POSTMODERNISM VS. MODERNISM IN IRANIAN NON- GOVERNMENTAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTITUTES
Autor:
Date: 2012-10-14 19:19:11

POSTMODERNISM VS. MODERNISM IN IRANIAN  NON- GOVERNMENTAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE INSTITUTES

Javad Gholami (PhD)
English department, Faculty of humanities, University of Urmia, Iran.
gholamij@gmail.com

Alireza Bonyadi (PhD)
English department, faculty of letters, Islamic Azad University
Urmia Branch, Urmia, Iran.
Bonyad80@hotmail.com

Arshad Mirzaei (MA) in TESOL
English department, faculty of letters, Islamic Azad University
Urmia Branch, Urmia, Iran.
 arshad.mirzaei@gmail.com   

 

ABSTRACT
English language teaching has stepped in an unexplored territory of post-method during which teaching methods are regarded as inherently problematic. As entangling webs, teaching methods are assumed to have deprived teachers of their creativities and learners of using their different learning strategies.  Conceiving the importance of this vital shift from method to postmethod in the field of ELT, the present paper aims at illuminating any meaningful relationships between teachers’ method or post method-approach to teaching and variables such as teachers’ gender, teaching experience, and their educational background. To this end, a three- section questionnaire reflecting the principles of postmethod was designed and administered to language teachers teaching at different levels in non-governmental language schools in 6 major cities in North-West part of Iran. Based on the data analysis of 162 returned questionnaire, it was found that using modern or postmodern approach to teaching English had no relationships with teachers' gender and teachers' field of study, but there was a slightly positive meaningful correlation between postmodern approach to teaching and teachers' experience. Based on the findings of the study, the paper has also offered some pedagogical implications.

Key words: Teacher beliefs, post-method, method, ELT, Non-governmental language schools

1. Introduction
Considering changing demands and aspirations of the new generations and the undeniable reality of global village, English language is becoming more and more versatile and unpredictably affecting the nations all over the world. As Pandy  (as cited in Ramanujam, 2011) realistically construed that English language today is almost a compulsory second language and the non-native nations and the governments have to adapt their understandings and opinions about this language.

In order to ascertain the role of English language in our time and juxtapose the diversity of perspectives and discussions about the spread of English language, Pennycook (2000) describes six frameworks of comparisons:

The first framework is colonial celebratory in which the flourishing spread of English language is regarded highly good and necessary for all people. Laissez-faireliberalism is the other framework in which the language is not idolized and people have the freedom to choose to learn it or not. The third is linguistic imperialism by which English language is constituted as colonizing and homogenizing the minorities, depriving them from their identity and culture and languages. The forth framework is language ecology and language rights as stated by Van lier (2004), the language should be adopted and modified with respect to realities of the adopting context at the same time emphasizing the idea that human rights should be prioritized and the spread of English language should abide with them. In the fifth framework Linguistic hybridity is concerned about this reality that there are many English languages which can co-exist under the umbrella of world Englishes. The last one and the backbone of the current research is postcolonial performativity insisting that,  in the postmodern era in coordination between local and global forces the resistance and appropriation of English language are integrated as the accepted norm useful for periphery communities without encumbering their entrance into global community.

2. Postmodernism and post-method
In addition to the contrary view points about English language itself, the notion of language teaching methods also has gone through laudable and turbulent changes. Once regarded as highly trustworthy and efficient and their proponents were in the search for the best method with a universal claim, cookie-cutter approach, based on scientific disciplines and teacher’s proof (Fahim & Pishghadam, 2009) but nowadays methods are thought to be highly controversial which not only deprive teachers of their creativity but the language learners of their learning strategies and the context of its local features and characteristics (Hall, 2011).

According to Finch (2010) the new initiative movements happing in ELT are the direct consequences of postmodernism with these main characteristics:

i. Crossing of borders (breaking down of barriers)
ii. De-colonization (diversification and regionalism)
iii. Decentralization (lateral, rather than hierarchical decision-making)
iv. Deconstruction (questioning traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth)
v. Eclecticism (the borrowing and mixing of features from different systems and fields)
vi. Pastiche (imitating the previous works of others, often with satirical intent)
vii. Relativism (conceptions of time, space, truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them).
viii. Self-contradiction (duplicity; the conscious making of self-undermining statements).
ix. Self-reference and self-reflexiveness (use of meta-language and self-constructing forms)(p, 5).

