Audio Lingual Method Case Study

1. Introduction
The history of English language teaching is perhaps as old as the language itself and hence the history of language teaching methodologies. Gebhard (1990) mentions that there is no one method which can be said to be perfect for ally teaching context and situations. This suggests that language teaching involves a blend of different approaches which are underpinned in theoretical perspectives, for instance, the Audio-lingual Method can trace its theoretical foundations in both structuralism and behaviourism (Richards and Rodgers 1986). These methods attempt to conform to the learning needs of learners in a huge diversification of social, academic, and occupational contexts. Beginning with a simple focus on teaching form and parallel
Moreover, the method had little scope for language learning in the Higher education where a higher level of reading comprehension and writing proficiency were required. Similarly, this method was not useful enough to develop the pragmatic competence of the learners ate the discoursal level.

4. The Audio-Lingual Method
The Audiolingual/Audiovisual Method also called "The Army Method," was basically designed for the US military personnel. The method was inspired by the structuralists and the behaviourists in modelling language teaching on a set of habit formations. Larsen-Freeman and Anderson (2011: 46-47) outline the following traits of the Audio-lingual Method:
i. Dialogue is used to present new language; ii. Memorization and imitation of language chunks are frequently adhered to during drill practice; iii. Repetition of the target language structures is strictly followed; iv. These structures are arranged by comparing them with structures in L1;
v. Like the Direct Method, grammar is taught inductively; vi. There is very little exposure to new lexis and that too in a limited
7.2. Content and Language Integrated Instruction (CLIL)
CLIL refers to L2 teaching linked within the content of specific subjects such as Physics, Geography, Fine Arts etc. The approach is not new since it has been informally practised in many school across Europe and other parts of the world for almost three decades. It was, however, in 1990s that the approach was formally termed CLIL. Popović and Savić (2012) refer to The 2006 EURYDICE report and state that most EU countries had incorporated CLIL instruction programmes either as mainstream or pilot projects in their schools.

CLIL is based on four Cs: Content, Communication, Culture, and Cognition and these define what it is all about or what it actually aims at. CLIL is different from other pedagogic approaches in that it blends language and content at one at the same time. It is, in fact, based on the premise that students learn best when content and language teaching go together and has rich potential for effective teaching especially at the school level. Not only this, it is also a powerful tool for the development of acculturation and cultural harmony. It involves a range of learning skills, sub-skills, and strategies. Similarly it also develops cognitive faculties of the learners. The following