EFL Teachers' Critical Discourse Analysis Practices and Their Classroom Management

INTRODUCTION

Teachers should be cognizant of self-observation and self-evaluation—both broad yet crucial concepts—for effective classroom management (CM) and responsive teaching that meets learners' needs(Burden, 2020). English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, just as any other classroom, require various components, including teacher and learner variables as well as effective teaching techniques, that are important to make them helpful and intriguing for both educators and students (Martin & Mayall, 2006, as cited in Aliakbari & Heidarzadi, 2015). These elements should be envisioned in such a way that they would contribute to and/or enhance effective CM systems.

Seeking the primary objective of enhancing their CM abilities, EFL teachers may wish to consider the notion that neither controlling the learner nor relying on form discipline can help them develop an effective CM (Glasser, 2000, as cited in Marashi & Erami, 2021), but creating a friendly atmosphere and a climate in which learners' interest toward learning is encouraged might be more helpful (Marashi & Naghibi, 2020). To this end, Keengwe et al. (2014) assert that CM is not limited to teachers’ actions in the classroom; rather, it encompasses all the activities of teachers and their measures in specifying teaching objectives, finding suitable materials, getting prepared for the classroom, involving learners in the teaching-learning process, and finally assessing learners’ development in the educational context.

In the same vein, Brown (2007) classifies CM components into the actual classroom environment, for example, the degree of comfort, sight, and sound and the use of whiteboard/chalkboard and equipment in the classroom. Furthermore, he mentions those components, which are identified with the instructor such as their tone, voice, and speaking ability as verbal elements, body language, and gestures as nonverbal communication. This is perhaps why EFL instructors need to gain mastery over CM methods that will be useful in managing the class and encourage students to appreciate them rather than perceive them as burdensome tasks (Kurt et al., 2013; Sadik & Akbulut). With the significance attached to CM, it is no wonder that the ELT literature is replete with studies on this attribute (e.g., Abdollahpoor et al., 2017; Adeyano, 2012; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Freiberg & Lamb, 2009; 2016; Marashi & Assgar, 2019; Rahimi & Asadollahi, 2011).

EFL teachers’ CM is likely to be affected by different factors such as their self-efficacy beliefs (Friedman & Kass, 2002) and their ability to think logically and critically (Yariv & Kass, 2019). Their CM is perhaps further impacted by an understanding of the existing relationship among learners’ ideology, discourse of the classroom, and power notions (Cots, 2006; Mattheis, 2017), as well as their interest in managing the class order (Meza et al., 2020). These are perhaps the foundation of CDA which deal with hidden concepts in discourse and this foundation involves analyzing discourse units to discover concealed intentions and uncover the correlations among power, ideology, and discourse (Jacobs, 2021). This can be seen as one of the techniques EFL teachers use to expose EFL learners to many thoughts and values presented in the discourse and, accordingly, enrich their lifelong learning in terms of critical thinking and critical language skills (Vafaeikia et al., 2023; Youwen, 2018).

In the educational domain, CDA grew out of sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, narrative research, the ethnography of communication, and of course the theory and praxis of critical thinking (Jenks, 2020), the latter being memorably delineated by Dewey (1933) as “the active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the ground that supports it and the further conclusion to which it tends” (p. 9). To this end, educational institutions, classroom environments, and schools were considered as sites in which the micro-dimensions of classroom negotiations were focused on, while the macro-dimensions could be instructed in the higher levels in colleges and universities (Warriner & Anderson, 2017). Unsurprisingly, there is an abundance of CDA studies in the ELT arena (e.g., Ali, 2011; Amari, 2015; Brown, 2004; Fredricks, 2007; Hazaea & Alzubi, 2017; Ganji & Musaie Sejzehie, 2022; Rahman & Manaf, 2017; Rogers, 2005; Samsi et al., 2020).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Classroom Management

Like many constructs in the humanities, classroom management (CM) has been approached, conceptualized, and defined from varying perspectives (Tal, 2010). Shawer (2010) regards CM as a cyclical process of ongoing planning a priori, implementation, assessment, and final evaluation. Wong and Rosemary (2001, as cited in Aliakbari & Bozorgmanesh, 2015) offer a more detailed elaboration on CM as being inclusive of all the activities conducted in the classroom by a teacher to regulate a multiplicity of elements and factors ranging from the learners themselves to the space, time, and teaching materials in the procedure of teaching/learning. To this end, an effective teacher may benefit from adopting a disciplined blueprint with routines, rules, and outcomes which are either teacher-made or designed and developed through teacher-student collaboration (LaCaze et al., 2012).

Research indicates that teachers’ CM practices directly influence student success (Marashi & Zaferanchi, 2010; Ritter & Hancock, 2007). To this end, evidence-based CM practices include (a) providing active training and regulation of students (i.e., teaching), (b) creating appropriate opportunities for the students to answer questions related to the topic being taught, and (c) providing students with appropriate feedback (Voss et al., 2017).

Because of its significance, CM is amongst the most frequent topics for the EFL teacher (Hoang, 2009). In fact, the role that teachers play in the L2 classroom and the strategies they adopt to manage the classroom would definitely affect learners’ L2 development and task achievement (Demirdag, 2015). Also, EFL instructors’ teaching effectiveness is assessed through their CM abilities and viably dealing with learners’ misbehaviors in the classroom. Successful EFL teachers are expected to establish a thriving learning atmosphere and environment which is invigorating, empowering, and helpful for L2 learners’ language acquisition (Wehby & Lane, 2019). However, meeting these expectations, undeniably easier said than done, remains as one of the most fundamental challenges that teachers face in everyday practice as a classroom is indeed a hugely multivariate arena. Indeed, teachers need to be cognizant of and responsive to a multiplicity of factors governing CM.

In the broadest term, CM alludes to the full scope of teacher efforts to manage classroom activities and learning procedure, supervise learners' behaviors in the classroom, and lead them toward selecting and conducting appropriate social behaviors (Burden, 2020; Brophy, 2006). Likewise, Evertson and Weinstein (2006) defined CM as “the actions taken to create and maintain a learning environment conductive to attainment of the goals of instruction” (p. 4). Hence, activities such as the design of the classroom physical environment, setting up rules and procedures, maintaining learners’ attention to the content and engagement in classroom activities could be considered as significant CM tasks (Lane & Menzies, 2015).

Thus, CM is broader than simply disciplining learners and includes what instructors need to apply in order to improve learners’ participation in classroom discussions, collaboration in class activities, and establishment of a productive classroom (Oaks & Lane, 2015). According to Allen (2010), CM encompasses any specific action the EFL teacher takes in an attempt to encourage learners follow their instructions and move toward both L2 development and social learning. Considering this definition, one might think that relying on instructional procedures is an indispensable notion in CM and an ideal status of management in which learners are self-organized is perhaps the ultimate goal (Yazdanmehr & Akbari, 2015).

Harmer (2007) asserts that English instructors need to manage different factors such as the constraints of the class environment, timing, and activities and tasks. He further asserts that likewise, learners are observed in terms of their attempt in doing class activities by themselves or through cooperation with their peers supporting a teamwork. Another vital aspect in CM is the EFL instructor’s speaking manner and the way they address the learners such that many teachers prefer to employ a sort of teacher talk or student-talk to get the meaning conveyed in the EFL classroom (Gage et al., 2018). Indeed, the growing importance of the above point has culminated in the rather recent emergence of a field of research, i.e., classroom discourse, where the verbal classroom interaction of teachers and learners is analyzed to explore possibilities of directing this discourse towards further enhancement of teachers’ CM.

Magableh and Hawamdeh (2007) argue that there are two constructs which constitute CM, i.e. behavioral management and instructional management. The aforesaid constructs complement one another and contribute to the formulation of a classroom context which is desired by both learners and teachers (Codding & Smyth, 2008). Accordingly, Aliakbari and Darabi (2012) have attempted to shed light on the extended array of the constituting components of CM by putting forth that, “Teachers must possess some leadership ability in order to know how to motivate their students. In other words, leadership style is another characteristic which may influence a teacher’s efficacy of classroom management” (p. 1716). This leadership, they further assert, is manifest through a myriad of aspects and constructs such as their classroom discourse, overall approach to both learning and learners, time and resource management, and contingency planning.

As noted earlier, classroom discourse is a significant component of CM and bearing in mind Fairclough and Wodak’s (1997) statement that all discourse analysis is primarily CDA, the role and stance of CDA becomes indispensable in CM.

Critical Discourse Analysis

Among the many different methods and approaches of English language teaching which have its origins in the works of the modern-day pioneers of pedagogical paradigms built upon discourse analysis in the language classroom (e.g. Allwright, 1979; Cazden, 1988; Mehan, 1979) and subsequently developed further by other prominent scholars (e.g. Fairclough, 1995; Fowler, 1996; Kumaravadivelu, 1999; McCarthy, 1991; Shor, 1992; van Dijk, 1998; van Lier, 1988; Young, 1992) is CDA. This rather recent trend of critical pedagogy is of course very much rooted in the idealization of certain previous thinkers, notably Paulo Freire and his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire, 1970).

Power is the key concept in CDA studies. Fairclough (1995) considers power as “the power to, power over, and power behind” (p. 9). From a CDA perspective, as Dangel and Durden (2008) claim, teacher talk is considered as an impressive instrument of classroom in order to convey meaning and, hence, it is plausible that while using a language, instructors undoubtedly convey their thought and, in effect, establishes their power through the lexicon and the paralanguage elements they employ. This power of course could vary extensively in nature from being considerably democratic to highly autocratic depending on the teacher’s personality and global mindset, on the one side, and the pedagogical and cultural setting of the classroom, on the other  

Moreover, Maftoon and Shakouri (2012) assert that the words teachers utter and the mode through which they apply them in effect engender meaning for both students and themselves. Research demonstrates that allowing students to talk from their point of view, sharing power during conversation, and enabling them to start conversations maximize their voices (Hayes & Mantusov, 2005; Hazaea, 2018; Masouleh & Jooneghani, 2012).

Scholars have not proposed a specific methodology or a unitary theoretical framework for CDA (e.g., Hazaea, 2018; Warriner & Anderson, 2017); rather, they have considered it as a collection of related approaches which have shared common perspectives instead of developing a specific school of thought. From a holistic perspective, CDA is viewed as an extension of critical linguistics evolved in the late 1970s (Bezemer & Kress, 2016; Fowler et al., 1979) following Halliday’s (1973) functional linguistics. Meanwhile, in its theoretical foundations, CDA has been immensely influenced by ideas and options presented by certain postmodern theoreticians such as Foucault (1980) and Gramsci (1971).

Through Halliday's (1973) perspective, CDA deals with the idea that the speakers’ vocabulary and grammatical choices are systematically shaped by ideology, whether consciously or not. Likewise, CDA has always taken a sociopolitical stance and an enriched scope. In this respect, Fairclough and Wodak (1997) argue that “CDA sees itself not as a dispassionate and objective social science, but as engaged and committed; it is a form of intervention in social practice and social relationships” (p. 258). More technically, CDA notifies that any discourse may involve ideologies and power and can explore the likely relationship among texts, events, and discursive practices (Fairclough, 1995).   

In line with what has been discussed so far, it is worth noting that the issue of classroom authority can be detected in at least two major different sources in a classroom, namely the discourse of the teacher and the materials used for teaching in the classroom since there are both overt and covert elements of classroom authority in many texts (van Lier, 1988). As the ultimate goal of any language teaching program – in the memorable words of Spolsky (1998, as cited in Hedge, 2008) – should be for the learners to comprehend and yet resist (rather than accept) the ideology underlying the input, teachers may contribute to empowering the learners in the above direction through CDA practices in the classroom.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The ELT literature contains by studies reporting the advantageousness of CDA-based instruction in the language classroom. For instance, Abbasian and Malaee (2016), Ko (2013), and Hazaea and Alzubi (2017) demonstrated the positive effect of CDA-based instruction on reading, Khabiri and Pakzad (2012) reported such an impact on vocabulary retention, and Marashi and Yavarzadeh (2014) reported the effectiveness of CDA-based instruction on writing. As the instrument for measuring CDA practices (CDAPQ described later in this paper), however, has only recently been developed (Marashi & Ahmadi, 2017), the researchers were not able to locate any studies on such practices by teachers inside the ELT classroom. On the contrary, teachers’ effective CM has been studied extensively around the globe (e.g., Eveyik-Aydin et al., 2009; Macias, 2018; Noori, 2015; Rahimi & Asadollahi, 2011; Scrivener, 2012).

