The Post Method Era: Opportunities and Challenges
Naser Rashidi and Yaser Khajavi, Iran
Nasser Rashidi is an associate professor of TEFL at Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. He has published and presented both nationally and internationally. His areas of interest include socio-cultural theory of learning and teaching, critical pedagogy, and critical discourse analysis. E-mail: nrashidi@rose.shirazu.ac.ir
Yaser Khajavi is a PhD student of TEFL at the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Shiraz University, Iran. He has been involved in teaching English for more than eight years. E-mail: yaserkhajavi@gmail.com.
Menu
Abstract
Introduction
The postmethod condition and its cornerstones
Challenges facing postmethod
Points to consider and future directions
References
After several changes in the language teaching methods, we are faced with a new era called postmethod. Postmethod calls for an alternative to method i.e. “the quest for a better method has been or should be abandoned in favor of the identification of practices or strategies of teaching designed to reflect local needs and experiences”( Savignon, 2007, p. 207). The present paper strives to shed light on the postmethod era and pore over diverse aspects of this trend. It also aims at suggesting a number of strategies that may contribute to successful implementation of the postmethod pedagogy. We argue that it would be more logical to avoid complete abandoning of methods before preparing the required infrastructure for implementation of postmethod. Furthermore, it is suggested that postmethod pedagogy should move hand in hand with other trends such as postmodernism, globalization and critical thinking modules as they pave the way for its implementation.
Keywords: postmethod, local needs, method, postmodernism
After so called death of the method concept in 1991, the postmethod term came to be used widely in the discourse of language teaching researchers and practitioners. Kumaravadivelu (1994) was among the first who questioned the quest for the best method arguing that method concept limited teachers and learners and consequently prevented them from achieving their full potentiality. In addition, he argued that methods abandoned learners and teachers’ creativity through prescribing a set of techniques to be used by teachers without full understanding on the part of its users. In a string of books and articles, postmethod was presented as an alternative to method with the aim of helping stakeholders bypass the confinements of method. In view of new ideologies in the world such as globalization and postmodernism, scholars around the globe have welcomed this idea with open arms and have written many articles applauding the proposal. In spite of the advantages attributed to this view, there seems to be some drawbacks in this trend which must be considered and analyzed. The present article strives to shed light on the postmethod era and scrutinize its diverse aspects. It also aims at suggesting a number of strategies that may contribute to successful implementation of postmethod pedagogy.
As mentioned, posmethod is a reaction to the concept of method and aims to put an end to the search for the best method. Kumaravadivelu (2006) asserts that “the postmethod condition is a sustainable state of affairs that compels us to fundamentally restructure our view of language teaching and teacher education” (p. 170). He continues to suggest that the assumed responsibility of postmethod is to educate teachers to be theorizers of their practice. These teachers would be prepared for this task by empowering their skills, knowledge and autonomy.
Postmethod has been defined and delineated in different terms by different scholars. Among those, Kumaravadivelu’s conception is more acknowledged (Kumaravadivelu, 1999, 2001, 2003a, 2003b). Kumaravadivelu (2006) enumerates three principles as the building blocks of postmethod pedagogy namely particularity, practicality, and possibility.
Particularity: It is the backbone of postmethod pedagogy maintaining that the role of context or situation is fundamental to meaningful pedagogy. It focuses on “local exigencies and lived experiences” (p. 171). Kumaravadivelu (2006) believes that we "must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular socio-cultural milieu" (p. 171). In this sense, context plays a crucial role in postmethod pedagogy.
Practicality: This dimension refers to the link between theory and practice. To put it simply, one of the drawbacks of language teaching has been the gap between professional theories of the researchers and personal theories of the practitioners. Practicality tries to link these two dimensions as much as possible. For example, action research has been proposed as one of the techniques which can contribute to bridging the gap between these two extremes. Of course, research is needed to see to what extent the link can be made.
Possibility: It refers to the extent our understanding of ourselves and our society and the world we live in are actually affected by the language we speak or learn. This has been a concern of sociopolitical aspect of ELT in postmethod era. In addition, the view that language shapes the power relationships and social structures of a society falls within this area (Gholami et al., 2012).
After many changes in language teaching methods, we are faced with a new era called postmethod. As the title suggests, postmethod calls for an alternative to method i.e. “the quest for a better method has been or should be abandoned in favor of the identification of practices or strategies of teaching designed to reflect local needs and experiences”( Savignon, 2007, p. 207) while asserting the undeniable role of language teachers. The postmethod term is quite common in recent publications of the field. It preaches a kind of ideology prestigious to language researchers and educators. In terms of reactions to this trend, there have been many voices celebrating the idea for its potentiality or criticizing that for its impracticality. But the point which should be considered is to what extent postmethod has been successful in alleviating the problems of language pedagogy. Unfortunately, quite few studies have considered this inquiry in a robust manner.
