Humanism in language teaching=Arnold (1998)’s and Gadd's.doc

7/27/2019 Humanism in language teaching=Arnold (1998)’s and Gadd's.doc

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/humanism-in-language-teachingarnold-1998s-and-gaddsdoc 1/14

Humanism in language teaching: Arnold (1998)’s and

Gadd (1998)’s articles revisited

Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI

e-mail: [email protected]

8October, 2005.

What greater knowledge can we give our students

than knowledge of themselves?

Moskowitz (1978:4; quoted in Gadd 1998:226)

The unceasing calls, over the last decades, for redirecting English language teaching

(ELT) classes towards a more humanistic type of instruction largely arise from the

conviction that successful, life-long learning depends more on affective variables than

on any other particular teaching method used so far. The traditional, formalist

conception that knowing a second language equals acquiring a body of linguistic

knowledge or acquiring a new set of habits has been challenged (Yalden 1983:47). An

alternative, learner-oriented vision, which overwhelmingly stresses the urge for caring

and sharing in EFL / ESL classes, has been advocated for ever since (see, for

example, the papers in Early [ed] 1982 and Arnold [ed] 1999).Yet, despite the de

facto recognition of the basic "truth" in the foundational tenets of this trend, the initial

plea for more humanistic English language teaching (HELT) still appears to be

echoed by insisting calls for lessening the scope of the approach in question— hence,

mailto:[email protected]





unfortunately, accentuating practitioners' dilemma as to what direction they should

move ahead to.

Within its requirements, the present paper chiefly aims to consider the potential

usefulness and deficiencies of humanistic approaches to ELT as discussed in two

relatively recent articles, which appeared in the July 1999 issue of ELT Journal . It

will ask, and attempt to answer, the following questions:

a- What are the basic principles of Humanism, which have given rise to the

various approaches to language teaching?

b- What are the merits and pitfalls of humanistic approaches as discussed in

the articles referred to above?

To this end, we propose to divide the remainder of the essay into the following three

sections. Section One will firstly provide a brief overview of Humanism and of its

impact on humanistic education and ELT. Section Two will highlight the various

features and practicalities as discussed in Gadd (1998)'s and Arnold (1998)'s article.

Section Three will consider where teacher agency, as one of the crucial issues wmuch

debated in the two articles under consideration, actually stands in relation to an Arab

Gulf teaching context.

1. HUMANISM— A BRIEF OVERVIEW:

This section aims to provide a brief introduction to the concept of Humanism in

relation to the field of ELT. To this end, it proposes to firstly define the notion in

question and to identify some of its core values and principles, which themselves tend

to heavily impinge on humanistic psychology and education. This will secondly be

followed by a sub-section which will highlight the connection of the said concept to

2



the field of ELT. Hopefully, this will help pave the way for a better appreciation of

the various HLT-related issues to be considered in Section Two.

1.1 Basic Principles of Humanism

The term "Humanism" broadly refers to "a system of beliefs and standards concerned

with the needs of people and not with religious ideas" (Longman Dictionary of

Contemporary English New Edition 1995: 698). Its areas of focus include such

secular sectors as politics, law, management, business, education and psychology. In

connection with the latter area of study, efforts are made to probe further into the field

of human nature and growth. Its principal focus, as determined particularly by

Maslow (1970) and Rogers (1983), is "on helping well-adjusted people to move

towards realizing their own individual and unique potential, towards becoming what

[the latter psychologist] called 'fully functioning persons' " (Underhill 1989:251). It,

thus, mainly, posits:

1 High-level health and well-being.

2 The whole person.

3 The human motivation towards self-realization.

4 Change and development.

5 Education as a life-long process.

6 Res pect for an individual's subjective experience.

7 Self-empowerment.

(Underhill 1989:251)

Projected onto the area of education, these overall values and tenets are to lay stress

on the development of the learner as a whole person. They call for full recognition of

his variability, and advocate a show of "respect for his/her uniqueness, separateness

and freedom to make choices related to the learning process" (Rardin 1982:67).

