‒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
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]]>
‒the teacher chooses the program content, and the students (who are not consulted) adapt to it.