Towards more humanistic

English teaching
Jane Arnold

Introduction While the article 'Towards less humanist English teaching' raises some

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

interesting points, I would like to suggest that many of the arguments
presented are either not well-founded or misleading. Humanistic
language teaching is a much more complex phenomenon than Gadd
indicates; as such, it should be considered in its complexity, and not
dissected into isolated components which, out of context, might not be
properly understood.

Renaissance First of all, in order to discuss what is generally referred to as humanistic

humanism language teaching, why should it be necessary to look for models in the
Renaissance? Humanistic language teaching's relationship, or lack of it,
with what was humanism in the Renaissance has nothing to do with its
effectiveness in the language classroom. But in any case, the
Renaissance concept of humanism is more varied than Gadd implies.
He limits his vision to what he calls the 'outwardly directed humanism of
the Renaissance'. Florentine humanism, for example, tended to be
action-oriented, but in some of its other spheres Renaissance humanism
was of a much more contemplative nature, in line with what he terms the
'inward-gazing humanism of the twentieth century'.

Choice in ELT Gadd finds fault with English teachers for using techniques which
involve the emotions or the inner self because, after all, maths or science
teachers do not do so. This is somewhat simplistic reasoning, framed
within a question containing deceptive and emotionally charged
language1—'to undertake (any kind of) operation on the students'
feelings or to improve their souls'—and hiding what in fact could be
considered a privilege of English language teachers: our ability to
choose. We should be considered fortunate in having at our disposal a
broad range of possibilities for teaching our subject. We can opt for
teaching the language in a way that may teach the structure of English,
but certainly nothing more (for example, an activity in which students
practise question forms with superficial, non-meaningful items); alter-
natively, we can teach it in a way that, while practising the same forms,
permits students to share part of themselves with others, and in the
process perhaps learn more about themselves and each other. This
option is not readily available to a physics teacher. Rivers (1976: 96)
made a similar point in" saying that 'We are the most fortunate of
teachers—all subjects are ours. Whatever [the students] want to
communicate about, whatever they want to read about, is our subject
ELT Journal Volume 52/3 July 1998 © Oxford University Press 1998 235
 matter.' There is no doubt that motivation is an essential ingredient in
the learning process; and, as Reid (1996: 3) explains, students 'are
motivated by self-discovery and by the control such knowledge brings'.
Should we not take advantage of the opportunity that we have as
language teachers to use this power of motivation to help bring about
more effective language learning?
Humanistic Another case of misleading writing is found in the comparison of the
language humanistic teacher with the professor in the film Dead Poets Society.
teaching: a First of all, there seems to be no good reason to equate that professor
motivating force with the typical humanistic EFL or ESL teacher. And although we might

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

not want to go so far as to attribute the death of the student to his
authoritarian father, we certainly cannot hold the professor responsible
for the tragedy. Brown interprets the professor's character very
differently, seeing him as a man who added a very powerful driving
force to the learning environment —intrinsic motivation—by which the
students 'bonded together to soar well beyond their own expectations of
what they could be and become' (Brown 1994: 37). Rather than
classrooms that bore young people, and lead them to be controlled by
the urge towards conformity, would we not prefer the type of education
that sparks their enthusiasm and leads them towards a true love of
learning and independent thinking?

Stevick on The author's use of Stevick's work to support his position is also
humanism misleading. Stevick (1980) pointed out some of the difficulties that may
arise with humanistic approaches to teaching; and he has wisely
emphasized that teachers must be attuned to the needs and wants of
the learner, something particularly important in societies that have
conceptions of student-teacher roles which are different from those of
many Western countries2. But in reading Stevick's earlier work and his
more recent work (1990, 1996), the latter not cited by Gadd, one finds
there is a great deal of similarity between what is generally understood
as humanistic language teaching and Stevick's views, which are
represented by quotations such as the following: 'Alongside linguistic
meanings are personal meanings: how the activity relates to each
learner's immediate purposes, overall objectives, loyalties, self-image,
emotions and the like.' (Stevick 1996: 253) The difficulties Gadd refers
to are part of Stevick's list of seven hazards inherent in trying to
incorporate a humanistic approach; however, he neglects to mention an
eighth hazard, by implication the one Stevick feels to be the greatest of
all: 'being so impressed with the first seven hazards that one becomes
afraid to try!' (Stevick 1980: 33) ,

