Is SR-EAL a method or an approach (and does it matter?)

My teacher made quite a fuss over all this during my PGCE days many years ago. I never really grasped the distinction and I doubt I lost sleep pondering the issue. The question struck me as rather banal. Many use approach and method as synonyms and, anyway, do we really need to distinguish between them? Until recently, I avoided such terminological questions, preferring to leave them to the theoretically inclined. There just seems more pressing issues at hand. I'll happily discuss communicative games, or the pros and cons of the New Headway text, but agreeing upon definitions? No. Leave that to others. Only since I began championing SR-EAL have I forced myself to revisit the approach/method issue. Somewhat belatedly, I now see that concise definitions indeed have their value. To push the case for SR-EAL, whether I'm arguing for an approach or method is just the sort of question I need an answer for to win over a skeptical colleague. Fortunately, after googling and a check-in on my favorite bloggers I'm feeling a little clearer about this whole 'approach/method' distinction. As a bonus, I've learnt that searching for precise definitions can prove a valuable and enlightening exercise -not the fruitless endeavor a young PGCE student might suppose.

Is SR-EAL an approach?

Trying to get a definition of 'teaching approach' proved a lot trickier than I'd imagined. The internet threw up any number of relevant articles and comments. The problem was that so few of those voicing an opinion agreed on what 'approach' really implies. My hope of digging up a definition that I could copy, paste and quote proved a delusion too many. I had no choice. I would need to roll up my sleeves and get to work, cobbling together a definition based on any sources that seemed particularly relevant.

And that brings me to where I am now. To cut a long story short, and after some serious web-trawling, I would now tentatively define an approach as follows: a belief -or set of beliefs- that act as a guide (list of principles) as to what good teaching implies and how learning transpires. This might not seem particularly profound but it pretty much distills what I took from the experts' pronouncements. So, what does the definition tell us? First, note that an approach doesn't tell you what to do in a classroom -that's not the purpose. Rather, it equips you to select from an endless list of EAL activities and instructional techniques by asking you to consider how compatible is each with the approach you subscribe to. The more compatible, the better. An approach, then, gives us the theoretical justification for what we teachers should do, and, conversely, a rationale for rejecting classroom practices that others (committed to alternative approaches) might prefer. The analogy that springs to mind is a ship's navigational compass. Everyone knows that a compass (or 'approach') points you in the direction in which you need to travel. But even if you know to head north, south or wherever, that still leaves open the question of the route to follow and the means of transport -should I travel by air, on foot or by train? An approach points you where you want to go, but no more. It shapes your views on how to evaluate your work, the efficacy of your teaching practices, and your attitude towards curriculum design and course structure. The actual activities etc. you choose for delivering EAL lessons will need to agree with the approach you subscribe to or, to continue the compass analogy, will have to keep you headed in the direction the compass indicates. Just what classroom activities you select and how you translate your approach into practice falls within the remit of that other term, method, that we'll look at shortly.

To return to our starting question: Is SR-EAL an approach? Well, believe it is. After all, what sets SR-EALers apart from the crowd is that we embrace School Relevance and judge our lessons, teaching materials and learning activities in terms of how effectively they meet students' social and academic needs given a particular school setting and ethos in mind. As a guiding principle (our compass) we follow the same cardinal rule:

"Any classroom activity or teaching event is superior to another if it rates more highly than that other in SR terms." (The more the SR score, the better the activity).

Do we have the semblance of an approach, here? I suggest this simple adage indeed reflects something of fundamental beliefs. I'd summarize these as follows:

1. Students learn more effectively, the more they believe that what they are learning meets their academic and/or social goals.
   

2. Motivation to learn increases the more that students believe their learning is relevant to meeting their academic and/or social goals.

3. The more that students believe that lessons (or, more accurately, instruction in general) are a route to meeting social and/or academic goals, the more students will engage in productive out of class activities -In a school setting this would mean homework assignments, self-study projects etc.

If my compass analogy has merit, then I the notion of SR-EAL as an approach seems reasonably secure. Were you to ask me here and now for my teaching approach, I have an answer at the ready: "I base my teaching on the principle that I should maximize school relevance." For those looking a little lost, I'd then to launch into a spiel about just what is SR and what it has to offer those of us working in the EAL field. I'm now well practiced in giving that particular little speech. If I still had their attention, I'd go on to add a few basic truths: that slavishly following national curriculums, coursebooks or generic programs of study stands as pretty much contrary to what any self-respecting SR-EALer cites as good practice (Why miss a trick?). Teachers may dislike irreverent attitudes towards 'big name' courses and their designers but I don't see how anyone could deny that SR-EALers embrace an 'approach' as such, however misguided anyone feels that approach may be. The SR-EAL compass always reliably and faithfully points in the same direction, as an approach should, pushing us towards considering practices that maximize school relevance given the particular students and the particular school in which we find ourselves. I still struggle at times to see where the needle points, but with SR-EAL you always have that compass at hand however tricky to read. Any teacher who falls back on a principle or principles that inform his/her views of what effective teaching amounts to, inevitably subscribes to an approach of sorts, even if they don't realise it explicitly.

Is SR-EAL a method?

So, what then do we mean by that other term: method? A method, as I now understand it, refers to how a teacher implements an approach. It's a plan of action, as it were, that acknowledges student characteristics (age, prior learning, first language background, for example), the resources available, the duration of lessons etc. According to Edward Anthony (1963) a "Method" amounts to nothing other than an "overall plan for the orderly presentation of language material." No part of that plan must contradict another, and all of that plan "is based upon, the selected approach." Then, to muddy the waters: An approach is "axiomatic;" a "method is procedural."

Axiomatic? Procedural? Not terms I come across everyday. By axiomatic, I assume Anthony means 'self-evident' or 'obvious,' and I imagine that if you subscribe to an approach at all then you would indeed view its basic tenets as clear and uncontroversial. When Anthony calls methods "procedural" I take it he means that a method reduces to a list of instructions that, if dutifully followed, lead to some desired outcome. The question of what stands as the 'correct' method ('correct' in your eyes, I mean) now becomes simply a matter of asking 'What do I need to do to achieve 'outcome x' given the approach I subscribe to?' Whether 'outcome x' is itself desirable, useful or beneficial depends on the aforementioned notion of approach you endorse, and how reasonable that approach in the light of current research and empirical observations. If, like me, you once found yourself endlessly drilling students to parrot out phrases as you ploughed through an audiolingual coursebook, then no one would have faulted your method at the sight of all those students chorally reciting away in unison (such drilling always lay at the heart of the typical lesson not so long ago). Alas, as we now know, the audiolingual approach that lay behind such teaching suffers from serious theoretical flaws and learning outcomes would likely have proved disappointing. An approach can prove just plain wrong even if your methods are 'spot on.'

So, is SR-EAL a method? As I see it, the answer has to be a resolute 'No.' Any SR-EAL teacher will adopt classroom practices, resources and activities to fit in with his or her school setting in the endless effort to maximize SR. But here's the thing: Because schools differ, so to will the methods teachers employ to give effect to the SR-EAL approach. What proves a 'good' and 'tested' method for one educational setting may prove less than ideal for another with an altogether different student demographic, educational aim and so on. On the topic of best methods, SR-EAL must remain silent. The methods that your colleagues down the hall employ in their classes, your own favorites, and even the teaching methods of those who may not see eye-to eye with you on the merits of SR-EAL may well have a place in an SR-EAL course -it all depends on school ethos and student profiles.

Conclusion

Perhaps at some later date I'll reconsider, but for the time being I'll argue that SR-EAL enjoys the status of a language teaching approach. There remain arguments to explore, and issues to be settled before before I can say this definitively. But if the notion of SR as a construct has any substance at all (and it does!), then consciously aiming to maximize SR in EAL lessons would seem to fall firmly under the Approach label. I can't say I've come up with quite the definition of approach or method that seems ideal, but I feel I've made some progress and that's good enough for the time being.

There does, however, remain another term, that I feel may need some clarification, albeit not a term you'll likely come across in educational texts. The term is 'teacher mindset.' I'm not sure how to define it; I'm not even sure if we need such a term at all. But I do wonder if the notion might give a better account of what transpires in classrooms (and informs our teaching practice) than the terms method and approach alone. Perhaps it's something worth a look at further down the road.