Postmethod Condition

With clearly recognizable sets of theoretical principles and classroom procedures,

the language-teaching profession seems to have exhausted the kind of psychological,
linguistic, and pedagogic underpinnings it has depended on for constructing alternative
methods. Presumably, the invention of a truly novel different method is very slim, at least in
the foreseeable future. However, this does not mean that the profession has reached an
end; rather, it means that the profession has completed yet another phase in its long,
periodic history of methods.
Although the profession has noticed a steady stream of critical thoughts on the nature and
scope of method, the language teaching profession seems to have reached a state of
heightened awareness. Moreover, this renewed awareness coupled with a resolve to
respond has created what I have called the postmethod condition.

THE LIMITS OF METHOD

The concept of method has severe limitations that have long been overlooked by many.
They relate mainly to its ambiguous usage and application, to the exaggerated claims made
by its proponents, and, consequently, to the gradual erosion of its utilitarian value.

THE MEANING OF METHOD

Although there is a way variety of meanings of method depending on the different authors,
method is a construct; an expert’s notion derived from an understanding of the theories of
language, of language learning, and of language teaching. It is also reflected in syllabus
design, textbook production, and, above all, in recommended classroom procedures.

There are no absolute certainties about the exact number of methods. However, it is
expected that there are between 11 to 20 methods, such as, Audiolingual Method,
Communicative Language Teaching, Community Language Learning, Competency-Based
Language Teaching and Direct Method.
Each accepted method is supposed to have a specified set of theoretical principles and a
specified set of classroom practices.. In fact, there is considerable overlap in their theory and
practice. Sometimes, what appears to be a radically new method is more often than not a
variant of existing methods presented with “the fresh paint of a new terminology that
camouflages their fundamental similarity”. What is not a variant, however, is the myth
surrounding the concept of method.

THE MYTH OF METHOD

The established methods listed are motivated and maintained by multiple myths that have
long been accepted as professional articles of faith. These myths have created an inflated
image of the concept of method.
MYTH #1
There is a best method out there ready and waiting to be discovered.
For a very long time, our profession has been concerned with a search for the best method.
Besides, the history of methods suggests a problematic progressivism, whereby whatever is
occurring now is assumed to be superior to what happened before. We thought we should
be able to find that one magical method through objective analysis. Alternatively, we found
out to our dismay that the formation and application of a method have to take into account
many variables. It was also found out that we cannot even compare known methods to see
which one works best. The last time a systematic and large-scale comparison of methods
was carried out was in the late 1960s. Called the Pennsylvania Project, the experiment
investigated the effectiveness of methods based on audio lingual and cognitive theories of
language learning and teaching. The project revealed that, apart from the fact that method
comparison was not a viable research activity, the type of methods did not really matter very
much at all, even when the competing methods had been derived from competing, and
mutually incompatible, theories of language learning. The result was so embarrassing,
prompting the project leader to say: “these results were personally traumatic to the Project
staff”. Now we know that “objective evaluation is so difficult to implement that all attempts in
the past have resulted in a wider agreement on the difficulties of doing an evaluation than on
the resulting judgment on methods” .

MYTH #2
Methods constitutes the organizing principle for language teaching.
Methods have been one of the most important part of language learning and teaching, used
as a tool of guiding the form and function of them. However, the use of method is poor when
we try to organize the principles of language learning and teaching because method can’t
explain the complexity of them as it’s too limited. If we choose one method to focus on while
teaching, we’ll be ignoring other important facts that are present on the process and also in
the consequently failure or success of learning.

MYTH #3
Method has a universal and ahistorical value.
Methods are created within a specific context that is far from what the classroom reality is.
There are learning and teaching needs and other types of variables that is impossible one
idealized method can visualize them and propose solutions. It assumes that there is a
common reason why students want to learn and a common goal that all students want when
learning, which is not real either. Learners don’t learn for the same reason and they all follow
different steps.
Adding to this, local knowledge is being denied when this quote is stated as we forget that
for many years people from non-native speakers countries taught foreign languages without
methods’ existence.

MYTH #4
Theorists conceive knowledge, and teachers consume knowledge.
There is a dichotomy between theory and practice that results in a division between the labor
of the theorist and the teacher, minimizing the dialogue between them. This dichotomy takes
for granted that teachers would follow the established methods when it is not the case
nowadays, and it is the other way around. There is no way to practice a method in ‘their
purest form’ because established methods are not thought or any special class the teacher
has. Moreover, teachers are conscious of the non existence of a particular method that
works well with the challenges they have in the classroom everyday, so what they do is to
decide how to confront them according to their ability and experiential knowledge. At that
time, there is a huge difference between what theorists suggest and what teachers do.

MYTH #5
Method is neutral, and has no ideological motivation
In order to understand this statement, it is important to have some clear concepts of method,
that clearly show a contraposition with it. Kumaravadivelu states that the concept of method
is ‘indeed a construct of marginality’ and proposes four dimensions of this: scholastic,
linguistic, cultural and economic.
● SCHOLASTIC: the ways in which Western scholars have treated local knowledge.
● LINGUISTIC: privileges native speakers above nonnative learners and teachers from
preventing these last ones to use their L1 linguistic to perform their L2.
Kumaravadivelu called it ‘monolingual tenet of L2 pedagogy’
● CULTURAL: sees second language teaching as second culture teaching when the
learner develops sociocultural ability to be able to emphasize with the native speaker.
● ECONOMIC: the monolingual tenet and the culture teaching creates employment
opportunities for native speakers of English, by taking away qualified local
candidates.

The main thing with this myths is to visualize that the concept that we use of method maybe
is too ambiguous for nowadays language learning and teaching. This leads people to think
that the concept of method is dead.

The death of method

A considerable number of authors have worked with the idea that the concept of method is
not useful as once was thought. Allwright, for instance, mentions how it can inhibit the
development of a “valuable, internally-derived sense of coherence”. This means that by
trying to pursue a particular method, the teacher is deprived from the capacity of creating a
better functioning and more logical set of procedures. It is also mentioned how the teacher is
not able to do this not only because of the consideration of method, but also because of the
type of instruction he/she went through, where “a ready-made package of methods and
methods-related body of knowledge” is transmitted, instead of something more critical. In a
response to the limited capacities of any particular method, teachers try to generate their
own, by means of a failed intent of eclictical criteria. To explain this, Widdowson mentions
how “if by eclecticism is meant the random and expedient use of whatever technique comes
most readily to hand, then it has no merit whatever”. As mentioned before, the instruction
teachers receive is not meant to give them tools that allow them to undergo that process
successfully, thus, this eclecticism “offers no criteria according to which we can determine
which is the best theory, nor does it provide any principles by which to include or exclude
features which form part of existing theories or practices. The choice is left to the individual’s
intuitive judgment and is, therefore, too broad and too vague to be satisfactory as a theory in
its own right.” Furthermore, whereas a particular theory has a chance of being right, the
methodological mash-up from theories with different understandings is guaranteed to fail.
Thus, the concept of method has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of
language teaching”, resulting in the feeling that “language teaching might be better
understood and better executed if the concept of method were not to exist at all”.

THE LOGIC OF POSTMETHOD

The postmethod condition demands that we take into consideration “the essentials of a
coherent postmethod pedagogy.” Therefore, those are presented as parameters and
indicators.

Pedagogic parameters

The three main parameters of any postmethod pedagogy are those of particularity,
practicality, and possibility. The three of them are intrinsically intertwined, as they interweave
synergically to form a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

The parameter of particularity

As opposed to the methodological idea that every variation of language teaching has to
pursue a particular set of aims and objectives through particular procedures, a postmethod
pedagogy has to take into account several context-dependent variables. It “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
mileu”. Henceforth, when emphasizing the particularities of local exigencies and
experiences, different oppositions to the idea of method (due to the confrontation of teachers
with the method itself) can be found. “A context-sensitive language education can emerge
only from the practice of particularity”, this means that only by taking into account the
particular condition of each teaching situation we can try to build knowledge about how to
proceed with it. This puts teaching practice observation on the spot, as only by making the
most of it, observing, evaluating, identifying problems and finding solutions, we are able to
elaborate on what works and what doesn’t.

The Parameter of practicality:

There’s a harmful dichotomy between theory and practice. O’Hanlon (1993) notes a
difference between Professional theories and Personal theories. The former are
transmitted by experts who are not part of the circle their material will be used in. The latter
are the interpretations of Professional theories developed by teachers in their jobs during
real-life situations.
This distinction is important through the lens of Action Research, that is much needed to
improve practice as teachers who devote to testing expert theories only find themselves with
little opportunities for meaningful self-construction of knowledge.
 This knowledge is known as a Theory of Practice, which is composed of action and
thought in harmonic balance. This reflective procedure, born from their own inquiry, helps
educators understand and and identify problems and propose and choose alternatives in the
learning context.
This Sense of Plausibility, as Prabhu (1990) calls it, is every teacher’s own unique
“sixth-sense” that enables them to account for desired learning paths.

The Parameter of possibility:

Just as Freire, Giroux and Simon envisioned for the theory of Liberation Pedagogy,
teachers should work with student past experiences developed over the years and in many
contexts (not only on the educational one) instead of shunning them. These experiences, in
the same vein of the other two parameters, share unique cultural traits with every group of
individuals and might be a potential catalyst for aim changing in the classroom, among other
things.
This critical stance to teach languages is concerned with matters such as language ideology
and speaker identity. These issues can, according to diverse experts, be used fruitfully
during language lessons even if what is being taught are abstract elements of language such
as phonological grammatical features of language. It is through this approach that this
contextual knowledge is integrated into language lessons in any kind of format as it is very
important to take sociocultural needs into consideration.
PEDAGOGIC INDICATORS

Pedagogic indicators refer to those functions and features that are considered to reflect the
role played by key participants in the L2 learning and teaching operations governing
postmethod pedagogy.

THE POST METHOD LEARNER

(Daniela)

Postmethod pedagogy lallows learners a role in pedagogic decision making by treating them
as active and autonomous players.
Postmethod pedagogy takes into account two views of learner autonomy:
- A narrow view: seeks to develop in the learner a capacity to learn to learn, so
learning to learn a language is treated as an end itself.
- A broad view: uses the capacity to learn to liberate, being learning to learn a
language a means to an end, which is to liberate.
The narrow view:
Helping learners learn to learn involves developing in them their ability to “take
charge of one’s own learning” (Holec,1981,p.3).
Learning to learn means learning to use appropriate strategies to realize desired learning
objectives. By using appropriate learning strategies , learners can monitor their learning
process and maximize their learning potential. They can exploit some of these opportunities
by:
● Identifying their learning strategies and styles in order to know their strengths
and weaknesses as language learners
● stretching their strategies and styles by incorporating some of those
employed by successful language learners
● reaching out for opportunities for additional language reception or production
beyond what they get in the classroom (library resources, learning centers
and electronic media)
● collaborating with other learners to pool information on a specific project they
are working on
● taking advantage of opportunities to communicate with competent speakers
of the language
Learning to learn develops academic autonomy which enables learners to be effective
learners. While on this process of learning to learn another process takes place and learners
develop liberatory autonomy, which empowers them to be critical thinkers. So liberatory
autonomy seeks to help learners recognize socio-political impediments that prevent them
from realizing their full human potential, and providing them with the intellectual and
cognitive tools necessary to overcome them.
Meaningful liberatory autonomy can be promoted in the language classroom by:
● Encouraging learners to assume, with the help of the teacher, the role of
mini-ethnographers so they can investigate and understand how, for instance
language as ideology serves vested interests.
 ● Asking them to reflect on their developing identities by writing diaries or
journal entries about issues that engage their sense of who they are and how
they relate to the social world
● helping them in the formation of learning communities where they develop
into unified, socially cohesive, mutually supportive groups seeking
self-awareness and self-improvement
● providing opportunities for them to explore the unlimited possibilities offered
by online services, and bringing back to the class their own topics and
materials for discussion, and their own perspectives on those topics..

