Post method Condition in Language Teaching - Literature review Example

Postmethod Condition in Language Teaching Student’s Name Institution Affiliation Postmethod Condition in Language Teaching From the start of the 1970s, researchers as well as teachers discovered that no one research results would bring complete success. Similarly, they did not find any one method that could teach a second language successfully. According to Brown (2000), this was particularly so because it was perceived that some learners appeared successful despite the method they used to teach. This newer comprehension in foreign language instructing methodology has been denoted as the postmethod condition. This is because of a group of newer presumptions and beliefs around teaching practices for foreign languages. In this regard, postmethod condition denotes the qualities of the modern period in English language teaching wherein previously dependable methods are scrutinized and methods as well as techniques gathered from earlier methods are employed pragmatically believing that such an eclectic approach leads to victory (Hinkel, 2011). Under the postmethod condition, such practices influx constantly bringing ongoing transformations in pre as well as in-service professional growth programs. This is a critical literature review of the postmethod condition in language teaching. The postmethod approach has a number of characteristics. First, it involves abandoning the application of only methods to finding efficient strategies for teaching in the most proper and efficient manner with regard to the practitioner’s opinion and functions in planning as well as instructing language materials (Leung & Creese, 2010). Therefore, with regard to the current overall perception, rather than searching for the best language method to use in teaching, the concerned tutor ought to search for the most efficient techniques as well as strategies to boost his/her instructing repertoire. This comprehension of the personal course of the language instructor has developed more than the mainstream and extensive framework of language instructor’s education schemes that were differentiated by imposing methodological apprehensions instead of requesting the individual language instructor to search for personal ways to best teaching approaches. With regard to this pedagogy, Kumaravadivelu (2001) claims it is a method of likelihood rejecting the narrow opinion of language education, which limit itself to the linguistic practical aspects that are obtained in the classroom. The author continues to claim that the boundaries of the specific, functional as well as the possible are unavoidably blurred. These boundaries interlink and relate with each other synergistically wherein the whole exceeds the sum of its portions. In essence, post-method instructing approaches are aspired in famous appliances of foreign language instructing located in numerous classrooms instead of focusing on academic discussions, which are disconnected from authentic classrooms. Harmer (2001) expresses that it is very vital to reach conclusions regarding the approaches as well as methods, which are most proper for individual teaching cases. Nevertheless, with the knowledge that postmethod condition has apparently pulled ELT approach inside the spins of popular culture particularly with the influences of the discovery-oriented communicative approach, which is responsive to cultural matters revolve around ELT classroom, a concession amid the students and teachers on a given instructing approach is required (Norton, 2004). Therefore, this concession is wherein pragmatic eclecticism gains an aspiration to subsist as the single method deserving well in such a postmethod condition. Because of this concession, instructor education practices have embraced the voices of students mostly in the needs analyses form that shows how instructing practices ought to be re-configured continuously. In this regard, Salmani-Nodoushan (2006) argument is that an attention shift of this kind indicated a period whose result was the creation of a new approach at the cost of the all negation of previous methods. The named period is characterized by assessment of the scope as well as character of methods. Secondly, it is manifested by recirculation of the power to form theories amid practitioners. Lastly, the period is featured by learner autonomy as language learning techniques. Such a period summarized that the idea of appropriate or inappropriate method is misguided. Additionally, the endeavor to find an intrinsically best approach ought to be substituted with an endeavor to find ways teachers can interact with pedagogic perceptions. According to Salmani-Nodoushan (2006) and Norton (2004), this period was discovered in two diverse forms: efficient as well as reflective teaching. The proponents of the former form propose that applied linguists ought to theorize whereas instructors should put these theories into practice. This implies that efficient language teaching is the result of collaboration between teachers and theorizers. On the contrary, the proponents of the latter form propose that instructors should bear the duty of mediation instead of applied linguists. The two discoveries display the emerging significance of the instructor as possessing a voice and having a place in theory deliberations contrast to the past methods deliberations that addressed them as practitioners instead of theorizers. The definition of Kumaravadivelu (2001) of postmethod condition is similar to that of postmodern condition; the