To the best knowledge of the researchers, no study has ever been conducted on CDA practices and EFL teachers’ CM. Accordingly, the researchers conducted the current study to discover any possible relationship between the two constructs and, beyond that, whether CDA practices could also serve as a predictor of CM. This latter possible interconnectedness would hence serve as a significant justification for expanding CDA practices among EFL teachers with the aim of enhancing their CM. Furthermore, the possible existence of such correlation and predictability would perhaps serve as a reasonably sufficient ground for the inclusion of training EFL teachers on CDA practices within the teacher education curriculum with the aim of improving their CM. To this end, the following research questions were raised:

Q₁: Is there a significant relationship between EFL teachers' CDA practices and their CM?

Q₂: Do EFL Teachers’ CDA practices significantly predict their CM?

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 55 male and 65 female EFL teachers (n = 120) who were aged between 20 to 50 years old. They were selected through nonrandom convenience sampling based on their willingness to participate and were teaching at a number of private language schools in Tehran. Table 1 provides certain relevant demographic data regarding the sample.

Table 1: Demographic Data of the Participants

In the process of the data analysis, however, one teacher was found to be an extreme outlier due to her score on the CM assessment scale (as explained in the results section later) and thus had to be removed from the sample. Consequently, the final number of participants in this study was 119 teachers.

Instrumentations

Critical Discourse Analysis Practices Questionnaire (CDAPQ)

The first instrument used in the present study was the CDAPQ which was developed and validated in an earlier study published by Marashi and Ahmadi (2017). This 27-item Likert-scale questionnaire is the only scale available for CDA practices to this date. Teachers are asked to answer the questionnaire according to their actual practices in the classroom (the CDAPQ appears in the Appendix). There are five choices for each of the 27 items (5 = always, 4 = often, 3 = sometimes, 2 = rarely, and 1 = never). The score on the CDAPQ ranges from a minimum of 27 (27 ´ 1) to a maximum of 135 (27 ´ 5); naturally, the higher the scores of a participant, the more they would practice CDA in their classrooms and vice versa. The questionnaire enjoys content validity and exploratory factor analysis was performed for it and its reliability stood at 0.92 (Marashi & Ahmadi, 2017).

Murdoch Checklist for Effective Classroom Management

The Murdoch (2000) checklist assesses EFL teachers’ effective CM and comprises three parts: part A in ELT competencies includes 24 questions, part B on general teaching competencies containing 10 questions, and part C holds 20 questions on a teacher’s individual competencies. The complete checklist contains 54 items with four values from 1 to 4 (i.e., 4 = excellent, 3 = above average, 2 = average, 1 = unsatisfactory) and N/A meaning not applicable for each item. The score on the checklist ranges from a minimum of zero (54 ´ N/A) to a maximum of 216 (54 ´ 4); naturally, the higher the scores of a participant, the better their CM skills and vice versa. The total scores on this checklist for each teacher are calculated through the mean of values which two observers assign to each teacher. The questionnaire has been reported to enjoy construct validity with a reliability of 0.91 (Murdoch, 2000).

Data Collection Procedure

In the preliminary stage, the researchers discussed this research with the supervisors of the language schools in order to obtain their consent. Subsequently, the researchers explained to the 120 teachers who had expressed their readiness to take part in this study the rationale behind it and its procedure in a total of four sessions as all of them could not be gathered in one session.

The researchers began by introducing themselves and stated the purpose of the study very briefly. They further made sure that every participant was a full-time teacher with at least one year of teaching experience. Furthermore, they asked each participant to state their age, major, degree, and years of teaching experience (presented in Table 1 above). In the interest of anonymity and confidentiality, the researchers noted the information on a list which included a number from 1 to 120 for every participant (the researchers noted the same number on every questionnaire themselves to prevent confusion). They stated that those teachers who wished to be informed later on about their scores could write their email addresses on the cover page of the first questionnaire so that the researchers would inform them accordingly.

