The Familiarity of EFL Teachers with Post-Method: Considering their Field of Study


1 Instructor Staff Member of Tabriz University, Tabriz

2 Researcher in English Language Teaching, International Officer inUniversity of Tabriz

3 Assistant Professor Researcher in English Language Teaching, International Officer in University of Tabriz


One important light in which to perceive the pendulum swings of the world of language teaching is the waning of the concept of method and its replacement by Kumaravadivelu’s post-method pedagogy, which is free from the constraints of methods. For several years, researchers working on the familiarity of EFL teachers with Post-method and its role in second and foreign language learners’ productions have pointed out that the opportunity to plan for a task generally contributes to language learners’ development. Such a post-method thinking has yet to find some prominent place with language teaching practitioners. This study principally sets out to explore any correlation between the field of study taught and the teachers’ attitudes towards the post-method strategies at hand today. 131 teachers from an English language institute located in Tabriz, Iran (i.e. Faseleh) were selected as participants. The attitudes of language teachers towards the Post-Method condition were assessed via a questionnaire which consisted of two main parts: the first part tapped into the participants’ personal information, and the second part included some questions on a 5- point Likert scale about the role of Post Method, their familiarity with it, and how it impacted their teaching and learning. The findings support the hypothesis that language teachers’ knowledge and awareness of post-method seems to play out as an important factor in their teaching, while they also carry certain pedagogical and theoretical implications in second language teaching as well as relevance to second language learning assessment.


Article Title [Persian]

آشنایی مدرسان زبان انگلیسی ایرانی با روش پست متد با در نظر گرفتن رشته تحصیلی انها

Authors [Persian]

  • میر حبیب ابولالائی 1
  • جعفر پورصالحی 2
  • یاسر حدیدی 3
1 مدرس زبان انگلیسی دانشگاه تبریز
2 مدرس زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه علوم انتظامی تبریز
3 استادیار زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه علوم انتظامی تبریز
Abstract [Persian]

یکی از مهمترین چشم اندازها برای درک برابری دنیای تدریس زبان با مفهوم روش و جایگزینی آن روش پست متد کوماراوادیول می باشد که فارغ از روشهای محدود می باشد. سالها محققان بر روی آشنایی معلمان زبان انگلیسی نسبت به روش پست متد و نقش آن در تولیدات زبان آموزان زبان های خارجی  فعالیت کرده اند که فرصت هایی را برای برنامه ریزی  جهت رشد فراگیری زبان انگلیسی فراهم آورده اند. این تحقیق بررسی همبستگی ما بین رشته تحصیلی تدریس شده و دیدگاه معلمان نسبت به استراتژی های پست متد  را برعهده گرفته است. 131 مدرس زبان انگلیسی از آموزشگاه زبان انگلیسی فاصله در تبریز انتخاب شدند و مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند که از طریق پرسشنامه انجام گرفت. یافته های موجود در تحقیق حاضر فرضیه موجود در دانش مدرسان زبان انگلیسی در تحقیق حاضر را حمایت و پشتیبانی میکند آنطور که فاکتورمهمی در تدریس آنها ایفا میکند. در حالیکه آنها کاربردهای تئوری و اموزشی را در تدریس زبان انگلیسی مرتبط با ارزیابی یادگیری زبان ایفا میکند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • روس تدریس
  • دوره پسا-روش تدریس
  • معلم زبان خارجه
  • رشته تحصیلی
Alijani, L. (2012). Meta-discourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers. Unpublished MA thesis. Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

Al-Jadidi, H. (2009). The discourses and tales of Hong Kong scholars seeking research grant: A study in professional expertise. City University of Hong Kong.

Argyris, H., & Schön, J. (1974). Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3),185-203.

Auerbach, M. F. (1993). Going against the grain in literary Studies: An analysis of boosters, hedges and other rhetorical strategies in the pilgrimage of dorothy richardson by Joanne Winning. University of Vigo.

Baker, G. (2008). Planning and inter-language variation. Studies in Second Longuage Acquisition, 11(3),367-383.

Barcelos, A. (2000). Building models of adult second-language writing instruction. Learning and Instruction, 10, 55-71.

Batstone, F., & Ellis, R. (2009). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Borg, M. (2003). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23−48). Harlow, England: Longman.

Brown, P. (2001). Planning and inter-language variation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11 (3), 367-383.

Brown, P. (2000). Strategies in learning and using a second language. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Brown, G. and George, Y. (1998). Teaching the Spoken Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cortazzi, D., & Jin, J. (1999). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 61 (Supplement 1), 73-99.

Daniels, S. M., & Perry, A. (2003). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Davis, G. (2003). Strangers in inter-language communication. London: Longman.

Dekeyser, J. (1995). Task-based language learning and teaching. Frankfurt is Main: Lang.

Eisner, F. (1985). Task-based language learning and teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2006). Inter-language variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1−20.

Ellis, R. (2005). Planning and task-based performance: Theory and research. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 3−34). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Fitch, J. L. (2004). Student feedback in the college classroom: a technology solution. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52, 171–181.

Hashemi, D., Long, M., & Krapels, A. R. (2013). An overview of second language writing process research. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37–56). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hu, L. (2002). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, p. 93.

Hussain, A. (2009). Gender & Hedging: From sex differences to situated practice. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 87-96.

Kagan, L. (1992). Hedging in college research papers: Implications for language instruction. Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines.

Kashefian-Naeeini, S.,  SadatMousavi, H., &  Salehi, H. (2011). Teaching in Post-method Era. Unpublished MA thesis. Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

Kinichi, S. (2004). Epistemic modality in English popular scientific texts and their German translations. Berlin: Mont de Grutyer. 

Krashen, D. W. (1982). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Popular culture, schooling and everyday life. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Long, U.  (2003). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 474-509.

Long, U. (1989). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 26, 59–84.

MacBeath, E. (1999). Gender, power, discipline & context: On the sociolinguistic variation of okay, right, like and you know in English academic discourse. Unpublished MA thesis.  University of Michigan.

Marc, I., & Melerdiercks, V. (2005). A contrastive analysis of the use of modal verbs in the expression of epistemic stance in business management research articles in English and Spanish. Unpublished MA thesis. Universidad de Zaragoza, Spin. 

Miles, L. (2004). A framework for comparing evaluation resources across academic texts. Text and Talk, 28(6), 749-769.

Nassaji, L., & Fotos, G. (2004). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 7, 133−161.

Nunan, M. (2004).Classrooms with Wi-Fi. T.H.E. Journal, 30(14), 17–20.

Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2033). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1991). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón (Ed), Syntax and semantics: Discourse and semantics (pp. 234-250). New York: Academic Press.

Pajares, N. (1992). The effects of planning and self-efficacy on EFL learners’ written performance. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(9), 19-32.

Partee, N., & Lightbown, P. (1996). Instruction and the development of questions in the L2 classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15, 205−221.

Pederson, A. (2003). A socio-linguistic study of the classical British sitcom faulty towers. Unpublished MA thesis. Department of Humanities, English C, Linguistics. Mid-Sweden University.

Pennycook, E. (1989). How to explore academic writing from meta-discourse as an integrated framework of interpersonal meaning: three perspectives of analysis. Unpublished MA thesis. Universidad de Zaragoza (Spain).

Prabhu, S. (1990). The effects of on-line and pre-task planning on descriptive writing of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 274-277.

Richards, M. (2003). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’ writing processes. In S. Ransdell, & M. L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Dordrecht, TheNetherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Richards, M. J. (1990). Task based instruction. Language Teaching, 36(1), 1-14.

Rudduck, J., &Flutter, L. (2000). Critical examination of L2 writing process research. In S. Ransdell, & M., L. Barbier (Eds.), New directionsfor research in L2 writing (pp. 11–48). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Stern 1983, p. 456.

Schumann, N. (1978). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 29-41.

Skehan, P. (1996a). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.

Skehan, P. (1996b). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Smith, L. (1996). Effects of prewriting discussions on adult ESL students’ compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 147.

Stern, N. (1991). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–675.

Stephens, M. (2005). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. J. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64−81). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stern, N. (1983). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.

Veugelers, G., &de Kat, C. (2002). An investigation of effectiveness and validity of planning time in speaking test tasks. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7, 1−24.

Weaver, K., & Nilson, U. (2005). The effects of different lengths of time for planning on second language performance. Snuiies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 83-108.

Williams, S., & Burden, M. (1997). The influence of pretask instructions and pretask planning on learners’ focus on form during task-based interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

Willis, J., & Willis, K. (2007). Communicative language testing: Revolution or evolution? In C. Bnimfit, & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach rulongüage teaching (pp. 231-250).Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yim, V. (1993). Composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–177.

Young, J. R. (2006). The Wght for classroom attention: Professor vs. laptop. Chronicle of Higher Education (June 2), A27–A29.

Yu, F. (1986). The effects of planning on language production in task-based language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.