THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANISTIC APPROACH IN

ENGLISH LANGUAGE

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI

Research Scholar (PhD) Research Supervisor,
Bharathiar University, Ass. Prof. & Head, Dept of English
Coimbatore. TN (INDIA) Anna University of Technology,
Regional Centre, Coimbatore. TN(INDIA)

“Different theories about the nature of language and how languages are learned (the
approach) imply different ways of teaching language (the method) and different methods
make use of different kinds of classroom activity (techniques)” (Richards et al. 1985). This
paper aims to define approaches and methods and also to draft a detailed account of the
development of humanistic approach in English language teaching and learning with some of
the humanistic affective factors involved in second language teaching. The subsequent
sections will make the readers’ to become better informed about the current trends of English
language teaching and learning humanistically i.e. Humanistic Approach and its
classifications of methods ranks very suitable in language teaching and learning process.

Keyword: Humanistic, Approach, Method, Techniques, Affective

Introduction:

Language teaching and learning came into its own as a profession in the last century.
Methodology in language teaching and learning has been enhanced in a variety of ways
which links theory and practice. Theory statements like theories of what language is and how
language is learned. Such theories of language include objectives, syllabus specifications, and
types of activities, roles of teachers, learners, and materials. Features like +/- discrete, +/-
deductive, +/- explicit, +/- divergent, +/- cyclic etc, are used to describe a number of methods
(Krashen and Seliger). A language teacher has many approaches and methods to choose. The
earlier trends of English language teaching have been tried out with varying degrees of
success from eighteenth century onwards.

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 1P a g e

Certain earlier methods , namely the Grammar Translation Method which is advocating
language as an exercise in intellectual development through reading and writing of literature
of target language and translating that literature into the learner’s mother language. The
‘Grammar-Translation Method’ (18th, 19th and early 20th century) is an early method based
on the assumptions that language is primarily graphic, that the main purpose of second
language study is to build knowledge of the structure of the language either as a tool for
literary research and translation or for the development of the learner's logical powers, and
that the process of second language learning must be deductive, requires effort, and must be
carried out with constant reference to the learner's native language.

Similarly, the traditional ‘Grammar Translation Method’ if prescribed in terms of features is

(+ deductive, + explicit, - discreet and - divergent). Methods of earlier been named using one
or more of these properties which describe the thrust of that method but it is certainly more
economical and useful to describe any language teaching method as a combination of several
features rather than just one.

The ‘Direct Method’ eschews the learner’s mother tongue and advocates the use of the target
language in developing all the four skills i.e. Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing.
Direct Method, if prescribed in terms of features is the method is (+ deductive or - explicit)
but it may/may not be a discreet point approach or a cyclic approach. It refers to all those
methods in which no language other than the target language and no rules of grammar are
taught in explicit

‘Structural - Situational Approach’ is a grammatical approach in teaching language through a

careful selection, gradation and presentation of vocabulary items and structures, and through
situation – based activities.

A ‘Structural Method’ similarly can be described in terms of features like (+ Systematic, +

Cyclic, + discreet, - explicit). It is therefore a more of a description of what is prepared in the
name of language teaching materials or texts or say a pedagogical grammar rather than a
method of presenting the same to the learners in a classroom.

‘Audio – Lingual/Audio-Visual Method’ is a purely structural approach based on the

principles of behavioral psychology that views language learning as habit - formation. The
audiolingual approach, which was very popular from the 1940s through the 1960s, is based in
structural linguistics (structuralism) and behaviouristic psychology (Skinner's behaviorism),
and places heavy emphasis on spoken rather than written language, and on the grammar of
particular languages, stressing habit formation as a mode of learning. Rote memorization,
role playing and structure drilling are the predominant activities. Audiolingual approaches do
not depend so much on the instructor's creative ability and do not require excellent
proficiency in the language, being always railed to sets of lessons and books.

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 2P a g e

The ‘Bilingual Method’ like Grammar–Translation Method, uses mother tongue equivalents
of the target language utterance to facilitate learning and reading method views reading basic
to any language teaching.

‘Phonetic Method’ or the ‘Oral Method’ would therefore imply the use of one’s performance
channel i.e. oral medium but then that it is not at all about the method. An oral method may
recommend practicing linguistic units as discreet units or units in appropriate contexts
together forming an integrated whole. Similarly, an oral method may be cyclic or non cyclic,
deductive or inductive, explicit or implicit, etc and so on and so forth.

Terms like language teaching ‘methods’ and ‘methodology’ have been in use for a number of
years now but it is impossible to outline “a single undifferentiated methodological
prescription” (Stern, Fundamental Concepts 16) that could be applied consistently and
comprehensively to any and every situation in which languages are taught.

