ENGLISH TEACHING METHODS HAVE CHANGED, SO HAVE YOU?

There is a long history in the development of teaching methods of English as a foreign language (TEFL). It moves from the classic Grammar Translation Method, Audio-Lingual Method, Total Physical Response, Direct Method, and so on until the more recent ones: Task-Based Language Teaching, Content-Based Language Teaching, Communicative Language Teaching, and Project-Based among others. The latest boom in TEFL is the Post-method pedagogy proposed by Kumaravadivelu (2006) in which he proposes that teachers create their own teaching method from three key dimensions: theoretical, empirical and experiential knowledge. From this standpoint, we - as English language teachers - are responsible for our own teaching method and at the same time we act as evaluators, critical thinkers, generators of new theory, observes, and practitioners.

 Please reflect and participate in this blog by expressing your opinion on any of these questions:

• How has my teaching experience (with or without a method) evolved?

• We talk about innovation in the TEFL. So, why do we still continue teaching grammar in our English classes?

• Are we enabling our students, from our area of expertise, to be functional in society?

• The methods of TEFL have changed,  have you?

 

TOWARDS A POST- METHOD PEDAGOY

(Alberto Ramírez Avendaño)

(Published in: Voces y Visos. Año 8 – No. 14. Faculty of Education Science – School of Languages. UPTC – Tunja. June 2012. ISSN 2017 – 0283. P.7.)

INTRODUCTION

English teaching has gained remarkable importance in Colombian education. The main reason is because of the globalization phenomenon that the world is going through at this very moment (2012). Business, travel, education, science, technology, and new communication methods are bringing cultures together, and all this is happening thanks to one language that is making it possible: English.

In Colombia, the Ministry of Education adopted the National Bilingualism Program in 2004 in response to the globalization phenomenon, so that future generations would be able to communicate efficiently in English. By doing so, Colombian citizens will have more opportunities to participate actively in a globalized world.

In order to achieve the goals proposed by the National Bilingualism Program, there is an emergent need for the training of in-service and pre-service teachers on better and more effective methodologies to teach English. Since I have been working with pre-service teachers in the last couple of years, my focus of this reflective article is especially related to pre-service teachers.  Although, the real changes in future English teachers’ methodologies rely strongly on pre-service teachers’ reflections and on how they are trained to become effective teachers. However, I also try in this reflective article to establish the relationship between English teaching methods and the post-method pedagogy.

BACKGROUND

Students of undergraduate programs in foreign language teaching take different subjects during their professionalization such as Pedagogical Projects, Communicative Projects, Linguistics, and the core subjects of their programs: Didactics and Practices.  Once they have taken the basic courses, these students start putting their knowledge of the foreign languages and their initial teaching skills into practice by micro-teaching classes, which is their first step as teachers. Then, those students (who from now on will be referred to as pre-service teachers) have the opportunity to reflect on their future profession, based on the teaching practices that they carry out when they go to schools as part of their required coursework for Didactics (I and II) and Practicum I, and the final Pedagogical and Research Practicum.

Since I have worked as a university practicum advisor for the last four semesters, I have noticed that pre-service teachers try to put into practice all the recommendations from their Didactics and Practicum professors based on the necessity of having theoretical foundations on teaching methods which they would use in their classes. In the selection of a teaching method, there are several factors inside the classroom that are obstacles in the implementation of the method of their choice, for example, the size of the class (35 – 45 students in one class), the low level of English in upper grades, the low motivation, the lack of teaching resources, etc. Those factors generate some reflections that push pre-service teachers to make new decisions and make adjustments to the method that they initially intended to implement.

A QUICK LOOK AT METHOD

Since one of the strongest themes for this reflective article is related to method, let’s have a quick look at the definition of method, adapted from several authors and sources:

A method is an organized procedure or process of doing something. In the specific field of teaching, method is the practical part of teaching which can take place in different settings and contexts. A method implies the use of specific principles and activities that make the method unique and different from other methods.

Kumaravadivelu (1994) stated that “a method consists of a single set of theoretical principles derived from feeder disciplines and a single set of classroom procedures directed at classroom teachers.” He also analyzed that “conventional methods” can be seen from three dimensions: a. scholastic dimension, in which there is a special emphasis on Western knowledge with little attention to local knowledge. b. linguistic dimension, when both learners and teachers are encouraged to use English in the classroom at all times. c. cultural dimension, which includes a constant emphasis on promoting the culture of English speaking countries.

It has always been recommended that teachers should follow a specific teaching method, but there are some constraints that teachers have to face. For example, Kumaravadivelu (2003) notes: “classroom-oriented studies carried out in the last two decades show that teachers could not be successful in putting the methods into practice in real classroom situations.” This statement does not mean that teachers using a specific method are not successful. The author explains that research studies indicate that teachers who “apparently” follow a specific teaching method do not always practice its principles and procedures, but rather they end up doing miscellaneous activities that on many occasions are not related to any method.

THE METHODS IN A NUTSHELL

There is a long history in the development of teaching methods of English as a foreign language (TEFL). All those methods have something in common: a search for more useful and effective ways of teaching English as a foreign language. The wide range of methods move from the classic Grammar Translation Method (GTM), which was used for several centuries to teach English, to the period between the 1950’s and 1980’s when other methods were born, such as the Audio-Lingual Method (ALM) in the United States and Situational Language Teaching in the United Kingdom. By the 1980’s, other alternatives were offered for language teachers: Silent Way, Community Language Learning (CLL), Suggestopedia, and Total Physical Response (TPR). In response to the inefficiencies of these methods, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) proposed a new approach to the teaching of languages by presenting principles such as the use of authentic and meaningful communicative activities, the integration of several language skills, and language for communicative purposes, among others. This new vision of language learning gave origin to other methods like Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT), Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT), the Natural Approach, and Cooperative Language Learning.

