|
ipso facto
, are also the
ideal teachers or experts of pedagogy, with a clear implication that NNS
English and language teaching expertise are suspect” (p. 465). Partici-
pating actively in the reinforcement of such assumptions are not just native
speakers but also nonnative teachers who, according to Nayar (2002), “of-
ten seek expert advise from the NS openly and it is not uncommon to see
advisory suggestions from NS ‘experts’ that are more noteworthy for their
POSTMETHOD PREDICAMENT
219
self-assuredness, sincerity and eagerness to help than their linguistic or ped-
agogic soundness” (p. 466).
From this discussion, it is rather apparent that there are many subtle and
not so subtle ways in which the ideological and pedagogical barriers cause
impediments for progress in postmethod pedagogy. There is no gainsaying
the fact that it is only a transmission model of teacher education that can ef-
fectively maintain the authority of traditional knowledge producers and
knowledge transmitters even though it fails to instill in the student teachers
the much-needed capacity for autonomous decision making and the ability
for systematic, reflective classroom observation. It is only a universally appli-
cable concept of method that can, with its global reach, “make sure that the
fountainhead of global employment opportunities for native speakers of
English does not dry up any time soon” (Kumaravadivelu, 2003b, p. 543). It
is only a method-based pedagogy, not any locally generated postmethod
pedagogy, that can continue to promote a centrally produced, multimillion
dollar textbook industry, which churns out ELT materials based on the con-
cept of method to be used all over the world.
The pedagogic decision-making authority vested in the center should
not be seen as impacting on English-language teaching in the periphery
communities alone. British applied linguist, Skehan (1998), for instance,
emphasizes its ill effects on teaching English as a second language inside
English speaking countries. He points the accusing finger, not just at the
publishing industry, which, after all, can be forgiven for being commer-
cially motivated, but also at the whole crew of methods purveyors, syllabus
designers, textbook writers, teacher educators, and their power relations.
He comes down heavily on teacher educators in particular:
[T]he teacher training profession acts to consolidate many of these implicit
power relations, by generally concentrating on how entire classes can be or-
ganized; by teaching teachers how to implement official syllabuses and course
books, and by testing in an approved manner. There is little emphasis, in
most teacher training courses, on the development of techniques which serve
to adapt material to the individual learner, or on ways of fostering individual-
ity in learning. The teacher is usually equipped to be a pawn within a larger
structure, rather than a mediator between materials, syllabuses, and the learn-
ers themselves. (Skehan, 1998, pp. 260–261)
In sum, the pedagogical and ideological barriers outlined constitute two
major aspects of the postmethod predicament. We should, however, put
the predicament in a broader perspective. The hegemonic power exercised
by vested interests that spread “interested knowledge” for the purpose of its
own political and economic gain is not a phenomenon unique to our pro-
fession. Hegemonic tendencies even in the supposedly objective field of sci-
ence have been very well documented (see, e.g., Alvares, 1979/1991; Cohn,
220
CHAPTER 10
1996). Furthermore, these tendencies are quite consistent with French soci-
ologist Foucault’s (1980) observation that citizens of modern democracies
are controlled less by the naked power of autocrats than by grand pro-
nouncements of professionals who organize knowledge in “regimes of
truth”—sets of understandings that legitimate certain attitudes and prac-
tices, and delegitimate certain others. The regimes of truth easily become
professional articles of faith that render academic discourse into a medium
of communication that expresses and reproduces pedagogical power
(Bourdieu, Passeron, & Martin, 1994).
The reproduction of pedagogical power, like any other power, is never
absolute. The challenging barriers to the construction and implementation
of postmethod pedagogy are not insurmountable. I chose the term
challeng-
ing barriers
advisedly. Notice that it does not merely indicate barriers that
are indeed challenging, but it also implies that there are ways of challeng-
ing these barriers. Below, I highlight some of them in terms of facilitating
factors, yet another term of double interpretation.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
