EFL Teachers Perception on Postmehod Pedagogy in Higher Education Context in Indonesia

  • Ani Fiani STKIP PGRI Lubuklinggau
  • Syaprizal Syaprizal STKIP-PGRI Lubuklinggau


This current study is aimed to investigate EFL teachers perception on postmethod pedagogy proposed by Kumaravadivelu. To achieve the aim, the research method used here is a qualitative case study with nine doctoral students from various universities in Indonesia. The data collection tools are a questionnaire and structured interview. The result revealed that most of the EFL lecturers have already implemented postmethod pedagogy perspective divided into four parts: teaching interaction, teaching strategy, teaching objective, and teaching content although they were not aware yet about the concept. It was indicated that they theorized what they do and did what they theorize. For further researchers, postmethod pedagogy should be investigated in real condition of teaching and learning process and the effect of this pedagogy on students learning achievement so that it will be clearly found whether or not this pedagogy perspective is appropriate to be implemented in higher education in Indonesian context.

Keywords: postmethod pedagogy, postmethod pedagogy framework, EFL teachers  


Arikan, A. (2006). Postmethod condition and its implementations for english language teacher education. Journal of Language and a Linguistics Studies, 2(1), 1-11.

Ary, Donald., Lucy Cheser Jacobs, and Asghar Razavieh. 2002. Introduction To Research In Education. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Brown, D. (2002). English language teaching in the “post-method” era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J.C. Richards & W.. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching, 9-18. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Chen, Mingyao. (2014). Postmethod Pedagogy and its influece on EFL teaching strategies. English language Teaching, 7 (5), 17-25.

Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multicompetence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.

Freeman, D. (1991). Mistaken constructs: Re-examining the nature and assumptions of language teacher education. Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The state of the art, 25-39, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Hazratzad, A. And Mchrnaz Gheitanchian. EFL teachers’ attitudes towards postmethod pedagogy and their students’ achievement. Proceeding of the 10th METU ELT Convention. Accessed on Monday, December 22nd, 2014.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27-48.

_______________. 2001. Toward a postmethod pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537-560.

________________. 2003. Critical language pedagogy: a postmethod perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22 (4), 539-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00317.x

_______________. 2003a. Beyond Method: Macrostrategies for Language Teaching . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

_______________. 2006. Understanding Language Teaching From Method To Postmethod. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Prabhu, N.S. 1990. There is no best method----why? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161-176.

Richard, J.C. & Rodgers, T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Saengboon, S. 2013. Thai English Teachers’ Understanding of “postmethod pedagogy”: case study of University lecturers. Canadian Center of Science and education, 6, 156-166

Wallace, M. J. 1991. Training Foreign Language Teachers: A Reflective Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abstract viewed = 263 times
pdf downloaded = 217 times