Gabriel Díaz Maggioli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47133/tegc_ch34  

ABSTRACT

This chapter explores what can be distinguished as “alternative” approaches to English language teaching. It starts by clarifying what is meant by “alternative” in terms of how language, learning, and teaching are understood. Next, it presents a view of language as social semiotic to sustain the emphases made by these alternative approaches, namely that language learning is a process of negotiation of meaning during which language emerges through interaction among interested parties. In terms of learning, these approaches emphasize the fact that, to learn a language, learners need to be motivated for and engaged in using the language actively. Lastly, from the point of view of teaching, these approaches view the teacher as a mediator of learning activity, in line with a sociocultural view of learning. In this chapter, you will learn about two alternative approaches within this sociocultural perspective. 

Keywords: alternative teaching approaches, Dogme, Text-Based Teaching, teacher as mediator, negotiation of meaning, social semiotic, learner motivation, learner interaction

How to cite this chapter: 

Díaz Maggioli, G. (2023). Alternative Approaches to English Language Teaching. In V. Canese & S. Spezzini (Eds.), Teaching English in Global Contexts, Language, Learners and Learning (pp. 408-416). Editorial Facultad de Filosofía, UNA. https://doi.org/10.47133/tegc_ch34 

INTRODUCTION

An inherent challenge exists when writing a chapter with “alternative” in its title. For some readers, this word might invoke the expectation of innovative issues. However, I am using a different meaning of the word “alternative.” Here, I define alternative approaches not just as something new or different but also as something else. This something else could be a replacement, complement, or back-up to current ways of teaching. When viewing alternative approaches to English language teaching (ELT), we examine possible configurations of teaching/learning activities that can replace or substitute current practices for the purpose of better serving language learners. I do not use “methods” to identify these configurations, as I consider this term as going against the ideas in this chapter, for reasons to be made evident further on. However, first we should explore why these alternative approaches make sense in ELT and are thus becoming increasingly more popular.  

BACKGROUND

To understand why this chapter classifies two approaches as alternative, we need to briefly survey second language acquisition (SLA) theories during the 20th century. At that time, SLA research took a cognitive orientation and focused on the innate ability of humans to develop language as a capacity of the mind. With the incorporation of other perspectives (Larsen-Freeman, 2011, 2018; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; Meddings & Thornbury, 2009), we now realize that language learning/acquisition is a complex process that cannot be described by referring solely to processes in a person’s mind. Rather, all humans are part of a social system that shapes participants and is also shaped by them. Hence, deterministic ideas (e.g., A natural order exists for language acquisition.) were supplemented by a realization that the social process of language learning/acquisition can best be explained through a complexity lens. 

Larsen-Freeman (2011) explained how “complexity theory seeks to explain complex, dynamic, open, adaptive, self-organizing, non-linear systems . . . [and] sees complex behavior as arising from interactions among many components” (p. 52). She justified this by viewing the learners’ language resources as “always dynamic ensembles, expanding and contracting with time, place, and circumstance” (p. 58). She saw second language development not as a sequential process determined by innate endowments but as a complex, dynamic process where the personal and social are always in interplay. In this context, language is not a pre-determined object that one appropriates, but a psychological and social tool that one uses to gain progressively higher levels of participation in social activity (Díaz Maggioli, 2023).

MAJOR DIMENSIONS

With this shift to complexity and SLA’s sociocultural aspects (Johnson & Golombek, 2016), related theories of language and teaching emerged. These led to the alternative approaches discussed in this chapter, which are from the fields of Applied Linguistics and Language Pedagogy.

Contributions From Applied Linguistics

Our views of language as an object of teaching and learning determine how we teach. For example, if we view language as a “system of systems,” we will teach by explicitly describing constituent elements of each system so that students can effectively combine these elements. However, if we view language as a “system for communication,” we will teach communicative functions so that students can effectively perform these functions. During most of its history, Communicative Language Teaching has oscillated between these views. Halliday (1978) further influenced such views by explaining language as social semiotic. He claimed that “language arises in the life of the individual through an ongoing exchange of meaning with significant others” (p. 1). The key word in Halliday’s definition is arises, which derives from a systemic-functional model of language. This view is summarized as follows:

• Language is a resource for making meaning.

