There Is No Best Method

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
(TESOL)
There Is No Best Method-Why? Author(s): N. S. Prabhu Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Summer, 1990), pp. 161-176 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586897 . Accessed: 29/11/2013 15:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Fri, 29 Nov 2013 15:35:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Vol.24, No.2, Summer TESOL QUARTERLY, 1990
Is No BestMethod-Why There ?
N. S. PRABHU
National ofSingapore University
of a statement, Thispaperexamines thepossiblesubstance often inthediscussion oflanguage heardbutrarely teaching, explained, Threepossibleexplanations that is no bestmethod. there namely, ofthestatement arediscussed, based on a broadinterpretation of theterm methods are bestfor different different method: (a) that are partially trueorvalid; contexts; teaching (b) thatall methods and (c) that the notionof good and bad methodsis itself twoexplanations The first areshownto be unhelpful; misguided. the third in some detail,withan exploration is discussed of the teachers' senseofplausibility. concept, It is uncommonthese days to have a sustaineddiscussionon language teachingwithoutsomeone at some point declaringthatthere is no best method,or words to thateffect. Such a declarationusually occurs at a late stage in an indecisive debate about different of altering the orientation of the methods,and has thegeneraleffect debate itself,somewhat abruptly. It also carries the ring of an incontrovertible statement-or a statement so tolerant and in spiritthat to dispute it would be professionally reconciliatory churlish. As a result, one rarelysees a detailed examination of what it mightmean to say thatthereis no best method. I think it helpfulto see thestatement as havingan illocutionary as well as a propositionalmeaning.As an illocutionary act, it seeks to terminatea debate withoutreaching any substantiveconclusion, and it does so not by admittingdefeat in the effortto reach a conclusion,but by appearing to raise the debate itselfto a higher face all round.It suggestsnot level, thushelpingto save professional of different methodsagree to disagree,but that justthatproponents as being theygive up theirpursuitof agreementand disagreement It manages to reconcileconflicting views by defining unproductive. a positionto which all can honourablysubscribe,and by striking a philosophical note on which enlighteneddiscussion can properly end. It is thusa convenientdevice forlegitimizing nonresolution of methodologicalissues.
161
The propositional content of thestatement, on theother hand, callsfora greatdeal of clarification in terms and substantiation, of thesensein whicha methodcan be considered the reason good, thanothers, can be thought or shownto be better whyno method the consequenceof thatpositionforthe theory and practiceof it demands of theassumptions therevaluation pedagogy, currently in and debate and theforms conflict between methods, underlying which debate or discussionmay stillbe of use fromthe new of a What is involvedis not just the termination perspective. of the but the a new one-or rather discussion, beginning beginning as a positive ofa newphaseinthediscussion, outcome oftheearlier of the statement thatis the content phase. It is thispropositional in I can of this to the sense which there concern paper; hope clarify oflanguage be said to be no bestmethod teaching. I use the term a word about thetermmethod. First, however, outinthe both to carried to a set of activities be to refer inclusively, or classroomand to the theory, belief, plausible concept that The readerwill thusfindone or both of informs thoseactivities. these aspects the focus of particular parts of the discussion.I to of this consider "global" interpretation the termappropriate in that is a statement equallyglobal spirit. analysing thatcan be threegenerallinesof argument There are, I think, to be discussed.These are of the statement advanced in support in turn. examined CONTEXT IT ALL DEPENDSON THE TEACHING
areasked that there isnobestmethod Ifthose whodeclare why, it is likely tobe "Because andfrequent answer immediate themost on whomthe thatwhatis bestdepends all depends," meaning andso on. inwhat what for is for, method circumstances, purpose, method that nosingle means method isnobest therefore That there inthe variations as there areimportant isbest for teaching everyone, are of several whatis best.The variations that influence context
kinds, relatingto social situation(language policy, language
economicand and cultural attitudes, environment, linguistic (instructional factors, organisation etc.), educational ideological
of time and resources,administrative objectives, constraints
such tocategorize attempts learning, etc.).Therehavebeenseveral
factors teacher-related classroom ethos, class-size, etc.), efficiency, skill, belief, etc.),and learner-related autonomy, (status, training, to attitudes factors learning experience, previous (age,aspirations,
above showsthat and random they listing 1984),buteventhebrief
162 TESOL QUARTERLY
and comprehensively variables (e.g.,see Brumfit, systematically
system, as against private language instruction, or to relative

THERE IS NO BEST METHOD-WHY? 163
are at different as well as of discreteness levelsof generality, and recent work in field and current seems the to Moreover, tangibility. be addingnew factors and categories to theinventory, in theform of varied learning styles,communication strategies, personality and withslightly earlier factors, psychological processes. Together workon variations in learners' thisseemsto needs and purposes, on suchdimensions that is infinite, thusstrongly suggest variability that the notion method be good for can challenging any given "It all it and what on is a vastnumber everyone. depends," depends ofthings. thatto say thatno singlemethodis best for Notice,however, is also to different methods are bestfordifferent everyone saythat for different contexts. This people-or teaching impliesthat,for there is infact a method isbestand, that context, anysingle teaching to we are able it is. If determine what we are unclear or in further, about what methodis best fora specificcontext, disagreement there is need for discussion, between debate, and interaction we shouldbe seeking to further differing perceptions; pedagogic debaterather thanto terminate it witha face-saving formula. It is thatstatements like"Thereis no perhapsnotwithout significance bestmethod" are made mostoften as defensive postures-asways of sayingnot onlythatone does not agree withwhat is being butthat one refuses to engageanyfurther in theargument. argued, Suchstatements succeedinpreserving theconversational peace,but cause a loss of theproductive of professional debate.For potential suchstatements to act as a contribution to debate,we willneed to them as proposing of thescope to some interpret onlya narrowing so thatdependencies betweencontextual context, singleteaching variablesand methodological be explored, and a optionsmight searchforthebestmethod be continued withgreater focus. might The statement thatthereis no best methodwould thenbe an notof thefutility of looking forthebestmethod, but of assertion, the desirability of askingwhat methodis best forsome specific would serve not as a means of context;contextual variability butas a possiblenew approachto avoiding issues, methodological them. resolving I thinkit is important to realisehow complex it can be to determine between contextual factors and instrucdependencies tional methods.To begin with,many of the factorsthat are discussed areneither norsimple toassess: easytoidentify Theytend to fitdifferent slotsin different taxonomies. Formal suspiciously for instance, refer to classroom as environment, may learning, social or to againstlearning the formal school through exposure,
in teacher-learner as against informal relations, relations, formality as againstgroup work among or even to teacher-fronted activities, learners. Motivation may mean anything from future career in a ambitions,to a desire forgroup approval, to a passing interest are classroom What identified as attitudes are particular activity. seldom clear-cut or unmixed or even stable. When we come to factorslike preferredlearning styles,sociocultural influences,or personalityfactors,we are faced with unclear and overlapping and are thereforeforced to simplifyand stereotype, distinctions, even when some contextual oftenin preconceived ways. Further, theirconsequence for instructional factorsare clearlyidentifiable, need a different procedurescan be farfromclear. Do older learners method of teachingfromyoungerones, and if so, how fundamenIs a change in methodmore likelyto succeed in the tallydifferent? hands of experienced teachers, or less? If there is a mismatch between official language policy and learners' personalgoals,which method? should have what weightin the choice of an instructional thatlearnersnaturally tend certainlearningstrategies If we identify to employ, do we conclude, for that reason, that they are good learning strategies?If not, are learners likely to learn more by which may be less thangood in our followingtheirown strategies, view, or by adopting strategieswe consider more conducive to learning,though they may go against such natural tendencies? If earlier experience has conditioned learnersor teachers to certain perceptions of learning and teaching, does that constitutean argumentagainstchange, or indicatea greaterneed forchange? The pointI am makingis not just thatour knowledge is uncertain at thistime; the more important pointis thatit is onlywhen we can factorand a methodologbetween a contextual show a relationship ical decision that the contextual factor becomes significantfor and projection pedagogy. What we need is notjust an identification which formof of variationbut, equally, some way of determining and how, and which does not. If we to instruction variationmatters look for variation merely on the assumption that the teaching context matters for teaching methodology,we are sure to find thusmakingit impossible variationon many dimensions, indefinite method forany singlegroup of learners. to justify any instructional If all physiologicalvariationamong individuals (includingfingerin medical differentiation prints)were assumed to call formatching no medical practice would be justifiable. treatment, It is, of course, possible to obviate the problem of relating methods by giving contextual contextual factors to instructional factors a central role in pedagogy and treating instructional fromthem.This is the move methodsas a kind of logical derivation
164 TESOL QUARTERLY
withteachingmethodsto an oftenadvocated: froma preoccupation or "course at "curriculum effort design."The assumpdevelopment" tion is that,with such a move, decisions concerningmethods will or play onlya smallpartin theentereither be renderedunnecessary issuesare not As one prise. puts it,"The important applied linguist which methodto adopt but how to develop proceduresand instructional activities thatwill enable programobjectives to be attained" (Richards,1985,p. 42). The proceduresenvisagedare thoseof situational analysis,needs analysis,analysis of "authentic"samples of estimatesof targetlanguage use, surveysof opinionsand attitudes, different kindsof inetc.-that is to of resources, say, compilations witha formation about learners, the and the teachers, school, society, view to determining instructional Instructional objectives. procefromtheprofile duresare seen to follow,or be easilydeterminable, of contextualfactorsand the statement of objectives. This is, in for a kind methods:That methodis of effect, discoveryprocedure it which from a careful seems to results of best, say, implementation theprocedure,thesoundnessof themethodbeing guaranteed the by soundnessof theprocedureleadingto it. There is, however, a price to pay for this simplificationof pedagogy. The instructional procedures most directlyderivable from a specificationof needs, wants,and objectives are those of supplying to learnersthe relevant tokens of language, or getting them to rehearse target language behaviour in simulated target situations.Any concept of developing in learners a more basic capacity for generatingtokens of language when needed, or for adapting to unforeseentarget language behaviour as necessary, leads one toward ideas about the natureof language abilityand the process of language acquisition-complex methodological issues that the discovery procedure seeks to avoid. Besides, a more elaborate analysisof contextualfactors in a correspondingly results to be metby instructional or procedure, content largerset of criteria and the larger the set of criteriato be met, the fewer the choices available in meeting them. Language instruction that attemptsto cater directly to social objectives, learning needs, target needs, learners' wants, teachers' preferences,learning styles, teaching and attitudes all roundcan end up as a mereassemblage constraints, of hard-foundpieces of content and procedure-a formulathat to satisfy manages, with difficulty, multiplecriteriaand therefore cannot affordto let itselfbe tamperedwith.What sets out to be a to varied educationalconsiderations can thus wideningof attention end up as an abridgement of choice and flexibility in thepracticeof pedagogy. In avoidingadherence to a singlemethod,one will have arrivedinsteadat a single,fixed,teachingpackage.
Avoiding adherence to a single methodhas a certainideological aura to it. It suggestsliberationfroma monolithic mould, a refusal to be doctrinaire,an espousal of plurality.It is, however, also a denial of the role of understanding in language pedagogy, which is of a ideation: We understand when we necessarily matter something have a set of ideas or principlesthatcohereto make up a conceptual is only an abstraction, it is about model, or theory. Althoughtheory the only instrument we have (at any rate, the most accessible instrument) for making sense of complex phenomena and conveyingthatsense to one another.Theory,as we know,arisesnot froma cataloguing of diversity, but froma perceptionof unityin diverse phenomena-a single principle, or a single system of can be maximallyaccounted principles,in termsof which diversity for.If thetheories of language teaching(thatis to say,methods)that in we have at presentfail to account sufficiently for the diversity teaching contexts,we ought to tryto develop a more general or to account for comprehensive(and probably more abstract)theory not reject the notion of a single systemof more of the diversity, ideas and seek to be guided insteadby diversity itself. Pointingto a as a means of denyingthe bewilderingvarietyof contextualfactors of a singletheory can onlybe a contribution to bewilderpossibility ment,not to understanding. There is also the fact that a concentrationon dissimilarities between between teachingcontextsis likelyto obscure similarities we are dealing witha human them;in the case of language learning, a definingcharacteristic of the species. It is abilitythatconstitutes true that variations in social situation,institutional organisation, or intentions can all have the effect individuals'histories, attitudes, of limiting or extending opportunities for desired forms of pedagogic action. However, to implythattheycall fora matching in pedagogic theoriesis to make theverylarge claim differentiation thatthe process of language acquisition-a basic humanattributefactors. itselfvaries accordingto contextual THERE IS SOME TRUTH TO EVERY METHOD of the I have discussed in some detail one formof substantiation statementthat there is no best method, namely, that different form methods are best fordifferent teachingcontexts.A different that is there of substantiation is also heard fairly namely, frequently, some truth(or value or validity)to every method-or, at any rate, to several different methods-even though the methods may be conceptually incompatible. This, as we know, is an argumentfor eclecticismin language pedagogy-not an argumentthatdifferent
166 TESOL QUARTERLY
contextsshould use different methods,but an argumentthat the same contextshould use a numberof different methods,or perhaps is an immediate methods. There of different appeal to parts then common sense in thisstance: If everymethodis a partialtruth, to adopt any it seems clear thatnone representsthe whole truth; singlemethodis to settleformuchless thanone can getby adopting all or several of them. As a commenton our state of knowledge at thistime (or indeed at any time), the suggestionthatno method containsmore than a is clearlyunexceptionable.We continueto engage in partial truth the professional activity of research, concept development, of language discussion,and debate because all of ourunderstanding us is and for of and at best any operating teaching learning partial, it remains with a theory,which can representonly a partial truth, as well. partialtruths entirely possible thatothertheoriesrepresent of this However, imperfectknowledge philosophical perception which part of the does not help us to see which theoryrepresents the Were we truth-or whichpartof a giventheory represents truth. able to see that,we would no longerbe operatingwitha theoryof which onlya partis known to represent the truth, and missingthose that to are known represent otherpartsof the partsof othertheories truth. Our knowledge would make a leap toward the whole truthwhatever that might mean. The fact, however, is that the one has of a phenomenonat a giventime-the theory understanding one is operating with-represents for one the whole truth.Other theories are true to the extent they share the understanding representedby one's own theory.In this sense, each theorycan claim to representthe partialtruths of othertheories:If thereis an overlap of understandingbetween it and certain parts of other theories,thenit can be said to containthose parts of othertheories thatconstitute partialtruths. But the statement thatthereis some truth to everymethodneeds to be seen not just as an epistemologicalobservation,but as a plea for an eclectic blending of all or several methods. Now, any such methods is eitherdone with a perceptionof blending of different what is true about each method, or it is done withoutany such discrimination.If there is a perception of which part of what method is a partialtruth, thenthatperceptionconstitutes a theory, which happens to have an overlap of understanding with various othertheories.It therefore a method,which is like any represents othermethod,withan overlap of understanding withothers.There is no reason to think, on the strength of itsbeing a blend, thatit has thanany othermethod.It is simplyone of the any more of the truth methodsthatsharesome of theirconceptsor procedureswithother
how muchofthetruth itrepresents is a matter notofhow methods; muchblending itdoes,butofwhatparticular makesthe perception What we is not an eclectic have,therefore, blending possible. blend, buta different method-orelse,all methods which happento have with others are equallyeclectic. partial overlaps on the an other eclectic ofdifferent methods is If, hand, blending done not withany particular of what partsof those perception inthehope that methods thetruth, butrather whatever is represent trueaboutthem in theblending, willbe captured thentheeclectic blenddoes notconstitute a method, butinstead an act of gambling or a hedging of bets:It can onlyhavetreated of different all parts methods as beingequallylikely tobe true oruntrue, and,as a result, there is as strong of itsbeinga blendof theuntruthful a possibility of different methods as there is ofitsrepresenting thetruthful parts we may care to parts (whatevernotionof truthand untruth such indiscriminate of methods adds blending employ).Further, since it offersno nothingto our pedagogic understanding, of whatmay be trueabout whichmethod.It simply perception An eclectic as fromuntruth. plays it safe-as safe fromtruth that a form atleast constitutes ofpedagogic understanding blending itmakesan unjustified claim offers us an additional method, though an eclectic that to beingmorethanan additional method; blending inthat an additional method senseleadsus away does notconstitute us a chance of understanding, whileoffering from anyfurtherance at whatmaybe called"truth by accident." WHAT"BEST"MIGHTMEAN WE NEED TO RETHINK the Let me now turnto a third possibleway of substantiating thatthereis no best method.This is thatwe have no statement of mean-or thatthenotion of what"best"might adequate notion and clarified. to be and bad reexamined needs good itis themethod that is that A prevalent ofthebestmethod notion the aim in outcomes. Since of terms the best results learning yields as possibleas is to bringabout as muchlearning of all teaching methods thatteaching quicklyas possible,it seems self-evident can lead to,in a oflearning shouldbe judgedby theamounts they of given period of time.This appears to call for a comparison wellof learning and a quantification methods outcomes, through in keepingwiththe spiritof experiments, designed,controlled evaluation suchobjective It is that true scientific enquiry. objective, at it in thepast have thatall attempts is so difficult to implement of doing an on the difficulties resultedin a wider agreement
evaluation than on the resulting judgementon methods. It is also
168 TESOL QUARTERLY
fora possible alternative truethatarguments have been put forward we to the experimental continueto Nevertheless, design. generally less that there method more or is a that is assume, consciously, it is in that the to demonstrate best, objectively principlepossible the superiority of the best that fact, and thatonce demonstrated, method will lead to its widespread acceptance in the profession. That is to say,we generally see ourselvesas workingto thatideal, on the tacit premise that what is unrealised is not necessarily unrealisable,and thatall our professionalendeavour is a formof such as trying to construct progresstoward it. Alternatives comprehensive descriptions of methods-as "illuminative" evaluation (Parlett& Hamilton,1977)-involve an abandonmentof thatideal, thusthreatening to disorient We preferto our professional thought. retainthe ideal as the basis of all our professional effort. Seen in thiscontext, the statement thatthereis no best methodis a questioning of the current concept of the best method-an argumentthatthe ideal of objective and conclusive demonstration is notonlyan unrealisedone, but an inherently unrealisableone, ard thatworkingwithsuch an ideal is unproductive forthe pedagogic Brumfit for has instance, profession. (1984), strongly questionedthe notionthatteachingmethods,whichare essentially concernedwith human interaction, can usefullybe subjected to the processes of and objective testing prediction,which are part of the scientific method. He argues, in summary,(a) that a teaching method in operation is necessarily an embodiment of certain general pedagogic principlesinto a varietyof specific contextualfeatures (including participants'psychological states); (b) that predictive testing of a method demands manipulation and control of the manifold contextual features; (c) that many of the contextual features are either difficultor impossible to control; and, most important,(d) that any success actually achieved in controlling contextualfeatureswill have only the effectof disembodyingthe method, as it were, of its actual, operational form,thusrendering the outcome of the testinginapplicable to the operation of the method in any specificcontext.Brumfit comments: A claimthatwe can predict as closelywhatwillhappenin a situation as can theview that complex [theclassroom] onlybe based on either human are moremechanical in their than beings learning responses any recent discussion wouldallow,or thenotion thatwe can measure and thequantities and qualities of all thesefactors. of these Neither predict seemsto be a sensible ofviewto take.(pp. 18-19) point While Brumfit's argumentis based largelyon the complexityof the pedagogic operation, it is also possible to point to the
of assessing as such. Examining complexity languageattainment of this latter further thefutility underscores of aspects complexity to method To evaluation. an attempts objectify begin with, for language teachingmethodsis the consideration important to be promoted, as distinct from thequantity. qualityof learning The questionof qualityhas been a recurrent concernfor the the ages, beingconceptualised and verbalised profession through in as in contrast contrast to variously grammar practice, knowledge to skill,explicitknowledgein contrast to implicitknowledge, to fluency, in contrast to acquisition, accuracyin contrast learning in to contrast to to etc. Theremaybe ability display ability deploy, how about the kinds different of disagreements knowledgeor are to each it is related but remarkable other, how,whenever ability a distinction is made betweendifferent forms of a of knowledge it the is less less and less conscious, observable, language, formthatis seen to be of greater value or validity. quantifiable of methods, relieson a however, necessarily Objectiveevaluation oflearning and therefore to measure tends outcomes, quantification Thismeansthat form ofknowledge. themore themorequantifiable itis toassesslearning ofthe theevaluation is,thelesslikely objective and vice versa. desiredquality, of languageability as an implicit form of Second,a perception of its development as an knowledgeis linked to a perception thanadditive, unobservable rather internal, processthatis organic at anystage Thismeansthat than and continuous rather itemisable. achievedso far, of thegrowth is notonlythegrowth there process, but a potentialfor further growthachieved as a part of it-a potential that can be thoughtof in terms of inchoationor can only Our mostambitious incubation. effort at languagetesting on theactualgrowth achievedat thestage hope to giveus evidence since forfurther noton thepotential of testing, growth, generated toelicitation inan inchoative is evenlessaccessible state knowledge than implicit and quantification knowledgeas such. Again,not as in theprofession of a language knowledge mayregard everyone but in itsdevelopment, in nature or organic beingequallyimplicit to be ofmethods is unlikely evaluation an objective thepointis that and inchoation of implicitness able to cope withconcepts and,as a to provide result, widelyacceptabledecisions. unlikely is notjustan assessof methods Third,an objectiveevaluation italso involves an objective ment oflearners' attainments; language that that has taken of thelearning attribution place to theteaching between language has been done. However, the relationship as one becomesless and lessdirect and language learning teaching
