Skip to main content

There is no best method

I've been reading the excellent concluding chapter of Diane Larsen-Freeman and Marti Anderson's book Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching (2011). Having analysed a range of language teaching methods practised around the world, they consider the question which many teachers would ask: is there a best method? The answer, unsurprisingly, is no. But they examine the question in much more detail.

One of the arguments they make for learning about methods is that it helps keep your teaching practice alive. They quote from an article by N.S. Prabhu (1992):

...if the teacher engages in classroom activity with a sense of intellectual excitement, there is at least a fair probability that learners will begin to participate in the excitement and to perceive classroom lessons mainly as learning events - as experiences of growth for themselves.*

I like that. It chimes with something I have always thought, namely, that if you believe in your approach and can justify it in principle, it is more likely to succeed.

The authors go on to say that this is one reason why research into comparing methods is so fraught with difficulty. If you compare two methods over time with the same teacher, that teacher will not invest the same enthusiasm into each one, so any claim to scientific validity disappears. (Not to mention all the other variables involved in comparative studies: students, time of day, school culture and so on.)

Most teachers implicitly or explicitly accept there there is no one best method, so they choose a 'relativist' position. One version of this is called 'principled eclecticism'. Teachers pick and choose the best bits from the various methods (grammar-translation, direct method, communicative approach, natural approaches, audio-lingualism etc). By doing this they create their own principled, hybrid method which can be adapted to classes, depending on a range of factors, one key one being the nature of the assessment regime. But principled eclecticism has to be principled. It is not a random pick 'n mix. The teacher "should be able to give a reason for the particular reason for why they do what they do".

The authors go on to explain that choosing a method is a developmental process. If I may mention my own experience briefly, I was taught and trained in the adapted direct method approach (oral/situational question-answer). When I began teaching in 1980 my lessons were very teacher-led, I used little English and generally avoided doing much grammar explanation. I used audio-lingual style pattern practice and tried to get students to avoid error (marking is easier that way too!). I did a little pair work, but not much. As my career progressed I became more influenced by the communicative approach (which had a good deal in common with my version of direct method). I was also influenced by my study of Krashen's natural acquisition, comprehensible input hypothesis.

In my later career I stuck to similar principles, added much more pair work, but included a bit more explicit grammar teaching and translation. I worked on an assumption I formulated: with younger students you needed more skill-building and structured, grammatical work, taught orally and in writing. With high intermediate and advanced students it seemed to me that the 'natural', comprehensible input approach came into its own - bombard students with good input and let them communicate. In another school I may have adapted that approach, perhaps significantly.

I did always think about the why of each activity and would often share my reasoning with classes so the would buy into it a bit more. In my particular context (above average ability high school students), I am confident my approach was successful, but often questioned it with colleagues who had marginally different emphases and from whom I pinched other good ideas.

To conclude, one of the aims of the handbook Gianfranco and I are writing is to encourage teachers to think about their principles in this way, to analyse the effectiveness, at every stage, of each activity. We shall not naively recommend a best method (remember? there isn't one!), but we are happy to try and help establish, from research and own experience, what tends to work well and, by implication, what does not!

* N.S. Prabhu (1992). 'The dynamics of the language lesson.' TESOL Quarterly 24/2.



Comments

  1. The teacher "should be able to give a reason for the particular reason for why they do what they do".

    What would be an acceptable reason?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. Yes, if it works, keep doing it unless you find/invent something that works better to replace it with!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is skill acquisition theory?

For this post, I am drawing on a section from the excellent book by Rod Ellis and Natsuko Shintani called Exploring Language Pedagogy through Second Language Acquisition Research (Routledge, 2014). Skill acquisition is one of several competing theories of how we learn new languages. It’s a theory based on the idea that skilled behaviour in any area can become routinised and even automatic under certain conditions through repeated pairing of stimuli and responses. When put like that, it looks a bit like the behaviourist view of stimulus-response learning which went out of fashion from the late 1950s. Skill acquisition draws on John Anderson’s ACT theory, which he called a cognitivist stimulus-response theory. ACT stands for Adaptive Control of Thought.  ACT theory distinguishes declarative knowledge (knowledge of facts and concepts, such as the fact that adjectives agree) from procedural knowledge (knowing how to do things in certain situations, such as understand and speak a language).

La retraite à 60 ans

Suite à mon post récent sur les acquis sociaux..... L'âge légal de la retraite est une chose. Je voudrais bien savoir à quel âge les gens prennent leur retraite en pratique - l'âge réel de la retraite, si vous voulez. J'ai entendu prétendre qu'il y a peu de différence à cet égard entre la France et le Royaume-Uni. Manifestation à Marseille en 2008 pour le maintien de la retraite à 60 ans © AFP/Michel Gangne Six Français sur dix sont d’accord avec le PS qui défend la retraite à 60 ans (BVA) Cécile Quéguiner Plus de la moitié des Français jugent que le gouvernement a " tort de vouloir aller vite dans la réforme " et estiment que le PS a " raison de défendre l’âge légal de départ en retraite à 60 ans ". Résultat d’un sondage BVA/Absoluce pour Les Échos et France Info , paru ce matin. Une majorité de Français (58%) estiment que la position du Parti socialiste , qui défend le maintien de l’âge légal de départ à la retraite à 60 ans,