M is for Moderation in ELT
Willy A Renandya, 30 April 2025
In the field of English Language Teaching (ELT), certain ideas have sparked strong debates, sometimes to the point where teachers feel forced to pick a side. These debates can divide schools, conferences, online communities, and even teacher training programmes. The truth is, we all want what’s best for our students, but we don’t always agree on how to get there.
Instead of treating each issue like a battle to be won, perhaps we need to rediscover the value of something more quiet, more reasonable, i.e., a middle ground of sort. When we look closely at the arguments on both sides of these hot topics, we often find that the best answers don’t lie at the extremes, but somewhere in the thoughtful middle.
Teacher-Centred vs. Learner-Centred Pedagogy
The debate between teacher-centred and learner-centred teaching is a great example of where a middle ground works best. Teacher-centred methods, where the teacher leads with structured lessons and direct instruction, can provide clarity but sometimes hold back student independence.
On the other side, learner-centred approaches put students in charge, encouraging exploration and self-directed learning, but they can be tough without enough guidance from the teacher.
A middle ground blends both, offering clear guidance when needed, while also giving students the space to take charge of their own learning. This way, everyone gets the best of both worlds.
Translanguaging: Useful or Undermining?
One of the most hotly debated topics in ELT is translanguaging, i.e., the practice of allowing students to use their home language(s) alongside English in the classroom.
Some educators insist on an English-only policy to create an immersive environment. Others argue that recognizing and using students’ full linguistic resources leads to deeper understanding and more inclusive teaching.
A moderate position doesn’t mean we give up on English; it means we use all the tools available to support learning. That might involve brainstorming in the first language, using translation for clarity, or encouraging code-switching as a bridge to greater fluency. The key is using L1 strategically, not as a crutch.
Multimodality: Essential or overhyped?
Multimodality, the use of visuals, sound, movement, and digital tools alongside spoken and written language, has gained popularity in ELT, with advocates arguing it reflects how communication works in the real world and engages learners more deeply.
Critics, however, caution that it can distract from core language skills and may not be practical in all classroom contexts, especially where resources are limited.
A moderate position sees value in using multimodal elements purposefully and simply, such as adding visuals to writing tasks or encouraging students to present ideas through posters or short videos. When used thoughtfully, multimodality can support (not replace) language learning by giving students more ways to process and express meaning.
Grammar Instruction: Explicit or Implicit?
Grammar teaching is a long-running debate within the ELT community. Should teachers explain rules explicitly, or should students absorb grammar naturally through communication?
Advocates of explicit teaching argue that clear rules help students feel more in control of the language. Others disagree, arguing that too much focus on grammar can kill motivation and get in the way of real communication.
But in practice, many effective teachers blend both approaches. A quick explanation of the present perfect tense followed by a storytelling activity, for instance, allows students to both understand the rule and use it meaningfully.
Grammar doesn’t need to dominate the lesson, but it doesn’t need to disappear either.
Phonics or Whole Language for Reading Instruction?
Reading instruction has also triggered deep division, especially at the primary level. Should children learn to read through phonics, breaking words into sounds or through a whole language approach that focuses on meaning and enjoyment? The phonics camp insists that without decoding skills, students will struggle forever.
Whole language supporters however argue that reading should be meaningful from the start, not just a mechanical process. Yet again, the moderate position proves wise.
Teaching students how to decode while also encouraging them to read engaging stories can provide both the skill and the motivation to become lifelong readers.
Reading Comprehension Questions: Cognitive vs Affective Domain
When it comes to reading comprehension, a balanced approach integrates both cognitive and emotional aspects. On one side, using Bloom’s Taxonomy can encourage students to engage with the text at various levels, from recalling basic details to making deeper inferences of text meaning. This progression helps deepen their understanding and critical thinking.
On the other side, addressing emotional needs involves creating a supportive environment where students feel comfortable sharing their thoughts. This could include encouraging personal connections with the text, promoting peer discussions, and allowing creative forms of expression.
By moderating the focus on cognitive skills and emotional support, teachers can make their reading lessons more appealing for most, if not all, students.
Should mistakes be corrected?
We also see division when it comes to correcting students’ mistakes.
Some teachers correct everything, worried that errors will become permanent. Others avoid correction to preserve fluency and student confidence.
The truth? Correction is important, but so is timing and tone.
Students need feedback, but it doesn’t always have to stop the flow of conversation. Teachers can gently reformulate a sentence, use peer feedback, or offer correction after a task rather than during it. Sensitivity and strategy go further than strict rules.
More often than not, it’s not about whether to correct student mistakes, but about when and how much correction is needed.
Technology: Tool or Distraction?
Technology is another flashpoint. Some teachers love using apps, online games, and AI tools, while others feel that screens distract from real learning.
Technology can certainly engage students, but it can also overwhelm or even widen the gap between learners. Rather than treating tech as a cure-all or a threat, we can approach it as a tool, i.e., one to use when it fits the learning goals.
Whether it’s recording a student’s speaking task or using online flashcards, the question shouldn’t be “Is this high-tech?” but “Does this help learning?”
Group Work or Individual Work?
In classroom management, teachers often feel torn between promoting group work and encouraging independent work.
Group activities build confidence, social skills, and fluency. But not all students work well in groups all the time. Independent work allows for focus, thinking time, and personal reflection.
Rather than picking one style over the other, teachers can shift between group and solo activities based on the task, the student, and the learning objective.
Variety not only keeps students engaged; it caters for different needs as well.
Assessment of and for Learning
Assessment is another area where moderation can make a big difference. On one hand, assessment of learning is about measuring what students know at the end of a lesson or unit. It’s the tests, quizzes, and final projects that give us a snapshot of their progress. While it helps track achievement, it can sometimes feel like it’s all about the grade rather than the learning itself.
On the other hand, assessment for learning focuses on using assessments to guide students during the learning process. These can be things like quizzes, feedback, or discussions that help both the teacher and the student figure out where they are and what they need to work on.
A balanced approach mixes both: using assessments to gauge progress, while also making sure they help students improve along the way.
It’s not just about what they know, but how they can keep growing.
Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research
In the world of ELT research, there’s often a heated debate between quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative research relies on numbers and statistical data to give us clear, measurable results, but sometimes it misses out on the deeper, more personal aspects of how students learn.
In contrast, qualitative research offers rich descriptions of student experiences, emotions, and individual stories, giving us rich insights, but it’s not always easy to apply these findings to larger groups.
A more balanced approach blends both; using the numbers to give us a solid foundation and then looking at the personal, human side of things through the qualitative perspective.
It’s about getting the full picture, not just the statistical significance or the stories.
Conclusion
Across all of these debates, one pattern becomes clear: the best teaching is flexible, not fixed. Real classrooms are messy. Students have different levels, backgrounds, goals, and emotions. A method that works beautifully with one class may flop with another. That’s why moderation is not weakness. It’s wisdom.
Teachers don’t need to feel trapped in a war of methods. We don’t have to defend one approach against all others. We can blend, borrow, and adapt. We can stay curious and open to change. We can listen to research, trust our instincts, and most importantly, pay attention to our students.
In a world that sometimes demands us to take sides, choosing the middle path may feel unsatisfying. But in teaching, the middle path is often the most practical, the most humane, and the most effective.
So if you hear someone make a strong claim, “This is the one right way to teach,” take a step back. Ask yourself: Does this work for my students, in this context, right now? That’s the heart of moderation. And maybe, just maybe, it’s the most powerful choice of all.