Some Thoughts on

Language-Teaching in the
‘Post-Method’ Era

Tony T.N. Hung

Language Centre, HKBU
tonyhung@hkbu.edu.hk
Can we really ‘teach’ a language?

‘We cannot really teach language: we

can only present the conditions under
which it will develop spontaneously in
the mind in its own way’
[Von Humboldt (1836), paraphrased by Chomsky
(1965)]
 Teachers as ‘Professionals’
Characteristics of professionals (e.g. doctors,
lawyers, architects, engineers, etc):
• Extended period of advanced specialised
training, etc…
• Autonomy – ability to exercise professional
judgement and make own decisions, and
take responsibility for them.
Teachers as Reflective Practitioners
• John Dewey (1933): How We Think.
Teachers - not just transmitters of
knowledge, but problem-solvers; creative,
context-sensitive.
• Don Schon (1983): The Reflective
Practitioner.
• Zeichner & Liston (1996): Reflective
Teaching: An Introduction.
 ‘Interactive Reflection’
• B. Kumaravadivelu (2003): Reflection
should not be merely introspective, but
interactive as well (involving students,
colleagues, planners, etc.)
 ‘Method’ vs. ‘Methodology’
• Method = established methods
conceptualised and constructed by experts
in the field.
• Methodology = what practising teachers
actually do in the classroom in order to
achieve their (stated or unstated) teaching
objectives.
 Some LT Methods
(cf. Larsen-Freeman 1986 and Richards & Rodgers 1986)
• Audiolingual Method
• Communicative Language Teaching
• Community Language Learning
• Competency-based Language Teaching
• Direct Method
• Grammar-Translation Method
• Natural Approach
• Oral & Situational Language Teaching
• Lexical Approach
• Silent Way
• Suggestopedia
• Task-Based Language Teaching
• Total Physical Response
 The ‘myth’ of method
(Kumaravadivelu 2006)

1. ‘There is a ‘best’ method out there ready

and waiting to be discovered’.
• ‘While sciences have advanced by
approximations in which each new stage
results from an improvement, not rejection, of
what has gone before, language-teaching
methods have followed the pendulum of
fashion from one extreme to the other’
(Mackey 1965, p.138)
2. ‘Method constitutes the organizing
principle for language teaching’.
• ‘By concentrating excessively on method, we
have ignored several other factors that govern
classroom processes and practices – such as
teacher cognition, learner perception, societal
needs, cultural contexts, economic
imperatives….’ (Kumaravadivelu 2006, p.165)
3. ‘Method has a universal and
ahistorical value’.
• Methods tend to be idealised, top-
down and ignorant of local
conditions and traditions.
4. ‘Theorists conceive knowledge, and
teachers consume knowledge’.
• An unfortunate division which has ‘not
only minimised any meaningful dialogue
between them, but has also contributed
to some degree of mutual disrespect’
(Kumaravadivelu 2006, p.166)
5. ‘Method is neutral, and has no
ideological motivation’.
 ‘Postmethod’ Pedagogy:
some proposals
• Stern’s ‘Three-Dimensional’ framework
(1992): (i) the L1-L2 connection, (ii) the
code-communication relationship, (iii) the
explicit-implicit option. Strategy =
‘intentional action’, Technique = ‘practical
action’.
• Allwright’s ‘Exploratory Practice’
framework (2003 etc.)
 Kumaravadivelu (2003):
‘Macrostrategic’ Framework
• Theory-neutral and method-neutral
• ‘Macrostrategies’: General plans derived
from currently available theoretical,
empirical, and pedagogical knowledge
related to L2 learning and teaching; broad
guidelines based on which teachers can
generate their own location-specific, need-
based ‘microstrategies’ or classroom
procedures.
 10 Macrostrategies

1. Maximise learning opportunities

• Teaching as a process of creating
and utilising learning opportunities;
teachers as planners and mediators
of learning.
2. Facilitate negotiated interaction
• Meaningful learner-learner and learner-
teacher interaction, where learners have
freedom to actively initiate and navigate
talk, not just react and respond to it.
• Textual, interpersonal and ideational
functions.
3. Minimise perceptual mismatches
• Cognitive, communicative, linguistic,
pedagogic, strategic, cultural,
evaluative, procedural, instructional
and attitudinal mismatches between
teacher’s and learners’ perceptions.
4. Activate intuitive heuristics
• Provide enough language data for
learners to discover and infer
underlying rules of form and function
for themselves.
5. Foster language awareness
• Draw students’ attention to less obvious
properties of L2 to promote learning
(where necessary).
6. Contextualise linguistic input
• Discourse features need to be
contextualised instead of introduced in
isolated and discrete fashion.
7. Integrate language skills
• Language skills are essentially
interrelated and mutually reinforcing.
The traditional separation of skills is
more logistic than logical.
8. Promote learner autonomy
• Help learners learn how to learn,
equip them with the necessary
cognitive (etc.) strategies, and help
them take responsibility for their own
learning.
9. Ensure social relevance
• Understand learning purpose and
language use in the local social
context
10. Raise cultural consciousness
• Global cultural consciousness, not
just awareness of L2 culture
 Microstrategies
• Classroom procedures that are
designed to realise the objectives of a
particular macrostrategy, keeping in
mind the learners’ needs, wants and
lacks, and their current level of
language ability. [see examples in
Kumaravadivelu 2006, pp.210-213]
 References
• Allwright R.L. 2003. ‘Exploratory Practice:
Rethinking practitioner research in language
teaching’. Language Teaching Research, 7,
113-141.
• Dewey J. 1933. How We Think. Regnery.
• Kumaravadivelu B. 2003. Beyond Methods:
Macrostrategies for Language Teaching.
Yale University Press.
• Kumaravadivelu B. 2006. Understanding
Language Teaching: From Method to
Postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Larsen-Freeman D. 1986. Techniques and
Principles in Language Teaching. OUP.
• Mackey W.F. 1965. Language Teaching
Analysis. Indiana Univ. Press.
• Richards J.C. & Rodgers T. 1986. Approaches
and Methods in Language Teaching. CUP.
• Schon D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner.
• Stern H.H. 1992. Issues and Options in
Language Teaching. OUP.
• Zeichner K.M., & Liston D.P. 1996. Reflective
Teaching: An Introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum.