WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Preliminary definition: a language-teaching method

A coherent set of teaching procedures and behaviours based on a theory of what language is and how it is
learnt

1. THE PAST

Grammar-translation method

Procedures:
 Grammatical rules and exercises  Lessons normally conducted in L1
 Vocabulary lists  Grammatical syllabus
 Reading passages, studied and translated  Emphasis on accuracy
 Very little speaking

Underlying approach:
Language is grammar and vocabulary; learning it implies learning and memorizing information about it.
Direct Method

Procedures
 Only English used  Mainly speaking
 A lot of teacher-student dialogues  Both communication and accuracy stressed
 Later, systematic teaching of grammar and  A grammatical syllabus.
vocabulary

Underlying rationale
English is a system of communication, best learnt through English-only interaction. It is important to learn
to speak it correctly.
Audio-lingual method

Procedures:
 Mimicry, memorization, repetition  Very little vocabulary teaching
 Mainly speaking  A grammatical syllabus
 No grammar explanations  Emphasis on accuracy

Underlying rationale:
Language is speech, not writing; language is a set of habits; teach the language, not about the language.
Task-based language teaching (TBLT)

Procedures
 Mainly communicative tasks  Student-centred, teacher as facilitator
 No pre-set grammatical or lexical syllabus  Occasional reactive ‘focus on form’
 Fluency rather than accuracy

Penny Ur
2012
 2

Underlying rationale
Language is primarily a system of communication. A second language is learnt similarly to a first: through
using it to interact with others.
Grammar-translation Direct Audio-lingualism TBLT
method
emphasis on accuracy   
emphasis on fluency  
grammatical syllabus   
communicative  ? 
activities

use of L1 
oral skills   
written skills  () 

But in fact, these represent theoretical models: rarely if ever in fact taught in their ‘pure’ forms, but useful in
providing a picture of different trends and orientations in the history of ELT.
They were very often developed as reactions against a conventionally accepted method, which sometimes
led to the ‘throwing out the baby with the bathwater’ phenomenon.
A post-method era?
1. Opposition in principle to the concept of ‘method’ as a basis for English teaching:
Pennycook: The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching
(1989)
Prabhu: There is no best method (1990)
Kumaravadivelu: The post-method condition (1994); Towards a postmethod pedagogy (2001);
Understanding Language Teaching: from Method to Postmethod (2006).
Pishghadam & Mirzaee: English language teaching in postmodern era (2008)
2. Some evidence that method is not the critical variable in successful teaching
Clarke et al: Creating coherence: High achieving classrooms for minority students (1996)
Ding: Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of English
(2007)
And yet methods are alive and kicking!
(Bell: Method and post-method: Are they really so incompatible? (2003)
Task-based learning – clearly a ‘method’ – continues to be promoted. Why?

Some possible reasons:

 Assumption that teachers need to be told how to teach
 Political / power issues: maintaining the dominance of universities and ministries
 Assumption that practice must grow out of theory
 Ideology and political correctness
Penny Ur
2012
 3

 A clear basis for teacher-training programs

2. THE PRESENT

TBLT is the dominant method: ‘An emerging orthodoxy’ (Carless, 2009: 66). It is promoted in teacher-
preparation courses, conferences, the literature
Ellis: Task-based Language Learning and Teaching (2003)
Leaver & Willis: Task-Based Instruction In Foreign Language Education: Practices and Programs
(2004)
Nunan: Task-based Language Teaching (2004)
Robinson: Task-based language learning: A review of issues (2011)
Skehan: Task-based instruction (2003)
Some characteristics:
Encouraged
 Communicative tasks  Reactive focus on form
 Group and pair work  Student autonomy
 Extensive reading

