Back to: Teaching of English, MA Notes, Be d Notes, Graduation Notes
Evaluation of the Eclectic Approach of Language teaching
There are two opposing groups in eclecticism, one for and one against. Those who support eclecticism argue that it has the potential of keeping the language teacher open to alternatives. An eclectic teacher is supposed to be dynamic is using new techniques as they suit him so that the learners find the classroom interesting and motivating.
He does not adopt any new methods without considering their underlying rationale. Another argument put forward by eclecticisms in favour is that no method is exclusive in itself. The history of language teaching shows that some methods rely heavily on earlier ones, or attempt to improve upon them by plugging their loopholes. For instance, Audio-lingual Method emerged out of the shortcomings. teachers and experts in language teaching found in Grammar-Translation Method and the Direct Method.
As is clear, Audio-Lingual Method is eclectic as it combines the skills that were believed to be important in the earlier ones, though, .as we know, there are differences between these approaches regarding, for example, language and language learning. Similarly, the Natural approach developed as an extension of the Direct Method. If one, then, can employ several different methods to achieve the objectives, it may be professionally a stimulating experience. However, there are dangers also if a teacher fails to use the methods carefully, and understanding the underlying principles of the techniques that he adopts, the only result will be confusion and chaos in the classroom. That is why, many people have put forward arguments against eclecticism.
One of the arguments against eclecticism has been that some teachers play safe by not adhering to any one method. They never deliberate upon the efficacy or otherwise of a method and easily fall victim to methodological baggage that comes with eclecticism. One of the critics of eclecticism has said that ‘eclecticism at the classroom level invariably degenerates into any 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’. If one chooses mixed methods, all kinds of conflicts will likely arise. Moreover, if one is adopting new techniques and nixes them with conflicting and contradictory ones, the effect of the new technique will be diluted.
The above discussion has revealed that eclecticism in language teaching must be judiciously adopted not just for the sake of it but to achieve the desired goals. There has to be a principled combination of different techniques to avoid frustration among students. In an eclectic approach, there is no guarantee that learners might make a sense of what they are learning. They may be exposed to a whole host of interesting materials and attractive tasks but might not learn anything through them.
In such a situation a language teacher needs to manifest commitment to his profession and his teaching. Change is always good, but one must change only if one needs to. If a teacher feels that his method has been doing well, there is no need for him to change. However, if the change is necessary, he must tread the new path carefully.
Questions like, ‘How do these materials/methods/techniques make it easier for learners to develop?’ ‘What is the underlying rationale for using these tasks?’ and ‘What is the best way of using the techniques and at what point of time?’ etc should be answered before thinking of a change.
