Post/Method: Are They Compensating or Competing?

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate the perceptions of pre-service and in-service teachers regarding the conventional methods and post-method pedagogy in Turkey. The participants of the study consist of 107 pre-service teachers from 14 different universities and 53 in-service teachers from different cities all over Turkey. An online questionnaire (Tıglı, 2014) was used for data collection and fast evaluation in this study. The data derived from the questionnaire was analyzed to reveal the frequencies, means, and standard deviations. The results of the study yielded that Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Total Physical Response (TPR) are the two most highly favored teaching methods among pre-service and in-service language teachers. Even though they are supporting the idea of using language teaching methods in the classroom, they consider that there is not only single and best method. They agreed that methods can alter depending on the local needs, and teachers can mix a number of methods for a better teaching. With these results, they appear to support the fundamental idea of post-method pedagogy; autonomy of the teacher.

Keywords

• Post-Method,pedagogy,teacher education,pre-service teacher,in-service teacher

References

1. Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (Working Paper #10). The Exploratory Practice Center, University of Lancaster, England.
2. Arikan, A. (2006). Post-method condition and its implications for English language teacher education. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(1), 1-11.
3. Bell, D. M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61(2), 135-143.
4. Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the “Post-Method” era: Towards better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp. 9-18). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5. Can, N. (2009, May). Post-method pedagogy: Teacher growth behind walls. Paper presented at the 10th METU ELT convention, Ankara.
6. Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 9-26.
7. Delport, S. (2010). Exploring post-method pedagogy with Mozambican secondary school teachers. Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand.
8. Hazratzad, A., & Gheitanchian, M. (2009). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards post-method pedagogy and their students’ achievement. Paper presented at the 10th METU ELT convention, Ankara.

9. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: (E) merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1), 27-48.
10. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Post-method. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Rowley, J. (2014). Designing and using research questionnaires, Management Research Review, 37 (3), 308-330, https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-02-2013-0027.
15. Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts in language teaching. Oxford University Press
16. Swaffar, J., Arens, K., Morgan, M. (1982) Teacher classroom practices: Redefining method as task hierarchy: Modern Language Journal, 66, 24-33.
17. Tığlı, T. (2014). Method vs post-method!: A survey on prospective EFL teachers’ perspectives (Unpublished master's thesis). Bilkent University, Ankara.
18. Tosun, B. C. (2009). A new challenge in the methodology of the post-method era. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 5(2), 1-8.
19. Widdowson, H.G (1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.