The English Teachers Online Network of South Africa logo
   

Is There A Best Method? And if so, is it the Communicative Approach?

by Dorian Love


The extent to which theory may prove valuable to teachers and students of additional languages is probably largely determined by the extent to which it can answer the key question of whether or not there is a best method for teaching, or learning a second language. One might suppose, in a common sense way, that there is indeed a best method for teaching an additional language. Or, if not, then given enough research, surely one method might be discerned as better than others. And yet, as we shall see, this is not always the conclusion reached, probably leading to a widely held view that theory is not altogether much use to teachers, who tend to view their work as a largely practical concern. "They tend to teach as they were taught, and view methodology as a matter of personal 'teaching style'" (Whitley, 1993, 143). Or, to put it in a more flattering way, that teaching is an art, not a science.

However, if we compare language teaching to something equally practical as dentistry, and teaching often feels like pulling teeth, we might see better how theory and practice are interrelated. Good dental practice is informed by a theory of the mouth, and by a set of best practices, or methods, relating to prevention and cure. One could scarcely imagine a situation where a dentist could start filling teeth without an understanding of the structure of the tooth. Likewise, language teaching methods are informed by a general theory of language acquisition, and a coherent set of principles and techniques related to this theoretical understanding. As Rodgers points out, "(m)ethodology in language teaching has been characterised in a variety of ways. A more or less classical formulation suggests that methodology is that which links theory and practice. Theory statements would include theories of what language is and how language is learned...." (Rodgers, 2001, Online )

Richards, et al, define a method as "a way of teaching a language which is based on systematic principles and procedures" (Richards et al, 1992). I suppose there are two main conclusions one can reach from these definitions. Firstly, method, in this sense, embodies a theoretical understanding of language learning, or teaching. Thus, whatever teachers may think about their position regarding "theory", in fact teaching practice inevitably involves theoretical stances. Secondly, in that each method represents a coherent set of principles, methods might well prove mutually exclusive. Consequently, the choices teachers make about which methods to employ, inevitably involve decisions about theories of language acquisition. Decisions such as whether to correct errors or not, thus are not the practical considerations they may appear to many teachers, but are theoretical positions, ultimately relating to theories of language acquisition.

During the 1950s and 1960s, in the United States at any rate, the Audio-Lingual method was dominant, deriving strong theoretical support from Behaviourist theories about the nature of learning. The Chomskyian Revolution and the rise of Cognitive Psychology in general, challenged the conception of language as a set of discrete patterns which could be learned by habit formation. Consequently, a diverse range of language teaching methods emerged in the 1970s and early 1980s such as The Silent Way, Community Language Learning, Total Physical Response, Suggestopedia and the Natural Approach. In the 1980s a greater concern with communicative competence has led to a greater unification of methodologies, in what has generally been termed the Communicative Approach. However, as Whitley has noted, this essential unity has frequently been masked by academic infighting, and an overemphasis on differences, rather than similarities. (Whitley, 1993)

The field is further fractured by the fact that no single theory of language acquisition has emerged to fill the void left by the Behaviourists. Researchers in first language research tend to have different approaches to those in second language research, while foreign language research has its own priorities yet again. Further to this, the feeder disciplines to Applied Linguistics, such as linguistics, psycholinguistics or sociolinguistics, all have their own sets of priorities and conclusions. It is hard to imagine that any best method could be arrived at until all these diverse strands have been unified in a grand theory of language acquisition. This is not to say that seeking such a theory is not a laudable aim, but it does help to explain why so many feel, in its absence, that there is no best method.

There are two major schools adopting this position. Because the teaching-learning environment is such a complex human situation, with so many input variables, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that method should be dependent upon the context. Indeed, this is a claim often advanced. This position has been dubbed relativism. "Each method has its strengths and weaknesses, relativists believe, but they are not equally suited for all situations" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, 182) In this case, one might only be able to discern best methods for each teaching context. This would be true particularly if basic characteristics such as the age of the learner could be shown to favour different teaching methods. In this instance, conclusions drawn from a general theory of language acquisition would clearly lead to different methodologies in the learning environment.

However, as N.S Prabhu has pointed out, "Theory, as we know, arises not from a cataloguing of diversity, but from a perception of unity in diverse phenomena - a single principle, or a single system of principles, in terms of which diversity can be maximally accounted for." (Prabhu, 1990, 166)

Prabhu argues that if theories of language teaching fail to account for the diversity in teaching situations, then a more general theory needs to be developed to account for more of the diversity. To go back to our model of dentistry, it would seem odd for a dental practitioner not to be able to encompass within her theory and practice differing oral topologies. One would expect the quest for a general theory of language acquisition to result in a single best method, able to encompass diversity.