perceives language as being an implicit ability and an internal
170 TESOL QUARTERLY
development:What is less conscious and less observable is also less is between directlyteachable. The more indirectthe relationship it is to attribute the more difficult and any learning, teaching specific piece of learningto any specific piece of teaching. It is, to tellwhat learning has takenplace as intended difficult ultimately, and what has taken the place independentof it (or, teaching, by in of have what We indeed, problemsenoughmaintaining spite it). a subjective perceptionof general causationbetween teachingand learningin the developmentand discussionof particularmethods. methodscalls fora degree of An evaluativecomparisonof different in and cause-effect relationsthatmay well be objectivity specificity unreasonableto expect in the fieldof language pedagogy. More generally,the notion behind an objective evaluation of methods is that thereis somethingin a method that is by itselfindependent of anyone's subjective perception of it-superior or inferior to what thereis in anothermethod. If some method were shown by such evaluation to be superiorto all others,then that method would be expected to benefitall (or a large number of) classrooms,regardlessof how it is subjectivelyperceived by the different teachers involved. A method, in this view, is a set of of the procedures thatcarriesa predictionof results;the fulfilment predictiondepends only (or mainly) on an accurate replicationof the procedures, not on any perceptions of those who do the in the way the replicationof a procedure in replication--rather chemistry yields the predicted result,regardless of the chemist's or feelingsabout it. No doubt the idea looks fairly absurd thoughts when put in thisform:It reduces teachingto a faithful followingof of a pedagogic ritual.I am, highlyspecified routine--something however, unable to see how a seriouspursuitof objective method evaluation can be sustained without some such idea. The only alternativeto it is to maintainthatthe method thatis shown to be objectively superior will somehow carry with it the subjective perception thatlay behind its development and, equally, that the perceptionconcernedwill thenreplace the differing perceptionsof all the teachers who may be led to adopt that method on the strengthof the objective evaluation. This implies, among other things,that teachers'pedagogic perceptionsare as easily replaceable as classroom procedures, an idea that could hardly be less absurd. It is useful to ask why it looks absurd to suggest that a good teaching method can be carried out, without loss, as merely a routine.We finditnecessaryto think of good teachingas an activity in which thereis a sense of involvement by the teacher.When we encounteran instanceof reallybad teaching,it is most oftennot a
case of the teacherfollowinga methodwithwhichwe disagree,but ratherof the teachermerelygoing through the motionsof teaching, with no sense of involvement.When a method considered to be not good has been implementedon a large scale and laterthought to have "worked," an importantpart of the reason identifiedhas been that teachers followed the method "mechanically,"with no sense of understanding or identification. Indeed, the more a method is implemented (that is to say, with all "efficiently" to ensure that teachers will carry out the measures possible procedures envisaged), the more likely it is that mechanical teachingwill turnout to be the main impedimentto success. Perhaps, then, there is a factor more basic than the choice between methods, namely, teachers' subjective understanding of the teachingtheydo. Teachers need to operate withsome personal conceptualisationof how theirteachingleads to desired learningwitha notionof causationthathas a measureof credibility forthem. The conceptualisation may arise from a number of different sources, including a teacher's experience in the past as a learner of how the teachingreceived at thattime did (with interpretations or did not supportone's learning),a teacher'searlierexperience of from the teaching end), teaching (with similar interpretations to one or more methods while as a teacher (with exposure training some subjective evaluationof the methodsconcerned and perhaps a degree of identification with one or another of them), what a teacher knows or thinks of otherteachers'actions or opinions,and perhaps a teacher's experience as a parent or caretaker.Different sources may influencedifferent teachersto different extents,and what looks like the same experience or exposure may influence different teachersdifferently. The resultingconcept (or theory,or, in a more dormantstate, of how learningtakes place and how teaching pedagogic intuition) causes or supportsitis what may be called a teacher'ssense ofplaumay not sibilityabout teaching.This personal sense of plausibility only vary in its contentfromone teacher to another,but may be more or less firmlyor fully formed, more or less consciously teachers.It is when a considered or articulated,between different teacher's sense of plausibilityis engaged in the teachingoperation thatthe teachercan be said to be involved,and the teachingnot to is engaged, when the sense of plausibility be mechancial. Further, the activityof teachingis productive:There is thena basis for the and each teacher to be satisfiedor dissatisfiedabout the activity, is itselfa further instance of such satisfactionor dissatisfaction or disconfirming influenceon the sense of plausibility, confirming to or revisingit in some small measure,and generallycontributing
172 TESOL QUARTERLY
the teacher's thatthe greater its growth or change.I also think itis thatthe in thissense,themorelikely in teaching involvement will conveyitself to learners, sense of involvement them getting involvedas well and helpingto create that elusivebut highly It is of intheclassroom: teacher-learner condition rapport. regarded other factors coursepossiblethat havea role,too,in thecreation of and their such of as learners' own perceptions learning rapport, is oftheteaching (Allwright, 1984).Mypoint interpretations activity of theteacher's is a major senseof plausibility thatan engagement whether or not it is the only conditionfor classroomrapport, It is commonto hear thatlearning is enhancedwhen condition. learners butenjoyment is a broadnotion enjoyclassroom activity, and is often equated with some formof light entertainment is a form I think of withmoreserious there activity. interspersed enjoymentarising from teacher-learner rapport that is less to classroom and moretruly butmoreintegral activity, conspicuous oflearning. productive that theteacher's sense The picture ofclassroom engages activity of plausibility is no doubt closer to an ideal than to a factual of muchof theteaching that actually goes on. Butthat description does notdetract thesuggestion I am making, that that from namely, ideal is more worthour while to pursuethanthe notionof an toaskabouta teacher's bestmethod. The question sense objectively of plausibility is notwhether itimplies a good or bad method but, morebasically, itis active, whether to alive,or operational enough createa senseof involvement forboththeteacher and thestudent. Mechanicalteaching results from of teaching an overroutinisation and teaching is subject It to great ofroutinisation. activity, pressures on regularly ofprocedures recurrent is,after all,a recurrent pattern occasions.It is also a form of recurrent social encounter between teachers and learners, withself-images to protect, to personalities social encounters, cope with,etc. And,like all recurrent teaching a certain to makeit sustainable or even requires degreeof routine endurable. Thereare,in addition, variedfeelings of adequacy or confidence among teachers, varied degrees of concern for stress of overwork, threat of peercomparisons status, maintaining or of expectations fromsuperiors, etc., all of whichcan use the offered routines. Morefundamentally, protection by role-defining is thefactthat there learners is learning by unpredictable essentially it is an unacceptably to and, consequently, highriskforteaching in direct have to justify itself to learning: relation Thereis need for a way to claim thatthe teaching expectedhas been performed, the though learning expectedmay stillnot have occurred;and as a defined routine meetsthat need. teaching precisely
An activesenseofplausibility is very difficult to maintain among such pressures on routinisation, and can easily become frozen, ossified,or inaccessibly submerged, leaving only a scheduleof routines. Whenteachers in some methodthey to believe profess have been following-perhaps to thepointof swearing by it-they how frozen their senseof plaumaywell be merely demonstrating is and,as a result, how insecure feelagainst a threat to sibility they theirteaching routines. When a teacher's sense of plausibility is activeand engagedin theteaching, itis necessarily to open change, howeverslowlyor imperceptibly, in the processof the ongoing of teaching. Such teaching can perhapsbe regardedas activity in to contrast that We can then being"real," teaching is mechanical. that a distinction between and mechanical is "real" say teaching moresignificant forpedagogythananydistinction betweengood and bad methods. The enemy ofgoodteaching isnota bad method, butoverroutinisation. If it is important fora teacher's senseof plausibility to remain alive and therefore to in some frozen but fluid open change-not an the for is to degree-then important goal pedagogicprofession in as many seek waysin whichthesenseof plausibility teachers as can to be remain as alive as possible helped possible,though in variedforms. It is truethattheongoing of necessarily activity is source of itself a continual influence on a teacher's sense teaching thus ofplausibility, tokeepitalive,butwe havenotedhow helping the ongoingactivity of teaching is, at the same time,subjectto variedpressures ofroutinisation, which can havea deadening effect A second sourceof influence on the sense of plausibility. on the senseof plausibility-perhaps themostimportant one outsidethe classroom-is interaction betweendifferent sensesof plausibility. Thisinteraction can arisefrom an articulation and discussion among teachers of one another's from pedagogicperceptions, professional or writing, and in other, moreorlessformal, reading ways. A specialist-level debatebetween different methods an is,in fact, ofplausibility, to exert interaction between different senses seeking in it (moreorlessovertly) an influence on all those who participate a process ofsharing, through weakening, sharpening, strengthening, or helpingto develop further formsof the different changing, A specialist who advocatesa method is on involved. understanding thesamefooting as a teacher whooperates with a senseofplausibilcan be saidto haveachieved and thespecialist fuller ity, exceptthat morecommunicable articulation ofa particular senseof plausibility,perhapsin the courseof wider(or longeror moreintensive) with other similarly If interaction well-articulated perceptions. ossification is lesslikely to occurat thespecialist's level,itis onlyto
174 TESOL QUARTERLY
to the extentthat the specialisthas more of a commitment in and is more interaction engaged continually professional some sense of The and resulting plausibility. articulating exploring senses ofplausibility is to and well-articulated (that well-developed value not as desirable for have many replacements say,methods) but forwhat may be called their teachers' sensesof plausibility alter insome interact with, activate, invoke, powerto influence-to teachers' senses alive-different and differing generally keep way, thus to and the occurrence of plausibility, helping promote enlarge A method, this ofview,is notgood or from of"real"teaching. point more or less but has bad inanyobjective sense, powerto pedagogic of teaching;and influenceteachers'subjective understanding for theprofession methods areimportant different debatesbetween to the and opportunity because they help to give expression methods. of different pedagogicpower CONCLUSION ifwe regard as a search for effort To summarise, ourprofessional will all other thebestmethod when methods, found, replace which, an unrealisable we maynotonlybe working toward goalbut,inthe the natureof teachingas a set of process, be misconstruing a guarantee of learning that can themselves carry by procedures in thissense,variesfrom To say thatthebest method, outcomes. one teaching to another leaves context does nothelpbecauseitstill us witha searchforthe best methodfor any specificteaching context. To say thatthere is some truth to everymethod does not it still because does not tell us whichpartof which help either, methodis true.Objectivemethod to assume evaluation has either thatmethods havevalue forlearning of teachers' and independent an students' of them,thusperpetuating subjective understanding unrealisable themisconstruction ofpedagogy, goal and reinforcing or to try to takeintoaccountteachers' of subjective understanding thusceasingto be objectively evaluative. If,on theother teaching, whose value depends hand, we view teachingas an activity it is informed on whether or uninformed centrally by theteacher's it is "real" senseof plausibility-on thedegreeto which subjective or mechanical-itbecomesa worthwhile goal forourprofessional effort to helpactivate and developteachers' variedsensesof plauA method is seen simply as a highly sibility. developedand highly articulated witha certain senseof plausibility, powerto influence other or teachers' thebestmethod specialists' Perhaps perceptions. variesfromone teacherto another, but onlyin the sensethatit is best foreach teacherto operatewithhis or her own sense of
at any giventime.There may be some truth to each plausibility in but so far as each method as method, only mayoperate one or another teacher's senseof plausibility, themost promoting learning that can be promoted that The teacher. search foran inherently by bestmethod should forwaysinwhich givewaytoa search perhaps teachers' and specialists' can mostwidely pedagogicperceptions interact withone another, so that can mostwidely become teaching and maximally real.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A version of thispaper was presented as a plenary addressto the23rdannual oftheInternational Association ofEnglish as a Foreign LanofTeachers meeting 1989. England, guage(IATEFL) heldinCoventry, April
THE AUTHOR N. S. Prabhu ofSingapore. at the National teaches University applied linguistics His earlier of task-based workin India included thedevelopment language in thecontext of whatis of a procedural and theconcept teaching syllabus, known as the Bangalore generally Project.
REFERENCES in classroom lanR. L. (1984). The importance ofinteraction Allwright, 156-171. 5(2), guage learning. Linguistics, Applied inlanguage C. J.(1984). Communicative Brumfit, teaching. methodology Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University A.new D. (1977).Evaluation as illumination: M., & Hamilton, Parlett, D. In to of the Hamilton, study innovatory programmes. approach & M. Parlett the D. Jenkins, C. King, B. Macdonald, (Eds.),Beyond evaluation numbers (pp. 6-22). game: A readerin educational Macmillan. Basingstoke: C. Richards, Cambridge: teaching. of language J. (1985).The context Press. University Cambridge
176
TESOL QUARTERLY

There Is No Best Method

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

There Is No Best Method

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Vol.24, No.2, Summer TESOL QUARTERLY, 1990

National ofSingapore University

such tocategorize attempts learning, etc.).Therehavebeenseveral

and comprehensively variables (e.g.,see Brumfit, systematically

system, as against private language instruction, or to relative

Potrebbero piacerti anche