Tavakoli, P. and Jones, R. (2018).

An overview of approaches to second language acquisition and instructional

practices. Cardiff: Welsh Government report number 12/2018.>
Available at http://gov.wales/statistics-and-research/overview-approaches-second-language- acquisition-
instructional-practices/?lang=en

5 Language teaching methods, and evidence of effectiveness

Terms such as method, methodology and approach have been used differently by different
researchers and practitioners in the field of applied linguistics over the past four decades
(Hall, 2016), sometimes giving rise to confusion. While ‘method’ is generally used as a
concept to refer to techniques and procedures teachers employ when teaching a language,
‘approach’ refers to more general principles that can guide the choice of techniques and
procedures. To make the distinction clear, one can refer to the Audiolingual Method as an
example of a method in which particular techniques and procedures were prescribed, and to
Task-Based Language Teaching as an example of an approach where its more general
principles are used differently by different teachers. The key distinction one can refer to is
that in an approach the use of techniques and procedures is not “narrowly prescribed” (Ellis
& Shintani, 2014: 31). A second distinction to be made is between method and methodology.
While ‘method’ is a prescribed way of teaching, often set by the experts in the field,
‘methodology’ refers to “ways of teaching in general” (Waters, 2012: 440), i.e. what teachers
actually do when teaching language in the classroom to achieve the learning objectives
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

5.1 A historical overview

Although L2 learning and teaching has a long history, research into second language
acquisition and the effectiveness of different instructional practices is still relatively new.
Since the 1960s, L2 researchers have been trying to understand the process of and
conditions under which L2 learning is promoted, and this work has resulted in an in-depth
understanding of the processes of second language acquisition and provided insights into
the effectiveness of different language teaching approaches and methods.

L2 teaching approaches and methods have been informed by two kinds of theories: theories
of language and theories of learning. Theories of language aim to explain what language is,
how it is perceived, and how it is used. Theories of learning focus on the psychological and
social aspects of learning a language, the cognitive and psychological resources involved,
and the social contexts and conditions that promote learning. The influence of such theories
on teaching methodologies is clearly seen in the rise and fall of different methods. For
example, the Direct Method and Audiolingualism were influenced by a behaviourist theory of
learning, which viewed language learning as a process of habit formation through
‘conditioning’, and a structural approach to language, which saw language as a set of
structures and rules. The fall of the Direct Method and Audiolingualism was also linked with
the emergence of Chomsky’s (1959) cognitive perspective, in which language was viewed as
a unique and innate capacity of the human mind. From this perspective, language learning
occurs through the use of a presumed ‘Language Acquisition Device’ within learners’ brains
(Chomsky, 1959).

22
While Chomsky’s view of language and language learning was a turning point in the fields of
linguistics and psycholinguistics, the major change in approaches to second language
teaching came from research in sociolinguistics and the rise of the notion of ‘communicative
competence’ (Hymes, 1987, see Section 3), a shift to viewing language as ‘not what it is’ but
‘what it does’ (Thornbury, 2011; Hall, 2016). This shift has come to be known as the
‘communicative revolution’ (Ellis & Shintani, 2014; Hall, 2016) and led to the development of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), an approach to teaching language that focuses
on the communicative rather than the formal aspects of language and sees language
learning in terms of naturalistic acquisition rather than analytical engagement with the
language. In the following decades, the concept of Communicative Language Teaching
expanded to include a range of teaching methods and approaches, including Task-based
Language teaching (TBLT), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) and the
Sociocultural Approach to language teaching. Although all of these approaches share a
similar view of language, i.e. language as a means of communicating, each is informed by
different theories of learning.

There is a difference between having a theoretical basis for adopting a particular approach or
method (using it because it conforms to a particular view of language or view of learning) and
having an empirical basis for adopting it (using it because there is a body of evidence to
support its effectiveness). Consequently, one of the main goals of L2 research has been to
examine to what extent a particular approach to instruction or a certain method facilitates
acquisition of an L2. One way to attempt to answer this question is to conduct a controlled
study of the use of specific instructional interventions in particular settings, and we will
discuss many of this kind of study below. Another approach is to conduct a ‘meta-analysis’,
‘research-synthesis’ or ‘systematic review’ in which the results of a large number of studies
conducted in different local contexts are combined. These studies often differ in the number
of variables they focus on including the aspects of L2 instruction they investigate, the time
period they cover at, and the criteria they use to evaluate studies. Over the past two decades,
numerous studies of this sort have been conducted, including Spada (1997), Norris and
Ortega (2000), Mackey and Goo (2007) and Li (2010). For example, Norris and Ortega (2000)
examined the effectiveness of instruction during the 1990-1998 period by adopting both a
research synthesis and meta analysis, whereas Li (2010) investigated the effectiveness of
oral and written corrective feedback provided in L2 classroom in studies published between
1988 and 2007 by use of a meta-analysis. What these studies have commonly concluded is
that L2 instruction is effective in promoting L2 acquisition, although the degree of
effectiveness may vary depending on which aspect of language learning is being examined.

While, as Mitchell & Myles (1998: 195) point out, the findings of SLA research are “not
sufficiently clear and uncontested, across broad enough domains, to provide straightforward
prescriptive guidance for the teachers”, researchers have found that effective approaches to
L2 instruction exhibit a number of characteristics.

23
These include:

1. comprehensible input;
2. opportunities for interaction and output;
3. feedback;
4. relevant and appropriate assessment;
5. strategies that facilitate autonomous learning;
6. metalinguistic knowledge;
7. metacognitive awareness;
8. pragmatic knowledge;
9. learner engagement.

More recently, however, teachers and researchers have challenged the notion that there are
one size fits all principles for good language teaching. Many researchers believe we have
moved to a ‘post-methods’ era (Kumaravadivelu, 2003, 2006), where effective techniques
and procedures are defined based on local contexts as a result of the interaction between
top-down processes (e.g. language policies) and bottom-up processes such as learners’
needs and teachers’ ad hoc decision making and ‘principled pragmatism’ (Kumaravadivelu,
2003: 33).

5.2 Communicative Language Teaching

While Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is by far the mostly widely adopted
approach to language teaching, what it actually means can vary widely among contexts
where it is adopted. According to Richards and Rodgers (2001: 173), many of the
characteristics usually attributed to CLT “address very general aspects of language learning
and teaching that are now largely accepted as self-evident and axiomatic throughout the
profession”. In general, CLT is based on the principle of ‘teaching language as
communication’ (Widdowson, 1972). In other words, the aim of learning is not to ‘learn
language’ but to ‘learn how to communicate’ (Littlewood, 1981). It shares this principle with
other related approaches such as Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) ‘Natural Approach’, which
argues that the main task of language teachers is to create conditions for the ‘natural
acquisition’ of the language, and what Prabhu (1987) called ‘Communicational Language
Teaching’ in which explicit teaching and error correction are to be avoided. In terms of SLA
theory, CLT is related to the ‘interaction hypothesis’, which sees not only input but also
output and interaction as important for learning (see e.g. Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Gass &
Selinker, 2008). There is also a focus on the collaborative nature of meaning making. Given
that the purpose of language learning is being able to use it for communication in everyday
life, being able to communicate one’s intended meaning normally takes priority over being
accurate, and therefore attention to correcting form only becomes necessary when poor
accuracy affects communication of the intended meaning. Instructional techniques

24
associated with CLT include information-gap activities, role-plays, problem-solving, and the
use of visual stimuli and authentic materials.

Howatt (1984) distinguishes between two versions of CTL, what he calls “weak” and “strong”
versions. The main difference between these two versions is the relative attention given to
‘experiential’ and ‘analytical’ strategies of learning. The strong version, in which students
learn through the experience of communicating, is more popular in America, where the
influence of Krashen (1981, 1985) is more widespread (see e.g. Pica, 1987), whereas the
weak version, which mixes experience with analytical strategies (including explicit grammar
instruction), is more popular in Europe (see e.g. Littlewood, 1981).

Most of the research on CLT has focused on the relative effectiveness of these two
orientations: experiential and analytical, or, as they are sometimes described, ‘focus on
meaning’ and ‘focus on form’. The results of this research have been inconclusive, with some
studies showing that experiential learning is much more effective than more traditional
grammatical/analytical approaches, and others showing that experientially oriented
instruction resulted in little improvement in students’ proficiency. Savignon (1972), for
example, found that learners of French who engaged in communication tasks outperformed
(in accuracy as well as fluency) those who spent the same amount of time carrying out
pattern practice, and in their study of an Irish language programme, Harris and Murtagh
(1999) found evidence for the positive effects of a purely communicative orientation. On the
other hand, Edelenbos and Suhre (1994), comparing more communicative oriented English
courses to ones with a greater emphasis on grammar in primary schools in the Netherlands
reported that the communicative courses resulted in no greater improvements in pupils’
proficiency than the grammar-oriented ones. They concluded that it is not possible to design
the ideal course for foreign language instruction and that the link between pupil proficiency
and course design is quite weak. Of far greater importance, they argue, are teacher
characteristics. In other studies, the performance of the learners in more experientially
oriented classes have been found to be mixed (see e.g. Allen et al., 1990; Beretta, 1992;
Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Spada & Lightbown, 1989). The consensus from these studies is
that the key focus in CLT classrooms should be achieving the right balance between
communicative and analytical activities.

5.2.1 Task-based language teaching

During the last two decades of the 20 century, a number of different approaches to language
th

teaching developed under the broader umbrella of CLT. Task-based language teaching
(TBLT) is so far the most researched and popular of these approaches (Bygate, 2015; Van
den Branden, 2016). It has been adopted in various language teaching contexts and cultures
around the world and is enshrined in the educational policies in Belgium, New Zealand,
Vietnam, Hong Kong and several countries in the Asia-Pacific region (Butler, 2011).

25
TBLT grew out of teachers’ and researchers’ discontent both with approaches to language
teaching that focused on the acquisition of language forms, and with ‘strong’, experientially
oriented forms of CLT that relied on techniques like role-plays and discussions to get
students to practice language functions. A consensus began to develop among some
teachers and researchers that to promote L2 learning successfully, an approach to language
teaching was required that maximised opportunities for learners to engage with meaningful
activities where the L2 was used actively to complete those activities/tasks.

The first underlying principle of TBLT is that the primary and most important aim of language
teaching is not to get learners to demonstrate language knowledge or display a mastery of
grammatical rules, but to give them opportunities to engage in meaning-oriented language
use in the form of tasks. A task is defined as “an activity in which meaning is primary; there is
some communication problem to solve; there is some sort of relationship to comparable real-
world activities; task completion has some priority; and the assessment of the task is in terms
of outcome.” (Skehan, 1998: 95). In order to fulfil the requirements of being a suitable task
for TBLT, a task should fulfill the following criteria:

1. Primacy of meaning, i.e. the learners should be primarily concerned with processing
the language and understanding the text (e.g. listening to the news to extract the
numerical information);
2. Information or communication gap: i.e. there should be some information to be
communicated with other users (e.g. convey information, express their opinion or
make a decision);
3. Use of linguistic and non-linguistic resources, i.e. to perform the task learners need to
use their linguistic knowledge (e.g. vocabulary and sentence structure) and their other
skills/knowledge (e.g. analytic ability or drawing skills).
4. Real-worldness, i.e. the task should be comparable to activities learners engage with
in real life (e.g. completing an application form and booking a doctor appointment).
5. An outcome other than use of language is clearly expected (e.g. producing a list of
shopping items).

