Elt j 2007-bell-135-43

Do teachers think that methods
are dead?
David M. Bell

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Periodicals Dept., Hallward Library, University of Nottingham on November 16, 2012
This paper examines Block’s (2001) claim that whereas the notion of method no
longer plays a signiﬁcant role in the thinking of applied linguists, it still plays a vital
role in the thinking of teachers. In order to assess Block’s claim, four sources of data
on teachers’ beliefs were examined—two direct sources of data: (1) interviews with
questions directly addressing teachers’ opinions on the concept of method and (2)
discussion board postings on the topic of post-method, and two indirect sources:
(3) language learning/teaching autobiographies and (4) teaching journals. The
evidence from the data suggests that teacher interest in methods is determined by
how far methods provide options in dealing with particular teaching contexts.
Rather than playing a vital role in teacher thinking, teacher attitude towards
methods is highly pragmatic. In the light of this evidence, implications for teacher
education are considered.

Introduction The last 15 years has seen ELT methodology disavow the search for the best
method (Prabhu 1990), move ‘beyond methods’ (Richards 1990) to the
‘post-method condition’ (Kumaravadivelu 1994), and even proclaim the
death of methods (Brown 2002). However, more recently the alleged
demise of methods and the concept of post-methodology have come into
question (Larsen-Freeman 2001; Bell 2003). Block (2001: 72), in his
analysis of the popularity of the teaching methods of the foreign language
teacher Michel Thomas, has argued that: ‘while method has been
discredited at an etic level (that is, in the thinking and nomenclature of
scholars) it certainly retains a great deal of vitality at the grass-roots, emic
level (that is, it is still part of the nomenclature of lay people and teachers)’.
This paper seeks to verify Block’s claim by examining teachers’ beliefs about
methods. I leave aside for the moment the vexing question of just what is
meant by method, allowing the varying deﬁnitions to emerge in the course
of the paper.

Data My data on teacher beliefs about methods were collected from four
sources—two direct sources: interviews with questions directly addressing
the teachers’ opinions on the concept of method and discussion board
postings on the topic of post-method, and two indirect sources: language
learning/teaching autobiographies and teaching journals. Each data source
came from a different group of teachers.

E LT Journal Volume 61/2 April 2007; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm006 135
ª The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Most of the teachers were on an MA programme in applied linguistics at
Ohio University, although the language learning/teaching autobiographies
and teaching journals also included teachers on a pre-service certificate
programme. On the face of it, this suggests a highly homogenous and
particularized group of teachers. However, the teachers here represent
a diversity of age, gender, experience, nationality, and first language, which
may be more representative of the teaching population as a whole than
a group of teachers situated in a particular work setting. Because the

relationship of researcher/subject overlapped with that of teacher/student
there is a danger that the data here have been biased. However, my
experience with this population of teachers is that they come to the
programme as independent thinkers and are certainly encouraged to
continue so. Further research into teacher beliefs certainly needs to be
situated in diverse global teaching contexts beyond the rarified environment
of teacher education institutions, but it is hoped that the present data
represent a chorus of teacher voices that hopefully reveals their thinking
about methods and will give some clues as to the thinking of the profession
as a whole.

Results Thirty teachers on an MAprogramme in applied linguistics were interviewed
Interviews prior to taking a methodology course. The participants comprised 13 NES T
(native English speaker teachers) and 17 NNE ST (non-native English speaker
teachers). Twenty teachers had more than two years of English language
teaching experience. All teachers had had some teaching experience
whether language teaching or otherwise. The interview prompts consisted
of three open-ended questions that addressed teachers’ beliefs about notions
of method and approach and 12 statements, derived from the literature on
methodology cited above, with which participants indicated their agreement
or disagreement. The prompts were given to the participants in advance so
that they could think through their answers and provide written responses,
which formed the basis of the interviews. In what follows, I report on those
questions and statements that provoked the most salient responses.
In response to the question: ‘How would you describe your teaching
methodology?’ 21 teachers either explicitly or implicitly described their
teaching as eclectic.
n I am very eclectic—ALM, GT, C LT, humanistic, a little bit of everything
depending on the context.
n Perhaps eclectic is the best word that can best describe my teaching
method.
n I don’t want to stick to one thing.
n I have an eclectic method. I like to take a piece from here and a piece from
there and just combine them all.
n I teach according to the situation. I feel it’s important to vary the approach
especially when you spend 24 hours a week with the same class.
Six teachers identified their methodology as within the paradigm of C LT
(Communicative Language Teaching) while three teachers described their
methods as imposed either by their institutions or by the textbooks they
used.