Chomsky’s Theory:

Chomsky’s innatist theory is “Nature” over “Nurture”. The general form of a system of
knowledge is fixed in advance as a disposition of the mind and the function of experience is
to cause this general schematic structure to be realized and more fully differentiated
(Chomsky 51-52).

According to Chomsky, crucial parts of the human language ability are built into the brain –
part of our biology, programmed into our genes. Chomsky’s says that the essential core of
grammar is innate and a generative grammar that can produce an infinite range of novel
sentences. By the middle of the twentieth century cognitive psychologists like Vygotsky and
Piaget enabled theories which help to explain the limited efficiency of the traditional
prescriptive and also the mechanistic approaches to English language teaching as a second
language.

Beginning in the 1950s, Noam Chomsky and his followers challenged previous assumptions
about language structure and language learning, taking the position that language is creative
(not memorized), and rule governed (not based on habit), and that universal phenomena of
the human mind underlie all language. A language is not just a repertoire of responses
because we create brand – new combinations of words every time we utter a sentence; the
brain has the ability to create an unlimited number of sentences out of a finite set of rules
(Krishnaswamy and Lalitha). This "Chomskian revolution" initially gave rise to eclecticism
in teaching which means a teaching situation in which the teacher doesn’t use any one
particular method but includes a different mixture of different methods to suit their class.

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 3P a g e

Therefore, rather than believe in any single way of teaching, the teacher subscribes to
moderate doses of almost every style of teaching. There are varied methods and approaches
to language teaching, each among other things, in an expression of teachers’ beliefs about
language learning. It is necessary to try and understand the processes of language learning
and language teaching and learning, learning and acquisition methodologies etc.,

Today, many linguists whether linked with theoretical or applied research aims to categorize
teaching approaches into two main branches such as the humanistic approaches based on the
charismatic teaching of one person, and content-based behavioural approaches, which try to
incorporate what has been learned in recent years about the need for active learner
participation, about appropriate language input, and about communication as a human
activity. There has been a great emphasis on individualized instruction called humanistic
approach to English language learning which results in a greater focus on the learner.

Humanistic Psychology:

A major approach which has achieved increasing influence in education and training circles
is that of humanistic psychology. Arising originally in North American psychotherapy,this
essentially optimistic approach emphasizes the role of feelings and motives relating to self-
esteem.

In its student- centred application to education it stresses the facilitation of learners' self
development through respect for their autonomy at all times, the emphasis is on consultation
and negotiation.

Rogerian’s humanist kind of ‘humanising’ is a word deserves a slightly closer look on career
and it is a good thing for the most frequent associations which are those of impersonal (e.g. a
computer programme), distant or remote (e.g. distance education) or inhumane (e.g. a social
system) can be improved through a process of ‘humanising’.The related words 'humanist',
‘humanistic’ and ‘humanism’ the verb ‘humanise / humanize’ in an everyday context
wouldn't make any connection with humanists or humanism. But in an educational context,
things are rather different. Humanism has had such a profound influence on education in the
last five centuries. The traditions of Renaissance flowered humanism continue to influence
educational practice in many parts of the world. The American school of educational
humanism that emerged in the nineteenth century gave a new trend of life and a slightly
different meaning to the word.

'Humanism' it is the word that again hit international fame in the twentieth century. In the
world of language teaching, humanism of the Rogerians kind made an indelible mark.
English language teaching in Britain in 1999, the use of the word humanising in the very
particular context seems to arouse interest and to be associated with humanist approaches to

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 4P a g e

language teaching as they were conceived at the time. The term humanistic describes learning
approaches that assert the central role of the 'whole person' in the learning process.
Humanistic approaches emerged in the mid-twentieth century which counterbalance to
exclusively intellectual (or cognitive) accounts of learning, such as mentalism. 'Humanising'
means 'making better' or 'improving' and whereas 'humanistic' is basically synonymous with
'good' aspect (Hilgard). Effective teaching and learning engages the whole person involving
the mind, the body and the heart. The learner is the central person in the act of learning.

Creativity, involvement and enjoyment are the essential elements for lifelong learning. A
humanist approach to education enhances on the learner as an individual, taking their
interests and goals as the basis to organize or to mould and facilitate their learning
experiences.

On the other hand, learning is not seen as an end in itself, but rather as a means towards
enabling the individual to realize their full potential achieving self‐actualization which refers
not only the academic needs of the learner, but also their emotional, creative, psychological,
and developmental needs.

The humanistic approach mostly emphasise upon recognizing, valuing the dignity of one’s
own self‐worth of every individual learner and upon developing the self‐concept of the
learner so, it starts from the assumption that the learner must feel positive about themselves
and about their ability to improve and progress towards the realization of their full potential
and for this the learner must have a clear and accurate understanding of their own strengths
and weaknesses.

