There is a long history in the development of teaching methods of English as a foreign language (TEFL). It moves from the classic Grammar Translation Method, Audio-Lingual Method, Total Physical Response, Direct Method, and so on until the more recent ones: Task-Based Language Teaching, Content-Based Language Teaching, Communicative Language Teaching, and Project-Based among others. The latest boom in TEFL is the Post-method pedagogy proposed by Kumaravadivelu (2006) in which he proposes that teachers create their own teaching method from three key dimensions: theoretical, empirical and experiential knowledge. From this standpoint, we - as English language teachers - are responsible for our own teaching method and at the same time we act as evaluators, critical thinkers, generators of new theory, observes, and practitioners.
Please reflect and participate in this blog by expressing your opinion on any of these questions:
How has my teaching experience (with or without a method) evolved?
We talk about innovation in the TEFL. So, why do we still continue teaching grammar in our English classes?
Are we enabling our students, from our area of expertise, to be functional in society?
The methods of TEFL have changed, have you?
TOWARDS
A POST- METHOD PEDAGOY
(Alberto
Ramírez
Avendaño)
(Published in: Voces y Visos. Año 8 – No.
14. Faculty of Education Science – School of Languages. UPTC – Tunja. June
2012. ISSN 2017 – 0283. P.7.)
INTRODUCTION
English
teaching has gained remarkable importance in Colombian education. The main
reason is because of the globalization phenomenon that the world is going
through at this very moment (2012). Business, travel, education, science,
technology, and new communication methods are bringing cultures together, and
all this is happening thanks to one language that is making it possible:
English.
In
Colombia, the Ministry of Education adopted the National Bilingualism Program
in 2004 in response to the globalization phenomenon, so that future generations
would be able to communicate
efficiently in English. By doing so, Colombian citizens will have more
opportunities to participate actively in a globalized world.
In order to achieve the goals
proposed by the National Bilingualism Program, there is an emergent need for
the training of in-service and pre-service teachers on better and more effective
methodologies to teach English. Since I have been working with pre-service
teachers in the last couple of years, my focus of this reflective article is especially
related to pre-service teachers.
Although, the real changes in future English teachers’ methodologies
rely strongly on pre-service teachers’ reflections and on how they are trained
to become effective teachers. However, I also try in this reflective article to
establish the relationship between English teaching methods and the post-method
pedagogy.
BACKGROUND
Students
of undergraduate programs in foreign language teaching take different subjects
during their professionalization such as Pedagogical Projects, Communicative Projects,
Linguistics, and the core subjects of their programs: Didactics and
Practices. Once they have taken the
basic courses, these students start putting their knowledge of the foreign
languages and their initial teaching skills into practice by micro-teaching
classes, which is their first step as teachers. Then, those students (who from
now on will be referred to as pre-service teachers) have the opportunity to
reflect on their future profession, based on the teaching practices that they
carry out when they go to schools as part of their required coursework for Didactics
(I and II) and Practicum I, and the final Pedagogical and Research Practicum.
Since I have worked as
a university practicum advisor for the last four semesters, I have noticed that
pre-service teachers try to put into practice all the recommendations from
their Didactics and Practicum professors based on the necessity of having
theoretical foundations on teaching methods which they would use in their
classes. In the selection of a teaching method, there are several factors
inside the classroom that are obstacles in the implementation of the method of
their choice, for example, the size of the class (35 – 45 students in one
class), the low level of English in upper grades, the low motivation, the lack
of teaching resources, etc. Those factors generate some reflections that push
pre-service teachers to make new decisions and make adjustments to the method
that they initially intended to implement.
A QUICK LOOK AT METHOD
Since
one of the strongest themes for this reflective article is related to method,
let’s have a quick look at the definition of method, adapted from several
authors and sources:
A method is an organized procedure or
process of doing something. In the specific field of teaching, method is the
practical part of teaching which can take place in different settings and
contexts. A method implies the use of specific principles and activities that
make the method unique and different from other methods.
Kumaravadivelu
(1994) stated that “a method consists of a single set of theoretical principles
derived from feeder disciplines and a single set of classroom procedures
directed at classroom teachers.” He also analyzed that “conventional methods”
can be seen from three dimensions: a. scholastic dimension, in which there
is a special emphasis on Western knowledge with little attention to local
knowledge. b. linguistic dimension, when both learners and teachers are
encouraged to use English in the classroom at all times. c. cultural
dimension, which includes a constant emphasis on promoting the culture
of English speaking countries.
It has
always been recommended that teachers should follow a specific teaching method,
but there are some constraints that teachers have to face. For example,
Kumaravadivelu (2003) notes: “classroom-oriented studies carried out in the
last two decades show that teachers could not be successful in putting the
methods into practice in real classroom situations.” This statement does not
mean that teachers using a specific method are not successful. The author
explains that research studies indicate that teachers who “apparently” follow a
specific teaching method do not always practice its principles and procedures, but
rather they end up doing miscellaneous activities that on many occasions are
not related to any method.
THE METHODS IN A NUTSHELL
There is a long history in the development of teaching methods of English
as a foreign language (TEFL). All those methods have something in common: a
search for more useful and effective ways of teaching English as a foreign
language. The wide range of methods move from the classic Grammar Translation
Method (GTM), which was used for several centuries to teach English, to the
period between the 1950’s and 1980’s when other methods were born, such as the Audio-Lingual
Method (ALM) in the United States and Situational Language Teaching in the
United Kingdom. By the 1980’s, other alternatives were offered for language
teachers: Silent Way, Community Language Learning (CLL), Suggestopedia, and
Total Physical Response (TPR). In response to the inefficiencies of these
methods, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) proposed a new approach to the
teaching of languages by presenting principles such as the use of authentic and
meaningful communicative activities, the integration of several language
skills, and language for communicative purposes, among others. This new vision
of language learning gave origin to other methods like Task-Based Language
Teaching (TBLT), Content-Based Language Teaching (CBLT), the Natural Approach,
and Cooperative Language Learning.
Teachers
and pre-service teachers have always been told by their professors and language
specialists to get informed about English language teaching methods, analyze,
practice, and compare a teaching method with others so that they can adopt the
one that best fits the needs of their students and their learning context. In
relation to this matter, Richards and Rodgers (2001) describe what they have
perceived about methods: “Effective English teaching is thought to be about
using a method by applying its prescribed principles and techniques.” In our
particular case, pre-service teachers are currently being instructed and
trained on the use of any teaching method because that idea of an “eclectic” or
“miscellaneous” method was not advisable. A teacher needed to identify
him/herself with one specific method. Although there could be moments during
the class when a teacher might borrow a specific activity from another method,
for example the use of TPR for the class warm-up activity, overall, there should
always be a method that identifies that teacher.
Richards
and Rogers (2001) believe that methods marginalize the role of teachers because
they encapsulate them allowing no chance for personal judgment. Also, students
become “passive learners” of the method, and, in the end, teachers have to
adjust to the procedures that the method dictates.
WHAT IS THE POST-METHOD PEDAGOGY?
Teachers create and
reinvent their teaching practices on a daily basis, and, when this occurs,
teachers bring to life what Kumaravadivelu (2006) calls post-method pedagogy,
which is not actually a method. This pedagogy leads pre-service teachers to generate
new ideas of growth as future professionals by discussing, reflecting, and
questioning the existing teaching methods and the post-method pedagogy.
The
idea of post-method pedagogy is for teachers to create and develop their own
methods, constructed through the interaction among teachers, knowledge of the
language, other methods and approaches, and interaction with learners. The new
methods that teachers generate reflect on teachers’ beliefs, values and
experiences (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). In other words, a post-method is
defined as the construction of classroom procedures and principles by the
teacher based on his/her prior and experiential knowledge and/or certain
strategies used in the classroom.
Under
the post-method theory, Kumaravadivelu (2003) enunciates three parameters that
teachers need to consider when constructing their teaching “method:” particularity, practicality, and possibility. Particularity refers to how
“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” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003. p. 171). Practicality is related
to the potential that a method has to be applicable because a theory in language
teaching that cannot be practiced would be totally useless (Khadi, n.d.). And
finally, possibility has to do with the chances that the method may have
to exist culturally and politically.
REFLECTIVE TEACHING
Possibilities
of growth can occur only when teachers have the capacity to reflect on their
teaching process. Pre-service teachers, as novice teachers, have shown that
they are eager to make changes in “traditional teaching,” because their fresh
knowledge and interest in improving teaching gives them reasons to criticize,
based on their classroom observations and assistantships, and reflect on how
in-service teachers do certain things in their classes.
Reflective
teaching is a crucial exercise at any stage of the career, from beginners
(pre-service teachers) to more experienced teachers, because “reflective
teaching can have a very strong impact on professional development” (Schön
1983, Baird 1992). Only when a professional is able to reflect about his/her
job can he/she improve and strengthen weak areas of the profession and,
therefore, his/her confidence level. Weiss and Weiss (2001) see reflective
thinking as “a special way of thinking about action and experience and as a
process of cognitive inquiry.” Gelter
(2003) stated that reflective teaching emerges when something goes wrong or
fails in the classroom. Although reflective teaching should be encouraged from
the early stages of the teaching profession and without hesitation, pre-service
teachers are the ones exercising reflective teaching on a frequent basis.
Fortunately, that reflection is possible when pre-service teachers and school
mentors or pre-service teachers and university advisors sit together to analyze
what is working and what is not, as well as how their teaching can be improved.
If pre-service teachers are oriented in how to think reflectively, they are
more likely to be successful in their teaching careers.
WHAT IS NEXT?
Since
Kumaravadivelu proposes post-method pedagogy not as a method but as an
“alternative to method.” Post-method pedagogy puts the teacher at the center of
language learning/teaching and values his/her beliefs, experiences and
knowledge.
I am
sure that by combining these two key concepts: post-method pedagogy and
reflective teaching, teachers have strong possibilities to make substantial
changes in education. We all know that teaching is not an easy task. Teachers
need to continue working hard on their own English language learning, getting
to know their students, keeping up-to-date with teaching technologies, developing
a collaborative work style with other teachers, and, mainly, reflecting on how
their own teaching method is working and how it can be optimized.
Note:
If you are interested in discussing this article please participate in my blog:
http://www.alravenforenglish.blogspot.com/
REFERENCES
Baird R. J. (1992). ‘Collaborative Reflection, Systematic
Inquiry, Better Teaching’ in T. Russell and H. Hunby, Teachers and Teaching:
From Classroom to Reflection London: The Palmer Press.
Gelter, H. (2003). ‘Why is Reflective Thinking Uncommon.’
Reflective Practice 4/3: 337-344.
Khaki, N. (n.d.). The
Post-method Pedagogy [On-line]. Available: http://teachenglish.persianblog.ir/1385/5/ Retrieved on May 31st 2012.
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
Richards, J.C., &
Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Weiss, M.E. and S. Weiss (2001). ‘Creating a Context that Supports
Reflective Supervision.’ Reflective Practice 2/2: 125-154.
*Bonus: Check out this interview with B. Kumaravadivelu, in either Spanish or English.
http://marcoele.com/entrevista-kumaravadivelu/
