Document Type : Research Paper


1 Ph.D. Student of TEFL Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University

2 Professor in Applied Linguistics Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University


In an attempt to liberate teachers from deficiencies of the conventional methods, Kumaravadivelu (1994) proposed the concept of “post method condition” to overcome the challenges caused by the very nature of methods. The literature regarding post-method pedagogy has indicated that most of the studies focus on its theoretical aspect, while the practical realization has been largely untouched. To this end, the present study was an endeavor to unveil the perspective of Iranian EFL teachers concerning the applicability of this pedagogy. 21 male and female in-service EFL teachers from different cities in Iran (Shiraz, Marvdasht, Bushehr, Tehran, and Gonbad-e-Kavus) participated in this qualitative research where data came from semi-structured interviews as the primary source of data collection. The interview data were transcribed and coded using Straus and Corbin’s (1998) constant comparative method, including three codification processes of open, axial and selective codings. The finding indicated that absence of required autonomy among teachers, teacher’s job security, students’ passivity, absence of critical thinking skills among students, dominance of transmission model of teacher education, inefficiency of the textbooks, teacher’s focus on coverage and grade pressure, and demanding nature of post-method pedagogy as the main pedagogical barriers which prevent language teachers from applying this pedagogy in their teaching practices.


Aboulalaei, M. H., Poursalehi, J., & Hadidi, Y. (2016). The familiarity of EFL teachers with post-method:
Considering their field of study. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 89-109.
Akbari, R. (2008a). Post-method discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652.
Akbari, R. (2008b). Transforming lives: Introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT Journal, 62(3), 276-283.
Aliakbari, M., & Allahmoradi, N. (2012). On Iranian School Teachers’ Perceptions of the principles of the Critical Pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(1), 154-171.
Allwright, D. (1991). The death of the method (Working Papers No. 10). Lancaster, England: The University of  Lancaster, The Exploratory Practice Center.
 Alvarez, R., & Urla, J. (2002). Tell me a good story: Using narrative analysis to examine  information requirements interviews during an ERP implementation. The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, 33(1), 38-52.
Arias Coronado, B. (2014). Post-method pedagogy as an alternative to autonomous and well oriented teaching practices. Enletawa Journal, 7, 145-158.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C. & Sorenson, C. (2010). Introduction to research education (8th ed.). New York: Wadsworth.
Ashari, N., & Zarrin, N. (2014). Problems in using communicative language teaching in Iran and possible solutions. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(4), 257-266.
Best, W.J., & Kahn, V.J. (1998). Research in education (8th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Crandall, J. A. (2000). Language teacher education. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 34-55.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fahim, M., & Ahmadian, M. (2012). Critical thinking and Iranian EFL context. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 793-800.
Fahim, M., & Pishghadam, R. (2009). Postmodernism and English language teaching. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 27-54.
Freire, P.  (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: The Seabury Press.
Gholami, J., & Mirzaei, A. (2013). Post-method in EFL teaching in Iran: Barriers, attitudes, and symbols. Research  Journal of English Language and Literature, 1(2), 50-64.
Ghorbani, M. R. (2012). Controversy over abolishing Iranian university entrance examination. Asian Education and Development Studies, 1(2), 139 – 152.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hazratzad, A., & Gheitanchian, M. (2009). EFL teachers’ attitudes towards post-method pedagogy and their students’ achievement. Proceedings of the 10th METU ELT Convention.
 Izadinia, M. (2009). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. In P. Wachob (ed.), Power in the EFL Classroom:  Critical pedagogy in the Middle East, 7-16. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
 Khatib, M., & Fathi, J. (2012). Post-method pedagogy and ELT teachers. Journal of Academic and Applied Studies, 2(2), 22-29.
Kolb, S.M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research strategies for educators.  Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 3(1), 83– 86.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a post-method pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35(4), 537-560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trend. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.
McMorrow, M. (2007). Teacher education in the post-methods era. ELT Journal, 61 (4), 375-377.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, and politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.
Pishghadam, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English language teaching in post-modern era. Teaching English Language and Literature, 2, 89-109.
Pishghadam, R., & Saboori, F. (2013). Construction, Validation, and Application of a Teacher Status Scale  (TSS): A Case of Iranian Junior High School Teachers. Issues in Language Teaching, 2(2), 1-26.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176.
Sadeghi, S., & Ketabi, S. (2009). From liberal ostrichism to transformative intellectual: An alternative role for Iranian critical pedagogues. ELTED, 12, 52-60.
Saengboon, S. (2013). Thai English teachers’ understanding of post-method pedagogy: Case studies of university lecturers. English Language Teaching, 6(12), 156-166.
Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 107-118.
Sert, N. (2006). EFL student teachers’ learning autonomy. Asian EFL Journal, 8(2), 180-201.
Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage publications.
Smyth, J. (2000). Reclaiming Social Capital through Critical Teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 100  (5), 491-511.
 Spratt, M. (2005). Washback and the classroom: The implications for teaching and learning of studies of washback from exams. Language Teaching Research, 9 (1), 5-29.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University  Press.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tekin, M. (2013). An investigation into novice English teachers’ views and beliefs about method and post-method pedagogy in Turkish EFL context. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 55-69.  
Widdowson, H. G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zeng, Z. (2012). Convergence or divergence? Chinese novice EFL teachers’ beliefs about post-method and teaching practices. English