Professional Documents
Culture Documents
are dead?
David M. Bell
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.
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
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
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