Postmethod Pedagogy and Its Democratizing Influence On Method

Year 2025, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 424 - 440, 21.09.2025

Zana Hanar

https://doi.org/10.21600/ijoks.1660359

Abstract

This article evaluates the method, which is a product of continuing efforts in language teaching and the quest for optimal instructional approaches, and the subsequent postmethod era that emerged in response to it. The analysis explores the democratizing impact of the postmethod paradigm within this context and handles its philosophical foundations, parameters, macrostrategies, and the evolving roles of teachers, learners, and teacher educators. By examining the interdependent cause-effect relationship between method and postmethod frameworks, the study highlights the limitations of the postmethod era. It investigates how democratization transforms this process to address its constraints. Through this lens, the article aims to reframe understanding of the postmethod revolution, proposing renewed perspectives on its future evolution by proposing “Glocal Language Teaching Approach”.

Keywords

Method , Postmethod Era , Postmethod Pedagogy , Glocal Teaching , Democratization

Yöntem Sonrası Dönem ve Yöntem Üzerindeki Demokratikleştirici Etkisi

Abstract

Bu makalede, geçmişten günümüze dek süregelen dil öğretme çabasının ürünü olan ve dil öğretiminin en iyi biçimde nasıl yapılacağı arayışı ile ortaya çıkan “yöntem” olgusu ve bu olguya tepki olarak ortaya çıkan “yöntem sonrası dönem” düşüncesi tartışılmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, yöntem sonrası düşüncesinin oluşturduğu demokratikleştirme etkisi değerlendirilmekte, yöntem sonrası eğitbilimin felsefesi, parametreleri, büyük ölçekli stratejileri ile öğretmen, öğrenci ve öğretmen eğiticilerinin rolleri ele alınmaktadır. Yöntem ve yöntem sonrası yapıların arasındaki, birbirine bağlı, neden-sonuç ilişkisi ele alındıktan sonra, yöntem sonrası dönemin sınırlılıkları vurgulanmaktadır. Demokratikleşmenin, bu süreci sınırlılıklarına çözüm sunacak biçimde nasıl dönüştürdüğü araştırılmaktadır. Bu bakış açısıyla makale, yöntem sonrası anlayışını yeniden çerçevelemeyi ve "Küresel-Yerel Dil Öğretimi Yaklaşımı"nı önererek yenilenmiş bakış açıları önermeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Yöntem , Yöntem Sonrası Sönem , Yöntem Sonrası Eğitbilim , Küresel-Yerel Dil Öğretimi Yaklaşımı , Demokratikleşme

References

• Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod Discourse and Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00152.x
• Allwright, R. L. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171.
• Allwright, R. L. (1993). Integrating ‘research’ and ‘pedagogy’: Appropriate criteria and practical problems. In Edge & K. Richards (Eds.), Teachers develop teachers’ research (pp. 125–135). London: Heinemann.
• Anthony, E. M.(1963). ‘Approach, method and technique’. English Language Teaching 17:63–7.
• Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and post method: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325–36. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588507
• Block, D. (2001). Block, D. (2001). An exploration of the art and science debate in language education. ELT Journal, 55(4), 401–407.
• Breen, M. P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of language teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22, 470–501. Language Teaching (pp. 9-18). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.470
• Can, N. (2012). Post-method pedagogy: Teacher growth behind walls. In Proceedings of the 10th METU ELT Convention. Middle East Technical University.
• Dewey, J. (2012). Democracy and education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Courier Corporation.
• Emini, F. T. (2014). TÜRKİYE’DE DEMOKRATİKLEŞME SÜRECİNİN DÜŞÜNSEL VE TARİHSEL TEMELLERİ. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 9(1-2), 521-540.
• Freeman, D. (1998). Understanding teacher research. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
• Freire, P. (1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum Publishing Company.
• Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. Continuum.
• Geyik, R. (2020) Teoriya Hînkirina Kurdî-Kurmancî, Azad Publishing House, Mersin
• Hammerly, H. (1991). Fluency and accuracy: Toward balance in language teaching and learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
• Islam, A. B. M. Shafiqul ve Israt Jahan Shuchi. (2017). “Deconstruction of Method-Postmethod Dialectics in English Language Teaching”. Journal of Language Teaching and Research 8. 3 539-547.
• Kennedy, C. (1999). Introduction—learning to change. In C. Kennedy, P. Doyle, & C. Goh (Eds.), Exploring change in English language teaching (pp. iv–viii). Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-560.
• 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.
• Liu, D. (1995). Comments on B. Kumaravadivelu’s “The Postmethod Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching”: “Alternative to” or “addition to” method? TESOL Quarterly, 29, 174–177.
• Mellow, J. D. (2002). Towards principled eclecticism in language teaching: The two-dimensional model and the centering principle. TESL-EJ, 5(4) A-1.
• Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Oprandy, R. (1999). Jane Jacobs: Eyes on the city. In D. J. Mendelsohn (Ed.), Expanding our vision (pp. 41–59). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
• 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.
• Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sbai, M.A. (2016). Post-Method Pedagogy in EFL Classrooms.
• Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Watkins, P. (2014). Learning to teach English. (2nd ed.) Delta Publishing.
• Winch, C., & Gingell, J. (1999). Key concepts in the philosophy of education. London: Routledge.