Title

A Critical Review of Postmethod Pedagogy

Authors
Sajad Kabgani (M.A)
MA graduate of TEFL, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Pardis Zaferani (M.A)
Lecturer at Islamic Azad University, Shabestar branch, Tabriz, Iran

Biodata
Sajad Kabgani, M.A in TEFL from Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. His main areas of
interest are social semiotics, multimodal analysis, critical discourse analysis, and identity
related issues in L2 acquisition.
Pardis Zaferani M.A in TEFL from Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran (IAUT). She is a
lecturer at Islamic Azad University, Department of English. Her main research interests
include Applied Linguistics, English for specific purpose (ESP) and Discourse Analysis.

Abstract
In an attempt to overcome some of the deficiencies inherent in English-as-aforeign-language teaching, Kumaravadivelu (2001) has argued the need for a
postmethod pedagogy that would be developed within the parameters of
particularity, practicality and possibility. This article reviews postmethod
pedagogy from two perspectives: social semiotics and critical literacy. It indicates
that from a social semiotic perspective, the mentioned pedagogy has adopted a
monomodal orientation in which there is no room for considering other potential
modes of meaning making, hence representing an incomplete picture of
representational tools. On the other hand, the review shows that from critical
literacy perspective, the mentioned pedagogy has not offered a holistic insight into
social issues of language learning. From the latter point of view, it is argued that
overemphasizing the local issues of a given pedagogy can result in neglecting
global ideologies being injected through the ways other than those of methodbased pedagogies.
Keywords: Postmethod pedagogy, Kumaravadivelu, Social Semiotics, Critical
Literacy, multimodality, Identity

Iranian EFL Journal

427

1.Introduction
Questioning the theoretical and practical validity of the concept of method, a number of
applied linguists and ELT scholars through using different terms called it dead (Allwright,
1991; Brown 2002; Clarke, 2003; Jarvis, 1991; Kumaravadivelu, 1992, 1994, 2001,2002,
2003a, 2003b, 2006a, 2006b; Mackey, 1965; Nunan, 1989; Pennycook, 1989; Stern, 1992).
Although there have been a large number of scholars who, whatever differently, opposed
method-based pedagogy (Canagarajah, 1999; Johnson, 2003; Pennycook, 1998; Phillipson,
1992; Prabhu, 1990; Recinto, 2000) Kumaravadivlue is the one whose critical stance has led
him to construct a groundbreaking model of ELT known as postmethod pedagogy. This
pedagogy whose roots can be traced back to postmodern thoughts is a three-dimensional
system consisted of the parameters of particularity, practicality, and possibility
(Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 537). Here the term 'pedagogy' has been used in a broad sense to
cover different areas of L2 education. So, as Kumaravadivelu (2001) states it includes not
only issues pertaining to classroom strategies, instructional materials, curricular objectives,
and evaluation measures, but also a wide range of historical, political, and sociocultural
experiences that directly influence L2 education (p. 537). In general, it can be mentioned
that postmethod pedagogy focuses on L2 education from two perspectives: Pedagogical and
ideological (Kumaravadivelu, 2006a, p. 170). Of course, it should be noted that these two
perspectives, in a broad sense, are not only mutually exclusive, but also to have a
comprehensive pedagogy which considers all sociocultural, political, and economical aspects
of L2 education these two concepts should be studied simultaneously (Auerbach, 1993;
Fairclough, 1995/2010; Tollefson, 2002).
Kumaravadivelu has repeatedly referred to his pedagogy as a context-sensitive one
which attempts to fundamentally restructure our view of language teaching and teacher
education (2006a, p. 170). He believes that whatever decision being made in an L2
educational system should be informed with the current issues of a specific given context.
This sensitivity gets more significance when we are subject to imperialist and capitalist
ideologies being predominantly exercised through the generation of consent rather than
through coercion (Fairclough, 1995/2010, p. 531). With regard to such a significance
given to the social, political, and cultural aspects of postmethod pedagogy, it might be asked:
what orientation postmethod pedagogy has taken to deal with the pedagogical issues of L2
education? To narrow down the scope of our study we can raise three different, of course
interrelated questions. As such, the following questions can be raised to deal with the issue at
Iranian EFL Journal

428

stake: As a critical model of L2 pedagogy, how does postmethod pedagogy reflect principles
of critical literacy, as conceptualized in the current era? How does postmethod pedagogy deal
with representational technology of the current situations? And, does postmethod pedagogy
consider rhetorical influences of the materials being applied in EFL/ESL contexts? And if the
answer to this question is yes, then how does this pedagogy deal with this issue? These are
the issues that are going to be investigated in the present study. Indeed, it should be noted that
each of the issues being raised here can be and are studied individually; however, in this
study they will be discussed with regard to their relevance to the building blocks of
Kumaravadivelus postmethod pedagogy. Accordingly, these questions will be discussed in
different sections. Before starting to deal with these questions, a brief review of the
mentioned pedagogy will be presented.

