Volume 5, Issue 3 (9-2020)
IJREE 2020, 5(3): 61-77 |
Back to browse issues page
Ayandegan Institute of Higher Education, Tonekabon, Iran
Abstract: (3245 Views)
The present study intends to study Iranian EFL teachers’ attitude towards post-method pedagogy (PMP) and its implementation in private language institutes. The participants of this study were 80 male and female EFL teachers from different private institutes in two cities of Mazandaran province in Iran. For the purpose of data collection, this study applied a Likert type questionnaire. In order to analyze it, minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation were calculated, then different tests including Friedman test, Wilcoxon test, Pearson Correlation, and Independent T-test were utilized. Considering the findings of the study, one cannot conclude that teachers have a positive attitude toward post-method principles. In fact, the findings show uncertainty about the actual emergence of PMP principles in EFL institutes in Iran and the fact that there is a long distance to the actual realization of principles of Particularity, Practicality, and Possibility, especially the last one. Furthermore, there is a significant relationship between respondent teachers’ familiarity of some principles of PMP and their experience, field of study, and education degree.
References
1. Aboulalaei, M. H., Poursalehi, J., & Hadidi, Y. (2016). The familiarity of EFL teachers with post-method: Considering their field of study. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 83-104. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6160/fa5ca78d2940bf584f17710147a8bf11dcab.pdf Accessed 20 June 2019.
2. Akbari, R. (2008). Post-method discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00152.x Accessed 27 June 2019. [DOI:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00152.x]
3. Allwright, D. (1991). The death of the method (Working Papers No. 10). Lancaster, England: The University of Lancaster, The Exploratory Practice Center.
4. Bell, D. (2007). Method and post-method: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 325-336. http://doi.org/10.2307/3588507Accessed 27 June 2019. [DOI:10.2307/3588507]
5. Clemente, M. A. (2001). Teachers' attitudes within a self-directed language learning scheme. System, 29, 45-67. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(00)000045-2 Accessed 27 June 2019. [DOI:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00045-2]
6. Dӧrnyei., Z., & Csizer, K. (2012). How to design and analyze surveys in second language acquisition research. In A [DOI:10.1002/9781444347340.ch5]
7. MacKey & S. M.Gass (EDs). Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 74-94). West Sussex: Blackwell.
8. Fahim, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2009). Postmodernism and English language teaching. IJALS, 1, 27-54. doi:10.2211/IJALS.2011.51
9. Freeman, D. (1990). Interviewing in practice teaching. In J. Richards, & D. Nunan (Eds.). Second teacher language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Gholami, J., Bonyadi, A., & Mirzaei, A. (2012). Postmodernism vs. modernism in Iranian non- governmental English language institutes. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 2(3), 128-143. doi.org/10.26655/mjltm.2012.2.3
11. Gholami, J., & Mirzaei, A. (2013). Post-method EFL teaching in Iran: Barriers, attitudes and symbols. Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL), 1(2), 50-64. http://www.rjelal.com/RJELAL%201.2.%20pp%2050-64.pdf Accessed 27 June 2019.
12. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. Cassell: London.
13. Hashemi, S. M. R. (2011). (Post)-methodism: Possibility of the impossible? Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 137-145. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.1.137-145 [DOI:10.4304/jltr.2.1.137-145]
14. Hazratzad, A., & Gheitanchian, M. (2009). EFL teachers' attitude towards post-method pedagogy and their students' achievement. Proceedings of the 10th METU ELT Convention. http://www.dbe.metu.edu/convention/proceedingsweb/Attitudes.pdf Accessed 1 July 2019.