• The resource of language consists of a set of interrelated systems.

• Language users draw from this resource every time they use language.

• Language users create texts to make meaning.

• Texts are shaped by the social context in which they are used.

• The social context is shaped by people using language. (Feez, 2002, p. 6)

In this view, language has three layers that occur simultaneously. The first layer is meaning or discourse semantics that entails three main functions of language: 

• ideational– representing the world and our experiences, 

• interpersonal– building relationships and negotiating meanings, and 

• textual– organizing the meanings through oral or written texts. 

The second layer deals with lexicogrammar, which gives our language “its creative power and its complexity” (Feez, 2002, p. 7). Lastly, the third layer is expression, which consists of phonology or orthography.

This view of language implies that the object of teaching is not the language itself but rather the emerging results of language use. Each time we use language, we create an oral or written text being “any stretch of language which is held together cohesively through meaning” (Feez, 2002, p. 4). When language is viewed as text, teachers and students can 

• concentrate on the functions of these communication acts, 

• engage in areas of mutual interest, and 

• negotiate meanings with each other and with society.

Contributions From Language Pedagogy

During the 20th century, the field of language pedagogy relied heavily on the notion of “method.” However, by the onset of the 21st century, this notion had outlived its purpose. Kumaravadivelu (2006) explained that it makes no sense to keep using the term “method” when many teachers, even those who say they follow a particular method, do not apply the principles or practices of just one specific method. Likewise, teachers who claim not to follow any method actually end up using a carefully crafted sequence of idiosyncratic activities that may belong to various methods. Hence, Kumaravadivelu advocated for pedagogical decision-making based on three parameters:

• Particularity–knowing students and context. Who are my students? What are their goals? Which is my teaching context?

• Practicality–building practical, situated theory. Will this approach work in my context?

• Possibility–being methodologically brave and looking for alternatives. How can I best teach them?

These three parameters seem congruent with a view of SLA as a dynamic and complex process. In this view, language is seen as a resource for engaging in communication rather than as content for being conveyed. These ideas indicate that we should teach language embedded within the wider social, cultural, and political context where students live and learn. Hence, it makes sense to view language as a functional, meaning-making tool arising from the learners’ context. In this view, language learning becomes the product of a collaborative process between teachers and learners where these learners learn the language while also learning about the language and through the language.

PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATIONS

Based on the above ideas, we explore two alternative approaches: Dogme ELT (Thornbury, 2017) and Text-Based Teaching (Feez, 1998). 

Dogme

Dogme can be defined as “a teaching movement set up by a group of language teachers who challenge what they consider to be an over-reliance on materials and technical wizardry in current language teaching” (Meddings & Thornbury, 2009, p. 6). Dogme lessons are grounded in the here-and-now. This requires a teacher to constantly focus on learners and teach content that is of greatest relevance to them. To meet this goal, Dogme is characterized by several principles:

• Learning is a social and dialogic process, where knowledge is co-constructed rather than transmitted or imported from teacher/coursebook to learner.

• Learning can be mediated through talk, especially talk that is shaped and supported (i.e., scaffolded) by the teacher.

• Materials-mediated teaching is a “scenic” route to learning, but the direct route is located in the interactivity between teacher and learners, and between the learners themselves.

• The content most likely to engage learners and to trigger learning processes is that which is already there (i.e., supplied by the “people in the room”).

• Rather than being acquired, language (including grammar) emerges; it is an organic process that occurs given the right conditions.

• The teacher’s primary function is to optimize language learning affordances, for example, by directing attention to features of the emergent language.

• Providing space for the learner’s voice means accepting that the learner’s beliefs, knowledge, experiences, concerns, and desires are valid content in the language classroom. (Thornbury, 2017, p. 81)

When designing Dogme-based lessons, teachers focus on the learners and what they bring to the teaching-learning encounter. To meet this goal, Díaz Maggioli and Painter-Farrell (2016) outlined steps of a possible Dogme lesson:

1. The teacher (T) starts the lesson by interacting with students (Ss). T can choose to talk about a relevant topic, ask a question, show an object, or allow an ongoing discussion/topic to continue among students.

