Pedagogy: Context-Related Textual Analysis

Introduction
Lately we have witnessed the steady mounting of critical thoughts on the nature and scope of method.Not only have language teaching practitioners been warned against the blind acceptance of unapproved methods but also they have been advised to approach the very concept of ‘method’ with forethought and precaution (Allwright, 1991; Pennycook, 1989; Prabhu, 1990; and Stern, 1983, 1985, 1992). Hardly new, the uneasiness about the concept of method can be traced back to the fact that methods have long been motivated and maintained by multiple myths which in turn have created an inflated imageof them and contributed to a gradual erosion of their usability as a construct in language teaching and learning (Kumaravadivelu, 2006a). Addressing

In that attempts are made to bring about awareness and in that way ‘fundamentally reconstruct our view of language teaching and learning’ (p. 170). According to him, all those involved in a L2 educational system should make informed decisions which are sensitive to and at the same time include current issues of a specific given context. This sensitivity becomes even more of prominence in the light of imperialist and capitalist ideological influences,exercised through the ‘predominantly generation of contest rather than coercion’ (Fairclough 2010, p. 531).

To stage a fair argument, the first part of this article rounds ona definition of postmethod pedagogy andaddresses some of its philosophical foundations. The second part presents some critics on it. Finally, agency is defined and postmethod pedagogy is discussed with respect to initiative, voice, and the notions of power and dominance.

Postmethod

That is to say, ‘any post method pedagogy must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching in a particular group of learners pursuing a particular set of goals with in a particular institutional context embedded in a particular sociocultural milieu (Kumaravadivelu, 2001, p. 538).In this sense, postmethod pedagogy rejects the very notion of ‘one size fits all’ underlying method-based pedagogies. Lying at the heart of the idea of pedagogical particularity is the fact that meaningful pedagogy is senseless without a holistic interpretation of particular situations and that its improvement requires at least a general improvement of those particular situations (Elliot, 1993). According to the particularity parameter, pedagogies that overlook local needs and lived experiences arouse hostility and thus hinder learning (Colman, 1996). Hence, it seems as if we are left with no other option rather than practicing particularity and hoping that a context-sensitive education will emerge as a result. To the end, policymakers and program administrators need to become critically aware of local conditions of teaching and learning and seriously consider them in putting together an effective teaching program. This in turn, ‘involves practicing teachers, either individually or collaboratively observing their teaching acts, evaluating their outcomes, identifying problems, finding solutions, and trying them out to