● The two types of autonomy promise the development of overall academic ability,
intellectual competence, social consciousness and mental attitude necessary for
learners to avail opportunities, and overcome challenges both in and outside the
classroom. All of these cannot be achieved by the learners on their own, they need
the cooperation of the teachers (and those who work in their education)

The postmethod teacher (Alejandra)

★ autonomous teacher
★ teacher autonomy → heart of postmethod pedagogy
★ recognizes the teacher’s prior knowledge and their potential to know how to teach &
how to act autonomously within the academic and administrative constraints imposed
by institutions, curricula and textbooks.
★ This pedagogy promotes the ability of teachers to know how to develop a reflective
approach to their own teaching, how to analyze and evaluate their own teaching acts
how to initiate change in their classroom, and how to monitor the effects of such
changes. Such an ability can evolv only if teachers have a desire and a determination
to acquire and assert a fair degree of autonomy in pedagogic decision making.
★ over time, teachers evolve a coherent pedagogic framework consisting of core
principles that are applied across teaching situations. What postmethod pedagogy
assumes is that this kind personal knowledge teachers develop over time will
eventually lead them to construct their own theory of practice.
★ Clarke’s, Edge’s and Jhonston’s contributions demonstrate that language teachers
cannot hope to fully satisfy their pedagogic obligations without at the same time
satisfying their social obligations.
★ In pursuing their professional self-development, postmethod teachers perform
teacher research involving the triple parameters of particularity, practicality and
possibility.
★ Teachers can conduct teacher research by developing and using investigative
capabilities derived from the practices of explanatory research, teacher-research
cycle and critical classroom analysis.
★ Goal of teacher research is achieved → when teachers can exploit and extend their
intuitively held pedagogic beliefs based on the educational histories and personal
biographies by conducting a more structured and more goal-oriented teacher
research based on the parameters of particularly, practically, and possibility.
 ★ To successfully carry out investigative as well as instructional responsibilities thrust
on them by the postmethod condition, teachers need the services of committed
teacher educators.

(Vivi)The Postmethod Teacher Educator

Most models of teacher education are designed to transmit a set of preselected and
presequenced body of knowledge from the teacher educator to the prospective teacher.
Teacher educators perceive their role to:
➔ Engineer the classroom teaching of student teachers
➔ Offer them suggestions on the best way to teach
➔ Model appropriate teaching behaviors for them
➔ Evaluating their mastery of discrete pedagogic behaviors
This transmission model of teacher education is inadequate to produce self-directing and
self-determining teachers who constitute the key of any postmethod pedagogy.
The real role of the postmethod teacher educator becomes to:
❖ Create conditions for student teachers to acquire necessary authority and autonomy
that will enable them to shape their own pedagogic experiences.
❖ Help student teachers recognize the inequalities present in the teacher education
programs, which treats teacher educators as producers of knowledge, and practicing
teachers as consumers of this knowledge.
❖ Enable student teachers to share their thoughts, experience, assumptions and
knowledge with other student teachers.
❖ Encourage student teachers to think critically so that they relate their personal
knowledge with the professional knowledge, and how each shapes and is shaped by
the other.
❖ Create conditions for student teachers to acquire basic, classroom discourse
analytical skills in order to understand the nature of classroom input and interaction.
❖ Empowering research: research with rather than on their student teachers.
Most of the current teacher education programs are unable to meet these challenges.

Conclusion

Any postmethod pedagogy must take into account the pedagogic parameters of:
Particularity: true understanding of local linguistic, sociocultural and political particularities.
Practicality: Encourage teachers to theorize from their practice and practice what they
theorize.
Possibility: The importance of social, political, educational and institutional forces that shape
identity formation and social transformation.
These three parameters have the potential to open up unlimited opportunities for the
emergence of various types of postmethod pedagogies that are sensitive to various learning
and teaching needs.