The foci, then, are on teaching methodology and learning capacity, rather than on the intricate works of linguisticians. Note that teachers, moreover, need a functional dose of anthropology, sociology, and cybernetics if they are to grow as professionals. It does not hurt, of course, if they know more than one language and have been in close contact with other cultures.
Now, "discussions on teaching methods tend to be plagued by overgeneralizations both with respect to the way they are classified and with respect to the way they are evaluated" (MacKenzie, Eraut, & Jones 1972, p. 124). When one compares pedagogical methods, some startling facts come to light. One, for example, is that methods vacillate between a behavioral approach which considers the learner as a programmable mechanical device, and a humanistic (or pseudo-humanistic) approach which is undisciplined and considers the learner as a malleable self-directed positively motivated and intelligent social and cultural unit. Talk about monolithism!
Two, curricula and methodologies are essentially teacher-centered or pre-determined curriculum-centered, as opposed to being learner-centered. They are developed on the basis of a linear and group-addressed program, rather than on a semi-linear or even random program derived from individual learners' feedback. They illustrate the traditional top-dictated organization