CALL in Post-Method Era

CALL in Post-Method Era Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics Vol. 2 No. 2, 2017 eISSN: 2503-4197, pISSN: 2527-5070 www. indonesian-efl-journal.org CALL in Post-Method Era1 Hussien M. Abdo Almaktary Higher Institute of Applied Languages and Computer Sciences, Béja, Tunisia e-mail: halmaktari2 @gmail.com Abdu M. Talib Al-Kadi ISLT, Carthage University, Tunis e-mail: Abstract: This paper touches on the influx of technology in language learning and teaching with a focus on the post-method era. Scrutinizing this phenomenon within the framework of Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) shows how technology has stimulated a transformation of language pedagogy from the traditional teachercentered and text-bound classrooms to student-centered and interactive paradigms. While the former paradigm is based on methodology, the latter is guided by principled eclecticism in which teachers make use of a set of macro-strategies so as to make decisions while teaching, instead of reliance on methods that dictate ‘how to teach’. The teaching principles capitalize on teachers’ sensitivity to local contexts rather than general methods. Though CALL has been mooted as panacea for ELT flaws in the method and post-method eras, it is not a one-size-fits-all model. Due to changeable and diversified technological innovations, it is impractical to adopt an electronic device or application for all contexts. Accordingly, the post-method pedagogy puts the onus on language teachers to make informed choices that best fit the particularity of their teaching situations. Keywords: CALL; ELT; macro-strategies; method; post-method era 1 The initial edition of this paper was presented in the INFOL@NGUES colloquium in Beja, Tunisia, organized in April 20-22, 2017. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 2(2), 2017 133 CALL in Post-Method Era 1. INTRODUCTION Learning a non-mother tongue is not as easy as it might appear. It takes long time with sustained efforts to master a second or foreign language. Throughout the history of teaching methodology, numerous teaching methods have been suggested ranging from the grammar-translation method (1800) through the direct method (1900) and the audio-lingual method (1945) to the communicative language teaching (1980) and task-based language learning (1987). An escalation of other methods was patently evident especially in the 20th century which witnessed a fever of methods ‒ some achieved wide recognition and acceptance at different decades while others faded away soon after they were recognized. Some were viewed as short-sighted (e.g. direct method) and others were deemed to be baggy and too general (e.g. the communicative approach). The rise and fall of methods was associated with the rise and fall of approaches and theories to language instruction (Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Thornbury, 2009; Ur, 2015). Following certain methods, language teachers have developed different activities, games, and stories to make language teaching fun and encouraging. By the end of the century, a new teaching movement took over‒ the post-method era. Discussions on L2 instruction continue degrading the ‘teaching methods’. The monopoly of a mono-method is no more accepted. At present, many researchers and pedagogues switch to ‘teaching principles’ (Richards, 2013). What has been and is still evident in the method and post-method eras is the integration of technology (Khaloufi & Laabidi, 2017; Laabidi, 2016; Motteram, 2013). It facilitates things which have been a desire. Even so, technological innovations change constantly and there has been no single technology tailored to all language teaching and learning contexts. Actually, incorporating technology into ELT has been an enduring fascination for decades, resulting in plenty of food for thought in several disciplines: sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, education, etc. A number of claims were made in favor of technology-enhanced language learning (Kern, 2006; Watson, 2001; Zhao, Byers, Puge & Sheldon, 2002). Such assertions maintain that technology supports different learning styles, provides a wealth of learning/teaching resources, and promotes independent learning. Nevertheless, there is still a flawed understating of the effectiveness of technology on L2 education in ESL or EFL contexts. 2. OBJECTIVES This paper intends to ascertain different trends of technology-integration in ELT with a particular focus on computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and its associated allies. It highlights the phenomenon since the 1990s ‒ the period of method waning and beginning of the post-method era. The study brings to focus the principles upon which certain types of technology were adopted. It sketches a picture of technology-integrated language learning paradigm in an attempt to expand our understanding of its contributions to the cause of L2 education, and familiarize the language teachers‒specially the novice‒ with the ongoing debate on the issue. The study also suggests new avenues for further research. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 2(2), 2017 134 CALL in Post-Method Era 3. METHOD VS. NON-METHOD Language teaching is generally discussed within two broad phases: method and post method eras or ‒in simpler words‒ the method and non-method. Ur (2015) defines language methods as a series of classroom procedures based on a coherent set of learning or teaching principles which in their turn are based on theories of what language is and how it is learned. A given method is governed by views on language, L2 learning, goals and objectives of teaching, syllabus, teacher/learner’s roles, activities, techniques and procedures (Richards, 2013; Thornbury, 2009). A teaching method is constructed of other elements. To Richards and Rodgers (2001), a method compromises approach, design, and procedures. Although several methods have been proposed throughout the history of ELT, none could stand singly in all contexts. Ur (2015) enumerated four reasons that weakened the dominance of method. First, a particular method may not fit a local context, i.e. the local learners’ needs, local culture, the personality of the teacher, and requirements of exams, etc. Second, enforcing procedures that teachers have to follow in a given method disempower teachers, preventing them from their right to decide how best to teach a particular class. Third, methods may lead to rejection of useful teaching and learning tools. Last‒ but equally important‒ a method may come to be taken as a goal in itself rather than a means to attain better outcomes. These reasons, among others, gave rise to the post-method pedagogy. Many writers have suggested this revolutionary phase of language teaching which contradicts ‘method’ in theory and practice (Ahmadi & Maftoon, 2015; Akbari, 2008; Richards, 2013; Kumaravadivelu, 2001, 2006; Thornbury, 2009; Ur, 2015). Inspired by poststructuralism, postmodernism, and post-colonialism, Kumaravadivelu (2006) argued that t (...truncated)