The researchers also emphasized that they would not respond to any question while the participants were filling the CDAPQ to prevent any unwanted intervention or bias. The abovementioned procedure took around five minutes. In the next step, the researchers noted that they would distribute the CDAPQ and once the time was up, they would collect them.

To conduct the Murdoch checklist which necessitated classroom observation, the researchers had to schedule a separate briefing session for each supervisor whereby they could inform them about the different dimensions of the study. Furthermore, the researchers and the supervisors held meetings during the study to arrange the sequence of observation as every teacher needed to be observed for one complete class period in order for them to then be eligible to complete the survey. One of the researchers and the supervisor would observe each teacher and respond individually to the checklist based on the assessment of the teacher’s CM. Accordingly, there would be two numerical results for each teacher (one given by the researcher and one by the supervisor) and the mean score of these two results would be the ultimate score of each teacher for their CM on this checklist. Ultimately, the researchers analyzed the quantitative data to respond to the two statistical research questions (Q₁ and Q₂).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Critical Discourse Analysis Practices

Once the 120 teachers were selected, the researchers administered the CDAPQ. The descriptive statistics of this administration appear in Table 2.

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the CDAPQ

As seen in Table 2, the mean and the standard deviation of the scores of the teachers stood at 104.58 and 8.18, respectively. Furthermore, the scores represented normality with the skewness ratio falling within ±1.96 (-0.338 / 0.221 = 0.152). The reliability of the scores in this administration was 0.91. The above scores are represented in the Figure 1 for clearer understanding.

Figure 1: Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Teachers on the CDAPQ

Classroom Management

Next, the 120 teachers underwent the CM assessment. The descriptive statistics of this administration appear in Table 3.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the CM

As is seen above, the mean and the standard deviation of the scores of the teachers stood at 67.89 and 6.01, respectively, while the reliability was 0.88. The scores on this set, however, did not represent normality as the skewness ratio fell well above 1.96 (5.729 / 0.221 = 25.92).

Figure 2: Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the 120 Teachers on the CM

Figure 2 represents the teachers’ scores on the CM. As can be seen from the graph, the teacher scoring 120 was clearly an outlier and scoring 35 points more than the second highest participant (85). The score of this participant was indeed the factor which caused the scores to be skewed (as displayed in Table 3 and explained above); hence, the outlier had to be removed from the sample to ensure normality. Subsequently, the descriptive statistics of the scores of the 119 teachers – following the removal of the outlier – on both scales are presented below in Table 4. As is seen in Table 4, the mean and the standard deviation of the scores of the teachers on the CDAPQ stood at stood at 104.54 and 8.19, respectively, while those on the CM were 67.45 and 3.64, respectively. Furthermore, both sets of scores enjoyed normality (-1.64 and 1.45).

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of the Scores of the Participants on the CDAPQ and CM after Excluding the Outlier

Testing the Hypotheses

Based on the research questions presented earlier, the following two null hypotheses were formulated in this study:

H₀₁: There is no significant relationship between EFL teachers' CDA practices and their CM.

H₀₂: EFL Teachers’ CDA practices significantly predict their CM.

First Null Hypothesis

To test the first null hypothesis, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient had to be run. Prior to this, the assumptions for running this parametric test had to be checked (i.e., linearity, normality, and homoscedasticity of the two distributions of scores). To inspect the first parameter (linearity), the researchers used a scatterplot of the two variables of the study (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Scatterplot of Teachers’ Scores on the CDAPQ and the CM

As shown in this scatterplot, there was no kind of nonlinear relationship between the scores on the two batteries. Hence, the relationship between the two variables was assumed linear.

The second parameter – normality of both distributions – was already established. Hence, the remaining assumption which had to be checked was homoscedasticity; to this end, the researchers examined the residuals plot (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Plot of Studentized Residuals for the Teachers’ CM

As demonstrated in Figure 4, the cloud of data scattered shows evenness at both ends and thus the variance is homogeneous and the principle of homoscedasticty is met (Pallant, 2007). With the three assumptions of correlation having been met, the researcher could run the correlation to test the first hypothesis of the study (Table 5).

