Transforming Teaching and Learning in ELT Through Critical Pedagogy

Abstract

In this study, the voices of academics who use critical pedagogy in English language teaching have been brought together to shed light on how this practice transforms teaching and learning. Data were collected through semistructured interviews with academics from Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, and Turkey. Teachers were exposed to considerable emotional upheaval and sometimes risk as they sought to change student worldviews, and student transformation was evident both inside and outside the academy. Students learned their new language through ideas that truly mattered to them instead of learning through neutral knowledge contexts. We conclude that critical pedagogy requires a balance between critical reflection and action as teachers learn to cope with the unexpected in their classrooms. It is suggested that teachers follow up students after graduation in order to determine the long-term impact of critical pedagogy on teaching and learning.

Keywords

transformation transformative pedagogy social change

Critical pedagogy is based on the premise education can make the world a better place. It is dedicated towards alleviating human suffering by situating disciplinary learning in the social contexts in which students and teachers find themselves (Kincheloe, 2008). In particular, it is concerned with discrimination and oppression (Freire, 1972). Critical pedagogy allows for the social, economic, political, and religious contradictions experienced in everyday life to be interrogated and urges for improvements in society. When one strives to improve the future in such a provocative way, the present is inevitably disturbed. In teaching, critical pedagogy also disturbs by using problem-posing techniques in which students question received knowledge. It thus encourages them to be creators and not just consumers of knowledge. In these contexts, transformations take place as old assumptions, values, and feelings give way to new ways of knowing, seeing, and being in the world.

Drawing from the literature on transformative learning theory, transformation refers to a deep shift in perspective, which causes habits of mind to be more open, penetrable, and better justified (Cranton, 2011). However, when critical pedagogy comes into play, transformation is not just limited to altered worldviews and perceptions because actions are also changed (Mayo, 2004). Critical pedagogy distinguishes itself from most other pedagogies because it enables students to act upon and use their knowledge for self and social transformation (Wink, 2000). This social objective suggests critical pedagogy transformation is unlikely to end in the classroom but will impact on the wider community. For this to happen, the theoretical domain has to constantly interact with the lived domain, so that both scholarship and transformative action are enhanced (Kincheloe, 2008).

Critical pedagogy has proved to be highly contentious in higher education (Crookes, 2010; Ellsworth, 1989; Luke, 2004). Although one of the knowledge functions of the university is to serve as critic and conscience of society (Peters & Roberts, 2000), Giroux (2010) has observed that institutions around the world are in crisis because they have abandoned their democratic function dedicated to providing a public service and addressing social problems in society. Although universities are said to stand on three fundamental pillars of teaching, research, and service, a large number of institutions lean more to the first two functions (Gourley, 2012). Giroux’s “crisis” manifests itself in higher education business models and an audit and accounting regulatory culture (Walker, 2006). These changes have been attributed to neoliberal ideals that shift academic life towards the authority of market forces (Harland, Tidswell, Everett, Hale, & Pickering, 2010) and focus more on the individual as a competitive actor in an economic world (Servage, 2009). Hence, neoliberalism finds itself confronting a rival ideology in critical pedagogy. Freire (1972) asks teachers and students to empower themselves for social change in a way that challenges the reforms advocated through neoliberalism.

Although it may appear that neoliberal ideals dominate higher education as teaching and learning shifts towards student self-interest and economic gain, there are still institutions and programmes in various parts of the world that continue to champion alternative values. This phenomenon has been described as “pockets of resistance” (Harland & Pickering, 2011) that oppose the changes brought in by reform through focusing on teaching for intellectual self-empowerment and addressing societal needs. Such pockets of resistance can be found in English language teaching (ELT) in higher education across the world, and a small but significant number of educators have made conscious efforts to adopt critical pedagogy in teaching and make their work known through their research and publication. Critical ELT teachers use complex societal problems as a vehicle for learning the language in contrast to the traditional ELT teachers who typically select content for its neutrality. It is these people with whom the present research is concerned, as they provide an example of the possibilities of critical pedagogy within a subject that is not normally associated with transformation and social change. Interest in the practical implications of critical pedagogy has surfaced only recently and most discussion has been limited to theoretical exploration (Akbari, 2008). In addition, theory has been focused on possible student engagement with critical issues, but not about the teachers who actually facilitate learning (Bell, Washington, Weinstein, & Love, 2003). This study provides a significant space for language teachers engaged in critical pedagogy, as they reflect on the transformational nature of their practices.

Method

In 2012, 13 academics working in ELT in higher education were interviewed about their experiences of critical pedagogies. Nine participants were identified from their published research on ELT and critical pedagogy and the others through personal referrals. These teachers worked in institutions in Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, and Turkey, but their teaching experiences extended to countries such as Nepal, Indonesia, Macedonia, Poland, and Hungary. Academics were asked to explore how adopting critical pedagogy had transformed their personal and professional lives and what changes they had noticed in their students. Interviews lasted up to an hour and were transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using a general inductive approach that focused on research findings from frequent, dominant, or significant themes from the raw data (Thomas, 2006). This thematic analysis involved examining commonality in the data, differences or distinctive features across the data set, and relationships between the various elements in the analysis (Gibson & Brown, 2009). Analysis began with the preparation of raw data files that were formatted, page numbered, and printed to ease with the referencing process. Then, all forms of data were closely read in order to gain familiarity with relevant content. The next step involved the creation of themes. These were identified from the research aims and also from actual phrases or meanings in specific text segments. The final stage involved continuous revision and refinement of themes. Quotes use pseudonyms and country, and educational systems are described where appropriate. The results are presented in two sections: first, the impact on teachers and then the student experience.

Results and Discussion

Impact on Teachers

Academics who adopted critical pedagogy faced numerous unpredictable and unexpected moments. These uncertainties impacted their lives at both a personal and a professional level. The main ideas that emerged were concerned with emotional upheaval, safety, and isolation and critical reflection.

Emotional upheaval

Becoming a critical pedagogue invoked a range of contrasting emotions and intense feelings. Martin initially experienced mild panic attacks because he liked to be fully prepared on every topic before entering the classroom. However, in a more participative classroom based on dialogue, this was impossible. Such insecurities have been recognized by Shor (1987) who comments: “Dialogic classes are creative and unpredictable, invented in-progress, making some teachers worry that they might make mistakes in class and lose control or respect” (p. 53). Martin learned to rise above these feelings and a transformational point came when he accepted that he did not have to be the knowledge expert and it was perfectly fine to have conversations flowing in directions that he might not be able to control.

In contrast, Laura described how getting acquainted with critical pedagogy gave her added confidence as a teacher. She was, in every sense, practicing the basic principles of critical pedagogy but had yet to discover a name or a theory for what she was doing. Laura expresses her transformation in this way:

…in the early days, I was very tentative about who am I,…I was always political,…But I wasn’t quite sure how other people viewed me or anything so I think the transformation for me has been more one of developing confidence and seeing that there were people already out there theorising about it.

(Laura, Canada)

What she needed was reinforcement that what she was doing felt legitimate and that she was not alone in her efforts. Knowing that there were others in the field made her feel less alienated and isolated in the ELT community. Fear was also recognized and teachers attracted to critical pedagogy may be worried about possible repercussions (Shor, 1987). They may believe that education should be liberating but at the same time are afraid because they do not want to stand out as radicals or as people who “rock the boat.” There is no assurance of only “pleasant” or “positive” emotions and so teachers considering critical pedagogy will have to decide for themselves if they want to accept the likelihood of some emotional upheaval.

Safety and isolation

Critical pedagogy can bring with it a high degree of personal risk in educational settings where the politics of that society are repressive and freedom of speech is curtailed. In this study, only two of the eight countries seemed to clearly fall in this category. The participants from the six more liberal settings all felt they had the freedom to talk about controversial issues in the classroom without worrying about jeopardising their personal safety. In contrast, Mary understood her practice as one of daily risk from authorities outside of the university:

…when I start…dealing with such issues, I’m also taking a big risk. Because there are students from different backgrounds. Like there are students from military backgrounds…The father is a policeman, for example or very religious students…

(Mary, Turkey)

Mary’s passion for social change is reflected in the degree of risk that she has been willing to take. She recognized barriers ahead of her and even described an air of secretiveness when discussing the details of her critical pedagogy project with her colleagues and course coordinator. Mary knew that the moment there was student resistance, she would be placed in a dangerous position. Yet she continued to discuss radical issues with her students and published her critical pedagogy action research project in an international journal. Mary’s story reveals that her personal safety was at stake because of the controversial discussions in the classroom. In some societies, asking critical questions can lead to torture or death, and in certain institutions, raising awkward questions gives one a reputation of a subversive troublemaker who refuses to play by the rules (Brookfield, 1995).

A second example of a teacher who commented about risk was Jack from the United States. He related the situation in his home country, Indonesia, when the reign of a powerful leader had come to an end:

To criticise the government openly is very dangerous and very risky. You may be imprisoned…when Suharto stepped down from power, the euphoria of speaking openly has been quite persuasive and this is something that I would like to avoid actually. To some extent, I jumped onto the euphoria bandwagon. I didn’t want to be opportunistic in the sense that, ah ok people are now talking openly about or criticizing or lambasting the government very openly, so I can just use Critical Pedagogy for my own purposes. I didn’t want to be, in that sense. I just wanted to make use of the opportunity in Indonesia where there is some openness about dissenting voices, about not having to conform with the government’s voice all the time.

(Jack, United States)

Jack mentioned not wanting to be “opportunistic” and jumping on the bandwagon of openly speaking out against the government. Yet at the same time, he wanted to exercise the greater freedoms people in his country had gained. Jack’s narrative revealed an inner struggle, as he dealt with managing the changing political scene. However, it was clear that his practice in the classroom was not separated from the economic and political conditions that shaped his work.

Of course, safety and risk are relative concepts, and it is doubtful whether all teachers would understand these in the same way. However, the efforts of these ELT teachers were examples of pockets of resistance that challenged typical university practices, in terms of teaching techniques, and aims for student learning and values (Harland & Pickering, 2011). This study showed that ELT critical pedagogues provided a different voice within their discipline and their institution. In this context, practice was partly about making a political statement because teachers chose to discuss issues that were largely counter to prevailing ideology in order to challenge dominant power structures in society.

Critical reflective practice

Critical reflection and action was important for teachers and it has been argued that transformational learning occurs when there is a deep shift in perspective and noticeable change in actions (Cranton, 2011). Teachers’ new ideas and fresh conceptions about the world came from reevaluating deep-rooted assumptions and beliefs. Learning from critical reflection allowed them to gain greater insight into the way they taught and new insights were seen to empower them as changed practitioners. Mary reflects on bringing the subject of conditioning into her classroom: “…I also realise that I probably am conditioned in different perspectives as well…the more we share, the more I learn and the more they learn.” Her observation also reinforces Freire’s idea that within critical pedagogy learning is a two-way process (Freire, 1972). However, teachers’ experiences also depended on their openness to reassessing beliefs and values (Taylor, 2008). There were many stories about how engaging with critical pedagogy enabled study participants to become more thoughtful about practice. Lisa sees critical reflection as a direct outcome of critical pedagogy:

…it helps me get to know my students more which I think always makes me a better teacher and I think it helps me reflect on my classroom more because when you do critical pedagogy, you have to be super reflective.

(Lisa, United States)

Lisa also gives examples of how new perspectives allowed her to relate to her students and describes herself as being more forgiving and empathetic. Students’ opinions mattered and she learned that their way of experiencing the world was as valid as hers. Like Lisa, Steven had also thought carefully about teaching, but his concern focused more on the ideological limits of critical pedagogy:

The more I learn about critical pedagogy, the more I’m motivated. I also become a little critical about how critical pedagogy itself can be used because anything can be misused.

(Steven, United States)

For Jack, the outcome of critical reflection was not easy and the journey of transformation was described as “painful” and “not always preferable.” Jack recounted how he became more conscious about his teaching practices and realized that at times, his expectations of his students could be oppressive. Brookfield (1995) noted that it can sometimes be humiliating, and at the same time humbling, when teachers realize that their teaching actions have been grounded in unchecked assumptions that turn out to be oppressive. Perhaps this is why Jack found his transformation a struggle. At the same time, his experience eventually provided him with a sense of empowerment. Critical empowerment can occur when teachers consciously reflect on the decisions they make in the classroom (Kanpol, 1994).

It has been suggested that if ELT practitioners want to be change agents, they should not only engage in reflection but research their teaching practice (Sung, 2012). Ten of the participants in this study had published research about their experiences and this required the rigour of systematic enquiry and high levels of reflective and critical thinking.

Impact on Students

Academics who utilized critical pedagogies in their teaching had many opportunities to create transformative experiences for their students. In fact, transformation, as a deep shift in perspective (Cranton, 2011), was seen as an essential outcome and measure of success. All those interviewed told stories about student transformation and those who evaluated their courses also had written evidence for the effectiveness of change. Three significant contexts in relation to student transformation emerged, namely student worldviews, students’ lives outside the academy, and learning the English language.

Students’ worldviews

Conscious steps were taken to offer students an alternate way of viewing the world using a variety of teaching approaches. Teachers refused to play the role of “classroom technicians” (Pennycook, 1990) who reduced language learning to a system of transmitting messages, while ignoring the social, cultural, political, and historical context and implications of language learning. By not solely teaching English as a communicative tool or a transactional language, teachers directly opposed dominant ideologies. Evidence for this came through classroom discussions and student feedback. Steven reported a student’s comment:

…I don’t want to learn about the poverty and the terrorism and the economic crisis and the suffering of women in Chinese factories…I want to be comfortable. It’s none of my business. But at the end, they said, oh my God, it feels good to know, it feels good to say that I am part of a larger world…

(Steven, United States)

This student’s comfort zone was disturbed, and the harsh realities of the world were presented instead. As a result, values were changed and the student saw the world in a different, more inclusive way. Critical pedagogy presupposes a notion of a more equal and just future (Freire, 1972), deliberately functions to provoke students to go beyond the world they know and feel comfortable in, and expands their understanding of a range of possibilities (Giroux, 2011). The transformation of students’ worldviews was not something that happened quickly because it involved changing deeply ingrained attitudes and beliefs. Katherine recounts how one student found the process challenging:

She burst out crying and she was very, hostile, at the start.…and then as she got into it, she realised the transformation; because popular education methodology which is a Venezuelan way of doing critical pedagogy, is very much about getting people to experience the pain. You almost have to experience the pain of your situation and then start wanting to change it.

(Katherine, United Kingdom)

The theory of transformative learning suggests that sometimes, when underlying thoughts and assumptions are challenged, feelings such as discomfort, disorientation, and grief may arise (Moore, 2005). While the consequence of changing one’s worldview is frequently represented as positive, the experiences that cause these transformations are often troubling (Taylor, 1997). For this reason, it was expected that there would be many reports of negative responses from students, but none of the teachers in the study found this to be true. This outcome might be partly explained through a tendency for students to suppress emotions publicly, simply because a considerable amount of emotional upheaval is difficult to deal with in a classroom (Moore, 2005).

Students’ lives outside the academy

Teachers valued the changes in the affective domain and the actions of their students. More specifically, change impacted the lives of those suffering and affected by discrimination (Kincheloe, 2008). Most of the participants recounted how their students gained a sense of agency and eventually went on to improve their own lives and advocated for what they believed in. Leonard recalled his students’ involvement in the Arab Spring. In his language classroom, they experienced new meanings related to freedom and democracy:

…a lot of the material at (Leonard’s institution) lends itself to things like nationality, religion, culture, race and that can be put across into politics and government policy…and then they go home to Libya and Colonel Gaddafi.

(Leonard, Malaysia)

Leonard reported that students discussed the oppression they were experiencing in their respective countries and could see different possibilities ahead of them. He based his teaching on problematizing the lived experiences of students, which enabled them to connect with the situations that they came from. From this, they learned that people have the power to bring about change in society. He was not what Giroux termed a “model of moral indifference” (Giroux, 2009) and he incorporated a problem-posing teaching approach that used words, experiences, and situations that students could understand as they dealt with issues of concern to them (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2003; Freire, 1972).

Transformation did not end with personal change since there were reports of students making conscious efforts to change others. Laura provided examples of how her students had gone beyond the confines of their classroom to seek transformational possibilities in their communities. She talked of one student who attempted to change attitudes among family and friends in China about homosexuality and capital punishment. Laura used the metaphor of the “Philosopher’s Tea House” to describe her class where individuals gather as equals to discuss critical issues and this inspired her student:

…she wanted to go back to China and she wanted to start a tea house and she wanted to run it by herself and she wanted to run it along the lines of my classroom and she said she wanted to have a topic every time, every day and, a topic that people could argue about and discuss and talk about, a controversial topic…

(Laura, Canada)

The transformations described so far may appear small and insignificant, but Freire, in a conversation with Ira Shor, put this idea in perspective. Freire in no way tries to idealize the educational task of critical pedagogy and reminds teachers that their activities as educators are not sufficient enough in themselves to change the world (Shor, 1987). But he argues that it is necessary for teachers to realise that in their respective teaching spaces, they are capable of making a contribution (Shor, 1987). The response of one partic ipant perhaps best sums up the possibilities for the change: “It’s not big revolution but it’s big transformation” (Katherine, United Kingdom).

Students’ language learning

Critical pedagogy took place within the context of learning a language. Language improvement and the development of linguistic knowledge are the main goals of students in the ELT classroom, and English language acquisition is highly sought after. In the critical pedagogies ELT classroom, language development occurred in a slightly different way. In general, teachers believed that language development was independent of the critical issues in the lesson, and the reason for improvement was mainly because students were given opportunities to practice speaking. One participant explained that discussing any topic or issue can lead to language development, for instance, commonly found topics in ELT courses are “holidays,” “daily lifestyles,” and the “environment.” However, topics such as “prejudice” or “linguistic imperialism” led to a different type of language improvement because such critical issues carried more value, interest, and significance for students:

…when things like this come up, they’re focusing more on what they’re saying as opposed to how they’re saying it. However, this is not a bad thing because…they speak from the heart and so their language actually does get better. Because students are not merely repeating structures out of a book, language becomes more natural, and this is where language transformation takes place.

(Leonard, Malaysia)

Katherine employed a “shared reading method” with her students who came from disadvantaged backgrounds and focused on their stories instead of a textbook. Her approach resembles that of Wink (2000) who proposes that learning has to be about making meaning together with joint ownership of the learning experience. Learning was certainly not about transmitting ideas to students and data suggested that language learning was less demanding when ideas presented were meaningful for the student.

Conclusion

The stories participants shared provided insight into the complexities of implementing critical pedagogy. The choice to adopt such an ideological position set the teachers on a path that required dealing with a number of new experiences that forced them to rethink their subject, teaching, and values. Teaching became much more unpredictable and carried a certain amount of risk that teachers had to learn to handle. Managing risk required thoughtful practice, so that the transformation experienced could be understood in a measured way rather than a radical change. Adopting critical pedagogy was clearly a complex transaction that required a great deal of tolerance of uncertainty from both teachers and students. Transformation seemed to be dependent on the amount of freedom the teacher had in their respective institution and country, as well as the amount of risk they were willing to take.

Ten of the teachers had published their work on critical pedagogy which helped them to understand and develop the change to their practices. The consequence of doing this was gaining access to a new community of researchers which reduced feelings of isolation that some experienced in their journey as transformative educators. Involvement in research of this nature also contributes to the traditional knowledge function of the university as critic and conscience of society (Giroux, 2010).

The concept of praxis, which lies at the heart of Freire’s idea of critical literacy, was at work when students were able to reflect and take action. Mayo (2004) explains: “An education based on ‘praxis’ is one that allows people to act on their material surroundings and reflect upon them with a view of transforming them” (p. 45). Teachers reported that students’ worldviews were transformed, which then went on to change the way they participated in the world and acted for social justice. Thus, the transformation that teachers and students experienced went beyond the confines of the classroom.

Students learned language that truly mattered to them and not just language for a future career. Learning was more authentic and humanistic instead of something commodified. Teaching and learning did not serve current neoliberal ideals because critical pedagogy inevitably rejects such values. This rejection in no way suggested that students were encouraged to abandon academic pursuits for activism. In fact, critical pedagogy is as much about cultivating the intellect as it is about social change (Kincheloe, 2008). Therefore, critical ELT practices enabled students to gain linguistic competence and engage with a rigorous body of knowledge.

This study has several implications for ELT practice and the theory of critical pedagogy. First, teachers are powerful agents of influence and change. They need to be thoughtful about how both critical reflection and action bring forth transformation and ensure that one is not sacrificed for the other. Freire (1972) points out the dangers of reflection without action as mere “verbalism” or idle chatter. On the other hand, action without critical reflection can result in activism or action for action’s sake (Freire, 1972). Therefore, teachers have to be especially mindful in striking the right balance in the classroom. Second, it was clear that teachers have to be prepared to face the unexpected because of the uncertainties that arise from working with critical pedagogy. They may experience a considerable amount of emotional upheaval and risk related to the amount of academic and personal freedom allowed. The data suggested that critical pedagogy could never be something prescribed by theorists as a method that could be carried out by following a series of steps. Wink (2000) explains that the teachers’ voice must be as strong as the theorists’ voice in critical pedagogy, because it is always easier to state a theoretical concept than it is to live it in the classroom. Teachers are therefore encouraged to research their own practice and to share their work and make it public as they develop personal theories of critical pedagogy.

Finally, ELT teachers are encouraged to determine the long-term impact that critical pedagogy has on their students. For example, what happens when a student’s country is not ready for a “Philosopher’s Teahouse?” Those who took part in the study tended to lose contact with students after graduation and a further step of staying in contact with students may be required. Such communication would provide insight into the lasting impact of the student experience and also inform the practice and values of critical pedagogy. It would also be interesting to see how society and institutions would react to a hypothetical situation in which all ELT teachers became critical pedagogues, especially in countries where certain freedoms cannot be taken for granted. Or does critical pedagogy’s survival depend on it being a minority activity?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Akbari

(2008). Transforming lives: Introducing critical pedagogy into ELT classrooms. ELT Journal, 62, 276–283. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn025

Bell

L. A.

Washington

Weinstein

Love

(2003). Knowing ourselves as instructors. In Darder

Baltodano

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 464–478). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Brookfield

(1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cranton

(2011). A transformative perspective on the scholarship of teaching and learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 30, 75–86.

Crookes

(2010). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43, 333–348. doi:10.1017/S0261444809990292

Darder

Baltodano

Torres

R. D.

(2003). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. In Darder

Baltodano

Torres

R. D.

(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ellsworth

(1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324.

Freire

(1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London, England: Penguin Group.

Gibson

W. J.

Brown

(2009). Working with qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Giroux

(2009). The attack on higher education and the necessity of critical pedagogy. In Macrine

S. L.

(Ed.), Critical pedagogy in uncertain times: Hope and possibilities (pp. 11–26). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

11.

Giroux

(2010). Bare pedagogy and the scourge of neoliberalism: Rethinking higher education as a democratic public sphere. The Educational Forum, 74, 184–196.

12.

Giroux

(2011). Paulo Freire and the courage to be political. Our Schools/Our Selves, 20, 153–163.

13.

Gourley

(2012). Higher education as a force for societal change in the twenty-first century. In McIlrath

Lyons

Munck

(Eds.), Higher education and civic engagement: Comparative perspectives (pp. 31–40). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Harland

Pickering

(2011). Values in higher education teaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Harland

Tidswell

Everett

Hale

Pickering

(2010). Neoliberalism and the academic as critic and conscience of society. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 85–96. doi:10.1080/13562510903487917

16.

Kanpol

(1994). Critical pedagogy: An introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

17.

Kincheloe

J. L.

(2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

18.

Luke

(2004). Two takes on the critical. In Norton

Toohey

(Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 21–29). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Mayo

(2004). Liberating praxis: Paulo Freire's legacy for radical education and politics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

20.

Moore

(2005). Is higher education ready for transformative learning?: A question explored in the study of sustainability. Journal of Transformative Education, 3, 76–91. doi:10.1177/1541344604270862

21.

Pennycook

(1990). Critical pedagogy and second language education. System, 18, 303–314. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(90)90003-n

22.

Peters

Roberts

(2000). Universities, Futurology and Globalisation. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 21, 125–139. doi:10.1080/01596300050114401

23.

Servage

(2009). The scholarship of teaching and learning and the neo-liberalisation of higher education: Constructing the ‘entrepreneurial learner’. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39, 25–44.

24.

Shor

(1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan.

25.

Sung

(2012). Critical practices in Asia: A project of possibilities. In Sung

Pederson

(Eds.), Critical ELT practices in Asia (pp. 23–54). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: SensePublishers.

26.

Taylor

E. W.

(1997). Building upon the theoretical debate: A critical review of the empirical studies of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 34–59. doi:10.1177/074171369704800104

27.

Taylor

E. W.

(2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2008, 5–15.

28.

Thomas

D. R.

(2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748

29.

Walker

(2006). Higher education pedagogies: A capabilities approach. Maidenhead, England: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

30.

Wink

(2000). Critical pedagogy: Notes from the real world. New York, NY: Longman.