the fact that these needs change from moment to moment. Finally, the reality of educational contexts being what they are, teachers must not only attempt to meet their students’ learning needs, but they must also juggle other competing demands on their time and attention.
Because of this complexity, although this is a book about the methods and methodological innovations of recent years, we do not seek to convince readers that one method is superior to another, or that there is or ever will be a perfect method (Prabhu 1990). The work of teaching suggests otherwise. As Brumfit observes:
A claim that we can predict closely what will happen in a situation as complex as [the classroom] can only be based on either the view that human beings are more mechanical in their learning responses than any recent discussion would allow, or the notion that we can measure and predict the quantities and qualities of all … factors. Neither of these seems to be a sensible point of view to take.
After all, ‘If it could be assumed that learners were ‘simply’ learners, that teachers were ‘simply’ teachers, and that one classroom was essentially the same as another, there would probably be little need for other than a technological approach to language teaching’ (Tudor 2003: 3), with adjustments being made for the age of the learners, specific goals, or class numbers, etc. However, the truth is that
Learners are not ‘simply’ learners any more than teachers are ‘simply’ teachers; teaching contexts, too, differ from one another in a significant number of ways. In other words, language teaching is far more complex than producing cars: we cannot therefore assume that the technology of language teaching will lead in a neat, deterministic manner to a predictable set of learning outcomes.
Tudor goes on to observe that this is true even within a given culture. It cannot be assumed that all teachers will share the same conceptions of language, of learning, and of teaching.
Rather than the elegant realisation of one rationality, then, language teaching is likely to involve the meeting and interaction of different rationalities. Murray (1996) is therefore right in drawing attention to the ‘tapestry of diversity’ which makes our classrooms what they are.
Language Teacher Learning
Recognizing the complex and diverse nature of the work of teaching has stimulated much discussion during the last 15 years around the question of how it is that language teachers learn to teach (Bailey and Nunan 1996; Bartels 2005; Burns and Richards 2009; Freeman and Richards 1996; Hawkins 2004; Johnson 2009; Tedick 2005). In addition, during this same time period, the journal Language Teaching Research began publication with Rod Ellis as its editor. Much of the research reported on in these sources can be summed up in what Johnson describes as her current understanding of language teacher learning:
L2 teacher learning [is] … socially negotiated and contingent on knowledge of self, subject matter, curricula, and setting … L2 teachers [are] … users and creators of legitimate forms of knowledge who make decisions about how best to teach their L2 students within complex socially, culturally, and historically situated contexts.
Such a view has radically transformed notions of teacher learning. As Richards (2008: 164) notes: ‘While traditional views of teacher-learning often viewed the teachers’ task as the application of theory to practice, more recent views see teacher-learning as the theorization of practice.’ Rather than consumers of theory, then, teachers are seen to be both practitioners and theory builders (Prabhu 1992; Savignon 2007). Given this view of teachers as theory builders, teacher education must serve two functions: ‘It must teach the skills of reflectivity and it must provide the discourse and vocabulary that can serve participants in renaming their experience’ (Freeman 2002: 11).
It is these two functions that we believe our study of methods is well-positioned to address. First of all, by observing classes in action and then analyzing the observations, we intend to help readers cultivate skills in reflectivity, important for their sense of self-efficacy (Akbari 2007). The point is to illustrate the thinking that goes on beneath the surface behavior enacted in the classroom in order to understand the rationale for some of the decisions that teachers make (Woods 1996; Borg 2006). A study of methods is also a means of socialization into professional thinking and discourse that language teachers require in order to ‘rename their experience,’ to participate in their profession, and to learn throughout their professional lives.
A Study of Methods
Thus, a study of methods is invaluable in teacher education in at least five ways:
1 Methods serve as a foil for reflection that can aid teachers in bringing to conscious awareness the thinking that underlies their actions. We know that teachers come to teacher training with ideas about the teaching/learning process formed from the years they themselves spent as students (Lortie 1975). A major purpose of teacher education is to help teachers make the tacit explicit (Shulman 1987). By exposing teachers to methods and asking them to reflect on the principles of those methods and actively engage with the techniques, teacher educators can help teachers become clearer about why they do what they do. They become aware of their own fundamental assumptions, values, and beliefs. In turn, reflective teachers can take positions on issues that result in the improvement of the society in which they live (Clarke 2007; Akbari 2007).
2 By becoming clear on where they stand (Clarke 2003), teachers can choose to teach differently from the way they were taught. They are able to see why they are attracted to certain methods and repelled by others. They are able to make choices that are informed, not conditioned. They may be able to resist, or at least argue against, the imposition of a particular method by authorities. In situations where a method is not being imposed, different methods offer teachers alternatives to what they currently think and do. It does not necessarily follow that they will choose to modify their current practice. The point is that they will have the understanding and the tools to do so, if they are able to and want to.
3 A knowledge of methods is part of the knowledge base of teaching. With it, teachers join a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). Being a community member involves learning the professional discourse that community members use so that professional dialogue can take place. Being part of a discourse community confers a professional identity and connects teachers with each other so they are less isolated in their practice.
4 Conversely, by being members of a professional discourse community, teachers may find their own conceptions of how teaching leads to learning challenged. Interacting with others’ conceptions of practice helps to keep teachers’ teaching alive and to prevent it from becoming stale and overly routinized (Prabhu 1990).
5 A knowledge of methods helps to expand a teacher’s repertoire of techniques. This in itself provides a further avenue for professional growth, since some teachers find their way to new pedagogical positions by first trying out new techniques rather than by entertaining new principles. Moreover, effective teachers who are more experienced and expert have a large, diverse repertoire of best practices (Arends 2004), which presumably helps them deal more effectively with the unique qualities and idiosyncrasies of their students.
Criticisms of Methods
Despite these potential gains from a study of methods, it is important to acknowledge that a number of writers in our field have criticized the concept of language teaching methods. Some say that methods are prescriptions for classroom behavior, and that teachers are encouraged by textbook publishers and academics to implement them whether or not the methods are appropriate for a particular context (Pennycook 1989). Others have noted that the search for the best method is ill-advised (Prabhu 1990; Bartolome 1994); that teachers do not think about methods when planning their lessons (Long 1991); that methodological