15. Khany, R., & Darabi, R. (2014). ELT in Iran: Reflection of the principles-based and post-method pedagogy in language teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 908-916. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.499 [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.499]
16. Khatib, M., & Fathi, J. (2014). The investigation of the perspectives of Iranian EFL domain experts on post-method pedagogy: A Delphi technique. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 6(3), 89-112.doi: 10.22099/JTLS.2015.2482
17. Khodabakhshzadeh, H., Arabi, M., & Samadi, F. (2018). The Relationship between English foreign language teachers' willingness with post-method pedagogy and their teaching effectiveness. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 425-436. http:// doi.org/10.12973/iji.201.11229a Accessed 1 July 2019. [DOI:10.12973/iji.2018.11229a]
18. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 453-484. http://doi.org/10.2307/3587674 Accessed 27 June 2019. [DOI:10.2307/3587674]
19. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560. http://doi.org/10.2307/3588427 Accessed 27 June 2019. [DOI:10.2307/3588427]
20. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Critical language pedagogy: A post-method perspective on English language teaching, World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00317.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00317.x]
21. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Beyond methods: Macro-strategies for language teaching, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition:
23. (E) merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-47. http://doi.org/10.2307/3587197 Accessed 20 June 2019. [DOI:10.2307/3587197]
24. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81. [DOI:10.2307/40264511]
25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40264511 Accessed 27 June 2019. [DOI:10.2307/40264511]
26. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). A critical analysis of post-method: An interview with Diane Larsen-Freeman by Zia Tajeddin. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 21-25.
27. Liu, D. (1995). Comments on B. Kumaravadivelu's "The post-method condition: (E) merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching": "Alternative to" or "Addition to" method? TESOL Quarterly, 29, 174-177. doi:10.2307/3587813 [DOI:10.2307/3587813]
28. Maghsoudi, N. (2016). Post-Mmethod pedagogy: A plausible choice in Iran? Studies in English Language Teaching, 4(2), 282-288. doi:
https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v4n2p282 [DOI:1022158/selt.v4n2p282 10.17569/tojqi.65871]
29. Mardani, M., & Moradian, E. (2016). Post-method pedagogy perception and usage by EFL teachers and learners and its limitations, symbols and view points. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 11(1). http://research.bkatu.ac.ir/_Pages/Research-En.aspx?ID=6950
30. Naseri Kaimvand, P., Hessamy, G. R., & Hemmati, F. (2016). Post-method education: Its applicability and challenges in Iran. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 6(1), 21-34. doi:10.18488/journal.1/2016.6.1/ [DOI:10.18488/journal.1/2016.6.1/1.1.21.34]
31. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(6), 589-618. 10.2307/3587534 Accessed 1 July 2019.Prabhu, N.S. (1992). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10.2307/3587534 []
32. Rashidi, N., & Mansourzadeh, N. (2017). Post-method pedagogy and Iranian EFL teachers' understandings: Is a promising trend on the way? Issues in Language Teaching (ILT), 6(1), 55-82.doi:10.22054/|ILT.2017.8419
33. Razmjoo, S. A., Ranjbar, H., & Hoomanfard, M. H. (2013). On the familiarity of Iranian EFL teachers and learners with post-method, and its realization .International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 4(1), 1-12. https://d1wqtxts1xzle.cloudfront.net/ Accessed 27 June 2019.
34. Saengboon, S. (2013). Thai English teachers' understanding of "post-method pedagogy": case studies of university lecturers. English language teaching, 6(12), 156-166. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n12p156 [DOI:10.5539/elt.v6n12p156]
35. Safari, P., & Rashidi, N. (2015). A move towards post-method pedagogy in the Iranian EFL context: Panacea or more pain? PASAA, 50, 95-123. doi:10.14456/pasaa.2015.4
36. Shafiei, S., & Zoghi, M. (2014).The familiarity of EFL teachers with post-method: Considering their attitudes towards methods and post-method. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 7(4), 145-156. http://www.virasicence.com/thesis/author/120019 Accessed 27 June 2019.
37. Shafiqul Islam, A. B. M., & Shuchi, I. J. (2017). Deconstruction of method-post-method dialectics in English language teaching. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 539-547. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0803.12 [DOI:10.17507/jltr.0803.12]
38. Tasnimi, M. (2014). The role of teacher in the post-method Era. Express, an International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 1(3), 1-8. doi:dlwqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/36811238/
39. Tekin, M. (2013). An investigation into novice teachers' views and beliefs about method and post-method pedagogy in Turkish EFL context. Turkish Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 55-69. doi:10.17569/tojqi.65871
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |