What is the Best Way to Teach a Language? 4 Popular Methods Compared

Language teachers today face a tough choice. With so many pedagogies available—each promising fluency and engagement—it can be overwhelming to decide which path is right for your classroom.

Are you looking for spontaneous conversation? Structured literacy? Storytelling?

In this post, we compare four of the most widely discussed frameworks in language education to help you decide: AIM (Accelerative Integrated Methodology), CLT, TPRS, and NLA.

Try AIM Sample Lessons

1. The Contenders: A Quick Overview

Before we dive into the comparison, let's define the methods.

AIM (Accelerative Integrated Methodology)

A structured, multisensory approach that uses gestures, high-frequency vocabulary, and arts-integration (drama, music, dance) to scaffold rapid fluency and literacy from day one.

CLT (Communicative Language Teaching)

Focuses on interaction and meaningful communication, often through pair work and authentic tasks.

TPRS (Teaching Proficiency Through Reading and Storytelling)

Uses co-created stories and extensive reading to provide compelling input.

NLA (Neurolinguistic Approach)

Prioritizes "orality" and internal grammar development through authentic sentence use.

2.) AIM vs. Communicative Language Teaching (CLT)

The Core Difference: Structure vs. Open-Endedness

CLT is famous for getting students to communicate in "real-world" scenarios. However, for beginners, this freedom can sometimes feel overwhelming.

AIM takes a different approach by scaffolding that communication. Instead of throwing students into the deep end, AIM uses a "Gesture Approach." This visual system makes abstract vocabulary concrete, ensuring every student understands and participates.

Feature AIM CLT
Structure Highly scaffolded progression; accessible to beginners. Open-ended; relies heavily on teacher design.
Input Support Gestures and multimodal input (visual/auditory). Mostly verbal; visual support varies by teacher.
Accuracy Focuses on controlled, high-frequency language to build correct habits. Focuses on fluency over accuracy; errors are accepted.
Literacy Integrated (reading/writing) from the start. Varies widely by context.

The Verdict

While CLT offers rich experiences, AIM ensures every learner can participate without the anxiety of open-ended tasks.

Try AIM Today
French language teacher teaching a class using gestures

Start Teaching AIM Today!

French Teaching Kits
Step 1 - La poule Maboule kit *2018 Edition

French Teaching Kits

Spanish Teaching Kits
Step 1 - La gallina Catalina kit

Spanish Teaching Kits

English Teaching Kits
Step 1 - The Cat and the Moon kit

English Teaching Kits

Mandarin Teaching Kits
Step 1 - Xiǎojī kit

Mandarin Teaching Kits

Japanese
Free AIM Online Information Session

Japanese

3. AIM vs. TPRS (Teaching Proficiency Through Reading and Storytelling)

The Core Difference: Scripted Consistency vs. Improvisation

Both methods are champions of storytelling. However, they execute it differently. TPRS relies heavily on the teacher's ability to improvise and personalize stories on the fly. AIM provides a replicable roadmap.

How they compare:

Multisensory Support

AIM uses gestures, rhythm, rhyme, and music to lock in memory. TPRS is primarily auditory.

The Story Arc

AIM uses scripted, scaffolded stories designed to ensure specific vocabulary progression. TPRS stories are often improvised, which leads to high variability between classrooms.

Output

TPRS focuses on "input first, output later." AIM encourages early supported output, allowing students to speak in full thoughts sooner through choral responses and partner activities.

4. AIM vs. The Neurolinguistic Approach (NLA)

The Core Difference: Balanced Literacy vs. Orality-First

The Neurolinguistic Approach (NLA) is fascinating for its focus on internal grammar—the idea that grammar emerges naturally through use. It prioritizes speaking (orality) above all else in the early stages.

AIM agrees that grammar shouldn't be memorized as rules, but it believes literacy and speaking should happen together.

  • Literacy Integration: NLA delays reading and writing until oral proficiency is established. AIM integrates them immediately, using stories to teach reading and writing alongside speaking.
  • Context: NLA relies on authentic classroom conversations. AIM uses deeply context-embedded stories and drama to guide progression.

The Verdict: AIM stands out for its balanced integration. It doesn't ask students to wait to read or write; it develops the whole language learner simultaneously.

Which Method Wins on Structure and Support?

If you are looking for a method that provides a clear pathway for teachers and a fun, supportive environment for students, here is how the features stack up:

Feature AIM CLT TPRS NLA
Gestures Integrated Core Optional Optional Variable
Progression Structured Variable Variable Variable
Focus Story & Arts Real-world Tasks Storybased- Orality
Early Output High (Supported) Limited Low (Input focus) Spontaneous
Predictability High Medium Low-Medium Medium

Why Teachers Are Choosing AIM

Teachers are increasingly turning to AIM because it removes the guesswork. It offers a clear, replicable pathway for accelerated language development.

By blending the best parts of communicative teaching (interaction) and storytelling (engagement) with unique tools like gestures and arts integration, AIM creates a classroom where students aren't just memorizing lists—they are living the language.