Methods Are Still Breathing
Ali Shahriari, Iran
Ali Shahriari holds an MA in TEFL. His field of interest is second language learning. He graduated from Chamran University in Ahvaz, Iran. He teaches English in Iranian high schools. E-mail: Shahriari_eteacher@yahoo.com
Menu
Introduction
Post-method principles
Learner’s autonomy
Learning how to learn
Is method dead?
Concluding remarks
References
In this article, I try to define and explain some main characteristics of a post-method classroom and what post method classes share with method-based classes. I’m not suggesting that the features discussed in this short article are the only things applicable in a post-method EFL classes. But these are what some teachers have done so far in their EFL classes. Since years ago some methods have waxed and waned and some are still used by English teachers all over the world. In post method, as Kumaravadivelu (2006) puts it, we recognize that methods have had some limitations which were the reason why they were replaced by post method principles. In the following paragraphs such limitations are touched upon and we also try to briefly discuss the idea of “death of method”. Finally, I try to convince readers that in post method era, methods are still breathing and it is chaotic to call them dead.
First of all, the proponents of the idea of post method claim that there is no best way out there to be used by teachers, hence solving all problems an English teacher may encounter. However, every teacher agrees that the class environment and its atmosphere determine whatever the teacher does there. Therefore one cannot definitely prescribe what and how of the process of language teaching. Second, for some decades teachers thought that methods must be used as organizing principles for language learning and teaching, hence ignoring the many other factors such as social, cultural needs and political, economic imperatives affecting the process of language learning and teaching. Therefore, in post method we do not limit the teacher to some predetermined roles to be played by the teacher. This is mainly the teacher who decides what to apply and not to apply in the English classes.
Third, it was permanently thought that the teacher is consumer of the products produced by the researchers. In other words, the teacher could not act independently with regard to syllabus and performing it in their classes. In post method we claim that every experience teacher knows that methods are not based on a real classroom environment. They are something ideal and sometimes very far from a real class situation. Nevertheless, I must hasten to say that every teaching method has an underlying language and also a learning theory which makes one method different from the other. Kumaravadivelu (Ibid.) claims that teachers claiming to use a particular method do not follow the theoretical principles and despite claiming to follow a different method, most of them follow the same procedures. All in all, they agree with the idea that no single method can be prescribed in order that they can deal with challenges come up in their classes and they themselves decide what works and what does not. They try to derive a method of their own and call it eclectic method. One might think that in eclectic method s/he could randomly use whatever technique comes to hand. But it is not true and whatever a post method teacher wants to follow in language classroom must be oriented toward the following principles which are attainable through combination of theory and practice. Therefore the eclecticists are not going to do without theory. Dealing with all dimensions of the post method is beyond the scope of this article. Learner autonomy is operationalized in the following section.
In the past the relationship between the teacher and the learner was similar to that of a jug and mug, meaning that the teacher is regarded as a jug pouring the data in to the learner’s mind, say the mug. In other words the teacher was an in informed person who had to bear all the difficulties and complications of language teaching and learning would have been belittled. But nowadays you can find a plethora of approaches to help learners become involved in language learning and hence becoming autonomous and some how independent of the teacher.
In post method the teacher tries to help the leaner learn how to learn. The teacher does not give the learner a fish but teaches the learner how to do fishing, instead. In reading comprehension, for instance, we may tell that the meaning of some of new words could be guessed by resorting to the preceding and following sentence and that they can get help from the context. You may still find novice teachers who act as a live dictionary and give the learner the L1 equivalent as soon as a learner faces with a new word item in a passage and free the learner’s mind from the least burden. An experienced teacher, on the other hand, may teach the learner how to use a monolingual dictionary to find not only the meaning of the new word but also an abundance of information available in the dictionary. Before long, the learner learns a lot of new vocabulary items and different contexts in which they have been used. Group work could be another strategy used in language classes. There are some learners who learn better from their peers than the teacher. An English teacher can explain the intricacies of different tasks to the more proficient learners and ask them to clarify them to the low proficient learners. Brown (2000: 122) defines strategies as moment by moment techniques that we employ to solve problems posed by second language input and output. Those strategies involved in processing, storage and retrieval which are used to “take in” messages from others are related to input and those applied to deliver messages to others people are communication strategies. What we English teachers can do is familiarize them with different strategies and help them self direct their own learning. In the final paragraphs we try to discuss and find answer to a thorny question about method and post method. The question is this: IS METHOD DEAD?
Nunan and Kumaravadivelu have tried to convince us that the method is dead and it is no more alive. If by the word “DEAD” they want to tell the readers that the word “method” itself has been replaced by eclecticism and post method era, one could accept the idea and a plethora of articles will support their view point. However, if they mean to say that the method and all the efforts around them were senseless and post method is something completely new and it follows a fundamentally different path to language learning and teaching, it is too biased to be accepted by those who have a chance to review the methods discussed in the literature. Post method and eclecticism have the advantages of the previous methods and try to do without their disadvantages. An example might help us understand the issue. When, for instance, one talks about the learners’ self confidence and their autonomy, no doubt Suggestopaedia and its underlying principles will come to mind. In Suggestopaedia the teacher tries to reduce psychological barriers so as to accelerate language learning.
Another example rejecting the idea that method is dead, might be subordinating teaching to learning advocated by Gattegno’s silent way. In silent way the teacher’s silence is a technique used to help the learners do the learning themselves, hence a movement toward autonomy. Unless s/he wants to solve a problem, the teacher keeps silent. Therefore learners’ autonomy was, though not claimed explicitly, advocated by Gattegno (Larsen Freeman, 1986) and silent way shares the idea of learner’s autonomy with post method.
The last but by no means the least is that one cannot claim that the methods were basically the same and that their difference was trivial. One main dimension of change in methods, I think, was ignored by those claiming this. Language change is not only change in class procedures and techniques, but the way they look at learner as a human being and also the way they treat his feelings and abilities. This approach toward the learner could be the main reason for fluctuation in methods and language classes under their umbrella. Having a short glance of teaching methods from Grammar Translation Method and Audio-lingual method in mid 20th century to communicative Language Teaching, one can fairly judge that we have moved a long way to understand the learners’ needs and their feelings. The learners’ errors are not regarded as sins anymore. On the contrary they are part and parcel of learning. More than that, they are human beings. We have to help them understand their weaknesses and their strengths. They learn the strategies. The most interesting point worth mentioning is that they have choices to choose from. We are moving toward liberty.
We live with good soul of different methods. Learners and teachers are respected reciprocally. Learners learn how to learn and what they need to learn and their learning is not limited to classroom walls and desks. Teacher isn’t the authority in the class, to put it another way, he isn’t the jug and the learner isn’t a mug either. In post method the teacher is a guide and cooperator in the class. S/he teaches the strategies and tries to help learners learn how to learn. The learner takes the responsibility of learning by getting help from learning and communicative strategies. Teacher is not a dictionary, nor is he problem solver but a help and a guide to problem solving. In post method classroom the teacher borrows the advantages from different methods to have an autonomous learner and approach whatever makes one a whole person. Thinking, having choices to choose from, cooperating, helping and getting help, feeling freedom with regard to theories and also principles, making mistakes on the part of the learners and trying to ameliorate their performance, are but a few characteristics of post method classes that make one a whole person. Methods are not dead. They are still breathing and their good soul has blossomed in a new body, namely post method.
Brown, H.D., 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th Ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2006. Understanding Language Teaching: from Method to Post method. New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, inc.
Larsen Freeman, D., 1986. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the How the Motivate your Students course at Pilgrims website.
Please check the Building Positive Group Dynamics course at Pilgrims website.
|
