Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives

Yıl 2018, , 47 - 69, 31.01.2018
https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.329991

Öz

After all the methods and approaches of English
Language Teaching (ELT) have been through, today in 21st century
there are two current controversial ways of English language teaching named as
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Postmethod pedagogy with the former
labeled as being an approach belonging to method era and the latter an outcome
of the belief in moving beyond the methods. This paper is concerned with the
common mainstream of ELT in Iran and aimed to explore the preferred way of
English language teaching in this context. After a careful review of literature
regarding the present debate, the study adopted a qualitative research design
including observation and semi-structured interviews. The participants of the
study were five experienced English language teachers teaching at five
well-known language institutes in Iran. The findings of this study help
teachers’ self-understanding of their teaching styles. Additionally, it helps
decision makers and teachers to know the reasons behind choosing specific ways
of ELT which work better in this particular context. Moreover, some practical
implications are suggested to teacher education programs.

Kaynakça

  • Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL quarterly, 42(4), 641-652.
  • Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible?. TESOL quarterly, 37(2), 325-336.
  • Bell, D. M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead?. ELT journal, 61(2), 135-143.
  • Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36(02), 81-109.
  • Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.).White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
  • Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Prentice Hall Regents.
  • Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
  • Day, R. (1993). Models and the knowledge base of second language teacher education. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language 11 (2).
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-93). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL quarterly, 537-560.
  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Routledge.
  • Kumaravalivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society. New York: Routledge.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Loomba, A. (2005). Colonialism-Postcolonialism. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J.C. (2006) Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC journal, 39(2), 158-177.
  • Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead?. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.
  • Tajeddin, Z. (2005). A critique of the inception and premises of the postmethod paradigm. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 1-14.

İran Bağlamında İngilizce Öğretiminde İletişimsel ve Yöntem-Sonrası Dil Öğretim Yöntemilerinin Uygulanabilirliği: Deneyimli Öğretmenlerin Bakış Açıları

Yıl 2018, , 47 - 69, 31.01.2018
https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.329991

Öz

İngilizce Öğretimine (İÖ) yönelik tüm
yöntemler ve yaklaşımlar ele alındıktan sonra, günümüz 21.YY’da İÖ’ne yönelik
İletişimsel Dil Öğretimi (İDÖ) ve Yöntem-Sonrası Durum olmak üzere tartışmalı
iki farklı güncel yöntem bulunmaktadır. Bu yöntemlerden ilki yöntem çağına ait
olarak ele alınırken ikincisi yöntemlerin ötesine geçen bir inanışın çıktısı
olarak ele alınmaktadır. Bu çalışma İran’da İÖ’ndeki yaygın ana akımı
incelerken, bu bağlamda İÖ’nin en tercih edilen yöntemini keşfetmeyi
amaçlamaktadır. Güncel tartışmalara ilişkin alanyazın derinlemesine
incelendikten sonra araştırma, gözlem ve yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşmeleri
içeren nitel araştırma yöntemi ile desenlenmiştir. Araştırmanın katılımcılarını
İran’da tanınmış beş farklı öğretim kurumunda görev yapmakta olan alanında
deneyimli beş İngilizce öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın bulguları
öğretmenlerin kendi öğretim stillerini anlamalarına yardımcı olacaktır. Ayrıca
çalışma, sözü edilen bu özel bağlamda hangi İÖ yönteminin seçileceğine ilişkin
nedenleri belirlemede karar vericilere ve öğretmenlere yol gösterecektir. Buna
ek olarak çalışmada, öğretmen eğitimi programlarına yönelik bazı pratik
uygulamalar önerilmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL quarterly, 42(4), 641-652.
  • Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible?. TESOL quarterly, 37(2), 325-336.
  • Bell, D. M. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead?. ELT journal, 61(2), 135-143.
  • Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36(02), 81-109.
  • Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.).White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
  • Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Prentice Hall Regents.
  • Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers.
  • Day, R. (1993). Models and the knowledge base of second language teacher education. University of Hawai'i Working Papers in English as a Second Language 11 (2).
  • Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-93). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL quarterly, 537-560.
  • Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Routledge.
  • Kumaravalivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society. New York: Routledge.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986) Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Loomba, A. (2005). Colonialism-Postcolonialism. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
  • Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J.C. (2006) Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Richards, J. C. (2008). Second language teacher education today. RELC journal, 39(2), 158-177.
  • Savignon, S. J. (2007). Beyond communicative language teaching: What's ahead?. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 207-220.
  • Tajeddin, Z. (2005). A critique of the inception and premises of the postmethod paradigm. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 1-14.
Toplam 22 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Amir Marzban Bu kişi benim

Fatemeh Karimi

Yayımlanma Tarihi 31 Ocak 2018
Gönderilme Tarihi 20 Temmuz 2017
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2018

Kaynak Göster

APA Marzban, A., & Karimi, F. (2018). Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.329991
AMA Marzban A, Karimi F. Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives. TOJQI. Ocak 2018;9(1):47-69. doi:10.17569/tojqi.329991
Chicago Marzban, Amir, ve Fatemeh Karimi. “Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives”. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 9, sy. 1 (Ocak 2018): 47-69. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.329991.
EndNote Marzban A, Karimi F (01 Ocak 2018) Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 9 1 47–69.
IEEE A. Marzban ve F. Karimi, “Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives”, TOJQI, c. 9, sy. 1, ss. 47–69, 2018, doi: 10.17569/tojqi.329991.
ISNAD Marzban, Amir - Karimi, Fatemeh. “Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives”. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry 9/1 (Ocak 2018), 47-69. https://doi.org/10.17569/tojqi.329991.
JAMA Marzban A, Karimi F. Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives. TOJQI. 2018;9:47–69.
MLA Marzban, Amir ve Fatemeh Karimi. “Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives”. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, c. 9, sy. 1, 2018, ss. 47-69, doi:10.17569/tojqi.329991.
Vancouver Marzban A, Karimi F. Applicability of CLT and Postmethod Pedagogy in Iranian Context of ELT: Expert Teachers’ Perspectives. TOJQI. 2018;9(1):47-69.