Spiro-LEARNINGTHEORIESMETHODS-2013
Spiro-LEARNINGTHEORIESMETHODS-2013
Spiro-LEARNINGTHEORIESMETHODS-2013
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Edinburgh University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Changing Methodologies in TESOL
INTRODUCTION
This chapter asks the questions:
• Do we all learn a new language in the same way, or are there differences depending
on our first language?
11
• Should the way we teach a second language be informed by the way we acquire a
first language?
• Should learning a language involve engagement with the whole self, or is it a pre-
dominantly intellectual activity?
• How far should a teacher intervene in the learning process?
Language learning dilemma 1: do we all learn a new language in the same way, or
are there differences depending on our first language?
Argument 1a Argument 1b
Every learner follows parallel patterns of There are patterns of development specific to
learning and development, irrespective of his each language.
or her first language. This idea is based on a notion of contrastive
This idea is based on the notion of a analysis, which suggests that it is possible to
universal grammar – that every human predict what a learner will find difficult in a
being has an internal capacity to process and second language by comparing this with his
pattern language (Chomsky 1965). The or her first language. (Lado 1957;
natural order of acquisition hypothesis Wardhaugh 1970).
suggests that all language is learnt using Materials based on a contrastive view of
similar stages; for example learning explore the ways in which English is
simpler structures are learnt before the more and is not different from a learner’s first
complex ones, and grammatical changes to language. Learner English, for example (Swan
words seem to be learnt in a similar and Smith 2001), compares English with
sequence. (Brown 1973; Pienemann, eighteen other languages, asking questions
Johnston and Brindley 1988). Other findings such as ‘how is time expressed (in the verb
suggest that words which convey content form? using adverbials?)’ and ‘how are sound
(such as car, apple, mummy) are learnt before and spelling related?’ The underlying belief is
grammatical words which are empty of that understanding a learner’s first language
meaning (such as it, was, on). will help the teacher predict and understand
Many language teaching materials are errors.
structured on the basis of this belief, that
some aspects of the language system are
intrinsically more ‘difficult’ and later learnt,
irrespective of the learner’s first language.
Examples: Examples:
So for example, we know that the -s ending So for example, we know that the present
in the third person is slowly learnt by perfect is difficult for Mandarin speakers
learners of all first languages – even though because there is no equivalent in their
this is not an intrinsically ‘difficult’ language, and difficult for French speakers
grammatical feature. because there is an equivalent form in
French, but it has a different function.
Teaching implications Teaching implications
If you believe that there is a ‘natural order’ in The teacher of a monolingual class may
which all learners learn a language, it also select language points which represent
follows that a structure or language item specific contrasts between the L1 and L2 –
taught too early will simply not be ‘acquired’. for example the sound contrast between /l/
The teacher must allow for errors, and wait and /r/ for Mandarin speakers.
for the learner to internalise the language Some resources, such as Swan and Smith
point. What a teacher can do, however, is to (2001), specifically look at the differences
provide the opportunity for learning the between English and other languages such as
correct form through examples, repetition Swahili, Hindi, Arabic and Turkish,
and exposure. identifying ways in which the languages are
Materials writers develop programme/course different. Teachers can use this as a resource
materials which are ‘staged’ to matched the to help them plan the syllabus for a specific
natural order of acquisition: for example, group of language speakers.
simple verb forms such as I am a ---, I live in
--- come first, and more complex verb forms
such as I should have known --- come much
later.
Argument 2a Argument 2b
One view of acquiring a first language Another view of the way a child learns a first
suggests children learn to use language to language is that it is a process of forming
convey important messages about feelings habits. It is formed by modelling correct
and everyday needs. The adult ‘scaffolds’ or language, imitation and practice, so the
stages learning so the child can move ‘correct’ language becomes automatic and
gradually from what is familiar to what is habitual. This theory of learning led to the
new. (Vygotsky 1978; see also dilemma 4, audiolingual approach and was based on
below). One aspect of this theory of learning research by Skinner (1961). He found that
is that adults modify their language to give pigeons could be taught habits through
the child comprehensible input (Krashen positive reinforcement and rewards. It was
1985). Krashen and Terrell (1992) called this believed language might be learnt in the
the natural approach, and it has formed the same way. For example, a baby will have the
basis for a view of second language learning. sounds ‘mamama’ reinforced by the positive
responses of the parent. The word ‘mama’
becomes a habit and these sounds become
fixed in the baby’s linguistic repertoire.
