Although most methods texts include an entire chapter on the language laboratory, the author decided against following this standard pattern for the following reasons:
1. The language laboratory is more appropriately included in a discussion of aids and means to develop language skills than in a discussion of skill development itself.
2. The principles of teaching and skill development are the same for both the lab and the classroom. No basic distinction with regard to principles of teaching need be made.
3. Much of the "know-how" necessary to conduct a class in the lab must be gained through actual demonstrations of and practice with the equipment itself. This is one case, among many, where a book does not suffice.
4. Even one chapter would not be sufficient to include all the needed information on all the hardware and its uses. The reader should consult additional sources dealing directly and specifically with language laborato¬
ries.
The conversion of a major portion of the second-language teachers in the United States to the audio-lingual approach was indeed a revolution. However, it was not the only one. At the same time as this rapid change was taking place in methodology, a technological revolution was also sweeping the country. Hundreds of schools purchased tape recorders and installed language laboratories in order to complement the new classroom procedures being advocated. While it was generally conceded that a language laboratory was not necessary for successful audio-lingual teaching, proponents of the method recommended highly that they be incorporated into the school's second- language program. At the same time, task dissatisfaction with language laboratories and their future potential justify a general discussion of the purposes, results, and possibilities of language laboratories and second- language teaching.