Skip to main content

On progressives and traditionalists

I was reading a blog post by Greg Ashman in which he listed six ways to know whether you are a progressive teacher. Among them was this:

"You believe that learning should be natural.

This is probably the fundamental tenet of progressivism and it leads to some of the others. Have you ever noticed how children effortlessly learn to speak or walk? Have you noticed how they figure out how to play with a new toy? Do you think that education should be like that; joyful and natural?

If so, you will be suspicious of activities that look forced and unnatural such as drill and practice. You will be skeptical of phonics instruction in reading, not because you think children shouldn’t learn letter-sound relationships but because you don’t think they should be drilled in them. They should instead pick this up by reading real, authentic books; a more natural method."

This, of course, will ring a bell if you are interested in debates about language teaching approaches. Supporters of natural, pure comprehensible input methods à la Krashen and TPRS often say how easy and painless the approach is for pupils. If you get interesting input nature takes its course and language learning ceases to be hard work. That sounds progressive.

I must confess I had never looked at this particularly from the perspective of the progressive-traditionalist argument, but it did get me thinking. Yes, learning grammar explicitly, doing drill practice, translating, doing form-focused teacher-led question-answer - all of these have a more traditional feel to them than telling stories and doing purely meaning based tasks. But this just shows that what is progressive can change over time.

When I started out in teaching, grammar-translation was traditional and audiolingual and teacher-led adapted direct method ("death by question-answer") was considered progressive. I was quite "progressive" then. By the 1980s, as communicative teaching was imported from TEFL, teacher-led QA, even when largely in TL, was getting a bit fusty. Functions, notions, information gaps and pair work became the name of the game. Meaning was beginning to trump form.

By 2016, in some quarters, CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) is now a bit old hat and only natural approaches would be considered progressive. When you read second language acquisition research you can see where this trend stems from - many theorists and researchers value input more highly than explicit grammar teaching and practice.

It goes to show that the idea of progressiveness, at least in terms of language teaching, is a moving feast. It may also go to explain why language teachers are a little reluctant to get into the whole progressive-traditionalist debate. Most language teachers are not at all dogmatic about methods. They use a mixture of approaches and techniques, more or less successfully, influenced largely by the way they were taught themselves and with some influence from the current zeitgeist. It's a minority of evangelists who these days argue for a "best method".

Successful teachers deliver their eclectic mix efficiently, with some idea of why they doing what they do. Other less successful ones may not have thought through the reasons for their approach, may not put in the effort, spend too much time having fun or doing unproductive activities, maybe follow fashion too much or may just not relate that well to their classes.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Comments

  1. Great post Steve and very balanced. I am one language teacher who just wants to be more effective and being polarised in one camp or the other just seems to be a missed opportunity as there positives and negatives with both depending on the multitude of needs of students in my class. The wise teacher knows how to select from the whole range depending on the objective, student and situation. Thank you for another very thoughtful and honest post. Barri

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delayed dictation

What is “delayed dictation”?

Instead of getting students to transcribe immediately what you say, or what a partner says, you can enforce a 10 second delay so that students have to keep running over in their heads what they have heard. Some teachers have even used the delay time to try to distract students with music.

It’s an added challenge for students but has significant value, I think. It reminds me of a phenomenon in music called audiation. I use it frequently as a singer and I bet you do too.

Audiation is thought to be the foundation of musicianship. It takes place when we hear and comprehend music for which the sound is no longer or may never have been present. You can audiate when listening to music, performing from notation, playing “by ear,” improvising, composing, or notating music. When we have a song going round in our mind we are audiating. When we are deliberately learning a song we are audiating.

In our language teaching case, though, the earworm is a word, chunk of l…

Sentence Stealers with a twist

Sentence Stealers is a reading aloud game invented by Gianfranco Conti. I'll describe the game to you, then suggest an extension of it which goes a bit further than reading aloud. By the way, I shouldn't need to justify the usefulness of reading aloud, but just in case, we are talking here about matching sounds to spellings, practising listening, pronunciation and intonation and repeating/recycling high frequency language patterns.

This is how it works:

Display around 15 sentences on the board, preferably ones which show language patterns you have been working on recently or some time ago.Hand out four cards or slips of paper to each student.On each card students must secretly write a sentence from the displayed list.Students then circulate around the class, approaching their classmates and reading a sentence from the displayed list. If the other person has that sentence on one of their cards, they must hand over the card. The other person then does the same, choosing a sentenc…

Have a repertoire, lighten your workload (part one)

The next four blogs I'm going to post are the equivalent of one of those TV clip shows - you know, the ones where they need to fill a weekly slot by showing the best bits, or deleted scenes, from the series. But these four blogs have a theme. The clue is in the title. Like you, I worked hard when I was teaching, but I was pretty good at keeping things in proportion using a combination of economical planning, rapid marking and experience. The extra time those things created even allowed me to stay relaxed and have fun (most of the time) and to come up with the occasional innovative idea.

So, what I'm going to suggest here is that, if you have a little repertoire of go-to classroom activities, you can save yourself a lot of time and stress, and, what's more, all for the benefit of your classes. You see, I think (actually, I know) pupils like routines, but they also appreciate a bit of variety. So if you apply your repertoire of lesson/activity types sensibly you can satisfy b…

"Ask and move" task

This is a lesson plan using an idea from our book Breaking the Sound Barrier (Conti and Smith, 2019). It's a task-based lesson adapted from an idea from Paul Nation and Jonathan Newton. It is aimed at Y10-11 pupils aiming at Higher Tier GCSE, but is easily adaptable to other levels and languages, including A-level. This has been posted as a resource on frenchteacher.net.

This type of lesson plan excites me more than many, because if it runs well, you get a classroom of busy communication when you can step back, monitor and occasionally intervene as students get on with listening, speaking and writing.

Curriculum planning

Many MFL departments are talking about planning in response to whole school initiatives related to Ofsted's latest emphasis: CURRICULUM. This post is about how a department might respond to such an initiative. It's fairly broad-brush, given the nature of the issue, but not too airy-fairy, I hope.

Here is Ofsted's definition of the curriculum:

“The curriculum is a framework for setting out the aims of a programme of education, including the knowledge and understanding to be gained at each stage (intent); for translating that framework over time into a structure and narrative, within an institutional context (implementation) and for evaluating what knowledge and understanding pupils have gained against expectations (impact/achievement).” (My highlighting.)

So Ofsted wants schools to:

• know their curriculum – design and intent;
• know how their curriculum is being implemented;
• know what impact their curriculum is having on pupils’ knowledge and understanding.

(I'…