Discouraged:
 Grammatical syllabus  Learning by heart
 Grammar and vocabulary exercises  Teacher-dominated classroom process
 Use of L1
Discussion
How far does this overview of task-based instruction correspond with:
a) The general direction of methodology courses in teacher training programs in this country?
b) Actual practice, as demonstrated by teachers observed in classrooms in this country?
Objections to task-based instruction
 It doesn’t work so well in the Asian context (Carless, 2007; Littlewood, 2007).
 Interactive communicative tasks produce minimal language (Seedhouse, 1999)
 Opposition on practical and theoretical grounds (Swan, 2005)
 Most teachers, if asked, say they teach an ‘eclectic’ method (Bell, 2007)
Response of the theorists: a ‘weak’ task-based teaching model
Ellis (2009): ‘…it is argued that task-based teaching need not be seen as an alternative to more traditional,
form-focused approaches but can be used alongside them’ (p.221)
But then task-based procedures become only one component. Is it still a ‘task-based approach’? If not, what
is it?
So what’s going on?
Recent writing on methodology, conferences: sometimes a strong task-based approach, sometimes a
compromise. Teacher courses, national syllabuses are largely TBLT-oriented. But teachers in the field are
largely ‘eclectic’ (tending towards the traditional presentation-practice-production). Coursebook writers and

Penny Ur
2012
 4

publishers have a dilemma: do they follow authoritative guidelines and make their materials essentially
TBLT-based; or do they do what the teachers want, and sell their books? Bottom line: confusion.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

A personal view
I suggest a language pedagogy that is principled and localized, determined by the teacher(s), informed
by reflection on experience and other professional knowledge sources

A pedagogy
Not a method because:
1. An unlimited number of possible classroom procedures
2. Not limited to one ‘correct’ view of what language is and how language is learnt.
3. Takes into account pedagogical aspects that ‘methods’ tend to ignore: student motivation, classroom
management, large and/or heterogeneous classes, classroom climate, lesson planning, homework …
Principled
The main principle is the optimalization of learning: the teacher will choose those procedures that in his/her
view lead to the best learning by students.
Other principles: educational values; the creation of a positive classroom climate and student motivation;
the maintenance of caring relationships …
Localized
Many decisions on principles and procedures will be based on local considerations: the local student
population; the teacher’s own personality and preferences; the goals of the course; the local culture;
upcoming exams …
Determined by the teacher(s)
The teacher, or group of teachers in a school, decide on their pedagogy and choose material, based on the
teacher’s sense of plausibility (Prabhu, 1990)
Informed by reflection on experience and other professional knowledge sources
The primary source of the teacher’s ‘sense of plausibility’ is reflection on experience. Other professional
knowledge sources include: sharing with colleagues; feedback from students; the professional literature
(research, theory, teachers’ websites and blogs, books on language pedagogy, practical handbooks); courses,
conferences
Anything goes?
Potentially any teaching procedure may be part of an individual teacher’s pedagogy, provided
he/she can justify it, based on the principles and considerations listed previously.

The functions of the teacher trainer

Not to tell the teacher to use a specific method, but rather to provide
1. Evidence-based information about how learning and teaching languages
2. A range of practical teaching ideas
3. Opportunities to reflect and discuss
Penny Ur
2012
 5

4. Personal recommendations

Penny Ur
2012
 6

Examples from my own pedagogy

My own teaching includes the following:

Communicative discussion tasks

Samples: How many (non-obvious) things can you find in common with your partner, that you didn’t know
before?
Design a profile of the kind of teacher you would like to teach your child English. Divide the characteristics
into necessary, desirable, unnecessary.
Because: these activities help students learn to be fluent speakers, give them opportunities to practise
language they know, are interesting and fun, help to strengthen group relationships

Grammar exercises
Sample: Practise the modals: insert the appropriate forms.
1. I’m sorry, but I must leave early (have to).
2. When I was young, I played with dolls (used to).
3. We should try to stay calm (ought to).
4. Teachers must prepare lessons. (have to).
5. Teenagers should be in bed by 11 o’clock (be supposed to).
6. After he left, we could speak more easily (be able to).
OR
Practise the modals: insert the appropriate forms.
1. I’m sorry, but I must … (have to).
2. When I was young, I … (used to).
3. We should … (ought to).
4. Teachers must … (have to).
5. Teenagers should … (be supposed to).
6. After he left, we could … (be able to).
Because: grammar exercises improve grammatical accuracy, give opportunities to use the grammar in
different mini-contexts (the more meaningful and interesting the better).

