Language-teaching method revisited

扫二维码，用手机阅读

Penny Ur

The concept of ‘language-teaching method’ — a set of principles and procedures based on a theory of language and language acquisition—is still predominant in the professional literature, in spite of claims to the contrary, the current method at present generally supported by methodologists being task-based language teaching (TBLT). This article suggests that language teaching should not be primarily based on a  method but rather on a set of principles and procedures based on teachers’ practical situated experience, enriched by research, theory, and practice relevant to teaching and learning of any subject, as well as those relating to linguistics and applied linguistics. It is suggested that it is unhelpful and counterproductive to urge teachers to use a method like TBLT and that they would be better served by being encouraged to develop theory and practice in situated methodologies that are likely, in their particular teaching context, to bring about good learning.

Language-teaching method

In spite of claims that we are in a ‘post-method’ era (Kumaravadivelu 2006), many English language teacher preparation courses and the literature on ELT are to this day dominated by the concept of language-teaching method. ‘Method’ may be defined in this context as a coherent set of learning/teaching principles rooted in clearly articulated theories of what language is and how it is learnt, which is implemented through specific types of classroom procedures (Richards and Rodgers 1986). The term is normally taken, in the context of language teaching, to refer to those methods that have been described and promoted (or criticized) in the professional literature, and are presented by their proponents as being more or less universally valid.

If, for example, language is seen as essentially grammar and vocabulary, and if it is best learnt by instruction in grammatical and lexical forms and meanings, then the result is a traditional method such as grammar-translation. However, if it is seen primarily as a set of structural

‘patterns’ best learnt through imitation and drills according to a behaviourist model, then the result is audiolingualism; and so on.

The method predominant in the literature today is task-based language teaching (TBLT), an implementation of the communicative approach. It is based on the assumption that language is primarily a means of communication and is best learnt through the exposure and negotiation that occurs during the course of performing communicative tasks. TBLT courses are besed on a series of such tasks, which are designed to replicate as closely as possible real-world situations that the students might encounter. Learning may be enriched by occasional ‘focus on form’, when students can turn their attention temporarily to conscious learning of language features, but the predominant focus is communication. TBLT continues to be the current ‘orthodoxy’ (Carless 2009: 66), promoted in the literature and by many speakers at conferences. However, there has been some substantial criticism, partly because there is little or no evidence that it does in fact lead to better learning, but also because it arguably does not answer the needs of the huge number of learners of English at beginner or intermediate levels in school courses of three or four lessons a week in countries where English has no official status (Swan 2005).

Moreover, the claim that TBLT, or any other method, can be universally valid is disputed (Prabhu 1990). Even when specific methods have been officially adopted by a school or education system, teachers have always adapted and ‘diluted’ them according to local needs and preferences; indeed, many methods were never widely adopted at all. For this reason, added to a general post-modernist uneasiness with predetermined standards and frameworks, a number of articles have been published suggesting that the concept ‘method’ is an invalid, or at least not a very useful, concept (for example, Prabhu op.cit.; Kumaravadivelu op.cit.).

Kumaravadivelu (op.cit.), perhaps the most prominent advocate of a ‘post-method’ condition, suggests that one problem is that methods are top-down prescriptions by theorists and that it should be the teachers who determine how to teach. So far so good. However, some of the components of the alternative he suggests—a set of ‘macro-strategies’—look suspiciously like a method themselves. They are based on underlying assumptions about language and language-acquisition processes and will clearly lead to the favouring of some types of procedures and disfavouring of others; the amount of scope for decision-making by the teacher is still limited. For example, recommended macro-strategies such as ‘contextualize language input’ or ‘integrate language skills’ suggest that activities that present decontextualized grammar or vocabulary, or language skills practised in isolation, are to be discouraged. Other macro-strategies, however, are more flexible and general: no one would oppose a general principle such as ‘raise learning opportunities’.

In general, Kumaravadivelu’s ‘post-method condition’ — even if it has, as suggested above, not entirely freed itself from some features of conventional method — constitutes an important step in a movement towards a more flexible, teacher-led methodology. But disappointingly, this trend does not seem to have developed further over the years. On the contrary, it has, if anything, been reversed. As Swan (2012) has noted, ‘post-method’ is not that different from ‘method’, and in a recent survey of the field in this Journal, Alan Waters comments:

In overall terms, thus, an era which began with an anti-method stance has resulted in what is, in many ways, and ironically enough, the renewal of a strand of ‘methodism’ originally developed during the preceding period, a kind of ‘second coming’. (Waters 2012: 443)

Situated methodologies

It seems to me that if teachers reject any specific method recommended by theorists as a basis for their teaching, and instead design their own situated methodologies,I driven directly by the question ‘How are my students likely to learn best?’ (within local externally determined constraints, as described below), the result is likely to be a substantial improvement in learning for students and more professional satisfaction for the teacher. Such a situated methodology would be largely grounded in general pedagogical principles and practice, shared by teachers of a variety of different subjects, in contrast with ELT methods, which tend to focus predominantly on issues related specifically to language teaching.

Some more detailed differences between ‘method’ and ‘situated methodologies’ are outlined below.

Teachers’ knowledge and its sources

Both method and situated methodologies are grounded in theory, but the sources of this theory are rather different. In the first case, it is assumed that learning will best be brought about by the implementation of particular theories of language and language acquisition. The sources of such theory are mainly research on linguistics and applied linguistics, particularly second language acquisition (SLA). Topics prioritized are ones like the place of explicit teaching of grammar, the use of L1, inferencing meaning from context in reading, and so forth. Situated methodologies, on the other hand, being driven directly and primarily by considerations of optimalization of learning, are based on general theories of teaching and learning, not only those that have to do with language pedagogy specifically. These will therefore include, and possibly even prioritize, topics such as motivation and interest (in general, not just as associated with language learning), the nature of teacher mediation, classroom dynamics, and so on: issues that teachers of all subjects are concerned with. Sources of teachers’ theories and beliefs about teaching are primarily their own reflection on practice and ‘sense of plausibility’ (Prabhu op.cit.) but enriched by the literature on pedagogical and educational issues in general, sociology, cognitive psychology, and so forth, as well as linguistics and SLA research.

Teachers’ practical classroom decisions

Even a teacher who genuinely believes in and tries to implement a given language-teaching method has nevertheless to take a large number of pedagogical decisions every day for which the method gives little guidance. These have to do with common practical classroom issues such as the giving and checking of homework, monitoring participation, lesson planning, classroom management, dealing with weak learners. Such issues are shared by teachers of all subjects, and hence can be included in the concept of a ‘situated methodology’ outlined above.

Any teaching decisions, moreover, are likely to be strongly influenced by local factors. If a teacher’s professional action is driven primarily by the question ‘What are the correct procedures to use according to the prescribed method?’, then most choices as to which procedures to adopt and how to present them will broadly accord with that method, with adaptations that take into account local needs and constraints. If, on the other hand, the main motive is to respond to the question ‘What will best facilitate my students’ learning of the language?’, then such teaching decisions do not just ‘take into account’ local needs and constraints but are very largely driven by them. Some key factors underlying teaching decisions on these and other issues include the nature of the target learner population, expectations and/or demands of stakeholders, upcoming examinations or assessment procedures, and the individual teacher’s own preferences, strengths, and weaknesses. These are summarized in more detail below.

Learner populations

Learner populations vary in age, level, learning goals, sheer numbers, and relative heterogeneity, all of which affect the choices made by the teacher in deciding how to teach a particular group. Another crucial consideration is the local culture of learning within which the students have been raised, which will to a large extent determine whether learners will respond well or badly to specific teaching styles: this is the major reason for documented difficulties implementing TBLT in some Asian communities (Hu 2002). Then there is the issue of motivation: if a group is highly motivated, less attention needs to be paid to strategies whose aim is to gain and maintain their interest, and more to academic aspects of task design, and vice versa. Another example is classroom discipline: if the class is an unruly one, the teacher will find it difficult or impossible to run activities that demand student self-regulation.

