In short, we can give MI a bit of slack because it hasn’t been around in the EFL world long.
So in short, NLP is out because it’s a philosophy and isn’t really a language teaching method and MI which is a philosophy and not really a language teaching method is in. Got it?
But what about approaches which are not philosophies but, y’know, language teaching methods? How did they fare. well since the last edition in 2001 little has changed on the EFL method scene. Except of course for Dogme. Starting in roughly 2000 with Thornbury’s call to arms, (and actually a little earlier if you ask me) it’s not surprising it didn’t feature in the 2001 edition of A&M. But since then Dogme has been talked about and argued over constantly and seems to be the default choice for DELTA experimental lessons. So how did it fare in 2014?
Well, put aside your personal opinions of Dogme for a second (I’m looking at you Mr. Dellar) and ask yourself, in a book which attempts to catalogue the state of methodology in EFL in 2014, and which includes full chapters on TPR, The silent way, CLL and Suggestopedia (all left in for ‘historical perspective’ (2014:x)) should there be a chapter on Dogme? There is an issue of consistency.
Perhaps I’m straying out of the ‘evidence-based’ zone here but I find it hard to understand why MI gets an entirely uncritical 13 pages (they do stick a reference to a critical Kerr (2009) article in at the end) while Dogme gets, unless I’ve missed something, two paragraphs.