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

recourses.

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

point.

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

Component

1

Q1

.433

Q2

.863

Q3

.703

Q4

.495

Q5

.692

Q6

.470

Q7

.570

Q8

.470

Q9

.691

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

Component

1

Q10

.474

Q11

.665

Q12

Q13

.734

.530

-.498

Q14

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

Component

1

Q15

.470

Q16

.717

Q17

.800

Q18

.448

Q19

.152

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

Component

1

Q20

.752

Q21

.831

Q22

.596

Q23

.792

Q24

-.267

Q25

-.247

Q26

-.060

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

Component

1

Q27

.762

Q28

.723

Q29

.618

Q30

.365

Q31

.364

Q32

-.665

Q33

-.319

Q34

-.265

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

Component

1

Q35

.645

Q36

.855

Q37

.712

Q38

.117

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

Component

1

Q39

.738

Q40

.810

Q41

.699

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

Disagree

No comment

agree

Strongly agree

Items

0%

11.0 %

8.0 %

47.0 %

34.0 %

Q1

5.0 %

7.0 %

11.0 %

38.0 %

39.0 %

Q2

0 %

4.0 %

11.0 %

38 %

47.0 %

Q3

0%

13.0 %

16.0 %

44.0 %

27.0 %

Q4

14.0 %

35.0 %

30.0 %

10.0 %

11.0 %

Q5

8.0 %

16.0 %

7.0 %

44.0 %

25.0 %

Q6

7.0 %

3.0 %

8.0 %

48.0 %

34.0 %

Q7

14.0 %

28.0 %

21.0 %

27.0 %

10.0 %

Q8

3.0%

9.0%

13.0%

55.0 %

20.0 %

Q9

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