Theories about foreign language teaching have evolved from  the ‘traditional’ way of  grammar-translation to the modern way of immersion.  Has there been a revolution?  In theory there has been, but in practice,  many of the old ways still exist.  The process described by Thomas Kuhn has had a number of starts and stops as language learning theory shifted from passive grammar teaching to active language acquisition.  On the practical level though, foreign language  methodology, especially in high schools and universities, still tends more towards the traditional than to the immersion models.

          Prior to the 1950s, grammar translation method was used to teach languages in high school.  Latin was the most common language taught, with German and French added with the goal of being able to translate and read the new thoughts coming out of Europe.   Grammar-translation emphasized the ability to compare the foreign language to English and to translate from the target language into written English based on rules and vocabulary.  With the second World War, two different reactions happened which had an impact on foreign language teaching.  First, the US experienced a postwar isolationism which was characterized by a dislike and distrust of all things foreign.  Enrollment in German, French and even Latin classes declined.  As late as 1945, the “Harvard Report” recommended that modern language study be dropped from college curriculums.

         Another effect of WW2 was that the soldiers who returned from overseas complained that their language study had not prepared them for communication.  This led to a questioning of the grammar translation method.  It also led to the Army Method developed to by the Defense Language Institute as a way to provide accelerated, practical language study to military intelligence officers.  This method evolved into the ‘audio-lingual’ method which was adapted by language teachers in the 1960s and 70s.  This method was tied  in with the behaviorists of the day and relied on a stimulus-response conditioning.  Structures were overlearned so that students would respond to language stimulus without thinking.  The method emphasized development of oral skills almost to the exclusion of reading and writing.  This represented a shift in priorities and on language focus.  Those teachers who continued teaching using the grammar-translation method were looked at as old fashioned and behind the times.  Also Latin, which didn’t lend itself to an audio-lingual approach, was perceived as out of synch with the needs of a modern world.

          The 1970s and 80s were a time of experimenting to find a combination of methods which would teach not only the productive skills of the audio-lingual method, but would incorporate the receptive skills of the grammar-translation method.   Language theorists like Chomsky tried to combine the major language skill areas with his generative-transformational grammar approach which studied language from a syntactical view.  Then Asher brought in Total Physical Response which emphasized receptive skills first and Gattegno developed the Silent Way which promoted productive skills first.  The questioning and the experimenting went on and on.

          In the 1980s and 90s immersion was the keyword to language learning.  There was total immersion, partial immersion and two-way immersion.  Even though immersion is thought to be the best way to integrate all language skill areas, it is difficult to set up and to teach.  The major component is that the teacher has to be fluent in the language.  That does not always happen.  With a total immersion method, students learn the content areas in the target language.  Often there are no materials written in the target language and so the teacher has to develop her own or work from materials in another language.  Total immersion, although the most natural way to learn a language, is not always practical.

          So, do the changes in foreign language teaching theory constitute a paradigm shift as defined by Thomas Kuhn?  No.  I think that there have been starts at the revolution but we in effect have come full circle.  In the early days of our country,  studying a language meant that the person who wanted to learn a foreign language either hired a tutor or went abroad to live and learn the language.  We know that this way of immersion is the best way to learn.  It is not always practical to do.  So those who cannot afford to go on a semester abroad program or an intentive language study program in another country continue to study languages in the classroom.  There they will find a range of methodologies ranging from grammar -translation (unfortunate but true!) to audio-lingual (the Foreign Service Institute still uses this for part of its intensive programs) and cognitive/communicative methods.

          Theories have changed but methods in the classroom have not changed in many situations.  But the anomoly does exist.  Just think of how many students have studied a foreign language for years and years and could not function in a country where that language is spoken?  We still hear how one has to live in the country in order to speak the language.  It’s time for a revolution of foreign language course design to reflect the results of research and practice.  We can’t all go to live in the country where the target language is spoken but we can learn in a class where the methodology reflects what we know about foreign language acquisition.  In Kuhn’s cycle from old paradigm to new paradigm, we are stuck in a situation in which the community of scholars know and understand that immersion is the best way to teach a language but it has not filtered to the community of practitioners.  We are still working in the old paradigm.

I agree!  And your last point is really important.  The conception to practice problem.  And it calls into quesiton the power of Kuhn as an explanatory  lense.