teacher knows, having been trained in it, and/or because it is consonant with the
teacher’s thinking (values, beliefs, assumptions), and/or because there is research
evidence supporting it. Such teachers may choose to become specialists in a particular
method; they may even pursue advanced level training in it.
Before being persuaded that one method is absolutely best, however, we should
remember methods themselves are decontextualized. They describe a certain ideal,
based on certain beliefs. They deal with what, how, and why. They say little or
nothing about who/whom, when, and where. Each method put into practice will be
shaped at least by the teacher, the students, the conditions of instruction, and the
broader sociocultural context. A particular method cannot, therefore, be a prescription
for success for everyone. As Parker Palmer has said, ‘When person A speaks, I realize
that the method that works for him would not work for me, for it is not grounded in
who I am’ (Palmer 1998: 147). What makes a method successful for some teachers is
their investment in it. This is one reason why the research based on methodological
comparisons has often been so inconclusive. It sought to reduce teaching to the
faithful following of pedagogic prescriptions—but teaching is much more than this.
A good system of education ... is not one in which all or most teachers carry out
the same recommended procedures, but rather a system where all, or most,
teachers operate with a sense of plausibility about whatever procedures they
choose to adopt and each teacher’s sense of plausibility is alive or active and
hence as open to further development or change as it can be.
(Prabhu 1987: 106)As Allwright and Hanks (2009) note:
Arguing against standardisation, then, is very different from being against
standards. We want teachers to work to the highest standards they are capable of,
but that is a very personal professional matter and one that is much more difficult
if institutions insist on standardisation, making everyone work in precisely the
same way.
(Allwright and Hanks 2009: 9)Some use this concern of coercion to argue that there can be no right method for
everyone. They point out that some methods are more suitable for older learners;
others for younger—or that some might be more appropriate for beginning-level
language study, but not for intermediate or advanced. They say that some methods
clearly call for a level of language proficiency that not all language teachers possess.
They warn that methods should not be exported from one situation to another
(Holliday 1994). We might call this position relativism. Each method has its strengths
and weaknesses, relativists believe, but they are not equally suited for all situations.
Different methods are suitable for different teachers and learners in different contexts.
Such a position rings true for many teachers. They may have found themselves, when