Teachers and pre-service teachers have always been told by their professors and language specialists to get informed about English language teaching methods, analyze, practice, and compare a teaching method with others so that they can adopt the one that best fits the needs of their students and their learning context. In relation to this matter, Richards and Rodgers (2001) describe what they have perceived about methods: “Effective English teaching is thought to be about using a method by applying its prescribed principles and techniques.” In our particular case, pre-service teachers are currently being instructed and trained on the use of any teaching method because that idea of an “eclectic” or “miscellaneous” method was not advisable. A teacher needed to identify him/herself with one specific method. Although there could be moments during the class when a teacher might borrow a specific activity from another method, for example the use of TPR for the class warm-up activity, overall, there should always be a method that identifies that teacher.

Richards and Rogers (2001) believe that methods marginalize the role of teachers because they encapsulate them allowing no chance for personal judgment. Also, students become “passive learners” of the method, and, in the end, teachers have to adjust to the procedures that the method dictates.

WHAT IS THE POST-METHOD PEDAGOGY?

Teachers create and reinvent their teaching practices on a daily basis, and, when this occurs, teachers bring to life what Kumaravadivelu (2006) calls post-method pedagogy, which is not actually a method. This pedagogy leads pre-service teachers to generate new ideas of growth as future professionals by discussing, reflecting, and questioning the existing teaching methods and the post-method pedagogy.

The idea of post-method pedagogy is for teachers to create and develop their own methods, constructed through the interaction among teachers, knowledge of the language, other methods and approaches, and interaction with learners. The new methods that teachers generate reflect on teachers’ beliefs, values and experiences (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In other words, a post-method is defined as the construction of classroom procedures and principles by the teacher based on his/her prior and experiential knowledge and/or certain strategies used in the classroom.

Under the post-method theory, Kumaravadivelu (2003) enunciates three parameters that teachers need to consider when constructing their teaching “method:” particularity, practicality, and possibility. Particularity refers to how “post method pedagogy must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular sociocultural milieu” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003. p. 171). Practicality is related to the potential that a method has to be applicable because a theory in language teaching that cannot be practiced would be totally useless (Khadi, n.d.). And finally, possibility has to do with the chances that the method may have to exist culturally and politically.

REFLECTIVE TEACHING

Possibilities of growth can occur only when teachers have the capacity to reflect on their teaching process. Pre-service teachers, as novice teachers, have shown that they are eager to make changes in “traditional teaching,” because their fresh knowledge and interest in improving teaching gives them reasons to criticize, based on their classroom observations and assistantships, and reflect on how in-service teachers do certain things in their classes.

Reflective teaching is a crucial exercise at any stage of the career, from beginners (pre-service teachers) to more experienced teachers, because “reflective teaching can have a very strong impact on professional development” (Schön 1983, Baird 1992). Only when a professional is able to reflect about his/her job can he/she improve and strengthen weak areas of the profession and, therefore, his/her confidence level. Weiss and Weiss (2001) see reflective thinking as “a special way of thinking about action and experience and as a process of cognitive inquiry.”  Gelter (2003) stated that reflective teaching emerges when something goes wrong or fails in the classroom. Although reflective teaching should be encouraged from the early stages of the teaching profession and without hesitation, pre-service teachers are the ones exercising reflective teaching on a frequent basis. Fortunately, that reflection is possible when pre-service teachers and school mentors or pre-service teachers and university advisors sit together to analyze what is working and what is not, as well as how their teaching can be improved. If pre-service teachers are oriented in how to think reflectively, they are more likely to be successful in their teaching careers.

WHAT IS NEXT?

Since Kumaravadivelu proposes post-method pedagogy not as a method but as an “alternative to method.” Post-method pedagogy puts the teacher at the center of language learning/teaching and values his/her beliefs, experiences and knowledge.

I am sure that by combining these two key concepts: post-method pedagogy and reflective teaching, teachers have strong possibilities to make substantial changes in education. We all know that teaching is not an easy task. Teachers need to continue working hard on their own English language learning, getting to know their students, keeping up-to-date with teaching technologies, developing a collaborative work style with other teachers, and, mainly, reflecting on how their own teaching method is working and how it can be optimized.

Note: If you are interested in discussing this article please participate in my blog: http://www.alravenforenglish.blogspot.com/

REFERENCES

Baird R. J. (1992). ‘Collaborative Reflection, Systematic Inquiry, Better Teaching’ in T. Russell and H. Hunby, Teachers and Teaching: From Classroom to Reflection London: The Palmer Press.

Gelter, H. (2003). ‘Why is Reflective Thinking Uncommon.’ Reflective Practice 4/3: 337-344.

Khaki, N. (n.d.). The Post-method Pedagogy [On-line]. Available: http://teachenglish.persianblog.ir/1385/5/  Retrieved on May 31^st 2012.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The Postmethod Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Forum: Critical Language Pedagogy: A Postmethod Perspective on English Language Teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: from Method to Postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Mahdavi-zafarghandi, A. (n.d.). A survey of post-method

Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, M.E. and S. Weiss (2001). ‘Creating a Context that Supports Reflective Supervision.’ Reflective Practice 2/2: 125-154.

  *Bonus: Check out this interview with B. Kumaravadivelu, in either Spanish or English.


 http://marcoele.com/entrevista-kumaravadivelu/