Straw methods: clearing up misconceptions about ALM

ABSTRACT

Much of the ELT literature presents a confused and misleading account of the history of the audiolingual method (ALM) and its theoretical origins. While mistakes are inevitable in research, this paper attempts to show that there is a tendency for the mistakes to create an overly negative ‘strawman’ portrayal of ALM. A pattern of negative associations has been built up over time and this account is so widespread as to be accepted, almost entirely uncritically, in the literature. This paper will attempt to show the numerous differences between the accepted version of ALM and reality. It will also be suggested that ALM has, through selective scholarship, become a ‘straw method’ largely presented in teachers’ resources as a foil for modern ‘enlightened’ teaching approaches.

KEYWORDS:

• Audiolingual
• behaviourism
• methods
• methodology
• Skinner
• stimulus
• error
• army

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dan Jones and the two anonymous reviewers who gave me invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper, which was supported in part by a research grant from the International University of Japan.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Russell Mayne

Russell Mayne has taught English for over 20 years, in Japan, China, Taiwan and the UK and is interested in evidence-based teaching, research and meta-research.