136 David M. Bell

In response to the question: ‘How do you define method?’ teachers mainly
described method as goal-oriented, systematic, and concerned with
techniques. Seven teachers described method solely in terms of techniques
as in the first three examples, eight teachers talked in terms of a systematic
set of behaviours, as in the fourth and fifth examples, and seven teachers
talked about an underlying set of principles as in the last example:
n a way you teach with techniques,
n a set of techniques with a focus on something, e.g. grammar,

n a way of teaching which is supported by different techniques,
n a technique, a way of doing something, that has to be planned,
n a systematic way of presenting the material,
n a conjunct of techniques and ways of teaching based on systematic
principles and procedures carrying something out according to a plan.
A further seven teachers gave definitions which paraphrased Richards and
Rodgers’ (2001: 20) definition: ‘A method is theoretically related to an
approach, is organizationally determined by a design, and is practically
realized in procedure’. One teacher referred to Anthony’s (1963) definition:
‘techniques carry out a method which is consistent with an approach’ (p.
63). Although one teacher talked of the restrictive nature of method, none of
the teachers defined method in the narrow and pejorative sense that post-
methodologists define it. For example, Kumaravadivelu (1994: 29) says
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’. This defines method as primarily theory driven and
therefore context insensitive. Teachers, however, were far more ready to see
method as emerging from practice and sensitive to context, as these two
longer teacher definitions suggest:

n Method is a way of arriving to one’s teaching goal, method is a manner in
which a system is implemented to complete a specific task—a method
applies to a structured idea that a teacher follows—combining theory and
practice that best suits their learners’ needs.
n The constant use of cleverness, which disarms the barriers the student
wants to put up, which gets us from point A (the student’s current
knowledge or ability) to point B (the desired knowledge or ability). Given
the fact that students may be in class at 7 a.m. and at 9 p.m. So they didn’t
always have the required energy. So it’s trying to give them the required
energy.
The question: ‘Do you distinguish between method and approach?’ was
intended to assess teachers’ response to Richards and Rodgers’ (2001)
definition in which method subsumes approach, design, and procedure.
Ten teachers felt there was no distinction between method and approach.
One experienced NE ST teacher saw the so-called distinction as politically
motivated:
For me it is a difficult distinction. I think the words are adopted along
a historical time-line and created just for the reason of wanting to depart
from a certain era. Really, on a fundamental level they are the same thing.
Approach is a political term to distinguish the departure from previous
methods.

Teachers’ views of methods 137

Of the remaining 20 teachers who felt there was a distinction between
method and approach, they were evenly divided as to which was the
superordinate term: 11 teachers agreed with Richards and Rodgers and felt
that method was the larger term while nine felt that approach was the larger
more theoretical term and methods derived from it. Whatever the
theoretical intention of distinguishing between method and approach, in
practice the distinction appears unclear and, for many teachers, unhelpful.
In the next part of the interview, teachers were asked to respond to various

statements, most of which were made by the methodologists cited above.
Here, I sample just a few of those statements and teacher responses. In
response to Brown’s (2000: 170) definition— ‘Virtually all language
teaching methods make the oversimplified assumption that what language
teachers ‘‘do’’ in the classroom can be conventionalized into a set of
procedures that fits all contexts’—five teachers agreed, but most teachers
responded by talking about the uniqueness of each teaching context
(17 teachers) as in the first two examples and the individuality of the teacher
(8 teachers) as in the last two examples:

n Every class is unique.
n When I use the term method I am not suggesting that this method applies
to all contexts.
n As a teacher we don’t just have to choose one method.
n The way we use a method depends on the teacher.
One teacher spoke of a dialectic between the simplification of method and
the complexity of the classroom:

I do think there is a dialogue going on where teachers are trying to address
these concerns. You do have to simplify your views on language learning
when you go into a class. It would be very difficult to address every
student’s individual needs in a multi-level, multi-lingual classroom.
Teaching makes you simplify things, makes you conventionalize them.
But I do think that most teachers are aware of that problem.

In response to a similar pejorative definition of method by Richards and
Rodgers, (2001: 245): ‘A method . . . refers to a specific instructional design
or system . . .. It is relatively fixed in time, and there is generally little scope
for individual interpretation. Methods are learned through training’, four
teachers agreed while 24 teachers disagreed, especially with the notion of
‘fixed in time.’ Most teachers again stressed the mediating role of teachers in
how a method is put into practice:

n I think there is always room for interpretation and adaptation.
n I do think that some methods have built into their philosophy that
teachers will ultimately put their own interpretation on the method.
When teachers were asked to respond directly to the statement: ‘Methods
are dead. In our current practices we have gone beyond methods’, 28
teachers disagreed in some way with the statement. Teacher responses
again reflected a non-pejorative judgement and the view of methods as
eclectic resources for teachers to solve the demands of particular teaching
contexts.

138 David M. Bell

n Knowing methods helps teaching—more options.
n Knowing methods is useful to decide our practices. We need to know
methods in order to make our choices.
n Not dead. Certainly there is no one answer. We are more selective.
n I don’t think methods are dead and that we have gone beyond them.
I think there are pieces of methods which are incorporated into most
teaching practices.
n I don’t think methods are dead in that they are no longer useful. I don’t

know anyone who will say: ‘This is my method and I will subscribe to no
other.’ Most teachers will say, well I like this from this method and this
from that method.
Some teachers agreed that we have gone beyond methods but nevertheless
did not equate that with the death of methods:
We’ve gone beyond methods but they are still there, we can still refer back
to them, we can still incorporate them.
At the same time, some teachers took a more realistic rather than theoretical
understanding of the death of methods:
n I agree but it’s not the reality in Mexico.
n I don’t think methods are dead. Some should be dead.
The insistence on the uniqueness of each teacher and by implication the
impracticality of applying a one-size-ﬁts-all method was borne out by the
passionate response to the following statement advocating a best practices
approach: ‘We don’t need methods. We need to study what successful
teachers do and copy them’. For 27 of the teachers, the notion of ‘copying’
touched a nerve. The following was a typical response.
I don’t think we have to copy what other teachers do. What works for
a particular teacher may not work for me in a particular context.
From the evidence of the interviews, most teachers see methods not as a set
of restrictive practices but rather as useful resources.

Discussion board My second source of direct data comprised 21 electronic discussion board
postings postings drawn from two sessions of a methods course. The discussants
were all masters students and consisted of 14 NES T and six NNE ST of whom
,
10 teachers had two or more years of teaching experience. One major theme
that ran through the discussions was whether in fact the post-method
macrostrategies of Kumaravadivelu (1994) or the principles embraced by
Brown (2000) constituted a method in themselves. Although some felt that
they could be construed as a method, as in the ﬁrst example, most felt that
post-methodology was not, as in the second:
n I think that post-method is another method in itself. The teachers think
that they won’t be stick (sic) to one method/approach and use the one that
is the most suitable for the learning situation. I think this is also
a teaching method.
n I think that a post-method approach is not another method but just
a freedom of combining all and any methods in their most incredible
and, still, practically most effective combination in the teaching-learning


process. This allows teachers to think of their objectives and productive
procedures for specific situations rather then analyze whether their
techniques coincide with those of famous founders and supporters of
a particular method.
This latter view is similar to that of Bygate, Skehan, and Swain (2001: 2),
who argue that the Communicative Approach ‘was explicitly a post-method
approach to language teaching . . . in which the principles underlying
different classroom procedures were of paramount importance, rather than

a package of teaching materials’. Although most teachers did not equate the
Communicative Approach with post-methodology, they did equate post-
method with eclecticism:
n I think what it means by beyond method is what we will encounter in the
future as the recycling and mixing of methods already proposed so far.
n Some methods work for some students and other methods work for
others. The teacher’s job is to learn the students and find ways to
incorporate the necessary methods into one larger method, and this larger
method is likely to change from class to class.
The predominant view of post-method is that it confirms the already
established teacher practices of eclecticism, if on a more informed and
systematic level.

Language learning/ My first source of indirect data consisted of 82 language learning/teaching
teaching autobiographies (206,000 words) written by 43 NES T and 39 NNE ST .
autobiographies Thirty-five of the teachers had two or more years of teaching experience. The
autobiographies, collected over a five-year period, were written as an
assignment for a methods course with the aim of promoting self-reflection
on the teachers’ own language learning/teaching experience.
Almost half of the 191 uses of the terms ‘method(s)’/‘methodology’ were
used in connection with established methods—the Grammar Translation
Method and the Audio-Lingual Method accounted for 74 instances. In
comparison, there were only 63 instances of ‘approach(es)’, over a half of
which were used in connection with particular approaches—the
Communicative Approach and the Natural Approach accounting for most
of those occurrences. The largest occurrence of ‘method’ (when not used to
name particular methods) was in connection with notions of eclecticism,
teacher autonomy, and context sensitivity:
n My reversion to a method I once abhorred may seem counterintuitive, but
I should reiterate that my aversion to CLT was not a result of the method
itself but rather of its exclusive use. I am confident that as long as I do not
pin myself down to any one method in particular to the exclusion of
others, and instead maintain a dynamic relationship with my students,
changing and responding to their needs, I will remain an effective teacher.
n The teacher should use a teaching method or group of methods that suit
his/her personality, the classroom atmosphere, and the student’s
proficiency and interests. There are no good or bad teaching methods,
instead there are better methods. The successful teacher usually
organizes and makes a blend of methods he/she thinks are appropriate.

