Teacher’s role and learner’s role in postmethod era

Running head: TEACHER’S AND LEARNER’S ROLE IN POSTMETHOD ERA 1
Teacher’s Role and Learner’s Role in Postmethod Era
Mahdie Ghanbari
Islamic Azad University Central Tehran Branch
By Dr. Nosratinia

TEACHER’S AND LEARNER’S ROLE IN POSTMETHOD ERA 2
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Teacher’s Role and Learner’s Role in Postmethod Era ...................................................... 4
Review of literature............................................................................................................. 4
conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 12
References......................................................................................................................... 14

Abstract
The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of teachers and learners in postmethod era. At
first, researcher gives a general scope about the method. According to Douglas Brown (2002, p.
9), “a method is a set of theoretically unified classroom techniques thought to be generalizable
across a wide variety of contexts and audiences.” At first, we had method era that it was included
center and periphery. Center produced knowledge based theories and periphery included teachers
and learners who followed center and They were not autonomous. According to Prabhu, (1990),
there is no best method because: (a) different methods are best for different teaching contexts, (b)
all methods are partially true or valid, and (c) the notion of good and bad methods is itself
misguided. Then, the concept of Eclecticism was introduced. It means that choosing the best part
of each method and putting them together which has two important problems: (1) this
combination is a new method, and (2) lacking proper criteria for choosing the best part of each
method. The era of method is finished and now we have postmethod era. postmethod can be
defined as the construction of classroom procedures and principles by the teacher himself/herself
based on his/her prior and experiential knowledge and/or certain strategies. The post-method
teacher and learner are autonomous. We elaborated the role of teacher and learner in this paper.
Keywords: Learners, Teachers, Post-method era

Teacher’s Role and Learner’s Role in Postmethod Era
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. Postmethod was presented as an alternative to method not alternative method.
The present paper strives to examine the role of teachers and learners in postmethod era. In this
respect researcher at first explain about method. Then post-method will be elaborated. In
addition, the role of teacher and learners in this era will be explained.
Review of literature
It is important to have a clear understanding of the distinction between the concept of
method and post-method. According to Douglas Brown (2002, p. 9), “a method is a set of
theoretically unified classroom techniques thought to be generalizable across a wide variety of
contexts and audiences.” In his view, methods are prescriptive, overgeneralized and developed a
priori in terms of place of implementation and actors involved in it. He adds that a method is
quite distinct at the beginning of a course but it becomes less clear as such a course progresses.
As a reaction to this notion of method, the author proposes a principled approach in which
teachers‟ classroom techniques are grounded on their context and well-established principles of
language teaching and learning beyond a particular, prepackaged method.
From a distinctively critical pedagogy lens, Kumaravadivelu (2003) defines methods
as colonial constructs conceptualized by theorists, not methods actualized by teachers in their

everyday practices. As a sign of growth and challenge, he views post-method as a postcolonial
construct which is bottom-up and comes to place context, teachers, and the observed curriculum
in a relevant place away from marginalization.
More recently, Richards (2013, p. 18) offers a definition of post-method in post-method
teaching: This term is sometimes used to refer to teaching which is not based on the prescriptions
and procedures of a particular method nor which follows a predetermined syllabus but which
draws on the teacher’s individual conceptualizations of language, language learning and
teaching, the practical knowledge and skills teachers develop from training and experience, the
teacher’s knowledge of the learners‟ needs, interests and learning styles, as well as the teacher’s
understanding of the teaching context (Kumaravadivelu, 1994). The teacher’s „method‟ is
constructed from these sources rather than being an application of an external set of principles
and practices. The kinds of content and activities that the teacher employs in the classroom as
well as the outcomes he or she seeks to achieve will depend upon the nature of the core
principles that serve as the basis for the teacher’s thinking and decision-making.
The demise of method is consistent with the widely held view that we are now in a
'post-method' era. Thus, as long ago as 1983, Stern declared that 'several developments indicate a
shift in language pedagogy away from the single method concept as the main approach to
language teaching' (1983, p. 477). One such development was the failure, on the part of
researchers, to find any significant advantage in one method over another. As Richards (1990)
noted, 'studies of the effectiveness of specific methods have had a hard time demonstrating that
the method itself, rather than other factors, such as the teacher’s enthusiasm, or the novelty of the
new method, was the crucial variable' (p. 36). Moreover, recognition of the huge range of
variables that impact on second language learning fueled a general disenchantment with the

notion of a 'quick fix', or what, in the social sciences, is sometimes called the 'technical-rational
approach', i.e. the notion that social change and improvement can be effected through the strict
application of scientific method. This had very much been the mind-set that impelled the spread
of audiolingualism, founded as it was on (now largely discredited) research into animal behavior.
The last decades of the last century, however, witnessed a challenge to 'scientism' in the social
sciences, a challenge associated with the advent of postmodernism, and its rejection of the idea
of universalist, objective knowledge.
Accordingly, Pennycook (1989) argued that methods are never 'disinterested', but
serve the dominant power structures in society, leading to 'a de-skilling of the role of teachers,
and greater institutional control over classroom practice'(p. 610). In a string of books and
articles, post-method 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.
Although seeing learner roles in accordance with text that suggested by Rodgers
might seem convenient and straightforward, what the language teaching practitioners of the post-
method era are said rather implicitly is to move beyond assigning the language learner roles
along such lines. Justification for this recent perspective comes in the form of the top-down
criticism (methods impose on teachers how and what to teach), lack of research basis for
language teaching methods, and similarity of classroom practices undertaken on the basis of
particular methods. There are other justifications including attaching importance to the role of
contextual factors and emphasizing the need for curriculum development processes, (see
Richards & Rogers, 2001, pp. 247-248).

To elaborate the issue, the proponents of justifications along the above lines raise
various issues (Richards & Rogers, 2001): one point suggested in this regard is that since
methods imposes upon teachers how and even what to teach, the advocates of methods are in the
danger of accepting “on faith the claims or theory underlying the method and apply[ing] them to
their own practice” (p. 247). Another point is that method perspective seeks unwarranted
worldwide solutions to the problems associated with language learning. In other words, the role
of contextual factors, including “the context constituted by the teachers and learners in their
classrooms” (p.248), is ignored when advocating methods as instruments to teach languages in
any context. Hence, as far as the language learner is concerned, the post-method objections
coming in the form of top-down criticism or considering method perspective as lacking solid
research foundations, and striving for the role of contextual factors were in a way rejecting the
idea of pre-decided language learner roles discussed above.
While method is defined to “consist of a single set of theoretical principles derived from
feeder disciplines and a single set of classroom procedures directed at classroom teachers”
(Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p. 29), post-method can be defined as the construction of classroom
procedures and principles by the teacher himself/herself based on his/her prior and experiential
knowledge and/or certain strategies. In other words, the concept of method involves theorizers
constructing “knowledge-oriented” theories of pedagogy and post-method involves practitioners
constructing “classroom-oriented” theories of practice (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p. 29).
Therefore, post-method is totally different from the existing methods and it emerged as a result
of the limitations of the methods and hence, another method cannot aim to overcome the
limitations of the concept of method.
The Limitations of Conventional Methods

