ABSTRACT:

 

 

 

Critical pedagogy (CP) in English language teaching(ELT) is an attitude to language teaching which relates the classroom context to the wider social context and aims at social transformation through education (Akbari, 2008). It seems that the main principles and assumptions underlying CP can, to a great extent, influence the process, outcomes, possible dangers, and effectiveness of learning and teaching English in non-English-speaking countries. Despite the great emphasis laid on the importance of being critical, it is not really known whether or not Iranian English language teachers are aware of critical pedagogy in ELT. In other words, this study attempted to find out to what extent Iranian LTs are critical and what are the main obstacles which prevent them from being critical. For the purposes of this study, 100 language teachers holding BA in English were selected through stratified random sampling from Lorestan and Kuhgiluieh & Boyerahmad provinces. At first, a questionnaire consisting of 30 items in 7 dimensions was developed and administered to the  participants to find out whether they are aware of principles and premises of critical pedagogy or not. Then, a face to face in-depth interview was conducted with a representative sample of participants (those who were familiar with critical pedagogy) to find the main barriers of applying critical pedagogy in schools. The data were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistics and grounded theory. The results of the study showed that most of the Iranian language teachers are aware of principles and premises of critical pedagogy. Results also indicted that organizational, personal, and learner’s barriers were the main obstacles of applying critical pedagogy in schools.

Key words: critical pedagogy, ELT, language teachers, Iranian language teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thesis is dedicated to

My parents

Who are my very first teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who supported me and helped me while I was writing this thesis. My first and foremost thanks go to my supervisors, Dr. Goudarz Alibakhshi and Dr. Rouhallah Zaarei for their immeasurable guidance and assistance in writing my thesis.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all English language teachers from both Lorestan and Kuhgiluieh & Boyerahmad provinces who participated in this study for the time and information they provided. A special thanks to my friends and classmates for their ongoing support, encouragement, and advice.

Finally, I am particularly grateful to my family who always encouraged me to the best I could and always remind me that success is found through the acquisition of knowledge. To all of you who assisted in helping me to complete this process: the result is as much yours as it is mine.

Thank You.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .. ir

DEDICATION iii

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ….iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS . v

LIST OF TABLES . .viii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .. 1

1.1 General Background .. .1

1.2 Statement of Problem . 5

1.3 Objectives of the Study . …..6

1.4 Significance of the Study .. .6

1.5 Definitions of Key Terms … .6

1.6 Outline of the Study .. ..8

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW . 10

2.1 Introduction . 10

2.2 History of Critical Pedagogy . ..10

2.3 Theoretical Bases of Critical Pedagogy . . .10

2.4 Critical Applied Linguistics .19

2.4.1 Domains of Critical Applied Linguistics … 20

2.4.1.1 Critical Discourse Analysis and Critical Literacy .. 20

2.4.1.2 Critical Approaches to Translation . 22

2.4.1.3 Critical Approaches to Language Education .. 22

2.4.1.4 Critical Language Testing .. 25

2.4.1.5 Critical Approaches to Language Planning and Language Rights.26

2.4.1.6 Critical Approaches to Language, Literacy, and Workplace Setting27

2.5 Critical Frameworks 28

2.6 Critical Language Pedagogy .. 30

2.6.1 Linguistic Imperialism 30

2.6.2 Methods as a Colonial Construct … .31

2.6.3 Postmethod as a Postcolonial Construct .. 33

2.7 Empirical Research . 35

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY . 39

3.1 Introduction .. 39

3.2 Design of the Study .. 39

3.3 Participants 40

3.4 Instrumentation .. 40

3.5 Data Analysis . 41

3.6 Procedure of the Study … 42

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………………….. 43

4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….43

4.2 Quantitative Results .. ……………..43

4.3 Results for Question 1…………………………………………………………………………………51

4.4 Qualitative Results … .64

4.5 Discussions .72

CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, & IMPLICATION ………….80

5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..80

5.2 Summary of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………80

5.3 Implications of the Study……………………………………………………………………………..82

5.4 Limitations of the Study … .84

5.5 Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………….84

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..86

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………95

Appendix I: The Last Version of Inventory …………………………..95

Appendix II: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis . .. .98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

 

Table 4.1: 41 item-inventory of critical pedagogy .41

Table 4.2: Component matrix for dimension 1 ..46

Table 4.3: Component matrix for dimension 2 ..47

Table 4.4: Component matrix for dimension 3 ..47

Table 4.5: Component matrix for dimension 4 ..48

Table 4.6: Component matrix for dimension 5 ..49

Table 4.7: Component matrix for dimension 6 . .50

Table 4.8: Component matrix for dimension 7 .. 50

Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 1 .52

Table 4.10: Inferential statistics for dimension 1 .. 54

Table 4.11: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 2 ..55

Table 4.12: Inferential statistics for dimension 2 .56

Table 4.13: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 3 ..57

Table 4.14: Inferential statistics for dimension 3 . 57

Table 4.15: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 4. 58

Table 4.16: Inferential statistics for dimension 4 . …59

Table 4.17: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 5 60

Table 4.18: Inferential statistics for dimension 6 61

Table 4.19: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 6 61

Table 4.20: Inferential statistics for dimension 6 62

Table 4.21: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 7 63

Table 4.22: Inferential statistics for dimension 7 64

 

 

CHAPTER I

Introduction

1.1. General background

Critical pedagogy is an educational theory that aims to make students conscious of the many institutions that exist to facilitate and perpetuate systematic forms of oppression, both within and outside the classroom (Hollestin, 2006). Canagarajah (2005) argues that Critical pedagogy is not a set of ideas, but a way of ‘doing’ learning and teaching. It is a practice motivated by a distinct attitude toward classrooms and society. Critical students and teachers are prepared to situate learning in the relevant social contexts, unravel the implications of power in pedagogical activity, and commit themselves to transforming the means and ends of learning in order to construct more egalitarian, equitable, and ethical educational and social environments .Students exist in a very complex and constantly changing world; it is the responsibility of teachers to prepare students to live in this world. By implementing critical pedagogy, teachers can help students develop the essential skills they need to deal with a complex and ever changing world (Bassy, 1999).