Based on Hall (2011), postmodernism regards reality as a fragmented concept and personal identity as unstable, affected and changed by variety of cultural and social factors. Hutcheon (1989) considers postmodern's initial feature as to de-naturalize many of uncritically accepted concepts of our way of life like capitalism, patriarchy, and liberal humanism and regards them as  'cultural' - made by us, not given to us. Even the concept of culture is different in postmodernism, while culture in modernism is relatively stable and rigid to changes, in postmodernism they are realities of every society and vastly diverse. As Misha (2005) implies that permanent and irreducible pluralism of cultures, communal traditions, ideologies, is the main asset of postmodernism and as they are plural they cannot be arranged in an evolutionary format, one being inferior or superior to the others or classified as right or wrong solutions to our problems.

Out-dating modernism and bringing in new trends in almost all branches of literature, science and technology, postmodernism has its own implications in the field of ELT, including the six deaths according to Finch(2010) which are: the death of native speaker: the idea that there are other newly developed acceptable accents and pronunciations acceptable. The death of structuralism believing in the idea that learning language is for communication rather than translation and grammar. The death of the teacher: The advent of student centered class and teaching based on learner's needs put an end to teacher dominated education. The death of imperialism: the time of colonialism is over and we are in globalization era in which there is different voices to be heard. The death of method: the search for the ideal method suitable for all times and all learners in all places is over. The death of EFL: English language has gained new status as international and ligua Franca language it is not foreign language any more but the international language.

Kumaravadivelu (2006) believing in the end of methods and the new era of sailing in uncharted waters for ELT as a profession, considers postmethod not as the dead end of ELT but just a new millennium for ELT to venture beyond methods by adopting three main guide lines for post-method conditions: the first is that instead of continuously searching for the alternative method we are looking for an alternative for method. The second guideline is the autonomy for teacher in which he is the one who based on the context of teaching designs a theory and can approve or reject it. The last one is principled pragmatism which conceives how self observation, self-analysis, and self-evaluation on behalf of the teacher can shape and reshape classroom learning.

Growing competition for dominance is another feature of postmodernism among variety of forces and method and its rivalry postmethod are not exceptions in this era. With this idea in mind postmodernism cannot be understood as the closure and an end to method but an appreciation and understanding of the limitations and pitfalls of method and replacing them with newly developed postmethod solutions to transcend these obstacles. Believing in this feature of postmodernism, Bell (2005) comments that method and postmethod in a struggle against each other and in a complementary influencing atmosphere can liberate ELT in practical aspects.

Postmethod is considered to be the era of replacement in which teacher centered education is replaced by learner-centered one. While in teacher centered education knowledge is transmitted from teacher to learner and he is passive, but in student- centered education, students construct knowledge actively by gathering and synthesizing. In student-centered system teaching and assessments are together while in teacher-centered they are separated and the class atmosphere instead of collaborations and supportive is competitive and individualistic (Huba & Freed 2000).

Another main inspirational asset of postmethod should be mentioned as teacher –liberating movement by which pedagogy is not divided between theory providers and theory appliers (Larsen-freeman, 2005a). Since in method era teachers were just the enforcing power of the theoretical methods provided by linguistics and out-of context professionals they had nothing to do about the bases of their practice,  but postmodernism smashed great theories and let teachers theorize from their teaching and teach based on their theories (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

According to Kumaravadivelu (1994) postmodernism is regarded as the initiating of postmethod era in ELT in which very big changes beginning to revolutionize the whole field of language teaching and learning leading to the concrete belief that unless we break the entangling web of method we would look for the unavailable ideal method for the rest of ELT life.

