Page 125 - Jewish Book Annual Volume 49

Basic HTML Version

lating the “Second Ulpan Method” (1961).13
A second approach that was developed was the Audio-Visual
one, which had its origin in Europe. It shared the aim o f the
Audio-Lingual Approach to accelerate the speaking ability o f
the learner and stressed the following principles: 1. Intensive
drill in hearing and speaking; 2. Systematic drill in the new
language forms; 3. T h e application o f new language skills that
were taugh t in various contexts, so that the ability to engage
in oral expression should be hastened; 4. T h e acquiring o f read ­
ing and writing skills
the first stage o f exclusive oral drill.
An importan t component o f this approach is the integration
o f the use o f recordings and tapes. At the Haifa Technion a
Hebrew course entitled
Habet Ushma
(Hebrew by the Audio-
Visual Method, 1966) was p repa red by P. Enoch and J. Cais,
with H. Rosen as linguistic consultant. It was based on the Saint-
Cloud method that was perfected for the teaching o f French.
T he course, which was employed in teaching new immigrants
in Israel, was also used in o ther countries and efforts were made
to adap t the material to the needs o f Jewish education.
During the sixties and seventies Jewish schools tu rned to the
use o f materials based on the Audio-Lingual and Audio-Visual
approaches in o rd e r to teach Hebrew as a living language. By
the middle o f the seventies these approaches were largely dis­
carded because it became evident that they had not yielded the
hoped for results. The teachers looked for a new approach
which would allow for a transition from formal drill in gramm ar
and vocabulary to functional speech in situations arising out
o f pupil experience. The assumption was that emphasis upon
topics that were o f interest to the pupils and that would stim­
ulate communication in Hebrew as a living language would also
increase their motivation for study. To this purpose educators
tu rned to the Communicative Approach which had given rise
to differing trends on both sides o f the Atlantic. This approach
had its inception in Europe (England and France) and in d if­
13. Note 6, pp. 126-131. My book
Theory and Practice in Hebrew Language In­
(in Hebrew, Tel-Aviv: 1968) offers a guide to this approach. See
the book review by J. Kabakoff, in
Shevile ha-Hinukh
(Summer 1969), pp.