Hi tony:

     How do you define the terms "principled approach" and "method based approach"?

 Dan Jenkins (Foreign Expert, English Department, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China)

Hi Tony:

     This is in response to your statement, "I am very interested in exactly how teachers form their views of what is good practice," your question, "what teaching principles do you follow and why," and the issue of the shift in emphasis from teaching methods to teaching principles. I will address these issues in that order.

     First, a definition of terms is in order.  I refer to philosophy, theory, method, and technique collective by the term approach.  By the term theory, I mean a theory that can be falsified.  My use of the term method follows from the manner in which I define the term approach, and is a radical departure from its use in the literature (the terms are used interchangeable in the literature by various authors).  My position is that there are three, and only three, methods: 1) instructed only (not supported by theory), 2) uninstructed only (not supported by theory), and 3) some combination of instructed and uninstructed (supported by the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection and the Theory of Bias Shift discussed below). Thus, the definition of the term approach that I use leads me to conclude that if any proposed way of teaching does not include a philosophy or a theory, then it is neither an teaching approach nor a teaching method. It might be more properly classified as a notion about how to go about teaching.

GOOD PRACTICE

     What I regard as good practice is a teaching approach (philosophy, theory, method, and technique) that can be falsified.  A teaching approach can be falsified by 1) finding a contradiction in the philosophy, or by 2) falsifying the theory. Additionally, an instructor should use an approach with due regard for the fact that it consists of a philosophy that, if properly constructed, cannot be falsified, and a theory that not only can be falsified, but also, and perhaps more importantly, cannot be proven to be true.  Such an attitude in the employment of an approach would, I hope, go a long way toward avoiding the display of a hubris attitude flavored with an anti-social, dogmatic stance, thus, leaving one receptive to criticism and the willingness to modify one's approach as circumstances require.  Thus, if a newly minted approach doesn't work as expected, then an examination of the failure can be conducted for the purpose of determining the source of the problem and modifying the approach as necessary.

     I came to form this particular point of view regarding what constitutes good practice as a result of a desire to learn Mandarin and being told that it would be impossible for me to acquire native-speaker level Mandarin pronunciation because I was beginning my study of Mandarin as an adult.  I disagreed with this pronouncement, but for no good reason other than it wasn't what I wanted to hear.  The existing literature was heavily in favor of the Critical Period Hypothesis and both the strong and weak versions were not supportive of my goals. So, I decided to conduct some research regarding the teaching/learning of a foreign language by adults so that I could resolve the problem of acquiring native-speaker level Mandarin pronunciation.  Along the way, I discovered that listening comprehension was another major problem area. This research took me into the fields of philosophy, neurobiology, neurolinguistics, and psycholinguistic in addition to a careful examination of the existing research and its methodology.

WHAT TEACHING PRINCIPLES DO YOU FOLLOW AND WHY?

     I ended up formulating my own approach.  I examined the so-called teaching methods (the Grammar Translation Method, the Audio-lingual Method, and the Communicative Language Teaching Approach, for example); however, I rejected them.  Although methods such as the Grammar Translation Method and the Audio-lingual Method are grounded in a theory, I rejected the theories as being inadequate for the acquisition of a foreign language to the level of accuracy and fluency of a native speaker.  I rejected the Communicative Language Teaching Approach (how can you not like that name!) because it used mimicry to teach pronunciation (as stated by Kenworthy (1987, p. 69), "many learners will be able to produce new sounds simply be imitating what they hear" (Kenworthy, J. (1987). Teaching English pronunciation. NY: Longman.  However, if this were true, then the acquisition of L2 pronunciation would be a non-problem) and because it is not based on a valid theory (Chomsky doesn't have a theory because his "theory" cannot be falsified).  So, finding nothing to my liking, I decided to formulate my own approach to teaching/learning a foreign language specifically aimed at adult learners.

     The approach that I formulated consists of a philosophy (a metaphysic), a falsifiable theory, method, and techniques.  Specifically,

1.  A metaphysic was formulated that does not address the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, how it come into existence, or what we should be doing with our time, but one that focuses on describing the nature of the universe.  The metaphysic was constructed using the following criteria: 1) it must have explanatory power, 2) it must be coherent, 3) it must meet a standard of simplicity, 4) it must be constructed by using logic and experience, and 5) it need not be falsifiable, just free of any contradictions. Briefly, very briefly, the conclusion I came to was that the universe is relational in nature.  I know, I know, geee imagine that, who wouda guessed?  However, knowing this consciously as a result of having begun with 3 initial assumptions is a whole lot different that knowing the same thing unconsciously.  This conclusion leads to the prediction that 1) any brain that develops in such an environment would be one that categorizes relations (for example, cause and effect is one kind of relation), and 2) that any language created by the brain would not only express relations as categorized by the brain, but also, as a matter of necessity, would itself be relational in its structure.  As noted by Craig (1988, p. 340), "any meaningful language will have to mirror the structure of the world" (Craig, E. (1998).  Metaphysics.  In Edward Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of language. London: Routledge).

2.  A theory of SLA was developed.  The theory of SLA relies upon Edelman's (1987) global theory of the brain, the Theory of Neuronal Group Selection (TNGS) (Edelman, G. M. (1987). Neuronal Darwinism: A theory of neuronal group selection. NY: Basic Books) and a theory that I formulated specific to SLA, the Theory of Bias Shift. Briefly, very, very, briefly, Edelman's findings are: 1) in order for learning to take place, "perceptual categorization must both precede and accompany learning" (Ibid, p. 7); 2) learning occurs only when there is "some element of novelty, surprise, or violation of expectation" (Ibid, p. 296); 3) It is the sum total of all a learner's experiences that create the context in which learning takes place; however, learning in this context does not include habit formation. Rather, "it is specific to a context" (Ibid, p. 296); 4) memory is both associative and serial in nature (Edelman, 1989, pp. 114-117)(Edelman, G. M. (1989). The remembered present: A biological theory of consciousness. NY: Basic Books); 5) "neurons in a group are more closely connected to each other than to the neurons in other groups" (Edelman, 2001, p. 46)(Edelman, G. M. (2001). Building a picture of the brain.  In G.M. Edelman & J-P Changeux (Eds.), The brain (pp. 37-70). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction). The Theory of Bias Shift states that, "as a result of learning that results in categorization, there occurs a shift in bias from category formation to category utilization as a consequence of a shift in bias affecting attention (with its accompanying psycholinguistic effects).  This shift in bias affecting attention results in an accompanying shift in bias from implicit learning to explicit learning. ... It should be realized, however, that explicit instruction is not an adequate condition for adult acquisition of the pronunciation of an L2, but only a necessary condition.  Any explicit instruction, to be sufficient, must (a) be presented in such a manner as to comply with the TNGS and its implications for neurolinguistics regarding the necessary conditions for learning to take place, and (b) must occur in such a manner as to allow for the psycholinguistic effects resulting from a shift in bias affecting attention" (Jenkins, D. H. (2006). The acquisition of American English segmentals by adult native speakers of Mandarin. Masters Abstracts International, 44 (04), p. 1583. (UMI No. 1430462), (p. 55 of the thesis).  Additionally, 1) "as responses to inputs from the environment become automatized over time. ... there occurs a shift in bias in favor of focusing attention on those aspects of the environment that have been previously identified as the most salient and in reaction to which responses have been learned" (Ibid, p. 58); 2) "explicit instruction is necessary in order for an adult learner to attend to non-salient features of the environment ... Elements in the environment that have already been discriminated against as having no saliency do not create any ‘element of novelty, surprise, or violation of expectation' (Edelman, 1987, p. 296); thus, learning that depends upon recognizing features of the environment that are not salient for prior learning, but that are salient for new learning, does not occur.  Consequently, such non-salient features just be brought to conscious attention explicitly" (Ibid, p. 59-60); 3) "a shift in bias affecting attention as a result of prior learning results in a shift in bias from implicit to explicit learning.  This is the consequence of the presence of non-salient features of an L2 that necessitate explicit learning" (Ibid, p. 61); 4) "an inability to notice the saliency of an input when specifically attending to it does not preclude learning from taking place if the learning is explicit in nature [the timing of lip rounding in the production of the AE word "boot," for example]" (Ibid, p. 61); 5) "the neuronal groups associated with repeating words are not the same as those involved in initiating pronunciation. Thus, training in pronunciation that involves learners learning to correctly repeat the pronunciation of a word that they have heard an instructor pronounce will not result in the learners being able to correctly pronounce the word without hearing it first" (Ibid, p. 27-28).

3. The method, a combination of instructed and uninstructed learning, is consistent with the philosophy and theory.

4.  The techniques are those that are consistent with the philosophy, theory, and method.  More specifically, they are explicit and consistent with the TNGS and the Theory of Bias Shift.  They are designed to ensure, as much as is possible, that students infer what I intend in order to minimize the possibility of the students incorrectly categorizing the new information.

To digress for a moment, I disagree with those who take the position that it is possible to have a theory without a philosophy because research findings are used to formulate a theory.  The reason I disagree is because research findings are interpreted based on one's philosophical point of view.  For example, adherents of two different philosophies of history, geographical determinism and economic determinism will interpret historical events differently and provide different rationale for the causes of events in history. So, just as there are no disembodied brains, there is no theory without a philosophy.

     So, I do not use teaching principles, I use an approach.

SHIFT FROM AN EMPHASIS ON TEACHING METHOD TO TEACHING PRINCIPLES     

     Regarding the shift in emphasis from teaching methods to teaching principles, this is a non-issue for me.  My teaching career, if I may call it that, began with my own approach already in place.  My personal take on the matter, however, is that teaching principles is just another teaching method absent any pretense at being supported by a falsifiable theory.  My personal opinion is that those who are abandoning teaching methods in favor of teaching practices will not experience any improvement in their teaching outcome.  It has been said that the teaching of a foreign language should employ teaching techniques that are known to work; i.e., teaching by principles (Michael H. Long, personal communication).  However, by what means has it been determined that a particular teaching practice works?  It worked on April 1, 1884 with student group A, so therefore is it a teaching technique that works?  My preference is to use my approach rather than reduce it to an overly generalized list of principles.  Someone who reads a description of my particular approach and doesn't understand it, but goes away with the idea, "relate new information to old information," and uses that information as a teaching technique, will be using a teaching principle, but someone who does understand the approach will be using the same information in the context of an approach. The former will not be able to correct a problem with the use of the information in any principled way, while the latter will be able to do so.

Dan Jenkins (Foreign Expert, English Department, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing, China)