3. Pedagogic parameters of postmethod
As stated by Kumaravadivelu (2006), postmethod conditions bravely encourage us to reconsider every aspect of ELT which we think can be affected by learner and learning context, so all of the parameters of postmethod can be summarized in three dimensions as the pedagogic parameters of postmethod which are: Particularity, practicality and possibility

The parameter of particularity: Particularity is regarded as the cornerstone of postmethod pedagogy by Kumaravadivelu believing that every pedagogy belonging to postmethod era "must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular socio-cultural milieu" (Kumaravadivelu,2006, p. 538).It is in a sharp contradiction with this aspect of method-based teaching which considers the same teaching materials for different teaching context and different learners without recognizing the variety of other specific affecting factors.

The parameter of practicality: This parameter outlines the relationship between teaching and the theory of teaching and is closely related to the sense of plausibility (Prabhu, 1990) that teacher may have of his teaching in the actual class. In a nutshell this parameter is what Hall (2011) mentions "The superiority of theorists over teachers is broken, with teachers encouraged to theorize from their practices and put in to practice their own theories"(p. 100).

The parameter of possibility: The reality that to what extent our understanding of ourselves and our society and the world we live in are actually affected by the language we speak or the language we learn has been a concern of sociopolitical aspect of ELT in postmethod era, the idea that language shapes the power relationships and social structures of its given society.

4. New era: new language learners
Learners in postmethod era are regarded the unique individuals with unique learning styles, in postmethod time they are allowed to explore their learning cognitive styles in order to learn better so they have to recognize their learning strategies and styles in order to know their strong points and weak points as language learners. They should improving their language learning skills by applying those of the successful ones and look for suitable opportunities to be additionally exposed to language beyond what they get in the classroom, for example, through library resources, movies, magazines, social networks like face-book, Internet. They have to have a strong drive to communicate and collect information on a specific project they are working on; and benefit from opportunities to communicate with competent users of the language (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Kim & Axelord, 2007; Hall, 2011; Dӧrnyei, 2009; Ponniah, 2009; Brown, 2007).

5. New era: new language teachers
The main roles and responsibilities given to language teachers and language teacher trainers can be as: helping learners improve bottom up peacemaking through even distribution of power and respecting learners’ role and culture as accepted ones (Finch,  2004).Using his-her prior as well as potential knowledge and work autonomously in applying these in the contexts of restrictions and limitations imposed by different schools and institutions Kumaravadivelu (2006).Trying to be reflective on what he teaches and the weak and strong points of his teaching and their reasons (Richards 2003).Embarking on new approaches and strategies of teaching in order to adopt continual process of self-development and believing in learners autonomy and adapting his teaching on the principles leading to it(Benson, 2001).Believing in the principle that teaching is socially- constrained activity in which local, social and cultural and many other factors and values determine what is suitable to be taught or not (Hall, 2009), and at last respecting and accepting the learner diversity and their learning strategies and avoiding an all-inclusive package for the whole class as stated in Hall (2011).

Believing in the idea that ELT cannot be context-neutral, numerous contextual factors based on Stern (1983) are regarded influential like: linguistic factors, whether English is already being used within the learner's local, regional or national community. Socio-cultural factors showing perceived economic, political and cultural status of English language. Historical-political factors reflect any shifts made in political and governmental language policies towards British Empire and imperialism or USA. Geographical factors are closeness or remoteness of a given English learning environment to Britain, USA and European countries and so on. Economic and technological developments illuminating the degree of English language affecting development of a country, the cost of ELT materials and technological equipment and the society's being affluent or impoverished, and at last educational factors are elements like school age at which learners start language learning, the role of other languages, number of hours tuition in the schools, teachers educational background and experience of teaching.

Postmethod has recently been a research topic in Iranian context. Akbari (2008) concludes that in order to stop monolithic approach of methods, future guide lines of ELT should be established based on ethnographical features and real life of the classrooms. Atai & Gheitanchian (2009) arrived at these final points that there were no meaningful relationships between language teachers' positive or negative view on postmethod teaching and their students' achievements. Akbari & Moradkhani (2010) suggest that highly experienced teachers are more successful in managing learner-centered ELT and Ghaffar & Davari (2011) in their research found that imperialistic approach to English language in Iran and its implications like native-like accent and being worried about cultural threats it can have for native culture is still dominant.

