Postmethod Condition and Its Implications for English Language Teacher Education
Abstract
Postmethod condition refers to the qualities of the contemporary era in English language teaching in which previously well trusted methods are put under serious scrutiny and in which a body of methods and techniques collected from all previous methods and approaches are used pragmatically with a belief that such an eclectic practice leads to success. Such practices, under the postmethod condition, are in constant influx, bringing continuous changes in both pre-service and in-service professional development programs. The aim of this paper, thus, is to discuss the relationship between this postmethod condition and a variety of English language teacher education practices situated in Turkey.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Atkinson, D. (1999). TESOL and culture. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 625-654.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. NY: Longman.
Carter, K. (1990). Teachers’ knowledge and learning to teach. In W. R. Houston (Ed.). Handbook of Research on teacher education (pp. 291-310). New York: Macmillan.
Coleman, H. (1996). Autonomy and ideology in the English language classroom. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 1-16). Cambridge University.
Diamond, C. T. P. & Mullen, C. A. (1999). The postmodern educator: Arts-based inquirers and teacher development. New York: Peter Lang.
Ersen, N. (1993). T.C. Milli Egitim Bakanligi hizmet ici egitim daire baskanligi: Hizmetici etkinlestirilmesi ve yayginlastirilmasi istisari toplantisi. Ankara: Milli Egitim Basimevi.
Freeman, D. (1991). “To make the tacit explicitâ€: Teacher education, emerging discourse, and conceptions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 439-454.
Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching. (3rd edition). Essex : Longman.
Hatch, E., Shirai, Y. & Fantuzzi, C. (1996). The need for an integrated theory: Connecting modules. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 697-716.
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.
Kincheloe, J. L. (1993). Toward a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Kocaman, A. (2000). Yabanci Dilde Egitim [Education in a foreign language]. Cumhuriyet Gazetesi Bilim Teknik Eki. 708, 14-15.
Kumaravadivelu. B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
O’Connor, T. W. (2000). Public School Teachers’ discretionary participation in continuing professional development: Perceptions, influences, and action. (UMI No. 9982382).
Özen, R. (2001). Identifying possible in-service training needs of teachers of English to fourth and fifth graders at primary schools. Education and Science 26(121), 62-66.
Paine, L. (1990). The Teacher as Virtuoso: A Chinese Model for Teaching. Teachers College Record, 92, 49-81.
Pani, S. (2004). Reading strategy instruction through mental modelling. ELT Journal, 58 (4), 355-362.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589-618.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A Review. The Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-453.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. NY: Oxford.
Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training: Perspectives on language teacher education. Cambridge: CUP.
Richards, J. C., & Nunan, D. (1990). Second Language Teacher Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001).Approaches and Methods in language teaching. (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Salmani-Nodoushan, M. A. (2006). Language Teaching: State of the Art. Asian EFL Journal. 8 (1). http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/March_06_masn.php
Smylie, M. A., & Conyers, J. G. (1991). Changing conceptions of teaching influence the future of staff development. Journal of Staff Development, 12(1), 12-16.
Sparks, D. & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1990). Models of staff development. In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education. New York: MacMillan, 234-250.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies