You often read in the literature about second language learning there is no best method. It came up again in Elspeth Broady’s opening chapter of the recently published Practical Guide to Teaching Foreign Languages in the Secondary School (Pachler and Redondo, 2023). I reviewed that book here.
The general claim is surely true. Indeed, you might think if there were a best method, we would have discovered it by now. Despite centuries of reflection and over half a century of modern research, we still rehearse the age-old debates around the relative merits of natural approaches and those based on building automatised skill through explanation and practice.
Yet, while no best method has been established, many teachers are quite passionate and even tribal in their defence of the method or approach they use. They may have some good reasons for this. More of that below.
I think it’s quite legitimate to justify and defend one’s favoured pedagogy. There are some widely accepted general principles: the importance of comprehensible input, interaction, repetition and some focus on grammatical form. But the ways these principles can be applied are numerous. So you’ll find ardent proponents of various methodologies in schools, whether it be communicative language teaching, EPI (quite common in the UK and Australia), TPRS/CI (mainly in the USA), AIM (mainly in Canada), Task-Based Language Teaching (most common in TEFL), Knowledge Organisers (UK) or principled hybrid approaches which are the preferred model for many teachers.Traditional PPP (Presentation - Practice - Production) based on a building blocks grammatical approach is still widely used.
One reason pedagogical preferences vary so much is to do with the educational setting of the teaching. Are you teaching an individual, a class in secondary school, a group of newly arrived immigrants, business people wishing to engage in simple conversation, a large class of children (with just a blackboard), adults learning specialist language for a specific professional purpose? The list goes on.
A second key variable is the nature of the syllabus you have to teach. The so-called washback or backwash effect is powerful. This means that the nature of the assessment has an effect (positive, negative, or both), to some extent, on the type of approach and activities you adopt. In England, for example, where the GCSE or IGCSE is the only option for pupils aged 14-16, the syllabus is tightly constrained by the requirements of a high-stakes exam which contains lists of words and structures, with predictable question types.
Suppose that you teach 11-15 year-olds in classes of 30. Even classes like this vary a good deal. You may be working in a challenging school with unmotivated and even disruptive learners Alternatively, your class might consist of highly motivated, selected pupils some of whom have travelled to the target language country. You may, in one class, a diverse group of learners, some with more than one language, some newly arrived in the country, others with particular learning needs.
Furthermore, the school or department may place restrictions on the lesson style, or your access to resources may be constrained. Your own linguistic skills may place limits on what you are able to do - many teachers are required to teach a language in which they are not at all fluent. In some parts of the world, attempts to run communicative lessons may fall flat if students are used to a strongly teacher-led traditional approach.This can be a cultural issue.
Given all these factors, it’s not surprising that teachers apply or find an approach which suits their own preferences and meets the needs of the class in front of them. This may be the ‘best method’ for them and their students, in their very particular context. A key factor in all this is the teacher’s own belief in their approach. If you have a clear idea why you are doing what you do, what the underlying principles are, and you can see that outcomes are good, then you have reason to believe you are applying your best pedagogy. You’ll know if the outcomes are good through exam results, uptake (how many students opt to do your subject) and pupil and parent feedback. Connected to this is the ‘quality of delivery’ factor. You can have an approach which may be evidence-informed, but which you don’t deliver effectively, be it because of your personality, relationship with the class, personal beliefs, linguistic competence. So it may be better to use the method you are most capable of doing well.
But this shouldn’t imply a degree of self-satisfaction which precludes reflection and self-criticism. Good teachers are what is sometimes called ‘reflective practitioners’ and even ‘teacher researchers’ who constantly question methodology and are willing to try out new ideas based on sound language acquisition principles. Those conversations with staffroom colleagues and in online forums are so valuable, as are subject-specific professional development and coaching.
Reflective teachers should also be aware of the potential limitations of their chosen approach. For example, does it foster intercultural understanding? Is it suitable for all pupils, including the ‘gifted and talented’ and those with special needs? Does it develop self-efficacy (that feeling of ‘can do’ competence)? Is it ensuring it gets students the grades they need? Is the content interesting from a student’s point of view? Are students enjoying themselves?
The TSC Review of MFL Pedagogy stated: “No single approach to teaching languages represents ‘the best way’ in all circumstances” (Bauckham, 2016, p.5). In your particular circumstance you may have found your best method for now, as long as you keep thinking about it and questioning it!
The TSC Review, which still underlies England’s NCLE (NCELP’s successor) is here:
Comments
Post a Comment