This issue’s TA column revisits the debate on appropriate teaching methods. The author advocates a post-method framework for English language teachers suited to their cultural preferences. This impassioned presentation of opinions is based on his teaching practicum experiences in Japan as well as in-depth readings for his undergraduate and graduate degrees in TESOL, Japanese, and applied linguistics.
I was first introduced to English Language Teaching (ELT) methodology in 2014 while training to become a teacher at the University of Central Lancashire in a BA TESOL and Japanese Language program. At that time, we focused on the use of communicative methods of language pedagogy, such as present, practice, produce (PPP) and task-based language teaching (TBLT). I implemented these methods, mostly PPP, during my first teaching job in Japan at a language school (eikaiwa). I noticed, however, that the Japanese practitioners at the same company seemed to use more of what I understood to be traditional methods for teaching the English language, such as grammar translation (yakudoku) and audiolingualism. Beaumont and Chang (2011) explored the “common dichotomy that characterizes debate about what has come to be termed appropriate methodology” (p. 291). To delve deeper into ELT methodology and whether communicative methodology should be superseded, I enrolled in an MA TESOL and applied linguistics program and switched my practicum to a private English school (see Figure 1). The methodology in use at the private school seemed to be a blend of all the above-mentioned teaching methods. These experiences prompted me to write this opinion piece in response to the burning question: What will supplant these older methods?
The Post-method Era in ELT
The identification of an appropriate teaching method or the development of a postmethod era in teaching English has become a debatable issue. However, as is commonplace with commenting on the possible end or change to something so well established and long-lasting, there does not seem to be a universal consensus on when and how post-method will come, and the form it will take. Will it be a radical overhaul or replacement of contemporary methodology, through the creation of context-sensitive methodology to match societal norms and expectations of target cultures (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, 2006, 2016)? Will it be making use and adapting already established methodology to better enable learner development (Bell, 2003, 2007; Cushing-Leubner & Bigelow, 2014)? Or will post-method not come to fruition as established methods remain and, at most, are slightly adapted to suit the pedagogical context where they are used (Richards & Rodgers, 2014.; Tomlinson, 2019; Ur, 2013, 2014; Waters, 2012)? Due to how broad this topic is, I shall focus on just two general viewpoints on the post-method spectrum, the view of principled eclecticism (i.e., using and combining elements from different established methodologies) and the need for a methodological revolution for new context-sensitive methodologies.
The View of Principled Eclecticism
If we start by taking Bell’s (2003) view, where he makes the argument that we may already have entered this post-method era by suggesting post-methodology is simply the combination of contemporary methods and those of the last forty years (i.e., traditional, designer methods, etc.) with the label of communicative language teaching (CLT), then we can assume this is simply a natural evolution of current pedagogy as the foundation is built upon already well-established methodology and theory. Indeed, other literature such as Cushing-Leubner and Bigelow (2014), Tomlinson (2019), and Ur (2014) echo Bell’s (2003) thoughts on what could be considered principled eclecticism as the incorporation of various methods to better suit language learning development to varying degrees. This can be said to be already observable within contemporary EFL practice even here in Japan, where I currently teach. Within certain institutions, such as my own, there is the use of elements from multiple methods and approaches, rather than the reliance on a single method as it may limit pedagogy of different aspects of the English language (Prabhu, 1990). For example, many young learner classes are task-based or focus on implicit language learning, yet there is the incorporation of drilling, which is an element from the audiolingual method and so is an explicit form of language learning.
Among advocates for principled eclecticism, there is also the post-method view where current approaches and methods can be strengthened or weakened to better suit pedagogical contexts. CLT, for instance, can take the form of weaker CLT which incorporates elements from different methods into pedagogy but still maintains the original overall methodology (in this case a CLT method) as the framework for lesson design (Loumbourdi, 2018). In brief, usage of single unaltered methods could oversimplify and conventionalise classroom pedagogy, leading to inflexibility and stagnation of language teaching development. However, making use of principled eclecticism, which coincides with Bell’s (2003) conceptual view on post-methodology, as well as Loumbourdi’s view of varying strengths of contemporary methodology, provide opportunities “to pick and choose elements of multiple methods to increase student engagement, language use, and communicative capacity” (Cushing-Leubner & Bigelow, 2014, p. 248). In summary, using methods and methodological elements from various sources based on the teacher’s judgement and knowledge is necessary, as it allows the post-method teacher to make pedagogical decisions autonomously for specific educational contexts for the benefit of language learners (Kumaravadivelu, 2001).
The Need for a Methodological Revolution
Bell’s (2007) concept of post-method though principled eclecticism, and Loumbourdi’s (2018) suggestion of weak and strong forms of established approaches or methods, are not accepted universally amongst all their peers. This is because they may not be radical enough to be considered as post-method. Post-method conceptualisation could be viewed differently if we were to view contemporary methods and approaches in a more representative way for the native EFL pedagogical contexts in which they are used. In other words, post-method is considered by some to be the extent in which contemporary or designer methods are unrepresentative of culture and context, and a true post-method era is when new and appropriate methodology emerges (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). This view exists due to many, if not all, of the contemporary and designer methods, if not all, having been developed within native English-speaking countries such as Britain, America, New Zealand, and Australia (BANA) with native English-speaking teachers in mind and exported to non-native speaking countries (Holliday, 1997). Thus, these methods can be argued to be culturally insensitive for many EFL teachers whose contexts and society differ to those of BANA, including Japan, which has its own cultural beliefs on education, especially on language education from a classical humanistic standpoint (Crookes, 2010; Littlewood, 2000). Kumaravadivelu (2001, 2006, 2016), therefore, advocates radical reform of current methodology and developed a principle of particularity to respond to the need for context sensitive pedagogy to achieve a post-method framework.
What Post-method Means for ELT in Japan and Asia
If we consider CLT to be the current standard for language teaching, the basis for this approach and the methods it encompasses, assumes language learning should be communicative and this is determined by communicative competence (Canale & Swain, 1980; Celce-Murcia, 2008; Loumbourdi, 2018). If we also assume Japan falls into the category of Confucian heritage cultures (CHCs) as defined by Beaumont and Chang (2011, p. 291), then Japan and much of Asia’s view of language teaching seemingly goes against CLT in favour of vigorous study, dedication to memorisation of grammar and vocabulary, (non-communicative) repetitive practice, and even silence in the classroom (Crookes, 2010; Harumi, 2011; Nishino & Watanabe, 2008; Sakui, 2004). This would seem to suggest non-native English language teachers need to move away from their educational norm of language teaching to a foreign one that does not fit with their cultural beliefs, and so would not achieve a post-method framework suited to English language teachers who are Japanese.
The Way Forward
I suggest that we may need to ask ourselves whether Japanese or other non-native language teachers should find ways to reconcile the principles of CLT with their own cultural expectations. Otherwise, we could do away with those principles to foster methods that are more culturally representative and appropriate for the target pedagogical context. The former has arguably been occurring for the last few decades, the latter could be the future of ELT. Principled eclecticism is perhaps the way forward to a true post-method era.
References
Beaumont, M., & Chang, K.-S. (2011). Challenging the traditional/communicative dichotomy. ELT Journal, 65(3), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq091
Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588507
Bell, D. M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61(2), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm006
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Celce-Murcia, M. (2008). Rethinking the role of communicative competence in language teaching. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordà (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 41–57). Springer.
Crookes, G. (2010). Language teachers’ philosophies of teaching: Bases for development and possible lines of investigation. In Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(12), 1126–1136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00258.x
Cushing-Leubner, J., & Bigelow, M. (2014). Principled eclecticism and the holistic approach to language teaching and learning. In S. Çelik (Ed.), Approaches and principles in English as a foreign language (EFL) education (pp. 254–263). Egiten.
Harumi, S. (2011). Classroom silence: Voices from Japanese EFL learners. ELT Journal, 65(3), 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq046
Holliday, A. (1997). The politics of participation in international English language education. System, 25(3), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00032-8
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3588427
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264511
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2016). The decolonial option in English teaching: Can the subaltern act? TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.202
Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.1.31
Loumbourdi, L. (2018). Communicative language teaching (CLT). In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–6). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0167
Nishino, T., & Watanabe, M. (2008). Communication-oriented policies versus classroom realities in Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00214.x
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586897
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.2.155
Tomlinson, B. (2019). Blended learning: The future of ELT? In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0941.pub2
Ur, P. (2013). Language-teaching method revisited. ELT Journal, 67(4), 468–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct041
Ur, P. (2014). Where do we go from here? Method and pedagogy in language teaching. ExELL, 2(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1515/exell-2016-0001
Waters, A. (2012). Trends and issues in ELT methods and methodology. ELT Journal, 66(4), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccs038