'A language teaching method is a single set of procedures which teachers are to follow in the classroom. Methods are usually based on a set of beliefs about the nature of language and learning.' (Nunan, 2003, p. 5).
Ask teachers what method they subscribe to, and most will answer either that they don’t follow a method at all, or that they are 'eclectic', and pick and choose from techniques and procedures associated with a variety of different methods. Some might add that, essentially, their teaching follows the principles laid down by the communicative approach, itself a mixed bag, embracing anything from drills to communicative tasks, and everything in between. But the concept of a single, prescriptive 'method' - as in the Direct Method, or the Oral Method – seems now to be dead and buried.
The end of methods
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a 'post-method' era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that 'several developments indicate a shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to language teaching' (1983, p. 477). One such development was the failure, on the part of researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990) noted, 'studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the new method, was the crucial variable' (p. 36). Moreover, recognition of the huge range of variables that impact on second language learning fuelled a general disenchantment with the notion of a 'quick fix', or what, in the social sciences, is sometimes called the 'technical-rational approach', i.e. the notion that social change and improvement can be effected through the strict application of scientific method. This had very much been the mind-set that impelled the spread of audiolingualism, founded as it was on (now largely discredited) research into animal behaviour. The last decades of the last century, however, witnessed a challenge to 'scientism' in the social sciences, a challenge associated with the advent of postmodernism, and its rejection of the idea of universalist, objective knowledge. Accordingly, Pennycook (1989) argued that methods are never 'disinterested', but serve the dominant power structures in society, leading to 'a de-skilling of the role of teachers, and greater institutional control over classroom practice'(p. 610).
The postmethod era
At around the same time, Kumaravadivelu (1994) identified what he called the 'postmethod condition', a result of 'the widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional concept of method' (p. 43). Rather than subscribe to a single set of procedures, postmethod teachers adapt their approach in accordance with local, contextual factors, while at the same time being guided by a number of 'macrostrategies'. Two such macrostrategies are 'Maximise learning opportunities' and 'Promote learner autonomy'. And in a much-cited paper in 1990, Prabhu argued that there is no one method, but that individual teachers fashion an approach that accords uniquely with their 'sense of plausibility.'
Nevertheless, and in spite of the claims of the postmethodists, the notion of method does not seem to have gone away completely. In fact, it seems to be doggedly persistent, even if the term itself is often replaced by its synonyms. In the on-line advertising for language courses, for example, we find the following:
'Developed and used over years in the classroom, the earworms mbt® method has shown phenomenal success….'
'The Byki approach to learning languages… is the fastest possible way to lock foreign words and phrases in your long-term memory.'
'Rosetta Stone software is built around a concept called Dynamic Immersion, an [sic] unique learning method that uses a computer to mimic the ways in which you learnt your first language.'
It seems that – in the public mind, at least – the method concept is not dead. As Block (2001) notes, 'while method has been discredited at an etic level (that is in the thinking and nomenclature of scholars), it certainly retains a great deal of vitality at the grass-roots, emic level (that is, it is still part of the nomenclature of lay people and teachers)' (p. 72). This is a view echoed by Bell (2007) who interviewed a number of teachers on the subject, and concluded:
'Methods, however the term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.' (p. 143).
On the other hand, in a recent paper, Akbari (2008) suggests that, in EFL contexts such as Iran, it is textbooks that have largely replaced methods in their traditional sense:
'The concept of method has not been replaced by the concept of postmethod but rather by an era of textbook-defined practice. What the majority of teachers teach and how they teach... are now determined by textbooks' (p. 647).
Textbooks and método
In fact, the conflation of method with textbook is an idea with a long history, especially in the Spanish-speaking world, where the two concepts share a single name: método. Direct Method and Grammar-Translation courses, in particular, were often named after their progenitor, as in El Método Kucera (Barcelona, 1954), El Método Girau (Barcelona, 1925), and the El Método Massé-Dixon (Barcelona, n.d.).
I, too, contend that the concept of method is not only alive and well, but has been reincarnated in the form of coursebooks, such that it would be valid to talk about the Soars and Soars Method, or the Cunningham and Moor Method, since it is coursebook series like Headway and Cutting Edge that – more than any other factor – determine and define current teaching practice. That is to say, rather than the método embodying a specific method, the método is the method.
What is a method?
What is it, after all, that defines a method? In their Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (2002), Richards and Schmidt make the reasonable claim that 'different methods of language teaching... result from different views of:
a. the nature of language
b. the nature of second language learning
c. goals and objectives in teaching
d. the type of syllabus to use
e. the role of teachers, learners, instructional materials
f. the activities, techniques and procedures to use'
Even a cursory glance at their content and at the way they are marketed confirms the fact that the writers and publishers of coursebooks take particular positions, either explicitly or implicitly, with regard to each of these areas. The theory of language that coursebooks instantiate, for example, is clear from their contents pages, where language is typically construed as a system of 'accumulated entities' (Rutherford, 1987), or what I have referred to elsewhere as grammar McNuggets. As Basturkmen (1999) concluded, after reviewing the cover blurbs of a number of current coursebooks, 'the emphasis [is] on the underlying generative base or language rules rather than on surface level aspects of use' (p. 34).
Coursebooks and second language learning
The 'nature of second language learning', as evidenced from coursebooks, seems generally to follow a cognitive model, where declarative knowledge is proceduralised through successive practice activities. The back cover of Inside Out (Kay and Jones, 2001), for example, makes the claim that 'easy-to-use exercises put rules into practice – and are then recycled as speaking activities'. As for 'the goals and objectives of language learning', these tend to be loosely aligned with those of the communicative approach. Inside Out, for example, 'has been designed to develop real-life communicative skills and powers of self-expression' (Kay and Jones, op. cit), while Cutting Edge (Cunningham and Moor, 1998) aims at 'improved confidence and fluency' as well as 'a clearer understanding of how language is used'. (There is, of course, no recognition that the discrete-item focus of the syllabus might be at odds with these more holistic objectives.) With regard to the syllabus, the grammar 'canon' predominates, but the influence of the lexical approach (Lewis, 1993) and of corpus linguistics is now apparent. Innovations (Dellar and Hocking, 2000) 'has a strongly lexical syllabus, presenting and practising hundreds of natural expressions which students will find immediately useful', and Natural English (Gairns and Redman, 2002a) offers 'a new syllabus area called natural English – accessible, high-frequency phrases which intermediate students can pick up and use'.
The role of the teacher
The 'role of teachers, learners and instructional materials' is most clearly demonstrated in the Teacher’s Book component, where the teacher’s role is both didactic and facilitative, and serves primarily to mediate the coursebook materials, by, for example, explaining, demonstrating and modelling language items, and by setting up and monitoring student interactions. For example (from Gairns and Redman, 2002b):
'Once learners have thought about exercise 1, go over the language in the natural English box. You could model the phrases and replies yourself and ask learners to repeat them, then practise the two-line dialogues across the class' (p. 24).
The guidelines typically construe the teacher as the locus of control in the classroom and even at times imply that the learners are potentially disruptive:
'Don’t let the false beginners dominate the real beginners or pull you along too quickly… Encourage [the false beginners] to concentrate on areas where they can improve (e.g. pronunciation) and don’t let them think they know it all!' [Oxenden and Seligson, 1996, p. 15]
Nevertheless, occasional reference is made to the need to encourage learner agency and autonomy. For example, 'Choices within tasks encourage learners to take charge of interactions' (Kay and Jones, op. cit). Unsurprisingly, though, the coursebook forms the core component of instruction: it is both the medium and the message.
Finally, the types of 'activities, techniques and procedures to use' draw on a range of methodological approaches (but scarcely ever involve translation, or encourage the use of, or any reference to, the learners’ L1). The influence of the communicative approach appears to be strong, with most courses including information-gap tasks, and texts that, if not authentic, attempt to simulate the same. There is a strong skills focus, and the distribution of the material is weighted more towards skills-based activities than language-focused ones. The dominant model for representing English is a native-speaker one, and both the topics and the design of the materials reflect an 'aspirational culture' (Gray, 2002) of travel, consumerism and popular culture.
Here, then, are the ingredients of a method, enshrined in a método. Teachers who claim not to be following a method, but who are using a coursebook, are as much method-bound as the Direct Method practitioners of Berlitz’s day, or the Audiolingualists of Lado’s. Of course, teachers will argue that they use coursebooks selectively, in accordance with their own principles as well as the needs of the learners. Fair enough, but however selective a teacher is, he or she is still tied to a theory of language, embodied in the way that the course selects and describes language, and to a theory of learning, as manifested in the way the course prioritises certain types of activity over others.
Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42/4.
Basturkman, H. (1999) A content analysis of ELT textbook blurbs: reflections on theory-in-use. RELC Journal, 30/1.
Bell, D. (2007) Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61.
Block, D. (2001) An exploration of the art and science debate in language education. In Bax, M, and Zwart, J.-W (eds.) Reflections on language and language learning: In honour of Arthur van Essen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cunningham, S. and Moor, P. (1998) Cutting Edge: Intermediate. Student’s Book. Harlow: Longman.
Dellar, H. and Hocking, D. (2000) Innovations. Hove: LTP.
Gairns, R. and Redman, S. (2002a) natural English: Intermediate. Student’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gairns, R. and Redman, S. (2002b) natural English: Intermediate. Teacher’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gray, J. (2002) . The global coursebook in English Language Teaching. In Block, D., and Cameron, D. (Eds). Globalization and language teaching. London: Routledge.
Kay, S., and Jones, V. (2001) Inside Out Upper Intermediate. Student’s Book. Oxford: Macmillan.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. The Postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28.
Lewis, M. (1993) The Lexical Approach. Hove: LTP.
Nunan, D. (2003) Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oxenden, C. and Seligson, P. (1996) English File 1: Teacher’s Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1989) The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990) There is no best method – why? TESOL Quarterly, 24.
Richards, J. (1990) The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (2002) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (3rd edn.) London: Longman.
Rutherford, W. (1987) Second language grammar: Learning and Teaching. London: Longman.
Stern, H.H. (1983) Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thank you very much for this article.It is very interesting article. But I want to know new methods for pupils of primary school.It is imporant for me.Can you help me?
i need and still looking for a simple method in increasing student's speaking english language for level senior high shcool.
In English language Teaching (ELT) we also can creat our own ways of teaching that depands on our students attitudes in learning, we can use for example storytelling, brainstorming educational games etc... so it's up to us we can decide whatever we want ... nobody knows our students better than we... these are my points of view for this article...
I read Scott Thornbury's article with great interest. I have realized for some time that while I also have claimed that I am eclectic in my approach to teaching, in fact I am just as bound by the assumptions made in the coursebooks I use as anybody. I would like to free myself, but how? Perhaps Scott will give us some ideas in a future article.
Another point to make here is that my students EXPECT the kind of teaching that coursebooks dictate, and resist any attempt to wean them from the security the books offer. A class without a "red thread" (as it's known where I teach in Switzerland) is no class at all, to their minds. Grammar McNuggets? Pass the ketchup, they say.
Very interesting thoughts: it's an area that deserves wider debate. The word 'method' does need re-evaluation, especially as it has become one of those emotive words that can carry all kinds of baggage with it. Often 'method' is a positive concept as it describes a thought-out and tried out, A to B to C approach. That's why 'method' is often a 'good' word for language students: what is interesting is why it's such a 'bad' word for many teachers.
As I think you suggest, teachers will inevitably apply 'method' at some level in their teaching but would usually resist wanting to call it as such. This is why this theme is so relevant: what do teachers understand by 'method'? In forums you often read statements along the lines of: "I don't use a method - I respond to my learners' individual needs," - probably like cutting the red thread in the last post. In this context, 'method' seems to imply 'mindlessness', as if by following a created and developed method or 'metodò' the teacher is renouncing their intrinsic value as 'teacher': you either 'teach' or you follow a method'.
While on one level 'method' describes this monolith, it is often used in more or less the same way as 'technique' or 'strategy'. You often come across comments like, "I switch from method to method according to the situation." Looking forward to more on this topic.
[quote=iain] Often 'method' is a positive concept as it describes a thought-out and tried out, A to B to C approach. That's why 'method' is often a 'good' word for language students: what is interesting is why it's such a 'bad' word for many teachers.[/quote]
Interesting point, Iain. I think the associations, both good and bad, with the notion of "method" suggest a fundamental tension in the task of language teaching - between thinking of teaching as an art, or thinking of it as a science. I suspect we all like to think that there is an element of science in teaching, and that research into second language acquisition will steadily reveal more effective ways of achieving the goal of second language proficiency (even if there is still so little agreement). There is certainly an expectation, on the part of many learners and other stakeholders, that the application of "the latest scientifc methods" (and any associated technologies) will accelerate the achievement of this goal.
On the other hand, there is the school of thought that language education is suffering from "science envy", and should accept the inherent "messiness" and context-sensitivity of its nature. In that sense, there is more artistry to teaching than there is science, and hence the notion of a "one-size-fits-all" method is anathema. Maybe we should be looking at the way creativity is developed and nurtured in other fields, such as music and the fine arts? And/or the way that social groups who share the same needs can become collaborative learning systems in their own right, and where the "method" is emergent, negotiated and idiosyncratic?
Yes, good point Patricia. Henry Widdowson puts it well (in his inimitable way): “If by eclecticism is meant the random and expedient use of whatever technique comes most readily to hand, then it has no merit whatever” (Widdowson 1990, p. 50).
Diane Larsen-Freeman (in Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, OUP 2000) is a little less severe, and notes that "from an external persective, it may be difficult to distinguish eclecticism from principled eclecticism" (p. 183). It seems to depend on whether the teacher is able to articulate the principle(s) they happen to be working on. This is why in-service training, of the DELTA type, is so good, in that it really does require teachers to make their implicit theories explicit.
Can a method be different from a collection of principles or is it simply one guiding principle? If there really are principles underlying someones eclecticism isn't that a method (albeit a personal one) and thus no longer eclecticism at all?
[quote=Duncan M]Can a method be different from a collection of principles or is it simply one guiding principle? If there really are principles underlying someones eclecticism isn't that a method (albeit a personal one) and thus no longer eclecticism at all?[/quote]
Good question. I think a method is BOTH a set of principles AND the procedures that typically realise those principles. An eclectic teacher might borrow from the latter wthout subscribing to the former. Thus, there are many teachers (me included) who will use drills from time to time, not because we believe in behaviourist learning theory, but because drilling is consistent with another theory, e.g. the notion of consciousness-raising: drilling brings certain items to the conscious attention of learners, so that they notice them, thereby making input more likely to become intake. Nothing to do with audiolingualism at all!
I think a method is BOTH a set of principles AND the procedures that typically realise those principles. An eclectic teacher might borrow from the latter wthout subscribing to the former. Thus, there are many teachers (me included) who will use drills from time to time, not because we believe in behaviourist learning theory, but because drilling is consistent with another theory, e.g. the notion of consciousness-raising: drilling brings certain items to the conscious attention of learners, so that they notice them, thereby making input more likely to become intake. Nothing to do with audiolingualism at all!
You've expressed very well what I'd been wanting to articulate about methods, principles and procedures. By using drilling as an illustration, you've made it rather clear and tangible.
I think this article and comments has helped me clarify concepts, I mean, has put in words ideas you have in mind but do not know how to express.
Thanks a lot
[quote=Patricia Arias] I think much can be gained from scientific reasoning and researching, but we always need to be aware of what is going on with the people we are teaching... so why not combine science with art? Is that possible at all?[/quote]
I think it is indeed possible. Teachers are not alone in their capacity to combine elements of craftsmanship and science. A good potter, surely, needs to know a lot about the optimum temperature to fire a pot - but he/she also needs to have an instinct as to what makes a nicely shaped pot?!
I am happy for the opportunity to read this article. The more I look into this subject more I wonder what else we can do in the classroom for the benefit of the students. I was intrigued by the term Dogme and I have been trying to understand it ever since.
Where I work for some teachers advocate communicative approach as being the solution to make students talk and they want to avoid any trace of out of date techniques because it belong to a certain traditional method, but still the practice has an emphases on controling the classroom with strong hands, trying to avoid at all costs errors, assessment is still based on the traditional expectation on accuracy alone and so on. Like Fernando, I am glad to read the example of drill because that is what I do when I believe it is necessary.
Thanks for the article. I'm reading you with much interest.
'Does the "red thread" depend on the coursebook - or could it be manufactured (by a skillful teacher) out of the language that the learners provide as they pursue their own agenda? That is to say, could learner output become lesson input?'
Why not? It depends on the students, a teacher and the approach used. Why not to start with learner output of the previous lesson work before giving an input? Personally I see the Follow-up task(s) of the lesson (it doesn't matter whether they are given in a coursebook or 'invented' by me) as a bridge to the coming lesson, i.e. Lead-in to it. The output will prompt what input to give: what issues are burning for students and which ones can be delayed.
Everything will depend on the paces of the students through the lesson which are different in different groups of students even of the same level. I believe the students are in the focus of teaching with their needs (gaps and lacks) that influence greatly the agenda.
The choice is always made by a teacher, isn't it? Or by students too?