Humanism: Humanistic language teaching brings a new view of the language teacher
addition not which includes a recognition of the importance of his or her personal
substitution development. However, 'this does not mean that language teachers no
longer need, for example, a firm command of the language being taught
or proper training in language teaching methodology. It means that
these skills will be much more effective if teachers are also concerned
with their own emotional I.Q.' (Arnold and Brown, forthcoming).
236 Jane Arnold
 Gadd states that a common view of humanism in ELT is that 'the
primary task of the English teacher [is] to develop students' inner selves
. . . ' . But is this really the case? Few people have written with more
conviction about humanistic language teaching than Gertrude Mosko-
witz, who offers her work as a way of providing 'some specific ways
foreign language teachers can weave humanistic strategies into their
already existing curricular materials'—and she explicitly proposes 'not
total abandonment of what teachers are expected to teach, but
supplementing these materials where appropriate' (Moskowitz 1978:
1). Nowhere does she mention or imply that foreign language teachers
are not to be, above all, teachers of the foreign language.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

Throughout his article, Gadd seems to be indicating that humanistic
teachers are only concerned with learners' feelings and inner life. The
problem is with the 'only'. To say you are concerned with affect is not
the same as saying you are not concerned with cognition. Consider for a
moment the following scenario. You need a new house, you have saved
your money, and are finally going to buy it. This is your main goal.
However, when you sign the contract, the agent informs you that, if you
like, you can also have—tax-free, no strings attached—a new Mercedes
in the garage. How many people would refuse the Mercedes? To accept
the Mercedes is obviously not equivalent to rejecting the house.
Humanistic language teachers see that they can teach English at least
as effectively as those who take another approach, and at the same time
provide their students with added benefits.
To my knowledge, humanistic language teachers and theorists never talk
about substituting the cognitive for the affective, but rather about adding
the affective, both to facilitate the cognitive in language learning and to
encourage the development of the whole person. By splitting hairs, it
might be possible to find an occasional proposal of humanistic teaching
proponents that may seem impractical for some situations—but are we
going to throw out the baby with the bath water?

Emotional Goleman (1995: xii-xiii) has pointed out how people with a lower IQ
intelligence often do better in life than those with a high IQ, and explains this fact by
the abilities he calls emotional intelligence, affirming that
these skills . . . can be taught to children, giving them a better chance
to use whatever intellectual potential the genetic lottery may have
given them . . . This expanded model of what it means to be
'intelligent' puts emotions at the center of aptitudes for living.
Goleman considers that the development of greater emotional intelli-
gence is important not just for the learners' own intellectual progress but
also for the good of society as a whole. In a world in which many of the
elements that have traditionally held social groups together are
disintegrating, giving way to a series of problems of great magnitude,
he sees as one solution 'a new vision of what schools can do to educate
the whole student, bringing together the mind and heart in the classroom'
(ibid.: xiv). He also incorporates values as part of the curriculum.
Towards more humanistic English teaching 237
 If someone in the humanistic tradition (Gadd cites Klippel 1984) finds
that foreign language teaching can, for example, lead to the develop-
ment of 'co-operation and empathy', what can possibly be wrong with
that? As a language teacher, I certainly couldn't justify sacrificing my
students' language learning, but, if we might become quantitative for a
moment, out of a kilo of verb conjugations, I might be willing to trade 10
or 15 grams for an equivalent amount of co-operation and empathy.

Values education Gadd would criticize humanistic language teachers for imparting values
education, but one wonders where all these English teachers are who
feel they have 'the right to impose their moral and ethical values'. They

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

certainly can't have read Moskowitz, Rinvolucri, Stevick, or Underhill
carefully, or be using the so-called humanistic methods properly. Giroux
and McLaren (1989: xiii) affirm that as teachers we are 'transformative
intellectuals who connect pedagogical theory and practice to wider social
issues . . . and embody in our teaching a vision of a better and more
humane life'. But to deal with these issues is not to impose one's own
values; imposition of any kind is quite outside basic humanistic teaching
philosophy. Brown (1994: 441-2) notes that teaching is a political act and
that a language teacher is an agent for change. But he adds one caveat
for teachers:
You will no doubt be very careful not to push a particular 'philosophy'
or a particular morality on your students, but you will nevertheless be
acting from your deepest convictions when you teach people to speak
tactfully, to negotiate meaning harmoniously, to read critically, and to
write persuasively.

Humanistic trends At present, education in general is looking precisely in the direction that
in education humanistic language teaching has been moving for years. In Spain, for
today example, where a sweeping reform in education is underway, two
significant changes are the introduction of values education in the
classroom, including the EFL classroom, and concern with the emotional
side of the learner. A similar trend is evident in the current curriculum
reform in Finland. Kohonen and Kaikkonen (1996) summarize the goals
established there in 1994 by the National Board of Education, which
recognize 'the importance of supporting a holistic personality develop-
ment of the learner, democratic citizenship education, active learning
through learner involvement, and ethical reflection and the respect of
cultural diversity'.
More examples are not lacking. The 1996 report on education for the
twenty-first century, produced by the UNESCO Commission headed by
Jacques Delors, concludes that education is teaching 'to understand, to
do, to live together, to be'. The title of the report is 'Learning: the
treasure within' (emphasis added).
It would seem, then, that, properly understood, humanistic language
teaching is not out of step with the main forces in education today. Quite
the contrary. In a troubled world calling out for balm for its wounds, it
238 Jane Arnold
 should certainly not be seen as irresponsible for educators, whatever
their subject area, to dedicate a little attention to contributing to the
development of emotionally intelligent people who are better equipped
to deal with the problems of modern society.

The relationship At several points Gadd implies or states directly that attention to affect
between affect has nothing to do with cognitive development. In his influential book
and cognition Descartes' Error (1995), the neurobiologist Antonio Damasio asserts
that our emotional life is 'an integral component of the machinery of
reason' (p. xii), and he explains that 'feelings, along with the emotions

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

they come from, are not a luxury . .. (they) are just as cognitive as other
percepts' (p. xv). Damasio supports these claims with evidence based on
information from scientific techniques, such as positron emission
tomography, which enable neurologists to • understand more clearly
what happens in the brain, the seat of learning.

John Schumann and his associates are working on a brain-based model

of language acquisition. Schumann (1994: 232) points out that
the brain stem, limbic and frontolimbic areas, which comprise the
stimulus appraisal system, emotionally modulate cognition such that,
in the brain, emotion and cognition are distinguishable but insepar-
able. Therefore, from a neural perspective, affect is an integral part of
cognition.
Similarly, Stevick (1996) strongly emphasizes the importance for
language learning of the influence of affect on the cognitive processes
involved in memory.
Contemporary theorists in pragmatics tell us that, for language to
achieve its communicative function, the role played by affect is essential.
Janney and Arndt (1992) stress the importance of the modification of
verbal and non-verbal behaviour in signalling feelings and attitudes as a
universal means to avoid conflicts. Since misunderstandings are
inevitable in intercultural communication, it is important for speakers
to express themselves in a tactful manner. 'In an atmosphere of empathy
and respect partners are able to view misunderstandings as temporary
breakdowns in communication rather than having to interpret them as
threats to face' (ibid.: 21). There are important implications on both the
interpersonal and the international levels in this point of view. So we
also find pragmatic justification for taking into account affective as well
as cognitive aspects of learning when we strive to help our students by
'extending their language competence', a goal that humanistic language
teachers most certainly share with Gadd.
As for Gadd's praiseworthy desire to deal with his students' general
education, particularly 'developing the ability to reason', many
humanistic teachers have been working in that area for years. For
example, the use of material from de Bono (1970,1982) is quite common
in humanistic-type language classes, and I might remit Gadd to Berer,
Towards more humanistic English teaching 239
 Frank, and Rinvolucri's Challenge to Think (1982) for material to help
learners develop the intellectual skills he mentions. What is more, along
with the general cognitive tools Gadd would provide, humanistic
teaching might add a further dimension: the capacity to use our thinking
in a positive and useful manner. As Brown (1998: 261) points out, when
incorporating critical thinking in our classrooms, we should be
concerned not just to help our students 'to become aware of
information' but 'to become participants in a global partnership of
involvement in seeking solutions'.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

The question of For the reasons given, it would seem unwise to ignore affect and
register and genre humanism in language learning, especially if it were only, as Gadd
suggests, in order to make room for more linguistic registers. In the first
place, as previously mentioned, humanistic language teaching activities
are only one part of a programme in which the language of many
registers will, logically, be present. In the second place, humanistic
activities themselves can provide exposure to very diverse types of
language, including language which will be of use in many ways in the
real world. Would Gadd be able to identify a linguistic difference that is
truly significant for language learning between answering 'What is the
most difficult situation you have had to face in your life?' (a possible
humanistic activity question), and 'What have you done to prepare
yourself for this job?' (a possible question for Gadd's 'difficult interview
at the job centre')? It seems to me that the former is also quite good
classroom practice for real-world communication.

In one of the humanistically focused books that comes in for Gadd's

criticism, Learner-Based Teaching (1992), Campbell and Kryszewska
actually refer to a great variety of situations in their students' socio-
cultural context which lead to a wide range of registers. Humanistic
language teachers, concerned with the whole person, should have no
difficulty accommodating many areas of experience and learning in their
classrooms, including the different registers and varied genres that Gadd
proposes 3 , whereas with his suggestions, one has the sense of exclusion
and narrowness. Dealing with types of communicative events and their
common patterns, genre studies do, indeed, offer interesting insights for
language teachers; merely learning words and structures in isolation
from the framework necessary to put them to effective use is not
empowering learners to be able to function successfully in the language.
But Swales (1990: 58) affirms that 'it is not the case that all
communicative events are considered instances of genres'. He considers
that normal conversation falls outside genre, and so, since it is estimated
that 90 per cent of the use one makes of language has to do with
conversation, one might be hard pressed to justify doing as Gadd
suggests, and using the other 10 per cent (genre) as the focus for English
language teaching. The incorporation of elements of humanistic
language teaching, with their emphasis on interpersonal communication,
would, however, seem highly justifiable on this account.
240 Jane Arnold
 Classical With regard to the classical rhetorical tradition which Gadd proposes as
antecedents an alternative influence on language teaching, one should keep in mind
that it would be a mistake to say that the Greeks considered those who
searched for truth through introspection to be what we today would call
'idiots'; having self-knowledge is not the same as being 'devoted to one's
own self. Harking back to oracular wisdom, Socrates—Greek teacher
par excellence—was especially concerned with leading his students
toward introspection: 'Know thyself', he told them. For the young who
were desirous of attaining knowledge, his advice was to look within.
Thus, being introspective is very 'Greek', and hardly justifies Gadd's
reference to it as 'a fairly recent historical invention'.

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

Gadd's reference to the Romans' connection between 'to live' and 'to be
among men' rather implies that concern with a deeper knowledge of
one's inner self was restricted to hermits. Here again, quite the contrary
is true. A healthy self which has understood its own inner mechanisms is
able to relate better to others and to achieve what language is, after all,
merely a tool for—communication.

Conclusion Gadd is quite right when he says that there are different approaches to
humanism in language teaching. Dealing with the terminology itself,
Stevick (1990: 23-4) finds at least five overlapping components of
humanism: feelings, social relations, responsibility, intellect, and self-
actualization. There are, of course, differences among many of those
who work within a humanistic framework, some of them fairly
substantial. As human beings are marvellously diverse, so will be their
ideas and their realizations. However, I am not sure the differences in
this case are great enough to warrant establishing a real distinction
between pragmatic and romantic humanism, which predisposes the
reader, even before the arguments can be considered. Humankind's
seemingly unavoidable tendency toward polarization is manifest here:
good humanism-bad humanism, like the labels which divide reality into
'me' and 'not me'. Yet it would not seem overly adventurous to state
that basic humanism—not a set of techniques nor a specific method, but
rather an approach to life reflected in one's attitudes towards all of one's
activities—has much to offer to English language teaching. Might not
the ELT profession and society as a whole benefit from more, not less,
humanistic language teaching?
Received June 1997

Towards more humanistic English teaching 241

Notes de Bono, E. 1970. Lateral Thinking. London:
1 Gadd might have avoided the use of this type of Penguin.
loaded language. For example, he also speaks of de Bono, E. 1982. de Bono's Thinking Course.
'liberating the teacher from the inappropriate New York: Facts on File.
and oppressive role of nurturer of the inner Giroux, H. and P. McLaren. 1989. Critical
self. Liberation presupposes an existing Pedagogy, the State, and Cultural Struggle.
'oppressive' subjugation. Humanistic language Albany, NY: State University of New York
teaching is not conceived of as something to be Press.
imposed from above upon an unwilling teacher Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New
or to be prescribed for all teachers in a York: Bantam.
programme, but rather as an option freely Janney, R. and H. Arndt. 1992. 'Intracultural tact
accepted—or sought after. Often, those most
drawn to humanistic education have a self- versus intercultural tact' in R. Watts et al. (eds.).
Politeness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of California, San Francisco on April 7, 2015

actualizing nature, and a desire to help their
students reach their fullest potential; as such, Gruyter.
they can be highly motivating teachers. Klippel, F. 1984. Keep Talking. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
2 However, Moskowitz (1994: 8) tells of a group Kohonen, V. and P. Kaikkonen. 1996. 'Exploring
of quiet Asian female students who contributed
an excellent performance in a very active drama new ways of inservice teacher education: an
activity in the language classroom. These action research project'. Paper presented at the
students 'were given opportunites to push past European Educational Research Association
their traditional roles by tapping into their Conference, Seville, Spain.
imaginations, and therefore could discover Moskowitz, G. 1978. Caring and Sharing in the
new possibilities and visions in the repertoire Foreign Language Class. Rowley, MA: New-
of themselves'. While respecting individuals' bury House.
personal preferences, we can, at the same time, Moskowitz, G. 1994. 'Humanistic imagination:
open up other options to them. soul food for the language class'. The Journal
3 Crandall (forthcoming) points out how co- of the Imagination in Language Learning II:
operative learning provides an increased range 8-17.
of speech acts. Reid, J. 1996. 'The learning-centered classroom'.
TESOL Matters 6/1: 3.
References Rivers, W. 1976. Speaking in Many Tongues:
Arnold, J. (ed.) (forthcoming). Affect in Language Essays in Foreign Language Teaching. Rowley,
Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University MA: Newbury House.
Press. Schumann, J. 1994. 'Where is cognition?' Studies
Arnold, J. and H. D. Brown, (forthcoming). 'A in Second Language Acquisition 16: 231^2.
map of the terrain' in J. Arnold (ed.). Stevick, E. W. 1980. Teaching Languages: A Way
Berer, M., C. Frank, and M. Rinvolucri. 1982. and Ways. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Challenge to Think. Oxford: Oxford University Stevick, E. W. 1990. Humanism in Language
Press. Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles. Stevick, E. W. 1996. Memory, Meaning and
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Regents. Method. (2nd edn.). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Brown, H. D. 1998. 'The place of moral and Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge:
political issues in language pedagogy' in W. Cambridge University Press.
Renandya and G. Jacobs (eds.). Learners and
Language Learning. Singapore: SEAMEO
Regional Language Centre. The author
Campbell, C. and H. Kryszewska. 1992. Learner- Jane Arnold teaches in the English Language
based Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Department at the University of Seville, where
Press. she is also involved in teacher training and
Crandall, J. (forthcoming). 'Co-operative lan- research in applied linguistics. She has published
guage learning and affective factors' in J. articles on second language acquisition and
Arnold, (ed.). language teaching. Her current interests lie in
Damasio, A. 1995. Descartes' Error: Emotion, the area of affect in language learning.
Reason and the Human Brain. London: Picador. E-mail: <arnold@cica.es>

242 Jane Arnold