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 useful for 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

Education

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