Critical pedagogy in English for Academic Purposes and the possibility for ‘tactics’ of resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article traces the evolution of critical pedagogy and its central tenets, and how these have moved through language teaching into the realm of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and are manifest in current debates in the field. Tracing these debates opens the discussion to the applicability of critical pedagogy to EAP and consideration of the critiques that have been directed at these teaching practices. These include critiques of the metaphor of voice, the notion of empowerment, the relational positioning of subjects within EAP critical pedagogy practices, among others. In the final part of the paper, the author considers the possibilities for a Foucauldian ‘counter‐practice’ or resistance that will be relevant to the current precarious and tenuous positions of both EAP students and teachers. Specifically, De Certeau’s observations about strategies and tactics provide the opening for conceptualizing a set of resistance practices for both EAP students and teachers who are vulnerable because of their location within the institutional context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".