A number of drawbacks can be attributed to the view of postmethod. The first one relates to the extreme role attached to teachers in the process of language teaching. In reality, a large number of experts are in favor of placing language teachers at the top of hierarchy of education for determining their way of teaching and devising their own methods; however, a number of variables need to be taken into account in this regard. To begin with, it is essential to equip language teachers with a multifaceted knowledge of education including linguistic, cultural, societal, psychological and strategic aspects before endowing the autonomy for devising important methods and techniques or the power to make big decisions. It would be not only a need but also a must for teachers to be equipped with these skills; however, this is not the case in many instances. As a result of lack of these skills, some adverse situations may occur which may endanger the efficiency of education and learning. As Akbari (2008) asserts “now that the method is gone, the question is how teachers are going to develop the competence demanded of them in dealing with pedagogical and social responsibilities assigned to them” (p. 642).
If one looks at the current status of postmethod era, he can find out that this view has not been implemented even in universities which have faculty members who are familiar with the trend. This can be attributed to many factors such as problems in cultural, social, educational and political structure that are essential for implementing this trend. For instance, in educational system of Iran, teachers’ roles and responsibilities are determined by the Ministry of Education (MOE). Based on postmethod pedagogy, teachers should act upon their understanding and knowing (in Kumaravadevilu’s terms). In reality, however, teachers have to gear their teaching to the rules and standards proposed by the MOE. This is in sharp contrast with the roles which teachers should have in a postmethod condition. Therefore, implementing the trend can not be achieved without restructuring ideals and standards so that teachers can claim their modern roles as active decision makers and material developers. One of the first steps in this direction may be including postmodernism ideas in the educational system. Despite high appreciation of postmodernism in some countries, Iran has been dominated by modernism ideology and one can hardly witness traces of postmodernism in the educational system ( Fahim & Pishghadam, 2009).
It seems that we should pave the way for teachers and practitioners in order to help them take the position that they deserve. However, one main question which has remained unanswered yet is which factors determine the applicability or practicality of a teacher? As an example, in method era, there were a number of main objectives or outcomes that played the role of yardsticks for the success of teachers’ practices. In contrast, postmethod does not determine final objectives and considers education as a process which is shaped by teachers and learners. In this sense, education is relative to a high degree making it difficult to judge success or failure of an educational program. To compensate for this, some suggest that individuals engaged in a program can act as evaluators of its accomplishment. It should be noted that taking this view needs close attention to the aforementioned concerns regarding the experience and knowledge necessary for taking the position. In doing so, many types of educational programs should be offered to teachers and learners involved which take a lot of time and energy on the parts of actors involved.
It would be more logical to avoid abandoning methods completely before preparing the required infrastructure for implementation of postmethod. Without preparing the necessary background, any attempts to renew teaching and learning process might be futile and would lead to inefficiency on the part of researchers and practitioners. To avoid this condition, teachers’ roles should be defined and operationalised in order to put the practitioners on track.
It may be more efficient to look at the postmethod as a direction which we should move toward and any extreme positions in its acceptance or rejection should be avoided. It can be regarded as a complement to the methods in the field contributing to the learning of many individuals in different points of time. Postmethod should be viewed as a kind of departure from fixed and deterministic ideas regarding teaching to a more fluid and flexible position in view of current sociocultural changes in the world. It is worth noting that postmethod pedagogy should move hand in hand with other trends such as postmodernism, globalization and critical thinking modules as they pave the way for its implementation in one way or another. In case this alliance is considered, one can hope that changes shape the innovations in the process of education.
Despite papers published in favor of postmethod pedagogy, quite few studies have scrutinized the amount of postmethod success in achieving its assumed objectives. As a consequence, we do not have a clear picture of what is going on in the real context of language teaching and learning. It is, therefore, insightful for researchers to continue progressing to this direction in a response to the voices asking for more information regarding the trend. Obviously, these studies would contribute to our understanding of postmethod and how it has influenced the field of language teaching.
Akbari, R. (2008). Post-method discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652.
Fahim, M., Pishghadam, R. (2009). Postmodernism and English Language Teaching. IJALS. 1, 27-54.
Gholami, J., Bonyadi, A., Mirzaei, A. (2012). Postmodernism vs. Modernism in Iranian Non- Governmental English Language Institutes. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 128-143.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). “The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching”. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). “Critical classroom discourse analysis”. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 453-484.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). “Toward postmethod pedagogy”. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). “Critical language pedagogy: A postmethod perspective on English language teaching”. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). “TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends”, TESOL Quarterly 40(1), 59-81.
Savignon, S.J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead? Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (1), 207-220.
Please check the How to be a Teacher Trainer course at Pilgrims website.
|