Examples Examples
In the classroom informed by Krashen’s In the audiolingual lesson, the teacher will
theory, the language will be modified by the model correct language and will then ask the
teacher so all the language examples are students to imitate and repeat ten or more
tuned to the learner’s level. times so the form becomes automatic. The
A key principle of this lesson is that language language might be in ‘chunks’ which are not
will be personalised so learners use language explained but which have useful functions in
purposefully and meaningfully to everyday life, for example:
communicate their everyday needs. ‘What’s your name? What’s your name?’
‘I’m a student! I’m a student!’
Argument 3a Argument 3b
Some educators both within and outside The cognitive learning theory recognises
language learning (for example, Gertrude that language learning involves the
Moscowitz within, and Carl Rogers outside) development of thinking – for example,
believe that learning is most effective when it memorising both sight and sound (Pickett
engages the whole person. Humanistic 1978), using reasoning and deduction to
learning theory is founded on the argument recognise rules and patterns (Rubin 1987)
that the child learns a first language in and applying strategies such as organising,
(ideally) loving and supported settings, using labelling, recording, using labels and
language to express core needs and feelings, terminology about language (Oxford 1990,
and so all learning should take place in this 2011). These thinking capacities are essential
way. The humanistic teacher’s position is that for the good language learner, and may be
the learner’s emotional responses, or ‘affect’, missed out if they are not specifically
are as important in the classroom as developed.
intellectual processes. (Arnold 1999)
Examples Examples
A teacher who believes in a humanistic A teacher who believes in the predominantly
learning theory may include the following intellectual or cognitive role of the lesson
activities and objectives on the syllabus: may include the following activities and
Building self-esteem as a learner objectives on the syllabus:
Team-building: feeling safe within the group Ways of storing and remembering
Recognising signs of stress vocabulary
Dealing with anger Using the dictionary
Arnold’s book (1999) has sections that focus Spelling patterns
on learner anxiety, memory, autonomy and
self-esteem.
Teaching implications Teaching implications
The teacher who follows a humanistic The teacher conducting a lesson that draws
approach may adopt one or more of these from a cognitive learning theory, may adopt
methods: one or more of these methods:
A five-minute meditation at the start or close Identify, explain and analyse patterns
of the class and rules in the language (grammar
A five-minute ‘visualisation’ activity, in processes)
which learners sit with their eyes closed and Focus on the study and analysis of written
follow the teacher’s voice taking them on an texts
internal journey Compare the first and second language
Encourage learners to write a personal (translation processes)
journal and discuss these daily in class This focus on language learning as an
Set up co-mentoring partnerships, in which intellectual activity, including comparisons
learners counsel one another in pairs between first and second language, was
called the grammar-translation method
and was the predominant method of
language teaching until the 1960s.
Language learning dilemma 4: how far should the teacher intervene in the
learning process?
Argument 4a Argument 4b
The social constructivist approach to The learner autonomy approach to
language learning suggests that people learn a language learning suggests ‘the ideal
second language through interaction with, situation is for the students to take over
and focused guidance from, an informed their own learning – in other words to do it
‘other’ (Vygotsky 1978). As a theory of without having to be shown how by the
learning, this is based on the idea that teacher’ (Harmer 2007: 399).
language is a means of social interaction. The This position emerges partly from research
‘guide’ or teacher moves learners from their suggesting that successful learners tend to
current knowledge to their potential take responsibility for their own learning,
knowledge. The teacher with this learning and do not depend on the teacher or the
approach will be careful to draw on what the classroom for learning opportunities
learner already knows, and will use this as a (Oxford 2011). Autonomous language
starting point for establishing learning needs learners make decisions for themselves, and
and goals. This teacher will also differentiate manage their own learning.
between learners, and provide each with a
framework for learning step by step,
recognising what is feasible and achievable as
a future learning goal. The teacher will then
bridge the gap between current and potential
knowledge, through guided steps, or
‘scaffolding’. The zone of proximal
development (ZPD) is the distance between
the actual development level of the child, as
determined through problem solving, and the
level of potential development, as determined
through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more
capable peers.
Examples Examples
Wood (1998) suggests that teachers can The autonomous learner would: decide what
scaffold children’s learning in various ways: he or she wants to study; decide what
suggesting, praising the significant, resources he or she needs; plan his or her
encouraging rehearsal, being explicit about own activities; formulate his or her own
organisation, reminding, modelling, questions and seek ways of answering them.
providing part-whole activities. In other words, the autonomous learner is
the one who makes decisions, and the
teacher acts as a bystander providing the
conditions for learning (Benson 2007).
