With so many different approaches and methods it can be rather difficult to decide which is the best to use. Unfortunately there is no clear answer as much will depend upon your individual circumstances. Your personality, the culture of the students, and their needs will all play a part in your decision. In reality, each method has its pluses and minuses but certain conclusions can be drawn:

• Students need as much exposure to language as possible.
• Students need a certain amount of input from the teacher.
• Communicative tasks offer real learning possibilities but are not enough on their own.
• Anxiety and stress need to be low for effective language learning.
• Where possible students should be encouraged to discover language for themselves.
• Vocabulary is as important as grammar. Both need each other.
• The methodology that the teacher prefers may not be the preferred or correct option for students from different cultures. Compromise may be necessary.

I agree very much with your point about students needing more than communicative activities. First we need to teach the language which stuidents will need to communicate. This means that at low levels there is more teaching of language input and less communication, at higher levels, less input and more communication.

Dear Roya,

Thank you for your comment. I agree with you.

Different classes need different methods. That's why it is a good idea to include a “Needs Negotiation” session in the day 1 lesson plan (plus time for introductions and some language input, e.g. question forms and an intonation/diagnostic activity to test for skills fluency and language gaps). I usually explain to the group the rationale behind the Needs Negotiation and that, although I have their details individually, the group as a whole needs to establish priorities. Being able to discuss the course content sometimes comes as a surprise to students who are simply happy to accept what the teacher gives them, thinking the teacher knows best. It can be, therefore, difficult to get students to define their own needs. The “needs analysis” is the most important part of an English class.

I agree, Amir. I think there are several factors involved in the methods we use. For example,

*the students' needs, as you mentioned;

*the students' level (e.g., I use more Total Physical Response activities with lower levels, and more long texts with higher levels);

*the size of the class;

*the methodological expectations of the class and the institution (we need to be sensitive not to alienate our students, however convinced WE are of the efficacy of the latest approach);

*the coursebook, if we are using one (e.g. some are more task-based than others);

*the room where we are teaching (e.g., desks fixed in rows make mingling and group work trickier);

*the number of hours per week that the class meets (e.g., the less frequently they meet, the more communicative I try to make the class);

And then there are the numerous factors concerning our own beliefs as teachers ...

jjawilson makes the point that students need to believe that the teacher's method will be effective. It's the same with weight-loss, psychotherapy, team-building, etc. If the user does not have some faith in the methodology, it is unlikely to succeed.

But does this mean we need to be advocates for the methodology we use? I believe that we do.

Richard Acklam promoted techniques for organised and programmed pre-examination review in the Gold series. Mike Harris and David Mower, the authors of Opportunities and Challenges, are great believers in the value of learning strategies and devote a lot of space in their books to training those skills. Similarly, Jim Rose and Steve Elsworth have highlighted process writing and developing memory in Energy and Look!. In Language to Go and Total English, jjawilson and others in the team stressed the immediate relevance of the language and skills being studied.

Language learners come to the classroom with expectations about the language learning process. Child learners often pick up these positive or negative expectations from their parents or older siblings. Adult learners bring expectations from their school experience.

Frequently, these expectations include ideas that the learning task may be difficult, may involve humiliation in front of fellow learners, may involve long periods of boredom leading to eventual failure.

As teachers, we need to confront these negative expectations. We need to convince students that their learning experience will be different. But, most importantly, we need to communicate our conviction that the methodology and learning experience, will bring individual progress and success to all the students.

The worst teacher is the one who believes that most of the students will fail.

I don't remember Scott's article very well, and he may have included this in his citations, but the idea of a 'post-methods' era is Kumaravadivelu's. As for a 'blueprint for a coherent approach to language teaching', I think the main principle is that we must start with the student: his/her needs, abilities, learning style(s), life history. There are numerous other principles - providing input just above the student's current level, creating a 'safe' atmosphere in class, teaching the whole person, etc. etc. - but it would take a whole book to list and explain these adequately. Fortunately for us, Jeremy Harmer has already written it.