Accepting context-sensitivity as the backbone of postmethod pedagogy (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Finch, 2010) language schools are inseparable part of socio-cultural context and the idea of ecology of language learning and teaching proposed by Van lier (2004) reflect this principle of postmethod era. Since most recent studies concerning postmethod in Iran were done in governmental language schools or university classes, and never studied teachers' variables and their relationships with their approach to teaching in private language institutes as the main sector of English education in Iran (Gorjian, 2006; Riazi & Mosalanejad, 2010; Ghorbani, 2010), the current study approached ELT in Iranian context from this point of view.

6. Methodology
In order to illuminate the relationship between method or postmethod approach to teaching and teachers' gender and fields of study and teaching experience, EFL teachers in non-governmental language institutes were identified out of the total population of EFL teachers in East and West Azerbaijan provinces of Iran. A total of 250 questionnaires were administered through face to face contact, Email and language institutes' administration and 162 were filled out, thus, the response rate to them was 64%.

6.1 Research questions
With these in mind the following research questions were put forward in the quantitative part of the study through a questionnaire:

Q1. Is there any meaningful relationship between EFL teachers' gender and their method or postmethod approach to teaching in Iranian private institutes?
Q2. Is there any meaningful relationship between EFL teachers' teaching experience and their method or postmethod approach to teaching in Iranian private institutes?
Q3. Is there any meaningful relationship between EFL teachers' fields of study and their method or postmethod approach to teaching in ELT in Iranian private institutes?
Based on the research questions three null-hypotheses were put forward

 

6.2 Participants
The participants of this survey aged from 21 to 55, they shared two different linguistic and cultural backgrounds namely Kurdish and Turkish but they all were quite fluent in Persian as the official language commonly used in Iran .They were  from West and East Azerbaijan provinces from cities of Uremia,  Bokan,  Khoy, Mahabad,  Salmas and Tabriz.

Table1. Characteristics of participants

 

 

Number of teacher

Gender

male

74

female

88

Experience

1-3 years

54

More than 3years

108

Fields of study

English teaching

78

English literature

48

Other fields

36

Educational
qualifications

MA

66

BA

94

PhD

2

6.3 Instruments and procedure
In order to elicit information on the relationships between method or postmethod approach to teaching and factors of teachers' gender, fields of study and at last teaching experience a questionnaire was constructed and reviewed several times. For this purpose item pool was designed based on a thoroughly studying of the most relevant and up-to date literature review of postmethod pedagogy and the items were discussed one-by- one with the supervisor and advisor of the research and sent to a well know researcher in this field, Dr. Finch, for his comments on its validity, subsequently the items were put into a three-section questionnaire and the pilot study was done. Subsequently necessary revisions were made to make problematic items easier to understand and it was decided to allow teachers to answer to the questions in Persian as piloting indicated some teachers had difficulty in expressing themselves in English. For its validity the experts’ views were used (4 university lectures commented on it) and for reliability Cronbach Alpha coefficient was measured using SPSS as 0.738 which according to Dӧrnyei (2007) was good. The instruments in a booklet, containing a page on the main principles and guide lines of postmethod and the purpose of the study and a request for participants, were distributed and data were collected over a 7-week period.

 

 

6.4 Material and data analysis
The results of the questionnaire were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package. The attending teachers who had answered open-ended questions were numerically coded and the answers were subjected to content analysis, collected data were interpreted. Frequencies of occurrence of ideas were counted and recurring responses of different participants were noted. In this study data was collected by means of a questionnaire and three open- ended questions. To explore the first, second and third research questions the analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and the statistical procedures like t-test and ANOVA were applied. For descriptive statistics participants' reflections were analyzed qualitatively and tables and pie-charts were designed alongside with frequencies of the answers and percentages of them in relation to the others.

7. Results
First research question: relationship between method or postmethod approach to teaching and teachers gender.


Group Statistics

 

learning

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

teaching

male

61

1.1259E2

19.84051

2.54032

female

63

1.1365E2

14.08403

1.77442

 

Independent Samples Test

 

 

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

 

 

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

teaching

Equal variances assumed

4.028

.047

-.344

122

.731

-1.06063

3.08210

Equal variances not assumed

 

 

-.342

107.961

.733

-1.06063

3.09867

Since in t-test results, if the p-value for the t is more than 0.05, it means that there is not a significant difference between the two groups. However, if the p-value is less than 0.05, it means that there is a significant difference between the two groups.

The result of the t-test shows that there is not any significant difference between the two gender groups: t (122) = -0.344; p > 0.05.
Therefore, the null hypothesis of lack of difference between the two gender groups with regard to postmodernism is accepted.

Second research question was to ascertain any meaningful relationship between teachers' experience and their approach to teaching in terms of method or postmethod.

Group Statistics

 

learning

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

 

1 to 3 years

43

1.1674E2

20.08446

3.06285

more than 3 years

83

1.1130E2

14.92888

1.63866

Independent Samples Test

 

 

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

 

 

F

Sig.

t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

teaching

Equal variances assumed

3.617

.041

1.719

124

.051

5.44298

3.16651

Equal variances not assumed

 

 

1.567

66.686

.122

5.44298

3.47365

Since the p-value for the t-test is 0.05, the null hypothesis of the lack of difference between the two groups is rejected: t(124) = 1.719; p = 0.05.

Based on the analytical referential teachers with more than three years  experience were more postmethod in their approach to language teaching,  but since p=.051their differences cannot be that much high and it can be affected by many other factors affecting the results.

The third research question was going to make clear the relationship between teachers' method or postmethod approach to teaching and their fields of study.
Based on analytical inferential and the p-value for the F ratio of 0.563 is 0.571. If the p-value of F is more than 0.05, F is not statistically significant. In other words, the results of the ANOVA analysis show that there is not a significant difference among the three fields of study because the p-value is more than 0.05:   F (2, 121) = 0.563; p > 0.05.so the third null hypothesis is approved.

ANOVA

teaching

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

Between Groups

331.309

2

165.655

.563

.571

Within Groups

35620.626

121

294.385

 

 

Total

35951.935

123

 

 

 

8. Discussion

The preceding analysis of the data gathered through a questionnaire indicates the status quo of teaching in private language institutes in Iran. Although our findings may not be readily generalisable to other parts of the country due to many factors like the number of participants little differences are expected. The following discussion will consider research questions one by one.

Although the current research showed that more experienced teachers were more towards postmethod teaching, their superiority was not that much high. Based on other researches done in the Iranian context, too the findings can ratify that in our context experience is not accompanied with knowledge and self study or being aware of up-to-date ELT literature and TESOL courses offered in universities in BA and MA levels or in-service educational workshops in language institutes failed to narrow down the gap between ELT in practice and in theory as stated in Hashemi (2011). ELT in Iran is too much field dependent, with its less confidant teachers not able to change their old and out of date teaching methods, because of barriers they face in language institutes or even learners who have experienced learning in traditional ways in other subjects in addition to English language classes. At last the teaching context of private and governmental language schools, in which the teaching atmosphere is standstill with no need on behalf of teachers to make changes or feel the necessity of them (Hazratzad  & Gheitanchian, 2009), are very much alike and teachers have just changed the textbooks not teaching strategies.

Postmethod or method driven language teaching and teachers' gender: the finding of the current research indicated no meaningful relations between method or postmethod to teaching and teacher's gender and it is with the same line with the initiation of gender-neutral education systems or equal-gender education of postmethod era. Postmodernism as the revolutionary movement against what was regarded as traditional and stereotyped systems, preferring one gender over the other, has specialized no priorities or advantages for any of the genders. In the review of literature of its main proponents like Kumaravadivelu (2003b, 2006); Finch (2010);Brown (2007); Richards (2003b) have never preferred one gender over the other and it seems certain that male and female teachers are regarded as the equal agents of postmethod era.

Method or postmethod approach to teaching and teachers' fields of study was dealt with in the third research question. The data analysis revealed that there was no difference between the main academically English language related ones (teaching and literature) and the other fields of study. These possible explanations look reasonable that because just like the ministerial educational systems, private language institutes are equally rigid and whatever major the teachers have does not make any difference since they all have to accept the dominant teaching of the schools and abide with them. May be the pre-service or in service courses like TESOL, TEFL in universities or workshops in language schools have not had that  much influence on their graduates to change their attitudes toward teaching in postmethod era and although there may have been postmethod theoretically presented in the pre-service or TESOL –TEFL courses in universities in our country but the actual teaching in the universities is still teacher centered and method like one, so how can method based teaching result in postmethod one as mentioned in Hashemi (2011).  Educational culture as stated in Akbari (2008) in our country is still in method era despite theoretically entered postmethod, but we have a long way to make theories practical.

The last point to be reiterated here is that the researchers  are aware of this point that the findings of this study are just teachers' beliefs and ideas rather than what actually happened in the real classroom so it cannot be easily generalized as the real teaching in our context,  but at least for the pedagogical implications the study can support the principle of providing gender-neutral policies in hiring teaching staff and that when it comes to teaching experience the slogan of 'the more, the better' should be handled cautiously and even teachers' educational background cannot guarantee their approach to teaching based on newly developed criteria.

9. Conclusion
ELT like many other fields of science and technology is going through lots of unpredictable changes and postmethod as the eminent result of postmodernism in ELT has given it enough power and incitement to pass through barriers and make it as more needs- based and context sensitive as possible, since it cannot be neutral to the realities of different context.In the light of the findings of the current study which was carried out in Iranian non-governmental language institutes, it can be concluded that teachers' method or postmethod approach to teaching has no correlation with teachers' gender and teachers' educational background but the same findings revealed that highly experienced teachers had a little more postmethod approach to teaching although their superiority was not as higher as expected. In its passage towards postmethod principles as this survey studied ELT has weak points and strong points as well. Globalization, industrialization, cross-cultural communications and social networks like internet, face-book can be regarded as the pushing forces of postmethod ahead, but traditional and method based education not only of teachers' but of students' and unrealistic language policy of governments can be regarded as pulling postmethod approach to teaching backwards. Postmethod has proposed that no grand theory can provide the needs and demands of every locality in every time and as this study achieved, in order to make it practical not only the teachers but also all related sectors like teacher education system, government language policies, language institutes strategies have to adapt themselves with it since it defies any top-down imposed strategies but accepts the realities of bottom–up pedagogies and what happens in real classes. The complex picture presented here is sufficient to suggest further research in practical aspects of postmethod pedagogy.

References
Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL QUARTERLY 42, 641-652.
Atai, M.R.,& Gheitanchian, M. (2009).EFL teachers’ attitudes towards post-method pedagogy and their students’ achievement.Journal of Education, 4(4), 115-130.
Akbari, R., & Moradkhani, S. (2010). Iranian English teachers’ self-efficacy: do academic degree and experience make a difference? Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 56, 25-47.
Bell, D. (2005).Method and postmethod: are they really so incompatible?TESOL QUARTERLY, 37, 325-336.
Benson, P. (2001). Autonomy in language learning. Harlow:Longman.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5thEd) NY: Pearson Education.
Dӧrnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.
Dӧrnyei, Z. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edward Finch, A. (2004). Peace begins in the classroom. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 8, 219-223.
Edward Finch, A. (2010). The Postmodern language teacher: The future of task-based teaching. Retrieved July 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.finchpark.com/arts/PostmodernLanguageTeacher.pdf
Fahim, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2009).Postmodernism and English language teaching.IJALS, 1, 27-54.
Ghaffar,S.,&Hossein, D. (2011). Liberalist or ala alarmist: Iranian ELT community's attitude to mainstream ELT vs. critical ELT. TESOL Journal, 5, 63-91.
Ghorbani,  R.M. (2010).ELT in Iranian high schools in Iran, Malaysia and Japan.Reflections on English Language Teaching, 8, 131–139.
Gorjian, B. (2006). Instructors’ variables and teaching English as a foreign language. Retrieved July 12, 2011, fromhttp://www.isatt.org/ISATT-papers/ISATT-papers/Gorjian_Instructors variables and teaching English as a foreign Language.pdf
Hall, G. (2009).Thinking locally: addressing the dilemmas raised by critical pedagogy in ELT. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http://www.developingteachers.com/articlestraining/criticalpedagogy_graham.htm
Hall, G. (2011).Exploring English language teaching. London: Routledge.
Hashemi, M. R. (2011). (Post)-Methodism: possibility of the impossible? Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2, 137-145.
Hazratzad, A., & Gheitanchian, M. (2010).EFL teachers’ attitudes towards post-method pedagogy and their students’ achievement. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from                 http://dbe.metu.edu.tr/convention/proceedingsweb/Attitudes.pdf

 

 

centered vs. learner-centered paradigms. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http://assessment.uconn.edu/docs/TeacherCenteredVsLearnerCenteredParadigms .pdf
Hutcheon, L. (1989). The politics of postmodernism. London: Routledge.
Kim, T., and Axelrod, S. (2005). Direct instruction: an educator’s guide and a plea for action. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6, 111–120.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994).The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for second/ foreign language teaching. TESOLQuarterly, 28, 27–48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22, 539–550.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Larson-Freeman,  D. (2005a).A critical analysis of postmethod.ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1,21-25.
Misha. G,  D. (2005). Bauman’s (post)modernism and globalization, geographical approaches. Retrieved July 12, 2011,fromhttp://socgeo.ruhosting.nl/html/files/geoapp/Werkstukken/Bauman.pdf
Pennycook, A. (2000)English, politics, ideology: From colonial celebration to postcolonial performativity. In Ideology, politics, and language policies..Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
Ponniah, R. J. (2009). What do we need to acquire a second language? Modern journal of applied linguistics 1, No.3.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method -why? TESOL QUARTERLY, 24, No. 2.
Ramanujam, M. (2011) Language policy in education and the role of English in India: from library language to language of empowerment. British Council. Paper4. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from
http://www.britishcouncil.org/dreams and realities
Riazi, M., & Mosalanejad, N. (2010). Evaluation of learning objectives in Iranian high-school and pre-university English textbooks using bloom’s taxonomy. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language.13, 1-16.
Richards, J. C. (2003). Communicative Language Teaching Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van lier, L.  (2004). The semiotics and ecology of Language Learning. Utbildning & Drmokrati, 13, 79-103

 

Appendix A. English version of the questionnaire

*   Only your sincere answers can help reach clear research results.
*   Draw under the title that matches your personal opinion.

*   SA = Strongly Agree   A= Agree   NO=have no opinion   D=disagree   SD= strongly disagree

**** AGE:
****TEACHING EXPERIENCE: 1-3YEARS □             MORE THAN 3 YEARS □
****GENDER: FEMALE □          MALE □
****FIELD OF STUDY: TEACHING ENGLISH □           OTHER FIELDS □
Academic Qualification:   BA □    MA □     PhD □

*   SA = Strongly Agree   A= Agree   NO=have no opinion   D=disagree SD= strongly disagree


SD

D

NO

A

SA

In the English language learning process …

A

 

 

 

 

 

language knowledge is transmitted from teacher to learner.

1

 

 

 

 

 

the purpose of language knowledge is to address enduring and emerging issues in real life contexts.

2

 

 

 

 

 

the teacher should encourage the learners to use language for international communications through Internet, face book, email … 

3

 

 

 

 

 

teaching and learning are closely related and the goal of assessment is to promote and diagnose learning.

4

 

 

 

 

 

rather than ‘right answers’, the emphasis should be on generating better questions and learning from errors.

5

 

 

 

 

 

desired language learning is assessed indirectly through the use of objectively scored tests.

6

 

 

 

 

 

teacher and learner learn together.

7

 

 

 

 

 

the goal of teaching is to cover the regulations and the policies of  the language institute and the contents of the course books.

8

 

 

 

 

 

learner errors should be welcomed by teachers.

9

 

 

 

 

 

the learning atmosphere should be individualistic and based on competition for grades.

10

 

 

 

 

 

the language learner should be an active  constructor of knowledge instead of a passive receiver.

11

 

 

 

 

 

the goal of a language course is to help language learners master learning objectives.

12

 

 

 

 

 

courses or programs should be able to change formatively due to learners’ needs and learning conditions.

13

 

 

 

 

 

there should be opportunities for learners to pursue their personal interests in language classes.

14

 

 

 

 

 

the teacher should adopt the same teaching strategies for different groups of learners.

15

 

 

SD

 

D

 

NO

 

A

 

SA

 

The English language teacher has gained a new status in the time of postmodern globalization, Internet, cross-cultural communication. I personally believe that the English language teacher….

B

 

 

 

 

 

can help crossing over misunderstandings and barriers on communication between different cultures.

1

 

 

 

 

 

should consider differences as good and desirable among language learners.

2

 

 

 

 

 

is the only source of language knowledge.

3

 

 

 

 

 

should apply learners' opinions in decision making processes in the class.

4

 

 

 

 

 

encourages group work, social learning and stops aggressive individualized competitions.

5

 

 

 

 

 

can be at the same status as native speaker teacher.

6

 

 

 

 

 

teaches English from a wide variety of resources like movies, music, Internet and works of art.

7

 

 

 

 

 

teaches about local cultures as well as target/L2 culture through English language.

8

 

 

 

 

 

gives learners a kind of autonomy in using learning strategies and trust in themselves in the learning process

9

 

 

 

 

 

believes that everyone with whatever abilities can learn English language.

10

 

 

 

 

 

has his/her theories of teaching and tests them in his teaching and may change them.

11

 

 

 

 

 

pays more attention to his priorities or language institute's policies and less to learners' needs

12

 

 

 

 

 

teaches different learners differently.

13

 

 

 

 

 

tries to teach four skills at the same time not separately.

14

 

 

 

 

 

includes teaching vocabulary and grammar in a relevant and meaningful context.

15

 

 

 

 

 

accepts that language learning can be affected by social, cultural and emotional factors.

16

 

 

 

 

 

is aware of latest findings in fields on psycholinguistics, language acquisition and ELT journals.

17

 

 

 

 

 

helps learners feel responsible in the learning process and encourages them to learn by themselves.

18

 

 

 

 

 

makes sure that what he/she teaches is socially important for learners.

19

 

 

 

 

 

thinks globally but teaches locally by trying to adapt global theories to local differences.

20

 

 

SD

 

D

 

NO

 

A

 

SA

English language as lingua franca/International language in today's world….

c

 

 

 

 

 

empowers multiculturalism and cross-cultural communication.

1

 

 

 

 

 

in many countries has its own unique and acceptable characteristics like accent.       

2

 

 

 

 

 

is still the language of native speakers.

3

 

 

 

 

 

never makes any changes in personal life and character of learner.

4

 

 

 

 

 

is the language of globalization instead of colonialization.

5

 

 

 

 

 

helps learner be in higher position when it comes to education and job hunting even in our country.

6

 

 

 

 

 

can help society move towards democracy and human rights through cross-cultural communication encouragement.

7

 

 

 

 

 

is necessary to be learned by every one not just students or immigrants.

8

 

 

 

 

 

has lots of resources for learning like Internet, pop-culture like movies and music,…, etc.

9

 

 

 

 

 

can be used to express local cultures as well as global cultures.

10

 

 

 

 

 

helps minority groups have a voice in international society, away from discrimination and domination of imposed languages and cultures.

11

 

 

 

 

 

emphasizes the role of teacher more than the role of learner in learning process.

12

 

 

 

 

 

has a lot to do with what happens outside the class like society, culture.

13

 

 

 

 

 

should be recognized as the official second language of every country.

14

 

 

 

 

 

affects the social identity of the learner and the teacher.

15

 

 

 

 

 

has to be limited to protect national identity, sovereignty and language.

16

 

 

 

 

 

is for communicative competence rather than imposing one language on the whole world.

17

 

 

 

 

 

has cultural and linguistic threat to mother tongue of learners and teacher should be aware of it.

18

 

 

 

 

 

has ignored the culture and socioeconomic situation of learners especially in textbooks.

19

 

 

 

 

 

has been used as a device for dominating the world by a few countries.

20

Hits: 3670

©2011 Modern Journal of Language Teaching  Methods Official Website All rights reserved.