گروه آموزشی زبان انگليسي متوسطه  دزفول

It lies in willful ignorance of what has been done and said and thought in the past. It lies in the vested interests which methods become. And it lies in the meaning of method” (p. 139). What Mackey said nearly four decades ago is true of today as well. Most of us in the language teaching profession hear and use the term method so much and so often that we hardly pause to think about its meaning. I discuss the meaning of method. The discussion is in five parts. In the first part, I attempt to tease out the conceptual as well as terminological confusion surrounding the concept of method. In the second, I describe the limited and limiting nature of method and the widespread dissatisfaction it has created among teachers and teacher educators. In the third, I discuss how a state of heightened awareness about the futility of searching for the best method has resulted in a postmethod condition. Then,I highlight the basic parameters of a postmethod pedagogy that seeks to transcend the limitations of method. Finally, I present the outlines of a macrostrategic framework that is consistent with the characteristics of a postmethod pedagogy. The Concept of Method A core course in Theory and Practice of Methods, with the same or a different title, is an integral part of language teacher education programs all over the world. A survey of 120 teacher education programs in Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in the United States, for instance, shows that the Methods course functions as the primary vehicle for the development of basic knowledge and skill in the prospective teacher (Grosse, 1991). The survey also shows that specific classroom techniques receive “the greatest amount of attention and time in the methods courses” (p. 32) and that the three books that top the list of textbooks that are widely prescribed for methods classes “deal almost exclusively with specific language teaching methods” (p. 38). The term methods, as currently used in the literature on second and foreign language (L2) teaching, does not refer to what teachers actually do in the classroom; rather, it refers to established methods conceptualized and constructed by experts in the field. The exact number of methods that are commonly used is unclear. A book published in the mid sixties, for instance, provides a list of fifteen “most common” types of methods “still in use in one form or an- other in various parts of the world” (Mackey, 1965, p. 151). Two books published in the mid eighties (Larsen-Freeman, 1986; and Richards and Rodgers, 1986)—which have long-occupied the top two ranks among the books prescribed for methods classes in the United States—provide, between them, a list of eleven methods that are currently used. They are (in alphabetical order): Audiolingual Method, Communicative Methods, Community Language Learning,Direct Method, Grammar-Translation Method, Natural Approach,Oral Approach, Silent Way, Situational Language Teaching, Suggestopedia, and Total Physical Response. It would be wrong to assume that these eleven methods provide eleven different paths to language teaching. In fact, there is consid- erable overlap in their theoretical as well as practical approaches to L2 learning and teaching. Sometimes, as Wilga Rivers (1991, p. 283) rightly points out, what appears to be a radically new method is more often than not a variant of existing methods presented with “the fresh paint of a new terminology that camouflages their fundamental similarity.” It is therefore useful, for the purpose of analysis and understanding, to cluster these methods in terms of certain identifiable common features. One way of doing that is to classify them as: (a) language-centered methods, (b) learner-centered methods, and (c) learning-centered methods (Kumaravadivelu, 1993a). Individually or with a peer partner, reflect on the meaning of method. Then,try to guess how the meaning of method might be treated in (a) language-centered, (b) learner-centered, and (c) learning-centered methods. Language-Centered Methods Language-centered methods are those that are principally con- cerned with linguistic forms, also called grammatical structures. These methods (e.g., audiolingual method) seek to provide oppor- tunities for learners to practice preselected, presequenced linguis- tic structures through form-focused exercises in class. The assump- tion is that a preoccupation with form will ultimately lead to a mastery of the target language and that learners can draw from this formal repertoire whenever they wish to communicate in the target language outside the class. According to this belief, language development is largely intentional rather than incidental, that is, it takes place through conscious effort as in the case of adult L2 learning and not through unconscious processes as in the case of child L1acquisition. Language-centered methods treat language learning as a linear, additive process. That is, they believe language develops primarily in terms of what William Rutherford (1987) calls “accumulated en- tities.” In practice, a set of grammatical structures and vocabulary items are carefully selected for their potential use and graded from simple to complex. The teacher’s task is to introduce them one at a time and help the learner practice them until the learner internal- izes them.Secondly, language-centered methods generally advocate explicit introduction, analysis, and explanation of linguistic systems. That is, they believe that the linguistic systems are simple enough and that our explanatory power sophisticated enough to provide explicit rules of thumb, and explain them in such a way that the learner can understand and assimilate them. Learner-Centered Methods Learner-centered methods are those that are principally concerned with language use and learner needs. These methods (e.g., some versions of communicative methods) seek to provide opportunities for learners to practice preselected, presequenced grammatical structures as well as communicative functions (i.e., speech acts such as apologizing, requesting, etc.) through meaning-focused activities. The assumption is that a preoccupation with both form and func- tion will ultimately lead to target language mastery and that the learners can make use of both formal and functional repertoire to fulfill their communicative needs outside the class. In this approach,as in the case of language-centered methods, language development is considered largely intentional rather than incidental. Learner-centered methods aim at making language learners gram- matically accurate and communicatively fluent. They take into ac-count the learner’s real-life language use for social interaction or for academic study, and present necessary linguistic structures in communicative contexts. Proponents of learner-centered methods, like those of language-centered methods, believe in accumulated entities. The one major difference is that in the case of the latter, the accumulated entities represent linguistic structures, and in the case of the former they represent structures plus notions and functions. Furthermore, just as language-centered methods advocate that the linguistic structures of a language could be sequentially presented and explained, learner-centered methods also advocate that each functional category could be matched with one or more linguistic forms and sequentially presented and systematically explained to the learner. Learning-Centered Methods Learning-centered methods are those that are principally con- cerned with learning processes. These methods (e.g., the Natural Approach) seek to provide opportunities for learners to participate in open-ended meaningful interaction through communicative ac- tivities or problem-solving tasks in class. The assumption is that a preoccupation with meaning-making will ultimately lead to gram- matical as well as communicative mastery of the language and that learners can learn through the process of communication. In this approach, unlike the other two, language development is consid- ered more incidental than intentional. According to learning-centered methods, language development is a nonlinear process, and therefore, does not require preselected, presequenced systematic language input but requires the creation of conditions in which learners can engage in meaningful activities in class. Proponents of learning-centered methods believe that lan- guage is best learned when the learner’s attention is focused on understanding, saying and doing something with language, and not when their attention is focused explicitly on linguistic features. They also hold the view that linguistic systems are too complex to be neatly analyzed, explicitly explained, and sequentially presented to the learner. In seeking to redress what they consider to be a fundamental flaw that characterizes previous methods, proponents of learning- centered methods attempt to draw insights from the findings of re- search in second language acquisition. They claim that these insights can inform the theory and practice of language teaching methods. As a result, the changes they advocate relate to all aspects of learn- ing and teaching operations: syllabus design, materials production, classroom teaching, outcomes assessment, and teacher education. Recall the method of teaching followed by your teacher when you learned an L2 in a formal, classroom context. Was it language-centered, learner-centered, learning-centered, or a combination? Alternatively, if you have been recently teaching an L2, think about how your classroom practices do or do not fit in with these categories of methods. It is worthwhile to remember that language-, learner-, and learn- ing-centered methods, in their prototypical version, consist of a specified set of theoretical principles and a specified set of classroom procedures. Theoretical principles are insights derived from linguistics, second language acquisition, cognitive psychology, information sciences, and other allied disciplines that provide theoretical bases for the study of language, language learning, and languageteaching. Classroom procedures are teaching and learning techniques indicated by the syllabus designer and/or the materials producer, and adopted/adapted by the teacher and the learner in order to jointly accomplish the goals of language learning and teaching in the classroom. Classroom teachers have always found it difficult to use any of the established methods as designed and delivered to them. In fact, even the authors of the two textbooks on methods widely used in the United States were uneasy about the efficacy of the methods they selected to include in their books, and wisely refrained from recommending any of them for adoption. “Our goal,” Richards and Rodgers (1986, p. viii) told their readers, “is to enable teachers to become better informed about the nature, strengths,and weaknesses of methods and approaches so they can better arrive at their own judgments and decisions.” Larsen-Freeman (1986, p. 1) went a step further and explicitly warned her readers that “the inclusion of a method in this book should not be construed as an endorsement of that method. What is being recommended is that, in the interest of becoming informed about existing choices, you investigate each method” (emphasis as in original). Limitations of the Concept of Method The disjunction between method as conceptualized by theorists and method as conducted by teachers is the direct consequence of the inherent limitations of the concept of method itself. First and foremost methods are based on idealized concepts geared toward idealized contexts. Since language learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous, no idealized method can visualize all the variables in advance in order to provide situation-specific suggestions that practicing teachers sorely need to tackle the challenges they confront every day of their professional lives. As a predominantly top-down exercise, the conception and construction of methods have been largely guided by a one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter 4approach that assumes a common clientele with common goals. Not anchored in any specific learning and teaching context, and caught up in the whirlwind of fashion, methods tend to wildly drift from one theoretical extreme to the other. At one time,grammatical drills were considered the right way to teach; at another, they were given up in favor of communicative tasks. At one time, explicit error correction was considered necessary; at another, it was frowned upon. These extreme swings create conditions in which certain aspects of learning and teaching get overly emphasized while certain others are utterly ignored, depending on which way the pendulum swings. Yet another crucial shortcoming of the concept of method is that it is too inadequate and too limited to satisfactorily explain the complexity of language teaching operations around the world. Concerned primarily and narrowly with classroom instructional strategies, it ignores the fact that the success or failure of classroom instruction depends to a large extent on the unstated and unstable interaction of multiple factors such as teacher cognition, learner perception, societal needs, cultural contexts, political exigencies, economic imperatives, and institutional constraints, all of which are inextricably interwoven. The limitations of the concept of method gradually led to the realization that “the term method is a label without substance” (Clarke, 1983, p. 109), that it has “diminished rather than enhanced our understanding of language teaching” (Pennycook, 1989, p. 597), and that “language teaching might be better understood and better executed if the concept of method were not to exist at all” (Jarvis, 1991, p. 295). This realization has resulted in a widespread dissatisfaction with the concept of method. Dissatisfaction with Method Based on theoretical, experimental, and experiential knowledge, teachers and teacher educators have expressed their dissatisfaction with method in different ways. Studies by Janet Swaffer, Katherine Arens, and Martha Morgan (1982), David Nunan (1987), Michael Legutke and Howard Thomas (1991), Kumaravadivelu (1993b), and others clearly demonstrate that, even as the methodological band played on, practicing teachers have been marching to a different drum. These studies show, collectively and clearly, that • teachers who are trained in and even swear by a particular method do not conform to its theoretical principles and class- room procedures, • teachers who claim to follow the same method often use different classroom procedures that are not consistent with the adopted method, • teachers who claim to follow different methods often use same classroom procedures, and • over time, teachers develop and follow a carefully delineated task-hierarchy, a weighted sequence of activities not necessarily associated with any established method. In short, confronted with “the complexity of language, learning, and language learners every day of their working lives in a more direct fashion than any theorist does,” teachers have developed the conviction that “no single perspective on language, no single explanation for learning, and no unitary view of the contributions of language learners will account for what they must grapple with on a daily basis” (Larsen-Freeman, 1990, p. 269). Justifiable dissatisfaction with established methods inevitably and increasingly led practicing teachers to rely on their intuitive ability and experiential knowledge. As Henry Widdowson (1990, p. 50) observes: “It is quite common to hear teachers say that they do not subscribe to any particular approach or method in their teaching but are ‘eclectic’. They thereby avoid commitment to any current fad that comes up on the whirligig of fashion.” He further asserts that “if by eclecticism is meant the random and expedient use of whatever technique comes most readily to hand, then it has no merit whatever” (p. 50). While there have been frequent calls for teachers to develop in- formed or enlightened eclecticism based on their own understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of established methods, teacher education programs seldom make any sustained and systematic effort to develop in prospective teachers the knowledge and skill necessary to be responsibly eclectic. Nor do any of the widely prescribed text-books for methods courses, to my knowledge, have a chapter titled “Eclectic Method.” Continuing your thoughts on the previous reflective task, consider whether your teachers (when you learned your L2) or you (if you have recently taught an L2) have followed what might be called an eclectic method. If yes, what actually made the method “eclectic”? And, what are the difficulties in developing an eclectic method? The difficulties faced by teachers in developing an enlightened eclectic method are apparent. Stern (1992, p. 11) pointed out some of them: “The weakness of the eclectic position is that it offers no criteria according to which we can determine which is the best theory, nor does it provide any principles by which to include or exclude features which form part of existing theories or practices. The choice is left to the individual’s intuitive judgment and is, therefore, too broad and too vague to be satisfactory as a theory in its own right.” The net result is that practicing teachers have neither the comfort of a context-sensitive professional theory that they can rely on nor the confidence of a fully developed personal theory that they can build on. Consequently, they find themselves straddling two methodological worlds: one that is imposed on them, and another that is improvised by them. Teachers’ efforts to cope with the limitations of method are matched by teacher educators’ attempts to develop images, options, scenarios, tasks, or activities based on a fast-developing knowledge of the processes of second language acquisition and on a growing understanding of the dynamics of classroom learning and teaching. Scholars such as Earl Stevick, Alice Omaggio, and Robert Di Pietro, to name just a few, provided the initial impetus to cope with the limitations of method in a sustained and systematic way, but they all tried to do it within the conceptual confines of methods. Drawing from “a wider range of methods—some old, some new, some widely used, some relatively unknown” (1982, p. 2), Earl Stevick attempted to aid teachers in identifying and evaluating many of the alternatives that are available for their day-to-day work in the classroom. Alice Omaggio (1986) advocated a proficiency-oriented instruc- tion that focuses on “a hierarchy of priorities set by the instructor or the program planners rather than a ‘prepackaged’ set of proce- dures to which everyone is expected to slavishly subscribe” (p. 44). Robert Di Pietro (1987) proposed strategic interaction with scenar- ios that motivate students “to converse purposefully with each other by casting them in roles in episodes based on or taken from real life” (p. 2). Several others extended the lead given by the three scholars mentioned above and attempted to nudge the profession away from the concept of method. David Nunan (1989) sought to assign “the search for the one right method to the dustbin” by helping teachers “develop, select, or adapt tasks which are appropriate in terms of goals, input, activities, roles and settings, and difficulty” (p.2). Dick Allwright investigated and introduced the concept of exploratory teaching that teachers can pursue in their own classroom settings (see, for instance, Allwright and Bailey, 1991). Chiding the profession for its obsession with method, Stern (1992) proposed “teaching strategies” based on intralingual-crosslingual, analytic-experiential, and explicit-implicit dimensions. His comprehensive and coherent approach to language teaching is derived from “flexible sets of concepts which embody any useful lessons we can draw from the history of language teaching but which do not perpetuate the rigidities and dogmatic narrowness of the earlier methods concept” (p. 278). While scholars such as Allwright, Nunan, and Stern pointed out the pedagogic limitations of the concept of method, others focused on its larger, rather insidious, sociocultural and political agenda. Alastair Pennycook (1989) explained how the concept of method introduces and legitimizes “interested knowledge” that plays an important role in preserving and promoting inequities between the participants in the learning, teaching, and teacher education processes. Educationist Donaldo Macedo (1994, p. 8) called for an “anti-methods pedagogy,” declaring that such a pedagogy “should be informed by critical understanding of the sociocultural context that guides our practices so as to free us from the beaten path of methodological certainties and specialisms.” Emerging gradually over the years, and accelerating during the last decade, are critical thoughts that question the nature and scope of method, and creative ideas that redefine our understanding of method. Having witnessed how methods go through endless cycles of life, death, and rebirth, the language teaching profession seems to have reached a state of heightened awareness—an awareness that, as long as we remain in the web of method, we will continue to get entangled in an unending search for an unavailable solution; that such a search drives us to continually recycle and repackage the same old ideas; and that nothing short of breaking the cycle can salvage the situation. Out of this awareness has emerged what I have called a “postmethod condition” (Kumaravadivelu, 1994a). Postmethod Condition The postmethod condition signifies three interrelated attributes. First and foremost, it signifies a search for an alternative to method rather than an alternative method. While alternative methods are primarily products of top-down processes, alternatives to method are mainly products of bottom-up processes. In practical terms, this means that, we need to refigure the relationship between the theorizer and the practitioner of language teaching. If the conventional concept of method entitles theorizers to construct professional theories of pedagogy, the postmethod condition empowers practitioners to construct personal theories of practice. If the concept of method authorizes theorizers to centralize pedagogic decision-making, the postmethod condition enables practitioners to generate location-specific, classroom-oriented innovative strategies. Secondly, the postmethod condition signifies teacher autonomy. The conventional concept of method “overlooks the fund of experi- ence and tacit knowledge about teaching which the teachers already have by virtue of their lives as students” (Freeman, 1991, p. 35). The postmethod condition, however, recognizes the teachers’ potential to know not only how to teach but also how to act autonomously within the academic and administrative constraints imposed by institutions, curricula, and textbooks. It also promotes the ability of teachers to know how to develop a critical approach in order to self-observe, self-analyze, and self-evaluate their own teaching practice with a view to effecting desired changes. The third attribute of the postmethod condition is principled pragmatism. Unlike eclecticism which is constrained by the con- ventional concept of method, in the sense that one is supposed to put together practices from different established methods, prin- cipled pragmatism is