Summary of the article

The critical review article is written by Kumaravadivelu appraising on the post-method

pedagogy which has been a ground-breaking movement in English language education across the
world. The author divides his article into three main sections: (1) conceptualizing the
fundamental components of postmethod pedagogy, (2) actualizing the postmethod pedagogy and
(3) problematizing the postmethod pedagogical implications. In the first section, the author
proposes that the postmethod pedagogy should be considered as “an alternative procedure” rather
than “a new approach” in accordance with the conditions of three parameters: particularity,
practicality, and possibility. In the second part, the author provides suggestions and solutions to
the postmethod teachers, learners, and educators. The author emphasizes that postmethod
educators should not be only teachers or practitioners, but they should also act as pedagogic
explorers to realize this educational movement. In the final section, the author raises an
awareness of potential challenges and problematizing such postmethod pedagogy. Even though
the author summarizes his critique by the end of each section, Kumaravadivelu does not
summarize the final part as he might consider it as an introduction rather than a conclusion of
this postmethod pedagogical movement.

Evaluation
The author has thoroughly reviewed and critically synthesized on the phenomenal
implications on postmethod pedagogy. His employment of word choices and systematic writing
organization help the readers to centralize the focal significance raising awareness and concerns
for all educational stakeholders to realize such challenges and other subtle factors that might
obstruct the actualization of such pedagogical parameters including particularity, practicality,
and possibility, with his great politeness in a well-written form of critical review article.

Despite its merits, the postmethod pedagogy is not easy to realize since it requires a great
deal of sophisticated experience and socio-political support as well as a clear guidance for
followers of the postmethod pedagogy, all of which may take a great time and trial. Moreover,
the problematizing postmethod pedagogic issues seem too overwhelming to cope without
consistent support of government sectors and national institutions of education. Nevertheless, it
does not mean that it is impossible to make a change because Kumaravadivelu eventually implies
us that the implementation of this postmethod pedagogy has only just begun.