Teachers can enable students to make critical analyses of the ideologies underpinning all forms of discourse without necessarily promoting a specific value system (Hardin, 2001). The acquired skills by critical pedagogy will prepare students to question the status quo critically, examine the hidden power structures that exist in society, and enable them to facilitate change in order to create a democratic, equitable, and fair world (Giroux, 2001). Critical pedagogy for the first time appeared in realm of education by Paulo Freire (1970). He introduced such concepts as banking theory, dialogical method, and transformative education. In the banking model of education, he argued, knowledge was another commodity to be transferred as efficiently as possible from sender to receiver. As an alternative to this system of education, Freire (1970) proposed that education should be a dialogical process in which students and teachers share their experiences in a non-hierarchical manner.

Pedagogical theories of philosopher John Dewey (1933) have a great impact on critical pedagogy movement. In his book democracy and education, he asserted that education must be a transformative experience. Dewey believed that ideal classroom should be a place where students use trial and error to develop needed skills for engaging in a genuine or an ethical democratic citizenship. Pennycook (1990) as one of the great exponent of critical pedagogy believed that there are two elements at the heart of all critical pedagogy theories: a notion of critique that includes a sense of possibility for transformation and an exploration of the nature of and relationship between culture, knowledge, and power. Viewing schools as cultural areas where diverse ideological and social forms are in constant struggle, critical pedagogy examines schools both in their contemporary sociopolitical content and their historical context (Pennycook, 1990).

Giroux (1989) argued for pedagogy of and for difference, a pedagogy that not only respect student’s voice and difference, but also relates these differences to the wider social order, creating the democratic sense of respect for difference that is essential for any notion of equality in society. Critical pedagogy (CP) is like a tree with some very central branches, the basic principles. ‘Empowerment’ is one of those very main branches of great moment in CP. It is mainly concerned with developing in students and teachers the self-esteem to question the power relations in the society (McLaren, 2003), thus gain the voice they deserve in the same society. CP looks at education as a political enterprise (Kincheloe, 2008) and aims to raise students’ “consciousness”, a term borrowed from Freire, to make them more aware of the power games in the society and their own position in that game. It is the “pedagogy of inclusion” (Pennycook, 2001) and has in large part been created to give the marginalized students the “right to speak” (Peirce, 1989, 1995, 1997).

Calderson (2003) discusses the notion of critical pedagogy as the guiding educational philosophy in community-based education. Milner (2000) examines how teachers can begin to pose critical questions regarding race through critical pedagogy. Many of the scholarly articles examine the inequalities of race that exist in education. In other cases, issues of gender, ethnicity, and cultural inequalities are addressed. Discerning these inequalities is essential for bringing about change. Generally, classrooms try to mirror in organizations what students and teachers would collectively like to see in the world outside of schools: respect for everyone’s ideas, tolerance of differences, a commitment to creativity and social and educational justice, the importance of working collectively, a willingness and desire to work hard for betterment of humanity, a commitment to anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic practices, etc (McLaren, 2005).

However, critical pedagogy brings with it the reminder that learners must be free to be themselves, to think for themselves, to behave intellectually without coercion from powerful elite, to cherish their beliefs and traditions and cultures without the threat of forced change (Brown, 2000).Critical pedagogy conceives the pedagogical site as a problematic space of racial, moral, and social tensions requiring deep interjections of social justice and civic courage. Giroux (1993) argues that schools are more than instructional place; they are cultural sites that actively are involved in the selective ordering and legitimization of particular forms of language, reasoning sociality, daily experience and style. According to McLaren̉ (1989 a), the aim is to integrate students’ abilities of critical reflections with their aspirations and potentials for social engagement and transformation.

Norton and Toohey (2004) argue that “advocates of critical approaches to second language teaching are interested in relationships between language learning and social change. From this point of view, language is not simply a means of expression or communication; rather it is a practice that constructs, and is constructed by, the way language learners understand themselves, their social surroundings, their histories, and their possibilities for the futureˮ.  In order to construct a critical pedagogy for language classroom, there is the need to change that belief of language teachers and many others. Second/foreign language learning should be seen as “education rather than an acquisition of a skill” (Guilherme, 2002, p. 189).

Sadeghi (2008) pointed out that the conventional language classrooms do little to advocate change in students’ social cognition since they do not address the issues of socio-political and cultural issues adequately. In other words, the shadow of a critical pedagogy is far too blur to cause what Sadeghi (2008) called a “transformational effect” on the learners. Akbari (2008) argues that implementation of a critical model in any local ELT context has a number of requirements, among which decentralization of decision making (in terms of content, teaching methodology,