Kumaravadivelu asserts that principled pragmatism and plausibility are different from eclecticism in that the former provide space for teacher autonomy (amongst other things) (p. 33). Kumaravadivelu takes for granted that teachers using an eclectic approach do so merely by selecting different techniques from distinct methods as they see fit their teaching practice and their students’ needs, pretty much like putting up a lego tower. From this assumption he states that this practice must be abandoned. However, I prefer to give more credit to teachers and believe that such eclecticism involves informed decision-making processes and the implementation of teacher’s self-developed strategies as well as techniques and procedures derived from existing methods. Hence, the difference between informed eclecticism, plausibility and principled pragmatism becomes inexistent.
As much as I am in favor of critical perspective in language teaching (and in pretty much everything in life), it seems to me that the dismissal of methods is rather an ‘expert’ concern than a teacher’s one. It looks like it is theorists who placed more faith on methods than anyone else and therefore were clearly the ones more disappointed by their repetitive failures. Teachers seem to be much more at ease with the fact that no method works for all types of students and have learned to deal with that. In their everyday classrooms teachers draw techniques and strategies from different methods and their creativity and expertise. Apparently, what theorists have been discussing on the inefficiency of methods for the past 15 years, teachers have known long ago.
How is it possible to disregard enlightened eclecticism on the basis that ‘it offers no criteria according to which we can determine which is the best theory, nor does it provide any principles by which to include or exclude features which form part of existing theories or practices. The choice is left to the individual’s intuitive judgment and is, therefore, too broad and too vague to be satisfactory as a theory in its own right’? (Stern as cited by Kumaravadivelu, p. 31) Am I the only one feeling that postmethods advocates are criticizing this eclecticism precisely for its lack of a method?
When one tries to envision the enactment of the macrostrategies proposed by Kumaravadivelu, one pictures a teacher who constantly makes decisions on the different types of activities to be implemented, depending on the unique conditions of his/her students. This enactment may very well take the form of a number of techniques and activities that best suit the students needs and personalities, regardless of what the teacher’s theoretical incline may be. This makes me wonder, isn’t this informed eclecticism after all?
No comments:
Post a Comment