Medida del impacto según datos cualitativos.

Effective teaching is not about a method. It is about understanding and implementing principles of learning. (Brandl, 2008, p. 1)

As can be seen from the survey of the approaches and methods presented in this review, the field of second or foreign language teaching has

undergone many changes over the past century. Over the years many methods have come and gone out of fashion. Although in the1970s and 1980s, there was a huge motivation for methods, recent developments and trends that began in the past two decades in L2 pedagogy have contributed to a shift towards what is now commonly known as the ‘post-methods era’ (Richards & Renandya, 2002). The reason for this shift according to Pishghadam and Mirzaee (2008) was the theoretical effect that the shift from modernism to postmodernism in Arts and Science was having on language education. Such principles as the

rejection of universal models and the emphasis on localisation or context-specific models, along with elements such as social

constructivism, and pragmatism have found their way into the SLA field (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Pishghadam & Mirzaee, 2008). Consequently, from the point of view of socially based theories of language learning and the recognition of the notions of situated learning and the social and cultural specificity of the learning context inherent in social

constructivism, and changes in the roles of teachers and learners, what Brown (2007) calls the ‘decline of methods’ started. Kumaravadivelu (2006) describes the shift in view to methods in the post method era:

The concept of method has only a limited and limiting impact on language learning and teaching, that method should no longer be considered a valuable or a viable construct, and that what is needed is not an alternative method but an alternative to method

(p. 67).

This is consistent with the widely held view that applying a one-size-fits- all or best methods approach is inadequate (Brown, 2007; Ellis, 2012). As an alternative to the primacy of methods, it has been suggested that teachers should be encouraged to construct their own context-specific post method pedagogy (Brown, 2007; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). To develop such a post-method pedagogy, Kumaravadivelu from the

perspective of local demands believes that the specific contexts, specific learners and teachers, specific relationships between the teachers and the learners, and the specific pedagogical goals, should be taken into

account. He believes that failing to consider these particularities is failing to consider lived experiences. Based on this assumption he went on to propose a framework as a guide for teachers to develop their own context-specific pedagogy. The framework consists of three parameters:

• Particularity is the recognition of the particularities (social,

linguistic, cultural and political) of the given contexts.

• Practicality refers to the practical theories that teachers generate

based on their knowledge of SLA, and their observation and lived experience of the classroom practice, and the interaction between their theory and practice.

• Possibility concerns the recognition of the socio-political

awareness or identity of the participants (teachers and learners) while seeking identity reframing and social transportations or reforms.

Based on the principles of particularity, practicality, and possibility, a locally and situationally relevant post-method pedagogy, as suggested by Kumaravadivelu (2006), encompasses ten macro-strategies that are

associated with the current research and practice:

They are (a) maximize learning opportunities, (b) facilitate negotiated interaction, (c) minimize perceptual mismatches, (d) activate intuitive heuristics, (e) foster language awareness, (f) contextualize linguistic input, (g) integrate language skills, (h) promote learner autonomy, (i) ensure social relevance, and (j) raise cultural consciousness (p. 69).

Kumaravadivelu defines these macro strategies as general principles, based on which teachers can design their own micro-strategies and generate their own methods and techniques based on their own

experiential knowledge and that best match with their local goals, values, and needs.

While this may sound very theoretical, the purpose and importance of these three frameworks and their associated strategies, as discussed by Kumaravadivelu (2006), is to provide general principles that could guide teachers in various situations and settings with their decisions and design of their own context specific pedagogies, rather than offering methods. Because, as he argues, ‘any actual post-method pedagogy has to be constructed by teachers themselves by taking into consideration linguistic, social, cultural, and political particularities’ (p. 69).

teachers and learners, and different views to language teaching/learning processes (Richards, 2002). Teachers are no longer regarded as the passive recipients of the prescribed methods, but rather, are considered as the action researchers and active creators of their teaching activities based on their understanding of the processes of teaching and learning (ibid). Richards and Rodgers (2014), however, underscore the fact that alternative approaches and methods, drawn upon collective experience and practice, have played essential role in developing SLA profession. They believe that pedagogic choices by teachers are most effective when they are informed by a range of methods, approaches and theories

available. Richards and Rodgers recommend that teachers come to study and learn about different approaches and methods, and develop

understanding of how theory is actually linked with practice, to guide their pedagogic decisions in the classroom. In their view, knowledge of a variety of established approaches and methods could lead teachers to develop their personalised methods and techniques with adaptation or adjusting those approaches and methods based on their own classroom realities.

