Педагогические науки /Современные методы преподавания

Жанабаева У.С.

Региональный социально – инновационный университет, Казахстан

Positive and negative sides of using principled eclecticism in ELT

Any method, current or past, may assail us with compelling arguments and captivate us professionally, thus preventing us from considering alternatives. The eclectic approach teachers often adopt as a safe approach and will protect them from becoming victims of method that has several distinct disadvantages. Firstly, if it is adopted as a safe strategy that immunizes one against ideological undercurrents in language teaching methods, it cuts teachers off from the reconsideration of their professional practices. But is this a safe approach? Indeed, one must consider, secondly, that adopting an 'anything goes' position can have exactly the opposite result of playing it safe. Because one adopts a language teaching practice without much deliberation, one can just as easily fall victim to the methodological baggage that comes with it. In spite of good intentions, as many scientists observe, eclecticism at the classroom level invariably degenerates into an unsystematic, unprincipled, and uncritical pedagogy because teachers with very little professional preparation to be eclectic in a principled way have little option but to randomly put together a package of techniques from various methods and label it eclectic (Yang Z. Zhi, 2004).

There is a fourth argument against an eclecticism that is not accompanied by deliberate choice, or not backed up by argument as well as by practical and theoretical justification. This is that teachers, when introduced to new methods and techniques, so quickly integrate into their traditional styles of teaching the new 'tricks' they are shown that they forget about the rationale for the techniques altogether. A fifth and final argument is related to the one just mentioned, is that if an innovative technique is used only occasionally, and mixed in with other (potentially contradictory) ones, the effect of the new is diluted. Any analysis of historically successive language teaching methods will indicate that there are all kinds of continuities among the different traditional and current methods. This means that there are already similarities and relationships between almost all methods. A good example of a similarity in technique, among traditional methods, is their use of fill-in-the-blank types of exercises. Another example of continuity between traditional and current approaches is the concern, in both the Audio-lingual method (ALM) and communicative language teaching, with all four skills (listening, speaking, reading and writing).

Some textbooks draw on a variety of potentially contradictory methods, apparently without any deliberation. The result of the similarities and continuities that the methods already contain, including such eclectic mixes in textbooks, is almost always that the effect of the new is diluted. The question then is: what is the use of further diluting the potential effect of the innovation, if the innovation itself is already a compromise? The lesson from this is that, rather than diluting the new, we should push the method to its limits. Once we have familiarized ourselves with the justification for the new technique or method, the exciting possibility is that we can exploit its potential more fully, in ways that its original proposers may not initially have considered or conceived, but that are nevertheless in line with the principles of the method.

The foundation of the argument against eclecticism, however, rests upon the notion of professional integrity. The discussion so far suggests that there may also be arguments for adopting an eclectic approach. Indeed, if one can adopt a new method deliberately, maintain awareness of its original rationale, and remain wary of contradictions within one's chosen teaching style, there seems to be the possibility, at least, that one can steer clear of the main dangers associated with an eclectic approach. As one anonymous reviewer has pointed out, the argument that emerges in this section is perhaps more about the dangers of an unprincipled eclecticism than anything else.

The best argument for adopting an eclectic approach is probably that it has the potential of keeping the language teacher open to alternatives. In this way, it can even be seen as an antidote to becoming complacent about one's language teaching practices. Provided, therefore, that the teacher embraces a dynamic interpretation of eclecticism, i.e. actively seeks out new techniques, trying them out in their professional practice all the time, one maybe able to justify eclecticism.

There are other arguments for eclecticism too. When one looks at the history of language teaching, it is clear that some methods rely heavily on earlier ones. What one should note, in all cases, there are differences. One difference between the Natural approach and the Direct method is that the latter relies heavily on memory, as well as on a direct association between form and meaning, which therefore justifies the direct exposure of the learners to the target language (Richards and Rodgers, 1986: 9), without interference from the first language, while the Natural approach strives for a language teaching design that takes into consideration a number of psychological factors concerning what a good environment for language learning is.

From our discussion so far, it should be evident that there may be a difference between the eclecticism of the teacher, who has to combine and adapt different techniques and methods in the crucible of the classroom, and the deliberate, considered eclecticism being practiced by an experienced course designer.

One of the major premises of eclecticism is that teaching should serve students with appropriate methods, techniques and activities. Thus, teachers should feel free in choosing techniques and procedures inside the classroom. There is no ideal approach in language learning. Each one has its merits and demerits. There is no loyalty to certain methods. Teachers should know that they have the right to choose the best methods and techniques in any method according to the students’ needs and learning situation.

Literature:

1.Yang Z. Zhi. Principled Eclecticism in college Teaching in China. - Shanghai, China: Doughua University, 2004.

2. Richard J.C. , Roger T. Approaches and methods in language Teaching. -Cambridge University Press, 2001. - P. 256-258.