Considering the definition of the concept of method, its confines can be discussed to
realize the need for post-method pedagogy. To begin with, the implementation of method
marginalizes the role of the teacher that is to study and understand the method and practice its
principles in the right way allowing no chance for teachers’ own personal judgment and teaching
method, and similarly, learners are “passive recipients” of the method and must conform to the
procedure (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 247).
Though method is considered to be the core of the entire language learning and
teaching including everything from curriculum design to materials preparation, it is too
insufficient and restricted to successfully explain the complexity of language learning and
teaching as its application and principles are also said to be obscure and exaggerated respectively
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Based on this, methods emphasize cognitive phenomena and ignore
institutional, political, contextual and social restrictions teachers face (Clarke, 1994). For this
reason, methods are constructed for idealized contexts and thus, unrealistic. Davis, Clarke, and
Rhodes (1992) found in their study of literacy instruction involving 39 elementary teachers that
the variations in the classroom were so great that the sample resulted in 39 distinct methods, one
for each teacher (Cited in Clarke, 1994). In other words, methods are drawn from one set of
circumstances and thus, cannot fit perfectly in different situations (McMorrow, 2007).
Teachers know that methods are not based on the realities of their classroom but are
“artificially transplanted” into their classrooms (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, pp. 162, 166). The
reason for this can be that theorists are rarely language teachers themselves leading to the
impression that teachers are less expert than theorists (Clarke, 1994) underestimating their
knowledge and experience. Regarding this, method-based pedagogy overlooks the experience
and knowledge teachers already have from their experience of learning a language as students.

With such a pedagogy, teacher educator “with the role of a conduit serves the package of
methods on a platter with easily digestible bits and pieces of discrete items of knowledge leaving
very little food for critical thought” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, pp. 216-217). Such a top-down
process cannot allow teachers to be in change and development. They also lack research basis as
Allwright (1991) warns language teachers against “the uncritical acceptance of untested
methods” (Cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 161). Brown (2002) also thinks that methods are
not based on empirical study as they are too “artful and intuitive” (p. 10).
Kumaravadivelu (2003b) presents the issue of conventional methods from several
dimensions: (1) scholastic dimension- methods ignore local knowledge and emphasizes Western
knowledge; (2) linguistic dimension- methods encourage the use of English in the classroom
preventing learners and teachers from using their L1 linguistic resource; (3) cultural dimension-
methods consider language teaching as culture teaching emphasizing “monoculturalism”, which
create employment opportunities worldwide for native speakers of English making them
privileged (pp. 541-544).
Post-Method Pedagogy for Teacher Growth
In contrast to the concept of method, post-method pedagogy does not have the limitations
mentioned above as it is not an alternative method but “an alternative to method” (Kumaravadivelu,
2003a, p. 32). Post-method pedagogy puts the teacher at the center of language learning and teaching and
values his/her beliefs, experiences and knowledge. The value given to teachers should be appreciated
because it is the teachers who know their learners and the classroom context best. Teachers are considered
as great sources as a result of their experience in the past as students, past experience of teaching,
knowledge of one or more methods gained throughout their training as teachers,knowledge of other
teachers’ actions and opinions and their experience as parents or caretakers (Prabhu,1990). Therefore,
post-method teachers are encouraged to develop and create their own methods as they gain experience

based on their classroom context and knowledge of other methods and approaches. As a result, the
constructed method reflects teachers’ beliefs, values and experiences (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In this
sense,post-method teachers are autonomous, analysts, strategic researchers and decision-makers. Such
teachers are also reflective as they observe their teaching, evaluate the results, identify problems, find
solutions, and try new techniques. Based on this, there is a movement from “science-research
conceptions” towards “art-craft conception of teaching” (Arikan, 2006, p. 4) as well as a shift from top-
down process to bottom-up process as teachers “theorize what they practice or practice what they
theorize” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003a, p.37).
One should notice that post-method does not disregard the knowledge of existing methods and
approaches because these methods make you aware of your beliefs and principles and provide
inexperienced teachers with some valuable initial knowledge (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
Post-method has three pedagogic parameters which make it distinct from the concept of method:
particularity, practicality, possibility. As Kumaravadivelu (2006) states,“post method pedagogy 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 sociocultural milieu” (p. 171).
By practicality, what is meant is that method should be applicable since a theory is useless if it cannot be
practiced (Khaki, n.d.). As for possibility, the method should be appropriate socially, culturally and
politically (Khaki, n.d.) in contrast to method as a colonial construct. In brief, “post-method pedagogy
recognizes teachers’ prior knowledge as well as their potential to know not only how to teach but also
how to act autonomously within the academic and administrative constraints imposed by institutions,
curricula and textbooks” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 178). In addition, post-method involves certain
frameworks such as Stern’s Three dimensional framework and Kumaravadivelu’s Macro-strategic
framework. These frameworks provide teachers with important guiding principles on which to base their
teaching in order to be aware of their teaching process and be able to justify it.
When we say that teachers should decide on their own way of teaching, they are not totally free
in their decision as they need to keep in mind some principles to conduct an effective lesson. Three

