Ways in which Western scholars have treated local knowledge of the other countries form the scholastic dimension of method as a construct of marginality. This perspective interprets the scientific and technological knowledge of the other countries as less valuable than those of Western countries (Alvares, 1979⁄ 91). For example, British scholars who went to teach English in colonial India brought with them a similar attitude towards local knowledge (krishnaswamy & Burde, 1998; pennycook, 1998). Making the knowledge and using of local languages irrelevant for teaching and learning English as an additional language which led to monolingual tenet (Philpson, 1992) constitutes the linguistic dimension of method as a construct of marginality. According to Philpson (1992), monolingual tenet sticks to the idea that teaching of English as a foreign or second language should be entirely through the medium of English. Another dimension of method as a construct of marginality which has closely relation to linguistic dimension is its cultural dimension. The main concern of this aspect of method has always been the native speaker. Stern (1992) argues that one of the most important goals of culture teaching is to achieve an understanding of the native speaker’s perspective. In such a scenario, the individual voice and cultural identity of the L2 learners stand hopelessly marginalized (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Clearly, both the linguistic dimension which focuses on monolingualism and the cultural dimension which focuses on monoculturalism are aimed at benefiting the native speaker of English. The last dimension of method as a construct of marginality is its economic dimension. Economy is the engine that drives the ELT industry. The concept of method with its emphasis on native speaker and monolingual tenets was going to provide employment opportunities for native speakers of English in the world, and by this means, fuel the ELT economic engine (Kumaravadivelu, 2002). Method ignores the local knowledge and interests and tries to prescribe one approach of teaching and learning English to all learners with their different goals. It is clear that method with above-mentioned perspectives cannot be useful to any learning and teaching context. There is, thus, an imperative need to decolonize the methodological aspects of ELT by moving toward the concept of postmethod (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
2.6.3 Postmethod as a postcolonial construct
Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2001, 2003) exploring the nature of the traditional, top-down, modernist, and transmission-oriented methods of teaching that view learners as passive recipients of the teacher’s methodology and defining the concept of method as a construct of “marginality” in the sense that it “valorizes everything associated with the colonial Self and marginalizes everything associated with the subaltern Other” (2003a, p.541) invites practitioners of all persuasions in the field to find a systematic, coherent, and relevant alternative to method rather than alternative method or to find an alternative way of designing effective teaching strategies as well as creating efficient and reflective teaching professionals. Accordingly, he suggests an alternative to method in the form of what he calls postmethod pedagogy. He visualizes a postmethod pedagogy as a three-dimensional system consisting of three pedagogic parameters: particularity, practicality, and possibility.
First and foremost, any postmethod pedagogy has to be pedagogy of particularity. That is to say, language pedagogy, to be relevant, 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 sociocultural milieu (Kumaravadivelu, 2001).It starts with practicing teachers, either individually or collectively, observing their teaching acts, evaluating their outcomes, identifying problems, finding solutions, and trying them out to see once again what works and what does not. Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for the development of context-sensitive pedagogic knowledge (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). Pedagogy of practicality does not pertain merely to the everyday practice of classroom teaching. It pertains to a much larger issue that has a direct impact on the practice of classroom teaching, namely, the relationship between theory and practice. General educationists (e.g., Elliott, 1991) have long recognized the harmful effect of the theory/ practice dichotomy. They affirm that theory and practice mutually inform, and together constitute, a dialectical praxis, an affirmation that has recently influenced L2 teaching and teacher education as well (e.g., Freeman, 1998). A pedagogy of practicality seeks to overcome some of the deficiencies inherent in the theory-versus-practice, theorists’-theory-versus-teachers’-theory dichotomies by encouraging and enabling teachers themselves to theorize from their practice and practice what they theorize (Kumaravadivelu, 1999).
The parameter of possibility is derived mainly from Freirean critical pedagogy that seeks to empower classroom participants so that they can critically reflect on the social and historical conditions contributing to create the cultural forms and interested knowledge they encounter in their lives. Their lived experience, motivated by their own sociocultural and historical backgrounds, should help them appropriate the English language and use it in their own terms according to their own values and visions (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). The three parameters of a postmethod pedagogy interweave and interact with each other in a synergic relationship where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Together, they constitute a conceptual rationale necessary to construct a postmethod pedagogy as a postcolonial project.
2.7 Empirical research
The concept of critical pedagogy (CP) has been around for some time in education, but there has not been so much research in ELT conducted on implementing the basic tenets of CP into the classrooms through one of the skills. In this section few researches, in which some principles and concepts of critical pedagogy have been dealt with, will be offered.
Ira Shor’s When Students Have Power (1996) documents his personal successes and failures with critical pedagogy at a Staten Island campus of New York’s open enrollment City University. Shor’s many novel ideas for restructuring writing classrooms as a collaborative environment with minimal “gatekeeping” (i.e., traditional hierarchical authority) have made him one of the most admired figures in the field. In order to create a more equitable system of “power sharing,” Shor suggests teachers need to democratically reorganize all aspects of the educational environment, from the physical organization of the room to the system used to evaluate student work. His students sit in circles or in rows, depending on their preference, but Shor avoids the front of the room and “backloads” his own comments to avoid intruding in their discussions. He also requires them to sign contracts generated through an extensive process of negotiation, which covers everything from grading standards to the exact number of minutes that can pass before students are considered late.
Ghahremani and Mirhosseini (2005) made use of Dialogue Journal Writing (DJW) as a tool for students’ empowerment and the students were allowed to use Farsi (their L1) words where they couldn’t locate the English equivalents. The students were told to choose a topic of their concern and interest, and then write about it without paying too much attention to grammar, spelling, etc. The practice of journal writing was used in this study because “DJW grants students the freedom to disagree, hence, playing a major role in empowering them”. One part of this disagreement may be the use of first language while writing, because it is not consistent with the principles of tra
ditional methods to teaching and managing classrooms.
Carrilo and Mccain did a survey study in the spring of 2004 with students from an education college in the southern region of the U.S. The objective was to know if critical pedagogy is taught and assimilated by the students in order to confront the new realities of the crisis of capitalism or is an academic therapy to reproduce and hold to the traditional educative mode. The qualitative analysis was developed with tables of frequencies, factor analysis and t-test which are useful and common statistics tools. Findings indicated that most educators were not prepared to teach critical pedagogy as a component to their education program. Moreover, most participants in the study, through surveys, indicated that they had not received formal education courses in teaching critical pedagogy. Also, several participants in this study did not have a clearly defined philosophy of critical pedagogy into educational process.
Sadeghi (2008) did a study in order to examine some complexities of EFL teaching in an urban area in southern Iran by focusing on the partnership between critical pedagogy and an indigenous way of thinking in which both teacher and learners are aware and proud of their traditions, beliefs, priorities and collaboratively work to create a richer pedagogical context. The main purpose of this study was to discover whether in a one-semester course designed to acquaint students with issues of social justice students experienced a change in their: a) definition of social justice, b) recognition of practices relevant to social justice in their organizations, and c) sense of responsibility for contributing to change in the distribution of justice. To do so, 22 EFL learners, both male and female, from different educational backgrounds were selected. During the semester different topics such as gender discrimination, cultural invasion and internet filtering, anomie, religion, job opportunity, the society’s view of Azad University, prohibition of traditional dress, army service, prohibition of Bandari songs and dance were discussed. At the end of this kind of critical education, students engaged in examining social issues that raised critical consciousness. Students began doubting what is taken for granted in their own lives. Some became more critical and reflective about themselves and others became critical about the society surrounding them. In sum, the class engaged in discussing issues that were derived from their own living experience, instead of practicing decontextualized exercises.
Sadeghi and Ketab (2009) did a study in order to find what barriers prevent teachers from application of transformative intellectual principles in their teaching. Six teachers, held their M.A in English Language Teaching, were involved in this project. First they reflected upon overt/covert inequalities and injustice, and their roles in society. Then, they gained a terrible insight into how they subconsciously contributed to the reproduction and replication of higher-order hierarchy of power and access. At the second stage, through dialogue with their colleagues, they gained a critical voice for their roles in the society. Eventually, they tried to implement critical pedagogy in the classroom and enact their roles as Transformative Intellectuals. Instead of rigid guidelines as to content and structure, they followed an explorative and interpretive approach. At the end of study, teachers were interviewed about their experience of being transformative intellectuals. Based on these interviews, Sedeghi and Ketab (2009) concluded that taking into account the administrative constraints, teachers may encounter daily problems such as: large class sizes, rigid lesson plans, obligatory standard tests, limited class time, load of work and expectations, low payment and so on. Going beyond banking model of