1.2 Humanism's relevance to ELT

3



As discussed extensively in the literature, the themes initially raised and developed by

Humanism, in general, and by humanistic psychology and education, in particular,

have swiftly triggered considerable concern among many ELT educators and

practitioners. A discussion at length on this issue is, understandably enough, well

beyond the scope of the present paper. Suffice it to say, though, that the above-

mentioned seven-point list (extended in Williams and Burden [1996:38]) is at the

basis of much of the premises which underpin contemporary humanistic approaches

to ELT. These are epitomized by the Silent Way (invented by C.Gattegno),

Suggestopaedia (developed by G.Lozanov and his followers in Bulgaria), and

Community Language Learning or CLL (associated with the work of C.Curran and

his followers in the USA). (Relevant description and evaluation can be found in

Harmer 2001:88-91; Richards and Rodgers 2001; Nunan 2000: 234-39; Malamah-

Thomas 1987:79-83). At the very centre of these proposals are the following four

common beliefs:

a the development of human values

b growth in self-awareness and in the understanding of others

c sensitivity of human feelings and emotions

d active student involvement in learning and in the way learning

takes place.

Richards et al (1992:169)

It is precisely the multi-faceted implications of these and other closely-related tenets

that seem to arouse afresh earlier clashes between advocates for and opponents of

more humanism in ELT. The disparity in views in either camp over the merits and

pitfalls of such a trend is to be driven home with excusive reference to Towards less

Humanistic English Teaching (Gadd 1998) and Towards more Humanistic English

Teaching (Arnold 1998).

2. HUMANISTIC ELT: MERITS AND DEFICIENCIES:4



Following the general overview of Humanism and of its impact on ELT above, the

present Section will now outline the potential advantages and shortcomings of the

proposal in question as solely discussed in the set articles mentioned earlier. Due to

obvious constraints with time and space, the Tables here below shall include only a

sample of the most pertinent merits and drawbacks associated with Humanistic-

oriented language teaching. One of the key issues, which relates to the teacher role,

will be considered at some length in Section Three.

2.1 Merits:

A close scrutiny of the two articles under consideration reveals a set of overlapping

and intertwined advantages that are advanced by the authors here concerned as well as

those they each quote or cite at many a point. For ease of clarity and reference, these

benefits are to be outlined author-wise in the Summary Table here below:

Authors Quoted/Cited in Merits proposed Arnold (1998) Arnold (1998:236)

Arnold (1998:239)

. HLT fosters a new vision of the

eacher.

. HLT contributes to extending

students' language competence.

. HLT helps students to relate better to

others and enhances their ability for

communication.

Brown (1998: 261) Arnold (1998:240) By incorporating critical

thinking, HLT helps learners not

5



only "to become aware of

information" but also "to become

participants in a global

partnership of involvement in

seeking solutions".

Goleman (1995:xii-

xiii)

Arnold (1998: 237) HLT helps bring the "mind and

heart in the classroom".

McMillan (1904) Hunter (1988:117) HLT techniques (e.g., drama,

storytelling, etc…) awakens the

imagination of students even with "

deficient inner selves"

Stevick (1980) Gadd (1998:224-5) HLT enables students to reconcile

their "performing self" and their

"critical self".

HLT helps learners develop andexercise initiative, cooperation and

empathy.

HLT satisfies the instinctive desire in

every teacher and every student to

become "an object of primacy"

At a price of an oversimplification, the basic argument for HLT, as advanced in the

Gadd and Arnold articles, runs as follows: Given its multi-dimensional nature and

realizations, the process of human learning cannot possibly be confined to a neck-up,

rational vision. Nor can it be convincingly reduced to a Behaviorist-minded

conception of language, of learners, and of teachers. To do so would critically hamper

"the type of education that sparks [young people's] enthusiasm and leads them

towards a true love of learning and independent thinking" (Arnold 1998:236).

2.2 Deficiencies

As Gadd (1998:243) argues, the assertions made many Humanists are rather "very

dubious" and devoid of a "coherent theoretical basis", contrary to what they may

6



seem. He draws attention to many characteristics which, arguably, prove negatively

inherent in what he terms as "Romantic" HLT. Some of detected deficiencies are

reported in the Table below:

AUTHORS QUOTED/CITED IN… DEFICIENCIES

Atkinson

(1989:271)

Gadd (1998:228) Lack of cultural sensitivity.

Gadd (1998) Gadd (1998) "Romantic" HLT is of inward-gazing

orientation.

It assigns teachers the role of "nurturer of

souls", which he qualifies as being"inappropriate and oppressive".

It hampers intellectual growth as well as the

move beyond the self.

It is inadequate to helping students develop

their skills of reasoning, interpreting, and

critiquing.

It ignores students' current and/or future

needs for exposure to genre writing andspeaking.

Hunter

(1988)

Gadd (1998:223) HLT places a further demand on already

overburdened teachers by requiring them to

develop their students' inner selves

alongside the enhancement of their

linguistic skills.

Stevick

(1980)

Gadd (1998:225) Too much focus on the students' own

experiences and inner selves is unhelpful.

Abdication of responsibility for structure

and input by "progressivist' teachers.

Emerging from the Table above are fundamental foibles which are, arguably, inherent

in "romantic" humanistic English language teaching. These allegedly lie, most

importantly, in its overall introspective orientation, over-emphasis on affect at the

expense of students' cognitive needs, its intrusion in learners' private beliefs, its bias

7



to process rather genre register, and its inadequacy to "pragmatically" promote critical

thinking in language students.

The above Section just aimed to outline some of the most salient advantages and

disadvantages as discussed in the two articles assigned. It was by no means intended

to be exhaustive or complete, given the ramifications of the arguments brought about.

Reference to the articles in question, it is advised, is a must so as to appreciate

personally the way the cases at issue in each article have been argued for, to say the

least.

Given the diversity of topics and due to obvious constraints with time and space, the

Section to follow will limit itself to considering some of the potential implications of

Arnold (1998)'s vision of the teacher role within her own interpretation of HLT. A

teaching context in one of the Arab Gulf states will serve as a background for this

purpose.

3. DISCUSSION:

Looking back at the variety of arguments in the Arnold article (Section Two), it does

appear evident that much of the urge here expressed for more humanistic English

teaching is politically tainted. This preliminary inference is grounded on many a point

across the whole article under consideration. These include, most importantly

perhaps, the following:

8



a- The assertion that "teaching is a political act and that a language teacher is an

agent of change (Brown 1994:441-2; cited in Arnold 198:238).

b- The "inclusion of values education in the classroom, including the EFL

classroom" in Spain, Finland and elsewhere (Arnold 1998:238).

c- The sanction of any decisions on the part of "educators, whatever their subject

area, to dedicate a little attention to contributing to the development of

emotionally intelligent people" who happen to be living or concerned with "a

troubled world calling out for balm for its wounds" (ibid).

If my understanding is quite correct, the linkage between affective learning and

"effective education" within politically-oriented humanistic ELT classrooms is

presented here as the norm— certainly not as an "irresponsible" malpractice to feel

guilty about (see also Arnold and Brown 1999:3 for an identical position). At first

sight, nothing could ever seem more sensible and rewarding than this continuous

show of endeavour in teaching the language and, at the same time, "educat[ing]

learners to live more lives and to be responsible members of society" (Arnold and

Brown 1999:3). In my experience, though, such combinability proves to be flawed on

many counts:

a- It tends to hopelessly rest on a shaky, jail-bound terrain—unless one is a

staunch, devoted supporter of the status quo. Should it ever be the case, the

teacher in question should expect the worst. For some hostile reactions on the

part of students would imminently ensue for the simple reason that they might

soon get sick and tired of what he or she tries to instill in them. Angry

retaliations would also occur on the spot if one poor teacher of a Pakistani,

Indian or Sri Lankan origin had the brilliantly inadvertent idea to express what

he or she honestly thinks of what is going on in the host country. It will

9



certainly be too late to realize that, however extremely valuable, the caveats

proposed by Brown (1994: 441-2; quoted in Arnold 1998: 238) are of no much

use. If lucky enough, teachers reported to have tried to bring to the fore such

thorny, taboo issues as religious sects, for example, would most expectedly

face punishment transfer or job termination.

b- The decision on the part of the language teacher to engage repeatedly students

in some sort of political debate with an a priori intent at leading them to

become "responsible members of society" very much equates, in my view, a

decision for promoting values education, conformism, and dogmatism. Arnold

will surely dismiss this as a gross misinterpretation; but, that would little alter

the strong impression that her own vision of HLT tends to simply amount to

soul-nurturing and patronizing shortly following the second or third lesson at

latest.

c- Unless I am mistaken, it is understood that the allocation of ten to fifteen

percent of the English language lesson for the sake of affectivity is fully

undertaken in the target language. (An otherwise interpretation will surely

jeopardize the rationale of, and utility in, an Arnold-tailored English lesson). A

few questions arise at this point: Are, say, 4.5 minutes long enough to respond

affectively to an average class of 35-40 students? Conceding that this lapse of

time is adequately enough for three or four students at the maximum , what

about the others who may have a not less pressing need for the teacher's care,

affection and empathy? What about those students with low proficiency in

English who may wish to express their ideas and views in Arabic for the next

quarter of an hour? Would a non-Arab expatriate teacher of an HLT bent be

10



expected to (go on pretending to) "listen" lest he or she should stifle their

legitimate right for self-expression? Would a lesson with such proceedings not

disastrously slip into gradual ineffectiveness period after period?