dimensional and the Macro-strategic frameworks provide teachers with such principles that are
generalizable, open-ended, descriptive, theory-neutral, method-neutral and thus, not restrictive. Teachers
taking into account their experiences,the frameworks and even their knowledge of the conventional
methods can construct their own methods and thus, act as evaluators, observers,critical thinkers,
theorizers and practitioners. The frameworks are usefulfor inexperienced preservice teachers as they help
them gain insight into effective teaching before waiting to be experienced in order to succeed. As well as
for pre-service teachers,they are also worth knowing for experienced teachers to justify their teaching and
hence, to put their experiences into words, which become valuable sources for prospective teachers and
their colleagues leading to professional growth.
The role of Learners in Post-method era
It can be said that the post-method learner is an autonomous learner. The literature on
learner autonomy has so far provided three interrelated aspects of autonomy: academic autonomy
and social autonomy and liberatory autonomy. Academic autonomy is intrapersonal and related to
learning. They are effective learners that are able to take the responsibility of the own learning.
The learners should familiar with cognitive, metacognitive and affective techniques that
taught by teacher. Social autonomy is interpersonal. The learners are responsible for classmate’s
learning. This means that they have cooperation with other learners in order to have interaction. In
Libaratory autonomy The learners should be critical thinkers (learning + how to use and think). In
method era, it is totally ignored because of different reasons. The most important is sociopolitical
impediments. Having center prefer relationship, there is no place for having critical thinkers. So
the most important step is considering the experiences of learners. This means that considering the
culture and identity of learners.

conclusion
The purpose of current study was to compare the role of teacher and learner in method
era withy post method era. At first, we had method era that it was included center and periphery.
Center includes center producing knowledge base theories and periphery included teacher and
learn who followed centers and they have no power and they do not act independently. They
were not autonomous.
A post-method era is to acknowledge that at some point in our personal or collective
career as teachers we were trained for a method or methods which we then implemented in our
practices.
In conclusion, keeping in mind the limitations of the concept of method and how post-
method pedagogy overcomes these limitations, it can be stated that post-method is not a method
as it emerged as an alternative to method. As a new trend in English language teaching, post-
method pedagogy allows teachers to look at language teaching and learning from a new
perspective and helps them realize their potentials as practitioners. Post-pedagogy does not imply
the end of methods the knowledge of which is contributing but requires educators to understand
the confines of method and at the same time to recognize their own powers as great sources in
creating methods. Educators should make use of their experiences and knowledge and share
them; thereby, becoming a researcher as well as a practitioner in order to move beyond idealism
to realism. In doing so, they should be able to justify how they construct their own methods by
referring to the macro-strategic and three-dimensional frameworks as general and flexible
guidelines. These frameworks present principles that are applicable and adaptable in every

context and guide both experienced and inexperienced teachers for professional development
both as a researcher and practitioner. In brief, the focus should be not on how methods work for
teachers but on how teachers work to construct
and implement methods (Arikan, 2006, p. 7); or how they go beyond the existing methods in
relation to the frameworks.
It can be said that the post-method learner is an autonomous learner. The literature on
learner autonomy has so far provided three interrelated aspects of autonomy: academic
autonomy, social autonomy and liberatory autonomy.

References
Akbari, R. (2008). Post-method discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-
652.
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 a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35 (4),
537-560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006b). Understanding language teaching: From method to
postmethod. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23 (4), 589-618.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-why. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2), 161-176.

Teacher’s role and learner’s role in postmethod era

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à Teacher’s role and learner’s role in postmethod era

Similaire à Teacher’s role and learner’s role in postmethod era (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Teacher’s role and learner’s role in postmethod era