two came up during the time the idea of authority was under scrutiny. The previous teaching method, which was the best, was invisible as well as ungraspable. Putting it shortly, Atkinson (1999) claims that the present comprehension of instructor education in teaching English language corresponds with the philosophy of the postmodern approach, which is influencing all disciplines. Therefore, even if postmodernism lacks an advantaged status in academia, it is heading into it, circulating in it, as well as transforming it through making oppositions impossible without giving it consideration. In the current era, instructor education practices are performed when there serious scrutiny of the authority and the best approach is hard to find except if the practice reveals what works or does not work. Therefore, according to Kincheloe (1993), instructor education practices currently includes the practitioners’ voices often after a vigilant bottom-up design structuring processes of such programs contrary to traditional mainstream study on teachers’ education growth as well as professional growth that is popular for its top-down procedures of transmitting knowledge in which teacher’s creativity and pride is discredited. As Hollingsworth and Sockett (1994) articulates, Diamond and Mullen (1999) accentuate that teacher education appears polarized amid a narrow, exterior answerability and control as well as the other of interior independence and limitless individual change. Postmethod versus Method Recently, there have been several researches on postmethod versus method teaching strategies. Bell (2003) definition of method is similar to Brown (2000) who defines method as a fixed set of classroom practices that serve as a guide for teachers and hence has no room for deviations. Therefore, postmethod means moving away from the traditional set of classroom practices and embracing other practices that can make teaching and learning easier and entertaining (Broudy, 2008, Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Richards & Rodgers, 2008). Many of the researchers on methods approaches to teaching believe that postmethod offers a better alternative to method. According to Bell (2003), methods will never be dead and hence postmethod does not mean the end of methods but helps teachers to understand the limitations of methods and hence strategize on how to overcome those limitations in order to be autonomous. From Bell’s (2003) perception, postmethod practices construct practices bottom-up while method insists on top-down way of doing things. His argument is similar to Kumaravadivelu (2006), who argues that many institutions are moving away from method to post-method due to its effectiveness. The two authors argue that postmethod enables teachers to become innovative and hence realize their potentials without being restricted by methodical/theoretical rules and procedures. Various researchers such as Kumaravadivelu (1999) and Allwright (1994) support the argument that postmethod practices are effective and enable teachers to perform better. In his research, Kumaravadivelu (1999) outlines 10 macro-strategies through which teachers can put theory into practice and generate better teaching practices. On the other hand, Allwright (1994) argues that teachers are great researchers and therefore, method limits their potentials. Instead, they should be given the freedom to research and come up with better postmethod practices that will improve language teaching. Brown (2008) argues that methods are not relevant in our today’s sophisticated learning systems. Methods cannot be effective in diagnosing, treating and satisfying students’ language needs especially the foreign language learners. However, Brown (2008) acknowledges that methods find their way even in our modern classrooms. He therefore argues that the best that teachers can do is to try to integrate method into postmethods in order to yield the best results. It is through such integration that teachers will be able to effectively diagnose and meet their students’ learning needs. Brown’s (2008) arguments concur with Broudy’s (2008) point of view on postmethods. Broudy (2008) did a study to find the most effective teaching strategy. The study compared reconstructive strategy versus communicative strategy. The researcher concluded that reconstructive strategy is the most effective in realizing classroom learning and teaching goals. Broudy (2008) describes reconstructive strategy as a teaching strategy that gives a teacher the autonomy to integrate various learning and teaching strategies in order to meet students’ needs. He argues that teachers should learn to go beyond methodical rules so as to be effective in meeting their teaching goals. The arguments by Brown and Broudy (2008) are well supported by empirical evidence. A study carried out in 1985 by Stern on methods that work came to a conclusion that teaching practices with no fixed procedures or set of rules are the most effective in producing best teaching results. Another study by Prabhu in 1990 also supports these two authors’ statements that postmethod strategies are the best in meeting students’ learning needs. According to Prabhu, there is no best method. He says that a method has a definite set of procedures which do not give room for additions or subtractions meaning that there is no improvement. Prabhu (1990) looked forward to postmethod practices which would give room for improvements. He believed that postmethod practices would limit neither teachers nor students hence making classroom a lively and a conducive learning environment. Kumaravadivelu (2006) is another researcher who has reviewed the understanding of language teaching and the move from method to postmethod strategies of teaching. According to Kumaravadivelu (2006), for teachers to be effective, they have to embrace postmethod practices of teaching languages. The researcher argues that many learning institutions are adopting postmethod teaching strategies especially for English language to ensure that all their students’ needs are noted and met accordingly. Postmethod teaching strategies do not only enable teachers to perform well but also enables them to improve their teaching practices since they also learn in the process of teaching. Richards and Rodgers (2008) perception of methods vary with most of other researchers on the same topic. According to Richards and Rodgers (2008), method as a teaching strategy was developed back in 1950s and since then, it has remained to be the most useful teaching strategy until today. However, the two researchers point out that postmethod strategies are complementary of method strategies because they enable teachers to effectively integrate various concepts and meet the various students’ needs. Richard and Rodgers (2008) argue that instead of wiping out method teaching strategies, institutions should instead integrate the two i.e. method and postmethod together to come up with a comprehensive teaching strategy to enable their teachers meet their teaching goals. Kumaravadivelu’s arguments are echoed by research carried out by Stern in 1999. According to Stern (1999), language teaching has many issues which require a comprehensive teaching strategy for them to be ironed out. Stern (1999) argues that that the traditional methodical strategy of teaching the English language is ineffective in meeting our today’s various language needs. In order to meet the various English language needs, teachers need to create various options and strategies of teaching. One of these options as suggested by Stern is postmethod strategies such as situational learning. Wang is another researcher who supports Kumaravadivelu’s arguments. He argues that the most effective English teaching strategy is the one which is able to integrate various teaching techniques to come up with one inclusive teaching practice, which in this case can best be described as postmethod teaching strategy. The researchers acknowledge that method language teaching practices are becoming outdated and there is need to improve them or get an alternative which is postmethod teaching practices. They also concur with other researchers’ arguments such as Broudy (2008) by arguing that there is need to integrate “method” and “postmethod” teaching strategies in order to meet sophisticated students’ language needs today. Relevance and Application Of Postmodern Condition Theoretical Perspectives On Current Language Teaching As a classroom teacher, the observations considerably support theories and research on language teaching. The postmethod condition had brought key changes, which have improved language teaching. Over the second half of the 20th century, there have been many changes in pedagogy especially in language teaching (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). The post method condition had been one of the major changes, which have brought significant changes in language teaching. According to Kumaravadivelu (2001), the persistent dissatisfaction with the idea of method as well as the technicist teacher’s education form led to post method. The postmethod condition has significantly addressed the weaknesses of the traditional method, which limited the efficacy of language teaching. Compared to the traditional methods which viewed teachers’ as only inactive recipient of transmitted knowledge instead of active contributors in constructing denotation and which did not take into consideration the decision making or thinking of teachers, the post method condition is a construct that is driven by practice. It questions the traditional designation of teachers as mere channels of obtained knowledge. The postmethod condition empowers the teachers as they are able to practice what they theorize and theorize what they practice. According to Widdowson (1990, p. 22), “it is teachers who have to act as mediators between theory and practice, between the domain of disciplinary research and pedagogy”. Teachers are also able to be actively aware of their local condition. They are able to observe their teaching practices, assess their results, recognize problems, discover resolutions, and attempt to assess the practices that work and those that do not. Teachers are independent and this empowers them. This in turn leads to better learning outcomes. Kumaravadivelu (2001) argued that teacher autonomy is an important component of the postmethod condition. In addition, Akbari (2005) was also right in noting that the post method condition in language teaching profession offers the teachers a voice and respect the type of knowledge that they hold. In practice, the autonomy enables teacher to be confident about the decisions that they make in their classrooms. Generally, this method has played an important part in language teaching and the constant zeal and increase in considering teachers as the center in education has led to reflective teaching. It has enabled teachers to generate classroom-oriented and location-specific innovative practices. In practice, teachers also have a voice and place in theory discussions unlike the traditional