Diane Larsen-Freeman

180 Conclusion
communicat ion entai ls, and on the mean s to bring it about, it is nevertheless
true that one of the most important similarities in many of these
met hod s is that their goa l has been to teach students to co mmunicate in
the target language.
Another similarity, which has only recently become obv ious, is that all
of the language teach ing methods descr ibed in this book arc practiced in
classrooms in schools. With the increasing intlucnce of techn ology, such
may not be the case in the fut ure. Classro om instr uction is alread y often
supplemented wirh visits to the audio or computer lab. In certain sit uations,
distance learning may make classes, fixed sched ules, and learning
in face-to-face groups obsolete.
Finally, it is interesting to note that most of these methods seem to treat
culture implicitly, having no clearly articulated view of it or its teaching.
Certain met hods, such as Desuggesropedia, ma ke usc of the fine arts, but
the arts themselves are not the object of study; rathe r they are drawn
upo n to facilitate the acquisition of th e target lan gua ge. Where cultu re is
inclu ded, it ma y be seen as a 'fifth ' skill, another skill (0 teach in addition
to reading, writing, speaking, and listenin g. Alternatively, there may be a
delibera te attempt, in the case of those who teac h English as an intern a­
tional language, to omit explicit teachin g of culture , even though we
know that culture values arc tr ansmitted through language (Krumsch
1993) and language teaching methods.
COMPLEMENTARY AND CONTRADICTORY
DIFFERENCES AMONG LANGUAGE TEACHING
METHODS
There are also differences among the methods, which get lost on such a
selective cha rt as ours. There are two particular kinds of differences. The
first is one we might call complementary differences. While each method
may emphasize a different perspective on a learner, a teacher, learni ng,
erc., tak en together, the y do not necessa rily contradict each other, but
rather help LIS to co nstruct a more co mplete view. for instance, the lan ­
guage lear ner is not on ly a mimic, but is also a cognitive, affective, social,
and po litica l being. The same applies to the role of the lang uage teachernot
onl y is the teacher a model, a drill conductor an d a lingu ist, but possibly
also a cou nselor, facilitator, techn ician, collaborator; learn er train er,
and most recently, an advocate (Larsen -freeman 1998a).
The other type of difference is one that is cont radictory. f or mstan ce,
notice tha t the use of the students' na tive language in the Direct Method
and Com prehension Approach (Chapter 8) is proscribed, whereas in the
Conclusion 181
Grammar-Translation Meth od and Community Language Learning, it is
prescribed. Witn ess the divergent views regardin g the level of control of
the input that learners receive, from highly controlled input in the Audio­
Lingual Meth od , to less COiltrolled in the Natural Approach, to virtu ally
unco ntro lled in tas k-based, content-based, and participatory approaches.
Contrast the views regarding what to do with learn ers' errors, which
range from doin g everything to prevent them in the fi rst place (Audio­
Lingual Method), to ignoring them when they are made under the
assump tion that th ey will work themselves out at some future point (for
example, TPR).
There are no doubt other differences as well. However, it is th e existence
of con tradictory.differences that leads us to the question we will be
discussing ne xt: Ho w is a teache r to choose?
CHOOSING AMONG LANGUAGE TEACHING METHODS
At the end of this boo k a very reaso nabl e question to ask is, 'How does a
teacher decide which met hod is best?' Afte r all, while we have seen that
many of the methods presented in chis book have characteristics in com ­
mon, there arc also some fund am ental differences amo ng them. And so in
the end, one docs need to choose. And 'if we intend to mak e choices that
arc informed and not just intu itive or ideological, then we need to expe nd
no little effort first in identifying our ow n values, next in tying those values
to an ap propriate set of larger aims, and only then devis ing or rejecting,
ad opting or ada pting techniques' (Stevick 1993: 434; see also Edge
1996 ).
For some teachers, the choice is easy. These teach ers find that a particular
met hod resonates with their own values, experience, an d fundamental
views a bout teaching and learning. It fits with what they are trying to
achieve and it is appropriate to their students and their context. We might
call the position such teachers ad opt, when confronted with the issue of
methodological diversity, one of abs olutism: O ne method is best. Wh at
makes it so is because it is the one the teacher knows, ha ving been trained
in it, and/or because it is co nsonant with the teach er's thinking (values,
beliefs, assumptions], and/or beca use th ere is research evidence supporting
it. Such teach ers may choose to becom e specialists in a parti cular
met hod; they ma y even pursue advanced level training in it.
Before being persuaded that one method is absolutely best, however,
we should remember met hods themselves arc dcconrcxrualizcd. T hey
describe a certain idea l, based on certain beliefs. They deal with what,
how, and why. T hey say little or not hing about who/whom, when, an d