In practice, a humanistic method of education emphasis on standards, targets, testing, and

standardized curriculum (Wang). Humanistic theories of learning seems to be highly value
focussed and hence more like prescriptions (about what ought to happen) rather than
descriptions (of what does happen). It characterises the “natural desire” of everyone to learn.
So, the teacher requires a great deal of authority and becomes a facilitator. From 1970s,
humanism in education has impressed more and more people’s attention. It is analysed that
person cannot satisfy his own basic needs both physically and psychologically, so the person
fails to put effort on his language learning whole-heartedly.

Language learning and the affect which does not mean only the basic needs of human body
on the whole it means the condition of the physical and psychological activities too. Thus
humanistic approach is closely connected and have made many theoretical educators’ to
arouse interests in this field to do research in which concept related to humanistic approach
stating that the learners’ first to be treated as human being, then as a learner. Language
learning as a process which involves the whole person which it takes into accounts both the
passion and spiritual needs of an individual too.

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 5P a g e

According to Brumfit (1982) the philosophy behind the approach is the ideal world in
education should consist of ‘autonomous, creative and emotionally secure people’ (Nagaraj
56). Stevick’s (1980) classification outlines the most important characteristics of humanism
such as feelings which include personal, emotional and aesthetic appreciation whereas social
relations involves the side of humanism which encourages friendship and cooperation and so
intellect refers knowledge, reason, and understanding with self actualization which is the
quest for full realization of one’s own deepest true qualities.

Humanistic Approach and its Affective Factors:

The humanistic tradition which represented by Stevick (1980), Curran (1972), Gattegno
(1972) Lozanov (1979) and others i.e. Humanism departs from audio- lingual habit theory
and cognitive code learning and emphasizes the learner’s affective domain. Thus, language
should be learner-centred, and the content, materials and learning activities should take into
account the learner’s emotional attitude towards that language, its culture and their
classmates. Humanism could be summarised saying that it is not really possible to teach
anybody anything, only to help learners in their acquisition process. “A language teacher can
express his theoretical conviction through classroom activities as much as (or indeed, better
than) through the opinions he voices in discussions at professional meetings” (Stern,
Fundamental Concepts 24).

History shows different trends or models which show a variety of choices and options that
have been followed (Howatt). Throughout time, the teaching and learning a language process
has been changing and it is interesting to discover the contradictions about the issue so that a
solid conclusion is drawn. An open and receptive attitude to analyse the teaching conceptions
upon the best methodology to follow is the key to construct solid foundations.

Foreign language learning is a process in which the learner gradually acquires another system
of communication. It is to be realized that the new language is not only a set of codes by
which the ideas can be expressed, but an important part of a culture different from his own. In
fact the learner will find some distinctions in his mother tongue cannot be made in the new
language and that other ways of thinking and experiencing are essential to communicate in
the language.

As the humanistic approach develops, affect in education gains more and more attention.
Some of the factors affect second language learning is anxiety, self esteem, language ego and
empathy (Ehrman and Eysenck). Generally, affective factors in language learning are divided
into two types, first one is individual factors including anxiety, inhibition, extroversion and
introversion, self-esteem and motivation, etc., the second one is rational factors including
comprising empathy, classroom transaction, cross-cultural processes, and so on. “Ego

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 6P a g e

boundaries which are flexible are related to tolerance of ambiguity in ...and the ability to take
in another language and culture” (Ehrman 76).

Anxiety is considered to be the most pervasively obstructive factor in learning process. It

may be caused by either personal factors like personal hurt, failure, and others’ negative
attitudes especially in the childhood and these unhealed past wounds may influence present
language learning situation. So, anxiety contributes to poor performance in learning process.
Self-esteem is a kind of self-judgment of worth or value. Normally, successful language
learners have higher self-esteem than unsuccessful ones. Language ego refers to the relation
between people’s feelings of personal identity, individual uniqueness, and value (i.e. their
ego) and aspects of their first language. The degree to which one keeps the aspects of one’s
personal experience separate is called ego boundaries which may hinder some aspects of
second or foreign language learning.

Empathy means putting oneself into someone else’s shoes of reaching beyond the self and
understanding and feeling what another person understands or feeling with empathy, one
does not necessarily give up his own way of feeling or totally agree with the position of the
other, he is just able to imagine and share the thoughts or feelings. Thus, these are the most
important factors affecting second language teaching and learning and also link the
harmonious coexistence of individuals in society.

The Process of Teaching and Learning:

Creation of self-confidence and appropriate environment along with suitable participants and
teaching-learning materials and aids are also considered as factors that are highly responsible
for a better teaching-learning activity. As English is being taught as a language and used as a
medium of instruction starting from standard-1. There are a number of factors and aspects
which have to be given due importance, in order to have a successful educational planning
and implementation. Issues related to the teaching and learning process such as learning
materials, design, syllabus, procedure, learner role, teacher role,
methods/approaches/techniques used and so on are considered as quite prominent and
significant in the present day context. Hence, the present research study focuses on the
aspects of ‘Humanistic Approach’ with reference to teaching and learning English as a
second language at the college level.

Teaching and learning process has four aspects such as ‘Teacher’, ‘Student’, ‘Learning
process’ and ‘Learning situation’ (Aggarwal 54). Though the above four aspects is a common
teaching and learning situation, one can find significant differences as well in different levels
of teaching and learning activity. There is interrelatedness between teaching objectives
(ends), learning experiences (means) and evaluation (evidence of what is taught and learnt)

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 7P a g e

(58). The teaching and learning process by and large, finds to be depending on the institution
followed by the professional teachers. Thus, the teaching and learning process are interlinked.
Language teaching is more effective when teachers provide the development of a positive
self-image by sorting success oriented tasks and also in creating a supportive environment.
The teachers should allow students’ to take risks and to make errors to experiment with the
language in different contexts and registers so that the students become aware of using
appropriate learning strategies.

Language learning is facilitated when students’ developed their literacy skills in their first
language and have maximum exposure to the target language. The students should be aware
of the learning objectives; the use learning strategies effectively; interact and share
information; exchange ideas and opinions and work together by committing errors. The
opportunities to be created to use the target language outside the classroom and motivated to
find out about people, cultures, music and literature related to the target language. The three
stages that are important for any language teaching programme is that the first stage is
‘evaluating the linguistic grammars’ according to their own terms of reference and extract
features which are relevant to language teaching. The second and third stages are ‘preparation
of structured syllabus’ and based on the syllabus ‘writing a full array of texts, exercises,
explanations’ respectively (Halliday et al. 18).

Conclusion:

The approach and the four methods of humanistic approach in broad perspective are learner-
centered and also share the significance attached to the learners’ feelings and affect for
acquisition. In this manner, humanistic approach of English Language Teaching does achieve
to motivate learners continuously, to attain confidence level. On the whole if the humanistic
approach and its method are followed in the classroom within a global programme. Many
advantages would occur introducing by very useful activities, changing the classroom routine
and providing the learner with an active role, while at the same time respecting their passions
and reducing their anxiety. The thrust of humanism seems, to be the ability to advance as a
species through understanding and co-operation. This means that language teachers need to
have a thorough grasp of both how people learn and what motivates them to learn. They need
to shed the old image of the teacher being the fount of wisdom and replace it with the teacher
as facilitator. Learning is not an end in itself, instead it means to progress towards the
pinnacle of self-development. In particular to Engineering course syllabus, Technical
English- I and II in the present scenario and also states the teaching and learning process with
the importance of study aids for the best implications of Humanistic Approach from a broad
perspective.

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 8P a g e

1. Aggarwal, J.C. Principles, Methods and Techniques of Teaching. 2nd Revised ed.
New Delhi: Vikas Publ. House, 2001. Print.
2. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Mass: The MiT Press: Cambridge,
1965. 51- 52.
3. Ehrman, M.E. Ego Boundaries and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Second Language
Learning. In Jane Arnold, ed. Affect in Language Learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1999. 68-86.
4. Eysenck, M. W. Anxiety, Learning and Memory: A Reconceptualization. Journal of
Research in Personality: 13 (1979). 363-385.
5. Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A. and Stevens, P. The Users and Uses of Language.
In J. Webster, ed. Language and Society. London and New York: Continuum,
10 (2007).
6. Hilgard, E. Motivation in Learning Theory [M]. In S Koch, ed. Psychology: A Study
of Science. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 5 (1963). 253-283.
7. Howatt, A. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1984.
8. Krishnaswamy, N. and Lalitha Krishnaswamy. Teaching English – Approaches,
Methods and Techniques. India: Macmillan, 2003. Print.
9. Krashen and Seliger, H.W. “Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.”
Inc. (TESOL), TESOL Quarterly, 9:2 (1975).173–183.
10. Nagaraj, Geetha. English Language Teaching Approaches, Methods, Techniques. 2nd
ed. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2008. Print.
11. Richards and Rodgers, T.S. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. “A
Description and Analysis.” 2 nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 1986.
12. Stevick, Earl, W. In Teaching Language: A Way and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury
House, 1980. xiv+304. 2010.
13. Stern, H. H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Applied Linguistics, 5th
ed. Oxford: University Press, 1983.16-24.
14. Wang, Guilian. Humanistic Approach and Affective Factors in Foreign Language
Teaching. (University of Shanghai for Science and Technology) Sino – US
English Teaching, 2 :5. Serial No.17 (2005). 1-5.

PRABHAVATHY. P. DR. S. N. MAHALAKSHMI 9P a g e