2.Kumaravadivelus Postmethod Pedagogy at a Glance

Postmethod condition is a state of affairs resulting from the limitations of the concept of
method applied in second/foreign language teaching and learning and a need to find an
alternative to it (Kumaravadivelu, 2006a, p. xiv). This especial condition has provided a
forum for a number of groundbreaking scholars, all of them taking postmodern perspectives,
to hypothesize, and when possible, theorize some possible solution for problems arising from
the limitations of the concept of method. From among these scholars Kumaravadivelu is the
one whose solution to the mentioned problem is informed by an especial pedagogy including
a number of parameters and indicators. These parameters and indicators, to be analyzed
briefly in the following sections, have been complemented by a number of macro and
microstrategies which constitute the operating principles for constructing a situation-specific
postmethod pedagogy. (ibid, p. 208). So, as can be implied, the parameters of the
postmethod pedagogy developed by Kumaravadivelu (2001) constitute the systematic
organizing elements of his suggested pedagogy and the macro and microstrategies constitute
the guidelines for opertionalization of the parameters. Besides the parameters, postmethod
pedagogy includes indicators which are the functions and features that are considered to
reflect the role played by key participants in L2 learning and teaching operations governing
postmethod pedagogy. (p. 176). Since the most important parts of postmethod pedagogy are
its parameters, the next section is devoted to the overview of these concepts.

3.Parameters of Postmethod Pedagogy

Iranian EFL Journal

429

The first and most important parameter of postmethod pedagogy is its particularity
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006a, p. 171). Based on this parameter each and every educational
decision should be determined with regard to the specificity of a given situation.
Accordingly, each new language education context demands a context-sensitive
programming which reflects the wants, needs, and particularities at issue. Inherent in these
particularities are linguistic, sociocultural, and political facts of a given context
(Kumaravedivelu, 2006a, p. 172). Practicality is the second parameter according to which
teachers are not the mere recipient of theories--usually developed by those being disengaged
from the concrete conditions of language teaching and learning-- but contrarily, teachers
should be given the opportunities so as to theorize what they practice and practice what they
theorize (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). In other words, this parameter goes against the existing
dichotomy raised by O Hanlon (1993) between professional theories and personal theories
which has led to the justification of action research (ibid). As Kumaravadivelu (2006a, P.
173) suggests, by resorting to such a dichotomy the role played by the teachers in selfconceptualization and self-construction of pedagogic knowledge will be negatively affected.
Implied in this parameter is the adoption of an opposing stance against the top-down
transmission of knowledge based on which theoreticians, mainly from the developed
societies, inject educational principles (ideologies) to those societies--mainly undeveloped or
developing. Usually these principles are against the particularities of those given contexts
(Fairclough, 1995/2010; Hodge & Kress, 1993; van Dijk, 1993a, 1993b). The third and the
last parameter which directly puts the spotlight on the issues of ideology and power is the
parameter of possibility. According to this parameter, all pedagogies are, closely linked to
power and dominance, hence they result in, creating and sustaining social inequalities.
(Kumaravadivelu, 2006a, P. 174). Besides the emphasis that this parameter puts on the
potentiality of pedagogies in transmitting ideological orientations, there can be observed the
significance that this parameter gives to the individual identity of all participants in an
educational setting. During the course of explaining this parameter, Kumaravadivelu (2006)
constantly refers to the potentiality of linguistic elements in transmitting ideological pitfalls;
consequently, he requires all the participants in the process of English language teaching and
learning to employ specific strategies so as to detect the regarded pitfalls.
What was presented above was a general overview of the three pedagogic parameters on
which the postmethod model of Kumaravadivelu (2001) has been founded. Now we will turn
to the questions raised in the introductory section.