2. If Ss have something interesting to share, T encourages them to ask questions and converse. If Ss do not elaborate, T provides further input (photos, story, etc.). Ss brainstorm notes, prepare something to say, and exchange ideas in pairs/groups.

3. T checks errors to correct and opportunities to extend language expression. T posts language on board and discusses corrections with Ss. 

4. T responds to Ss’ questions about language focus/topic.

5. T presents a task to give Ss the opportunity to actively use the language that has emerged. T/Ss may negotiate how to do the task. Ss do task, and T helps as needed.

6. Ss or T may choose to repeat stage (4) and the task loop (5) with another task or repeat the same task with a different focus.

7. T introduces oral or written text on the topic and uses it to draw Ss’ attention to how the language they learned is used in the text.

8. T ends lesson by engaging Ss in reflecting on what has happened and what was learned.

9. T and Ss discuss next steps. T invites Ss to bring ideas, objects, photos, and so on for the next lesson. (p. 361)

Text-Based Teaching

Text-based Teaching (also called genre pedagogy) is an approach to language learning that incorporates ideas and principles presented earlier in this chapter. These ideas and principles are infused within an instructional framework called The Teaching and Learning Cycle (Feez, 2002). Teachers introduce their learners to authentic oral and written texts of different genres (instead of using leveled textbooks). By using these authentic texts, teachers and learners engage in a cycle with different processes for co-constructing and negotiating meaning. The five stages of this cycle have been represented as follows:

• Building the context

• Modeling and deconstructing the text

• Joint construction of the text

• Independent construction of the text

• Linking related texts (Mumba & Mkandawire, 2019, p. 132)

When following this cycle, teachers focus their text-based lessons on an oral or written text and engage students in the cyclical co-construction of meaning. Again, Díaz Maggioli and Painter-Farrell (2016) offered an example of how to put this alternative approach into action by outlining a possible lesson plan:

1. Pre-class preparation: T chooses a text (written or oral) that represents a genre students need to be familiar with.

2. T opens lesson by focusing on the topic of the text and asking students what they know about it. In doing so, T establishes the purposes of the text, identifies people involved in the interaction, and explains why they are communicating in this way (either orally or in writing).

3. T involves students in activities aimed at deconstructing the text. Ss work in pairs/groups analyzing the text structure and focusing on characteristics of the genre.

4. If necessary, T presents and practices new language that Ss will need in order to fully understand the text and be able to express themselves in this genre.

5. T provides similar texts in the same genre and about the same topic (e.g., a magazine article and newspaper clipping on the same piece of news) and involves students in tasks aimed at manipulating the genre features.

6. T engages Ss in collaboratively writing a new text. T invites suggestions from students and writes the co-constructed text on the board, using students’ ideas and input.

7. Ss compare their co-constructed text with the sample text introduced in (3) and see similarities and differences in these texts. T scaffolds this by providing language support as needed and by posing questions that direct Ss to key genre features.

8. Ss independently create their own texts within the genre using the information provided so far. They share their text with peers and self-assess their expression. T shares a rubric detailing the text features for Ss to self- and peer-assess.

9. T introduces a new text for students to compare to their own. T asks Ss to either rewrite or retell their texts by changing one feature. For homework, Ss find and bring to class similar texts.

10. Ss hand in their text to the T who responds by using the same rubric that Ss received in (8) to grade it. (p. 352)

This chapter has described two alternative approaches to ELT: Dogme and Text-Based Teaching. Both approaches capture the complex, chaotic, and dynamic nature of language development as social semiotic. As such, both capitalize on language learners and their knowledge, skills, and dispositions as the starting point for teaching and learning.

Alternative approaches to ELT emphasize the following principles:

• Language learning is a social process.

• Language emerges from interaction.

• Learners need exposure to input of authentic language in use. They also need motivation and opportunities to use that input.