based on the pragmatics of pedagogy where “the relationship between theory and practice, ideas and their ac- tualization, can only be realized within the domain of application, that is, through the immediate activity of teaching” (Widdowson, 1990, p.30). Principled pragmatism thus focuses on how classroom learning can be shaped and reshaped by teachers as a result of self- observation, self-analysis, and self-evaluation. One way in which teachers can follow principled pragmatism is by developing what Prabhu (1990) calls “a sense of plausibility.” Teachers’ sense of plausibility is their “subjective understanding of the teaching they do” (Prabhu, 1990, p. 172). This subjective understanding may arise from their own experience as learners and teachers, and through professional education and peer consultation. Since teachers’ sense of plausibility is not linked to the concept of method, an important concern is “not whether it implies a good or bad method, but more basically, whether it is active, alive, or operational enough to create a sense of involvement for both the teacher and the student” (Ibid., p. 173). The three major attributes of the postmethod condition outlined above provide a solid foundation on which the fundamental param- eters of a postmethod pedagogy can be conceived and constructed. Pause for a minute and consider what possible criteria apostmethod pedagogy has to meet in order to overcome the limitations of a method-based pedagogy. Postmethod Pedagogy Postmethod pedagogy allows us to go beyond, and overcome the limitations of, method-based pedagogy. Incidentally, I use the term pedagogy in a broad sense to include not only issues pertaining to classroom strategies, instructional materials, curricular objectives, and evaluation measures but also a wide range of historiopolitical and sociocultural experiences that directly or indirectly influence L2 education. Within such a broad-based definition, I visualize postmethod pedagogy as a three-dimensional system consisting of pedagogic parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility. I briefly outline below the salient features of each of these parame- ters indicating how they interweave and interact with each other (for more details, see Kumaravadivelu, 2001). The Parameter of Particularity The parameter of particularity requires that any language peda- gogy, 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. The parameter of particularity then is opposed to the notion that there can be an established method with a generic set of theoretical principles and a generic set of classroom practices. From a pedagogic point of view, then, particularity is at once a goal and a process. That is to say, one works for and through particularity at the same time. It is a progressive advancement of means and ends. It is the ability to be sensitive to the local educational, institutional and social contexts in which L2 learning and teaching take place. 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 doesn’t . Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for the development of context-sensitive pedagogic theory and practice. Since the particular is so deeply embedded in the practical, and cannot be achieved or understood without it, the parameter of particularity is intertwined with the parameter of practicality as well. The Parameter of Practicality The parameter of practicality relates to a much larger issue that directly impacts on the practice of classroom teaching, namely, the relationship between theory and practice that was discussed before. The parameter of practicality entails a teacher-generated theory of practice. It recognizes that no theory of practice can be fully useful and usable unless it is generated through practice. A logical corollary is that it is the practicing teacher who, given adequate tools for exploration, is best suited to produce such a practical theory. The intellectual exercise of attempting to derive a theory of practice enables teachers to understand and identify problems, analyze and assess information, consider and evaluate alternatives, and then choose the best available alternative that is then subjected to further critical appraisal. In this sense, a theory of practice involves continual reflection and action. If teachers’ reflection and action are seen as constituting one side of the practicality coin, their insights and intuition can be seen as constituting the other. Sedimented and solidified through prior and ongoing encounters with learning and teaching is the teacher’s un- explained and sometimes unexplainable awareness of what consti- tutes good teaching. Teachers’ sense-making (van Manen, 1977) of good teaching matures over time as they learn to cope with competing pulls and pressures representing the content and character of professional preparation, personal beliefs, institutional constraints, learner expectations, assessment instruments, and other factors. The seemingly instinctive and idiosyncratic nature of the teacher’s sense-making disguises the fact that it is formed and re- formed by the pedagogic factors governing the microcosm of the classroom as well as by the sociopolitical forces emanating from outside. Consequently, sense-making requires that teachers view pedagogy not merely as a mechanism for maximizing learning op- portunities in the classroom but also as a means for understanding and transforming possibilities in and outside the classroom. In this sense, the parameter of practicality metamorphoses into the pa- rameter of possibility. The Parameter of Possibility The parameter of possibility is derived mainly from the works of critical pedagogists of Freirean persuasion. Critical pedagogists take the position that any pedagogy is impli- cated in relations of power and dominance, and is implemented to create and sustain social inequalities. They call for recognition of learners’ and teachers’ subject-positions, that is, their class, race, gender, and ethnicity, and for sensitivity toward their impact on education. In the process of sensitizing itself to the prevailing sociopolitical reality, the parameter of possibility is also concerned with individ- ual identity. More than any other educational enterprise, language education provides its participants with challenges and opportu- nities for a continual quest for subjectivity and self-identity for, as Weeden (1987, p. 21) points out, “Language is the place where ac- tual and possible forms of social organization and their likely so- cial and political consequences are defined and contested. Yet it is also the place where our sense of ourselves, our subjectivity, is constructed.” This is even more applicable to L2 education, which brings languages and cultures in contact . To sum up this section, I have suggested that one way of concep- tualizing a postmethod pedagogy is to look at it three-dimensionally as a pedagogy of particularity, practicality, and possibility. The parameter of particularity seeks to facilitate the advancement of a context-sensitive, location-specific pedagogy that is based on a true understanding of local linguistic, sociocultural, and political particularities. The parameter of practicality seeks to rupture the reified role relationship by enabling and encouraging teachers to theorize from their practice and to practice what they theorize. The parameter of possibility seeks to tap the sociopolitical consciousness that participants bring with them to the classroom so that it can also function as a catalyst for a continual quest for identity formation and social transformation. Inevitably, the boundaries of the particular, the practical, and the possible are blurred. The characteristics of these parameters overlap. Each one shapes and is shaped by the other. They interweave and interact with each other in a synergic relationship where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The result of such a relationship will vary from context to context depending on what the participants bring to bear on it. If we assume that the three pedagogic parameters of particu- larity, practicality, and possibility have the potential to form the foundation for a postmethod pedagogy, and propel the language teaching profession beyond the limited and limiting concept of method, then we need a coherent framework that can guide us to carry out the salient features of the pedagogy in a classroom con- text. I present below one such framework—a macrostrategic frame- work (Kumaravadivelu, 1994a). Macrostrategic Framework The macrostrategic framework for language teaching consists of macrostrategies and microstrategies. Macrostrategies are defined as guiding principles derived from historical, theoretical, empirical, and experiential insights related to L2 learning and teaching. A macrostrategy is thus a general plan, a broad guideline based on which teachers will be able to generate their own situation-specific, need-based microstrategies or classroom techniques. In other words, macrostrategies are made operational in the classroom through microstrategies. The suggested macrostrategies and the situated microstrategies can assist L2 teachers as they begin to construct their own theory of practice. Macrostrategies may be considered theory-neutral as well as method-neutral. Theory-neutral does not mean atheoretical; rather it means that the framework is not constrained by the underlying assumptions of any one particular professional theory of language, language learning, or language teaching. Likewise, method-neutral does not mean methodless; rather it means that the framework is not conditioned by any of the particular set of theoretical principles or classroom procedures normally associated with any of the par- ticular language teaching methods discussed earlier. I list below ten macrostrategies with brief descriptions. These macrostrategies are couched in imperative terms only to connote their operational character. The choice of action verbs over static nouns to frame these macrostrategies should not therefore be misconstrued as an attempt to convey any prescriptive quality or frozen finality. The macrostrategies are: • Maximize learning opportunities: This macrostrategy envisages teaching as a process of creating and utilizing learning opportu- nities, a process in which teachers strike a balance between their role as managers of teaching acts and their role as mediators of learning acts; • Minimize perceptual mismatches: This macrostrategy emphasizes the recognition of potential perceptual mismatches between in-tentions and interpretations of the learner, the teacher, and the teacher educator; • Facilitate negotiated interaction: This macrostrategy refers to meaningful learner-learner, learner-teacher classroom interaction in which learners are entitled and encouraged to initiate topic and talk, not just react and respond; • Promote learner autonomy: This macrostrategy involves helping learners learn how to learn, equipping them with the means nec- essary to self-direct and self-monitor their own learning; • Foster language awareness: This macrostrategy refers to any at- tempt to draw learners’ attention to the formal and functional properties of their L2 in order to increase the degree of explicit- ness required to promote L2 learning; • Activate intuitive heuristics: This macrostrategy highlights the importance of providing rich textual data so that learners can infer and internalize underlying rules governing grammatical usage and communicative use; • Contextualize linguistic input: This macrostrategy highlights how language usage and use are shaped by linguistic, extralinguistic, situational, and extrasituational contexts; • Integrate language skills: This macrostrategy refers to the need to holistically integrate language skills traditionally separated and sequenced as listening, speaking, reading, and writing; • Ensure social relevance: This macrostrategy refers to the need for teachers to be sensitive to the societal, political, economic, and educational environment in which L2 learning and teaching take place; and • Raise cultural consciousness: This macrostrategy emphasizes the need to treat learners as cultural informants so that they are en- couraged to engage in a process of classroom participation that puts a premium on their power/knowledge. Individually or with a peer partner, go over the list of macrostrategies again.Which ones already inform your day-to-day teaching? Which ones are not relevant to your learning/teaching context? Based on your professional and experiential knowledge, can you add to this list of macrostrategies? The basic insights for the macrostrategic framework are drawn mostly from theoretical, empirical, and experiential knowledge grounded in classroom-oriented research. The classroom research perspective adopted here is governed by the belief that a pedagogic framework must emerge from classroom experience and experi- mentation. It is also motivated by the fact that a solid body of classroom research findings is available for careful consideration and judicious application. It should, however, be recognized that the classroom research path is by no means the only path that has the potential to lead to the construction of a pedagogic framework. There may very well be other, equally valid paths one can take. Whatever orientation one pursues, what should be remembered is that practicing and prospective teachers need a framework that can enable them to develop the knowledge, skill, attitude, and au- tonomy necessary to devise for themselves a systematic, coherent, and relevant personal theory of practice that is informed by the pa- rameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility. While the purpose of such a framework is to help teachers become autonomous decision-makers, it should, without denying the value of individual autonomy,provide adequate conceptual underpinnings based on current theoretical, empirical, and experiential insights so that their teaching act may come about in a principled fashion. The parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility along with the suggested macrostrategies constitute the operating prin- ciples that can guide practicing teachers in their effort to construct their own situation-specific pedagogic knowledge in the emerging postmethod era. How these operating principles are interconnected and mutually reinforcing can be pictorially represented in the form of a wheel. As Figure 2.2 shows, the parameters of particularity, practi- cality, and possibility function as the axle that connects and holds the center of the pedagogic wheel. The macrostrategies function as spokes that join the pedagogic wheel to its center thereby giving the wheel its stability and strength. The outer rim stands for language learning and language teaching. There are, of course, hidden or unknown wheels within wheels_individual, institutional, social, and cultural factors—that influence language learning, language teaching, and language use in a given communicative situation. What the pedagogic wheel also indicates is that the ten macro- strategies are typically in a systemic relationship, supporting one another. That is to say, a particular macrostrategy is connected with and is related to a cluster of other macrostrategies. For instance, as will become clear in the following pages, there may be a single exercise or a task that can facilitate negotiated interaction, activate intuitive heuristics, foster language awareness, and raise cultural consciousness all at once. Clustering of macrostrategies may be useful depending on specific teaching objectives for a given day of instruction. When teachers have an opportunity to process and practice their teaching through a variety of macrostrategies, they will discover how they all hang together. In Closing There are at least three broad, overlapping strands of thought that emerge from what we have discussed so far. First, the traditional concept of method with its generic set of theoretical principles and classroom techniques offers only a limited and limiting perspective on language learning and teaching. Second, learning and teaching needs, wants, and situations are unpredictably numerous. There- fore, current models of teacher education programs can hardly prepare teachers to tackle all these unpredictable needs, wants, and situations. Third, the primary task of in-service and pre-service teacher education programs is to create conditions for present and prospective teachers to acquire the necessary knowledge, skill, au- thority, and autonomy to construct their own personal pedagogic knowledge. Thus, there is an imperative need to move away from a method-based pedagogy to a postmethod pedagogy. One possible way of conceptualizing and constructing a post- method pedagogy is to be sensitive to the parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility, which can be incorporated in the macrostrategic framework. The framework, then, seeks to transform classroom practitioners into strategic thinkers, strategic teachers, and strategic explorers who channel their time and effort in order to • reflect on the specific needs, wants, situations, and processes of learning and teaching; • stretch their knowledge, skill, and attitude to stay informed and involved; • design and use appropriate microstrategies to maximize learning potential in the classroom; and • monitor and evaluate their ability to react to myriad situations in meaningful ways. In short, the framework seeks to provide a possible mechanism for classroom teachers to begin to theorize from their practice and practice what they theorize. Collected by: Parizad Jamshidzadeh