<span class="vcard">mitra1--javid</span>

24*. The teacher must be slave of course book content.
25*. Teacher is only a neutral transmitter of educational subjects.
26*. Tests are the only instrument for measuring students᾽ educational abilities.
5. Students᾽ comments 27. The only person who must think about students is the teacher, and students do not have
qualification and ability to think about their affairs.
28. Only the teacher must speak in the class and students must only listen.
29. It is not necessary for the students to play a role in determining educational materials and
30*. Teacher knows everything about educational process and it is not necessary to ask students views.
31*. The teacher is the only person who has the right to select materials and students only comply.
32*. In order for learning process to be successful, the teacher must respect experiences and viewpoints
of learners.
33*. Learning a mutual process in which student and teacher exchange their knowledge.
34*. Students must comment on content and way of test administration.
6. Importance of first 35.learning English has priority over learning Persian.
language 36. In English teaching, to make students accent close to that of native speaker is the most important
37. In English teaching as a foreign language, Persian language must not be used.
38*. Language is a part of an individual identity, so in second language learning must not be ignored.
7. Critical thinking 39. Learning is a dynamic process which students learn by doing not only by memorization.
40. Prior experiences of students provide the basis for learning new subjects and materials.
41. Students must think about what they learn and take practical steps to realize them.

Asterisked items deleted due to loading factor less than .4
The last version of the instrument is shown in appendix I.
As it is shown in the above table the CP inventory consisted of 41 items. It includes 7 dimensions named: attention to social and cultural issues, language and ideology, ethical issues and educational justice, needs and differences of the students, use of student’s comments, attention to first language, and critical thinking. The confirmatory factor analysis was run to validate each dimension and to identify the items which are not correlated with each factor. The results of confirmatory factor analysis for each factor (dimension) are illustrated in following parts. (The detailed results of factor analysis are shown in appendix II).
Factor analysis for dimension 1: Attention to social and cultural issues.
Table 4.2
Component Matrixa


Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor involves items which measure attention to social and cultural issues in language teaching. The Eigen value of this factor is 3.393 and explains about 37.695 percent of the variance. It consists of 9 items. Item 2 had the highest loading factor (.863) and item 1 had the lowest loading factor (.433). The loading factor of items 3, 5, 9, 7, and 4 were .703, .692, .691, and .570. Items 6 and 8 had the same loading factor (.470). All of the items in this factor had the loading factor of more than .4, therefore no item was deleted.
Factor analysis for dimension 2: language and ideology

Table 4.3
Component Matrixa



Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor consisted of items which measure the English language teachers’ degree of awareness about the relation between language and ideology in teaching. The Eigen value of this factor is 1.735 and explains about 34.700 percent of variance. At first, this factor consisted of 5 items (items 10 to 14 in the first version of inventory) including item 14 with loading factor of -. 498 and because it was less than .4, so it was deleted in the final version of inventory. The item 12 had the highest loading factor (.734) and item 10 had the lowest loading factor (.474). The loading factor of items 11 and 13 were .66 and .53, respectively.
Factor analysis for dimension 3: ethical issues and educational justice

Table 4.4
Component Matrixa



Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor consisted of items which deal with observing ethical issues and educational justice in language teaching. The Eigen value of this factor is 1.598 which explains about 31.956 percent of variance. At first, this factor consisted of 5 items (items 15 to 19 in the first version of inventory), but at last, item 19 was deleted because its loading factor (.152) was less than .4. Item 17 had the highest loading factor (.80) and item 18 had the lowest loading factor (.448). Items 16 and 15 had the loading factor of .717 and .470, respectively.
Factor analysis for dimension 4: students᾽ needs and differences

Table 4.5
Component Matrixa


Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor involves items which deal with students᾽ needs and differences from teachers᾽ points of view. The Eigen value of this factor is 2.376 which explain about 33.936 of variance. At first, this factor consisted of 7 items (items 20 to 26 in the first version of inventory) but at last, items 24, 25, and 26 with loading factors of -.267, -.257, and -.060 were deleted, because their loading factors were less than.4. Item 21 had the highest loading factor (.831) and item 22 had the lowest loading factor (.598). Items 23 and 20 had the loading factors of .792 and .752, respectively. So, the last version of this dimension consisted of 4 items (items 18 to 21 from the last version of inventory).
Factor analysis for dimension 5: use of students᾽ comments

Table 4.6
Component Matrixa



Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor consisted of items which measure use of students᾽ comments from teachers᾽ part. The Eigen value of this factor is 2.547 which explain about 31.837 percent of variance. At first, this factor consisted of 8 items (items 27 to 33 from the first version of inventory) but at last, these items were reduced to 3 items. Loading factors of items 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 were .365, .364, -.665, -.319, -.265, respectively. These loadings were less than .4, so related items to these loadings were deleted. Item 27 had the highest loading factor and item 29 had the lowest loading factor. Loading factor of item 28 was .723.

Factor analysis for dimension 6: attention to first language

Table 4.7
Component Matrixa


Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor consisted of items which deal with attention to first language. Eigen value of this factor is 1.668 which explains about 41.711 of variance. At first, this dimension had 4 items, but at last, item 38 with loading factor of .167 was deleted. Item 36 had the highest loading factor (.852) and item 35 had the lowest loading factor (.645). Loading factor of item 37 was .712.

Factor analysis for dimension 7: critical thinking

Table 4.8
Component Matrixa


Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

This factor consisted of items which deal with critical thinking in students. Eigen value of this factor is 1.689 which explains about 56.309 percent of variance. This dimension had 3 items with loading factor of more than .4. So, there was no deleted item. Item 40 had the highest loading factor (.810) and item 41 had the lowest loading factor (.699). Item 39 had the loading factor of .738.
As the result of running confirmatory factor analysis, the first 41 items were reduced to final 30 items which formed our questionnaire for the first question of this study.

4.3. Results for question (1)
As indicated in the first chapter of this study, the first question of this study intended to scrutinize to what extent Iranian language teacher are aware of principles and premises of critical pedagogy. To do so, an instrument consisted of 7 dimensions was developed and administered to participants, and then participants’ responses to each dimension were analyzed separately. The results for each dimension are shown in the following parts.
4.3.1. Attention to social and cultural issues
This dimension consisted of 9 items:
1. Learning is a social process and it takes place as a result of social interaction.
2. Whatever is said in the classroom should help improvement of society.
3. Students must realize their knowledge in the society.
4. School is an appropriate place for discussing social problems and issues.
5. Language is an ideology, therefore, teaching a language is teaching a new ideology.
6. In writing language course books, local values, beliefs, and interests must be taken into account.
7. There is a relationship between language, power, and ideology.
8. Educational subjects can be domesticated.
9. In test preparation, their effects and consequences on individual’s lives, and on educational, Social and political contexts must be taken into account.
Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension (1) are shown in the Table 4.9

Table 4.9
Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension (1)
Strongly disagree
No comment
Strongly agree
11.0 %
8.0 %
47.0 %
34.0 %
5.0 %
7.0 %
11.0 %
38.0 %
39.0 %
0 %
4.0 %
11.0 %
38 %
47.0 %
13.0 %
16.0 %
44.0 %
27.0 %
14.0 %
35.0 %
30.0 %
10.0 %
11.0 %
8.0 %
16.0 %
7.0 %
44.0 %
25.0 %
7.0 %
3.0 %
8.0 %
48.0 %
34.0 %
14.0 %
28.0 %
21.0 %
27.0 %
10.0 %
55.0 %
20.0 %

As the table4.9 shows, 34 % of participants strongly believed that learning is a social process and it takes place as a result of social interaction while 47% agreed, 8 percent had no comment, and 11 % disagreed with the item one. In item 2, 39 % of participants strongly agreed that whatever is said in the classroom must help improvement of the society, 38% agreed, 11% had no comment, 7% disagreed, and 5% strongly

education, engendering critical awareness and becoming a transformative intellectual seem to be unattainable. No matter how motivated and open a teacher is, definitely such structural constraints affect teacher performance negatively. Some teachers suggested that the institutions have to be re-organized to allow for more diversity, flexibility and openness towards other modes of teaching and learning.