methods discussion, which took them as practitioners instead of theorizers. According to Kumaravadivelu (2003), the postmethod condition allows teachers to create own theories of practice. It is a bottom-up process rather than a top-down process. It is a more independent method to language teaching compared to the traditional approach as it signifies the teacher independence –teachers are able to develop a critical approach to self-assess, self-analyze, and self-scrutinize their personal teaching practice. This is important in the current language teaching practice as teachers are able to shape their own desired change and offer better opportunities for their students. The principled pragmatism is also evident in the current teaching practice, which is in line with the postmethod condition. Kumaravadivelu (2003) asserted that teachers are able to respond to the immediacy of the local teaching context. In practice, teachers have been acknowledging their own theories, beliefs and values that come to shape their individual pedagogic practices. McKay (2002) pointed to the significance of taking into consideration teacher values and beliefs and argued that this needs to be the starting point in considering what methods might work in a particular classroom. Quoting Phrabu (1990), McKay (2002) suggested that there is need to start with what is plausible for the teacher since they bring a subjective interpretation to their teaching context and make sense of the method using their individual sense of plausibility. McKay (2002, p. 116) argued “this sense of plausibility is influenced by teachers’ own experience in the past as learners, by their experience of teaching, and by their exposure to one or more teaching methods.” In practice, more emphasis has been placed on the importance of local interpretations of research and theory in producing responsive classrooms’ through informed practice. Teachers are placed at the centre of their classrooms in creating learning cultures which are plausible and meaningful to them and hence to the learners. This view has provided most of the teachers working in linguistically diverse educational contexts local and proactive strategies for shaping their classrooms. There is emphasis on the capacity of practitioners to transform and change settings. The view of local interpretation of theory and research enables practitioners to think local and to consider how their individual practices as teachers as well as researchers will figure in the lives of the students they work with. Kramsch and Sullivan (1996, p. 200) termed it as “global thinking, local teaching.” Teachers usually generate situation- specific need based microstrategies from them. In doing so, the postmethod approach takes into account all linguistic, sociological, and psychological factors that shape the teacher and the learners’ activities. It enables teachers to free themselves from the constraint of one or other method, and they are able to take up an open and promising method to language teaching. Learning languages involved mastering several different kinds of knowledge and skills. Through the postmethod conditions, language teachers have developed many ways of imparting the various aspects of language competence, drawing on research, individual exploration as well as the accumulated wisdom of the profession. Kumaravadivelu (1994, p. 28) listed ten microstrategies which characterize postmethod language teaching-“maximize learning opportunities, facilitate negotiated interaction, minimize perceptual mismatches, activate intuitive heuristics, foster language awareness, contextualize linguistic input, integrate language skills, promote learner autonomy, ensure social relevance and raise cultural consciousness” are evident in the modern language teaching. In minimizing perceptual mismatches, the macrostrategy lays emphasis on recognizing possible perceptual variances between the interpretation and intentions of the teacher, the learner, as well as the teacher-educator. Inclusive pedagogies, unless well resourced with appropriate teacher knowledge and expertise may fail the students. Mismatches between the inclusion rhetoric may cause linguistically diverse students learning to suffer. There has led to recognition of the need to reduce such mismatches to promote language teaching and learning. The ‘facilitated negotiated interaction’ denoted consequential learner-teacher, learner-learner classroom communication whereby learners are allowed and supported to instigate talk and topics, not just respond and react. Teachers in partnerships have brought different interactional possibilities and opportunities for learning and teaching in the way they interact with students. Teachers with different specialism, for instance, subject and EAL teachers use language differently in working with linguistically diverse learners and use difference interactional styles. The third macro-strategy promotes learner autonomy and it entails assisting learners on ways to learn and endow them with the required capacity to self-monitor and self-direct their individual learning. Positive examples of this macrostrategy at work is evident when teachers bring together learning from the home with learning at school in order for the young people to come to view their individual experience as important in shaping their individual development. The fourth microstrategy ‘foster language awareness’ refer to any attempt that draws learners’ concentration to the functional and formal aspects of the language learning in order to enhance the extent