2. METHOD AND APPROPRIATENESS

63

on the Appropriateness of Language Teaching Methods in Language and Development

Diane Larsen-Freeman

Introduction The topic of this paper is language teaching methodology - and the matter of its appropriateness. A number of writers in our field have criticized language teaching methods during the last decade. Some have noted that the search for the best method is ill-advised (see, for example, Bartolome, 1994). They say that there can be no one best method. Others have maintained that teachers do not think in terms of methods when planning their lessons (for example, Long, 1991). Teachers are much more likely to think in terms of activities. Still others assert that methodological labels tell us little about what really occurs in classrooms (for example, Katz, 1996). It is for this reason, perhaps, that the "methods experiments" of the 1970s failed to detect any significant differences in students' language learning when two such apparently distinct methods as grammar translation and audio-lingualism were compared.

If these criticisms were not serious enough, there has been an additional concern · registered during this past decade, which has attracted a great deal of \attention. It

questions the assumption that a method that is suitable in one part of the world is . appropriate for all parts of the world. Critics worry that teachers are encouraged by textbook publishers, academics or outside experts to implement a method \whether or not the method is culturally appropriate (for example, Pennycook, 1989) Richards, 1990; Holliday, 1994; Sullivan, 1996).

The issue of methodological appropriateness has especially been raised concerning the "transfer" of language teaching methods to a development context. The concern is that since a language teaching method is socially constructed, it must be seen as a product of particular social, cultural, economic, and political forces, which might not transfer well from one context to another. Relevant to this Language and Development Conference is a dissertation by Patricia Noble Sullivan ( 1996) on English language teaching in Vietnam, in which she discusses the implementation of communicative language teaching ( CL T).

As Sullivan notes, it is difficult to define the exact nature of CL T; however, it usually sets as a goal the enabling of learners to develop their communicative competence. The goal is addressed by having learners discuss meaningful personal issues, which have relevance to them. As they discuss the issues, they have ample opportunity to negotiate meaning. The responsibility of the teacher is not so much to present material as it is to facilitate small-group or paired activities in which students have opportunities to interact. The activities themselves often engage the students in communicative tasks such as filling information gaps using authentic materials, meaning materials authentic to native speakers of English (Widdowson, 1998). Often the students have considerable say in which activities they will engage or with whom they will work. Indeed, it is desirable, according to CLT, to strive for a learner-centered classroom in which learners are involved in designing or selecting tasks, thus breaking down the "hierarchic barriers'' that often exists between students and teachers (Nunan, 1989: 20).

65

Even in this brief description of CLT, its ideological underpinnings are apparent Sullivan ( 1996: 13 3-13 7). Calling for learner involvement, allowing learners choices, changing roles assumed by teachers and students, and breaking down hierarchic barriers are value-laden moves. Indeed, even the use of the term "learner" instead of "student" is revealing. "While the term 'student' implies youthfulness and a lack of status and power, the term 'learner' de-emphasizes social status, but stresses the self­made individual since people learn things throughout their lives, not only in classrooms and not only from teachers" (p. 134). Along these lines, it is noteworthy that in CLT, the verb "teach" is often replaced by "facilitate," connoting an activity that de­emphasizes the power of the teacher.

Not only do the terms for roles signal ideological values, the way that the activities are carried out do as well. Instructions for pairwork activities, for instance, often begin with the suggestion that students find a partner with whom to work. The value of "choice" underlies this suggestion, as does the ideal of "equality." Then too, as we have seen, students are often expected to speak about issues that are personally meaningful. The implicit message here is that baring one's personal feelings to classmates is valued and important for language learning. Reinforcing the value of individual expressiveness, 'groupwork' invites individuality in that each group has a task or goal of collaborating in order to produce something that is unique to that group.

It is not hard to understand from this description that although CL T is perceived as progressive and modern in some parts of the world, it is not seen as an appropriate way to teach languages everywhere, since many of its underlying values conflict with those of other cultures. Pennycook (1989) argues against what he sees as a cultural imperialist stance of CLT, citing the "many Western teachers abroad [who] blithely assume the superiority of their methods" (p. 611 ), and pointing out that many non­native English-speaking EFL teachers abroad resent the imposition of native English­speaking "experts." The allegation of cultural imperialism is underscored by Holliday (1994), who writes that learner-centeredness "carries with it a set of perhaps naive ideas which belong to the BANA (British, Australian, North American) professional­academic culture ... learner-centeredness has provided a banner for the moral superiority of the communicative approach" (p. 175).

Such criticisms are not new. Sampson (1984) discusses problems with exporting language teaching methods from Canada to China. Her concerns stem from the fallacious assumption that everything exported from "developed countries" to "developing countries" is superior. She points to the possibility of "technocratic imperialism," the· assumption that intellectual goods, such as teaching methods are value-free and therefore universally appropriate. Sampson points out that both the teacher and the texts are seen as crucial models for learning in the Chinese educational system. Graf ( 1991) adds that in her class in China,. students felt that "pair and group work threatened classroom order and discipline" (p. 368). Li (1998) points to the difficulties in South Korea in adopting CL T and attributes the source of the difficulty to the differences between the underlying educational theories of South Korea and Western countries.

In Vietnam, Sullivan (1996) reports on ethnographic research, which indicates that views of learning ·in Vietnam are not always in accordance with CL T. Ellis (1996) questions the relevance of CL T in English language teaching by Australian teachers in Vietnam. He describes CL T as socially constructed with Western values such as

66

"individualism" (versus what he calls "collectivism" in Vietnam) and, as such, not culturally attuned to Asian conditions.

These allegations must be taken seriously. Indeed, we should all be grateful to these scholars for calling our attention to the possibility that psychic and emotional harm might be inflicted by culturally-insensitive or politically-naive trainers, no matter how well-intentioned. By the same token, we must be careful to be clear about the origin of this potential problem. The reason is that I fear in our attempt to avoid injustice, we may fail to understand the cause of the problem and run the risk of overreacting and losing something valuable in the process. Indeed, one reads much these days of "post­method" teaching (Kumaravadivelu, 1994) and teaching that is "beyond methods."

It seems to me a pity that this is the response. For after all, much good can come from working with language teaching methods, especially those that are contrary to one's established practice, in my opinion. And in attempting to be culturally appropriate, we would not want to contribute to the de-skilling of teachers by deciding a priori that a method is inappropriate to a given context. Indeed, assuming that teachers are helpless victims of ideological imposition and disregarding their agency in the teaching/learning process seems just as much an affront as assuming that new methodologies are superior to traditional ones.

Teachers and teacher educators should not be blinded by the criticisms of methods and thus fail to see their invaluable contribution to teacher education and continuing development. Key to doing so, though, is moving beyond ideology to inquiry - herein lies the reconciliation - a way that we will be able to avoid the inappropriate uses of methods, while benefiting from them at the same time. To elaborate on this position, I will make a case for the seven "i's"- moving from· ideology to inquiry while challenging notions of inclusive generalizations, imposition leading to implementation, intactness, and immutability.

From ideology to inquiry First of all, it must be explicitly acknowledged that language teaching methods do reflect ideological positions. Methods are not just empty vehicles delivering language content. David Sarnoff, founder of the National Broadcast Company in the United States, once declared in a speech that there is nothing wrong with technology. It is how it is used that is at issue. Marshall McLuhan retorted, that, in fact, it is the medium that is the message. It is the case, then, that the media - in our case, language teaching methods - at least partly determine and impose themselves on our thinking and behavior.

However, once this is understood, and the values upon which each method rests are clear, the fact that methods have ideological underpinnings is a strength, in my opinion. For inquiring into their practice by interacting with other ideologies helps keep teachers' teaching alive- helps prevent it from becoming stale and overly routinized (Prabhu, 1990). Indeed, methods serve as a foil for reflection that can aid teachers in bringing to conscious awareness the thinking that underlies their actions and in promoting an important coherence between the two. 5 It is known that teachers have

5 The following discussion about the value of methods is based on Larsen-Freeman (2000). I should a&nowledge right up front the inevitable professional ethnocentrism upon which this discussion is based.

67

well-established preconceptions about teaching even when they first begin to teach (Nespor, 1987; Freeman, 1991; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). When teachers are exposed to methods, especially ones that clash with their experiences and values, and when they are asked to reflect on their principles and actively engage with their techniques, they can become clearer about why they do what they do. This is true in both directions. In other words, any values clarification or transformation that ensues is potentially reciprocal between teachers and methodologists.

By becoming clear on where they stand, teachers can choose to teach differently from the way they were taught. They are able to see why they are attracted to certain methods and repelled by others. Teachers know that they cannot cause learning in their students, but that they still have to make choices to optimize the conditions for their students' learning to take place. With a knowledge of various methods, teachers may be able to make choices that are informed, not conditioned. They may be able to resist, or at least argue against, the imposition of a particular method by authorities or outside experts. In other situations, where a method is not imposed, methods offer teachers alternatives to what they currently think and do. It does not necessarily follow that teachers will choose to modify their current practice. The point is that they will have the understanding to do so, if they are able to, and so choose.

Working with methods helps expand a teacher's repertoire of techniques. This in itself provides an additional avenue for professional growth, as some teachers find their way to new philosophical positions, not by first entertaining new principles underlying a method, but rather by trying out new techniques. Having a large repertoire of best practices presumably helps teachers deal more effectively with the unique qualities and idiosyncrasies of their students.

Thus, methods need not lead to the de-skilling of teachers but rather can serve a variety of useful functions when used appropriately. They can help teachers inquire into, and perhaps transform, their understanding of the teaching/learning process. The result of their inquiry, 'gaining clarity tbout what they believe, gives teachers a basis from which to make decisions about th ir students and their teaching practice, not just to carry on practices shaped by force o habit.

The myth of inclusive generalizations Further, it is a leap of logic to assert that because methodologies rest upon certain values, it therefore follows that they are automatically inappropriate for certain cultural contexts. In teaching, of course, we are not engaged with whole cultures, but with individuals within a culture. We need to reconcile ideas about the influence of culture with a recognition of individual differences. As Littlewood (1999) has observed, such generalizations as all Vietnamese or Japanese value collectivizing over individualizing and collaboration over competition are false. Educators can treat such tendencies as starting points or hypotheses about students' behavior, but such inclusive statements are clearly overgeneralizations.

Holliday ( 1999) makes a similar point when he argues that a "large" culture approach (by large he means ethnic and national entities) results in reductionist overgeneralizations and otherization of "foreign" educators, students, and societies. Thus, one would not want to determine the appropriateness of a particular methodology on the basis of cultural stereotypes. Whether or not a particular

68

pedagogical interaction should be considered appropriate pedagogy must be decided by politically and individually-sensitive local educators themselves.

1 would argue that this is what happens de facto anyway as another myth, to my mind, is the myth that imposition leads to implementation.

The myth that imposition leads to implementation I suppose it is true that particular methods have been imposed on teachers by others. However, these others are likely to be disappointed if they hope that mandating a particular method will lead to standardization. For we know that teaching is more than following a recipe. When implemented, any method is going to be shaped by a teacher's own understanding, beliefs, style, and level of experience. This includes teachers' misunderstandings as well - as the recent research on teachers' understanding of CL T suggests (Thompson, 1996; Sato and Kleinsasser, 1999). In any event, teachers are not mere conveyor belts delivering language through inflexible prescribed and proscribed behaviors (Lim, 1988; Larsen-Freeman, 1991); they are professionals who can, in the best of all worlds, make their own decisions, informed by inquiry into their own values and experience, the findings from research, and the wisdom of practice accumulated by the profession.

Savage (1997) observes that "methodologies emanating from BANA countries are not necessarily being received unquestioned by local teachers" (p. 316). Indeed, looking at the contributions to the book Language and Development: Teachers in a Changing World, edited by Kenny and Savage (and containing papers from a previous Language and Development conference), it is clear that practitioners are working on site, in their social milieu, to implement appropriate methodologies in a critical way. For example, Fortez (1997) began her account of implementing a communicative approach in a tertiary Philippine setting by stating that she adheres to the approach's strong version, and the reflective stance taken in her report demonstrates a commitment both to it and to making it appropriate for her context.

Furthermore, a method is decontextualized. How a method is implemented in the classroom is not only going to be affected by who the teacher is, but also by who the students are and why they are studying English. For example, in a keynote address delivered at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics in Tokyo in August of this year, Warschauer ( 1999) makes the point that "in the 21st century educated citizens will need to use English not only for simple communication, but rather for the kinds of complex negotiation, collaboration, analysis, critique and construction of knowledge required by a [transnational] information economy and society." Indeed, students often know this and this is why when they attend private language institutes, they insist on getting instruction that would be other than the traditional method typical of their context. Thus, while Vietnamese students perhaps prefer to work together rather than engage in small-group work (Kramsch and Sullivan, 1996), whole-class pedagogy may not be ideal for preparing Vietnamese students to develop skills that they will need for their future lives. Thus, to expand upon what I have already written, matters of goals and appropriate methodology must be decided by local educators who are sensitive to their students' needs.

Besides teachers' beliefs and students' needs, there are other factors affecting what goes on in the classroom - what students and the teacher expect to be appropriate social roles, the institutional constraints and demands, the exigencies of everyday

69

classroom life, and factors connected to the wider socio-politico-historico-cultural context in which the instruction takes place. Thus, saying that a particular method has been imposed certainly does not mean that it is implemented the same way everywhere. Closely related to this myth is the myth of intactness.

The myth of intactness One of the reasons that methods have been criticized is that they are falsely assumed to be fully intact formulaic packages for practice. However, this is not the case. A method is a coherent set of links between thoughts (or beliefs) and actions in language teaching. Methods are coherent in the sense that there should be some theoretical or philosophical compatibility among the various thought-action links. To say there is a coherence among the links does not mean, however, that the links cannot be decoupled so that a teacher can make use of some thought-action links while ignoring others. Indeed, many teachers do just this, constructing their own methods by borrowing freely from extant ones. It is not common to find teachers embracing a single method exclusively. This being the case, it is not surprising to find that teachers who claim to be practicing a given method do different things in the classroom.

Of course, a teacher may also simply borrow the techniques of a method, without its accompanying value. When this happens, the technique can become chameleon-like, blending into a teacher's practice and appearing quite different from teacher to teacher, depending on the teacher's beliefs (Stevick, 1993).

The myth of immutability Learning to teach is a developmental process. Skilled teachers do not emerge from teaching preparation programs ready to implement a particular method. They must not only develop their thoughts about teaching, but also their actions or technique. As an example, let me relate an anecdote (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) about a t~acher with whom I was working a few years ago. I will call her Heather, although that is not her real name. From her study of methods in Stevick (1980), Heather became very interested in how to work with teacher control and student initiative in her teaching. Heather determined that during her student teaching internship she would exercise less control of the lesson in order to encourage her students to take more initiative. She decided to narrow the goal down to having students take initiative in posing the questions in the classroom, recognizing that so often it is the teacher who asks all the questions, not the students.

I was. Heather's teaching supervisor. Whet} I came to observe her, she was very discouraged. She felt that the students were not taking the initiative that she was trying to get them to take, but she did not know what was wrong.

When I visited her class, I observed the following:

Heather: Juan, ask Anna what she is wearing.

Juan: What are you wearing?

Anna: I am wearing a dress.

70

Heather: Anna, ask Muriel what she is writing.

Anna: What are you writing?

Muriel: I am writing a letter.

This pattern continued for some time. It was clear to see that Heather had successfully avoided the common ·problem of the teacher asking all the questions in the class. The teacher did not ask the questions - the students did. However, Heather had not realized her aspiration of encouraging student initiative, since it was she that took the initiative by prompting the students to ask the questions. Heather and I discussed the matter in the post-observation conference.

Heather came to see that if she truly wanted students to take more initiative, then she would have to set up the situation in a way that her participation in an activity was not essential. We talked about several ways of her doing this. During this discussion, Heather came to another important awareness.. She realized that since she · was a fairly inexperienced teacher, she felt insecure about having the students make the decisions about who says what to whom when. What if the students were to ask her many questions that she could not answer? While having students take initiative in the classroom was consonant with her values, Heather realized that she should think further about the level of student initiative with which she could be comfortable at this point in her career as a teacher (Larsen-Freeman, 2000: 2).

Methods are not immutable in practice. As teachers gain experience, they come to understand a particular method differently. It is not enough for their understanding to deepen, however. It is also necessary for teachers to develop the ability to manifest their understanding in a manner consistent with their intent. Thus, methods are not something superimposed on teaching. They are instantiated differently, not only due to contextual differences, but also due to the teachers' stage of development (see, for example, Larsen-Freeman, 1998).

Conclusion No educational system should be forced upon anyone; however, being challenged to inquire into one's practice by encountering a method different from one's own can be of immense value. In order for this value to be realized, the ideology underlying a method must be acknowledged, but so must the spurious views on methodology -what I have called the "i" myths: the myths of inclusive generalization, the myth that imposing a method will lead to its implementation, and the false assumptions that methods are fully intact and immutable packages. Decisions about appropriate methodology should be made by local educators, taking their students' needs into account. This will best be accomplished when educators are challenged to inquire into their own practice, paradoxically seeing that while their teaching does not cause learning, they must act as if it does.

71