Teaching implications A criticism of this Teaching implications
approach is that it does not account for the The teacher who believes in learner
capacity of learners to find solutions to autonomy may:
problems for themselves. A practical invite learners at the start of the class to
criticism is that the close and supportive draw up their own goals and learning
setting implicit in the scaffolding of learning objectives;
suggests parent: child situations and is set up a class library so learners can choose
unworkable in the typical classroom, where reading materials for themselves;
teachers have large numbers of learners and set up a self-access resource where learners
prescribed learning goals. can choose what they want to study for
themselves;
provide free class time for learners to work
at their own pace on their own projects and
activities
As we have discussed, the teacher does not need to adopt just one approach; an
eclectic teacher will find something interesting in each one, and may make decisions
about the class depending on what age the learners are, what their goals are, or where
the class is taking place. Below are examples of typical questions that language teach-
ers ask, and a variety of answers they might arrive at depending on the learners, the
learning situation, or even the particular lesson.
Should I correct errors or accept that errors are part of the natural learning
process?
If you believe in the natural order of acquisition, you will allow learners to correct
errors for themselves in their own time, when they are ready to learn a specific rule. If
you are teaching using the audiolingual method, using, for example, drills and repeti-
tions, your focus will be on accuracy and you will correct errors in order to cultivate
appropriate language habits.
If you are teaching with an underlying belief in the cognitive learning theory, you
might respond to an error by analysing its cause and revisiting the rule or pattern
which it relates to.
Should I use the mother tongue in the classroom, or only the target language?
If you are following the grammar-translation method you will explicitly use the
mother tongue to make comparisons between the first and the second language.
If you are using the audiolingual approach you will use just the target language
in the classroom, to provide the maximum opportunity for correct models of the
language.
If you are adopting a number of different humanistic approaches you will include
the mother tongue in order to lower the anxiety of the learners and bring their whole
selves into the classroom.
• Should I correct errors, or accept that errors are part of the natural learning
process?
• Should I teach grammar rules explicitly, or lead learners to acquire rules subcon-
sciously through practice?
• Should I use the mother tongue in the classroom, or only the target language?
• What should my role as a teacher in the classroom be – guide, facilitator, informer,
friend or parent?
B. As a teacher, how might you adapt your approach so it is appropriate for each case
study group?
Teaching case study 1: a secondary school Teaching case study 2: a primary school in
in Romania Kuwait
The learners are 15–16 years old and have The learners are 6–7 years old. They are in a
studied English for six years, through the primary school in Kuwait where there is a
grammar-translation approach. There are 35 policy of English language education from
in the class. They work with texts, including an early age. Higher education is in the
literary texts, and keep notebooks of medium of English, and many official roles
grammar rules and vocabulary lists. They are in the country are conducted in English, so
preparing for a school leaving exam which is they are likely to hear the language spoken
very important for their future career. The around them. However, the children have
test will include translating sections of the only learnt English for one year, and are also
texts, comprehension questions about learning to read and write in their mother
detailed meaning, and grammar questions. tongue. The school is also new to them.
They have a set coursebook with instructions There are no set coursebooks or resources
and translations written in Romanian, and it and the teacher is free to make her own
is a requirement to work through the choices about what to do in the classroom.
coursebook by the end of the school year.
The learners are very motivated, although
they do not hear English in their daily lives
and do not know any native speakers. They
see English as an opportunity to study, travel,
and possibly work in other countries.
Task 2.2 Research: conduct your own research into a language learning dilemma
Think about one activity or experience since your childhood in which you were fully
engaged, and as a result of which you learnt something or changed.
Was there a teacher involved in the process? If so, how did the teacher help to
facilitate the experience? If there was no teacher involved, what was the stimulus or
starting point for the activity? What motivated you to continue?
Now ask the same question of five peers, friends or relations.
Use the information you have discovered to form some initial responses to the
question: How far should the teacher intervene in the learning process?
Task-based learning
Task-based learning emerged from the ‘strong’ approach to communicative teaching.
