The Structural Approach: A Comprehensive Overview

1. Introduction

The Structural Approach is grounded in the belief that language is best learned by mastering its fundamental grammatical patterns or structures. Prominent in the mid-20th century, this approach was informed by behaviourist theories of learning, emphasizing habit formation through repetition and drills. It seeks to build a firm foundation in essential sentence patterns before introducing more complex language forms.

While it shares similarities with the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) (particularly in the use of drills and pattern practice), the Structural Approach typically focuses on systematically teaching grammatical structures in a progression of complexity, often accompanied by controlled classroom activities to ensure accuracy.

2. Historical Context

• Roots in Linguistics: Early and mid-20th-century linguists believed language could be broken down into finite, identifiable structures. These structures, once learned, would enable learners to generate correct sentences.
• Influence of Behaviourism: The psychological theory of behaviourism (e.g., B.F. Skinner) posited that learning is habit formation strengthened by repetition and reinforcement.
• Global Adoption: The Structural Approach was widely adopted after World War II, particularly in large-scale language programs aiming to produce linguistically competent learners quickly.

Key Historical References

• Fries (1945) emphasized a linguistic and structure-based approach for teaching English, influencing many educators to adopt structural syllabi.
• Richards & Rodgers (2001) detail how structural linguistics shaped many mid-century language teaching methodologies, including the Audio-Lingual and Structural Approaches.

3. Core Principles and Practices

1. Language as a System of Structures
• Focus on carefully graded grammatical patterns (e.g., sentence types, verb forms).
• Students master these patterns before learning advanced or irregular constructions.
2. Repetition and Drilling
• Classroom exercises often include choral repetition, substitution drills, and transformation drills to ingrain structures as habits.
3. Accuracy before Fluency
• Emphasis on correctness in form. Errors are to be minimized through controlled practice.
4. Inductive Learning of Grammar
• Though grammar is central, explicit explanations are often minimal; instead, students infer rules from repeated examples.
5. Teacher-Centred Classes
• The teacher models correct usage; students follow through systematic drills and exercises.

4. Typical Classroom Procedure

Below is a standard sequence for a lesson using the Structural Approach:

1. Presentation of a Target Structure
• Teacher introduces a new pattern, e.g., the Simple Present tense: “I eat,” “You eat,” “He eats,” etc.
• Provides examples in meaningful, albeit controlled contexts.
2. Choral Repetition
• Teacher utters a sentence (e.g., “I eat breakfast at 8 a.m.”), and the whole class repeats together, focusing on correct pronunciation and form.
3. Substitution Drills
• Teacher provides a sentence frame: “I ___ breakfast at 8 a.m.”
• Teacher calls out new words (e.g., “drink,” “prepare,” “serve”), and students substitute them into the sentence: “I drink breakfast at 8 a.m.” (not necessarily logical but focusing on correct structure usage).
4. Transformation Drills
• Students convert statements into questions, negatives, or other grammatical forms, e.g.:
• Statement: “I eat breakfast at 8 a.m.”
• Negative: “I do not eat breakfast at 8 a.m.”
• Question: “Do I eat breakfast at 8 a.m.?”
5. Expansion Drills
• Teacher starts with a simple sentence: “I eat breakfast.”
• Students gradually expand: “I eat breakfast every day,” “I eat breakfast every day at 8 a.m.,” etc.
6. Controlled Application
• Students apply the target structure in short dialogues, reading texts, or written exercises, ensuring they use the structure accurately.

Example Activity

• Target Structure: Past Continuous Tense (“I was reading,” “They were cooking,” etc.)
• Drills:
• Substitution: Teacher: “reading.” Students: “I was reading a book.” Teacher: “watching.” Students: “I was watching TV.”
• Transformation: Teacher: “I was reading a book.” Students transform to negative: “I was not reading a book.” And to question: “Was I reading a book?”
• Expansion: Start with “I was reading.” Expand to: “I was reading quietly in my room,” etc.

5. Advantages and Rationale

1. Strong Foundation in Grammar
• By focusing on patterns, learners internalize core structures essential for accurate language use.
2. Clear, Systematic Progression
• Carefully sequenced syllabus allows students to build upon previously learned structures step by step.
3. Reducing Fossilization of Errors
• Emphasis on accuracy through drills can help prevent ingrained mistakes in early stages of learning.
4. Easy to Implement in Large Classes
• Teacher-led drills are straightforward to organize, even with many students, especially in resource-limited contexts.

6. Criticisms and Limitations

1. Limited Communicative Practice
• Overemphasis on drills may lead to mechanical repetition with little real-life language use or interaction.
2. Lack of Contextual Meaning
• Students may become proficient in repeating structures but struggle to use them spontaneously or in meaningful conversation.
3. Potential Monotony
• Rote drilling can diminish motivation, particularly if learners desire more creative or communicative tasks.
4. Insufficient Focus on Other Language Skills
• Reading and writing might be underutilized unless specifically integrated, and speaking practice may remain stilted.

7. Research Perspectives

• Brown (2007) notes that while structural drills can foster short-term accuracy, they may not lead to true communicative competence if used exclusively.
• Larsen-Freeman (2000) argues that methods like the Structural Approach laid important groundwork for more balanced approaches by highlighting the significance of structure and form in language learning.
• Harmer (2007) suggests incorporating structural exercises in a broader communicative framework to ensure both accuracy and fluency development.

8. Considerations for B.Ed. Students

1. Balance with Communicative Tasks
• Use structural drills to build accuracy, then transition to role-plays, simulations, or discussions to promote real-life language use.
2. Motivational Techniques
• Add variety to drills through games, competitions, or dynamic group work, ensuring learners remain engaged.
3. Contextualize Structures
• Whenever possible, embed drills in meaningful, culturally relevant scenarios (e.g., dialogues about daily routines, travel, hobbies).
4. Assessment
• Assess not only students’ ability to produce correct forms in drills but also their spontaneous use of these structures in free speaking or writing tasks.

9. Conclusion

The Structural Approach played a pivotal role in shaping language education throughout the mid-20th century, offering a clear, systematic path to mastering grammatical forms. While it effectively establishes solid structural control in learners, its limitations become evident when students struggle to transfer these forms to authentic communication. Modern teaching often adopts an eclectic stance, drawing on the strengths of the Structural Approach (accuracy, systematic progression) while complementing it with communicative, task-based, or content-based strategies to ensure overall language proficiency and engagement.

Suggested References for Further Reading

• Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Pearson Education.
• Fries, C. C. (1945). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. University of Michigan Press.
• Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (4th ed.). Pearson Longman.
• Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.
• Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.