To believe that the success of educational
processes relies mainly in the methodology used by teachers is quite a naive
view. In the articles by Hu and Bax this week we see that this view has
affected the teaching of English in many different contexts. As Hu points outs
in his article: ‘(there is) a host of constraints on the adoption of
CLT in the Chinese context which includes, among other things, lack of
necessary resources, big class size, limited instructional time, teachers' lack
of
language proficiency and sociolinguistic
competence, examination pressure, and cultural factors’ p. 94. These constraints however are not exclusively problematic
for the implementation of CLT in China, they affect any learning environment in
any field of study. As well as they affect the implementation of CLT, they
could affect any other method. Also, the factors listed by the author are numerous
and of diverse character and, in most of the cases they go beyond the power of
the English teacher.
Bearing in mind the complexity of the
settings where English is learned as Foreign or Second Language, I believe it
is somehow necessary not to worry too much about the effectiveness of the
different methods posed by theorists throughout the history of SLA and
teaching. It is my belief that we are aiming at the wrong targets when
validating or declaring the ‘death’ of one given method. It is to me a
commonplace to say ‘this method is better than the other’, ‘how is it
possible that people still use this method?’. Methods are there, and
they are for us to use when we consider they suit our teaching scenarios. Even though
many believe that those methods used in the past are no longer in use, they have
permeated current practices and make part of the inventory of possibilities
teacher resort to in their daily practices. Methods are different ways to look
at how languages are learned and taught, and they are in line with one or
another theory of language and/or education.
For this reason, I find it very problematic
to see the rigorousness and validity of statements like ‘In other words
the message which CLT gives to teachers is this: The Communicative Approach is
the way to do it, no matter where you are, no matter what the context’ p.
281. Whose assumptions are these? Is Bax quoting an author, a manual, a
textbook? Where does he get this from? I am sure many teachers adopt this
position, mainly because the lack of professionalism (for whatever reasons,
neglect, lack of opportunities) and excessive naivety, but this is a very
flawed argument to use to claim that CLT is death or that it should die. Of
course, Bax’s proposal on adopting an approach that is much more context
sensitive is in place. I do agree with him when calls for the formulation of
teacher education programs that help them develop the skills to identify and
incorporate peculiarities of the specific contexts they teach at into their
curricula and classroom practices.
Language, learning and teaching theories
have a lot to offer to us when improving the quality of our teaching, but as
long as learners do not have access to books, quality resources, caring and
professional teachers, they will continue to face huge challenges.
No comments:
Post a Comment