As with the communicative approach, it is influenced by views of learning which
might on the surface appear to be in conflict with one another. On the one hand, it is
influenced by the view that learning should engage the whole person and go beyond
the manipulation of discrete language items. On the other hand, it is also influenced
by the view that the cognitive (or thinking) skills involved in learning a language
need the opportunity for development. Willis describes the task-based approach as
combining ‘the best insights from communicative language teaching with an organ-
ized focus on language form’ (Willis 1996: 1). Its key principle is the engagement
of the learner with real-world tasks that entail problem-solving, collaboration with
others, and the integration of all four skills. Another important principle is that the
task focuses on ‘meaning to obtain an objective’ (Bygate, Skehan and Swain 2007),
rather than the conscious acquisition of language. There are different kinds of task-
based activities, based on different notions of the task itself. The following are some
examples:
• The class has a one-week project researching the way a newspaper is put together
and the kind of items and text types found on each page. The task is to produce
a class paper including each text type, such as feature page, letters to the editor,
classified ads and captioned photos. This task type matches the kind described
by Prabhu (1977), which includes pre-tasks, detailed preparation and meaning-
focused activities.
• Interview a partner about his or her learning journey this term and draw together
a ‘map’ showing the highs, lows and plateaux. You can choose together to represent
and label this in any way you like. Moskowitz (1978) would describe this as a task
with an ‘affective’ goal, designed to bring the whole learner into the classroom.
• The class is asked to draw up a language syllabus for one week of class, in which
they come to a consensus about what they would like to study. The task includes
working first in pairs, then groups, then as a whole class to draw up a set of class
priorities for their learning. These outcomes are to be presented to the teacher at
the end of the task. This task is the kind in which teacher and students negotiate
what is to happen in class, and is described as a ‘process’ activity by Breen and
Candlin (1987).
These three different tasks all share a communicative purpose and prioritise
meaning over explicit language learning. They also go one stage further than the
communicative approach, in giving learners the opportunity to work independently
of the teacher once the initial task has been shaped. In fact, the task-based syllabus is
one of the drivers that has encouraged us to ask: do we really need the teacher at all?
Could it be possible that the learner actually works better when given the opportunity
to be entirely independent? Table 2.4 above gives three answers to this question.
Accelerated learning
This section will look at a number of methods which aim to make learning achievable
rapidly. They do so by engaging the whole human being through sound, movement
and emotions, rather than by developing language as an intellectual capacity alone.
Total physical response, or TPR, was developed by James Asher in the 1960s. Its
main principle is that learners internalise language when they connect it with physi-
cal actions and movements. The method mirrors ways in which a parent interacts
with a child, using repetition and actions to illustrate meaning. The TPR teacher
gives the learners commands or instructions, and the learners respond to these in
groups. It allows learners to hear the language without needing to reply, and to act
as a group rather than being individually exposed. It is also a way of illustrating
the meaning of instruction verbs and related nouns through demonstration and
movement. Here are some examples of what the teacher might say, model and then
instruct the class to do:
Stand up!
Sit down!
Stand on the chair!
Move the book onto the desk!
Open the door!
Close the door!
TPR lends itself particularly to instructions and commands which can be demon-
strated, rather than other sentence types. It might seem to be a disadvantage of the
TPR approach that it does not lead naturally into other language forms. However,
Asher has suggested that ‘most grammatical features . . . can be nested into the
imperative form’ (Asher et al. 1983: 62). He gives as examples commands such as
these, which include reference to other verb forms and to abstract as well as concrete
vocabulary:
• Marie, pick up the picture of the ugly old man and put it next to the picture of the
government building. (Asher et al. 1983: 64)
• When Luke walks to the window, Marie will write his name on the blackboard.
(Asher 1983: 62)
He said: ‘I believe that Suggestopedic factors play a role in the success of many other
methods and techniques which in themselves have nothing to do with Suggestopedia’
(Stevick 1983: 133). These factors, according to Stevick, lead to a number of insights
about teaching which are widely meaningful and effective in the classroom. These
include:
The community language learning (CLL) approach emerges from this view of the
student/teacher relationship. Learning is in small or large groups which are convened
not as classes, but as ‘communities’. The ‘knower’ of the target language needs to share
the mother tongue of the learners. This is usually the teacher, but could also be other
students in the group who can move between the mother tongue and target language
as an interpreter/translator.
The learners direct the conversation, determining what it is they want to talk about
and say. They whisper this in their mother tongue to one of the translators/interpreters.
The teacher then translates these utterances into the target language for the rest of
the group. This translation can also be recorded, so the learner can then work with it
to learn and extend the target language comments with the teacher.
A key aspect of this approach is that the utterances are interactive and shared by
the whole group as part of the group process.
The interaction may end with the group discussing their experience, what they
have learnt and what has been discussed. The learner is deemed in this approach to
move from dependence on the ‘knower’ to gradual ownership of the target language.
• Do you have an idea of how often you use your mother tongue when you are in
the language lesson?
• When do you like to use your mother tongue? Why?
