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.