4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….43
4.2 Quantitative Results………………………………………..………………………..43
4.3 Results for Question 1…………………………………………………………………………………51
4.4 Qualitative Results……………………………………………………………….64
4.5 Discussions……………………………………………………………………….72
CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, & IMPLICATION…………………….80
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..80
5.2 Summary of the Study…………………………………………………………………………………80
5.3 Implications of the Study……………………………………………………………………………..82
5.4 Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………….84
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………………………………….84
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..86
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………95
Appendix I: The Last Version of Inventory…………………………………………………………..95
Appendix II: Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis…………………….……………..….98
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: 41 item-inventory of critical pedagogy……………………………….41
Table 4.2: Component matrix for dimension 1…………………………………..46
Table 4.3: Component matrix for dimension 2…………………………………..47
Table 4.4: Component matrix for dimension 3…………………………………..47
Table 4.5: Component matrix for dimension 4…………………………………..48
Table 4.6: Component matrix for dimension 5…………………………………..49
Table 4.7: Component matrix for dimension 6……………………………….….50
Table 4.8: Component matrix for dimension 7………………………………..…50
Table 4.9: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 1…….52
Table 4.10: Inferential statistics for dimension 1……………………………..…54
Table 4.11: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 2…..55
Table 4.12: Inferential statistics for dimension 2……………………………….56
Table 4.13: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 3…..57
Table 4.14: Inferential statistics for dimension 3…………………………….…57
Table 4.15: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 4.…58
Table 4.16: Inferential statistics for dimension 4………………………….……59
Table 4.17: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 5…60
Table 4.18: Inferential statistics for dimension 6………………………………61
Table 4.19: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 6…61
Table 4.20: Inferential statistics for dimension 6………………………………62
Table 4.21: Descriptive statistics for participants’ responses to dimension 7…63
Table 4.22: Inferential statistics for dimension 7………………………………64

CHAPTER I
Introduction
1.1. General background
Critical pedagogy is an educational theory that aims to make students conscious of the many institutions that exist to facilitate and perpetuate systematic forms of oppression, both within and outside the classroom (Hollestin, 2006). Canagarajah (2005) argues that Critical pedagogy is not a set of ideas, but a way of ‘doing’ learning and teaching. It is a practice motivated by a distinct attitude toward classrooms and society. Critical students and teachers are prepared to situate learning in the relevant social contexts, unravel the implications of power in pedagogical activity, and commit themselves to transforming the means and ends of learning in order to construct more egalitarian, equitable, and ethical educational and social environments .Students exist in a very complex and constantly changing world; it is the responsibility of teachers to prepare students to live in this world. By implementing critical pedagogy, teachers can help students develop the essential skills they need to deal with a complex and ever changing world (Bassy, 1999).
Teachers can enable students to make critical analyses of the ideologies underpinning all forms of discourse without necessarily promoting a specific value system (Hardin, 2001). The acquired skills by critical pedagogy will prepare students to question the status quo critically, examine the hidden power structures that exist in society, and enable them to facilitate change in order to create a democratic, equitable, and fair world (Giroux, 2001). Critical pedagogy for the first time appeared in realm of education by Paulo Freire (1970). He introduced such concepts as banking theory, dialogical method, and transformative education. In the banking model of education, he argued, knowledge was another commodity to be transferred as efficiently as possible from sender to receiver. As an alternative to this system of education, Freire (1970) proposed that education should be a dialogical process in which students and teachers share their experiences in a non-hierarchical manner.
Pedagogical theories of philosopher John Dewey (1933) have a great impact on critical pedagogy movement. In his book democracy and education, he asserted that education must be a transformative experience. Dewey believed that ideal classroom should be a place where students use trial and error to develop needed skills for engaging in a genuine or an ethical democratic citizenship. Pennycook (1990) as one of the great exponent of critical pedagogy believed that there are two elements at the heart of all critical pedagogy theories: a notion of critique that includes a sense of possibility for transformation and an exploration of the nature of and relationship between culture, knowledge, and power. Viewing schools as cultural areas where diverse ideological and social forms are in constant struggle, critical pedagogy examines schools both in their contemporary sociopolitical content and their historical context (Pennycook, 1990).
Giroux (1989) argued for pedagogy of and for difference, a pedagogy that not only respect student’s voice and difference, but also relates these differences to the wider social order, creating the democratic sense of respect for difference that is essential for any notion of equality in society. Critical pedagogy (CP) is like a tree with some very central branches, the basic principles. ‘Empowerment’ is one of those very main branches of great moment in CP. It is mainly concerned with developing in students and teachers the self-esteem to question the power relations in the society (McLaren, 2003), thus gain the voice they deserve in the same society. CP looks at education as a political enterprise (Kincheloe, 2008) and aims to raise students’ “consciousness”, a term borrowed from Freire, to make them more aware of the power games in the society and their own position in that game. It is the “pedagogy of inclusion” (Pennycook, 2001) and has in large part been created to give the marginalized students the “right to speak” (Peirce, 1989, 1995, 1997).
Calderson (2003) discusses the notion of critical pedagogy as the guiding educational philosophy in community-based education. Milner (2000) examines how teachers can begin to pose critical questions regarding race through critical pedagogy. Many of the scholarly articles examine the inequalities of race that exist in education. In other cases, issues of gender, ethnicity, and cultural inequalities are addressed. Discerning these inequalities is essential for bringing about change. Generally, classrooms try to mirror in organizations what students and teachers would collectively like to see in the world outside of schools: respect for everyone’s ideas, tolerance of differences, a commitment to creativity and social and educational justice, the importance of working collectively, a willingness and desire to work hard for betterment of humanity, a commitment to anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic practices, etc (McLaren, 2005).
However, critical pedagogy brings with it the reminder that learners must be free to be themselves, to think for themselves, to behave intellectually without coercion from powerful elite, to cherish their beliefs and traditions and cultures without the threat of forced change (Brown, 2000).Critical pedagogy conceives the pedagogical site as a problematic space of racial, moral, and social tensions requiring deep interjections of social justice and civic courage. Giroux (1993) argues that schools are more than instructional place; they are cultural sites that actively are involved in the selective ordering and legitimization of particular forms of language, reasoning sociality, daily experience and style. According to McLaren̉ (1989 a), the aim is to integrate students’ abilities of critical reflections with their aspirations and potentials for social engagement and transformation.
Norton and Toohey (2004) argue that “advocates of critical approaches to second language teaching are interested in relationships between language learning and social change. From this point of view, language is not simply a means of expression or communication; rather it is a practice that constructs, and is constructed by, the way language learners understand themselves, their social surroundings, their histories, and their possibilities for the futureˮ. In order to construct a critical pedagogy for language classroom, there is the need to change that belief of language teachers and many others. Second/foreign language learning should be seen as “education rather than an acquisition of a skill” (Guilherme, 2002, p. 189).
Sadeghi (2008) pointed out that the conventional language classrooms do little to advocate change in students’ social cognition since they do not address the issues of socio-political and cultural issues adequately. In other words, the shadow of a critical pedagogy is far too blur to cause what Sadeghi (2008) called a “transformational effect” on the learners. Akbari (2008) argues that implementation of a critical model in any local ELT context has a number of requirements, among which decentralization of decision making (in terms of content, teaching methodology, 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 Iranian 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.
‒the 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.
CHAPTER II
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 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:

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

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:

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

پاسخ دهید