L1 for presenting new items to a class

Sample: How would you you translate these items? Or would you present them through pictures? Other
ways?
a man a computer very
go only young
a thing think big
an apple
Because: this is the easiest, quickest and often most accurate as a ‘way in’ to vocabulary meanings; it
reflects students’ intuitive strategies; it saves time for use of the item in English contexts; it acknowledges
and respects the students’ L1; there is research support for use of L1 in vocabulary teaching (Laufer, 2008)

Penny Ur
2012
 7

Game-like procedures
Procedures that are games, but lead to learning
Samples: Quick Bingo (vocabulary); Guessing games (question forms); Brainstorms with a time-limit (oral
fluency)
Because: game-like activities are fun and motivating, increase attention and participation, contribute to a
positive classroom climate; prevent discipline problems; encourage playful use of language (Bell, 2012)

TO SUMMARIZE

We can – and should – learn from the various methods, from professional and research literature, from
colleagues and students, from conferences…
But the bottom line is:
It is the teacher’s own decision how to teach, based primarily on the answer to the question: What
will get my students to learn En glish well?

P.S. Isn’t this what is happening anyway?

To some extent. But in many situations there is an underlying uneasiness due to dissonance between the
official method and the reality of the classroom.
This dissonance should be faced and solved by releasing teachers from the pressure to use TBLT and
sanctioning their right to teach the way they believe is best for their students’ learning.

References and further reading

Bell, D. M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61(2), 135-143.
Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2),
325–36
Bell, N. (2012). Comparing playful and nonplayful incidental attention to form. Language Learning, 62(1),
236-265.
Carless D.. (2009). Revisiting the TBLT versus P-P-P debate: Voices from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of
English Language Teaching, 19, 49–66
Clarke, M. A., Davis, A., Rhodes, L. K., & Baker, E.. (1996). Creating coherence: High achieving
classrooms for minority students [Final report of research conducted under U.S. Department of Education,
OERI. Achieving Classrooms for Minority Students (HACMS), Field Initiated Studies Program]. Denver,
Colorado: University of Colorado at Denver.
Ding, Y. (2007). Text memorization and imitation: The practices of successful Chinese learners of English.
System, 35(2), 271-280.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based language teaching: sorting out the misunderstandings. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics, 19 (3), 221-246222121–246221–246.
Kumaradavadivelu, B. (2001). Towards a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. New York:
Routledge.
Penny Ur
2012
 8

Kumaravadivelu, B.1994. ‘The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language
teaching’. TESOL Quarterl,y 28 (1), 27–47.
Laufer, B., & Girsai, N.. (2008). Form-focused instruction in second language vocabulary learning: A case
for contrastive analysis and translation. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 694-716.
Leaver, B. L., & Willis, J. R. (2004). Task-Based Instruction In Foreign Language Education: Practices
and Programs. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and task-based language teaching in East Asian classrooms.
Language Teaching, 40, 243-249.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 589-618. (Quote: There are three important aspects to this: First, there is little
agreement as to which methods existed when, and in what order; second, there is little agreement and
conceptual coherence to the terms used; and third, there is little evidence that methods ever reflected
classroom reality.)
Pishghadam, R.. & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English Language Teaching in Postmodern Era. Journal of
Teaching English Language and Literature Society of Iran, 2 (7), 89-109.
Prabhu N. S.. 1990. There is no best method - why? TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 161-76.
Robinson, P. (2011). Task-Based Language Learning: A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 61 (Issue
supplement s1), 1-36.
Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
Sowden, C. (2007). Culture and the ‘good teacher’ in the English language classroom. ELT Journal, 61 (4),
304-310.
Walters, J., & Bozkurt, N. (2009). The effect of keeping vocabulary notebooks on vocabulary acquisition .
Language Teaching Research, 13(4), 403-423.

Penny Ur
2012