2.2.3 The Early 20^th Century

A reform movement at the turn of the century resulted in the development of principles of foreign-language teaching which provided the theoretical foundation for a principled approach to the study of language teaching and learning. The interest in developing principles grew out of naturalistic principles of first-language acquisition and reflected the beginnings of the discipline of applied linguistics (Richards Rodgers, 1986). The principles emphasized the importance of listening and speaking the foreign language. Meaningful contexts for learning, inductive teaching of grammar and avoidance of translation were some of the principles put forth (Ibid.). These principles provided the foundation for the Direct Method. The new method which emphasized communication in the target language arose out of the need for more effective language learning "in a new world of industry and international trade and travel" (Stern, 1983, p.456).

While the method enjoyed popularity in Europe in the early part of the century, it proved less effective in public education in North America where opportunities for oral practice and native-speaking teachers were less common. An American study begun in 1923 in the U.S. concluded that teaching conversation skills was impractical given time restrictions in schools and given the perceived irrelevance of foreign conversation skills in the U.S. (Richards Rodgers, 1986). The results of the study, published as The Coleman Report (Coleman, 1929) advocated a reading approach to foreign-language learning. Comprehension of texts from books with short reading passages with vocabulary lists, silent reading and discussion of the passage in English served as the basis for the approach (Darian, 1972).

During World War II, the need for soldiers to become orally proficient in the language of their enemies and allies refocused once again the efforts on oral skills. Since conversational proficiency was not the goal of foreign-language courses in the U.S., a new approach or training program was necessary. Thus the Army Specialized Training Program or "Army Method" was developed. The method, however, did not rely on a specific theoretical base:

The "methodology" of the Army Method, like the direct method, derived from the intensity of contact with the target language rather than from any well-developed methodological basis. It was a program innovative mainly in terms of the procedures used and the intensity of teaching rather than in terms of its underlying theory. (Richards Rodgers, 1986, p.45)