Authors

1 Staff member of Tabriz University, Tabriz,

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

3 Assistant Professor English Department Faculty of Farsi Literature University of Tabriz

Abstract

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. One hundred and thirt one 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 that 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.
 

Keywords

Article Title [Persian]

آشنایی مدرسان زبان انگلیسی ایرانی با پست متد: با درنظر گیری رشته تحصیلی آنها

Authors [Persian]

  • میر حبیب عبدالهی 1
  • جعفر پور صالحی 2
  • یاس حدیدی 3

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه تبریز ، تبریز ،

2 پژوهش در آموزش زبان انگلیسی ، دفتر بین المللی دانشگاه تبریز ، تبریز

3 استادیار گروه انگلیسی زبان دانشکده ادبیات فارسی تبریز

Abstract [Persian]

مهمی که در آن می توان نوسانات آونگ دنیای آموزش زبان را درک کرد ، کم رنگ شدن مفهوم روش و جایگزینی آن توسط آموزش پسا روش Kumaravadivelu است که عاری از محدودیت روش هاست. برای چندین سال ، محققانی که روی آشنایی معلمان EFL با روش پسا و نقش آن در تولیدات زبان دوم و خارجی زبان آموزان کار می کنند ، خاطرنشان کرده اند که فرصت برنامه ریزی برای یک کار به طور کلی به پیشرفت زبان آموزان کمک می کند. چنین طرز تفکر پسا متنی هنوز جایگاه برجسته ای را برای مربیان آموزش زبان پیدا نکرده است. این مطالعه در اصل به بررسی هر همبستگی بین حوزه تحصیلی تدریس و نگرش معلمان نسبت به راهکارهای بعد از روش مورد استفاده امروز می پردازد. یکصد و سی و یک معلم از یک مؤسسه زبان انگلیسی واقع در تبریز ، ایران (یعنی فاضله) به عنوان شرکت کننده انتخاب شدند. نگرش معلمان زبان نسبت به شرایط پس آزمون از طریق پرسشنامه ای که از دو بخش اصلی تشکیل شده است ارزیابی می شود: بخش اول به اطلاعات شخصی شرکت کنندگان و بخش دوم شامل سؤالات در مقیاس 5- نکته لیکرت در مورد نقش روش Post ، آشنایی آنها با آن و چگونگی تأثیر آن بر تدریس و یادگیری آنها. این یافته ها از این فرضیه حمایت می کنند که به نظر می رسد دانش و آگاهی معلمان زبان از روش بعد از آن به عنوان یک عامل مهم در تدریس آنها بازی می کند ، در حالی که آنها همچنین دارای برخی از پیامدهای آموزشی و نظری در آموزش زبان دوم و همچنین ارتباط با ارزیابی یادگیری زبان دوم هستند. .

Keywords [Persian]

  • روش پس آزمون
  • معلم زبان
  • زبان آموزان EFL
  • زمینه تحصیل
  • روش

Alijani, L. (2012). Meta-discourse: Definitions, issues and its implications for English teachers. 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., and Schön, J. (1974). Hedges and Boosters in Women's and Men's Speech. Language & Communication, Vol. 10, No.3, pp. 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, 11,367-383.

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.

Birjandi, P., & Malmir, A.  (2010). The effect of task-based approach on the Iranian advanced EFL learners’ narrative vs. expository writing. The Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies (IJALS), 1(2), 1-26.

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.Canale& Swain, 1980;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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00643.x.

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. and 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, Vol.26, No.1.

Kagan, L. (1992). Hedging in College Research Papers: Implications for Language Instruction. Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines.

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

Kinichi, S. (2004).Epistemic Modality in English Popular Scientific Texts and Their German Translations.

Krashen, D. W. (1982). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, P.9.

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.doi:10.1093/applying/amp042.

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. 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. Universidad de Zaragoza, Spin. 

Miles, L. (2004). A Framework for Comparing Evaluation Resources across Academic Texts.Text. 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 Givón, T. (Ed).Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 12: Discourse and Semantics. 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. 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. 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. doi:10.1017/S026144480200188X,http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X.

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, P.29.

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. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.

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. and 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.), Thecommunicative approach rulongüage teaching. 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.