The postmethod era

I’ve found the two readings very informative. Celce-Murcia’s article meets the function of providing teachers with a review of the basics of the distinct methods that have been present in the studies of second/foreign language learning .  Kumaravadivelu on the other hand focuses in how the TESOL field of study has evolved over the last twenty years.

I will concentrate on Kumaravadivelu’s article and will pose a few questions:

1.  Kumaravadivelu does a very good job in pointing out the difference between methods and practices. This dichotomy presents with a very important question on how teachers actually enact methods in their classrooms. Even though the author does quote some studies on how methods take place in the classroom, I have a lot of doubts in terms on how the results from the studies can be generalized to all teachers in all contexts globally. Coming up to general conclusions on the effectiveness of methods and the ways they are implemented seems a very risky enterprise, particularly if we embrace the differences between local contexts and teachers’ background and teaching styles.
2.  Kumaravadivelu discusses what a postmethod pedagogy could look like, and how it should rely on the teacher’s ability to determine what side of the pendulums they should lean towards.  However, I wonder if this not what many teachers have been doing for a long time, even when the method era was in vogue.
3.  As I read Kumaravadivelu proposal of a Macrostrategic Framework, I couldn’t help but thinking, isn’t this a method in its own? Wouldn’t the enacting of the ten macrostrategies proposed by Kumaravadivelu require some kind of procedural order and implemmentation?
4.  Kumaravadivelu cites Norton (2000) when he says: ‘it is only by understanding the histories and lived experiences of language learners that the language teacher can create conditions that will facilitate social interaction both in the classroom and in the wider community, and help learners claim the right to speak’. I wonder how feasible it is only to know (not to say understand) the histories and lived experiences of language learners.  Furthermore, is this really the only way to create such conditions?
5.  I believe evolution on the study of language and theories of learning as well as our inherent human and scientific desire to find generalizable principles have played an important role in the constant uprising of ELT methods. Of course, economic and political agendas have also partaken in this. As of now, as a consequence of the way social sciences have been moving towards the critical side of the pendulum, we are now witnessing how these critical perspectives on language teaching. However, isn’t it possible that radically critical perspectives of the method era as the ones presented in article may lead us into an atomization and relativism of the field where teachers are responsible of figuring out the specific peculiarities of each learning environment? Isn’t this too much of a burden, particularly with the political and economic contexts where teachers have to develop their profession?

Anthology: Chapter 1 & 2

‘Eclecticism is not an option here, since the different conceptions of  teaching represent fundamentally different representations of what teaching is and how teachers should approach their work’ p. 25 (Richards, J. in Richards, J. & Renandya, W). This idea was by far what called my attention most in the readings.  I have the feeling that I am not the only one that was shocked by this statement. It seems to me that it is today’s common knowledge that teaching must be eclectic in the sense that it needs to respond to the ever-increasing diversity of the ESL/EFL student population. Also, developments in the last century in language teaching have provided us with a huge number of methods and techniques that are necessarily wrong. Today we see how some experts neglect of most of the methods used in the past for language teaching and learning, but it is my belief that their major problem was the monolithic perspective on language learning and their lack of comprehensive.  Now that we have moved forward the ‘unique method perspective’ we have come to understand that learning is an individual process and that therefore it can’t be looked although a one-fits-all approach.

For these reasons,  I certainly see no reason why theory-philosophy conceptions cannot serve as the framework for the uprising of science-research conceptions that, in turn, may be materialized into methods and skills applicable in the classroom. To me this a straightforward way to understand teaching as governed by an understanding of the world. I reckon however, that this is not necessarily true. Some teachers like to think of themselves as being positioned in one of the three conceptions presented by Richards. What I don’t understand is the reason Richards asserts there is no room for adopting an eclectic approach. I am sure there is much to this than what I can think of right now. I hope we can find some answers to this in our class.

English Language Learners

Diaz-Rico, L. & Weed, K. (2010) The crosscultural, language, and academic development handbook. A complete K-12 reference guide. Chapter 8 Jenkins, J. (2009). Who speaks English today? (p. 15-24). World Englishes. Farr, M. et al. (2010). Ethnolinguistic diversity in language and literacy education.

  

From my perspective, the issues brought up by Diaz Rico, L. & Weed Jenkins and Farr, Seloni and Song need to be approached from different perspectives.

Diaz Rico & Weed ad Farr. et al. discuss the ELL population in the US. Clearly, they provide a clear picture on the challenges and benefits brought by the different waves of immigration throughout the history of the US. It is very unfortunate that nowadays students from culturally diverse backgrounds are still struggling to find an education that responds to their needs and that maximizes their cultural and linguistic richness. Efforts must be made by educational authorities in order to develop the capacity required to equip schools and educate teachers so the educational system can stand up to this challenge. However, this cannot be done without a paradigm shift in the way society sees immigrants. Throughout history, immigrants have been seen by host countries as a work force to help boost the economy. Immigrants have been seen as desirable in times when the local workforce is not enough to cope with the demands of production and trade, or in times of excessive wealth when natives have decided that certain jobs should be done by outsiders in need of income.

From this perspective, the legacy of these immigrants as well as their heritage has been deemed as undesirable, to say the least. It has been this perspective what has prevented immigrants to be treated as legitimate members of the society, as subject of duties but also of rights. It is for this reason that education is not designed to provide quality solutions to the challenges posed by immigration. As Farr, et al. put it (8), it is possible to have a common language but not desirable to have an only language.  Only if we come to understand that efforts should be made in order to take advantage of the benefits and potential of multiculturalism, if we become willing to learn the lessons the peoples of the world have to teach us, can we transform our educational practices to respond to such phenomena. A multicultural society ruled by monocultural policies and practices is a social time bomb.

On the other hand, Jenkins problematizes the notion of the circles as put by Kachru and other authors over the last thirty years. In this respect, I find it necessary to say that even though I consider important to uncover all the layers in terms like EFL, ESL, ENL, and to further our knowledge on the different features of the English learning environments around the world,  I do believe that is necessary to keep this macro-distinctions.  Coming from a country that could arguably called from the outer circle, it is clear that the needs, motivation, resources, etc. of those who learn EFL are very different from those in the ESL circle (or outer). I do not agree with Jenkins when she quotes Graddol to assert that some countries in the outer circle are transitioning into the expanding circle. At least, in the case of Latin America (she mentions Costa Rica and Argentina), this is by no means true. It is not possible to equate the complexities of ESL scenarios with those places where political, cultural and economic decisions have brought about policies to foster the learning of foreign languages. This statement by Graddol is made based on number of people studying English and educational policies and history has proved that ESL settings are brought up by much traumatic happenings such as colonization or political disrupt.