Exploring the Post-Method Pedagogy for Language Classrooms
Abstract
This research paper introduces new perspectives on the development of educators by examining the role of traditional teaching approaches and post-method pedagogy. Post-method pedagogy emerges as a promising alternative to address the limitations associated with conventional teaching methods. It incorporates Stern's Three-dimensional framework and Kumaravadivelu's Macro-strategic framework, both derived from a blend of theoretical, empirical, and experiential knowledge (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 185). These frameworks offer educators essential guiding principles to underpin their teaching practices, fostering awareness and justifiability.
Post-method pedagogy plays a pivotal role in nurturing teacher growth as it encourages educators to formulate classroom-centered theories of practice (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p. 29). It places value on teachers' capacities by highlighting their roles as educators, parents/caretakers, and students (Prabhu, 1990) – roles often underestimated when implementing conventional teaching methods. Armed with knowledge of these methods, as well as their personal experiences and the provided frameworks, educators can develop their own teaching approaches, assuming roles as evaluators, observers, critical thinkers, theorists, and practitioners. Consequently, they become valuable resources for both prospective teachers and their peers, contributing to their professional development."
Downloads
References
Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (Working Paper #10). The Exploratory Practice Center, The University of Lancaster, England.
Arikan, A. (2006). Postmethod condition and its implications for English language teacher education. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 2(1), 1-11.
Bell, D. M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61(2), 135-143.
Brown, H.D. (2002). English language teaching in the "post-method" era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment and assessment," in Richards, J. C. and W. A. Renandya, (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching (pp. 9-18). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9-26.
Davis, A. W., Clarke, M. A., & Rhodes, L. K. (1992). The Colorado literacy study: Using multiple indicators to identify effective school practices for minority children in reading and writing.
(Grant No. R117E00188–90). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Studies. Khaki, N. (n.d.). The Post-method Pedagogy [On-line]. Available: http://teachenglish.persianblog.ir/1385/5/ [January 2, 2009].
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Forum: critical language pedagogy: A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mahdavi-zafarghandi, A. (n.d.). A survey of post-method in EFL [On-line]. Retrieved on January 2, 2009 from http://research.guilan.ac.ir/research/doc/c852.pdf
McMorrow, M. (2007). Teacher education in the postmethods era. ELT Journal, 61(4), 375-377.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method- why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