Iranian EFL Journal

430

4.Critical literacy and the concept of sociality

The notion of critical literacy (Bourdieu, 1991; Friere, 1985; Giroux, 1983) , in spite of the
plurality and complexity that can be found in the mainstream education, in general, and in L2
education, in particular, can be a meeting place of different themes that are of concern in
the field in question (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, p. 151). What makes critical literacy an
intersection of different themes and issues is the special emphasis that this approach puts on
the sociality underpinning all communicative events. According to Morgan and Ramanathan
(2005), today more than any other time the notion of literacy is conceptualized as a social
practice (italicized in Morgan & Ramanathan). In its broad sense, literacy concentrates
upon the meanings and values of literate behavior and accordingly espouses a more critical
perspective (Williams, 2004, p. 576). Since considering literacy regardless of its social
dimension can distort the authentic picture of this phenomenon, investigating the concept of
sociality in all practices related to literacy, including L2 education, is highly determining
(Appaduari, 1990; Jweitt, 2008; Kalantzis, Cope, & Harvey, 2003; Kress, 1997, 2000, 2003;
Luke and Dooly, 2011). From an ideological point of view, the social dimension of literacy
practices is the root of unequal power distribution which in the current era is mainly practiced
by institutions in power (Carr, 2003; Fairclough, 1992, 1995/2010, 2006; Foucault, 1980;
Gee, 2002; van Dijk, 1998).

5.Critical Literacy in TEFL/TESOL

When it comes to TEFL/TESOL, critical literacy "informed by sociopolitical, ethnographic,
and applied linguistics research" tends to unravel hidden discursive (ideological) practices
which the foreign/second language learners of English are exposed to (Luke & Dooly, 2011,
p. 857; also in Kubota & Lin, 2009; Pennycook, 1999, 2001; 2004). In L2 educational
contexts, literacy practices provide all participants including teachers and learners with
textual means. Nowadays these textual means through their "multimodal orchestrations"
(Kress, 2010, p. 159) inevitably advertise dominant values and identities (Cummins, 2006;
Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996; Morgan & Clarke, 2011). In line with this argument, it should
be noted that the social characteristics of each pedagogy, especially the applied materials,
plays a far-reaching role in the cognitive and semiotic processes that L2 participants resort to
(Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, p. 151).
The current situation therein all educational practices, including text-making processes,
are highly affected by socialization, considering meaning making processes in which
Iranian EFL Journal

431

cognitive and semiotic strategies of learners are realized is one of the most important issues
being discussed in critical domains (Kress, 2010). These domains consisting of, on the one
hand, "the ideological antecedents and disjunctures of the existing order", and on the other
hand, "transformations of representational technologies" are of considerable significance for
critical educators (Morgan and Ramanathan, 2005, p. 152). According to Morgan and
Ramanathan, in these domains our conceptualization of literacy affected by new digital
literacy and global information system is redefined. As a result, the new understanding we get
from the notion of literacy causes us to reinvestigate the concepts of reality, locality, and
community (Darley, 2000; Kramsch, 2000; Warnick, 2002). Consequently, in the situations
where we have to change our conceptualization of the notions that have had special place in
L2 education, resorting to old analytic tools not only is ineffective, but it can result in
misleading analysis (Kress, 2010). Applied linguistics and the related fields in ebb and flow
of education, in its broad sense, have never tended to remain stagnant. As such, when it was
felt that the old analytic tools could not reflect the realities of contemporary communication,
a number of critical educators adhered to "a pluralized notion of literacies and multiliteracies
to help student negotiate a broader range of text-types and modes of persuasion" (Morgan &
Ramanathan, 2005, p. 152). These texts which are usually represented in multimodal
ensembles are considered as ideological tools (Jewitt & Kress, 2003; Kress & van Leeuwen,
2001). Needless to say, with regard to the unstable situation of the current era, these newlysuggested concepts are not considered as panacea, and it is exactly the main feature of
professional domains in which every seemingly unimportant matter can result in a dramatic
change. According to Van Lier (1996, p. 38), "a complex adoptive system" which tries to
take every detail into consideration can to a great extent respond to the existing complexities
of language learning and teaching (for a detailed study of this issue refer to Holland, 1998,
2005; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2002). Now by referring to this introductory note about critical
literacy and its relevant issues we will turn to the ways through which Kumaravadivelu
(2001) has dealt with critical literacy issues especially the manifestation of social dimensions
in postmethod pedagogy.

