* Correspondence

The notion of method
The concept of method is severely under-questioned in postmethod (Kumaravadivelu, 
1994) pedagogy. In the first place, it might be a good idea to get a clear-cut definition of 
the concept of method. Larsen Freeman and Martin Anderson (2002, p. 100) define 
method “a coherent set of links between the actions of a teacher in a classroom and the 
thoughts that underlie the actions. The actions are the techniques and the thoughts are 
the principles”. So we comprehend that the teacher’s actions in a classroom are guided, 
limited, controlled and finally monitored by a set of principles. As Freeman (2002) states, 
principles are thoughts which guide teacher’s actions; now the questions is whose 
thoughts are they and how are they formed? Kumaravadivelu (1994) outlines that 
conventional concept of method entitles theorizers to construct knowledge-oriented 
theories of pedagogy to be actualized by practitioners. These thoughts are artificially 
imported into the classroom; thoughts which are not derived from classroom experience. 
This is where post-method condition established by Kumaravadivelu asserts its 
groundbreaking thoughts. “First and foremost, it [post-method condition] signifies a 

---

Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2017, 4(5)
153
search for an alternative to method rather than an alternative method” (Kumaravadivelu, 
1994, p. 40).
As quoted above, Kumaravadivelu totally rejects the concept of method and is looking for 
its alternative. Like Kumaravadivelu and Clarke, Nunan, 1991; Pennycook, 1989; 
Richards, 1989) agree that there are certain shortcomings with method. Contrary to the
claim that method is dead in post-method eyes, some consider the term method to
remain an apt description of what teachers do in classrooms (Bell, 2003). 
Bell (2003) asserts that supporters of particular designer methods ascribe the failure
to realize methods to a lack of understanding of their basic tenets. At the same time,
L2 teaching professionals know that what is realized as method in the classroom
emerges over time as a result of the interaction among the teacher, the students,
and the materials and activities (Richards, 1990). Bell (2003) maintains that this notion
of the social construction of method in millions of different classrooms suggests that
what is called method is often an a posteriori rationalization of many similar teaching 
practices rather than an a priori set of prescriptions emanating from one source. However 
as Richards and Rodgers (2002) put it, methods typically prescribe teacher’s what to 
teach and how to teach. This prescriptivism seems to ignore the uniqueness of the 
situation which teachers face it. Apparently, it seems a valid counter-evidence that 
method is artificial (Brown, 2000). Having accepted the argument that the method is 
derived from interactions in class, we encounter another problem; the fact that they are 
all generalized up to a universal context. I mean how did the so-called “professional 
TESOLers” (Bell, 2003) or scholar conclude that this is a method that can employed 
throughout the world.
Brown (2002) thinks that methods are not based on empirical study as they are too 
“artful and intuitive” (cited in Can, 2012, p. 10). And finally Richards (2002) asserts that 
teachers have to accept on faith the theory underlying method. As a result we come up 
with another key question that “is a method really practical and propitious in a 
local/specific context?” it seems that we should abide by someone’s thoughts and 
procedures in our classroom.