In opposition to the popular audiolingualism in her contemporary era, Rivers advocated for a shift towards an interactive and communication-based method of language teaching.
[3] Her impoverished working-class family was of mixed European heritage: her father was of British descent while her mother was of German.
[3] Following her primary and secondary education, Rivers attended the University of Melbourne with a scholarship and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts honors degree in 1939.
[3] Rivers’ first book The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher, published in 1964, became a popular topic in the linguistic community following its publication.
[4] The success of the book bolstered her international reputation, leading her to be widely sought for teaching positions in the United States.
[7] Rivers believed that audiolingualism invested too much into acquisition of skills, leaving students relatively inexperienced in the practical use of the language they were learning.
As a result, she insists language educators need to facilitate their students’ skill-using, best cultivated through interaction and communication.
[7] To supplement the already-established "skill-getting" drills, Rivers suggested that students undergo exercises in which they are thrust into a situation with a simulated monolingual environment of the language they are learning.
She reasoned that forcing students to work in an uncomfortable arrangement may take away their motivation to explore their language abilities, and thereby inhibit their intellectual growth.
To support her claim, she analyzed and released the results of a survey that she conducted at the University of Illinois at Urbana in her 1973 article The Non-Major: Tailoring the Course to Fit the Person--Not the Image.
The survey produced 1500 responses, a number which Rivers further divided based on proficiency level (elementary, intermediate, advanced).
[9] Through analyzing the data, Rivers found that 63% of elementary and intermediate level language students desired more discourse and communication exercises in their curriculum, and 62% wanted more reading.
[10] Rivers’ research showed that each of these three cognitive systems were nurtured with different modalities of instruction for language acquisition.
She states that the easiest way to facilitate this cognitive system is for instructors to provide explanations for new language concepts and rules that students may not be familiar with.
With this guidance, students are able to better understand the rules and patterns of the language on their own, and can apply that knowledge of previous examples to create their own responses in different circumstances.
As a result of these findings, Rivers advocated that students should be encouraged to choose and acquire vocabulary that suits their interests, as they would learn the material at a faster pace.
[12] Rivers presented her own opinions on the issue in two articles published in the 1982 and 1990: LLLs had the potential to be a major benefit to language, but the way they were currently being used was detrimental to student.
[12] She noted that all students have preferred methods of instruction in language learning that help them acquire information easier.
With these differences in mind, drills and practices used in LLLs required revisions in order for students to see them as an aid to their studies, not an obstacle.
[12] At the time, the common practice of language teaching was a linear approach, from listening to speaking to reading to writing.
Rivers noted that this practice was outdated, as many students demonstrated that intermingling these four processes, such as using writing in conjunction with listening and speaking, helped them in learning the material.
She states that as technology evolved, many LLL instructors didn’t take the time to learn how to employ new materials in their curriculums.
In 1991, linguists James Pusack and Sue Otto published an article that regarded Rivers’ models of fully integrating LLLs with reluctance.
Pusack and Otto also asserted that with the current technology, it would be far too difficult to create a completely tailored, individualized teaching strategy for each student as Rivers promoted.