Table 5: Correlation of the Teachers’ Scores on the CDAPQ and CM

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

As demonstrated in Table 5, the correlation came out to be significant at the 0.01 level (r = 0.415, p = 0.009 < 0.05). The R² (or common variance), i.e., the effect size for correlation was 0.172 which is a medium effect size (Larson-Hall, 2010). As a result, the researchers were able to reject the first null hypothesis. In other words, there is a significant relationship between teachers’ CDA practices and CM.

Second Null Hypothesis

To test the second null hypothesis, a linear regression was run. Table 6 reports the results of the ANOVA (F_1,117= 15.897, p = 0.002< 0.05) which proved significant.

Table 6: Regression Output: ANOVA^a Table

1. Dependent variable: CM
2. Predictors: (constant), CDAPQ

Table 7 demonstrates the standardized beta coefficient (β = 0.415, t = 3.173, p = 0.002 < 0.05) which reveals that the model was significant meaning that teachers’ CDA practice could significantly predict their CM.

Table 7: Regression Output: Coefficients^a

1. Dependent variable: CM

Although the normality of the distributions was checked for correlation in the previous sections, the residuals table (Table 8) also verified the absence of outstanding outliers as the Cook’s distance values did not exceed 1 and Mahalanobis distance values did not exceed 15 (Larson-Hall, 2010).

Table 8: Regression Output: Residuals Statistics^a

1. ^a. Dependent Variable: CM

Hence, the second null hypothesis of the study was also rejected. In other words, teachers’ CDA practice could predict significantly their CM.

DISCUSSION

As stated above, the results of this study revealed that EFL teachers’ CDA practices were significantly correlated with their CM and that the former was a significant predictor of the latter. The ELT literature is full of studies which demonstrate the effectiveness and added value of using CDA-based instruction for teaching language skills and subskills in the classroom. Certain others such as Mattheis (2017) have demonstrated that CDA as a framework is contributory to educational policy since, in effect, well-organized and -presented CDA practices by teachers enhance CM which, in turn, would facilitate the realization of the objectives of the educational policy in general. In other words, the more effectively teachers manage their classes through CDA practices, the more they are promoting the fulfillment of the goals of the educational institution that they belong to.

There are other studies, one being Najarzadegan et al. (2018), in which they investigated the impact of practicing van Dijk’s (1998) model of CDA beyond language skills and components and on the improvement of learners’ critical thinking across different language proficiency levels or its facilitative role in the process of L2 learners’ pedagogical success.

Due to the relative novelty of the CDAPQ, the researchers were not able to locate any published studies on assessing teachers’ CDA practices (albeit they were made aware of certain studies which are underway). There are, however, a few studies which substantiate that CDA practices and effective CM are perhaps inseparable. Firstly, Burden (2005) argues in her study on powerful CM strategies asserting that any teacher with effective CM relies on a sort of teacher power (power, of course in its democratic and pluralistic sense and not an authoritarian hegemonic mode). To this end, the powerful teacher employs CDA practices such as encouraging learners to state their views on textbook contents, point out any instances of cultural indoctrination in their textbooks, do further research about textbook contents, and present and discuss the news of what is happening in the world in class.

 All the aforesaid techniques – within the overarching framework of CDA practices – could probably pave the way for the promotion of learners’ interest in classroom discussions. Accordingly, if the learners inside a classroom are enthused in the events and discussions underway, then it is most likely that a teacher who is integrating CDA into the course is already using some degree of novelty, engagement, and extracurricular practices which most likely facilitate CM as well.