Different varieties of TBLT have emerged over the years. The most well-known are task-
supported, task-referenced and task-based. In the task-supported variety, tasks are
introduced and used to complement and support the existing teaching methodology. This
approach is often used where a more traditional methodology is still in place, but the need for
communicative interaction has been recognised by the teachers, learners and other
stakeholders. In a task-referenced approach, tasks are usually used as a point of reference
to demonstrate what target abilities learners are expected to develop by the end of the
course (Bygate, 2015). The tasks are seen as sets of criteria against which learners’ abilities
are checked, e.g. tasks such as ordering food in a restaurant or borrowing a book from the
library are used as the criteria to determine if the learner target abilities are at the required

26
level. Finally, in a task-based approach the whole teaching session (or the syllabus) is
fundamentally based on tasks, i.e. tasks are the building blocks of the curriculum, and a
whole teaching session is based on completion and assessment of tasks. The choice
between the different varieties of TBLT is driven by a range of factors including the
methodological assumptions of the curriculum and the practical limitations of the teaching
context.

TBLT has received substantial research attention and has therefore been examined very
closely by researchers from a range of different perspectives, including psycholinguistics
(Robinson, 2007), sociocultural perspectives (Lantolf, 2000), and pragmatics (Bardovi-Harlig,
2006). Bygate (2015) argues that engaging and interacting in tasks directs learners’ attention
to language in relation to meaning and gives them a purpose for using the language. Other
researchers suggest that transacting tasks creates opportunities for learners to receive
feedback from readers, writers and speakers about whether they understand the meaning
and intentions the learner is communicating. From a psycholinguistic perspective,
researchers (Skehan, 1998; Willis, 1996) argue in favour of a TBLT approach in that
transacting tasks “will engage naturalistic acquisitional mechanisms, cause underlying
interlanguage systems to be stretched, and drive development forward” (Skehan, 1998: 95).
In SLA, researchers contend that tasks help develop linguistic knowledge in a more
facilitated manner via participation in communicative activities and focusing on a
communicative aim (Eckerth, 2008). Performing tasks also allows learners to establish a
relationship between the learning activity and the future real-world activities/tasks. It also
allows them to see what they can do with what they know, and to notice the gap between
what they can do and what they are expected to do. From a sociolinguistic perspective,
engaging in tasks directs learners’ attention to propositional content, pragmatic meaning and
the different functions of language. Finally, from a socio-cultural perspective, completing
tasks encourages co-construction of knowledge as learners interact with the task and with
others.

The effectiveness of TBLT has been evaluated in several contexts and with different second
languages. Some studies discuss the benefits of implementing a TBLT approach in small-
scale and local studies (e.g. Kim et al., 2017), whereas others examine the introduction of
TBLT in larger-scale projects (Markee, 2007; Van den Branden, 2006). Introducing a TBLT
approach to L2 teaching, the Belgian education authority developed a large-scale initiative to
enhance the quality of L2 teaching and learning in primary and secondary schools more than
15 years ago. Van den Branden (2006) and Hillewaere (2000) report on the benefits of TBLT
introduced in this national context, especially in primary schools, and Devlieger et al. (2003)
provide evidence of teachers’ positive and productive engagement in the initiative.
McDonough and Chaiktmongkol (2007), examining the introduction of a TBLT course at a
university in Thailand, report that the course addressed the learners’ real-life needs and
promoted their autonomy. TBLT has been reported to help learners develop their autonomy

