Oleg Tarnopolsky


The article discusses the ways of introducing Kumaravadivelu’s (2003) principled pragmatism (or well-grounded eclecticism in the terminology of the author of the article) approach into teaching English as a foreign language for professional purposes at tertiary schools in Ukraine. Such pragmatism/eclecticism in the conditions under consideration creates opportunities for adopting different methods of teaching and learning taken from different, often contradictory, methodological approaches, as well as opportunities for uniting those methods into an organic unity, a new single approach contributing to the overall improvement of the teaching/learning process. Interpreting the difference between approaches and methods in accordance with the ideas of Richards and Rogers (1986) and treating methods as practical procedures through which an approach is implemented, the author demonstrates that a novel principled pragmatism/well-grounded eclecticism approach in teaching English at Ukrainian tertiary schools may be developed as the combination of five methods including content-based instruction, interculturalism in language studies, constructivism in language learning achieved through experiential-interactive learning procedures, blended language learning as a balanced organic unity of students’ off-line and online learning experiences and balanced use of communicative learning activities and non-communicative language exercises. The research shows that the listed five methods in their unity not only form a new single approach but also fully meet the ten Kumaravadivelu’s principles making that approach a clear-cut case of principled pragmatism. The concluding part of the article manifests the suggested approach as representing a possible new paradigm in teaching English for professional purposes.


tertiary schools; principled pragmatism; well-grounded eclecticism; teaching/learning English as a foreign language; content-based instruction; interculturalism in language studies; constructivism; experiential-interactive learning procedures; blended language learning; communicative activity

Full Text:



Andarab, M.S., Büyükyazi, M. (2013). Mismatches between teacher intention and learner interpretation; significance of non-native speaker teacher of English. Journal of Education and Practice, 4 (4), 30-37.

Brinton, D.M., Snow, M.A., & Wesche, M.B. (1989). Content-based second language instruction. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ferradas, C.M. (2010). Plenary: Outside looking in: intercultural and intermedial encounters in ELT. In Briony Beaven (Ed.) IATEFL 2009 Cardiff conference selections (pp. 16-20). Canterbury, Kent: IATEFL.

Fotos, S.S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351.

Frendo, E. (2005). How to teach Business English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Alexander, O., Argent, S., & Spencer, J. (2008). EAP essentials. A teacher’s guide to principles and practices. Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd.

Gibson, R. (2002). Intercultural business communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Glaserfeld, E. von (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L.P. Steffe, J. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in education (pp. 3-16). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goddard, R.J. (2007). Teaching English for international business. Sandy Bedfordshire: Authors OnLine Ltd.

Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3d ed.). Harlow, Essex: Longman.

Johnson, R.K., & Swain, M. (1997). Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kohonen, V., Jaatinen, R., Kaikkonen, P., & Lehtovaara, J. (2014). Experiential learning in foreign language education. NY: Routledge.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (4), 537-560.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies in language teaching. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Richards, J.C. & Rogers, T.C. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching: A description and analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105 (9), 1623-1640.

Sharma, P. & Barrett, B. (2007). Blended learning. Using technology in and beyond the language classroom. Oxford: Macmillan.

Stoller, F.L. (2007). Content-based instruction. In Nelleke van Deusen-Scholl and Nancy H. Hornberger (Eds), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol.4: Second and foreign language education (pp. 59-70). New York, NY: Springer.

Tarnopolsky, O.B. (1987). Profilaktika grammaticheskih oshibok v jekspressivnoj ustnoj rechi [Prophylaxis of grammar errors in expressive oral speech]. Inostrannye jazyki v vysshej shkole, 20,72-79. Moscow: Vysshaja shkola.

Tarnopolsky, O. (2010). Must the Intercultural Approach, EIL and ELF oust CLL? IATEFL Voices, 217, 5-6.

Tarnopolsky, (2012). Constructivist blended learning approach to teaching English for specific purposes. London: Versita.

Warschauer, M., Shetzer, H., & Meloni, C. (2000). Internet for English teaching. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.

Copyright (c) 2018 Oleg Borisovich Tarnopolsky

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ISSN 2410-8286 (Online), ISSN 2409-3351 (Print)