To what extent can one say that a language teaching method is “evidenced-based”? A look at Michael Swan’s critical stance.

How far can we go in saying that a technique to facilitate the acquisition of a new language is “evidence-based”?

Exploring the most effective techniques to facilitate the acquisition of new languages is not a new concept. Goethe is quoted as saying, “Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiss nichts von seiner eigenen. Translation: Whoever does not know any foreign languages does not know their own.”

A considerable amount of research has been conducted into how best to learn a second language.

Yet one essential question has persisted: To what extent can it be said that a language learning technique is truly evidence-based? In 2018, Michael Swan (here) raised significant criticisms that continue to shape this debate.

To preface the discussion, it has to be said that Michael Swan is a colossus in the world of teaching English as a second language. Swan has published on a broad range of aspects of English as a second language, including grammar usage, first-language influence in second-language acquisition, language testing and the relationship between applied linguistic theory and classroom language-teaching practice. He is the co-author of major publications such as the Oxford English Grammar Course (Oxford University Press) and the New Cambridge English Course series (Cambridge University Press).

What does it mean for a language learning technique to be evidence-based?

Let's first understand what it means for language techniques to be evidence-based. An evidence-based approach implies that teaching methods, materials, and strategies are grounded in empirical research and proven to be effective through systematic study. Such evidence can come from various sources, including linguistics, cognitive science, and educational research.

The good about applied linguistics 

In the section “What applied linguistics has done for me” of his 2018 article, Swan acknowledges that over the past half-century, the field of applied linguistics has greatly enhanced our view of second language acquisition. Our knowledge of English grammar was already profound thanks to the work of the great grammarians of time past. Applied linguistics has however given us broader knowledge of how English is actually spoken. Swan acknowledges that there has been great progress in phonology and pronunciation teaching. Studies of vocabulary frequency have given us valuable insights into what materials to prioritise when designing course content. The concept of 'interlanguage' has provided insights into learner language development, and research in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has been a major influence on course design. Scholars such as Long (1983), Norris & Ortega (2000) and Spada & Tomito have shown that instruction can lead to acquisition. Swan recognises that overall, thanks to the research efforts in applied linguistics, language educators have gained valuable insights into how to teach languages effectively.

Then the bad

Swan then casts a skeptic’s eye over the idea (among others) that one method, whether the communicative approach or the task-based language learning method, can be the one and only (or even principal) solution to learning English as a second language. Some of his criticisms can be summarised as follows:

1. Beware of the seductive appeal of the one-size-fits-all solution

Swan cautions against the uncritical adoption of one particular method of language instruction without proper scrutiny. He noted that what works in one context may not work in another, emphasizing the importance of considering the uniqueness of individual learners and teaching situations.

2. Insufficient high-quality research to make broad certain statements

Swan cautions against relying on broad statements based on research, particularly if these are based on small samples and have not been replicated.

3. Failure to take individual variation into account:

Swan criticized the tendency to generalise language teaching techniques, arguing that they often neglect the diverse needs and abilities of learners. He advocated for a more personalised approach to language instruction.

4. Influence of commercial interests:

Swan raised concerns about the influence of commercial interests on language teaching practices. He suggested that some methods gain popularity not because of their efficacy but because of the marketing efforts of language schools.

Swan took aim at other issues involved with the communicative approach and task-based language learning, which others have responded to elsewhere.

The reaction

Swan’s critical stance has sparked heated debate amongst linguists and teaching practitioners.

Personalised language instruction is still the gold standard

So let’s look at what Swan acknowledges.

Swan does acknowledge the large gains from applied linguistics research, in particular, the changes to English language course design stemming from the knowledge gained from the considerable research on second language acquisition, vocabulary frequency (i.e. corpus linguistics) and explicit instruction.

As a matter of academic rigour, this necessarily involves conducting further high-quality research, acknowledging the limitations of generalizations, and recognizing the importance of individual variation. This seems to be common sense to me.

From my perspective, Swan's criticisms serve as a reminder of the need for a critical and balanced approach to language teaching. While empirical evidence is a valuable guide, the role of the language instructor is to apply these tools in a considered and thoughtful way based on the needs of the language learners. Swan sums up the role of the language instructor as follows:
“Our job is still essentially to:

• find out what knowledge and skills our learners need

• subtract what they already know via their mother tongue or from earlier learning

• subtract what they can get outside the classroom

• of what is left, establish which elements matter most

• of those, establish how many can be effectively taught and learnt under the instructional conditions in the time available

• teach these by the methods that are most appropriate for each.
  

  I cannot really argue with that.