Application of Critical Pedagogy Tenets to ESP Contexts by Iranian ESP Instructors (Research Paper)

Application of Critical Pedagogy Tenets to ESP Contexts by Iranian ESP Instructors

^[1]Davoud Padiz

^[2]Saeed Ketabi*

  IJEAP- 2006-1559

Received: 2020-07-04                          Accepted: 2020-09-23                      Published: 2020-09-24

Abstract

Considered as a new shift in ELT, critical pedagogy (henceforth CP) puts sociopolitical issues high on the classroom agenda (Ford, 2009) incorporating a set of tenets aiming to both change the nature of schooling and the larger society (Pennycook, 1990). Therefore, in the post-method era, ESP instructors, like other language teachers, are required to both enhance language skills and apply CP principles in their ESP classes. Despite the significance of this issue, it remains to be seen whether English as Specific Purpose (ESP) is informed by CP principles or not. This study, hence, seeks to investigate the extent to which teaching ESP courses is informed by CP tenets and examines whether or not the field of study affects the application of CP principles. Hence, a CP scale for ESP developed by Kazemi and Tabatabaei (2015) was employed. Ninety-six university instructors, selected through convenience sampling, with more than four years of experience in teaching in Kohgiluyeh & Boyerahmad, Bandarabas, and Lorestan Universities of Iran participated in the study. An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the means of ET (English Teachers) and NET (Non-English Teachers) groups. Findings revealed that both groups support and apply CP principles while teaching ESP courses although their fields of study made no significant difference in the extent to which CP principles are applied. The results of this study provide insights for universities to give due attention to CP principles when designing curriculum and developing teaching materials for ESP courses.

Key words:Critical Pedagogy, English for Specific Purpose, English Language Teaching, Banking Model of Education, Linguistic Imperialism

1. Introduction

Historically speaking, language teaching has undergone various changes from 1900 to the post-method era. In other words, methodologists offered one method after another to set the scene for a very comprehensive method fitting all contexts. However, as Kumaravadivelu (2003) holds, attempts to build a prefabricated method for all contexts came to a dead end weather due to the shaky theoretical underpinnings or the impracticability of these methods. Therefore, the wax and wane of methods had one message i.e. methods cannot meet unique needs of different contexts. Accordingly, the growing dissatisfaction with the concept of method paved the ground for what Kumaravadivelu (1994) called the postmethod condition through which teachers’ adhering to a single set of procedures gave its place to adapting their approach in parallel with local, contextual factors.

Subsequently, in the 1960s, communicative approach started to gather momentum to revolutionize ELT for the ease of mastery of communicative skills. This approach was originated from the idea that successful learning language is realized through communicating real meaning. All went well with communicative language teaching until postmethodism and subsequently critical applied linguistics called into question ELT industry policies (Sarani, Alibakhshi & Molazehi 2014). Critical pedagogy, as a subcategory of critical applied linguistics, began with an analysis of Paulo Freire’s work who is commonly considered as a pioneer of critical pedagogy (McLaren, 2001), though Freire himself scarcely used the term ‘critical pedagogy’ explicitly. His pedagogy was against the traditional banking model of education in which knowledge is transmitted from teachers to learners without being changed (Freire, 1970). He also paid special attention to issues such as culture, ethnicity, literacy and human development (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2003). Although Henry Giroux was the first person to present the term critical pedagogy in his book called “Theory and Resistance in Education” in 1983, the concept of critical pedagogy was later strengthened with the publication of Freire’s book “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2003). After these starting steps, in 1992 Philipson's linguistic imperialism resulted in an intellectual shift which put a big question mark over the so-called safe ELT industry to establish a critical camp of thought from which other scholars challenge the socio-political and ideological intentions camouflaged under a bundle of secure words. Since then, researchers have studied the concept of CP from various angles including CP and teaching materials (Birial, Noroozi, & Esfandiari 2017), CP and teachers and learners' roles (Liston & Zeichner,1987), basic principles of critical pedagogy (Aliakbari & Faraji, 2011) and critical pedagogy for social justice (Simmons, 2013) to name a few.

In line with the present issue, Sarani, Alibakhshi, and Molazehi (2014) studied the extent to which English and non-English university teachers were different in their application of CP principles in teaching ESP courses. The results showed that English teachers tended to apply more CP principles than non-English teachers did. Similarly, Safari and Pourhashemi (2018) examined the incorporation of critical pedagogy in the context of ESP classes and their findings indicated that the student teachers considered themselves as the agents who have the potential to change the education and society. Cognizant of the fact that the application of CP principles is under-researched, the present study, is going to determine whether or not Iranian ESP teachers are willing to practice CP principles in their ESP courses.

2. Literature Review

In reality, the significant role of English as the international language of communication cannot be questioned. It is the mastery of this lingua franca which lifts any communication barriers, reduces the gap between nations, increases international trades and facilitates so many problems. However, problems arise when ELT industry has an instrumental view towards this tool of communication. The review of literature shows that there have been some attitudinal shifts in the way researchers are looking at language-related issues (Nouri & Sajjadi, 2014).

In the realm of SLA, for instance, Hall (1995) believes that socio-historical and political aspects need to be given more attention in language learning theories when it has to do with the forces existing in both the meaning of the linguistic features and the social characteristics of the language users. Canagarajah (1999), asserts that SLA researchers regard educational contexts as isolated from larger socio-historical conditions. Moreover, a couple of studies (e.g., Canagarajah, 1999, 2002, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2003a, 2003b, 2006a, 2006b; Aliakbari & Faraji, 2011; Pishvaei & Kasaian, 2013) question SLA research in that such studies fall short of reflecting the complication of language, the procedures of language learning, the learners’ manifold identities (Norton & Toohey, 2004), the learners’ assistances (Breen, 2001), sociocultural perspectives of language learning (Lantolf, 2000; Ohta, 2000), and language socialization (Kramsch, 2002).

Regarding the social, cultural, socio-political and socio-historical features of language learning and teaching, several researchers (e.g., Benesch, 2001; Canagarajah, 2002a, 2002b; Norton, 2000; Norton & Toohey, 2004; Pennycook, 1999, 2001; Ramanathan, 2002) suggest that critical pedagogy as a transformative approach be considered as a vital element of language teaching and learning. This can raise learners’ consciousness towards various forms of oppression, discrimination, and injustice within the educational contexts and real-life situations (Pennycook, 1999, 2001).

Similarly, ESP as a learner-centered approach, which is concentrated on meeting certain needs of target language learners to satisfy either their professional or occupational demands is not an exception. In other words, as Hyland (2007) puts it, today’s ESP is totally different from the early days of ESP when linguistic features were of prime importance. He believes that consciousness-raising, as a key issue in critical pedagogy, should also be taken into account in teaching ESP courses. To him, the ideologies concealed in the ESP texts should be scrutinized critically since this can neutralize possible negative effects. Philipson (1992) stresses the significance of localisation, one of the important tenets of CP, which necessitates the inclusion of local cultures and beliefs into ESP textbooks. Benesch (2001) asserts that the top-down power relations in the teaching materials need to be reconsidered. Sarani et.al (2014) believe that by including critical issues in ESP curriculum, pedagogues can pave the ground for learners to expand crucial abilities and prepare them to critically scrutinize the power structure existing in society to create a kind of education which is informed by justice and fairness in the world.

Accordingly, language instructors are required to profoundly think over the content delivered to the learners. Likewise, as Giroux (1995) suggests, pedagogues should do their best to keep learners loyal to cultural identity and help them enhance opposition to unfair policies imposed through English language curricula. In parallel with the above scholars supporting CP, it can, hence, be concluded that that EFL teachers should take cognizance of CP and apply its key tenets in the educational contexts to avoid perpetuating inhumane domination on learners (Hauqe, 2007).

In regard to the application of CP principles to ESP courses, Sarani, Alibakhshi, and Molazehi (2014) found that English and non-English university teachers were different in their application of CP principles in teaching ESP courses. The results showed that English teachers tended to apply more CP principles than non-English teachers did. Similarly, Safari and Pourhashemi (2018) indicated that the student teachers considered themselves as the agents who have the potential to change the education and society.

Despite the importance of application of CP tenets by pedagogues, it is unknown whether or not Iranian language teachers teaching ESP Iranian universities practice these principles. Similarly, it is not known to which extent ESP teachers’ fields of study affect their use of CP principles in ESP contexts. The present study, addresses the following research questions:

Research Question One: To what extent do Iranian teachers of English teaching ESP in universities practice the CP principles?

Research Question Two: Do teachers’ fields of study affect the extent to which they practice CP principles?

3. Methodology

3.1. Context and the Design of the Study

The present study adopted a descriptive research design with a quantitative orientation. It was carried out in State, Azad, and Payamenoor universities of Kohgiluyeh & Boyerahmad, Bandarabas, and Lorestan Provinces, Iran. The reason why these universities were chosen was their ease of availability and time limitation. The participants were provided with a questionnaire and were requested to leave their ratings on the various indices of a Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.