27
(Vieira, 2017), enhance their intercultural understanding (Aubrey, 2017), and meet their
language needs (Markee, 2007). A group of researchers in New Zealand (e.g. East, 2016;
Ellis, 2009; Erlam, 2015), reviewing the introduction of TBLT in schools, have reported
several advantages including learners’ active engagement, evidence of developing
proficiency and obtaining easily measurable outcomes as the benefits of the approach. Many
researchers (e.g. Carless, 2003; Devlieger et al., 2003), argue that the success of
implementing TBLT is closely linked to a) whether it allows for a flexible adaptation of the
method, and b) an ongoing teacher training provision. TBLT, like any other L2 teaching
approach, is not without limitations and challenges. Drawing on the research conducted in
Asia, Butler (2011) argues that misconceptions about TBLT, conflicts with local values and
classroom and institutional constraints are some of the key challenges schools face when
trying to adopt a TBLT approach to L2 teaching. The existing research evidence (Butler,
2011; Van den Branden, 2016) strongly suggests that successful implementation of TBLT
requires local adaptations of the approach that can be embedded in the local culture and
meet local language policies.

5.2.2 Content and Language Integrated Learning

Content and Language Integrated Language Learning (CLIL) is the label given to
approaches in which curricular content is taught in the medium of the language being learned
(Dalton-Puffer, 2011). This may take the form of a limited number of subjects being taught in
the L2 to complete ‘immersion’ programmes such as those adopted in Canada (see for
example Johnson & Swain, 1997). In Europe, CLIL programmes tend to be characterized by
CLIL lessons timetabled as content lessons (e.g. biology, music, geography), typically
constituting less than 50% of the curriculum, while the target language is also taught as a
subject in its own right by language specialists. In most European contexts, the target
language is usually a foreign language, not a second language, that is, the language of
instruction is one that students will not usually encounter in the wider society they live in
(Dalton-Puffer, 2011). CLIL is usually implemented after learners have already acquired
literacy skills in their first language, more often at the secondary than the primary level.

As with other CLT-related approaches, the main theoretical assumptions underlying CLIL
come from hypotheses positing that languages are best acquired in naturalistic settings
without formal instruction (Krashen, 1985; Swain, 1995); CLIL is seen to transform content
classrooms into such environments for naturalistic language learning, providing students with
the opportunity to use the language in authentic situations and the motivation to use it to
solve practical problems in their learning of academic content.

Taken as a whole, studies examining the effectiveness of CLIL have suggested that it can
lead to moderate to high gains in proficiency over the long term. In a synthesis of the
research on learning outcomes in CLIL, Dalton-Puffer (2011) notes that studies have
consistently shown that students studying in CLIL programmes score higher on tests of the

28
target language than learners in non-CLIL programmes (Admiraal et al., 2006; Lasagabaster,
2008; Lorenzo et al., 2009; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008, 2010; Zydatiß, 2007; Yang, 2015,
2016). In one of the first large-scale, multidimensional CLIL evaluation projects in Europe
conducted in Spain, Lorenzo et al. (2009) found that CLIL learners showed greater gains
than their monolingual education peers, and, in particular, evidence regarding incidental
learning and positive transfer through content-focused instruction. Studies especially show
dramatic gains in both receptive and productive vocabulary (Gené-Gil et al. 2015;
Jexenflicker & Dalton-Puffer, 2010; Lo & Murphy, 2010; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010; Zydatiß,
2007), and some studies comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students also show
gains in grammatical accuracy and the ability to use more elaborate and more complex
structures (Jexenflicker & Dalton-Puffer, 2010; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2010). But the area where
the difference between CLIL and mainstream learners is most noticeable is oral production,
with most quantitative studies showing CLIL students to be ahead on all measures of
speaking ability including vocabulary, accuracy, flexibility and listener-orientedness (Admiraal
et al., 2006; Lasagabaster, 2008; Ruiz de Zarobe, 2008; Zydatiß, 2007), and qualitative
studies showing that CLIL learners report greater fluency and speaking confidence (Dalton-
Puffer et al., 2010). Gains appear to be much more modest, however, in the area of
pronunciation (Admiraal et al., 2006; Gallardo del Puerto et al., 2009). CLIL students have
also been found to be particularly strong in strategic competence, allowing them to
successfully express themselves even when their linguistic resources are limited (Lorenzo &
Moore, 2010; Moore, 2009). Gains have been found both with learners who start CLIL
programmes late (Lorenzo et al., 2009), and with those who start early, as long as they are
provided with sufficient scaffolding (Whittaker & Llinares, 2009).

One concern often associated with CLIL is that, since the medium of learning is less perfectly
known than learners’ LI, they may not be able to master complex concepts through it, or
teachers might simplify these concepts in order to compensate for issues of language
proficiency (Dalton-Puffer, 2011; Hajer, 2000). While findings on content learning in CLIL are
less conclusive than they are for language learning, many studies have shown that students
in CLIL programmes actually outperform their peers in monolingual programmes in subjects
like mathematics and science (Day & Shapson, 1996; Van de Craen, Ceuleers, & Mondt,
2007), and Admiraal et al.’s (2006) survey in the Netherlands showed CLIL students’
performance in university entrance exams in history and geography to be neither better nor
worse than their peers. Vollmer et al. (2006) have gone so far as to suggest that linguistic
challenges might actually aid rather than hinder content learning, with increased attention
and intensified semantic processing leading to better understanding of concepts.

One possible reason for the apparent success of CLIL has to do with the kinds of
communicative contexts it makes available to learners and the effect of these contexts on
both their opportunities to use the language and their motivation to engage with it. Classroom
observations of CLIL classes have shown the learners tend to participate more actively in

29
subject-learning classes than language-input classes and have benefited from the
programme in terms of eagerness to volunteer and classroom verbal output (Huang, 2011;
Lo & Macaro, 2015). Nikula (2010: 120) notes that in the CLIL lessons students have “more
room for active engagement in classroom discourse than non-CLIL settings”. While it is not
surprising that engaging in content-related classroom tasks increases students’ opportunities
to develop transactional competence, research also suggests that CLIL classrooms also
have positive effects on their interactional competence, engaging them in a wide range of
discourse styles and roles with the teacher and one another (Moore, 2009; Nikula, 2007),
and symbolic competence, allowing them to use the target language in ways that are socially
valued, to embrace choices pertinent to their sphere of interest, and to increase their sense
of agency (Agolli, 2013; Coyle, 2015). Finally, using the target language in a more natural
setting can boost learners’ motivation (Darn, 1996) and open up for them a more holistic
experience of the language which combines content, cognition, communication, and culture
(Coyle et al., 2010; Cross, 2016).

Other studies, however, have reported reduced active student participation in CLIL
classrooms. In a study by Lim Falk (2008), CLIL students were found to use less relevant
subject-based language in speech and writing than did the control students, and a study by
Lo and Macaro (2015) in Hong Kong found that, at least at the beginning stages, teacher-
student interaction in CLIL lessons was more monologic and teacher dominated, and that
students often had difficulties expressing their meanings in L2. Some researchers (e.g.
Bruton, 2011) have argued that the conclusions drawn from some CLIL studies may be
biased, given the investment schools and governments have put into CLIL programmes, and
that, in some cases, institutional interests may be taking precedence over some students’
interests in the state educational sector. CLIL has also been accused of diverting resources
away from L2 language classes (Hüttner & Smit, 2014).

Difficulties in implementing CLIL from the point of view of teachers have also been observed.
McDougald (2016), for example, note that a number of key issues are not sufficiently taken
into account when setting up CLIL programmes including the lack of knowledge of SLA by
content teachers, the widespread (though often tacit) opposition by content teachers
teaching language, and the relative lack of effective CLIL teacher-training programmes.
Finally, Costales & Martínez (2014) have found considerable gaps between the theoretical
tenets of CLIL methodology and what is actually observed in CLIL classrooms, and Pérez-
Cañado (2012) cautions that while it might seem that there are a wealth of outcome-oriented
investigations into CLIL effects, there is actually the need for more empirical research into
CLIL’s effectiveness in different instructional contexts.

Different forms of CLIL are currently practiced widely throughout Wales; primary and
secondary education through the medium of Welsh is available across the country, and in
recent years attempts have been made to increase its availability in otherwise English-

30
medium settings. At the same time, practical considerations such as the language abilities of
staff often influence what subjects are offered through the medium of Welsh. Overall, in
Wales, CLIL has “played an important role in reviving the Welsh language” (Van de Craen,
Ceuleers & Mondt, 2007: 186).

Some learners from non-Welsh-speaking homes undertake ‘immersion’ programmes. One

important feature of immersion education in Wales is that it caters for learners of different
language backgrounds within the same classroom environment. Research on the
effectiveness of these programmes has shown mixed results. In a study of the
communicative competence of 8 year-olds in Welsh immersion programmes and Welsh-
medium schools, for example, Jones (1998) found that while learners’ discourse and
strategic competence was higher than students who studied in Welsh bilingual programmes,
their grammatical and sociolinguistic competence was weaker. Hickey et al. (2014) has
particularly pointed out the challenges associated with the need to mix second-language (L2)
learners of Welsh with first-language (L1) speakers in Welsh-medium preschool nursery
groups (cylchoedd meithrin), and found that sometimes policy and practice can diverge in
dealing with these challenges.

5.3 ‘Post method’ Approaches

In the past two decades curriculum planners and language teachers have been moving away
from the idea that there is a single ‘right’ method or set of instructional practices, and have
come to the conclusion that the most effective approach to language teaching is to employ a
combination of methods guided by professional teachers trained in what Richards (2008)
calls ‘interactive decision making’, the ability to evaluate what is needed for particular
learners at particular times in particular situations. Since these approaches are not
characterized by any single method, their effectiveness is much harder to measure, though
some support for them can be found in mostly qualitative research on classroom practices as
well as out of class language engagement by learners.

Perhaps the most popular of these ‘post-method’ approaches is the ecological approach,
championed by scholars such as Van Lier (2004, 2010) and Kramsch (2006). This approach
attempts to acknowledge the complex, multilayered nature of language and interaction in the
real world by fostering learning experiences that encourage learners’ critical awareness of
the role the L2 plays in their lives and encourages them to develop agency over their own
learning. This approach is particularly informed by approaches to second language
acquisition influenced by dynamical systems theory (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008)
which sees language learning as “a nonlinear, relational human activity, co-constructed
between humans and their environment, contingent upon their position in space and history,
and a site of struggle for the control of social power and cultural memory” (Kramsch, 2007).
The focus, then, is on creative educational experiences and learning activities which can
awaken learners’ agency and provide them with opportunities to work as members of

31
learning communities on challenging projects (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Although there are
few empirical studies showing the effectiveness of the ecological approach, Van Lier’s (2004)
case studies of classrooms as dynamical systems and Van Dam’s (2002) classroom
interaction analysis provide the starting points for developing more robust means of
evaluating this approach.

Another popular ‘post-method’ approach is known as ‘principled pragmatism’, an approach

advocated by Kumaravadivelu (2003), which focuses less on theories of language and
pedagogy and more on concrete teaching strategies as they are applied to the contingencies
of local contexts. Kumaravadivelu argues that this approach empowers teachers to formulate
their own theories of practice and create location-specific activities. Teachers are not locked
into a single approach or method, but are encouraged to experiment with, evaluate and
analyze different instructional practices within certain institutional constraints. This framework
encourages teachers to adopt ten ‘macro-strategies’ when designing and evaluating
instructional techniques. These are: 1) maximizing learning opportunities, 2) minimizing
perceptual mismatches, 3) facilitating negotiated interaction, 4) promoting learner
autonomy, 5) fostering language awareness, 6) activating intuitive heuristics, 7)
contextualizing linguistic input, 8) integrating language skills 9) ensuring social relevance,
and 10) raising cultural consciousness. To some degree, these macro-strategies can be
seen as a synthesis of the key principles and best practices of all of the other approaches
and methods we have discussed in this report.

32