To argue that pedagogic theories need to be tailored to each teaching context, is, after all to claim that the process of language acquisition itself is dependent upon context, since any particular teaching method is arrived at as the result of a theory of language acquisition. Perhaps the only valid reasons for such a conclusion might come from marked biological variation, such as age difference, or cultural diversity. Given research into cultural dissonance and what might generally be termed world view (Wilson & Fleming, 2002, in press), there might be some basis for this.

A second strain of thought arguing for a no best method position has been dubbed pluralism. This approach argues that "there is some value to each method" (Larsen-Freeman, 2000, 182). Given that the nature of language, and of learning is complex, it would seem to follow that there is no single truth, to account for the whole of language learning, even within a single context. Teachers following this train of thought, create a blending of methods, or eclecticism. In that choices might follow a consistent set of ideas, a principled eclecticism forms the aim of the pluralists. Cynically one might argue that more frequently a failure to discern a coherent set of principles guiding the selection of methodology in reality constitutes an unprincipled eclecticism.

Prabhu, however, identifies the mechanical, routine manner in which teaching methods are often adopted by teachers as a major stumbling block to successful teaching, and we need to set beside the principled application of theory or method, what Prahbu calls the teacher's sense of plausibility. By this he means the degree to which a teacher is involved in the teaching, and it is not routine, or mechanical. The teacher's sense of involvement will help establish classroom rapport. Indeed Prabhu goes as far as to suggest that the ideal of activities which engage the teacher's sense of plausibility "is more worth our while to pursue than the notion of an objectively best method" (Prabhu, 1990, 173).

I suppose, in my own classroom, I am guilty of a sort of hopefully, principled eclecticism. Like many teachers I have internalised what snippets of theory have come down to me, either during teacher-training, or from reading in my spare time. I tend to be attracted to certain approaches more than others, but tend to use activities based on my experience of success or failure in past lessons, rather than any real examination of their coherent application to any particular theory. Much of my teaching is routine, but I do try to reinvigorate, and examine my approach to at least one area of my teaching every year. I must admit that Prabhu's notion of plausibility as a key principle in the success or failure of teaching strikes a chord, because in my experience, so much of the success of any lesson, depends on key motivational factors. And the key to this, in my experience is nothing more or less than teacher enthusiasm.

The notion, then, that in the Communicative Approach we have a best method, and consequently no need for any eclecticism, principled or otherwise, rings hollow on several grounds. Firstly, the state of knowledge of language acquisition theory is nowhere near capable of giving hope that such statements could be made definitively at this time. Secondly, research seems to suggest that certain key elements of the Communicative Approach fall short of being applicable in all situations. This would seem especially true of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) situations, where communicative competency itself may be out of reach as a realistic goal for students given their lack of widespread exposure to English.

Defeng Li, for example, has identified a range of difficulties in introducing the Communicative Approach in South Korea, central to which were teacher perceptions and insecurities in a situation where teacher competency itself, especially in communicative competency in English was lacking, as were adequate materials suitable for use in communicative activities. Defeng Li notes that "(i)nasmuch as many teaching methodologies developed in the West are often difficult to introduce into EFL situations with different educational theories and realities, in the long run EFL countries may be better off developing methods in their own contexts" (Defeng Li, , 1998, 698)

My own English Second Language students live in a country where English is very much a lingua franca. It is the main medium of communication in schools, and in the media. And yet there are still very real constraints on the level of English which most will obtain to. Very few are able to rise above a grammatical competency, which they quickly acquire, to master a broad enough communicative competency. This fossilisation I would argue is particularly strong because of the very ubiquity of English, but a township English which is quite functional within the borders of South Africa since it is understood by native speakers. There is little or no motivation for students to master standard English given a job market in which matriculants either lack all hope of a job, or rely largely on tertiary educational bursaries and affirmative action programmes, rather than on an ability to communicate in standard English. Much of the focus of the Communicative Approach, then lies outside the motivational domain of students, and any enthusiasm on behalf of teachers to tackle these areas of the syllabus is soon blunted by repeated failure.

As an example, for most of my students, acquiring a single English word is sufficient. And yet communicative competency in English requires knowledge of the connotations of particular words, and the contexts they are used in, idiomatically and functionally. English, with its diverse roots has a rich vocabulary compared with most languages, and is also preposition driven, giving it a rich idiomatic variation which flaws many otherwise able second language speakers. Communicative activities tend to focus on these areas, presenting great difficulties and demotivational pressures for students.

William, upon ascending the English throne in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, is said to have declared before an audience of London merchants, that he had "come for all of (their) goods", illustrating aptly the pitfalls of the English tongue for a non-native speaker. While the Communicative Approach represents a huge advance in teaching methodology on earlier practices, I wonder if one can unreservedly say that it "has come for all of our goods." And I wonder if it is wise to let go of our eclecticism just yet.

Bibliography