3.2. Participants

The participants of the present study were two groups who were teaching ESP to university students with various different of study including English, Theology, psychology, History, Management, Literature, and Economics. The first group consisted of forty-seven EFL teachers (thirty-one males and sixteen females). The second group of the participants consisted of forty-nine university teachers (thirty males and nineteen females) from fields of study other than English. However, they taught ESP to students in their own major. They were all Iranian university teachers who were in the 36-66 age bracket and were selected through convenience sampling method. The participants knew that their responses to the questionnaires would indicate their agreement to take part in the study. Table 1 provides relevant demographic information about both ET and NET participants.

Table 1: Demographic Information of Participants

3.3. Instruments

The data were collected through the CP Questionnaire for ESP Context developed and validated by Kazemi and Tabatabaei (2015) in the Iranian context. This instrument which is easily accessed at http:// www.myjurnal.my/public/article-view.php?id=90610, has 34 items measuring various aspects of CA on a five-point Likert scale: Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neutral (3), Disagree (2), and Strongly Disagree (1). This scale consists of four components namely:

• (Critical Thinking): 18, 6, 17, 32, 36, 40, 29, 4, 16, 8
• (Curriculum): 39, 37, 1, 5, 14, 31, 35
• (Learning-centeredness): 20, 21, 22, 7, 26, 23, 28
• (Sociopolitical issues): 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 38, 2
• (Gender): 3, 25, 30

The Cranach’s alpha which is the most widely used method for estimating internal consistency was employed to estimate the reliability of the instrument and showed a value of 0.81 which is considered acceptable in educational research (Hatch & Lazaraton, 1991).

3.4. Data Collection

Thanks to WhatsApp Messenger as a free messaging app available for Android and other smartphones, the questionnaires were sent to the participants and they were requested to fill in and return them. They were kind enough to leave their ratings and return the questionnaires through the same application. The questionnaires were coded ET and NET to stand for English and Non-English teachers respectively. The data were extracted and later fed to the SPSS (version 21) for further analysis through descriptive and inferential statistics.

3.5. Data Analysis

The data were subjected to descriptive statistics to provide us with frequencies, mean, and standard deviations for all of the items of the questionnaire. The 34 items were reduced to five variables and the teachers’ means on all of the variables were calculated. In order to answer the second research question, the researcher decided to run an independent samples t-test to see to which extent the NE and NET groups are different in terms of the application of CP tenets in their ESP classes. Inspection of Q-Q Plots revealed that the data, although not in an entirely bell-shaped curve, was normally distributed for both groups and that there was homogeneity of variance as assessed by Levene's Test for Equality of Variances. Therefore, an independent t-test was run on the data with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean difference.

4. Results

4.1. Research Question One

The first research question has to do with the extent to which Iranian language teachers tend to apply the principles of critical pedagogy in their teaching ESP courses in Iranian universities. The participants were sent the questionnaire developed for ESP contexts, Kazemi and Tabatabaei (2015), to leave ratings on the items to indicate whether or not their teaching ESP is informed by critical pedagogy. The data obtained is indicated in the following tables.

Table 2: Teachers’ Perceptions About Critical Thinking

D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, N = Neutral, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree

As indicated in Table 2, about 79.17% of the participants i.e. instructors majoring in English (ET) supported and agreed with most themes of the first component “Critical Thinking” and the remaining 20.93% either disagreed or adopted a neutral position. Similarly, 64.92 % of the second group i.e. (NET) supported the “Critical Thinking” dimension. To put it another way, about 79.17% of those who majored in English agreed that the students’ beliefs, their reasoning, learners’ responsibility for their own learning, and students’ attempt to learn from each other should be taken into account. Moreover, the ratings left by this group of the participants showed that the students’ general viewpoints and their comments about the exam, their opinions about test administration process, and their teaching strategies to improve students’ learning should be given due attention. Although the NET group did not agree with as many themes of this component as the ET group did, their 64.92 % agreement with this component indicated that they are also supportive of “Critical Thinking”.

Table 3: Participants’ Perceptions of Curriculum

D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, N = Neutral, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree

Regarding the second component i.e. “Curriculum”, Table 3 shows that about 48.45% of the ET group are in agreement with the themes targeted. Likewise, 51.33% of the NET group participants agreed with the layers of this principle. In other words, both the ET and NET groups agreed that

ESP materials are chosen based on the learner’s future profession and their needs. They also agreed that they do not help learners produce their own learning materials. The NET group like the NT group agreed on the relationship between materials and students’ future profession. The two groups believed that they use pre-specified textbooks and fixed activities in various semesters, while both believed that producing learning materials and designing ESP materials and curriculum are out of learners and teachers’ control and they are specified by authorities.

Table 4: Participants’ Perceptions of Learning-centeredness

D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, N = Neutral, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree

According to Table 4 which indicates all participants’ attitudes towards the third component, “Learning-centeredness”, and its seven themes, 64.81% of the ET group showed their agreement. They believed that use various methods and strategies to answer the students’ questions, encourage the students to solve their own problems, and are willing to revise their method of teaching if necessary. However, this group believed that they did not have the same expectations from all weak and brilliant learners in learning ESP courses. Consistent with the ET group, about 51.87% of the NET agreed with the themes of this component. The NET group has the same stance toward this component as the ET group did. About 35.19% of the NET group and 48.13% of the ET group either disagreed with or had no idea about the themes of the “Learning-centeredness” principle.

Table 5: Participants’ Perceptions of Sociopolitical Issues

D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, N = Neutral, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree

Table 5 shows that regarding the “Sociopolitical Issues” i.e. the next principle of the data collection scale and its seven layers, about 63.80% of the ET group left their ratings on the agreement side. In other words, the ET group believed that education widens the students’ views of reality, they encourage the students to discuss social problems in the class, and they make their students aware of the political issues. Similarly, about 69.32% of the NET group had the same idea. However, about 36.20% of the ET and 30.68% of the NET groups indicated their disagreement or neutrality towards this principle.

Table 6: Participants’ Perceptions of Gender

D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, N = Neutral, A= Agree, SA= Strongly Agree

As seen in Table 6, regarding “Gender” as the last component of the scale, about 82% of the ET group and 74.81% of the NET agreed with the themes of this principle. In other words, about 78.5% of the participants in both groups agreed that both sexes are equally capable of learning ESP materials, male and female students are equally respectable, and they assign the same practical tasks to males and females. To put it differently, about 21.5 % expressed their disagreement and neutrality on these themes.

4.2. Research Question Two

The second research question aimed at investigating the impact of the participants’ fields of study on the extent to which they apply CP principles to their ESP courses. An independent samples t-test was employed to compare the means of the two groups of the participants i.e. ET and NET groups. The results are given below in Table 7:

Table 7: Independent Samples t-test for Comparing Participants’ Views on Different Components of CP

 To test for differences between the two independent groups (ET and NET) on a continuous measure for each component, an independent samples t-test was used. As Table 7 shows, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the application of CP principles for ET and NET conditions. Regarding the first component (Critical Thinking), there was no significant difference in scores for ET group (M = 39.19, SD = 8.23) and NET group (M = 35.97, SD = 8.93; t (94) = 1.83, p = .07). In connection with the second component (Curriculum), there was also no significant difference in ratings for the English group (M = 21.38, SD = 7.89) and Non-English group (M = 22.02, SD = 8.18; t (94) = -.38, p = .69. Likewise, in regard with the third component (Learning-centeredness), no significant difference was seen for the ET group (M = 24.21, SD = 6.61) and NET group (M = 22.75, SD = 7.82; t (94) = .98, p = .32. Moreover, another component (Sociopolitical issues), was examined and there was no significant difference between ET group (M = 25.61, SD = 6.70) and NET group (M = 24.67, SD = 7.11; t (94) = .66, p = 50. Regarding the last component (Gender), there is similarly no significant difference between the two groups with ET group (M= 11.65, SD = 2.74) and NET group (M = 11.24, SD = 2.71; t (94) = .78, p = .43. Accordingly, the results suggest that the participants’ fields of study have no effect on the extent to which they apply critical pedagogy tenets in their teaching ESP courses and English teachers and those with other majors try to take CP principles into account.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to examine the extent to which ESP courses in universities are informed by CP tenets and the impact of the participants’ field of study on their tendency to apply these principles to ESP contexts. A valid and reliable CP scale for ESP courses was administered to two groups of participants namely ET, those with English major, and NET, those majoring in subjects other than English. The results of descriptive and inferential statistics, run to answer the research questions, indicated that a nearly high percentage of both ET and NET participants (72%) agreed that in teaching ESP courses, the students’ critical thinking are taken into account. The reason for this inclination can be sought in this idea that in ESP classes dialogism and interaction among the teacher and the students pivot around various subjects which are accepted or rejected based on reasoning, logic, and criticality. Through this process intentionally or unintentionally critical thinking is both supported and applied.

Moreover, the two groups had close reactions towards the second component i.e. curriculum in that they both agreed on the same four themes, disagreed with the same three remaining themes having to do with helping students produce their ESP materials, considering learners’ needs, and including values, and beliefs in designing ESP curriculum. In comparison with the first component, however, the two groups of participants indicated a moderate agreement. It can be argued that university teachers and students do not have the authority, time, or to some extent expertise to design curriculum for each ESP course. Therefore, about 49% of both groups agreed on this component while the rest were either disagreed or neutral. It can also be argued that, no matter what field of study instructors are majoring in, in the realm of teaching, some commonalities can be observed. For example, learner’s future profession and their beliefs, values, and needs are some factors which are important to all university instructors regardless of their academic subjects .The difference in the participants’ agreement with some themes of this principle and their disagreement on the rest of the themes can be rooted in the fact that mainstream ESP classes in which selecting, teaching, and testing pre-specified ESP sources are the main concerns of both ET and NET participants and ,to a large extent, teachers do not have the authority to design ESP materials and include essential needs and values.

The participants also seem to have both close and diverse opinions towards the third principle, “Learning-centeredness.” In other words, regarding using varied strategies and methods and revising teachers’ teaching method their high agreement is close while in regard to encouraging students to pose questions their agreement is not very close. The two groups; however, disagreed with the rest of the themes closely. Although the difference between the two groups is not significant, the ET group’s mean is higher than the NET group because, due to their major which pays much attention to learning-centeredness, they are more familiar with this subject and hence it can be argued that they are more willing to apply the themes of this principle. Moreover, it can be argued that the reason why the two groups disagreed with some themes is the adoption of a banking model of education and setting their priorities around translating the English texts and focusing on linguistic features and nothing else.

In respect of “Sociopolitical Issues”, the diverse results showed that the two groups showed a close agreement on broadening the students’ views of reality, discussing social problems in the class, raising the students’ awareness towards the political issues, and considering the values of different parts of society in my lectures in class, but they disagreed with structuring the course materials to empower individuals to make societal changes and considering political issues as an effective factor in organizing the teaching materials in classes. In spite of the close agreement on the themes of this component, the NET group indicated a higher agreement. It can be argued that the NET group is more competent in sociological matters than the ET group who are more competent in language and linguistics. Furthermore, the difference between the two groups can be sought in the maneuver power of the NET group who had a wider mastery of the contents in ESP classes.

The last component i.e. “Gender” has been seen absolutely the same for the two parties. They both believe that both genders are deserved to be paid due attention in terms of being assigned ESP-oriented practical tasks, being respected and being considered capable of learning ESP materials. The high percentage of the two groups of the participants’ agreement – 78% - indicates the in the Iranian culture gender is not a reason for superiority and both males and females are behaved not based on their sex but based on their qualifications. In other words, no gender is deserved to be discriminated against, both males and females must be respectable and they should be assigned practical tasks.

The last finding and perhaps the most important one has to do the difference between the findings of the present study with those of Sarani, Alibakhshi, and Molazehi (2014) who believed that English teachers support and apply CP principles in their classes while Non-English teachers do not. As a matter of fact, critical pedagogy has to do with both critical literacy and pedagogical practices and all human beings can be critical even if they have not taken a course on critical pedagogy; therefore, it should be mentioned here that all teachers can have these two characteristics and they are not limited to just English teachers.

6. Conclusion

Critical pedagogy with its solid mission for change is rooted in the belief that classroom and society are fundamentally inter-connected; and because of that, the aim of education is for the enhancement of social justice for all people (McArthur, 2010). Therefore, ESP as a branch of ELT is expected to be informed by critical pedagogy principles to both improve learners’ language skills and raise their consciousness towards various forms of oppression imposed by ELT industry. However, the problem arises when language pedagogues are so obsessed by the language forms that they forget to pay attention to the transformative side of language. This ignorance of hidden agenda of ELT industry and the passivity of language teachers in applying CP tenets can contribute to self-marginalization (Kumaravadivelu, 2006a).

It can be concluded that in parallel with the results of the present study, although unfamiliar with the concept of critical pedagogy, both ET and NET groups have positive attitudes towards CP principles and their majors played no role in their application of these principles. It can also be concluded that teachers in general and ESP teachers in particular have a very important mission in promoting students’ critical thinking and hence CP principles should be included in the curriculum of all teachers regardless of their fields of study. In other words, since the majority of university teachers major in subjects except English and they are often asked to teach ESP courses, they are expected to participate in CP-oriented workshops to get acquainted with critical pedagogy and its tenets. Moreover, those who take responsibility for teaching ESP courses should not limit ESP just to a banking model of education, but instead they are expected to link the classroom with real life situations, be consciousness towards social, political, and cultural issues, and help learners to transform society, be cognizant of power structure and battle against injustice, discrimination, inactivity and other forms of oppression.

More importantly, the results of this study provide insights for universities to take the following steps:

• To provide university teachers with the authority to skip the pre-specified curriculums and teaching materials and freely take into account the learners’ values and needs in developing curriculum.
• To hold CP workshops to teach the teachers the new know-hows of CP principles and the ways they are applied successfully.
• To require language teachers both to combine both their special knowledge with CP principles and present a comprehensive critical pedagogy.

1. To replace the banking model of education with a problem-posing model of education (Freire, 1970) to enrich the learners’ critical thinking, raise learners’ consciousness towards any form of injustice and discrimination, and to cause social transformation through education.

Finally, there are some recommendations which are helpful to be taken into consideration for further studies. To increase the generalizability of the findings, it is recommended that this study be replicated and extended with a larger group of participants. Moreover, if the present study is going to be replicated, it is suggested that more variables be included and the data be triangulated to capture different dimensions of the topic under discussion.

Reference

Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic principles of critical pedagogy. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Humanities. Historical and Social Sciences IPEDR, 17, 78-85.

Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Breen, M. P. (Ed.). (2001). Learner contributions to language learning. London: Longman.

Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). Globalization, Methods and Practice in Periphery Classrooms. In: D. Block, D. Cameron (Eds.). Globalization and Language Teaching. (pp. 134-150). London: Rutledge.  

Canagarajah, A. S. (2002a). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.

 Canagarajah, A. S. (2002b). Globalization, methods and practice in periphery classrooms. In D. Block & D. Cameron. (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 134-150). London: Rutledge.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2005). Critical pedagogy in L2 Learning and Teaching. In E. Hinkel (Eds.). Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. (pp. 931-949). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Canagarajah, A. S. (2008). The politics of English language teaching. In S. May & N. Horn Berger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues in education (Vol. 1, pp. 213-227). New York: Springer US.

Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. D. (2003). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 1- 23). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 in the Japanese University EFL classrooms. JALT Journal, 31(1), 63-80.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Books.

Giroux, H. (1995). Radical pedagogy as cultural politics: Beyond the discourse of critique and anti-utopianism. In P. McLaren (Ed.), Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era (pp. 29-57). London: Rutledge.

Hall. J. K. (1995). (Re) creating our worlds with words: A socio-historical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied Linguistics. 16: 206-232.

Hatch, E., & Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics (2nd ed.). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Haque, E. (2007). Critical pedagogy in English for academic purposes and the possibility for tactics of resistance. Pedagogy, Culture, & Society, 15(1), 83- 106.

Hyland, K. (2007). Genre and second language writing. USA: The university of Michigan press.

Kazemi, A., & Tabatabaei, N. (2015). Developing and Validating a Critical Pedagogy Questionnaire for ESP Teachers. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 23, (4), 1031-1052.

Kramsch, C. (Ed.). (2002). Language acquisition and language socialization: Ecological perspectives. London: Continuum.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Beyond methods: Macro strategies for language teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). A post-method perspective on English language teaching. World Englishes, 22, 539–550. doi:10.1111%2Fj.1467- 971X.2003.00317.x.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006a). Dangerous Liaison: Globalization, Empire and TESOL. In J. Edge (Ed.). (Re) Locating TESOL in an Age of Empire (pp. 1–26). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006b). TESOL Methods, Changing Tracks, Challenging Trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McLaren, P. (2001). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the politics of hope: Reclaiming critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 1(1), 108-131.

McArthur, J. (2010). Achieving social justice within and through higher education: The challenge for critical pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(5), 493-504.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. Harlow, England: Longman/Pearson Education.

Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical pedagogies and language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1999). Introduction: Critical approaches to TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 329-348.

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Pishvaei, V., & Kasaian, S.A. (2013). Design, construction, and validation of a CP attitude questionnaire in Iran. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(2), 59-74.

Sarani, A., Alibakhshi, G., Molazehi, H. (2014). On application of critical pedagogy principles by ELT instructors and subject teachers: A Case of Iranian universities. Research in Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 41-56.