During the period between the 1880s and 1980s, the language teaching profession was in a kind of a “quest“ for a method that would successfully teach students a foreign language. However, the outcome of this process was a succession of methods, each of which was subsequently discarded, more or less, in a continued hunt for a better method. We can see it like an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth of the methods that Markwardt (1972: 5) metaphorically calls „the time of changing winds and shifting sands“. Sterm (1985: 251) called this vain search for the ultimate method that would serve as the final answer „century called obsession“ or „ prolonged preoccupation (with methods) that has been increasingly unproductive and misguided“.
Ironically, the whole concept of separate methods is no longer a central issue in language teaching practice as there has been some time we have stepped into the post method era that has brought new challenges as well as new opportunities for the profession to venture beyond the methods (Kumaravadively, 2006). Which idea that you agree with? How do you see the fruitful period that yielded numerous techniques based on specific methods, that can be engaged in the process of language teaching? Do you feel comfortable with the new challenges and opportunities that the post method time has brought us or are you stuck in the past? What do you expect to come or to come back?
My stand is similar to the one that Richards & Renandya (2002: 161) imposed and it is that “in at least a foreseeable future, the invention of a truly novel method, fundamentally different from the already existing ones is not so likely to happen.” This, however, does not mean that the profession has reached a dead end, rather it means that the profession has completed another phase, setting the sails into new „uncharted waters“. What has brought the profession to reach the state of feeling comfortable with entering this zone? Probably the limiting features of the method concept that lead to the heightened awareness is called „the post method condition”. To fully understand why the methods are no longer the milestone of our language teaching journey, it is wise to explore the meaning of the word „method“ as well as its limits that eventually stopped the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.
What comes to your mind when you think about the word “method”? Is it a picture, an allegory, a symbol? In my mind, I envision a path, or a couple of paths…like follow this one it will lead you to the place where you want to go, in this case, helping students to master a foreign language. If we picture it in that way, it tells us where to go and how to reach the goal as in going straight over that hill, then cross the bridge, catch bus 92 and stop at the yellow building, enter the side green door and take the steps on the left that would take you to the fifth floor where a man with a gift-wrapped box will be waiting for you. Can you imagine it? J Let’s compare this allegory with a couple of definitions and let us explore the origin of the words:
Greek word methodos- “includes the idea of a series of steps leading towards a conceived goal” ( Routledge Encyclopedia of Language Teaching and Learning (2000: 616)
“ a planned way of doing something” (p. 617)
In the context of language teaching: ” a method implies an orderly way of going about something, a certain degree of advanced planning and control, then; also, a process rather than a product” (617)
“an overall plan for systematic presentations of language based on a selected approach. It followed that techniques were specific classroom activities consistent with the method, and therefore in harmony with an approach as well (Edward Anthony, 1963)
“Method is a set of theoretically unified classroom techniques thought to be generalizable across a wide variety of contexts and audiences (H. Douglas Brown..)
If we go back and consider our path allegory we can perceive the method path as the main road in the picture. However, nobody says that we cannot take some other route: through the bushes, houses, over the buildings, under the buildings, by bicycle, on foot, virtually travelling in the online world, etc.
These alternative realities or possibilities were, I assume, the main stepping stone of the perfect method concept, one road for everybody. This was just one of the limits. As time was passing the profession became aware of many others:
Methods are prescriptive. The role of the individual teacher is minimized as they have to apply the method and adapt their teaching style compatible with the method. (Brown)
One-size fits all, cookie-cutter approach that assumes a common clientele with common goals (Kumaravadivelu, 2003:28)
Methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts (Kumaravadivelu, 2003: 28).
Methods fail to address the broader contexts of teaching and learning and focus on only one small part of more complex elements. (Brown)
What appears to be a radically new method is more often a variant of the existing method presented with “the fresh paint that camouflages their fundamental similarities.” Rivers (1991: 283)
The concept of the method is too inadequate and too limited to satisfactory explain the complexity of language teaching (Kumaravadivelu, 2003:29)
The picture that dominates my mind during this process of the method is the picture of the cookie-cutter. If we accompany it with the picture of the defining path we see the metaphor of let’s say one “closed” system, nicely defined, ready-made but still rigid.
Listing all these limits and shortcomings of the method era, and method concepts the first thing that comes to my mind is how people “bought” it. They truly believed and lived all these methods, admired them, followed them, and rarely questioned them. I can imagine all these methods as separate entities, prototype teachers who demonstrate them (as in this online course https://www.coursera.org/learn/language-theories), and truly believe in them and students who feel that energy and follow their flow and learn. Teacher and students kept “buying” them, one after another and made a depot of various techniques and activities.
So should we in the end be thankful to have all these methods and their techniques? I truly believe we should. All of them gave something that has outlived the time when the method was active and gave one piece of a puzzle that we can combine with some other elements from other methods making our classroom combination. This way of thinking leads us into post method condition and to new awareness and teacher’s autonomy and consequently to new problems, ponderings, and challenges. It is not surprising that a replacement for the term method appeared, or we can say, a new perspective on the word “method”: Brown’s view of the method as it leads to to a different broaden concept of teaching and learning. He suggests replacing the term method with the term pedagogy explaining that the former implies a strict set of procedures, while the latter suggests the dynamic interplay between teachers, learners, and instructional material during the process of teaching and learning.
Thinking about key words that can define the concept of teaching based on a specific method these are the words that I see as the ones that fit this purpose:
#limited # idealized # perscriptive #fruitful # inspirational
# without autonomy # declerative # orderedly # planned # not flexible #ready-made #closed
As you can notice I have not taken the stand of positive or negative but have taken all its features into account and remained neutral. The features that arise most are limited, ready-made, and closed and they all define its final state of not changing. All together with these go prescriptive and declarative that further point out prescriptive, orderly, and planned define the domain of steps that are set as expected. As such, methods are not flexible and do not allow the teacher a lot of autonomy. Practiced as such, it requires idealized conditions and students. Yet, why do we have fruitful and inspirational features? Every method yielded many techniques and activities that are still highly useful, but not in idealized, ready-made, prescripted conditions, but carefully chosen according to the students’ needs and specific teaching situation.
This is something this blog is going to explore immensely.
Bibliography
Kumaravadively, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher.
Richards, C. J., & Renandya, A. W. (2002). Methodology in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
Rivers, W. M. (1991). Mental representations and language in actions. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 47, 249-265.