In the same vein, Larsen-Freeman (2000) used the term ‘principled eclecticism’ to describe the way teachers practise and create their own teaching methods ‘by blending aspects of others in a principled manner’ (p. 183). Similarly, Brown (2007) suggests that teachers take a

‘cautiously, enlightened, eclectic approach’ in constructing their own principles or theory based on their knowledge of second language pedagogy (p. 19). As such, to construct a post-method pedagogy

according to the realities of their classroom, teachers are expected to be able to use a variety of methods, means, procedures, activities and take into consideration different dimensions of teaching and learning

practices including explicit and implicit, top-down and bottom up, accuracy and fluency to adapt to students’ needs and desires, to develop communicative competence and to promote communicative language use that is the ultimate goal of language learning.

In the post method era, CLT has undergone attacks for not being a culturally universal approach and that as a product of English speaking countries (mainly Britain and the U.S.A.) reflects the ideological norms and particular views of those countries (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). Critics, according to Richards and Rodgers, argue against the attempts made to establish CLT in some non-English speaking countries and consider it as an imperialistic effort to reinforce foreign cultural norms assumed superior to the traditional education systems of other countries. The base for these arguments is the view that the assumptions and

principles of CLT maintained by the English speaking countries could not be applied in various social, cultural and ideological contexts of language use. Savignon (2005) maintains that central to CLT is the

understanding of diverse socio-cultural, political and historical context of learning, as well as the analysis of socially defined language learner needs and learning strategies and styles in a given educational setting. However, Richards (2002) states that CLT continues to be the

mainstream approach in SLA today, and its survival is because it

encompass an extensive array of ‘general and uncontroversial principles’ and assumptions that enables it to offer a variety of teaching learning procedures and techniques in the classroom (p. 5). Today a wide range of current mainstream approaches, such as content-based instruction, task based instruction, genre based (text-based) instruction, cooperative language learning, discourse based, project based, problem based, literature based, competency based, or standards based instruction etc. fall under the umbrella of CLT (Hinkel, 2006; Richards, 2002).

From a historical approach to developments in language pedagogy, Stern (1992) highlights three factors contributed to language education:

‘innovation through change in teaching methods, innovation through

language related sciences and research, and technological innovation’

(p. 6). As Duff (2013) puts it: ‘CLT is evolving in response to contextual

constraints, priorities, technological possibilities, and preferences’ (p.

27). Therefore, an important source of change in recent years, has been the rapid advancement in the development and use of the new

the nature of communication in the 21st century and in turn has reshaped our perceptions of the nature of language and communicative

competence for the purposes of language teaching and learning (Duff, 2013; Kern, 2006; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Nunan & Wong, 2005; Stern, 1992). These changes have increasingly acted as a driving force for developing a technology-based pedagogy in a beneficial way (Chapelle, 2005, Kern, 2006). This has established new expectations towards language teachers, as they are expected to be able to use and handle effectively technological media to provide in-classroom or out of classroom learning opportunities as well as having the knowledge and skills of developing innovative pedagogies to enhance learning

experiences (Chapelle, 2009; Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011). The second part of the review of literature will review the literature regarding the integration of technology in language pedagogy and the related issues and challenges. It also seeks to investigate various perspectives on the phenomenon and to conceptualise technology- integrated foreign/second language pedagogy in a way that can inform practice. The latter part of the next section will focus, in particular, upon the role of teachers concerning the integration of ICT into language teaching and their contribution to the success or failure of the

2. 3.

ICT and change in English language teaching

We live, work, learn, and play in a rapidly changing

communication landscape. How do these changes affect the ways we learn, use, and teach languages? (Kern, 2006, p. 183)

The expanding presence and influence of communication and information technology (ICT) in various aspects of our life has created new communities and new competencies. Competencies that people need to develop in the era of information and communication technology include possessing functional technology literacy, critical thinking, problem solving, and interaction and co-construction and negotiation of knowledge in the virtual environments; to be able to communicate with others in processes of reading, writing, browsing, sharing, posting,

commenting, and editing (Blake, 2013; Duff, 2013).

Kern’s quote includes a key question that surrounds contemporary research into the use of technology in foreign/second language

pedagogy. In this part a review of the literature will be presented specifically on the ICT integrated foreign language education with reference to the question raised by Kern. But for the purposes of this study, it may be worthwhile to start this section with a basic introduction of the term ICT.