discussed above has been the call to depart from the enslavement and over- generalisations of methods and to adopt alternative approaches to language pedagogy. In this light, post-methodology has been advocated by ELT scholars (e.g., Johnson 1995; Kumaravadivelu, 1994; 2001; 2006; Pennycook 1989) as a way not only of deconstructing the ideological and social ethos of methods, but also of empowering
language teachers. Kumaravadivelu (1994) defines the Post Method Condition, as ‘a state of affairs that compels us to refigure the relationship between the theorizers and the practitioners of method’ (p. 28). The emergent relationship consists of a reversal of roles wherein practitioners become ‘strategic teachers and strategic researchers’ working within a framework of macro strategies and developing micro strategies which are not based on any particular theories or methods, but on emerging realities in their working context as well as the creativity and autonomous decisions that teachers and learners bring to each context. Taking this further and drawing from Widdowson’s (1980) distinction between linguistics applied and applied linguistics, Johnson (1995)
postulates a paradigm shift from methodology applied to applied methodology. By
methodology applied, Johnson (ibid) refers to a situation where a ready-made method is
presented to teachers who are then left with the responsibility of applying it to their situation. Applied Methodology, on the other hand, involves starting off with the
problems faced in a given situation, and deriving a methodology to meet them. The shift to applied methodology suggests giving importance to the generative influence of contextual exigencies in developing methodology, which methodology, Wallace (1999) argues, should respond to changes in the society, the immediate environment, the learners and the teachers. Kumaravadivelu (2001) conceptualises this by proposing three pedagogic parameters for re-orienting ELT methodology, namely, particularity,
practicality and possibility. The pedagogy of practicality seeks to equate the importance
of practitioners’ and academics’ theories by empowering teachers to ‘theorize from their practice and practice what they theorize’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 59), the pedagogy
of particularity aims at making practitioners aware of the varied linguistic, social and
cultural backgrounds and needs of their learners, the pedagogy of possibility links
consciousness that students bring with them to the classroom’ (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 59).
While post-method ideology seems to celebrate the power of teachers by relying on their competence and confidence (Kumaravadivelu, 2001) it clearly ignores the reality of language teaching and the language teacher (Akbari 2008). The question of how to prepare teachers for their duties within its paradigms remains largely unanswered especially when one considers the disparities that exist between different contexts in terms of teacher qualifications and proficiency. In relying on teachers’ competence and qualifications, the post-method ideology seems to take for granted the differences in teachers’ abilities as well as the administrative constraints imposed on teachers of state institutions. What is more, in its focus on a kind of unitary background and needs of learners, post-method seems to ignore the reality of African classrooms where hundreds of learners from many L1 and cultural and even religious backgrounds coexist in the same classroom nor does it recognise the challenging classroom exigencies of younger learners in mainstream primary schools. In this light, the post-method ideology can be said to be a further manifestation of a search for method through
...an attempt to unify … disparate elements into a more holistic, redefined communicative language teaching (CLT) through a dialectical process of building and deconstructing forces (Bell, 2003, p. 326).
Above, I have shown the shortcomings both of the discourse of method and of post- method pedagogies in terms of their relative inability to handle contextual variations of learning and learners on the one hand, and teaching and teachers on the other hand. While post-methodology has not yet found its way into ELT discourse in Cameroon, the pervasive presence of methods imported from donor countries and prescribed by the
MOE to teachers cannot be overlooked especially in a context where methods are seen as applicable to all subjects in the curriculum. As I have previously discussed, these methods have been prescribed to teachers as therapies for their methodological deficiencies and a magic wand to the problem of falling standards in English especially at primary level. Such a perspective, as has been discussed above (Rubdy, 2008) can only result in frustration and resistance on the part of teachers. The present study, while acknowledging the importance of contextual variables in developing pedagogy, does not seek to propose a local method, nor does it seek to reinforce the arguments that challenge the contextual appropriateness of western methods. In other words, my purpose is not to present the educational, economic, social and cultural context of the Cameroonian classroom as a constraint to the application of any method. While it cannot be denied that some circumstances present constraints to successful learning in general, to see context essentially as a constraint to the application or applicability of a method is to authenticate the false claims of the hegemony of methods to the detriment of an appreciation of the generative influence of context to teaching and learning. My purpose therefore is to replace the deficit paradigm of recent pedagogic policy enactment and dissemination in Cameroon by analysing teachers’ practices within the framework of an ‘enhancement paradigm’ which, according to Wallace (1999) is ‘based on a well- grounded evaluation of the positive features of [teachers’] professional social context at all levels: macro, micro and individual’ (p. 17). In the present study, the enhancement paradigm draws on an in-depth study of the positive features of teachers’ practices as these practices are influenced by, and as they respond to, the realities of their classrooms and their sense of engagement. While, I agree that understanding the positive features of the social context is important in teacher development, it is my contention that evaluating the positive features of teachers’ pragmatic responses to the social context
could be a more practical, relevant and teacher-friendly alternative to promoting professional development especially given the fast changing socio-cultural and technological realities of countries in transition like Cameroon.