• The most valuable resource is the students and their needs, motivations, and efforts to learn the language.

• The teacher’s most important job is to organize for learning to happen.

• Teaching is the process of progressively releasing responsibility for communication from the teacher to the students. 

Based on your new knowledge about alternative approaches to ELT, answer these questions:

1. When you were a language learner, what methods/approaches did your teachers use? 

2. If you are already teaching, do you see any potential for using these two alternative approaches in your local context?

3. What would you find easy (and difficult) about implementing these approaches?

4. What might be some advantages of implementing these approaches in your context?

To practice using what you have learned in this chapter, do the following:

1. Form a reading club with peers. Meet regularly to read and discuss articles, blog posts, videos, or other media about these alternative approaches.

2. Take a lesson plan that you have already taught and modify it so that it adheres to the principles and procedures of one of the approaches described in this chapter. Show it to a colleague, cooperating teacher, or methods teacher and ask for their feedback.

3. Get together with colleagues who teach in a similar context. Plan a lesson implementing one of the approaches in this chapter. Teach the lesson, and then meet again with colleagues to discuss your impressions.

To expand your knowledge of alternative ELT approaches, visit the following websites:

• A blog on Dogme’s history and main characteristics. https://www.whatiselt.com/single-post/2018/10/09/what-is-dogme-elt 

• Scott Thornbury’s personal webpage with resources on Dogme. http://www.scottthornbury.com/ 

• Teaching unplugged. https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/professional-development/teachers/knowing-subject/articles/teaching-unplugged 

• Text-based language teaching that can engage students. https://blog.sanako.com/can-a-text-based-language-teaching-approach-engage-your-students 

Various ELT methods and approaches have been addressed in other chapters of this book: 

Chapter 12 Explicit and Implicit Learning in Second Language Acquisition by C. Fernández

Chapter 13 Designing Learner-Centered Classrooms to Promote Active Learning by H. Kaiser

Chapter 28 Teaching English to Young Learners Through Authentic Literature by S. Ruffinelli and C. Ortiz

Chapter 32 Major ELT Trends in the 20th Century by C. Onatra and S. Palencia

Chapter 33 Current Approaches in English Language Teaching by N. Dantaz

Chapter 36 Task-Based Approach With Adult Learners by I. Giménez and C. Rolón

Chapter 38 A Socio-Cultural Approach to Teaching Grammar by C. Davies, J. Prado, and J. Austin 

Díaz Maggioli, G. (2023). Initial language teacher education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001584 

Díaz Maggioli, G., & Painter-Farrell, L. (2016). Lessons learned: First steps towards reflective teaching in English language teaching. Richmond.

Feez, S. (2002). Text-based syllabus design. National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquarie University.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers’ professional development. Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). A complexity theory approach to second language acquisition/development. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Resonances: Second language development and language planning and policy from a complexity theory perspective. In M. Siner, F. Hult, & T. Kupisch (Eds.), Language policy and language acquisition planning: Language policy (pp. 203-217). Springer. 

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Meddings, L., & Thornbury, S. (2009). Teaching unplugged: Dogme in English language teaching. Delta Publishing.

Mumba, C., & Mkandawire, S. B. (2019). The text-based integrated approach to language teaching: Its meaning and classroom application. Multidisciplinary Journal of Language and Social Sciences Education, 2(1), 123-143. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907314 

Thornbury, S. (2017). Scott Thornbury’s 30 language teaching methods. Cambridge University Press 

Gabriel Díaz Maggioli applies lessons learned as a classroom teacher to his roles as teacher educator, researcher, and writer. He holds a doctorate from the University of Bath (England), is a certified researcher in Uruguay’s National Research and Innovation Agency, and is academic advisor at the Institute of Education, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Gabriel has authored numerous books as well as articles in peer-refereed journals and has provided professional development in the Americas, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. Gabriel was the first Latinx president of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language.

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6686-2549 

Email for correspondence regarding this chapter: diaz_g@ort.edu.uy

Cover Photo by Ryan Wallace on Unsplash