A. Introduction
As we know, there have been many methods in language
teaching intrduced by many linguists all over the world in their era. The adoption
of mthods in language teaching is intended to solve the language teaching
problems. “One result of this trend was the era of so-called designer or brand
name methods, that is package solutions that can be described and marketed for
use everywhere in the world” (Richards and Rodgers, 2001:244). Specifically, Richards
and Rodgers (2001:245) state that the examples of language teaching methods are
Audiolingualiism, Counselling-Learning,
Situational Language Teaching, The Silent Way, Suggestopedia, and Total
Physical Response. As teachers of English language, do we depend only on a
certain method of teaching? Do we really apply certain method in the language
teaching purely, without mixing it with any other methods in the same time? Certain
methods may work best on certain situations. So, every method seems to be good on
certain conditions. It is no use debating on the choice of the best method of
language teaching to apply. Such condition is in line with the statement that
by early 1990s we didn’t need new method. What we needed was to get on with the
business of unifying our approach to language teaching and designing effective
tasks and techniques that were informed by that approach. This is what is
recognizes as the post-method era (Brown, 2007:40). In addition, Richards and Rodgers (2001:247) states that methods
as the key factor in accounting for success or failure in language teaching
were not regarded anymore. Facing such condition, some tended to say about the
death of methods and approaches and the term “post-method era” was sometimes
used.
Discussing about the post-method era, there may be many
questions arise among us. However, there are at least three main issues and
questions to answer thoroughly. They are: What is meant by the post-method era?
; Why did such era and condition happen to language teaching? ; How is the
language teaching in the post-method era?
In line with the above questions, the objectives of the
discussion is to answer and elaborate what is meant by the post-method
era; why the post-method era happened to language
teaching; and how the language teaching
in the post-method era is.
B. Discussion
1.
The
Definition of the Post-Method Era
“A
language teaching method is a single set of procedures which teachers are to
follow in the classroom. Methods usually based on a set of beliefs about the nature
of language and learning” (Nunan, 2003) in Thornbury (2009:1). At around the
same time, Kumaravadivelu (1994) in
Thornbury (2009:1) identified what he
called the ‘post method condition’, a result of ‘the widespread dissatisfaction
with the conventional concept of method’ . Rather than subscribe to single set
of procedures, post-method teachers adapt their approach in accordance with a
local, contextual factor, while at the same time being guided by a number of
’macro-strategies’. Two such macro-strategies are ‘maximize learning
opportunities’ and ‘promote learner autonomy.’ Post-methodologist have used
against methods to show how they inflate the influence of methods to better
knock them down. The roots of post-methodology in the larger area of
postmodernism, arguing that post-method, rather than being evidence of the
maturation of teaching practices, is a further manifestation of the search for
method and so is subject to the same criticisms. Post-method, despites its disparagement
of innovations called methods, can be seen as an attempt to unify these
disparate element in to a more holistic, redefined communicative language
teaching (CLT) through a dialectical process of building and deconstructing forces. Brown (2007:40) states “By the early
1990s it was readily apparent that we didn’t need a new method. We needed,
instead, to get on with the business of unifying our approach to language
teaching and designing effective tasks and techniques that were informed by that
approach.” So, in short, the post method era was the era when there was not a
specific language teaching method used. The strategies used might be the mixed
ones from several methods existed before.
2. The Causes/Reasons of the Emergence of the
Post-Method Era
There are some factors that caused the
existence of an era so called the post-method era. First, the arguments used to
defeat method can also be seen as evidence that teachers, at least, were never
really in the thrall of methods, Bell (2003). First, post-methodologists argue
that the methods (prescription for practice) were really very limited in that
they deal only with the first lessons of mainly lower level courses. Contrast
these limited methods with CLT, which though never claiming universality, has
arguably been the most widely applied of any method since grammar translation.
Indeed the degree of application may be better guide to the so-called
distinction between method and approach. If the method has limited realization,
then one would expect little variation in its procedures, but if, like CLT, the
method has such wide- scale application, variation in its realization would be
normal. Second, post methodologists argue that the methods can never be
realized in their purest form in the classroom according to the principles of
their originator because methods are not derives from classroom practice.
Richard & Rodgers (2001) calls the designer methods ideals types. This notion of the social construction of methods in
million of different classroom suggest that what is called methods is often an
a posteriori rationalization of many similar teaching practices rather than an
a priori set of prescriptions emanating from one source. Third, a further
dismissive argument against prescriptive methods is that little of interest remain in them, but the argument
ignores the huge influence that the core philosophies of community language
learning, silent way, and suggestopedia have had on language teaching. Indeed,
the development of CLT has in part been driven by the co-option of the
humanistic, student-centered principles of designer methods. The emergence of
post methods pedagogy may have more to do with larger social forces than with
pedagogical maturity. Fourth, according to Richard & Rodgers (2001:247)
“some approaches and method are unlikely to be widely adopted because they are
difficult to understand and used, lack clear practical application, require
special training, and necessitated major changes in teacher’s practices and
beliefs.” To sum up, the emergence of the post-method era is mainly the
existence of certain methods in language teaching does not meet fully the need
of language teaching itself.
3. The Language Teaching in the Post-Method Era
In the era of the post-method, the language teaching is
done not only based on a certain method. The language teaching may adopt some
different methods and techniques at the same time. Later on, there is a term of
eclectic method. The findings of a survey on language teaching method done by
Liu (2004:146) suggests that there is still a place for methods in language
teaching in the post-method era. Another opinion was given by other language
experts. Whatever we use to teach is not determined by a single factor, nor is
it constrained by any individual teacher. It is always an adjustable decision
that is shaped and reshaped through teaching and through the learning of
teaching (Larsen-Freeman, 2000) in Liu (2004:149). So, we can say that though
there is still methods in the post-method era, but we do not rely on a certain
method only.
Conclusion
By having discussion above, here we may come to some
following conclusions. Firstly, the post-method era is not an era in which
there is not any method used in language teaching. Secondly, the methods used
in the language teaching may a combination of several methods which may be
appropriate to the need of the language teaching itself. Thirdly, “Methods are
not dead, nor will they ever be” (Bell, 2003:334). Shome (1998) as cited by
Thalib (2002) in Bell (2003:334) argues with reference to the term post
colonial, “the prefix ‘post’ … does not mean a final closure, nor does it
announce the ‘end’ of that which it is appended; rather it suggests a thinking
through and beyond the problematic of that which it is appended.”
REFERENCES:
Bell, David M. 2003.
Method and Post-Method: Are They Really So
Incompatible?
TESOL Quarterly 37(2), 325-336.
Brown, H. D. 2007. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive
Approach to
Language Pedagogy
(3rd Ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Liu, Jun. 2004. Methods
in the Post-Methods Era: Report on An International
Survey on Language Teaching Methods. IJES 4(1) 137-152.
Richards, J. C., &
Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and Methods
in Language
Teaching
(2nd Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, Scott. 2009.Method, Post-Method, and Metodos.
British Coucil.
Accessed
on December 12th, 2011.
awesome, i really like it, even that there are some missing words and a spelling mistake :)
ReplyDeleteThe easiest explanation. Just awesome.
ReplyDeleteFirst paragraph second line mistake INTRODUCED there spelling is intrduced correct it thank you
ReplyDeleteWhat haven't they corrected it after such a long time for?
Delete