• When do you not like to use your mother tongue? Why?
Review the description above of CLL and think about the questions below in rela-
tion to yourself as learner or teacher in a classroom you have experienced.
of the broader influences on the language teaching profession which we need to take
account of, as we progress through the twenty-first century?
Teaching should be done using only the resources that teachers and students
bring to the classroom – i.e. themselves – and whatever happens to be in the
classroom.
Reflective practice
Teacher education programmes, and the professional literature, increasingly focus on
the ways in which teachers question and learn from their own practice. They include
the view that the aim of teacher development is to understand and improve practice,
rather than to follow any set standards or methods. The reflective teacher will con-
tinually critique methods externally imposed by exam boards, published resources,
school and national policy or teaching orthodoxies, and will seek to understand the
research and theories of others in the light of his or her own experience and beliefs.
The reflective teacher is thus able to evolve his or her own theories of learning and
teaching. Schőn describes the process of making on-going decisions about practice as
‘reflection in action’. Larsen-Freeman calls this ‘thought-in-action’, but the principle
is the same: the reflective teacher will act according to professional judgement, rather
than on the basis of a specific method (Schőn 1983; Moon 1999; Pollard 2008; Bolton
2010).
Appropriate methodology
Since Holliday’s critique of a Westernised perception of methods (1994, 2005), the
profession has revisited its assumptions about effective learning and teaching. There
has been a collective recognition that methodologies developed through and in one
culture do not necessarily transfer into others, and it is unsound to require or expect
them to. Each learning context makes its own demands upon learner and teacher, and
has its own unique combination of constraints and drivers.
Learner autonomy
We have come to understand that learners can often work very well without the
explicit intervention of the teacher and that, in fact, more teaching can often lead
to less learning. The link between teaching and learning has been explored in the
last twenty years in such a way that teachers have begun to profoundly rethink their
role in the classroom. For example, we have come to understand the importance of
learners developing their own strategies for learning (Oxford 1990), and experiments
with self-taught environments have shown that learners often do very well learning
complex concepts without the intervention of teachers at all. Chapter 3 explores the
example of the Hole in the Wall Project, where children in a slum village in India
learnt to use a computer without the help of adults or teachers (Mitra 2011).
Global English
We are also questioning the kind of English being taught, recognising that it is
no longer the exclusive property of native speakers, or of speakers in the English-
speaking world. This means that every English language teacher needs to have a posi-
tion about which English he or she is teaching, and why (Kirkpatrick 2007a, 2007b).
Intercultural competence
Given that the English language is part of a global means of communication, the
teacher of English could also be seen as preparing learners to communicate within,
between and across cultures. This extends the skills of the learner beyond the practice
of language as a system, or even language as communication within a shared commu-
nity. It demands further skills of open-mindedness and sensitivity which the language
teacher may not consider part of his or her remit. However, intercultural competence
has been anatomised and explored widely within educational debates, and a capacity
to understand and develop these will increasingly be part of the expected skills-base
of the language teacher (Byram 1997).
Teacher narratives
As these areas of understanding have evolved, teachers’ stories about their practice
have entered the literature as legitimate contributions to knowledge. As a result, new
ways of describing and explaining what we do have emerged, such as the analysis of
critical incidents (Tripp 1995) and the exploring of commonality in teacher stories
(Senior 2006, Tsui 2009). This means that when we discuss ‘methods and methodolo-
gies’, we need to do so with constant reference to ‘real’ teacher stories.
with the approach fully and share their lesson plans, teaching ideas, class-created
activities and materials. Explore these resources yourself by following the link:
,http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/dogme-a-teachers-view.
Ask at least five teachers who you know what they think of the ideas you find on the
Dogme website. See if you can find any similarities or connections between the teach-
ers who are positive about these ideas, and any similarities or connections between
those who are negative.
• Ask them to tell you their professional stories: the start of the career, its challenges
and changes, what was learnt on the way
• In what respects are their experiences different?
• In what respects are their experiences similar?
• In what respects have the demands, expectations, skills and approaches changed
from the start of their careers to the present day?
• What are the main areas of change you have noticed? Do any of these match,
confirm or contradict the ‘forces of change’ discussed in Section 2.3?
• Which of the changes do the teachers find energising and exciting? Which of them
do they find troubling and challenging?
• How do your own experiences as a learner or teacher compare with theirs?
