A Methodological Study Comparing the Audio‐Lingual Habit Theory and the Cognitive Code‐Learning Theory

Effectiveness of a Guided Inductive Versus a Deductive Approach on the Learning of Grammar in the Intermediate‐Level College French Classroom

“…Inductive and deductive teaching approaches have existed for many years but have evolved as a result of the influence of various movements and theories. With the emergence of the audiolingual method in the late 1960s, researchers compared the audiolingual method, an inductive approach, to the cognitive code learning method, a deductive approach (Chastain & Woerdehoff, 1968;Hammerly, 1975). FL learning has since then been considerably influenced by constructivist theories of learning that underline the importance of concept development and understanding as the goals of instruction rather than the development of behaviors (Fosnot, 1996).…”

Shaping the Discourse of a Practice: The Role of Linguistics and Psychology in Language Teaching and Learning

“…Getting right to the heart of the matter and referring to Scherer and Wertheimer's (1964) methodology comparison study he concluded: "the average differences between the groups were small; small enough, at any rate, to suggest that it does not make any material difference whether one uses the audio-lingual method as opposed to the traditional grammar-translation method" (p. 279). With only insignificant variations, that same finding was reiterated over and over again in the pages of the MLJ and elsewhere (e.g., Aleamoni & Spencer, 1969;Chastain, 1970;Chastain & Woerdehoff, 1968;Clark, 1969), thereby highlighting the dramatic consequences for our discourse and our practice when an approach-and here I purposely use the concurrent dominant assessment format of multiplechoice questions-(a) has been invested with high prestige and high stakes through the backing by professional groups or other powers of institutional influence;…”

“…Thus, at the beginning of the 1960s we find extensive elaboration of the basic premises, practices, and specific ways of talking about our work in three areas: (a) materials development whose products, however, are not published in the pages of the MLJ; (b) an expansive and increasingly more solid methodological edifice, which in some fashion is validated by the repeated methods comparison studies, no matter what their results (Aleamoni & Spencer, 1969;Chastain, 1970;Chastain & Woerdehoff, 1968;Clark, 1969;Swaffar, Arens, & Morgan, 1982); and (c) assessment practices that critically depend on the centrality of linguistic rules and their accurate application in forms as indicators of language acquisition. The role of assessment is all the more noteworthy because it breaks the boundaries of classroom practice, reaching into national standardized testing of individuals based on psychometric principles, and targets the assessment of program outcomes as well as teacher competence, all with enormous washback effects in their respective areas based on their specific construal of what constitutes the criteria for measuring quality of performance.…”

Progress in Language Classroom Research: Evidence from The Modern Language Journal, 1916‐2000

“…These were the methodologically interesting studies of Chastain and Woerdehoff (1968) and Jarvis (1968). Chastain and Woerdehoff took their impetus from the ground-breaking theoretical article by Carroll (1965) concerning the plausibility of a return to a more cognitively oriented ("cognitive-code") approach to teaching languages to adults, critiquing thoroughly the hitherto great attention to and claimed success of the audiolingual method.…”

“…Two MLJ articles in 1968 were signs of watershed events that were taking place in the field of classroom research, just as the field of second language acquisition (SLA), and applied linguistics in general, was about to expand tremendously in the next decade. These were the methodologically interesting studies of Chastain and Woerdehoff (1968) and Jarvis (1968). Chastain and Woerdehoff took their impetus from the ground-breaking theoretical article by Carroll (1965) concerning the plausibility of a return to a more cognitively oriented ("cognitive-code") approach to teaching languages to adults, critiquing thoroughly the hitherto great attention to and claimed success of the audiolingual method.…”