3.1 Introduction
This study was carried out to examine whether Iranian language teachers are aware of principles and premises of critical pedagogy. Current study, also, intended to scrutinize the main barriers of applying CP principles in schools from teachers᾽ points of view. In this chapter, first, design of the study is explained. Second, participants of the study are described. Then, used instruments are dealt with in detail. Next, the statistical analysis is described, which is followed by a presentation of the procedure of the study.
3.2 design of the study
The design of a study primarily depends on the research questions that the study addresses. The main questions of the present study can be characterized as either quantitative-oriented questions, qualitative ones, or mixed ones. Therefore, a mixed design method was used. Mixed methods include both qualitative and quantitative features in the design, data collection, and analysis. In such a design qualitative and quantitative data collection can occur in parallel form or sequential form. The mixed methods can also involve the conversion of qualitative data to a quantitative form or vice versa. In this study, the data were collected sequentially. For question one, quantitative data and data analysis methods were used, while qualitative data and corresponding analysis methods were used to address the second type of questions (Question number two).
3.3 Participants
The sampling procedure used in the study was combination of Multi-Stage and random Sampling. 100 participants of this study were selected randomly from among all language teachers in Lorestan and Kuhgiluieh & Boyerahmad provinces. All the participants were recruited from language teachers at high schools. They were BA holders and full time teachers. They were from different genders and they have been teaching English for at least 4 years. The sample for the second question (qualitative one) was selected from among the participants of the first questions (those who answered the first question positively). In the qualitative studies, the number of participants depends on data saturation point. When no new information is obtained from the interviewees, interviewing is terminated. In this study having interviewed ten participants, data saturation was obtained.
3.4 Instrumentation
In this study two kinds of instruments were used. First, based on review of literature on CP, a questionnaire consisted of 41 items was constructed. Based on content analysis, these 41 items were divided into 7 factors. Then this instrument, through a pilot study, was administered to a representative sample. Then it was validated through confirmatory factor analysis and the numbers of items were reduced to 30 items. First factor which was named “attention to social and cultural issuesˮ consisted of 9 items (items 1 to 9 of the questionnaire). Second factor under the title of “language and ideologyˮ had 4 items (items 10 to 13 of the questionnaire). Third factor which was named “ethical issues and educational justiceˮ consisted of 4 items (items 14 to 18 of the questionnaire). Fourth factor which was titled “attention to needs and differences of the studentsˮ had, again, 4 items (items 18 to 21 of the questionnaire). Fifth factor under the title of “use of students comment in language teachingˮ had 3 items (items 22 to 24 of the questionnaire). Sixth factor which was named “attention to first languageˮ consisted of 3 items (items 25 to 27 of the questionnaire). The seventh factor which was titled “creative thinkingˮ had 3 items (items 28 to 30 of the questionnaire).The final version of questionnaire was distributed among a representative sample of population. Another instrument was an interview checklist. It consisted of a set of questions which invited the participants to express their attitudes toward critical pedagogy, the barriers of application of CP, and the educational implications.
3.5 Data analysis
In order to analyze data, both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. To develop the inventory, confirmatory factor analysis was run. This is a technique to reduce the number of variables (confirmatory factor analysis principle component). Also, it is used to estimate the construct validity of a questionnaire. Through factor analysis, the highly correlated items are kept and those with less correlation coefficient (in this case less than .4) will be deleted. Principle component is more conservative. That is, through this method more items are kept. In order to estimate the internal consistency of the instrument cronbach alpha coefficient was used (α=.82). This is an acceptable estimate. In analyzing the data for question 1, descriptive statistics including mean, standard deviation, and frequency was estimated. Also, a one-sample t-test was run to see whether the mean of sample and population are different or not. As the nature of second question was totally different from the first one, qualitative approaches were used to analyze data in the second question. In this study grounded theory was the best approach. Theory generation in qualitative data can be emergent, and grounded theory is an important method of theory generation. It is more inductive than content analysis, as the theories emerge from, rather than exist before, the data. Grounded theory starts with data, which are then analyzed and reviewed to enable the theory to be generated from them; it is rooted in the data and little else. Here the theory derives from the data – it is grounded in the data and emerges from it.
3.6 Procedure of the study
As the design of this study was a mixed one, specific procedures were needed. This study was a kind of multi-phase study. At the first phase, based on the review of related literature, the needed questionnaire was developed and then a representative sample of population was selected. In the next phase, the questionnaires were administered to the participants, either directly or through some colleagues and some were e-mailed to them. After collecting questionnaires, they were analyzed through appropriate statistical procedures. Then, the qualitative data needed for the second question were gathered through face to face in-depth interview. The participants were informed of the purpose of the research and their consent was obtained. The participants᾽ permission, also, was obtained to audiotape each interview for purposes of qualitative analysis using grounded theory. The interviews were conducted in both unstructured and semi-structured manner. When no new information was gathered from last three interviewees, data saturation was achieved. The interviewed data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative technique of grounded theory.

Chapter IV
Results and Discussions
4.1. Introduction
The aim of this study was to see whether Iranian language teachers are familiar with CP and its components. This study, also, intended to explore the main barriers of applying CP principles in schools from teachers’ points of view. In order to find answers to above questions, first, a self-developed questionnaire was administered to 100 English language teachers and then a representative sample of participants were interviewed. It this chapter, at first, the results of the study consisting of descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative results are introduced. Then the results for each question will be discussed.
4.2 Quantitative resultsThe quantitative data were collected and analyzed to answer the first question of the study. They include descriptive and inferential statistics which are shown in the following parts of the study.
4.2.1 Results of inventory development
Based on content analysis, 41 items of the first version of inventory were divided into 7 factors. In order to be sure that data have normal distribution and we are on the safe ground to run factor analysis, KMO and Bartlett’s test was used. The results indicated that the data did not violate the assumptions of factor analysis. Then, confirmatory factor analysis was run. The items with factor loading of less than .4 were deleted. The 41 item-inventory is shown in table 4.1.

Table 4.1
41 item-inventory of critical pedagogy
1. Social and cultural issues 1. Learning is a social process and it takes place as a result of social interaction.
2. Whatever is said in the classroom should help improvement of society.
3. Students must realize their knowledge in the society.
4. School is an appropriate place for discussing social problems and issues.
5. Language is an ideology, therefore, teaching a language is teaching a new ideology.
6. In writing language course books, local values, beliefs, and interests must be taken into account.
7. There is a relationship between language, power, and ideology.
8. Educational subjects can be domesticated.
9. in test preparation, their effects and consequences on individual’s lives, and on educational,
social and political contexts must be taken into account.
2. Language and ideology 10. Decisions about educational system are made by executive directors in a top-down process.
11. Teacher must be aware of hidden curriculum and ideologies hidden in contents of educational
course books.
12. Language may lead to a change in individuals᾽ culture and beliefs.
13. Education is a political action and may lead to violation of the rights of some particular group
of society.
14*. Language learning is a mental process and has no relation to social and political structures.
3. Ethical issues and 15. Teaching method in the classroom may lead to creation and reinforcement of social inequalities
educational justice 16. Gender differences may causes differences in language learners’ way of learning.
17. Considering gender differences in language teaching is an essential issue.
18. There should be relation between students᾽ abilities and learning styles and teacher’s teaching
methods and techniques.
19*. In second language learning and teaching, minority groups should not be ignored.
4. Students᾽ needs and 20. Course book contents must be based on the analysis of students needs.
differences 21. Teachers teaching method must be compatible with students᾽ interests.
22. Learning attitudes and styles of male and female students are different.
23. If students are not satisfied with contents and way of teaching, teacher must revise them.

Ways in which Western scholars have treated local knowledge of the other countries form the scholastic dimension of method as a construct of marginality. This perspective interprets the scientific and technological knowledge of the other countries as less valuable than those of Western countries (Alvares, 1979⁄ 91). For example, British scholars who went to teach English in colonial India brought with them a similar attitude towards local knowledge (krishnaswamy & Burde, 1998; pennycook, 1998). Making the knowledge and using of local languages irrelevant for teaching and learning English as an additional language which led to monolingual tenet (Philpson, 1992) constitutes the linguistic dimension of method as a construct of marginality. According to Philpson (1992), monolingual tenet sticks to the idea that teaching of English as a foreign or second language should be entirely through the medium of English. Another dimension of method as a construct of marginality which has closely relation to linguistic dimension is its cultural dimension. The main concern of this aspect of method has always been the native speaker. Stern (1992) argues that one of the most important goals of culture teaching is to achieve an understanding of the native speaker’s perspective. In such a scenario, the individual voice and cultural identity of the L2 learners stand hopelessly marginalized (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Clearly, both the linguistic dimension which focuses on monolingualism and the cultural dimension which focuses on monoculturalism are aimed at benefiting the native speaker of English. The last dimension of method as a construct of marginality is its economic dimension. Economy is the engine that drives the ELT industry. The concept of method with its emphasis on native speaker and monolingual tenets was going to provide employment opportunities for native speakers of English in the world, and by this means, fuel the ELT economic engine (Kumaravadivelu, 2002). Method ignores the local knowledge and interests and tries to prescribe one approach of teaching and learning English to all learners with their different goals. It is clear that method with above-mentioned perspectives cannot be useful to any learning and teaching context. There is, thus, an imperative need to decolonize the methodological aspects of ELT by moving toward the concept of postmethod (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
2.6.3 Postmethod as a postcolonial construct
Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2001, 2003) exploring the nature of the traditional, top-down, modernist, and transmission-oriented methods of teaching that view learners as passive recipients of the teacher’s methodology and defining the concept of method as a construct of “marginality” in the sense that it “valorizes everything associated with the colonial Self and marginalizes everything associated with the subaltern Other” (2003a, p.541) invites practitioners of all persuasions in the field to find a systematic, coherent, and relevant alternative to method rather than alternative method or to find an alternative way of designing effective teaching strategies as well as creating efficient and reflective teaching professionals. Accordingly, he suggests an alternative to method in the form of what he calls postmethod pedagogy. He visualizes a postmethod pedagogy as a three-dimensional system consisting of three pedagogic parameters: particularity, practicality, and possibility.
First and foremost, any postmethod pedagogy has to be pedagogy of particularity. That is to say, language pedagogy, to be relevant, must be sensitive to a particular group of teachers teaching a particular group of learners pursuing a particular set of goals within a particular institutional context embedded in a particular sociocultural milieu (Kumaravadivelu, 2001).It starts with practicing teachers, either individually or collectively, observing their teaching acts, evaluating their outcomes, identifying problems, finding solutions, and trying them out to see once again what works and what does not. Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for the development of context-sensitive pedagogic knowledge (Kumaravadivelu, 2001). Pedagogy of practicality does not pertain merely to the everyday practice of classroom teaching. It pertains to a much larger issue that has a direct impact on the practice of classroom teaching, namely, the relationship between theory and practice. General educationists (e.g., Elliott, 1991) have long recognized the harmful effect of the theory/ practice dichotomy. They affirm that theory and practice mutually inform, and together constitute, a dialectical praxis, an affirmation that has recently influenced L2 teaching and teacher education as well (e.g., Freeman, 1998). A pedagogy of practicality seeks to overcome some of the deficiencies inherent in the theory-versus-practice, theorists’-theory-versus-teachers’-theory dichotomies by encouraging and enabling teachers themselves to theorize from their practice and practice what they theorize (Kumaravadivelu, 1999).
The parameter of possibility is derived mainly from Freirean critical pedagogy that seeks to empower classroom participants so that they can critically reflect on the social and historical conditions contributing to create the cultural forms and interested knowledge they encounter in their lives. Their lived experience, motivated by their own sociocultural and historical backgrounds, should help them appropriate the English language and use it in their own terms according to their own values and visions (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). The three parameters of a postmethod pedagogy interweave and interact with each other in a synergic relationship where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Together, they constitute a conceptual rationale necessary to construct a postmethod pedagogy as a postcolonial project.
2.7 Empirical research
The concept of critical pedagogy (CP) has been around for some time in education, but there has not been so much research in ELT conducted on implementing the basic tenets of CP into the classrooms through one of the skills. In this section few researches, in which some principles and concepts of critical pedagogy have been dealt with, will be offered.
Ira Shor’s When Students Have Power (1996) documents his personal successes and failures with critical pedagogy at a Staten Island campus of New York’s open enrollment City University. Shor’s many novel ideas for restructuring writing classrooms as a collaborative environment with minimal “gatekeeping” (i.e., traditional hierarchical authority) have made him one of the most admired figures in the field. In order to create a more equitable system of “power sharing,” Shor suggests teachers need to democratically reorganize all aspects of the educational environment, from the physical organization of the room to the system used to evaluate student work. His students sit in circles or in rows, depending on their preference, but Shor avoids the front of the room and “backloads” his own comments to avoid intruding in their discussions. He also requires them to sign contracts generated through an extensive process of negotiation, which covers everything from grading standards to the exact number of minutes that can pass before students are considered late.
Ghahremani and Mirhosseini (2005) made use of Dialogue Journal Writing (DJW) as a tool for students’ empowerment and the students were allowed to use Farsi (their L1) words where they couldn’t locate the English equivalents. The students were told to choose a topic of their concern and interest, and then write about it without paying too much attention to grammar, spelling, etc. The practice of journal writing was used in this study because “DJW grants students the freedom to disagree, hence, playing a major role in empowering them”. One part of this disagreement may be the use of first language while writing, because it is not consistent with the principles of tra
ditional methods to teaching and managing classrooms.
Carrilo and Mccain did a survey study in the spring of 2004 with students from an education college in the southern region of the U.S. The objective was to know if critical pedagogy is taught and assimilated by the students in order to confront the new realities of the crisis of capitalism or is an academic therapy to reproduce and hold to the traditional educative mode. The qualitative analysis was developed with tables of frequencies, factor analysis and t-test which are useful and common statistics tools. Findings indicated that most educators were not prepared to teach critical pedagogy as a component to their education program. Moreover, most participants in the study, through surveys, indicated that they had not received formal education courses in teaching critical pedagogy. Also, several participants in this study did not have a clearly defined philosophy of critical pedagogy into educational process.
Sadeghi (2008) did a study in order to examine some complexities of EFL teaching in an urban area in southern Iran by focusing on the partnership between critical pedagogy and an indigenous way of thinking in which both teacher and learners are aware and proud of their traditions, beliefs, priorities and collaboratively work to create a richer pedagogical context. The main purpose of this study was to discover whether in a one-semester course designed to acquaint students with issues of social justice students experienced a change in their: a) definition of social justice, b) recognition of practices relevant to social justice in their organizations, and c) sense of responsibility for contributing to change in the distribution of justice. To do so, 22 EFL learners, both male and female, from different educational backgrounds were selected. During the semester different topics such as gender discrimination, cultural invasion and internet filtering, anomie, religion, job opportunity, the society’s view of Azad University, prohibition of traditional dress, army service, prohibition of Bandari songs and dance were discussed. At the end of this kind of critical education, students engaged in examining social issues that raised critical consciousness. Students began doubting what is taken for granted in their own lives. Some became more critical and reflective about themselves and others became critical about the society surrounding them. In sum, the class engaged in discussing issues that were derived from their own living experience, instead of practicing decontextualized exercises.
Sadeghi and Ketab (2009) did a study in order to find what barriers prevent teachers from application of transformative intellectual principles in their teaching. Six teachers, held their M.A in English Language Teaching, were involved in this project. First they reflected upon overt/covert inequalities and injustice, and their roles in society. Then, they gained a terrible insight into how they subconsciously contributed to the reproduction and replication of higher-order hierarchy of power and access. At the second stage, through dialogue with their colleagues, they gained a critical voice for their roles in the society. Eventually, they tried to implement critical pedagogy in the classroom and enact their roles as Transformative Intellectuals. Instead of rigid guidelines as to content and structure, they followed an explorative and interpretive approach. At the end of study, teachers were interviewed about their experience of being transformative intellectuals. Based on these interviews, Sedeghi and Ketab (2009) concluded that taking into account the administrative constraints, teachers may encounter daily problems such as: large class sizes, rigid lesson plans, obligatory standard tests, limited class time, load of work and expectations, low payment and so on. Going beyond banking model of

to monitor the uses of tests as instruments of power to challenge their assumptions and to examine their consequences is a pressing need. Critical language testing argues that act of language testing is not neutral, but it is a product and agent of cultural, social, political, educational, and ideological agendas that shape the lives of individual participants, teachers, and learners. Examining the intentions of tests, acknowledging that knowledge of any tester is incomplete, and challenging the uses of test as the only instrument of assessing knowledge are among the main concerns of critical language testing. Critical approaches to language planning and language rights
Language policy and planning is one domain of critical applied linguistics which deals with language from a political perspective. Yet, finding ways to connect language to social world is not enough; a critical approach to social relation is also required (pennycook, 2001). There is not something inherently critical about language policy. As Tollefson (1991) observes, the problem emerges when development and implementation of language policy occur in uncritical ways. Luke, McHoul, and Mey (1990) argue that the main tendency of language planning has been avoidance of directly addressing larger social and political matters within which language change, use, development, and language planning itself, are embedded. Williams (1992) critiques the whole domain of sociolinguistics for its use of a static, liberal view of society, and its inability in dealing with question of justice. Considering critical sociolinguistics (Mey, 1985), critical applied linguistics need to incorporate views of language, society, and power that are capable of dealing with questions of access, power, disparity, and difference. Dominance of certain languages over others has been questioned by Philipson (1992) through his notion of (English) linguistic imperialism. He argues that spread of English for economic and political purposes poses a major threat to other languages. What is proposed is that the right to identify with, to maintain, and to fully develop one’s mother tongue should be acknowledged as a self-evident, fundamental individual linguistic human right (Philipson, 1992). Critical approaches to language, literacy, and workplace settings
Focus on language and literacy in various workplace and professional setting is another domain of work in applied linguistics. Going beyond the description of patterns of communication or genres of interaction between people in different workplace settings, critical applied linguistic approaches to these contexts of communication try to deal with questions of access, power, disparity, and difference. Such approaches also attempt to move toward active engagement with, and change in, these contexts of communication (pennycook, 2001). In wodak’s (1996) study of hospital interaction, in which doctors exercise power over their patients by asking questions and interrupting them, this kind of work can be seen. So, critical applied linguistics in this domain try to uncover those kinds of discourses in which for marginalizing participants particular kinds of language and literacy are imposed on them.
2.5 critical frameworks
The notion of what it means to be critical or to do critical work is a controversial one. Widdowson (2001) believes that applied linguistics as a discipline which mediates between linguistics and language teaching is of its nature a critical enterprise. From this perspective, to be critical means the appraisal of alternative versions of reality, finding the competing claims and perspectives, and the need to reconcile them. From this point of view, it can be understood that plurality of perspectives must be taken into account so as to mediate between, seeking points of commonality, and correspondence as a basis for accommodation. For Widdowson, being critical is a process in which different perspectives on a topic are evaluated. Widdowson also warns that there is another version of the critical, which ideologically sticks to a single perspective. Putting questions of language in their social context is one of the main concerns of applied linguistics. It is in this sense that another version of the critical, which is the social relevant, the contextualized, and the real, can be found. In critical applied linguistics four forms of the critical can be found: social relevance, critical thinking, emancipatory modernism, and problematizing practice.
It is not enough to link micro-relations of language in context to macro-relations of social inquiry (pennycook, 2001). That is to say, critical applied linguistics is concerned not merely with relating language contexts to social contexts, but rather does so from a perspective that views social relations as problematic. Williams (1992) argues that main concern of critical sociolinguistics is a critique of ways in which language perpetuates inequitable social relations. Therefore, a central concern of critical applied linguistics is a way of exploring language in social contexts that goes beyond mere correlation between language and society, and instead poses more critical questions to do with access, disparity, desire, difference, and resistance.
The next framework is critical thinking, which is used to describe a way of bringing more rigorous analysis to problem solving or textual analysis (pennycook, 2001). Skilled critical questioning (Brookfield, 1987) can be broken down into a set of thinking skills, a set of rules for thinking that can be taught to students. Critical applied linguistic is not supposed to develop a set of skills that make the doing of applied linguistics more rigorous, more objective, but to make applied linguistics more politically accountable.
Emancipatory modernism is another version of critical frameworks. It is based on modernist frameworks of materialism and enlightenment. Critical work in this sense has to engage with questions of inequality, injustice, wrongs, and transformation. This view develops a critique of social and political formations, but offers only a version of an alternative truth in its place: language rights replace linguistic imperialism; critical reading of texts replaces naïve readings; teaching critical issues in the classroom replaces the avoidance of politics, and so on. Instead of this sort of critical modernism, which emphasizes on emancipation and rationality, Dean (1994) proposes what he calls a problematizing practice. He argues that this is a kind of critical practice because it is unwilling to accept the taken-for-granted components of our reality and the official accounts of how they come to be the way they are. Thus, an essential element of critical work is always turning a skeptical eye toward assumptions, ideas that have become naturalized, notions that are no longer questioned. This approach to the critical seeks not so much the stable ground of an alternative truth, but rather the constant questioning of all categories. Critical applied linguistics is an amalgamation of social critique and anrcho-particularism, questioning what is meant and maintained by many of everyday categories of applied linguistics-language, learning, communication, difference, text, culture, meaning, translation, writing, literacy, assessment-as well as categories of social critique-ideology, race, gender, class, and so on.
2.6 Critical language pedagogy
Critical pedagogy argues against the traditional behaviorist and psychological paradigms that have dominated applied linguistics, and where language is treated as an object from an apolitical stance. Critical pedagogy places ELT in the students᾽ reality in order to question and challenge the socio-cultural and historical aspects involved in learning English as a lingua franca in the world. Critical pedagogy means understanding that behind the teaching of English, there are also issues of power, social inequalities, and market interests from the Centre to the Periphery.
2.6.1 Linguistic imper
Linguistic imperialism or language imperialism is a linguistic concept that involves the transfer of a dominant language to other people; the transfer is essentially a demonstration of power‒traditionally, military power but also in the modern world, economic power‒and aspects of dominant culture are usually transferred along with the language (Philipson, 1992). Philipson (2000) defines English linguistic imperialism as the dominance asserted and retained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages. Philipson’s theory critiques the historic spread of English as an international language and the language’s continued dominance. A central theme of philipson’s theory is the complex hegemonic processes which, he asserts, continue to sustain the pre-eminence of English in the world today. In his book, Philipson determines the key tenets of English language teaching methodology as the following points:
‒English is best taught monolingually (the monolingual fallacy).
‒the ideal teacher is a native speaker (the native speaker fallacy).
‒the earlier English is taught, the better the results (the early start fallacy).
‒the more English is taught, the better the results (the maximum exposure fallacy).
‒if other languages are used much, standards of English will drop (the subtractive fallacy).
Another theme in philipson’s work is “linguicism”‒the species of prejudice that leads to endangered languages becoming extinct or losing their local eminence due to the rise and competing prominence of English. Canagaragah (1999) has pointed how imported materials and methods enshrine postcolonial values, reinforcing the dominance of western, more technologically advanced ″center″ over the ″periphery″. Halliday (1994; 2005) has argued that methodological prescriptions in “BANA”contexts (i.e. British, North America and Australia) may have little or no currency in other contexts, and has argued for more contextualized sensitive and hence more appropriate methodologies which are locally generated and validated. The emergence of world Englishes (kachru, 1996) with their amazing form, function, and spread indicates that it is not confined to former British colonies alone. To remove the learning traces of English imperialism and to claim ownership of the English language learning and teaching enterprise, it is imperative to move from nativization to decolonization (Kumaravadivelu, 2003). He also indicates that a significant movement from nativization to decolonization necessarily includes meaningful shifts in policies and programs and method and materials governing English language teaching. It involves not only decentering the authority Western interests have over the English language teaching industry but also, more importantly, restoring agency to professionals in the periphery countries (Kumaravadivelu, 2003).
2.6.2 Method as a colonial construct
Pennycook (1989) argues that method is a prescriptive concept that expresses a positivist, progressivist, and patriarchal understanding of teaching. He believes that methods are never disinterested but rather instantiate relations of power. However, with the appearance of colonialism, method seems to have assumed easily identifiable colonial properties. Kumaravadivelu (2002) asserts that concept of method is a construct of marginality which gives it colonial coloration. It values everything related to the colonial Self and marginalizes everything related to subaltern Other. In the neocolonial present, like the colonial period, the use of methods is establishment of the native Self as superior and the non-native Other as inferior. Based on a review of the literature in applied linguistics, method as a construct of marginality has four inter-connected dimensions‒scholastic, linguistic, cultural, and

applied linguistics, involve in ongoing cycle of action and reflection. The difference is that reflection in applied linguistics has the goal of refining its practices and research in order to institutionalize the proper doing of things, while the goal of critical applied linguistics is to continue searching and questioning its own assumptions with the understanding that it can never escape involvement in dynamics of power. The moment one becomes an agent (CAL would say one is always an agent), he or she becomes an object for reflection or critical questioning with the responsibility of questioning him-or herself. This is rather like a dog trying to catch its own tail, but for CAL it is the chase that is important.
2.4.1 Domains of Critical Applied Linguistics
CAL consists of many critical domains such as critical discourse analysis, critical language awareness, critical pedagogy, critical translation, critical literacy, etc. In the following sections these domains will be discussed in detail. Critical discourse analysis and critical literacy
One of the most often ignored area in applied linguistics is critical literacy. The most important reason for this ignorance is the narrowness of scope that has often confined applied linguistics to questions of second language education and cognitive processes that has left little space for understanding of critical theories and practices of literacy (Pennycook, 2001).
Critical discourse analysis and critical literacy are sometimes combined under the rubric of critical language awareness, since the aim of this work is empowering learners by providing them with critical analytical framework to assist them reflect on their own language experiences and practices and the language practices of others in the institutions of which they are a part and in the wider society within which they live (Clark & Ivanic, 1997). Wodak (2006) argues that critical discourse analysis deals with following questions: How does the naturalization of ideology come about? Which discursive strategies legitimate control or ‘naturalize’ the social order? How power is linguistically expressed? How are consensus, acceptance and legitimacy of dominance manufactured? Who has access to which instruments of power and control?
According to Luke (1997), critical approaches to literacy reshape literacy education in the interests of marginalized groups of learners who have been excluded from access to the discourses and texts of dominant economies and cultures. Giroux and others (for example, Cook-Gumperz, 1986; Freire & Macedo, 1986; rockhill, 1987; Mclaren, 1988) argue that literacy is not acquisition of fixed body of cultural knowledge, but must be based on a view of knowledge as socially constructed, and thus as an ideological process. In this view, by helping students to decode the ideological dimensions of texts, social practices and cultural forms, critical literacy aims to develop a critical citizenry capable of analyzing and challenging the oppressive characteristics of society.
Critical discourse analysis is going to provide tools for critical analysis of texts in contexts. Kress (1990) argues that critical discourse analysis has the larger political aim of putting the forms of texts, the processes of production of texts, and the process of the reading, together with the structures of power that have given rise to them, into crisis. Van Dijk (1993) explains that the main goal of critical discourse analysis is focus on the role of discourse in the production or reproduction and challenge of dominance. Whether as a kind of research, or as a kind of pedagogy, critical discourse analysis and critical literacy are involved in questions of power and of change. Critical approaches to translation
Critical approaches to translation as another domain of textual analysis are relevant to critical applied linguistic. The main focus of such approaches is not on issues such as mistranslation or good or bad translation, but rather on the politics of translation, the ways in which translation and interpretation are related to issues such as class, gender, difference, ideology, and social context (Pennycook, 2001). So, critical approaches to translation unveil the ideological underpinnings of translation. Venuti (1997) believes that translation is a political activity, and rights of some local cultures in this process are ignored. So an approach to translation based on ethics of differences is necessary to give more attention to linguistic and cultural differences. Niranjana (1991) argues that translation as a practice shapes, and takes shape within the asymmetrical relations of power that operate under colonialism. Critical approaches to language education
Language teaching has always been dealt with as a principal concern of applied linguistics. Pennycook (1999) determined three main features that define critical work in language teaching: domain of interest, transformative pedagogy, and self-reflexive stance on critical theory.
Domain of interest:
The first important feature of critical work is the domain of interest. This domain attempts to link the micro relations of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) with wider social and political relations. So, cultural, political, or physical domains in which language teaching takes place must be dealt with critically. Generally, issues such as race, gender, class, sexuality, ethnicity and representation of Otherness are the main concerns of critical work in which relations of power and inequality, in terms of both social or structural inequality and the cultural or ideological frameworks which support such inequality, can be seen (Pennycook, 1999). In this domain, also, inequalities based on the structures of the native speaker and non-native speaker are dealt with.
Transformative pedagogy:
If one component of critical approaches to TESOL is a focus on the inequitable contexts in which language education takes place, the second component is a pedagogical focus on changing these conditions. Thus, the second crucial element of a critical approach to TESOL is the inclusion of a means of transformation. Fairclough (1992) have developed the notion of critical language awareness as an essential element of social change. It is like Freire’ (1970) notion of conscientization which forms the cornerstone of his work on critical literacy. Pennycook (1999) argues that having a critical approach to TESOL does not include putting a critical element into a classroom, but rather involves an attitude, a way of thinking and teaching. And change in students is not supposed to be based on predetermined results of mastery but about the unpredictable effects of a changed relationship to our histories and desires. In a critical work, there must be a relationship between theory and practice which is referred to praxis. It is understood as the mutually constitutive roles of theory grounded in practice and practice grounded in theory (Pennycook, 1999). Praxis is a way of thinking about critical work that does not divide theory and practice into different categories, but sees them as always dependent to each other.
Self-reflexive stance on critical theory:
Critical pedagogy in TESOL must not be become a static body of knowledge but rather must always be open to question. There must be space for critical work that is critical of itself. Such a self-criticism is a crucial element of critical work (Pennycook, 1999). Critical approaches must retain a constant skepticism, a constant questioning about the types of knowledge, theory, practice or praxis theory they operate with, an understanding that, as Spivak (1993) suggests, the notion of critical also needs to imply an awareness of the limits of knowing. Canagaragah (1996) has argued that critical research needs not only a focus on a critical domain, but also a critical approach to the way it gets written up.
Critical applied linguistic work in language teaching may determine its central in
terest as an attempt to relate aspects of language education to a broader critical analysis of social relations. Class and marginality are among the main concerns of critical language education, because certain ways of teaching English may lead to reproduction or transformation of class-based inequality, and make some students marginalized in the classroom (pennycook, 2001). Norton (1995, 2000) discusses ways in which gender, power, and inequality are interlinked in the process of language learning. Critical analysis of the interests and ideologies underlying the construction and interpretation of textbooks were dealt with by Sunderland (1994) and Dendrinos (1992). Benesch (1996) has engaged in critical analysis of curriculum design and needs analysis. Sangguinetti (1992), schenke (1991, 1996), and others has discussed various concerns in feminist pedagogy in English language teaching. They believed that feminism is not just one social issue in ESL, but a way thinking, a way of teaching, and most importantly a way of learning. Walsh (1991) discussed that critical bilingualism is not just the ability to speak two languages, but one must be conscious of sociocultural, political, and ideological contexts in which languages and therefore the speakers are positioned.
According to pennycook (1999), if a critical practice is considered in TESOL, following important pedagogical points will appear:
1. Need to a transformative dimension as well as a critically analytic one is required.
2. Critical approach to TESOL is not reducible to traditional approaches, methods, or techniques commonly understood within TESOL.
3. Critical approach to TESOL should not be confused with critical thinking. Critical thinking is an apolitical approach to develop a questioning attitude in students while critical approach to TESOL takes a political understanding toward the location of pedagogy for transformation through development of a new way of teaching.
4. If questions of power and difference are supposed to be dealt with in critical approach, both theoretical and pedagogical means of doing so are needed.
5. Because of the complexity of social, cultural, and pedagogical relations, critical approach to TESOL needs to work at multiple levels, including an understanding of critical domain, transformative pedagogy, and pedagogy of engagement.
6. Critical approaches to TESOL need forms of critical theory that can help inform thinking about social structures, knowledge, politics, and the individual or language. Critical language testing
In this view, it is believed that tests have a strong power and can lead to high-stakes decisions and consequences about individuals and groups. According to Shohamy (2001), there is evidence that tests are often introduced by those in authority as disciplinary tools often in covert ways for the purpose of manipulating educational systems and for imposing the agendas of those in authority. Thus, such uses of tests as instruments of power (Bourdieu, 1991; Tollefson, 1995) violate fundamental values and principles of democratic practices. So, testers in recent years have begun to focus on uses, impact and consequences of tests and their roles in educational, social, political, and economic contexts. This emphasis is different from traditional approaches in which the task of testers would end at the point when psychometrically sound results have been satisfactory achieved. Shohamy (2000) argues that use-oriented testing, on the other hand, is concerned with the uses tests in their relations to curriculum, ethicality, social class, politics, and knowledge, and their impact on individuals and educational systems. Shohamy (2001) asserted that critical language tasting as a kind of democratic assessment is the best alternative to traditional language testing methods. She believes that application of critical language testing

interaction should exist in an active union so as to provide the measure of educative significance and the value of an experience and to resolve concrete educational challenges in terms of social control, freedom, and purpose.
Counts (1978) had major criticisms of child-centered progressives like Dewey. He suggested that “their naïve belief in education free of social content was in fact a subtle but effective assent to the status quo because it ignored the reality that all education by necessity has a social dimension” (p. ix). Counts further argued that child-centered progressives did not reform education and/or society but rather subverted change (Counts, 1978). He argued that “to ignore this fact was to serve the interests of existing social elites” and that “child-centered progressives were not social progressives but [rather] unwilling social conservatives who masked their social views with child-centered language” (p. ix).
Today, Paulo Freire , Peter McLaren, Henry Grioux, and Ira Shor are four prominent names in critical pedagogy. Freire’s philosophy is akin to that of the Frankfurt School, Counts, and Dewey (Freire, 1970; Gibson, 1986; McLaren, 2003). The others’ writings on critical pedagogy and education are also amalgams of all of the previously mentioned schools of thought. In the following sections, the pedagogical ideas of these outstanding figures of critical pedagogy will be discussed in more details.
Freire’s pedagogical ideas:
At its most basic level, Freire’s work is an acknowledgement that the notion of a culturally neutral education is a fiction. Such a starting point puts a premium on diversity and makes it necessary for educators to recognize the locations of the students within culture and history and to pay close attention to specific contexts. Freire stresses that educators should not attempt to solve students problems for them, but rather by beginning with students’ specific contexts, educators can engage students in dialogue about the problems within their words and help students to come up with their own solutions.
In keeping with the idea of working with rather for the people, Freire warns teachers not to rely on a banking model of education in which knowledge is owned by teachers and deposited in students, who are constructed as empty vessels, devoid of either knowledge or relevant experience. Instead, Freire argues that teachers have to listen to students and begin with issues and generative themes which matter to them. There can be no one single pedagogy to fit all students, but instead there must be careful attention to and research into specific contexts, individual locations, and personal and group histories. What is important is that teachers do not provide solutions, but rather that they help to pose problems that arise from students realities so that students will be more critical thinkers about their situations. Teachers are no longer seen as possessing all the answers, but are instead constructed as teacher-students. Similarly, students are no longer seen as empty or lacking, but are instead constructed as student-teachers. In Freire’s formulation, teacher-students work with student-teachers in a dialogue that arises from a problem-posing method of education. In pedagogy of oppressed he says that authentic education is not carried on by A for B or by A about B, but rather by A with B mediated by the world. Freire emphasizes that teachers need to be critical and self-reflective in order to help students move toward critical consciousness and think in critical ways about the cultures, ideologies, and discourse of which they are a part. Critical pedagogy attempts to liberate teachers and students from viewing the world through personal lenses so they can begin to view the world critically through the lenses of humanity (Freire, 1970).
McLaren’s ideas:
Mclaren is one of the most outspoken proponent of critical pedagogy and sees it as the means to ask ourselves why we are the way we are, he argues that critical pedagogy poses a variety of important counter logics to the positivistic, a-historical, and depoliticized analysis employed both liberal and conservative critics and that is beneficial to education and even more to society (Mclaren, 2003). He believes that critical pedagogy aims to expose issues that are detrimental to students’ education, such as racism, sexism, and classism (Mclaren, 1999). He also asserted that although globalization can lead to additional marginalization of people, critical pedagogy aims to give every person a voice through which he or she can tell his or her story and be heard ( Farahmandpour & Mclaren, 2001).
Mclaren (2003) argues that, generally, classrooms try to mirror in organization what students and teachers would collectively like to see in the world outside of schools: respect for every one’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. Critical pedagogy problematizes the relationship between education and politics, between the reproduction of dependent hierarchies of power and privilege in the domain of everyday social life and that of classrooms and institutions. In doing so, it advances an agenda for educational transformation by encouraging educators to understand the sociopolitical contexts of educative acts and the importance of radically democratizing both educational sites and larger social formations (Fichman&Mclaren, 2005).
Giroux’s ideas:
Giroux is another one the most frequently-cited proponent of critical pedagogy and his influential text Theory and Resistance in Education which originally published in 1981, gives a general overview of his ideas. Giroux identifies and elaborates on themes now central to the field: restructuring the classrooms as a democratic public sphere, a critique of the instrumental rationality at the root of banking theories of education, and the need to connect classroom activities to the everyday lives of marginalized students. Giroux places his understanding of pedagogy as praxis within the tradition of the Frankfurt school of critical theory, and then offers his interpretation of the “hidden curriculum” that, in his view, keeps educators at the service of the dominant political and economic system despite their good intentions. Giroux (1989) has argued for a pedagogy of and for difference, a pedagogy that not only respects students voice and difference, using students lived experience as a narrative for agency and as a reference for critique, but also relates these differences to the wider social order, creating the democratic sense of respect for difference that is essential to any notion of equality in society. Furthermore, critical pedagogy looks at popular culture not in terms of an ideology critique of mass culture but as a significant pedagogical site of struggle that raises important questions about students᾽ subjectivity and experience (Giroux&Simon, 1989). Closely connected to the emphasis on student experience and popular culture is the notion of voice, “the means at our disposal- the discourses available to use- to make ourselves understood and listened to, and to define ourselves as active participants in the world” (Giroux, 1989: p. 1990).The criticisms of current educational policy are not only aimed at the current disempowerment of students but also at the disempowerment of teachers, who have become increasingly positioned as classroom technicians employed to transmit a fixed body of knowledge. Essential to critical pedagogy, then, is the realization of the need to empower teachers, to endow them with “emancipatory authority” as “transformative intellectuals”, to view teachers as “professionals who are able and willing to reflect upon the ideological principles that inform their practice, who connect pedagogical theory and
practice to wider social issues, and who work together to share ideas, exercise power over the conditions of their labor, and embody in their teaching a vision of a better and more humane life” (Giroux and McLaren, 1989: p. xxiii). Thus, teachers are seen not as technicians employed to implement set curricula, but as intellectuals constantly exploring their own and their students’ lives. This view of the empowered and empowering teacher also breaks down the troublesome theory/practice divide and adopts the notion of informed praxis.
Shore’s ideas:
Education to shore (1992) is not all about acquiring a set of necessary skills and knowledge in order to function in the society. What is more important is to build an ability to see the world with critical mind. Shore argues that we should be teaching what he calls desocialization. In Empowering Education, he explains the term: desocialization refers to questioning the social behaviors and experiences in school and daily life that makes us into the people we are. It involves critically examining learned behavior, received values, familiar language, habitual perceptions, existing knowledge, power relations, and traditional discourse in class and out. Shore in When Students Have Power describes how the traditional tendency in education to talk at, talk about, talk around, and talk down to, but not talk with causes students to retreat from the educational process. Shore describes strategies for “power sharing” in which he seeks students input for class decisions and actions, even elements of curriculum design and grading.
2.4 Critical Applied Linguistics
Critical perspectives in applied linguistics emerged since 1980s and has been welcomed by some and rejected by others. Some of these perspectives emerged under overt banners of criticality; critical discourse analysis, critical literacy, or critical pedagogy; others are informed by general formations of critical work and theory: gender studies, queer theory, post colonial studies, or anti-racist pedagogy (Pennycook, 2001).
At first glance, it may be said that applied linguistics (AP) and critical applied linguistics (CAL) deal with different facets of the same subject matter, they also do it in very different ways, and they may not have much in common (Carlson, 2004). Some believes that critical applied linguistics is little more than a critique of other orientations to applied linguistics. For some other applied linguists, critical applied linguistics may be defined as little more than mainstream work. Davis (1999) gives a broader role to critical applied linguistics as both a mode of critique and critical pedagogy, as a mode of practice. From this perspective it “offers an alternative applied linguistics, known as critical applied linguistics (CAL). It does this in two ways, first by offering a critique of traditional applied linguistics and second, by exemplifying one way of doing CAL which is named critical pedagogy”(P.20). In this broader perspective, there are different ways of doing CAL which critical pedagogy is just one of them. Pennycook (2001) argues that critical applied linguistics has power over applied linguistics when he says that critical applied linguistics is not about developing a set of skills that will make the doing of applied linguistics more rigorous or make objective, but about making applied linguistics more politically accountable. The job of critical applied linguistic is to seek out the problems inherent in social and therefore in linguistic relations (Carlson, 2004). Moreover, CAL does not purport to do this from an apolitical position, but rather CAL must take up certain positions and stances (pennycook, 2001). Carlson (2004) believes that the essential question facing applied linguistics is not the denial of action but how to keep action dynamic and responsive to criticism, and thus both applied linguistics and critical

e teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher.
‒the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who are not consulted) adapt to it.
‒the teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with his own professional authority, which he sets in opposition to the freedom of the students.
‒the teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are objects.
1.5.3 Critical: being critical means questioning information and not accepting its legitimacy based merely upon its originator. Therefore, individuals should have their own reasons for legitimizing information (Freire, 1970; McLaren, 2003). Being critical is the act of critiquing sources of information.
1.5.4 Dialogical method: The dialogical approach to learning abandons the lecture format and the banking approach to education in favor of dialogue and open communication among students and teachers. According to Freire (1970), in this method, all teach and all learn. The dialogical approach contrasts with the anti-dialogical method, which positions the teacher as the transmitter of knowledge, a hierarchical framework that leads to domination and oppression through the silencing of students᾽ knowledge and experiences.
1.5.5 Pedagogy: Simon (1987) defines pedagogy as the integration in practice of particular curriculum content and design, classroom strategies and techniques, and evaluation, purpose, and methods. Thus, pedagogy refers to all the aspects of educational practice that come together in the realities of what happens in a classroom (McLaren, 2003).
1.5.6 Hidden curriculum: The hidden curriculum refers to a collection of all the messages and intentions of academic institutions that are not detailed in the official curriculum (Freire, 1970). These messages and intentions can cover a broad range of issues that pertain to academic, political, economic, and any other number of issues but will always have an effect on the students of academic institutions.
1.5.7. Praxis: “praxis is the power and know-how to take action against oppression while stressing the importance of libratory education. Praxis involves engaging in the cycle of theory, application, reflection and then back to theory. Social transformation is the product of praxis at the collective levelˮ (Freire, 1998).
2.6 Outline of the study:
The present study consisted of five chapters. Chapter One includes an introduction, the statement of the problem, the significance of the study, objectives of the study (research questions), the definitions of key terms, and the outline of the study. Chapter Two provides a review of the literature relevant to this study. Chapter Three provides the methodology of the study, including the participants, instrumentation, data analysis, and the procedures of the study. In Chapter Four, the results of the data analysis and interpretations of these results will be presented. Chapter five, concludes the study, summarizes the study, explores the teaching implications of the study and makes recommendations for further research.

