Some Thoughts on Language-Teaching in the

‘Post-Method’ Era

Tony T.N. HungLanguage Centre, HKBUtonyhung@hkbu.edu.hk

Can we really ‘teach’ a language?

‘We cannot really teach language: we can only present the conditions under which it will develop spontaneously in the mind in its own way’

[Von Humboldt (1836), paraphrased by Chomsky (1965)]

Teachers as ‘Professionals’

Characteristics of professionals (e.g. doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, etc):

• Extended period of advanced specialisedtraining, etc…

• Autonomy – ability to exercise professional judgement and make own decisions, and take responsibility for them.

Teachers as Reflective Practitioners

• John Dewey (1933): How We Think. Teachers - not just transmitters of knowledge, but problem-solvers; creative, context-sensitive.

• Don Schon (1983): The Reflective Practitioner.

• Zeichner & Liston (1996): Reflective Teaching: An Introduction.

‘Interactive Reflection’

• B. Kumaravadivelu (2003): Reflection should not be merely introspective, but interactive as well (involving students, colleagues, planners, etc.)

‘Method’ vs. ‘Methodology’

• Method = established methods conceptualised and constructed by experts in the field.

• Methodology = what practising teachers actually do in the classroom in order to achieve their (stated or unstated) teaching objectives.

Some LT Methods(cf. Larsen-Freeman 1986 and Richards & Rodgers 1986)

• Audiolingual Method• Communicative Language Teaching• Community Language Learning• Competency-based Language Teaching• Direct Method• Grammar-Translation Method• Natural Approach• Oral & Situational Language Teaching• Lexical Approach• Silent Way• Suggestopedia• Task-Based Language Teaching• Total Physical Response

The ‘myth’ of method(Kumaravadivelu 2006)

1. ‘There is a ‘best’ method out there ready and waiting to be discovered’.

• ‘While sciences have advanced by approximations in which each new stage results from an improvement, not rejection, of what has gone before, language-teaching methods have followed the pendulum of fashion from one extreme to the other’(Mackey 1965, p.138)

2. ‘Method constitutes the organizing principle for language teaching’.

• ‘By concentrating excessively on method, we have ignored several other factors that govern classroom processes and practices – such as teacher cognition, learner perception, societal needs, cultural contexts, economic imperatives….’ (Kumaravadivelu 2006, p.165)

3. ‘Method has a universal and ahistorical value’.

• Methods tend to be idealised, top-down and ignorant of local conditions and traditions.

4. ‘Theorists conceive knowledge, and teachers consume knowledge’.

• An unfortunate division which has ‘not only minimised any meaningful dialogue between them, but has also contributed to some degree of mutual disrespect’(Kumaravadivelu 2006, p.166)

5. ‘Method is neutral, and has no ideological motivation’.

‘Postmethod’ Pedagogy:some proposals

• Stern’s ‘Three-Dimensional’ framework (1992): (i) the L1-L2 connection, (ii) the code-communication relationship, (iii) the explicit-implicit option. Strategy = ‘intentional action’, Technique = ‘practical action’.

• Allwright’s ‘Exploratory Practice’framework (2003 etc.)

Kumaravadivelu (2003):‘Macrostrategic’ Framework

• Theory-neutral and method-neutral• ‘Macrostrategies’: General plans derived

from currently available theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical knowledge related to L2 learning and teaching; broadguidelines based on which teachers can generate their own location-specific, need-based ‘microstrategies’ or classroom procedures.

10 Macrostrategies

1. Maximise learning opportunities• Teaching as a process of creating

and utilising learning opportunities; teachers as planners and mediators of learning.

2. Facilitate negotiated interaction

• Meaningful learner-learner and learner-teacher interaction, where learners have freedom to actively initiate and navigate talk, not just react and respond to it.

• Textual, interpersonal and ideational functions.

3. Minimise perceptual mismatches

• Cognitive, communicative, linguistic, pedagogic, strategic, cultural, evaluative, procedural, instructional and attitudinal mismatches between teacher’s and learners’ perceptions.

4. Activate intuitive heuristics

• Provide enough language data for learners to discover and inferunderlying rules of form and function for themselves.

5. Foster language awareness • Draw students’ attention to less obvious

properties of L2 to promote learning (where necessary).

6. Contextualise linguistic input• Discourse features need to be

contextualised instead of introduced in isolated and discrete fashion.

7. Integrate language skills

• Language skills are essentially interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The traditional separation of skills is more logistic than logical.

8. Promote learner autonomy• Help learners learn how to learn,

equip them with the necessary cognitive (etc.) strategies, and help them take responsibility for their own learning.

9. Ensure social relevance• Understand learning purpose and

language use in the local social context

10. Raise cultural consciousness• Global cultural consciousness, not

just awareness of L2 culture

Microstrategies

• Classroom procedures that are designed to realise the objectives of a particular macrostrategy, keeping in mind the learners’ needs, wants and lacks, and their current level of language ability. [see examples in Kumaravadivelu 2006, pp.210-213]

References

• Allwright R.L. 2003. ‘Exploratory Practice: Rethinking practitioner research in language teaching’. Language Teaching Research, 7, 113-141.

• Dewey J. 1933. How We Think. Regnery.• Kumaravadivelu B. 2003. Beyond Methods:

Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. Yale University Press.

• Kumaravadivelu B. 2006. Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum.

• Larsen-Freeman D. 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. OUP.

• Mackey W.F. 1965. Language Teaching Analysis. Indiana Univ. Press.

• Richards J.C. & Rodgers T. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. CUP.

• Schon D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. • Stern H.H. 1992. Issues and Options in

Language Teaching. OUP.• Zeichner K.M., & Liston D.P. 1996. Reflective

Teaching: An Introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum.