Suruchi Sahoo, Partha Sarathi Mallik, Dipanjali Sahu


This paper explores the English language paradigm shift from conventional to modern in terms of curricular focus, methodology, evaluation practice, and teachers' and learners’ behavior. Based upon the existing literature, critical analysis has been done to explore how changes in pedagogical context happened from a traditional structured approach to a post-modern perspective. These changes are reflected in the present days teaching of learning ecology in secondary school. It was found that there is a paradigm shift in English pedagogy from teacher centrism, structuralism, behaviorism to a learner-centered, post-modern and constructive approach. This transition in English language pedagogy results from a revolutionary process of change in society and the academic world. Academicians and practitioners will benefit from this thematic paper.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


paradigm shift, English language, pedagogy

Full Text:



Akbari, R. (2008). Post-method discourse and practice, TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641–652.

Amin, R. (2016). ELT: An Overall Insight into the Paradigm Shift in the Teaching-Learning Condition in Bangladesh. Crossings: A Journal of English Studies, 7, 144-151.

Atabek, O. (2020). Experienced educators’ suggestions for solutions to the challenges to technology integration. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6), 5669-5685.

Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a socio-cognitive approach to second language acquisition, Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545

Baloch, S. S. (2014). Transition to an innovative ELT classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 3(1), 75-80.

Baloch, S. (2014). Transition to an Innovative Classroom, International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 3(1), 80-86.

Bax, S. (2003a). CALL—past, present, and future, System, 31, 13–28.

Bax, S. (2003b). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278–287.

Bell, D. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325–336.

Bell, D. (2007). Do teachers think that methods are dead? ELT Journal, 61, 135–143.

Bell, D. M. (2003). Method and postmethod: Are they really so compatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37 (2)

Brown, H. D. (2002). English language teaching in the post method era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment and assessment. In Richards and Renandya (ed.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Byram, M. (1993). Language, culture and curriculum, Culture and language learning in higher education, 6(1).

Byram, M., Gribkova, B., & Starkey, H. (2002). Developing the intercultural dimension in language teaching. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Corbett, J. (2022). An intercultural approach to English language teaching (Vol. 36). Multilingual matters. Education Journal, 35(1), 47-54.

Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.

Gillanders, C. (2007). An English-speaking prekindergarten teacher for young Latino children: Implications of the teacher-child relationship on second language learning. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 47-54.

González-Lloret, M., & Ortega, L. (Eds.). (2014). Technology-mediated TBLT: Researching technology and tasks (Vol. 6). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitudes and identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The postmethod condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 27–47.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy, TESOL Quarterly, 35, 537–560.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macro strategies for language teaching. London: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2005). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59–81.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). A critical analysis of postmethod, ILI Language Teaching Journal, 1, 21–25.

Liddicoat, A., Papademetre, L., Scarino, A., & Kohler, M. (2003). Report on Intercultural Language Learning, Department of Education. Science and Training, Canberra.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Littlewood, W. (1999). Second language teaching methods. In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of educational linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.

Littlewood, W. (2009). Process-oriented pedagogy: Facilitation, empowerment, or control? ELT Journal, 63(3), 246–254.

Machida, S. (2011). Translation in teaching a foreign language: A methodological perspective, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2 (4).

Mumtaz, S. (2000). Factors affecting teachers' use of information and communications technology: a review of the literature. Journal of information technology for teacher education, 9(3), 319-342.

Murray, N. (2010). Pragmatics, awareness-raising, and the cooperative principle, ELT Journal, 63(3), 293–301.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Oswald, F. L., & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85-110.

Öz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate with EFL learners in the Turkish context. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269-275.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618.

Pica, T. (1997). Tradition and transition in second language teaching methodology, Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 13(1).

Prabhu, N.S. (1990). There is no best method-why? TESOL Quarterly, 24, 161-176.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sadeghi, K., & Dousti, M. (2013). The Effect of Length of Exposure to CALL Technology on Young Iranian EFL Learners' Grammar Gain. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 14-26.

Sanchez, A. (2004). The Task-based Approach in Language Teaching, International Journal of English Studies, 4(1), 39-71.

Seedhouse, P. (1999). Task-based interaction, ELT Journal, 53(3), 149–156.

Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction, Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38–62.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings, Language Learning, 49(1), 93–120.

Wang, L., & Coleman, J. (2009). A survey of internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education in China, ReCALL Journal, 21(1), 113–129.

Wedell, M. (2009). Innovation in ELT. ELT Journal, 63(4), 397-399.

Xu, Y. & Drame, E. (2008). Culturally appropriate context: Unlocking the potential of response to intervention for English language learner, Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 305-311. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-007-0213-4



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).