Review of literature
2.1 Introduction
This chapter consists of different parts. At first, the general studies on critical pedagogy are reported. Then, critical applied linguistics is mentioned. Next, the main studies on critical pedagogy and language teaching are reviewed.
2.2 History of Critical Pedagogy
Like other philosophies of education, critical pedagogy has, also, deep historical roots. The foundations of critical pedagogy can be traced along a general timeline that begins with Karl Marx (Gibson, 1986). After Marxism, came the philosophy of the Frankfurt School and the precursor to critical pedagogy, critical social theory (Gibson, 1986). Prominent educational philosophers such as George C. Counts and John Dewey began calling for social and educational reform, similar to those of Marx and the Frankfurt School (Marcus & Tar, 1984). Later, these theories spanned to influence modern educational philosophers such as the late Paulo Freire and current prominent academic Peter McLaren (McLaren, 2003). This section provided a brief history of critical pedagogy and its origins within critical social theory and a discussion of its contemporary form.
2.3 Theoretical bases of critical pedagogy:
Marxism is a political/economic view of society based upon the writings of 19th century German philosopher Karl Marx (Gibson, 1986). In this philosophy, a critique of society is essential to achieving the ultimate goal of a revolution, culminating in an egalitarian society and economy based on socialism (Marcus & Tar, 1984). Marxism is critical of capitalism and sees it as an ill society that must be dismantled to achieve equality of the people and economy through socialism (Marcus & Tar, 1984). In other word, the central concern of Marxist theory is the historical struggle for economic control between the proletariat and the capitalists. The class who posses economic power, posses the means of production also posses “consciousness, and therefore think” (Marx & Engels, 1976⁄ 2006.p. 9). As thinkers, it produces ideas (which serve its dominance) and regulates the society with its ideas. False ideology came out as a result to “mislead” and “miseducate” (Gutek, 2004, p. 219) the class who is subjugated under that power so that they are not conscious of their situation. The product of this process is the maintenance of social status quo and power relations.
Marx’s writings have been read and used by numerous individuals all around the world to critique and call for reform of society (Marcus & Tar, 1984). Marxism was the foundational philosophy of the Frankfurt school (Gibson, 1986). The Frankfurt School was founded in 1923 at the university of Frankfurt by sociologists who “drew upon, challenged, revised, and added to Marx’s theory” to develop critical social theory (Gibson, 1986 p. 20). Critical social theory was developed by three scholars, Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse (Gibson, 1986). This theory had three distinct features: self-conscious, self-critical, and non-objectifying. Critical social theory as a theory attempts to critique society and knowledge in a holistic and complete way that facilitates fundamental change in all parts of the society (Gibson, 1986). Max Horkheimer suggested using critical social theory to analyze the relationship between the individual and society, to more deeply understand Marxist writings through society, and to explain the relationships linking consciousness, culture, and society (Gibson, 1986). As stated by Max Horkheimer, critical theory seeks human emancipation, makes them aware of different forms of domination and manipulation in their societies and guides them to actions that transform circumstances that enslave them (Bohman, 2006). Adorno’s two primary perspectives on critical social theory were negative dialectics and the authoritarian personality. He suggested that negative dialectics are the constant interplay and interactions between individuals and society (Marcus & Tar, 1984; Gibson, 1986). Adorno also differentiated between perceived and non-observed interactions, with a focus on the latter (Marcus & Tar, 1984; Gibson, 1986). Authoritarian personality refers to an examination of the individual in society, with a primary focus on the psychology of the individual and subsequent social interactions.
Herbert Marcuse was the most famous of these three sociological philosophers (Gibson, 1986). He suggested that individuals achieve personal emancipation through self-gratification (Gibson, 1986). Marcuse determined that gratification creates “better individuals, better personal relationships, and a better society”. The second of Marcuse’s ideas was a critical theory of society (Gibson, 1986). This idea suggested that technological advances and capitalism lead
to submission to material wealth and not to personal freedom because the individual becomes one dimensional and gives up on social justice (Marcus & Tar, 1984; Gibson, 1986).
Critical social theory seeks to examine the nature of society and how the individual fits into that schema (Gibson, 1986). The application of this theory is achieved through a social critique of society and an acknowledgement of the injustices that saturate it, which is akin to critical pedagogy (Gibson, 1986). The Frankfurt School’s focus was on society and not education but prominent educational philosophers, such George C. Counts and John Dewey, helped to transition the ideas of the Frankfurt school and critical social theory to education (Gibson, 1986; Spring, 2004).
George C. Counts’ ideas were similar to the Frankfurt School’s critical social theory, although Counts applied his theories of reform and reconstruction specifically to education (Counts, 1978; Spring, 2004). In Dare the School Build a New Social Order? Counts (1978) addressed the inequities that exist in society and subsequently in education. In this work, Counts (1978) suggested that humans are not born free and that it would be bad if this was true, because it would make them void of any culture. Counts argued that culture is the primary channel through which individuals learn and are given purpose, most especially in education. He was also critical of the idea that education is a sanctified place that is free of political or economic influence. Rather, he suggested that education was a reflection of society and, therefore, would inevitably be influenced by it. Counts was very critical of capitalism, much like the philosophers of the Frankfurt School , and suggested that its economic framework led to the wasteful, inefficient, cruel, and inhuman treatment of people (Spring, 2004). He further suggested that schools reflected the ills of social inequality and that their goal should be to reshape society to allow collectivism to flourish. He argued that social change should begin within the schools (Counts, 1978; Spring, 2004).
John Dewey was another educational reformist in the United States in the early twentieth-century. Dewey’s educational philosophies were child-centered and progressive minded with the implied goal of creating a reformed and more democratic society through schools (Spring, 2004). Dewey’s progressive educational ideas focused on a child-centered philosophy that emphasized the individual and not the intentions of the school (Spring, 2004). Dewey saw the school as a means to remedy the social problems of society by providing social services (Spring, 2004). He suggested that schools were the ultimate avenues to achieve social change because they were the most basic level to reach people and effect social change within the confines of the democratic system in the United States (Spring, 2004). The pedagogical theories of Dewey share a similar focus on making education a transformative experience. Dewey (1916) believed that the ideal classroom would be a place where students used trial and error to develop needed skills for engaging in genuine or ethical democratic citizenship. Dewey asserted that learning cannot be standardized, because it always takes place against the backdrop of the learner’s previous knowledge and experience. For this reason, he suggested that teachers tie new material into their students’ individual perspective and give them freedom to subject it to testing and debate. In his book experience and education, Dewey assumed that we must understand how experience occurs in order to design and conduct education for the benefit of individuals in society in both the present and the future. The nature of experience includes continuity (that all experiences are carried forward and influence future experience) and interaction (present experiences arise out of the relationship between the situation and the individuals stored past). He emphasized that continuity and

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, and testing) is of crucial importance. He, also, discusses that as long as course contents and testing methods are decided upon by ministries in capitals, ELT classes suffer from vague generalities and socio-political numbness. The great potential CP has in curriculum development and student empowerment will be actualized only when education, and by extension ELT, develops the required attitude, starts at the local level, and acknowledges the significance of learners’ experiences as legitimate departure points in any meaningful learning enterprise.
Despite the great importance laid on critical pedagogy and its implications in ELT and the importance of TEFL in Iran educational system, no one has ever tried to investigate the status of critical pedagogy implications in EFL teaching in Ira
nian High schools. This study is an attempt to probe into the use of CP in EFL classrooms and the barriers in the use of such an approach.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970) in general and critical applied linguistics (Pennycook, 2001 &Philipson 1992) in particular influenced ELT curriculum in almost all parts of the world. 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 to non-speaking countries. English in Iran, like the other countries, is taught as a foreign language at junior high schools, high schools, and at tertiary levels. Therefore, it can lead to both negative and positive educational, racial, and cultural consequences. Despite the great emphasis laid on the importance of being critical, it is not really known whether Iranian English language teachers are all aware of Critical pedagogy in ELT. More specifically, it is not yet known whether different components of ELT curriculum which is widely practiced in educational system of Iran including textbook development, teaching styles and strategies, and testing methods and outcomes are all in line with principles of critical pedagogy. Moreover, it is not known whether Iranian English teachers pay attention to individual differences, needs, and perceptions, students negative and positive attitudes to what happens in an ELT setting, and learners᾽ involvement in teaching and learning process. In addition, the main barriers in following critical pedagogy principles in ELT classrooms are not still known.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main objectives of this study are to shed light on the status of critical pedagogy in ELT in Iranian schools and to explore the main barriers in practicing CP at Iranian’s educational contexts. To be more specific the following research questions were raised.
1. Are Iranian language teachers familiar with CP and its components?
2. What are the main barriers of applying CP principles from teachers᾽ points of view?
1.4 Significance of this study
This study is both theoretically and practically significant. Theoretically speaking, it will be found whether Iranian language teachers are following the principles and premises of CP or not. Moreover, the areas which will be influenced by CP are identified. Practically speaking, the results of this study will be useful to all stakeholders of ELT in Iran including administrators, text developers, teachers, test developers, and learners.
1.5 Definition of key terms
For the purpose of this study following key terms will be defined, although some these terms may be defined differently for different purposes.
1.5.1 Critical pedagogy: an educational methodology that seeks to increase student awareness of the hidden curriculum’s inherent inequalities and multiple forms of oppression that exist in society, and encourage them to take active step towards creating a more democratic and equitable society (McLaren, 2003; Freire, 1970).
1.5.2 Banking method: Freire (1970) suggests that the banking method is a system of education in which the teacher is seen as having all of the knowledge and students are simply empty vessels waiting to be filled with knowledge. It suggests that the students do not have any prior knowledge and the teacher is the source of all information. Freire explains that following oppressive attitudes and practices are the main characteristics of banking method of education:
‒ the teacher teaches and the students are taught.
‒the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing.
‒the teacher thinks and the students are thought about.
‒the teacher talks and the students listen-meekly.
‒the teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined.
‒the teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply.