communicate their ideas in different ways. According to Littlewood (1981), language is not static; it changes depending on the context in which it is used and the purpose for which it is used. In the CLTA, language learners simulate real-life situations when they practice the target language; they focus on expressing their needs in a functional way, not on the form; so, focusing on meaning is paramount to achieve communication. However, it is also reasonable that second language learners need to know which form they will use to convey the intended meaning.

Littlewood (1981) points out that many teachers were excluding structures in the language when using the CLTA; however, they were not sure if this was a good idea because grammar could also help both teachers and learners to focus on some forms that are useful to convey the intended meaning. In a comparison between the Audiolingual Method and the Communicative Language Teaching Approach made by Finocchiaro, and Brumfit, (1983), they point out that the CLTA is about learning to communicate, while the Audiolingual Method is about learning structures, sounds and words. Nevertheless, it is relevant to mention that for any language learner it is also important to know the structure, vocabulary, and sounds of the language that he/she is learning. Littlewood, (1981) also states that structures are useful when the language teacher wants to emphasize some of the features of the language. Furthermore, if a teacher is introducing the regular verbs in English, he/she should explain that to form the past of these verbs one must add morpheme ed at the end of the verbs. Therefore, the teaching of the structure is applied in this case. Moreover, the teacher should also teach that the morpheme ed has three different pronunciations and he/she should explain the rules of these pronunciations, since this phoneme is not always pronounced in the same way.

Consequently, one can observe that it is hard to exclude the explicit teaching and practice of structures, words, and the phonetics if the teacher expects the students to achieve a good communicative and linguistic competence in the target language. The Communicative Approach has some techniques that differ from other methods; for example, in CLTA, the goal for learning the target language is not based on memorization, and pronunciation can be taught from the beginning. Of course, this does not mean that the language teachers will expect learners to reach native-like pronunciation, but rather set realistic goals, so learners can improve their language proficiency. In addition, the learners’ native language can be used when the students can profit from it, but instructors must have in mind that this is not the Grammar Translation method. The use of the first language should also be limited and not used as the vehicle of instruction. Also, reading and writing can be taught from the beginning of the course (Littlewood, 1981). In this approach, language learners should achieve basic skills such as listening to an announcement in a bus station, airport, or any public place or ask for basic information in the target language. An important issue about this approach to language teaching is that it trains learners for different social encounters, considering that language not only carries a functional meaning but also a social meaning as well. Most of the activities created to teach the CLTA are based on social interaction situations.

In this approach, learners are taught to use the language in formal and informal situations. For example, when a learner talks about a job experience with a friend, he/she will use a different lexicon than the one used when holding a job interview. In the second case, the learner will use a more formal speech than in the first one. Littlewood (1981) argues that there are some skills the learner should master to reach communicative competence. First, the learner must reach some level of linguistic competence. Secondly, he/she must know when to use the linguistic form learned. Additionally, the learner must be able to communicate ideas clearly to be understood. It is also relevant to mention that the CLTA is an approach that has proven to be effective for second language learners, in studies conducted by Savignon, (1972), the results showed that the CLTA approach contributed positively to the L2 learners’ fluency and communicative abilities. This was observed in Canadian French immersion programs, where they used CLTA as the approach to teach L2 learners, and language learners were able to develop comprehension abilities equivalent to those of native speakers (Genesee, 1987).

Even though many teachers and school administrators who have implemented this approach to language teaching believe that the form and the structure of the language should not be taught explicitly, (Littlewood, 1981) on the other hand, clearly states that teachers should provide activities where the learner can use some form that had been introduced and practiced in class. Therefore, in a later stage, learners should focus on the form to be used in any given setting. Even so, in the CLTA approach, the most important feature of a sentence is function, not form. Even though a sentence may be incorrect in form, if it conveys the desired intention which is the meaning, it is fine in the CLTA views on language. As Wilkins (1974) said, "Even where there is grammatical inaccuracy, communication can still take place successfully" (p.14). This level of English may be acceptable in some social settings, but this philosophy of language is not acceptable in many colleges and universities where the students must show competence in academic English. Therefore, can one assume that the CLTA prepares students to function properly in an academic environment in an English-speaking country? It is evident that each method and approach has its own purpose, and limitations too. The communicative language teaching approach has been used in many international teaching situations to teach personnel who work in the tourist industry where they need the language for the main purpose of oral communication to serve foreign tourists. In this case, the CLTA approach is excellent, since it allows the employees to learn the second language quickly and there is no need to give much emphasis on perfection or overcorrection.

However, it is relevant to mention that in the case of Cuba, the learners spent four hours in class four days a week and in the intensive courses, they spent six hours with two different teachers (Irizar & Chiappy, 1991). The author was one of the teachers who taught this program in one of the biggest tourist areas in the city of Varadero, Cuba. In this case, this setting justifies the use of CLTA based on the assumption made by Brown and Yule (1983) when they stated that Communicative Language Teaching aims to develop the ability of learners to use language in real communication. In this case, the employees who work in tourist services are acquiring the language to use it in real life communication, because the final goal will be to use the language for oral communication in real -life settings. In the case of Cuba, teachers and school administrators allowed some foreign tourists to visit the language classes, so the students could practice the target language with native speakers.

Conclusion

Finally, it is well known to most applied linguists that most language teaching methods come and go; however, even though one method usually replaces another, it is relevant to know that the latter can take many strategies and techniques from the former, and even from other previous methods. As a result, what one may assume is new in the field of second language teaching, may have already been used before in other previous methods. In addition, as was stated at the beginning, every single person has a different purpose for learning a second or foreign language. One can find a learner who worries more about developing proficiency in two skills, such as listening and speaking. It is common sense that this learner wants to use the language as an instrument for oral communication; therefore, his or her goal will be to achieve oral communication. On other hand, there are learners who want to achieve proficiency in the four skills, therefore, they will need to dedicate more time to learn the target language and use different methods, approaches, strategies, and techniques to develop full proficiency in the target language. As the linguist, Henry Sweet (1899) mentioned, a good method must, be comprehensive and eclectic. It must be based on a thorough knowledge of the science of language phonetics, sound-notation, the grammatical structure of a variety of representative languages, and linguistic problems generally. Taking this statement into account, one can clearly observe how Sweet had a vision that language teachers had to be eclectic and not expose themselves to one method only. It is logical that the best way to learn a foreign language is by applying the different methods, strategies and approaches available, and not just limiting oneself to one method.

References

Anthony, E. M. (1963). Approach, method, and technique.English Language Teaching. V.17, 63- 67.

Avery, P., & Ehrlich, S. (2002). Teaching American English pronunciation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Azar, B., Folse, K. & Swan, M. AzarGrammar. (Oct. 30, 2012). Teaching Grammar in Today’s Classroom. Part 1. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJwbnQOguEk&t=24s

Azar, B., Folse, K. & Swan, M. AzarGrammar. (Oct. 30, 2012). Teaching Grammar in Today’s Classroom. Part 2. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJwbnQOguEk&t=24s

Bolinger, Dwight Le Merton. (1975). Aspects of language. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Brown, Douglas. H. (1994). Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1983). Teaching the spoken language, Vol 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Celce-Murcia. M. (2001) Teaching English as a second and foreign language. (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Cunningham, C. (2000). Translation in the Classroom: A Useful Tool for Second Language Acquisition. [online]. 2013-05-25. Retrieved from https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/collegeartslaw/cels/essays/secondlanguage/cindyc2.pdf

Duff, A. (1996). Translation (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Finocchiaro, M., & Brumfit, C. (1983). The Functional-Notional Approach:From theory to practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Genesee, F. (1987). Learning through two languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gilbert, J. B. (2008). Teaching pronunciation using the prosody pyramid. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Irizar, A. & Chiappy, J. A. (1991). Introduction of Communicative Language Teaching in Tourism in Cuba. TESOL Canada. Journal RevueTESL du Canada. 8(2), 57-63.

Jones, W. H. S. (1915). The application of the Direct Method to Latin and Greek. New York NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/vianovaorapplica00jonerich

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Krause, A. C. (1916). The Direct Method in modern languages. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Kelly, L. G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Johnson. K., & Morrow, K. (1981). Communication in the classroom. London, UK: Longman Group, Ltd.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching. New York, N.Y: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in foreign language teaching. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Curriculum Development.

Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Meredith Corporation.

Wilkins, D. A. (1974). Second-language learning and teaching. London, UK: Edward Arnold Publisher, Ltd.