Emancipatory Learning Strategies in English Language Teaching: Insights from Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As English language teaching (ELT) evolves to address global and local demands for equity and critical engagement, emancipatory learning strategies (ELSs) have become increasingly relevant. This study investigates ELSs employed in ELT in the context of Indonesian higher education. The purpose is to explore how ELSs are implemented in ELT in Indonesian universities, how lecturers exercise their agency in implementing the strategies and what factors support and inhibit such exercises of agency by lecturers in using these strategies. Drawing on emancipatory pedagogy theory and the ecological model of teacher agency, this research analyses qualitative data from classroom observations, interviews, and teaching materials at a purposively sampled university in Indonesia. The study found that lecturers implemented several of ELSs in pre-activities, main-activities and post-activities of ELT classes by using real-life tasks, collaborative activities, and flexible assessments, often grounded in students’ lived experiences. These strategies reflected key principles of humanisation and critical conscientisation, as lecturers sought to create inclusive spaces where students could voice their perspectives and engage with social realities through English language learning. Problem-based learning was frequently used to develop both linguistic competence and critical awareness. The lecturers dominantly dedicated themselves to emancipatory pedagogy, adapting or modifying the strategies according to local contexts, personal values and professional identity and commitment to socially engaged teaching. the study also found that the attitudes of the national policy, institutional culture and lecturers’ professional stance towards ELSs have enabled such practices, while constraints like unclear curriculum guidelines, lecturers’ overload with accreditation and administrative works as well students’ inability to fully operate as expected by emancipatory principles posed challenges. This research contributes to broader discussions on teacher agency and the democratisation of English learning in postcolonial contexts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".