2.5 CONCLUSION
This chapter asked the questions:
learn from debates about language methods as they change and evolve. Methods
emerge from beliefs about how language is learnt, and how learning takes place,
and offer a spectrum of views: from language as intellectual engagement with
the language system, to language as a means of social interaction; from teacher
as model of correct language to teacher as facilitator; and from learning as a
process of error and correction to learning as an enabling process scaffolded by
the teacher. These debates reveal the range of possible interpretations the teacher
may have about learning and language, and the importance of making these beliefs
explicit.
How have theories about language learning influenced the actual practice of
language teachers?
The chapter also introduced you to the link between theories about language
learning, and actual practice in the classroom such as audiolingual, grammar-
translation, communicative or humanistic approaches: Suggestopedia, total physi-
cal response (TPR) or community language learning (CLL). We noted that,
although each of these approaches may be critiqued, there are aspects of each
which may be useful for the eclectic teacher, as long as we are able to make
informed selections on the basis of our learners and our views about what is
important in the classroom.
• What do you think makes a method fashionable and what makes it fall out of
fashion, according to Kumaravadivelu? (paragraphs 1 and 2)
• Kumaravadivelu critiques the audiolingual and the communicative methods in
this article. What are his core criticisms? He goes on to say, in this article, that
the two ended up not being that different from one another. Can you explain
how it could be that two apparently different methods might in fact have much in
common? (paragraphs 3 and 4)
• He ends up by making a broad claim for the profession becoming critical, and
connecting ‘the word with the world’. What could this phrase mean to you as a
language user, as a teacher, or as a student? (paragraph 5)
Paragraph 1
This article traces the major trends in TESOL methods in the past 15 years. It
focuses on the TESOL profession’s evolving perspectives on language teaching
methods in terms of three perceptible shifts: (a) from communicative
language teaching to task-based language teaching, (b) from method-based
pedagogy to postmethod pedagogy, and (c) from systemic discovery to critical
discourse. It is evident that during this transitional period, the profession has
witnessed a heightened awareness about communicative and task-based
language teaching, about the limitations of the concept of method, about
possible postmethod pedagogies that seek to address some of the limitations
of method, about the complexity of teacher beliefs that inform the practice of
everyday teaching, and about the vitality of the macrostructures–social,
cultural, political, and historical – that shape the microstructures of the
language classroom.
He then goes on to critique the communicative method on the grounds that it was
unable to deliver on its stated aims.
Paragraph 4
Legutke and Thomas (1991), Nunan (1987), and Thornbury (1996) reveal that
the so-called communicative classrooms they examined were anything but
communicative. In the classes he studied, Nunan (1987) observed that form was
more prominent than function, and grammatical accuracy activities dominated
communicative fluency ones. He concluded, ‘There is growing evidence that, in
communicative class, interactions may, in fact, not be very communicative after
all’ (p. 144). Legutke and Thomas (1991) were even more forthright: ‘In spite of
trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers’ manuals, very little is actually
communicated in the L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not seem to
stimulate the wish of learners to say something, nor does it tap what they might
have to say’ (pp. 8–9).
During the 1990s, the TESOL profession took a decidedly critical turn. It is
probably one of the last academic disciplines in the field of humanities and social
sciences to go critical. Simply put, the critical turn is about connecting the word
with the world. It is about recognising language as ideology, not just as system. It
is about extending the educational space to the social, cultural, and political
dynamics of language use, not just limiting it to the phonological, syntactic, and
pragmatic domains of language usage. It is about realising that language learning
and teaching is more than learning and teaching language. It is about creating the
cultural forms and interested knowledge that give meaning to the lived
experiences of teachers and learners.
The readings below will help you look further at particular methods, and critique
them from your own perspective.
Swan, M. (1985), ‘A critical look at the Communicative Approach’, ELT Journal,
39:1, 2–11
Klapper, J. (2003), ‘Taking communication to task? A critical review of recent
trends in language teaching’, Language Learning Journal, 27, 33–42
Swan identifies two core ‘fallacies’ of the communicative approach as follows:
The belief that students do not possess, or cannot transfer from their mother
tongue, normal communication skills is one of two complementary fallacies that
What is your view of the criticism that some methods try to ‘teach everything that
has been observed’? Which aspects of observed language behaviour do you think
need not or should not be taught? Which aspects do you think should be taught?
Swan’s criticisms of the communicative approach date from 1985. What additional
perspective does Klapper give us in his criticism below?
With regard to theory, it is a surprise for many to discover that the so-called
communicative approach has few clear links to second language acquisition
research or second language acquisition theories; indeed, that it remains largely
‘atheoretical’ about learning. (Klapper 2003: 33)