| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 859 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,646 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,577,947 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,684,542 |
The Investigation of the Perspectives of Iranian EFL Domain Experts on Postmethod Pedagogy: A Delphi Technique | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 33، شماره 3، دی 2014، صفحه 89-112 اصل مقاله (165.6 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/jtls.2015.2482 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Khatib؛ Jalil Fathi* | ||
| Allameh Tabataba'i University | ||
| چکیده | ||
| After the introduction of postmethod pedagogy by Kumaravadivelu with its three principles of particularity, possibility and practicality, a wave of attention was directed towards this so-called 'postmethod era' and its appropriacy and adequacy in satiating the demands of the language learners in this 'brand new world'. This situation has created a healthy debate among the Iranian EFL community as well. The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of the Iranian EFL domain experts about postmethod pedagogy. In so doing, the Delphi technique was adopted to reach ‘expert’ consensus. The participants of this study were 21 domain experts in the field of applied linguistics in Iran. The Delphi technique was a remarkably quick means of achieving a consensus on postmethod pedagogy for participants. Three waves of data collection were employed in the three rounds of Delphi with the same sample. The findings of this study raised much doubt and uncertainty about both method and post method pedagogy. It was revealed that the Iranian language education has never experienced method in its actual meaning, what it is known as the method has been an eclectic approach any teacher has adhered to simply based on his/her personal taste. Moreover, the findings of the Delphi technique indicated that postmethod pedagogy with its three principles is not applicable in the Iranian context. Finally, the theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| postmethod؛ particularity؛ possibility؛ practicality؛ Delphi technique | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Akbari, R. (2005). Recent developments in foreign language teaching. ROSHD FLT, 20, 76, 25-32. Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice.TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652. Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (Working Papers No. 10). Lancaster, England: The University of Lancaster, The Exploratory Practice Center. Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language Teaching Research, 7(2), 113-141. Arikan, A. (2006). Postmethod condition and its implications for English language teacher education. Journal of Language and Linguistics Studies, 2(1), 1-11. Ary, D., Jacobs, C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Atai, M. R., & Gheitanchian, M. (2009).Iranian EFL teachers’ attitudes towards teaching methods and materials of high school English Textbooks. Journal of Education, 4(4), 115-130. Beech, B. (1999). Go the extra mile – use the Delphi Technique. Journal of Nursing Management ,7, 261–288. Beech, B. (2001). The Delphi approach: recent applications in health care. Nurse Researcher, 8(4), 38–48. Bell, D. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37, 325-336. Barnette, J., Danielson, L.C. & Algozzine, R.F. (1978). Delphi methodology: An empirical investigation. Educational Research Quarterly, 3(1), 67–73. Beretta, R. (1996).A critical review of the Delphi Technique. Nurse Researcher, 3(4), 79–89. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nded.). NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Buck, A.J., Gross, M., Hakim, S. &Weinblatt, J. (1993). Using the Delphi process to analyze social policy implementation – a post hoc case from vocational rehabilitation. Policy Sciences, 26(4), 271–288. Clayton, M.J. (1997). Delphi: a technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. Dalkey, N. &Helmer, O. (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467. Delport, S. (2010).Exploring postmethod pedagogy with Mozambican secondary school teachers. Unpublished MA thesis. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eggers, R.M. & Jones, C.M. (1998).Practical considerations for conducting Delphi studies: the oracle enters a new age. Educational Research Quarterly, 21(3), 53–66. Farrell, P. & Scherer, K. (1983) The Delphi technique as a method for selecting criteria to evaluate nursing care. Nursing Papers (Canada), 15(1), 51–60. Gholami, J., &Mirzaei, A. (2013). Post-method EFL teaching in Iran: Barriers, attitudes and symbols. Research Journal of English Language and Literature (RJELAL), 1(2), 50-64. Graneheim, U. H., &Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112. Hansen, D. (2001). Exploring the moral heart of teaching. New York, New York. Teacher’s College Press. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. Cassell: London. Harklau, L. (2005). Ethnography and ethnographic research on second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.). Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 179–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hazratzad, A., & Gheitanchian, M. (2009). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards post-method pedagogy and their students’ achievement. Proceedings of the 10th METU ELT Convention. Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitative research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (1999).Encyclopaedic dictionary of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Khatib, M., &Fat'hi, J. (2012). Postmethod pedagogy and ELT teachers. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2 (2), 22-29. Keeney, S., F. Hasson, & H. McKenna.(2011). The Delphi technique in nursing and health research. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 1-17. 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, 35(4), 537-560. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Critical language pedagogy: a postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, C. T.: Yale University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). In defence of postmethod. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 15-19. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Landeta, J. (2006).Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 467–482. Larson-Freeman, D. (2005a).A critical analysis of postmethod. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1(1), 21-25. Larson-Freeman, D. (2005b).On the appropriateness of language teaching methods in language and development. ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1 (2), 1-14. Linstone, H.A. &Turoff, M. (1975).The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. Liu, D. (1995). Comments on B. Kumaravadivelu’s The post-method condition: (E) merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching”: “Alternative to” or “addition to” method? TESOL Quarterly, 29, 174-177. Marton, W. (1988). Methods in English language teaching: Frameworks and Options. New York: Prentice Hall. Mayring, p. (2000).Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2) , 1-10. McKenna, H.P. (1994) The Delphi technique: a worthwhile approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 1221–1225. Moore, C.M. (1987) Delphi technique and the mail questionnaire. In: Group Techniques for Idea Building: Applied Social Research Methods (Ed., C.M.Moore( Series 9, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California, pp. 50–77. Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-612. Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382. Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176. Razmjoo, S. A., Ranjbar, H., &Hoomanfard, M. H. (2013).On the familiarity of Iranian EFL teachers and learners with post-method, and its realization. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 4 (1), 1-12. Richards, J. C. (2000). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire, England: McMillan. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walker, A.M. & Selfe, J. (1996). The Delphi method: A useful tool for the allied health researcher. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation , 3(12), 677–681. Williams, P.L. &Webb, C. (1994) The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153–156. Yousuf, M.I. (2007). The Delphi technique. Essays in Education, 20, 80–89. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,062 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 3,818 |
||