Critical Pedagogy in ESL Classrooms

By Lisa Parzefall

Research within the last decades has investigated and expanded on the idea of critical pedagogy in the classroom (e.g. Freire, 1970, 1998; hooks, 2010; Thomson-Bunn, 2014; Katz, 2014; Sarroub & Quadros, 2015; Breuing, 2011; Crookes, 2009). While for both composition and TESOL, research has predominantly focused on the theoretical part of how to implement critical pedagogy in the classroom, some scholars have pushed for more research on the practical application of critical pedagogy in the classroom. The aim of this feature article is to briefly introduce Critical Pedagogy to teachers of English and to discuss ways of implementing it into the classroom.

Although I am in no way an expert on Critical Pedagogy, I know that Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and philosopher, acts as a leading advocate for Critical Pedagogy in research. While Freire’s work was mostly carried out in Brazil, many other researchers have since applied and expanded on the ideas in Critical Pedagogy. Freirean Critical Pedagogy is connected to the core belief that teaching should challenge learners to examine power structures and patterns of inequality within the status quo. In addition, the goal of Critical Pedagogy is to “produce self-directed learners, teachers, and students who are able to participate fully in the production of ideas” (hooks, 2010). While these goals and beliefs are met with challenges on how to be carried out within the classroom, I would like to introduce some suggestions on how to do so.

From research I have conducted through one of my doctoral classes and additional research I have been conducting over the last couple of months, I believe student empowerment is one of the most crucial elements in Critical Pedagogy. Most certainly, the first step for any instructor to promote student empowerment is to define what it means. An excellent way of doing so is to approach this term from Critical Pedagogy critically. What I mean by that is that student empowerment, like any term in Critical Pedagogy, can be defined differently by different instructors and students and, thus, is dependent on the sociopolitical context surrounding the classroom (Thomson-Bunn, 2014). I suggest that instructors ask themselves first what they think student empowerment means but also include their students in the definition and understanding of it. That way, students are critically thinking about a core concept of critical pedagogy while co-creating knowledge. Every class might come up with their own definition(s) of student empowerment that can then serve as a starting point and develop throughout. However, if the instructor retains sole control over the definition of student empowerment, or other language of their pedagogy, they limit “the extent to which education acts as a force of liberation and empowerment” (Thomson-Bunn, 2014).

Along the same lines, multiple other researchers have expressed the value of teachers and students co-creating definitions of terms and values in the classroom (Fuller & Russo, 2018; Kim, 2015; Sarroub & Quadros, 2015; Freire, 1998). An idea I would like to suggest taking into the classroom is to co-create and agree on themes and topics for a project in class as well as determining the final outcome together (Kim, 2015). As a teacher, it is important to not dominate the classroom by imposing topics and goals. Although it is important to consider institutional learning outcomes, it is also crucial to enable students to create their own knowledge and take responsibility in that process (Freire, 2000). Although Kim (2015), for example, presents the idea of “learning by doing” in the context of Korean English Language Teaching, it is an idea that reflects on concepts in critical pedagogy; a student-centered classroom shifts the role of the teacher to a facilitator. In our teaching contexts, students are often multilingual as well as multicultural; providing space for students to outline their own goals promotes student empowerment and a classroom that benefits from all participants and their ideas, not just the teacher’s. Although I believe instructors should expect some challenges along the way, such as confusion, frustration, or doubts, I am confident that this approach will allow students to enter into a more critical dialogue and negotiation with learning material (Kim, 2015).

Another simple method of providing student empowerment is a discussion of errors. Canagarajah (2006) writes that, “An important lesson here for teachers is that not every instance of nonstandard usage by a student is an unwitting error; sometimes it is an active choice motivated by important cultural and ideological considerations. The assumption that multilingual students are always bound to err in a second language denies them agency” (p. 609). As instructors, it is crucial to ask ourselves why we are often so quick to “correct” an error. Is it because we assume that we know what the student wanted to say or is it that we assume that the student made a mistake because English isn’t their native language? Working on our assumptions is difficult but asking ourselves and our students what constitutes an error is important. Discussing (instead of “correcting”) “errors” might provide us with an opportunity to hear from the students themselves as to why they chose (or perhaps didn’t) to use a certain expression, word, etc. This then gives us and our students the chance to learn and grow and negotiate meaning while allowing for meaning to be created on their part through their writing.

While there are many more core principles to Critical Pedagogy, I believe it has become evident that student empowerment is largely based on the understanding that we, as instructors, must move away from what Freire calls “banking concept.” The banking concept assumes that the teacher is the sole authority in the classroom; a person who holds all the knowledge and simply “transfers” such knowledge onto the students. However, Critical Pedagogy challenges such an understanding of teaching and rather introduces the students as critical, self-directed learners who contribute to the creation of knowledge. Learning and education is understood as a mutual process in which both students and instructors continue to grow. In such student-centered classrooms, the role of the teacher shifts to a facilitator.

Lastly, a simple way of promoting Critical Pedagogy is to focus on constant reflection. As instructors, we can assign smaller reflective writing assignments or incorporate them as in-class writings (ungraded or graded) to help students reflect on their developments. Reflecting on their learning processes and their growth as students is important for them to actively engage with what they have learned. No less important is that we, as instructors, reflect on our own teaching practices. Only if we acknowledge that we benefit from constant feedback and revisions and thus, as Freire said, acknowledge our own “unfinishedness,” can we move forward, learn, and grow as individuals.

References

Breuing, M. (2011). Problematizing critical pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 2-23.

Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586-619.

Crookes, G. (2009). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(3), 333-348.

Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (30^th Anniversary Edition). Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Fuller, L. & Russo, A. (2018). Feminist pedagogy: Building community accountability. Feminist Teacher, 23(2-3), 179-197.

hooks, b. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. Routledge.

Katz, L. (2014). Teachers’ reflections on critical pedagogy in the classroom. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(2).

Kim, K. (2015). Students’ and teacher’s reflections on project-oriented learning: A critical pedagogy for Korean ELT. English Teaching, 70(3), 73-98.

Sarroub, L., & Quadros, S. (2015). Critical pedagogy in classroom discourse. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, 156.

Thomson-Bunn, H. (2014). Are they empowered yet?: Opening up definitions of critical pedagogy. Composition Forum, 29, http://compositionforum.com/issue/29

Lisa Parzefall teaches first-year writing and ESL classes at DePaul University.


Critical Pedagogy in ESL Classrooms By Lisa Parzefall Research within the last decades has investigated and expanded on the idea of critical pedagogy in the classroom (e.g. Freire, 1970, 1998; hooks, 2010; Thomson-Bunn, 2014; Katz, 2014; Sarroub & Quadros, 2015; Breuing, 2011; Crookes, 2009). While for both composition and TESOL, research has predominantly focused on the theoretical part of how to implement critical pedagogy in the classroom, some scholars have pushed for more research on the practical application of critical pedagogy in the classroom. The aim of this feature article is to briefly introduce Critical Pedagogy to teachers of English and to discuss ways of implementing it into the classroom. Although I am in no way an expert on Critical Pedagogy, I know that Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator and philosopher, acts as a leading advocate for Critical Pedagogy in research. While Freire’s work was mostly carried out in Brazil, many other researchers have since applied and expanded on the ideas in Critical Pedagogy. Freirean Critical Pedagogy is connected to the core belief that teaching should challenge learners to examine power structures and patterns of inequality within the status quo. In addition, the goal of Critical Pedagogy is to “produce self-directed learners, teachers, and students who are able to participate fully in the production of ideas” (hooks, 2010). While these goals and beliefs are met with challenges on how to be carried out within the classroom, I would like to introduce some suggestions on how to do so. From research I have conducted through one of my doctoral classes and additional research I have been conducting over the last couple of months, I believe student empowerment is one of the most crucial elements in Critical Pedagogy. Most certainly, the first step for any instructor to promote student empowerment is to define what it means. An excellent way of doing so is to approach this term from Critical Pedagogy critically. What I mean by that is that student empowerment, like any term in Critical Pedagogy, can be defined differently by different instructors and students and, thus, is dependent on the sociopolitical context surrounding the classroom (Thomson-Bunn, 2014). I suggest that instructors ask themselves first what they think student empowerment means but also include their students in the definition and understanding of it. That way, students are critically thinking about a core concept of critical pedagogy while co-creating knowledge. Every class might come up with their own definition(s) of student empowerment that can then serve as a starting point and develop throughout. However, if the instructor retains sole control over the definition of student empowerment, or other language of their pedagogy, they limit “the extent to which education acts as a force of liberation and empowerment” (Thomson-Bunn, 2014). Along the same lines, multiple other researchers have expressed the value of teachers and students co-creating definitions of terms and values in the classroom (Fuller & Russo, 2018; Kim, 2015; Sarroub & Quadros, 2015; Freire, 1998). An idea I would like to suggest taking into the classroom is to co-create and agree on themes and topics for a project in class as well as determining the final outcome together (Kim, 2015). As a teacher, it is important to not dominate the classroom by imposing topics and goals. Although it is important to consider institutional learning outcomes, it is also crucial to enable students to create their own knowledge and take responsibility in that process (Freire, 2000). Although Kim (2015), for example, presents the idea of “learning by doing” in the context of Korean English Language Teaching, it is an idea that reflects on concepts in critical pedagogy; a student-centered classroom shifts the role of the teacher to a facilitator. In our teaching contexts, students are often multilingual as well as multicultural; providing space for students to outline their own goals promotes student empowerment and a classroom that benefits from all participants and their ideas, not just the teacher’s. Although I believe instructors should expect some challenges along the way, such as confusion, frustration, or doubts, I am confident that this approach will allow students to enter into a more critical dialogue and negotiation with learning material (Kim, 2015). Another simple method of providing student empowerment is a discussion of errors. Canagarajah (2006) writes that, “An important lesson here for teachers is that not every instance of nonstandard usage by a student is an unwitting error; sometimes it is an active choice motivated by important cultural and ideological considerations. The assumption that multilingual students are always bound to err in a second language denies them agency” (p. 609). As instructors, it is crucial to ask ourselves why we are often so quick to “correct” an error. Is it because we assume that we know what the student wanted to say or is it that we assume that the student made a mistake because English isn’t their native language? Working on our assumptions is difficult but asking ourselves and our students what constitutes an error is important. Discussing (instead of “correcting”) “errors” might provide us with an opportunity to hear from the students themselves as to why they chose (or perhaps didn’t) to use a certain expression, word, etc. This then gives us and our students the chance to learn and grow and negotiate meaning while allowing for meaning to be created on their part through their writing. While there are many more core principles to Critical Pedagogy, I believe it has become evident that student empowerment is largely based on the understanding that we, as instructors, must move away from what Freire calls “banking concept.” The banking concept assumes that the teacher is the sole authority in the classroom; a person who holds all the knowledge and simply “transfers” such knowledge onto the students. However, Critical Pedagogy challenges such an understanding of teaching and rather introduces the students as critical, self-directed learners who contribute to the creation of knowledge. Learning and education is understood as a mutual process in which both students and instructors continue to grow. In such student-centered classrooms, the role of the teacher shifts to a facilitator. Lastly, a simple way of promoting Critical Pedagogy is to focus on constant reflection. As instructors, we can assign smaller reflective writing assignments or incorporate them as in-class writings (ungraded or graded) to help students reflect on their developments. Reflecting on their learning processes and their growth as students is important for them to actively engage with what they have learned. No less important is that we, as instructors, reflect on our own teaching practices. Only if we acknowledge that we benefit from constant feedback and revisions and thus, as Freire said, acknowledge our own “unfinishedness,” can we move forward, learn, and grow as individuals. References Breuing, M. (2011). Problematizing critical pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 2-23. Canagarajah, S. (2006). The place of World Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586-619. Crookes, G. (2009). The practicality and relevance of second language critical pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(3), 333-348. Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. (30^th Anniversary Edition). Continuum. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Fuller, L. & Russo, A. (2018). Feminist pedagogy: Building community accountability. Feminist Teacher, 23(2-3), 179-197. hooks, b. (2010). Teaching critical thinking: Practical wisdom. Routledge. Katz, L. (2014). Teachers’ reflections on critical pedagogy in the classroom. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(2). Kim, K. (2015). Students’ and teacher’s reflections on project-oriented learning: A critical pedagogy for Korean ELT. English Teaching, 70(3), 73-98. Sarroub, L., & Quadros, S. (2015). Critical pedagogy in classroom discourse. Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and Teacher Education, 156. Thomson-Bunn, H. (2014). Are they empowered yet?: Opening up definitions of critical pedagogy. Composition Forum, 29, http://compositionforum.com/issue/29 Lisa Parzefall teaches first-year writing and ESL classes at DePaul University.
Fall 2021 - Volume 49, Issue 2