There have been ongoing debates concerning the usefulness of the concept of method .
Considering method i the p es iptio s of p a ti e se se, Prabhu (1990a) suggests the e is o est ethod , with the idea that there are good and bad methods being a misguided one. He argues that more fundamental than any choice between methods is a tea he s su je ti e u de sta di g of hat the do, ased o fa to s su h as thei previous learning experience, previous teaching experience, training and awareness of different methods. He proposes that a teacher should be making decisions about what
86
to do i the lass oo ased this u de sta di g, hi h he alls the tea he s se se of plausi ilit ibid., p.172). He likens an engaged active sense of plausibility, as opposed to a stati o e, ith eal e sus e ha i al tea hi g, a d suggests it a e a o e useful o ept to pu sue tha sea hi g fo a est ethod .
Indeed, dwelling for a moment on the differing cultural contexts, socio-economic factors, political policies and institutional constraints that prevail around the world and even within different countries, it intuitively, though admittedly with the benefit of hi dsight, see s aï e to elie e i a one-size fits all ie of method , at least if we are defining method i the a o prescriptions of practice se se. The problems with t i g to adopt a o e size fits all p es i ed method across a range of different settings are discussed in Section 4.2.3 with reference to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT).
Several writers have discussed the need to move away from reliance on a method as a prescription of practice. Richards (1990) talks of ELT ei g e o d ethods a d B o (2002) discusses the death of ethods , hile Ku a a adi elu b) suggests that there is a growing awareness among teachers about the limitations of particular methods. More widely, he questions why teachers have relied on having a method for so long, rather than thinking in terms of, for example, de elopi g thei o se se of plausi ilit o des i i g the sel es a post ethod p a titio e s Ku a a adi elu, 1994, 2001, 2006b). This is discussed further in Section 4.1.4.
The importance of the particular setting in determining the approach taken in the lass oo has also o e to the fo e, ith Ba suggesti g the eed fo a o te t app oa h to la guage tea hi g , fi st looki g at the eeds of the setti g a d o l the deciding on the approach to adopt, and Howatt and Widdowson (2004, p.369) suggesti g that this shift to lo alizatio as al ead happe i g, ith ELT p a ti es being developed according to the needs of local contexts.
However, the case for the concept of method still receives considerable support. As Larsen-Freeman (2001, p.5) suggests, the concept of method is being misrepresented
87
and argues for a non-prescriptive view of methods, si ila to the fi st of Bell s definitions of method above:
People who say we are beyond methods are making more of a political statement than anything else. I think they misconstrue what a method can be. They're saying there is no room in language teaching for formulas, for prescriptive practices to be imposed on teachers worldwide. Certainly I have no quarrel with that. But I think it's a big mistake to mix up method and its implementation or how a method is used. I wouldn't want to impose a method on anybody, but it seems to me the more methods we have, the more we see the variety of human experience, the more we have a bigger palette from which to pai t ou pi tu e. We ha e o e hoi es … I hope ethods a e he e to sta but not methods as formulaic, prescriptive practices. I don't think many teachers do adopt a whole method. I don't think that it really is a question of striving for the ideal, best method. It is a question of expanding, revising one's thought-in- action repertoire.
She also expresses concern that a desire not to export or impose methods in a colonial sense could in fact lead to the holding back of ideas, suggestions and methods , when it might be preferable to offer them and then let teachers decide at a local level on their suitability.
Bell (2007) also supports the view that the concept of method remains relevant, his study reporting that 28 out of the 30 teachers surveyed disagreed with the statement ethods a e dead , the ajo it o side i g thei app oa h to tea hi g to e e le ti . It is perhaps worth dwelling on this theory versus practice point, as far as attitudes to the concept of method are concerned. Theorists proclaiming that ELT is e o d ethods o post ethod a feel rather abstract compared with the realities of classroom practice, and so may be serving to further widen the perceived gulf between theory and practice. As Block (2001, p.72) puts it:
88
Despite applied li guists lai s to the o t a , e a e su ou ded the concept of method, as it appears to be term which for many individuals captures what teachers do in classrooms.
Rajagopalan (2008, p.85) concurs with this view, noting that:
a good deal of academic discussion about the usefulness or otherwise of language teaching method is taking place in the other-world of theory where there is little or no concern with what goes on the classroom.
He goes o to ote the i dispe sa ilit of methods for teachers.
Kumaravadivelu (2003, p.28) sums up the way theorists often view method as problematic while teachers see it as useful, suggesting the differing perspectives stem from the inadequacies of the concept of method itself. He points out that:
The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost, methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers sorely need to tackle the challenges they confront every day of their professional lives.
Adding to this, Kumaravadivelu (2006a, p.165) also notes that:
Method is too inadequate and too limited to satisfactorily explain the complexity of language learning and teaching. By concentrating on method, we have ignored several other factors that govern classroom processes and practices - factors such as teacher cognition, learner perception, societal needs, cultural contexts, political exigencies, economic imperatives, and institutional constraints, all of which are inextricably linked together.
89
Kumaravadivelu (2003, pp.29-30) also points out that what teachers say about the method they follow does not necessarily relate to what they do in practice. Citing various studies, he notes that:
Teachers who are trained in and even swear by a particular method do not conform to its theoretical principles and classroom procedures; teachers who claim to follow the same method often use different classroom procedures that are not consistent with the adopted method; [and] teachers who claim to follow different methods often use same classroom procedures.
A further issue with method is the degree to which a method is used as a means of maintaining power and control. Hall (2016, p.217) explores this issue, highlighting that:
the idea of method and the development of methods have created and sustained power imbalances between (largely male) theorists on the one hand and (largely female) teachers in classroom on the other.
Drawing on the work of Phillipson (1992) and Holliday (1994), Hall (2016) also notes that:
methods have created and maintain specific patterns of power and control ithi ELT, fa ou i g Weste o e-size-fits-all app oa hes to lea i g o e non-western and localised practices.
This issue will be discussed further later in this chapter with particular reference to CLT and to Weste TE“OL i posi g e approaches to ELT on non-Western settings.