10.1. CHALLENGING BARRIERS
The challenges facing the construction and implementation of postmethod
pedagogy may be considered to constitute a postmethod predicament that
puts key players in a quandary. The most stubborn aspect of the predica-
ment is that the concept of method is a remarkably entrenched one. For all
its inherent weaknesses and recurrent criticisms, it has survived for an in-
credible period of time. “It has had,” as I have remarked elsewhere (Kumar-
avadivelu, 2001), “a magical hold on us” (p. 557). At one level of under-
standing, the reason seems to be simple—human nature. Pradl (1993)
observed it in the context of general educational reforms; and, what he said
about the field of education is true of our profession as well.
Most of us would simply prefer things to remain the same—the
status quo
looks more appealing, especially when we think that somehow we are benefit-
ing. Accordingly, incumbency with all its faults is generally more assuring
than a future that risks being in doubt, risks placing us in some positions we
are unsure of. (p. xii, emphasis in original)
Although that may make sense, looking at it from another level of sophisti-
cation, it is still puzzling why, in spite of the extended and extensive dissatis-
faction with the concept of method, it has taken so long for the emergence
of even rudimentary forms of a coherent framework necessary for con-
structing a postmethod pedagogy that we discussed in chapters 8 and 9.
The puzzle, it seems to me, may be explained if we consider two powerful
barriers. One is pedagogical and the other is ideological.
10.1.1. The Pedagogical Barrier
The pedagogical barrier relates to the content and character of L2 teacher
education. It stands as a harmful hurdle blocking the effective construction
and implementation of any postmethod pedagogy by practicing teachers.
As is well known by now, most models of L2 teacher preparation that have
been in place for a long time merely transfer a set of predetermined, prese-
lected, and presequenced body of knowledge from the teacher educator to
the prospective teacher. And, what does the body of knowledge usually con-
sist of? A method-based package put together by researchers, containing a
generous menu of theories of language, language learning, and language
teaching—a package resembling the ingredients of any of the three catego-
ries of method we discussed in Part Two. The teacher educator, often play-
ing the role of a conduit, serves the package on a platter, with easily digest-
ible bits and pieces of discrete items of knowledge, leaving very little food
216
CHAPTER 10
for critical thought. This
is
the general scenario, while there are always a
handful of institutions and individuals that try to go against the grain.
This kind of transmission model of L2 teacher education entails a mas-
ter–pupil relationship in which student teachers are expected to learn
some of their master teacher’s pedagogic knowledge and skills, and to ap-
ply them in their classrooms. As Freeman has repeatedly emphasized
(e.g., Freeman, 1991), transmission models of teacher education are very
ineffective because they depend on received knowledge to influence
teacher behavior and do not acknowledge, much less encourage, student
teachers to construct their own versions of teaching. He has also pointed
out that these models ignore the fact that student teachers may have al-
ready built up their own personal theories of learning and teaching based
on their actual experience in the classroom, and on their exposure to the
“doing” of teaching.
From the postmethod perspective, transmission models prove to be un-
productive because they are also premised on a debilitating dichotomy be-
tween theory and practice, between the theorist and the teacher. This
dichotomy has been institutionalized in our professional discourse commu-
nity, that is, most teachers have been trained to accept it as something that
naturally goes with the territory. Most prospective teachers believe, not
without justification, that it is the cardinal duty of teacher educators to pro-
vide them with appropriate pedagogic knowledge and skills that are re-
quired for successfully carrying out classroom teaching. What the transmis-
sion model fails to do, with very few exceptions, is to develop in them
classroom discourse analytical skills necessary for them to analyze and un-
derstand their own teaching acts in order to ultimately derive their own the-
ory of practice (for details, see Kumaravadivelu, 1999b, and chap. 13 in
Kumaravadivelu, 2003a).
Thus, current practices of teacher education pose a serious pedagogic
barrier to any type of postmethod pedagogy. What is surely and sorely
needed is what the Canadian educationist Diamond (e.g., 1993) called a
transformative
teacher education program. According to him, the central
goal of transformative teacher education “is not the easy reproduction of
any ready-made package or knowledge but, rather, the continued recre-
ation of personal meaning” (p. 56). Personal meaning can be created and
recreated only through personal pedagogic exploration. Diamond believes
that teachers can easily “form and reform their own pedagogical theories
and relationships” if teacher educators can help them “see themselves as ca-
pable of imagining and trying alternatives—and eventually as self-directing
and self-determining” (p. 52). And, it is precisely this kind of transformative
teacher education that can alter the role played by learners, teachers, and
teacher educators that postmethod pedagogy seeks to accomplish (see the
discussion on pedagogic indicators in chap. 8, this volume).
POSTMETHOD PREDICAMENT
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