140 David M. Bell

Each method has its value and uniqueness on one side and its difficulties
and disadvantages on the other side.
The evidence from this indirect source suggests that the concept of method
is not a significant topic in teacher thinking. When method is discussed, it is
again seen as a potential eclectic resource to solve particular classroom
problems.

Teaching journals I looked at 29 randomly chosen teaching journals, which consisted of

180,000 words written by 16 NES T and 13 NNE ST on a practicum in general
English with international students in a university setting. Eighteen were
beginning teachers and 11 teachers had two or more years of teaching
experience. Thirteen journals were by teachers on the masters programme
and 16 were on a pre-service certificate programme.
What was most evident was the almost complete absence of the term
‘method’ and discussion of methods in general. The word ‘method’
occurred only seven times. And when it was used, it was used in the sense of
technique as mentioned earlier in the discussion of the interviews. Two
teachers talked about using the tape recorder and human computer
procedures from Community Language Learning, another used
a visualization technique from Suggestopedia, while another used a Silent
Way approach to error correction. On all these occasions, the methods were
mentioned with respect to particular techniques rather than underlying
philosophies.
The absence of discussion of methods seems to indicate both an acceptance
of a larger paradigm, namely an eclectic, CLT-based approach, and a concern
with the daily exigencies of the chalk face. So teachers’ journals were
concerned with issues of teacher talking time, the use of pair and group
work, the use of L1 and translation, etc. In short, teachers were concerned
with creating and structuring learning activities and how activities could be
strung together into lessons. Teachers were overwhelmingly focused on the
local rather than the generic aspect of language teaching or what Murphy
and Byrd (2001: 4) refer to as the ‘situated nature of language teaching’. In
this way, the findings here agree with Richards and Ho’s (1998) study of
journal entries, which suggested that, with regard to methods, ‘teachers’
focus was primarily on classroom experience, and there were few references
that went beyond the classroom to the broader contexts of teaching and
learning’ (p. 160).

Discussion Few teachers define methods in the narrow pejorative sense used by post-
methodologists. Most teachers think of methods in terms of techniques
which realize a set of principles or goals and they are open to any method
that offers practical solutions to problems in their particular teaching
context. Given this degree of openness, it is not surprising that when asked
to describe their own methodology, teachers overwhelmingly use the term
‘eclectic’. Teachers’ eclecticism appears to be based on an awareness of the
existence of different methods and a willingness to draw from each of them.
Eclecticism is most often connected to notions of teacher autonomy and
context sensitivity. A knowledge of methods is equated with a set of options,
which empowers teachers to respond meaningfully to particular classroom


contexts. In this way, knowledge of methods is seen as crucial to teacher
growth.
So is Block (2001: 72) right in claiming that method ‘certainly retains
a great deal of vitality at the grass-roots . . . level’? To a certain extent yes, but it
would be wrong to describe teacher affiliation or disaffiliation with methods
on the same level of intensity of theoreticians, whose goal is to create or
cremate them. Adamson (2004: 617) has argued that ‘Methods are still
useful props for teachers in constructing their own pedagogy’. And that

pedagogy, as Cummings (1989: 46–7) has described, is highly personalized
‘based on unique experiences, individual conceptions, and their
interactions with local contexts’. The evidence here suggests that teacher
attitude to methods is highly pragmatic. Their interest in methods is
determined by how far they provide options in dealing with their particular
teaching contexts. In this way, the voices of teachers we have heard through
the data in this paper most readily support the intuitions of Diane Larsen-
Freeman:
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 paint our picture. We have
more choices . . .. It is a question of expanding, revising one’s thought-in-
action repertoire. (2001: 5)
So methods are best understood as both potential and realized resources. As
potential resources they may be loosely or tightly linked to an established
pattern of beliefs and procedures. As realized resources, they appear in the
individual teachers as an emergent set of regular practices which may be
more or less identifiable with a more widely held set of practices. What
essentially gives life to the meaning of methods is teacher choices as
solutions to particular contextual needs and the resulting set of practices.

Implications and There are three implications for teacher education that emerge from
conclusion this data:
1 Theorists have tended to underestimate teacher autonomy. Teachers
are far more intellectually discerning than applied linguists give them
credit for. Just as proponents of designer methods often doubted that
teachers left to their own devices would teach systematically, post-
methodologists fear teachers will slavishly follow whatever method they
have been trained in. The evidence here suggests that the pessimism of
both sets of theorists underestimates the intellectual autonomy and
discernment of the practitioner.
2 A knowledge of methods can be seen as essential to the foundational
knowledge all teachers should have. Teachers’ interest in knowing about
methods both as a source of options and a basis for eclecticism in the

142 David M. Bell

classroom suggests that the history of methods should be a key
component of a teacher education programme in addition to
opportunities which allow teachers to reflect on the appropriateness of
such methods to their particular teaching context.
3 Methods, however that term is defined, are not dead. Teachers seem to be
aware of both the usefulness of methods and the need to go beyond them.
Post-method need not imply the end of methods but rather an
understanding of the limitations of the notion of method as it is narrowly
defined and a desire to transcend those limitations. In this sense, the

evidence here suggests that teachers have always been ‘beyond methods’,
as this final ‘teacher voice’ suggests:
I think that teachers should be exposed to all methods and they
themselves would ‘build’ their own methods or decide what principles
they would use in their teaching. We cannot ignore methods and all the
facts that were considered by those who ‘created’ or use them in their
teaching. We need a basis for building our own teaching.
Final revised version received August 2005

References Kumaravadivelu, B. 1994. ‘The postmethod
Adamson, B. 2004. ‘Fashions in language teaching condition: (e)merging strategies for second/foreign
methodology’ in A. Davies and C. Elder (eds.). The language teaching’. TES O L Quarterly 28/1: 27–47.
Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Maldon, Mass.: Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. ‘‘‘The joy of watching
Blackwell. others learn’’. An interview with Diane Larsen-
Anthony, E. M. 1963. ‘Approach, method and Freeman by William P. Ancker’. English Teaching
technique’. English Language Teaching 17: 63–7. Forum 39/ 4: 2–9.
Bell, D. M. 2003. ‘Method and postmethod: Are they Murphy, T. and P. Byrd. 2001. Understanding the
really so incompatible?’ TES O L Quarterly 37/2: Courses We Teach. Ann Arbor: The University of
325–36. Michigan.
Block, D. 2001. ‘An exploration of the art and science Prabhu, N. S. 1990. ‘There is no best
debate in language education’ in M. Bax and J.-W. method—Why?’ T ES O L Quarterly 24/2: 161–72.
Zwart (eds.). Reflections on Language and Language Richards, J. C. 1990. ‘Beyond methods’ in J. C.
Learning: In Honour of Arthur van Essen. Amsterdam: Richards (ed.). The Language Teaching Matrix.
John Benjamins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. 2000. Principles of Language Learning Richards, J. C. and B. Ho. 1998. ‘Reflective thinking
and Teaching. White Plains, N.Y.: Addison Wesley through journal writing’ in J. C. Richards (ed.).
Longman. Beyond Training. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Brown, H. D. 2002. ‘English language teaching in Press.
the ‘‘post-method’’ era: toward better diagnosis, Richards, J. C. and T. S. Rodgers. 2001. Approaches
treatment, and assessment’ in J. C. Richards and and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
W. A. Renandya (eds.). Methodology in Language Cambridge University Press.
Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The author
Bygate, M., P. Skehan, and M. Swain. 2001. David Bell is Assistant Professor of Applied
‘Introduction’ in M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain Linguistics at Ohio University. He has taught E F L in
(eds.). Researching Pedagogic Tasks. Second Language Britain, Italy, Japan and the U SA. Besides TES O L
Learning, Teaching and Testing. Harlow: Longman. methodology, his research interests are listening
Cummings, A. 1989. ‘Student teachers’ conceptions comprehension, language and movement,
of curriculum: towards an understanding of pedagogical grammar, and pragmatics.
language teacher development’. TE SL Canada Email: belld@ohio.edu
Journal 7/1: 33–51.


Elt j 2007-bell-135-43

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Destacado

Destacado (15)

Similar a Elt j 2007-bell-135-43

Similar a Elt j 2007-bell-135-43 (20)

Elt j 2007-bell-135-43