d- In connection with the preceding point, the cognitive value (i.e.; building

students' command of English) allegedly deriving from this more or less ten

percent of the period for coping with some affect issues need be empirically

validated. (It is rather unfortunate that nowhere in Arnold (1998)'s article,

which was meant to serve as a defense and clarification reply to Gadd (1998)'s

article, or in the anthology edited by Arnold (1999) is a single lesson

transcription provided to support the claims that the time allowed for some

politically-oriented issue during an HLT lesson is conducive to better language

learning).

e- Given the current state of affairs in the Arab world, where much of the

educational policies are not even mapped up by the Governments concerned

and teachers are no more than employees and syllabus deliverers, it hard to

believe in the universality of HLT as conceived of by Arnold (1998).

4. CONCLUSION:

The present essay has attempted to identify the major values and practices which

currently underlie the various humanistic-affective approaches to language teaching.

Some of the most salient negative as well as positive aspects of the trends in question

have also been outlined, based on two recent articles by Gadd (1998) and Arnold

(1998). During the course of the discussion, it has been suggested that the role

11



assigned to the English language teacher within an Arnold-minded humanistic

language teaching framework tends to be not only inadequate but also risky at the

instructional and professional levels. By shedding light on the miscellaneous

arguments advanced in favour of more/less humanistic teaching, it hoped that teachers

will have a clearer idea about the features and practicalities of Humanistic approaches

to ELTl. It is also hoped that they will be more aware of the fatal drawbacks of what

Gadd (1998) labels as "Romantic" HLT. Understandably enough, the issues at debate

are far from being resolved; it needs more than some rhetorical questions as the ones

in the Introductory quotation above or in Arnold (1998: 241) to come to terms with

what effective learning/teaching really entails.

5. REFERENCES:

Arnold, J. (1998), "Towards more humanistic English teaching", ELT Journal 52, 3:

235-242.

Arnold, J. (ed) (1999), Affect in Language Learning , Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Arnold, J. and H.D. Brown (1999), "A map of the terrain". In J.Arnold (ed), Affect in

Language Learning , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-24.

Atkinson, D. (1989), " 'Humanistic' approaches in the adult classroom: an affective

reaction ", ELT Journal 43, 4: 268-73.

Brown, H.D. (1994), Teaching by Principles, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall

Regents.

Brown, H.D. (1998), "The place of moral and political issues in language pedagogy".

In W. Renandya and G. Jacobs (eds), Learners and Language Learning ,

Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.

Early, P. (ed) (1982), ELT Documents— Humanistic Approaches: An Empirical View,

12



London: The British Council.

Gadd, N. (1998),"Towards less humanistic English teaching", ELT Journal 52,

3::223-34.

Gadd, N. (1998), "Reply to Jane Arnold", ELT Journal 52, 3: 243-4.

Goleman, D. (1995), Emotional Intelligence, New York: Bantam.

Harmer, J. (2001), The Practice of English Language Teaching . 3rd Edn. Edinburgh

Gate: Pearson Education Limited.

Hunter, I. (1988), Culture and Government , London: Macmillan.

McMillan, M. (1904), Education through the Imagination, London: George Allen and

Unwin.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. New Edition (1995), Harlow:

Longman.

Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987), Classroom Interaction, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Maslow, A. (1970), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row.

Moskowitz, G. (1978), Caring and Sharing in the Foreign Language Classroom,

Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.

Nunan, D. (2000), Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers,

Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

Rardin, J. (1982), "A Humanistic Philosophy of Education". In P. Early (ed), ELT

Documents— Humanistic Approaches: An Empirical View, London: The British

Council, 59-67.

Richards, J.C, J. Platt and H. Platt (1992), Longman Dictionary of Language

Teaching and Applied Linguistics. 2nd Edn., Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education

Limited.

Richards, J. and Rodgers (2001), Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching .2nd

Edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13



Rogers, C. (1983), Freedom to Learn, New York: Merrill.

Stevick, E.W. (1980), Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways, Rowley, MA:

Newbury House.

Underhill, A. (1989), "Process in Humanistic education", ELT Journal 43, 4 :250-60.

Williams, M. and B. Burden (1997), Psychology for Language Teachers: A Social

Constructivist Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yalden, J. (1983), The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design and

Implimentation, Oxford: Pergamon Institute of English.

14