Brown, H. D. (1997). English language teaching in the post method era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (second edition), New York: Longman.
Clarke, M. A. (1983). The scope of approach, the importance of method, and the nature of techniques. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, P. Strevens (Eds.), Georgetown University round table on language linguistics (pp. 106-115), Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Corbin, J. M, Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 28 (1): 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2001). Toward a postmethod pedagogy, TESOL Quarterly, 35(4): 537-560.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). On the appropriateness of language teaching methods in language and development, Partnership and Interaction: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Language and Development, Hanoi, Vietnam. Retrieved from http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/larsen-freeman.htm
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2005). A critical analysis of postmethod: An interview with Diane Larsen-Freeman by Zia Tajeddin. ILI Language Teach. J., 1: 21-25.
Liu, D. (1995). Comments on B. Kumaravadivelu’s the postmethod condition: (E) merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching, alternative to or addition to method?, TESOL Quarterly, 29(1): 174-177.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mackey, A, Gass, S. (2005). Second language research methodology and design, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Motlhaka, H. A. (2015). Exploring postmethod pedagogy in teaching English as second language in South African Higher Education, Mediter. J. Soc. Sci., 6(1): 517-524.
Naseri Kaimvand, P, Hessamy, GR, Hemmati, F. (2014). The place of postmethod pedagogy in teacher education programs in EFL Language centers of Iran. Iran. J. Appl. Linguist. (IJAL), 17(2): 59-91.
Naseri Kaimvand, P, Hessamy, GR., & Hemmati, F. (2016). Postmethod education: Its applicability and chalenges in Iran. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci., 6(1): 21-34
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 23: 589- 618.
Pishghadam, R., & Mirzaee, A. (2008). English language teaching in postmodern era. TELL, 2(7): 89-109.
Prabhu, N.S, (1990). There is no best method-Why?, TESOL Quarterly, 24 (2): 161-176.
Razmjoo, S. A, Ranjbar, H, Hoomanfard, H. M. (2013). On the familiarity of the Iranian EFL teachers and learners with postmethod and its realization, Int. J. Language Learn. Appl. Linguist, World, 4(1): 1-12.
Richards, J. C, Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching, Cambridge: CUP.
Saengboon, S. (2013). Thai English teachers’ understanding of postmethod pedagogy: Case studies of university lecturers, English Language Teach, 6(12): 156-166.
Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching, Oxford: OUP.
Zhengping, Z. (2012). Convergence or divergence? Chinese novice EFL teachers’ beliefs about postmethod and teaching practices, English Language Teach, 5(10): 64-71.
)