Stakeholders

After the teachers and students themselves, perhaps the most influential stakeholders are the teachers’ employers. The choices available to teachers working within a state school system may be severely limited by the local Ministry of Education: for example they may not be free to choose their own course materials or may have only a very limited selection. Similar constraints may be imposed by private employers in language schools. In some situations, parents of students, or their employers, express specific preferences or demands that will affect classroom practice. This, as well as examinations (see below), may thus affect the ability of the teacher to implement the principle of ‘optimalization of learning’ as he or she might otherwise have done.

High-stakes examinations

The backwash from high-stakes examinations and other assessment procedures substantially influences the content and teaching method in courses. If, for example, an exam is mainly based on reading comprehension and writing—as most are, since the testing of oral proficiency is relatively expensive and time consuming—then classroom teaching is likely to focus on reading and writing at the expense of oral skills. If the marking of the exam involves substantial subtraction of points for grammatical and spelling mistakes, then obviously the teacher is going to make sure that he or she devotes lesson time to teaching and practising correct grammar and spelling.

The individual teacher

The professional beliefs, abilities, and preferences of the individual teacher are a major factor influencing choices of teaching methodologies (Borg 2003). In spite of the fact that I have put it last, this may often be the most important ‘local factor’ in the selection of procedures and strategies that go to make up a situated methodology. One teacher may be a strong believer in communicative activities, while another sees them as time wasting; one may be very much better than a colleague at designing grammar activities, but the colleague may have superior skills in using drama to activate students. Yet another may believe in and enjoy doing group work and dislike teacher-led interactions, or the reverse. Teaching is likely to be better if the teacher employs strategies and procedures that he or she believes are effective, and is confident that he or she can use successfully to promote student motivation and learning.

I am not suggesting that there are no generally recommended pedagogical principles that will be valid in most contexts. But the majority of these will be relevant for teachers of any subject, for example, the arousing and maintenance of interest, a high and consistent level of task demands, and the use of formative assessment. Others have to do with language teaching specifically, though not confined to any particular method: plenty of exposure to the target language, for example (for more, see Ellis 2005). However, the differences in the way or extent to which any of these are implemented in different contexts in order to bring about optimal learning outcomes are likely to be substantial. The arousing of interest in learning, for example, may demand a good deal more investment of effort and lesson time in a rowdy class of inner-city teenagers than in a class of EAP students in a university; extensive exposure to the target language may in some cases take the form of texts on the computer screen; in others, it may be mostly based on teacher talk.

Discussion and recommendations

The hypothesis that situated methodologies rather than a particular method are what lead to successful learning and professional satisfaction in most places may go some way towards explaining certain findings from the field of ELT. It would explain why, for example, a currently recommended method such as TBLT does not in fact work very well in some contexts (Hu op.cit.), whereas totally ‘unfashionable’ ones may work very well indeed (Ding 2007). Furthermore, there is the phenomenon of the success of widely different methods of teaching in different classes, or with different teachers, as documented by Clarke, Davis, Rhodes, and Baker (1996): a puzzle if we believe in the superiority of a particular method, but natural and understandable if we accept the validity of situated methodologies.

Another phenomenon in the field of ELT that can be linked to the dichotomy discussed in this article is the sense of dissonance between the method-based approach that appears to predominate in the ELT theoretical literature on the one hand, and the situated methodologies that are implemented in many (probably most) places in practice (Ellis 2010, 2012). The result is a feeling of discomfort on the part of both theorists and teachers. Theorists tend either to blame the teachers for failing to read and apply their recommendations as to the optimal method, or to cast about for ways to moderate or re-explain this method—but not, note, reject it!—in an attempt to make it more palatable to practitioners (for example, Ellis 2009). Teachers with whom I have discussed the issue, in contrast, often either accuse the researchers and theorists of being out of touch with classroom realities, or feel vaguely guilty about the fact that they are not teaching the way they ‘ought’ to be.

Many successful teachers—whether or not they are aware of the dissonance described above—are in fact using situated methodologies in their classrooms, rejecting any particular method in favour of a selection of principles and procedures that accord with their own sense of plausibility and are appropriate to the local context. The same is to a large extent true of designers of successful modern course materials (Waters op.cit.). Thus, for many ELT Journal readers, I am probably preaching to the converted.

But that is not the point. What I am advocating here is the adoption of the ‘localized methodologies’ approach in principle by methodologists and theoreticians, not only by practitioners: de jure, as it were, not just de facto. I am not saying that TBLT, for example, may not work extremely well in particular contexts for which it is appropriate, but rather that neither this nor any other method should be presented as the ‘right’ one, to be recommended and adopted worldwide. Teachers should be encouraged to decide for themselves whether and how far to adopt features from different methods, according to their own situations and preferences. It is, therefore, in my view, the function of writers and speakers on ELT to enhance teaching expertise in the field by providing teachers with information, research-based insights, and guidance on a variety of principles and practices that are likely to be conducive to good language learning and can be used in a wide range of teaching situations, rather than to construct and promote a particular method.

It seems to me that if both theoreticians and practitioners accepted, in principle, a primary focus on situated methodologies as the basis for the study and improvement of ELT, everyone would be relieved. A lot of energy previously wasted on fruitless discussion of why and how a particular method should work could be directed into channels of research, discussion, and creative proposals that would more effectively promote good English teaching in its various contexts worldwide.

Final version received April 2013

Note

I I am using the term ‘methodology’ to mean a collection and combination of methods or procedures; cf. ‘phonology’ as referring to a set of phonemes.

References

Borg, S. 2003. ‘Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do’. Language Teaching 36/2: 81–109.

Carless, D. 2009. ‘Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: voices from Hong Kong’. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching 19: 49–66.

Clarke, M. A., A. Davis, L. K. Rhodes, and E. Baker. 1996. ‘Creating coherence: high achieving classrooms for minority students’. (Final report of research conducted under US Department of Education OERI Field Initiated Studies Program.) Achieving Classrooms for Minority Students. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver.

Ding, Y. 2007. ‘Text memorization and imitation: the practices of successful Chinese learners of English’. System 35/2: 271–80.

Ellis, R. 2005. ‘Principles of instructed language learning’. System 33/2: 209–24.

Ellis, R. 2009. ‘Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings’. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 19/3: 221–46.

Ellis, R. 2010. ‘Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy’. Language Teaching 43/2: 182–201.

Ellis, R. 2012. Language Teaching Research and Language Pedagogy. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hu, G. 2002. ‘Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: the case of communicative language teaching in China’. Language, Culture

and Curriculum 15/2: 93–105.

Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. ‘TESOL methods: changing tracks, challenging trends’. TESOL Quarterly 40/1: 59–81.

Prabhu, N. S. 1990. ‘There is no best method—why?’. TESOL Quarterly 24/2: 161–76.

Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swan, M. 2005. ‘Legislation by hypothesis: the case of task-based instruction’. Applied Linguistics 26/3: 376–401.

Swan, M. 2012. ‘We do need methods’ in M. Swan (ed.) Thinking about Language Teaching (Selected Articles 1982-2011). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Waters, A. 2012. ‘Trends and issues in ELT methods and methodology’. ELT Journal 66/4: 440–9.

The author

Penny Ur has 30 years of experience as an English teacher in primary and secondary schools in Israel and has taught courses at BA and MA levels at Oranim Academic College of Education and Haifa University. She is interested in all aspects of ELT, particularly the teaching of vocabulary and grammar, materials design, and implications of the development of English as an international language. Her books include Five Minute Activities (co-authored with Andrew Wright, 1992), Grammar Practice Activities (second edition, 2009), Vocabulary Activities (2012), and A Course in English Language Teaching (2012).

（From ELT Journal, Volume 67/4 October 2013）

0 O4 D# h. r# Z7 {7 R