I felt that Kuma did an excellent job explaining methods and giving us a foundation on which he plans on expanding the importance of the awakening of TESOL postmethod.
Only once did I shake my head in complete disagreement.
When regarding the eclectic approach, Kuma is quite harsh. On page 31, he explains that "The weakness of the eclectic position is that it offers no criteria according to which we can determine which is the best theory, nor does it provide any principles by which to include or exclude features which form part of existing theories or practices." When reading this, I felt that Kuma did not give adequate credit to teachers that use this approach. (Part of me believes ALL teachers do, to some extent.) Being an eclectic teacher is using different approaches depending on your students and the context you teach in. But wait...isn't that what we're being taught to do? Being in 345 for me means acquiring a sort of toolbelt. The methods, theories and approaches (tools) I will acquire will be understood and brought out when I believe it will benefit the students in my classroom, as all teachers know that one size fits all doesn't exist. To me, I felt that Kuma was not only dismissing an eclectic approach, but criticizing it for its lack of rules. So isn't he, one of the founders of postmethod and rejection of method, criticizing eclecticism for its lack of being a method?
No comments:
Post a Comment