Another distinctive feature of teachers’ effective CM is what Martin et al. (2012) conclude in their study on teacher efficacy and instructional management, that is the notion that teachers’ expertise and openness to new ideas, critical views, and innovative practices (i.e., CDA practices) could help them take firm steps toward professionalism and professional success. To this end, one could conclude that a teacher’s making use of CDA practices in the classroom can not only enhance their management techniques but also pave the way for their own professional success, postponed burnout, and increased effectiveness.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This study was conducted to explore the relationship between EFL teachers’ CDA practices and their CM. The results delineated a significant correlation between the two variables with CDA practices serving as a predictor of teachers’ CM. Employing CDA practices with respect to the content of the course textbooks in class could facilitate the grounds for a far better CM. The latter could be achieved through encouraging learners to evaluate their own and their classmates’ beliefs critically though respectfully and providing an opportunity for learners to think and talk about instances of socio-demographic discrimination in the course books. More generally, CDA is often pursued through raising awareness on matters to do with human rights, racism, social consciousness, and other such themes again within the context of the course books.

CDA practices could be employed by second language teachers to motivate learners to become more aware of the input they are exposed to in the context of the course book. The assumption is that such practices and their related tasks completed by learners can facilitate both learner cooperation in managing their own behaviors and improve their learning (Ababneh, 2012; Yazdanmehr & Akbari, 2015; Mattheis, 2017). In this way, the EFL student can enjoy a cooperative mode in the language classroom and would perhaps pay attention to their peers’ development.

Through classroom discussions that emerge from the application of CDA practices in the EFL classroom, learners combine the classroom discussions and develop an acceptable level of L2 intercultural understanding which, in turn, may boost their L2 development. To this end, English teachers and learners could employ CDA practices and tasks in their classes to enhance learning in a well-organized and less stressful atmosphere: an atmosphere in which anxiety is lessened and learning strategy development is increased (Marashi & Assgar, 2019).  In addition to the positive learning effects this trend could leave on learners (Martin & Sass, 2010), such a classroom atmosphere may enhance the enrichment of classroom interactions and may help learners’ future L2 development.

Furthermore, bearing in mind that CDA practices are correlated with effective CM and that the latter is a major objective of the theory and praxis of ELT, syllabus designers and materials developers could also contribute to increased opportunities for CDA practices in class by presenting tasks in which both teachers and learners could be encouraged to employ CDA. Such tasks may help teachers to manage the class and learners’ responsiveness more efficiently and in a more democratic manner. The above approach of course could help learners move towards critical thinking which has been universally proven to lay positive impact on learning all language skills and sub-skills (Marashi & Khosh-Harf, 2020). Accordingly, CDA practices and facilitate the process of L2 learning in an EFL situation.

Having said the above, the researchers may gently propose at this stage that CDA practices are perhaps one element in the diversity of the parameters at work which enhance teachers’ overall CM. To illustrate the point, once further studies have been conducted using the CDAPQ and its connectedness with other key teacher variables such as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), adversity quotient (Stoltz, 1997), and teacher autonomy (Holec, 1981), one can draw more conclusive results on the significance of teachers’ CDA practices.

Based on the limitations of this study and its findings, the researchers would recommend several areas for further research. For instance, the present study investigated the relationship between CDA practices and CM; other studies could be conducted to investigate the interrelatedness of CDA practices with other key teacher constructs such as self-efficacy, adversity quotient, professional development, etc. Second, certain demographic features of the teachers such as age and socioeconomic factors – which were not controlled in this study – could be taken into consideration within each such denominations to see how the results correspond with the findings of this research. Yet another noteworthy suggestion is running a mixed-methods study in continuity of the present research where there would be triangulation of data, thereby providing more substantial insight with respect to the interaction of CDA practices and CM among English teachers. Furthermore, the participants in this study were selected through nonrandom convenience sampling; other studies with random selection of participants may offer more robust findings. Last but not least, further studies on CDA practices could take into consideration the personality, learning, and cognitive styles of teachers too.

All in all, the researchers maintain that the main finding of the present study (i.e., the correlation of CDA practices with CM) highlight the importance of employing such practices in the context of the EFL/ESL classroom and, furthermore, utilizing the CDAPQ to assess teachers’ awareness and implementation of these practices. Such an assessment is applicable to both pre- and in-service settings in an attempt to extend the targeting and coverage of English teachers as maximally as possible with the ultimate goal of enhancing their effective CM.

Disclosure statement

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

ORCID