ELT methodology is chronically under-defined: When we teach without definition, we teach in the dark

mental fog

Haga clic aquí para la traducción al español (Google Translate)

Introduction

Gaining sufficient competence in the English language is not a luxury, it is a make-or-break reality for millions of learners worldwide. English proficiency has become a gateway to higher education, career mobility, & global citizenship. Given what is at stake, our students cannot afford to be let down by sub-optimal ELT methodologies & poorly designed instructional practices. Yet, despite the field’s sophistication & decades of research, much of ELT methodology remains chronically under-defined.

Language learning & development, especially academic literacy & writing, are among the most complex & cognitively demanding activities humans undertake. The challenge is not only to teach a language, but to facilitate the gradual, integrated development of procedural knowledge, conceptual understanding, & communicative & intercultural competence. To do this effectively, we need methodological clarity: precise, evidence-informed, & theoretically coherent definitions of what an ELT method is, what it aims to achieve, & how it supports learning.

The problem of under-definition in ELT

The term methodology in ELT is notoriously vague. It can refer to anything from classroom procedures to broad pedagogical philosophies. As (Stern, 1990) & (Kumaravadivelu, 2008) both noted, the “method concept” in language teaching has historically suffered from ambiguity & inconsistency. Terms like Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) or Task-Based Learning (TBL) are often invoked as coherent methods, yet they encompass a wide variety of interpretations & classroom practices.

Without precise, fine-grained definitions, such umbrella terms risk obscuring more than they clarify. They can conceal inconsistencies in pedagogical rationale, encourage uncritical adoption of fashionable trends, & prevent empirical evaluation of what truly promotes language development. When methodological frameworks are under-defined, teachers are left to interpret them idiosyncratically, & students bear the cost in the form of sub-optimal learning experiences.

The complexity of language learning

To define ELT methodology adequately, we must recognise the complexity of what we are trying to model. Language learning is a multi-dimensional process involving interlocking systems of cognition, emotion, social interaction, & identity. It engages multiple domains of the brain & involves both declarative & procedural memory systems (Ullman, 2001a, 2001b, 2014). It also requires the coordination of perceptual, motor, & conceptual skills across time, under conditions of limited attention & variable motivation (Sweller, 2017; Sweller et al., 2011).

From a cognitive perspective, learning a language involves constructing a dynamic system of knowledge & skills through repeated, meaningful & purposeful practice under optimal conditions of feedback, attention, & motivation (Ellis, 2005). From a sociocultural perspective, it requires meaningful & purposeful participation in discourse communities & communities of practice (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).

A sound ELT methodology, therefore, must integrate insights from cognitive psychology, applied linguistics, & evidence-informed learning design. It cannot rely solely on intuitions or untested traditions.

The need for comprehensive, evidence-informed definition

If methodologies are to support learning effectively & optimally, they must be both broad & deep in definition. A comprehensive model of ELT should specify, at a minimum:

  • Theoretical rationale: What model of learning underpins the method (e.g. cognitive, interactionist, sociocultural)? & what are its specific constructs? (Essential for valid & reliable assessment of learning & evaluation of curriculum quality, i.e. “Does the programme or course do what we want it to do?”)
  • Pedagogical sequence: What sequences of learning activities, stages of learning, & types of practice are necessary & sufficient to achieve specific outcomes? (i.e. “Which constructs are or aren’t sufficiently represented?”)
  • Empirical support: What evidence exists that these practices lead to measurable gains in linguistic competence?
  • Contextual adaptability: How can these principles be modified across learner ages, proficiency levels, & cultural contexts?

Only when these dimensions are explicitly defined can methodologies be evaluated for their efficacy, internal coherence, & relevance to learner needs. Otherwise, the scope for what have called been called “lethal mutations,” i.e. distorted or diluted implementations of once-useful ideas (Jones & Wiliam, 2022; Rose, 2018), is almost limitless. In ELT, such mutations can manifest as tedious, inefficient activities that consume time & effort but produce little durable learning, ultimately leading to frustration, low self-efficacy, demotivation, & possibly dropout.

The consequences of sub-optimal methodologies

The practical consequences of methodological under-definition are serious. Under poorly defined instructional regimes, students may work hard but make little progress. They may dutifully complete tasks, memorise forms, & write essays according to opaque “process” models, yet remain unable to use the language with confidence or precision.

This pattern has been documented in critiques of “process writing” (F. Hyland, 1998; F. Hyland & Hyland, 2001; K. Hyland, 2003, 2007; K. Hyland & Lee, 2022), where well-intentioned pedagogies often lack clarity about how language forms are learned & developed. Similarly, John Truscott’s work on corrective feedback (Mohebbi, 2021; Truscott, 2004, 2007, 2019; Truscott & Hsu, 2008) highlights how traditional error correction can fail to produce long-term learning gains if it is not grounded in robust learning theory.

In both cases, partial or incomplete epistemological models, those that privilege one aspect of learning (e.g. grammatical structure or performing under-defined tasks & therefore under-represented constructs) at the expense of the whole, or omit vital steps or insufficiently scaffold critical processes, may be worse than none at all.

The result is predictable: students begin to doubt their own aptitude rather than the adequacy of the methods employed. “Is it me? Am I no good at languages?” becomes the internal refrain of learners who have been failed by weak pedagogical design rather than by lack of effort or ability.

Towards a more conscientious ELT

For the sake of our students, ELT professionals must be more conscientious, comprehensive, & critical in evaluating every principle & practice we ask learners to engage in. This means:

  • Demanding theoretical precision & empirical validation for every claimed “method” & its constituent constructs, strategies, & techniques;
  • Treating instructional design as a research-informed, multi-disciplinary enterprise rather than a matter of tradition or intuition;
  • Recognising that language teaching is an applied science of learning & development, not merely an art or set of classroom routines.

To move forward, we should work toward integrated models of ELT methodology that combine the best evidence, concepts, & principles from cognitive science, second language acquisition research, & pedagogical design. This entails adopting a stance of epistemic humility, acknowledging the limits of our current understanding while striving for greater clarity, precision, & accountability.

Conclusion

ELT methodology, as it stands, is indeed chronically under-defined. This is not simply a theoretical shortcoming but a practical one: when methodological vagueness leads to poor learning outcomes, we fail our students. Defining methodology with the precision it deserves is not pedantry, it is professionalism. Language learning is too complex, too cognitively demanding, & too consequential to be left to loosely defined traditions or fashionable trends. For our students’ sake, we must build & apply methodologies that are empirically grounded, theoretically coherent, & pedagogically sound.

As Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga (2011) put it:

“Without knowledge of human cognitive processes, instructional design is blind. In the absence of an appropriate framework to suggest instructional techniques, we are likely to have difficulty explaining why instructional procedures do or do not work. Lacking knowledge of human cognition, we would be left with no overarching structure linking disparate instructional processes and guiding procedures. Unless we can appeal to the manner in which human cognitive structures are organised, known as human cognitive architecture, a rational justification for recommending one instructional procedure over another is unlikely to be available. At best, we would be restricted to using narrow, empirical grounds indicating that particular procedures seem to work. We could say instructional procedure A seems better than procedure B but why it works, the conditions under which it works or how we can make it work even better would be rendered unanswerable and mysterious.” 

References