of explicitness needed to promote language learning. In practice, teachers make explicit the language needed for excelling in exams. The ‘active intuitive heuristic and contextualize linguistic input’ are two macrostrategies that focus on the importance of offering rich contextual data in order for the learners to deduce as well as internalize underlying rules governing communicative use and grammatical usage. They highlight the way language use and usage is shaped by situational, linguistic, extralinguistic, and extra situational contexts. In practice, teachers make connections between linguistic knowledge and language content and they use texts for meeting the dual learning objectives of language use as well as communicative use. Focusing on language enables focusing on both grammar and its function in making meaning. The ‘integrate language skills’ macrostrategy denotes the need to wholly incorporate language skills conventionally sequenced and separate as writing, reading, speaking, as well as listening. Although holistic integration is important, there are also dangers of subsuming the language skills of an individual within the subject curriculum paradigm, which in most classrooms does not allow a chance for language focus. When this occurs, the traditional skills are wholly incorporated into the subject focus; however, they are often lost wholly as the teacher engages in subject transmission. The other macrostrategy ‘ensure social relevance’ denote the need for teachers to be receptive to the educational, economic, political, as well as societal setting whereby teaching and language learning occurs. This is evident in the modern language teaching as most classroom practices usually draw in the outside worlds of their students and bring these into the classroom to create more equal learning contexts, which represent and validate the student social and cultural experiences. For instance in Australia the wider political and social context has created the need for a nuanced response to a particular group of students regarded as ‘low literacy’. Educational responses have also been taking into account the experience of the learners with histories of disrupted education. The ‘raise cultural consciousness’ macrostrategy lays emphasis on the significance of treating students as cultural informers in order to encourage them to take part in classroom participation to acquire quality knowledge and power. In practice, the significance of fostering integration, promotion bilingualism, and affirming identities has been articulated as important to each decision making level in the classroom. Responding to the cultural and linguistic diversity of bilingual learners has also been viewed as an important and positive resource in the classroom. McKay (2002) argued that Kumaravadivelu’s framework of microstrategies, macrostrategies, and principles counter what has been regarded as the dogma of methods. Teachers are able to view themselves as part of the bigger political and social picture and the many purposes and goals of language education within the pluricultural and plurilingual contexts. Most of the theoretical perspectives taken up on postmethod condition are thus consistent with modern teacher thinking and teacher practice in language teaching. Historically, teachers were only viewed as educational professionals who helped students to learn various bodies of knowledge through implementing various classroom processes. On this view, teachers were trained to follow pedagogic processes, and their professional practice was fundamentally guided by an established curriculum regime. The teachers rarely put into practice teaching theories and classroom processes handed down to them on professional development courses and teacher education in any straightforward manner. According to Johnson (2006, p. 236), “teachers prior experiences, their interpretations’ of the activities they engage in, and, most important, the contexts within which they work are extremely influential in shaping how and why teachers do what they do”. There is limited evidence that teachers only follow the teaching methods and approaches learnt in training courses or in curriculum prescriptions in a mechanical way in their teaching. Theories, principles, and concepts are mediated by the teachers’ insights of their pedagogic objectives and their understanding of what counts as workable and appropriate in their local situation. All this is framed in the teachers’ intellectual learning’s, personal biography, and wider ideological and social commitments and values. Teachers are persons with agency and values. Ivanic (2004) analyzed teachers’ point of view on teaching of writing in English as an illustration of teachers’ diverse professional dispositions, views, and orientation. By examining a wide range of sources of information on the teaching of writing-pedagogic materials, policy documents and interviews with learners and teachers-Ivanic found that there are six approaches or discourses to the teaching of writing. The approaches represent the “recognizable associations among values, beliefs, and practices which lead to particular forms of situated action, to particular decisions, choices, and omissions, as well as to particular wording”(Ivanic 2004, p. 220). The approaches were glossed as skills, creativity, genre, process, sociopolitical, social practice. On skills, Ivanic (2004) noted that teachers usually prioritize language rules, for instance, sentence level grammar as well as spelling, accuracy in use of grammatical rules and this can be considered as an indicator of effective learning. On creativity, the study revealed that students usually use their individual experience to generate texts; the capacity to create interesting content as well as writing style is valued. On process, teachers are interested in assisting learners to revise, draft and plan their writing in a systematic manner; evidence of student revising and drafting is regarded as very desirable. On genre, the study revealed that teachers foreground the significance of recognizing diverse types of texts for diverse social purposes( for instance, rules and regulations of a social club, job application letter). They help students to use the proper language to create texts for diverse social purposes. On social practice, teachers take writing as part of community participation; they help students to write in techniques that are in practice in their community and this support this view of teaching. On sociopolitical, the study indicated that teachers recognize that writing is implicated in political and social processes; explicit analysis of political and social power relationships and produce texts, which can challenge the current power relations. These approaches are related to very diverse ideological and intellectual traditions. One prominent point is that teachers associating themselves with, for instance, the process approach to teaching of writing would possibly respond to a curriculum that is based on a skills approach through making epistemological, conceptual, and procedural adjustments in their teaching. Teachers are thus persons with values and agency (sum total of an individual enactment of their desires, aspirations, intentions and needs in social action; a constant flow of conduct.) Teachers do not act as accommodating implementation operators of handed-down teaching methods and approaches. Johnson (2006, p. 239) argued that teachers use and understanding of any pedagogy and education principle should be viewed as “socially situated and contingent on knowledge of self, students, subject matter, curricula.” The contingent and situated nature of teachers uptake or not or specific pedagogic practices and curriculum arrangements depends on their ideological position and values. Relevance of current research to language teachers Research plays an important role in producing responsive classroom through informed practice. It provides a new and limitless knowledge foundation of language teacher instruction that includes types of knowledge depiction which document teacher education in the institutional, cultural, and social situations whereby they take place (Johnson, 2006). Research helps to capture all facets of English language teaching and helps to keep pace with various developments on language teaching. It presents new knowledge as it enables studying of personal pedagogical knowledge. It also informs teachers’ on effective language teaching practices, which enable teachers to respond more directly to the needs, and learning styles of the students. Research also enables the language teachers to be sensitive to the cultures and social conditions relevant to the classroom context as they adapt to suitable pedagogical practices (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Research generates news pedagogical realizations, which constitute the postmethod condition. Kumaravadivelu (1994) argued that the post method condition denotes a exploration for an alternative to method instead of an alternative method. Research would empower periphery practitioners to come up with teaching approaches, which are more relevant to their pedagogical situations instead of depending on the centre for language teaching methods that are considered authoritative. Action research helps teacher to come up with practice-oriented and empirically grounded microstrategies and to come up with their own practical theories of language pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 1994). In addition, by focusing on the learners and the language acquisition process, research provides information on what should and should not be taught and what learners normally do or do not do. Research also offers a wide range of descriptive accounts, concepts, which can assist teachers, interpret, and to make good sense of the individual classroom experiences and provides ideas for classroom use. It also offers a way of critical assessment in view of new and increasing experience and experimentation in language teaching and learning. Through research, teachers are also able to create their own classroom methods, need-based microstrategies as well as own specific situation (Kumaravadivelu, 1994). It also help in creating strategic teachers who spend significant amount of time and effort contemplating about the specific processes, situations, wants and needs of teaching and learning. It helps to stretch the teachers’ skills, knowledge and attitude to stay involved and informed. Research helps to explore and extend microstrategies to solve the challenges of varying situations on language teaching. It also enables creation of proper microstrategies to maximize the students learning potential. Active research also enables teacher to be reflective. It is a means through which the teachers turn into own researchers; they can have their individual voice and be independent in order reflect on aspects of their troublesome contexts (Farrell, 2004; Zeichner and Liston, 1996). Conclusion In summary, it is clear that many of the researchers on this topic agree that in our today’s classrooms, method teaching strategy is becoming ineffective especially for the English language. There is enough empirical evidence that supports the argument that there is a great need for institutions to integrate the traditional method teaching strategies into postmethod teaching strategies in order to come up with a comprehensive teaching strategy, which will enable meet the various students’ language needs. Recent advancements and explorations in teaching mark revolutionary change from traditional conventional methods towards post-method condition. Post-method condition is significant in pedagogy because it allows effective development of relationship among teachers and theorizers. This is because, it empowers teachers with crucial skills, knowledge, as well as independence. Once teachers are empowered, they can come up with a well-planned, relevant, and coherent substitution method that is informed by scrupulous realism. Unlike the traditional method, postmethod condition can effectively remould the feature and component of the teacher education, L2 teaching as well as the classroom research. On the other hand, traditional method fails to provide effective teaching plan that can reshape classroom research and more importantly classroom research. Practically, postmethod condition encourages research for indeterminate, coherent theoretical account that is founded entirely on empirical, theoretical and pedagogical brainstorms that allow teachers to theorize from their practical work and subsequently learn to practice whatever they theorize. This is contrary to traditional method that does not allow teachers to practice the things they theorize. Therefore, the method cannot be relied upon to transubstantiate classroom professionals into both strategic and reliable researchers as well as teachers. Hence, unlike traditional method, postmethod condition can provide the desired effects. It focuses entirely on three fundamental principles that include practicality, possibility, and particularity. A particularity concept is about mastery of local, cultural, political, and linguistic particularities. Practicality focuses on tearing the considered relationship that exists among the practitioners and theorizers that is theorizing from practice and practising what is theorized. Possibility entails intercepting the social political awareness that the students come along with in the class. Contrary to these traditional methods fails to provide teachers and students with clear and consistent guiding principles. References Akbari, R. (2005). Recent Developments in Foreign Language Teaching. ROSHD FLT. 20(76): 25-32. Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625-654. Bell, M. D. (2003). Method and Postmethod: Are They Really So Incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325-336. Broudy, I. (2008). A Paradigm Shift Away from Method-Wise Teaching to Strategy-wise Teaching: Reconstructive Strategy Versus Communicative Strategy. The Social Sciences, 3(8), 631-647. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. NY: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2002). English Language Teaching in the Post-methods Era: Toward Better Diagnosis, Treatment, and Assessment. In Richards, J. C. et al (Eds.), Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Diamond, C. T. P. & Mullen, C. A. (1999). The postmodern educator: Arts-based inquirers and teacher development. New York: Peter Lang. Farrell, T. (2004). Reflective Practice in Action: 80 Reflection Breaks for Busy Teachers. California: Corwin Press. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. (3rd edition). Essex : Longman. Hinkel, E. (2011). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning: Volume 2. New York: Routledge. Hollingsworth, S. & Sockett, H. T. (1994). Positioning teacher research in educational reform: An introduction. In S. Hollingsworth & H. T. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 1-20). Chicago: University of Chicago. Ivanic, R. (2004). Discourse of writing and learning to write. Language and Education. 18(3), 220-245 Johnson, K. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235-257 Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Kramsch, C., & Sullivan, P. (1996). Appropriate pedagogy. ELT Journal, 50, 199-212 Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond Methods: Macro strategies for Language Teaching. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. New York: Routledge. Kumaravadivelu. B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The Postmethod Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48. Leung, C., & Creese, A. (2010). English as an additional language: Approaches to teaching linguistic minority students. Los Angeles: SAGE. McKay, S. (2002). Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norton, D. E. (2004). The effective teaching of language arts. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice Hall. Prabhu, N. (1990). There is no best method—why? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161-176. Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). Language Teaching: State of the Art. Asian EFL Journal, 8 (1). Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_masn.php Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (2008). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd edition). Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Widdowson, H.(1990). Aspects of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An Introduction. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Read More