آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 45 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,417 |
| تعداد مقالات | 17,409 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 56,123,245 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 18,424,077 |
The political aspects of positivist ELT research articles | ||
| Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 11، شماره 24، اسفند 2019، صفحه 155-176 اصل مقاله (792.73 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| reza khani1؛ Mahmood Samaie2؛ Ali Khadivar* 3 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, English department, Ilam university, Iran. | ||
| 2Associated Professor, English department, Ilam university, Iran. | ||
| 3PhD student, English department, Ilam university, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Despite appealing notion of research based language teaching, we argue that scientific way of conducting research on English language teaching (ELT) is problematic since it ignores language learners’ subjectivity, instructors’ professionalism, practitioners’ culture and learning particularity. Positivists pedagogical arguments neglect the social nature of meaning making instructional practices and emphasize objectivity and measurability criteria which lead to instrumental rationality. A critical discourse analysis of practical arguments proposed in pedagogical implications section of empiricist research articles revealed that positivists assumptions manifest themselves as the rules and regulations of carrying out scientific research. These yardsticks give power to the neoliberal tendencies to present reasons as premises of arguments to restrict and control the agency of ELT teachers as well as to deprofessionalize them. Since there is a close affinity between this paradigm world views and neoliberal policies, positivists research articles lead to the domination of neoliberalism on TEFL discourse. This indicates the ideological function of the article genre and awareness of that is crucial for the sake of democratic and fair education. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| research articles؛ critique؛ practical argument؛ ideology؛ positivist؛ implications؛ normative؛ explanatory | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd edition). New York: RoutledgeFalmer
Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power London: Longmans
Fairclough, I. and N. Fairclough. 2011. ‘Practical reasoning in political discourse: The UK government’s response to the economic crisis in the 2008 Pre-Budget Report’. Discourse & Society, 22/3: 243-268.
Fairclough, I. and N. Fairclough. 2011. Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. (2013). Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA Perspective. Political Studies Review,11 (3). pp. 336344. ISSN.VOL 11, 336–344.
Fairclough, N. and I. Fairclough .2018. ‘A procedural approach to ethical critique in CDA.’ Critical Discourse Studies. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1427121 DOI: 10.1080/17405904.2018.1427121
Foucault, M. (1991b) Remarks on Marx: conversations with Duccio Trombadori. New York,
Semiotext.
Gorur, R., Hamilton, M., Lundahl, C. and Sjödin, E.S., 2019. ‘Politics by other means? STS and research in education’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40/1: 1-15.
KhosraviNik, Majid (2010) 'Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: towards a Systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups ', Critical Discourse Studies, 7: 1, 55 — 72
Kumaravadivelu, B., 2006. Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. Routledge.
Lightbown, P.M. and N. Spada,.1999. How Languages Are Learnt (Second edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Loewen, S. and M. Sato (eds.). 2017. The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.
Meyer, C. (2001). Between Theory, Method, and Politics: Positioning of the Approaches to CDA. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, C.(Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London. Sage Publications Inc.
Sato, M. and Loewen, S. 2019. ‘Do teachers care about research? The research–pedagogy dialogue’. ELT Journal 73/1:1-10.
Searle, J. 2010. Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Trahey, M. and L. White. 1993. ‘Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2):181-204.
Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. and Vetter, E. (2000) Methods of texts and discourse analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and society, 4(2), 249-283.
van Eemeren, F. H., B.J. Garssen & B. Meuffels. 2015. ‘Effectiveness through reasonableness: A pragma-dialectical perspective. preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research’ in van Eemeren, H.(ed).
Walton, D. 2013. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Willis. J. W. 2007. Foundation of the Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Inc.
Whitson, J. A. & W.B. Stanley .1990. ‘Developing practical competence in social studies Education’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, Anaheim, CA.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is About: A Summary of its History. Important Concepts and Its Developments. In Wodak, R. and Meyer, C.(Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London. Sage Publications Inc. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 619 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 623 |
||