Problematizing the notion of postmethod

 I understand ‘postmethod pedagogy’ as a way to methodize postmodernist, critical perspectives on language teaching.  And I think there is nothing wrong about this. I will not go into detail on this statement (since it would take me forever and I’d rather leave that amount of work for one of our papers/projects), but I will discuss some of the issues that I believe are problematic in Kumaravadivelu’s argumentation.

Kumaravadivelu asserts that principled pragmatism and plausibility are different from eclecticism in that the former provide space for teacher autonomy (amongst other things) (p. 33). Kumaravadivelu takes for granted that teachers using an eclectic approach do so merely by selecting different techniques from distinct methods as they see fit their teaching practice and their students’ needs, pretty much like putting up a lego tower.  From this assumption he states that this practice must be abandoned. However, I prefer to give more credit to teachers and believe that such eclecticism involves informed decision-making processes and the implementation of teacher’s self-developed strategies as well as techniques and procedures derived from existing methods. Hence, the difference between informed eclecticism, plausibility and principled pragmatism becomes inexistent.

As much as I am in favor of critical perspective in language teaching (and in pretty much everything in life), it seems to me that the dismissal of methods is rather an ‘expert’ concern than a teacher’s one. It looks like it is theorists who placed more faith on methods than anyone else and therefore were clearly the ones more disappointed by their repetitive failures. Teachers seem to be much more at ease with the fact that no method works for all types of students and have learned to deal with that. In their everyday classrooms teachers draw techniques and strategies from different methods and their creativity and expertise. Apparently, what theorists have been discussing on the inefficiency of methods for the past 15 years, teachers have known long ago.

How is it possible to disregard enlightened eclecticism on the basis that ‘it offers no criteria according to which we can determine which is the best theory, nor does it provide any principles by which to include or exclude features which form part of existing theories or practices. The choice is left to the individual’s intuitive judgment and is, therefore, too broad and too vague to be satisfactory as a theory in its own right’? (Stern as cited by Kumaravadivelu, p. 31) Am I the only one feeling that postmethods advocates are criticizing this eclecticism precisely for its lack of a method?

When one tries to envision the enactment of the macrostrategies proposed by Kumaravadivelu, one pictures a teacher who constantly makes decisions on the different types of activities to be implemented, depending on the unique conditions of his/her students. This enactment may very well take the form of a number of techniques and activities that best suit the students needs and personalities, regardless of what the teacher’s theoretical incline may be. This makes me wonder, isn’t this informed eclecticism after all? 

The postmethod era

I’ve found the two readings very informative. Celce-Murcia’s article meets the function of providing teachers with a review of the basics of the distinct methods that have been present in the studies of second/foreign language learning .  Kumaravadivelu on the other hand focuses in how the TESOL field of study has evolved over the last twenty years.

I will concentrate on Kumaravadivelu’s article and will pose a few questions:

1.  Kumaravadivelu does a very good job in pointing out the difference between methods and practices. This dichotomy presents with a very important question on how teachers actually enact methods in their classrooms. Even though the author does quote some studies on how methods take place in the classroom, I have a lot of doubts in terms on how the results from the studies can be generalized to all teachers in all contexts globally. Coming up to general conclusions on the effectiveness of methods and the ways they are implemented seems a very risky enterprise, particularly if we embrace the differences between local contexts and teachers’ background and teaching styles.
2.  Kumaravadivelu discusses what a postmethod pedagogy could look like, and how it should rely on the teacher’s ability to determine what side of the pendulums they should lean towards.  However, I wonder if this not what many teachers have been doing for a long time, even when the method era was in vogue.
3.  As I read Kumaravadivelu proposal of a Macrostrategic Framework, I couldn’t help but thinking, isn’t this a method in its own? Wouldn’t the enacting of the ten macrostrategies proposed by Kumaravadivelu require some kind of procedural order and implemmentation?
4.  Kumaravadivelu cites Norton (2000) when he says: ‘it is only by understanding the histories and lived experiences of language learners that the language teacher can create conditions that will facilitate social interaction both in the classroom and in the wider community, and help learners claim the right to speak’. I wonder how feasible it is only to know (not to say understand) the histories and lived experiences of language learners.  Furthermore, is this really the only way to create such conditions?
5.  I believe evolution on the study of language and theories of learning as well as our inherent human and scientific desire to find generalizable principles have played an important role in the constant uprising of ELT methods. Of course, economic and political agendas have also partaken in this. As of now, as a consequence of the way social sciences have been moving towards the critical side of the pendulum, we are now witnessing how these critical perspectives on language teaching. However, isn’t it possible that radically critical perspectives of the method era as the ones presented in article may lead us into an atomization and relativism of the field where teachers are responsible of figuring out the specific peculiarities of each learning environment? Isn’t this too much of a burden, particularly with the political and economic contexts where teachers have to develop their profession?