6.Parameter of Particularity and the issue of locality

Elaborating on the parameter of particularity, which is considered as the most important
parameter of the postmethod pedagogy, Kumaravadivelu (2006a) refers to the hermeneutic
concept of situational understanding (italicized in Kumaravadivelu 2006a, p.171). According
Iranian EFL Journal

432

to this concept, an authentic pedagogy should look at each new situation from a holistic
perspective. In line with this argument, Kumaravadivelu relates the parameter of particularity
to local exigencies and lived experiences. By referring to these concepts he wants to
criticize those method-based pedagogies which through ignoring these concepts faced a sense
of disillusionment by the participants in the field. In this way, Kumaravedivelu takes an
obvious critical stance toward those methods and pedagogies therein local features of
particular situations have been ignored to the cost of putting illogical and even ideologyoriented emphasis on global features of L2 education. To clarify the complexity of this issue,
he refers to a couple of studies done in non-English contexts therein L2 learners through
taking deliberate stance have negatively reacted to the global features of their L2 educational
system (e.g., Chick, 1996; Pakir, 1999; Shamim, 1996; Tickoo, 1996). It should be noted that
Kumaravadivelu relates the main cause of the occurred disillusionment to the communicative
language teaching method (CLT) being employed by the pedagogies in question. As can be
observed here, Kumaravadivelu, both explicitly and implicitly, has strongly decried methodbased pedagogies, especially CLT, for disseminating globally oriented ideologies being in
sharp contrast to those local exigencies of non-English contexts.
With regard to the issue raised above it can be asked that 'can putting strong emphasis on
the local processes and practices of a given pedagogy solve the problems attributed to the
globally-oriented ideologies being, directly or indirectly, advertised by ELT materials?' To
put it another way, how can a given pedagogy support its local characteristics while its
participants are subject to globally-oriented ELT materials? Nowadays, in spite of what
critical L2 theorists and practitioners tend, the domination of the imported ELT materials
especially in EFL countries in the market can be easily felt. There are lots of reasons that
make these materials find strong acceptance by ELT practitioners, among which is the low
quality of locally-produced materials.
Here it can be suggested that some global and ideological viewpoints can be injected into
a given pedagogy regardless of the method or approach that pedagogy resort to. A simple
example of this process can be found in the situations in which L2 learners refer to the
technological tools such as internet to search for some related materials which help them
improve their learning a second language. Today it is repeatedly acknowledged that the ways
through which we represent knowledge shape what is possible to know and what we need to
know (Myers & Beach, 2001. P. 233). Myers and Beach believe that todays
representational technologies by providing both affordances and constraints for sensemaking can both empower or limit us. It should be noted that from a critical discursive
Iranian EFL Journal

433

analytic perspective knowledge refers to all kinds of contents which make up a

consciousness and/or all kinds of meanings used by respective historical persons to interpret
and shape the surrounding reality (Jger, 2001, p. 33). The crucial point here is that in the
current situation almost always the majority of technological tools are introduced and
developed by powerful institutions following global orientations (van Dijk, 1993b). In line
with this argument, approximately no one can deny that the building block of every
educational system is the materials that it applies to promote its objectives. Having even a
cursory look at the works in which Kumaravadivelu has developed the postmethod pedagogy,
one can find that there is no straightforward note on the application of L2 teaching materials
in non-English contexts. According to him, the ineffectiveness and failure of method-based
pedagogies, especially CLT, is related to the excessive focus that the mentioned pedagogies
give to sociocultural negotiation, expression, and interpretation (Kumaravadivelu, 2006a, p.
171). Here it can be suggested that although the excessive emphasis on these issues can lead
to the disinclination among L2 participants, these issues are not limited to a given method and
its principles.
As observed here, Kumaravadivelu by putting exclusive, if not excessive, emphasis on the
locality of L2 pedagogies has presented an incomplete picture of L2 education. Here the two
sides of the social dimension that can be divided between the local and global aspects of
pedagogy have been presented defectively to the cost of ignoring global issues of L2
pedagogy.

7.Representational technology, identity and postmethod pedagogy

Dealing with the representational features of educational materials and environments has
been recently a challenging issue in critical approaches to mainstream education, in general,
and L2 education, in particular (Castells, 1996). The area therein the ideological
representation of social actors/actions is studied is critical discourse analysis (CDA)
(Fairclough, 1992, 1995/2010, 2006, van Dijk, 1993a, 1993c; Wodak & Meyer, 2001). In the
same vein, although with somehow different tools, social semiotics aims at analyzing texts
and environments from a multimodal perspective (Kress & Jewitt, 2003; Kress & van
Leeuwen, 1996/2006, 2001). From a social semiotic perspective, since texts and
environments are being designed simultaneously by the use multiple modes and media, the
tools which are supposed to analyze such texts and environments should reflect the realities
of the issues under consideration. Accordingly, in this domain it is believed that the ways
Iranian EFL Journal

434

through/by which knowledge is represented, to a noticeable extent, determine the content of

what is represented. In other words, meaning making processes and consequently learning,
especially from an educational point of view, relies heavily on the modes and media of
representation (Jewitt, 2008, p. 241). According to Castells, in the current era communicative
tools have undergone a dramatic transformation and, as a result, have been realized in the
forms of "Super Text" and "Meta-Language" (p. 328). In such systems different modes of
communication such as image, sound, language and so on integrate and make a single
system.
Multimodality becomes more significant when it is linked to the identity-related issues of
L2 acquisition. In critical literacy it is believed that identity is not a mono-dimensional entity,
but it is a "fluid and emergent" phenomenon bridging between "mind/body, reason/emotion,
and subject/object" (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005, p. 153). Morgan and Ramanathan believe
that to get a logical understanding from meaning making processes we should not resort to
just one side of this dichotomy; however, a synthesis of these concepts which they call
"subject-in-discourse"a concept that they have drawn from postmodern approaches to
identity-- should be assigned as the unit of analysis. According to this notion, individuals are
directly and/or indirectly influenced by discursive practices, and the effect of these practices
is so much that they dominate over individual and collective understandings. Here it should
be noted that the issue of identity has been approached and consequently defined by different
philosophical lens. However, what is generally shared among philosophers is the
considerable importance of the repertoire of communicative resources on which identity
relies (Morgan & Clarke, 2011). Being social in nature, these communicative resources
define, challenge, and reconfigure identities of individuals. To put in another way, it can be
stated that "semiotic potential" of representational tools is the determining factor in identity
formation (Blommaerts, 2005, cited in Morgan & Clarke, 2011, p. 817). Elaborating on the
meaning making processes of different modes, Kress (2003) refers to affordances--capacities
of each discursive tool in meaning making-- and Kramsch (2000) puts sharp emphasis on the
undeniable role of texts in identity formation.
Immanuel Kant, the great philosopher, in his Critique of Pure Reason (1929) talks about
the way through which our knowledge and consequently our identity is shaped. He believes
that the way through which we gain knowledge, although highly dependent on the
experiences we get from the environment, is beyond the realm of our experiences and extends
to the internal representations. Some decades later, Kants ideas with regard to knowledge
and identity formation constructed the foundations of constructivist educational theories
Iranian EFL Journal

435

which today can be found in the seminal works of Jean Piaget (1954, 1970), Lev Vygotsky
(1978), and John Dewey (1916, 1933). According to the Sociocultural theory, human
consciousness is mediated through semiotic processes, the most important of which is
communicative activity (Vygotsky, 1987, cited in Lantlof, p. 303). Today after passing a
long time and owing to the great educational and philosophic thinkers, we come to the point
that identity formation, particularly in educational contexts, is highly bound to discursive and
representational tools. Now by referring to these concepts this question is raised: how
postmethod pedagogy has dealt with issues related to representational technology and its role
in identity formation? As far as the study of the authors of this article is concerned, there is
no straightforward reference to discursive and ideological structures of ELT materials in
Kumaravadivelus postmethod pedagogy.

8.Conclusion
The two perspectives on which the critique of postmethod pedagogy was founded have tried
to make a connection between representation and democracy: a democratic space in which all
learners can represent their identities through employing different modes and media. From a
multimodal point of view, it is believed that modes of representation and their material
features have a direct impact on identity (Pahl & Rowswell, 2006). In line with this argument,
Kress (2003) makes us aware of the paradigm shift that has recently happened in
communication and representation. The impact of this shift is so obvious that it is
approximately impossible to represent a definition of learning and identity without
considering the multimodal environment of a given context. Today, one of the most
challenging facts that a teacher has to deal with is the "epistemological diversity"the
complex background entangled with everyday unstable environment that learners, especially
in learning a second language, bring with them in the class (Luke, 2005; cited in Stein, 2008,
p. 33). Undoubtedly, dealing with this diversity demands judicious strategies which let the
teacher look at their learners through different angles. The present study, with all of its
limitations, could not find such a kind of orientation in postmethod pedagogy, hence
indicating the deficiency that postmethod pedagogy is subject to in providing us with an
alternative organizing system. However, let us put an end to this study by wearing somehow
different glasses.
Kumaravadivelu while founding the primary concepts of postmethod pedagogy in one of
his works concludes his paper in this way: "A work in progress hardly facilitates a
Iranian EFL Journal

436

conclusion" (2001, p. 557). And somewhere else instead of starting the concluding section by
the common term 'conclusion', he cleverly employs this phrase: "The end as the beginning"
(2006b, p. 75). Probably all the scholars dealing with second language teaching and learning
and all its related issues confirm the iconoclastic ideas of Kumaravadivelu. What we quoted,
at the beginning of this paragraph, indicate how meticulously, by his postmodern lens, this
applied linguist looks at the endless landscape of L2 education. What was criticized in this
paper is "a work in progress" and this very status lets us go through the areas being
untouched in the referred pedagogy. So we believed that the present critique can be thought
of as a complement to postmethod pedagogy. To put it another way, some critical issues such
as literacy, ideology, and identity are among the issues being touched in postmethod
pedagogy, but the reason that resulted in the writing of the present study is the way through
which postmethod pedagogy has dealt with the mentioned issues. It is to a great extent hard,
if not impossible, to cover all the mentioned issues under a single flag and simultaneously
expect to strike a balance among all of them. Postmethod pedagogy is a movement against
what is believed that "has had a magical hold on us". Criticizing such a powerful body of
concepts (method)--it is undoubtedly powerful since it is supported by institutions in power
demands a holistic perspective that can be achieved just by multi-dimensional studies. The
fact that justifies such a perspective is the interconnectedness of L2 education to far-reaching
domains of politics, economy, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and the list goes on.
From Kumaravadivelu's (2006b, p. 76) point of view, the long way that he and other
scholars of the field have come is laudable. It is laudable since it transited us "from awareness
to awakening". But as Kumaravadivelu states, what is of great significance is the next
destination which is the application of these principles in the real context of language
pedagogy. We hope what has been represented here to be of help to the mentioned goal.

References
Allwright, R. L. (1991). The death of the method (Working Paper No. 10). Lancaster, England: The University
of Lancaster, The Exploratory Practice Centre.
Appadurai, A. (1990). Disjuncture and difference in the global culture economy. Theory, Culture, and Society,
7, 295-310.
Auerbach, E.R. (1993). Reexamining English only in the ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly,27(1),9-32.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Iranian EFL Journal

437

Brown, D. (2002). English language teaching in the Post-Method era: Towards better diagnosis, treatment,
and assessment. In J. C. Richards & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching (pp.
918). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Reymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
Polity Press.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Carr, J. (2003). Culture through the looking glass: An intercultural experiment in sociolinguistics. In A. J.
Liddicoat, S. Eisenchlas, & S. Trevaskes (Eds.), Australian

perspectives on internationalizing

education (pp. 7586). Melbourne: Language Australia.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chick, K. J. (1996). Safe-talk: Collusion in apartheid education. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the
language classroom (pp. 2139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Clarke, M. A. (2003). A place to stand. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Cummins, J. (2006). Identity texts: The imaginative construction of self through multiliteracies pedagogy. In
O. Garcia, T. Skuttnabb-Kangas & M. E. Torres-Guzman (Eds.), Imagining multilingual schools:
Languages in education and glocalization (pp. 5168). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Darley, A. (2000). Visual digital culture: Surface play and spectacle in new media genres. London: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995/2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N (2006). Language and Globalization. Routledge: London, UK.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 19721977. Brighton:
Harvester.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: culture, power, and liberation. (D. Macedo, Trans.). South Hadley,
MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Gee, J. P. (2002). Literacies, identities, and discourses. In M. J. Schleppegrell & M. C. Colombi (Eds.),
Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 159175).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Giroux, H.A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy of the opposition. Bergin & Garvey,
Inc. South Hadley, MA.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From chaos to order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holland, J. H. (2005). Language Acquisition as a Complex Adaptive System. In J. W. Minett & W. S. Y.
Wang (Eds.), Language acquisition, change and emergence (pp. 411-435). Hong Kong: City
University of Hong Kong Press.

Iranian EFL Journal

438

Jger, S. (2001): Discourse and knowledge: Theoretical and methodological aspects of critical discourse and
dispositive analysis. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp.
32-62). London: Sage.
Jarvis, G. A. (1991). Research on teaching methodology: Its evolution and prospects. In B. Feed (Ed.), Foreign
language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 295306). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath & Co.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. London: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32 (1),
241-267.
Jewitt, C. & Kress, G. (2003). Multimodal literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Johnson, K. (2001). An introduction to foreign language learning and teaching. London: Longman.
Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of Pure Reason. (N. Kemp Smith trans). London: Macmillan, 2nd ed, 1933.
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Harvey, A. (2003). Assessing multiliteracies and the new basics. Assessment in
Education, 10 (1), 15-26.
Kramsch, C. (2000). Global and local identities in the contact zone. In C. Gnutzmann (Ed.), Teaching and
learning English as a global language (pp. 131143). Tbingen, Germany: Stauffenberg Verlag.
Kress, G. (1997). Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the
design of social futures (pp. 182202). London: Routledge.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G. & Jewitt, C. (Eds.) (2003). Multimodal Literacy. New York: Peter Lang.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: a social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London:
Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996/2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. New York:
Routledge.
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse, London: Arnold.
Kubota, R., & Lin, A. (Eds.) (2009). Race, culture, and identities in second language education: Exploring
critically engaged practice. New York: Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1992). Macrostrategies for the second/foreign language teacher. Modern Language
Journal, 76(1), 4149.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/ foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 2748.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537560.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2002). Method, antimethod, postmethod. In A. Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL 2002 York
Conference selections. Kent, England: IATEFL.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

Iranian EFL Journal

439

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). A postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22,
539550.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006a). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006b). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1),
59-81.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
18(2), 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theory
perspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization: An ecological
perspective. London: Continuum.
Luke, A. (2005). Foreword. In K. Pahl and J. Rowsell (Eds.), Literacy and education: Understanding the new
literacy studies in the classroom (pp. x-xiv). London: Sage.
Mackey, W. F. (1965). Language teaching analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Morgan, B., & Clarke, M. (2011). Identity in second language teaching and learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.),
Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2) (pp. 817-836). New York:
Routledge.
Morgan, B., & Ramanathan, V. (2005). Critical literacies and language education: Global and local
perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 151-169.
Myers, J. & Beach R. (2001). Hypermedia authoring as critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 233-246.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing tasks for the communicative classroom. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
OHanlon, C. (1993). The importance of an articulated personal theory of professional development. In J.
Elliott (Ed.), Reconstructing teacher education: Teacher development (pp. 243255). London: The
Falmer Press.
Pahl, K. & Rowsell, J. (Eds.) (2006). Travel notes from the new literacy studies: Instances of practice.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Pakir, A. (1999). Connecting with English in the context of internationalization. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 103114.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589618.
Pennycook, A. (1998). English and the discourses of colonialism. London: Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329348.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Iranian EFL Journal

440

Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical
pedagogies and language learning (pp. 327345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best methodwhy? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161176.
Piaget, J. (1954). The Construction of Reality in the Child, New York: Basic Books.
Piaget, J. (1970). The science of education and the psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Ricento, T. (Ed.) (2000). Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Shamim, F. (1996). Learner resistance to innovation in classroom methodology. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society
and the language classroom (pp. 105121). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stein, P. (2008). Multimodal pedagogies in diverse classrooms: Representation, rights, and resources.
London, UK: Routledge.
Stern, H. H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tickoo, M. L. (1996). Forward from Bangalore. In B. Kenny & W. Savage (Eds.), Language and
development: Teachers in a changing world. London: Longman.
Tollefson, J. W. (2002). Language policies in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Dijk, T.A. (1993a). Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993b). Principles of experience into social science: Critical discourse analysis. Discourse
Feminism and Psychology, 1(1), 155-69.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993c). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society 4(2), 249-83.
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidicipilnary study, London:Sage.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New
York: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1: Problems of general psychology.
Including the volume Thinking and Speech. New York: Plenum.
Warnick, B. (2002). Critical literacy in a digital era: Technology, rhetoric and the public interest. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Williams, E. (2004). Literacy studies. In A, Davice & C. Elders (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics
(pp. 576-63). Oxford: Blackwell publishing.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.

Iranian EFL Journal

441