Introduction

Earlier dominance of conventional language teacher professional development (PD) programs and policies, which neglected the complex nature of English teachers’ cognition and their developmental pathways (Borg, 2006), positioned teachers as passive technicians and transmitters of predetermined pedagogical knowledge and theories generated by other parties (Freeman, 2001; Granados Beltrán, 2009; Richards & Farrell, 2005). Such a positioning alienated language teachers from their knowledge and experiences that can be the basis for constructing their personal theories of teaching (Castañeda-Londoño, 2021; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). This kind of conventional PD practices, delivered as one-shot seminars or training, deprived teachers of accessing sustainable PD opportunities (Burns et al., 2022). Likewise, the lack of opportunities to uncover the sociopolitical roots of dominant ideologies behind language teaching and learning practices (Crookes, 2015; Cruz-Arcila et al., 2023; López-Gopar, 2016; Pennycook, 2004) contributed to this passive positioning of language teachers who were expected to soak information from mainstream theories and practices and transfer them to learners, who were conceived as “empty vessels” to be filled through the banking system of education (Freire, 1970).

With a sociocultural and critical turn in teacher education and development, however, there has been a shift in the positioning of the teacher from a mere technician to an agent of change (Freire, 1973; Kincheloe, 2009). This new outlook on the teaching profession considers teachers as agentive practitioners who can generate personal theories and practice them in their educational contexts (Griffiths, 2000; Kumaravadivelu, 2003). Even though the theoretical positioning of teachers does not necessarily match their actual self-positioning due to a plethora of individual, social, cultural, and institutional factors, there has been an increased interest in transformative PD in English language teaching (ELT) in forms of reflective practice (Farrell, 2004, 2019), collaborative and dialogic teacher learning (Johnson & Golombek, 2016), teacher research (Burns, 1999; Dikilitaş & Griffiths, 2017), and critical pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2011a).

Of these transformative tools for teacher PD in ELT, critical pedagogy (CP) pinpoints the fact that language teaching and learning practices have been inequitably shaped for the advantage of some dominant ideologies so that these practices reproduce themselves to maintain the status quo of the advantageous groups and their dominant power over the oppressed members of society (Giroux, 1997; Hawkins & Norton, 2009). In this sense, CP strives to encourage teachers and learners to unravel that language teaching and learning practices have yet to be constructed neutrally by deciphering the historical, social, political, and economic agenda behind traditional educational practices and materials. Hence, CP aims to reconstruct teaching practices by developing transformative, socially, politically, and culturally responsive educational practices (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1983; McLaren, 2015). Drawing on the collective nature of CP and the power of collaborative work in creating social change (Audrain et al., 2023; Drury et al., 2015), this systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive appraisal of CP-informed collaborative PD practices in ELT conducted in Asian, South/Central/North American, European, and the Gulf countries.

CP-Informed Professional Development for Language Teachers

CP originates from the critical theory affiliated with the Frankfurt School (Foucault, 1972; Habermas, 1976), which suggests that reality and knowledge are not objective, neutral, and natural, yet fragmented and indoctrinated by socially, culturally, economically, and politically privileged groups. Oppressing the people who are not in power by maintaining and reproducing the knowledge and reality through a hidden curriculum (Giroux, 1988), these privileged groups accumulate systematic power and advantage in society since our actions—such as language use, interaction, and learning—are shaped and persisted in a non-threatening way to their accumulated power and authority with the help of implicit indoctrinations of the hidden curriculum (McLaren, 1989). Given the power distance between privileged and oppressed groups, CP offers a theoretical and pedagogical framework to transform educational practices by increasing the consciousness of teachers and their learners (Freire, 1973).

Since English is undoubtedly the most important communication tool worldwide, language teachers are essential in raising learners’ consciousness to express their voice globally through the language asset (Hawkins & Norton, 2009). As such, language teachers can aim to be more critically aware of the disregard of multicultural local varieties (Pennycook, 2006), the linguistic and methodological nativism that underestimates the role of non-native learners and world Englishes (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Canagarajah, 2007), and the indifference to inequalities and cultural needs of learners in ELT teaching materials. This improved awareness could help English learners reconstruct their identities and equip themselves with liberatory actions to minimize societal power distance (Giroux, 1988).

Introducing critical pedagogical practices to language teachers at pre- and in-service levels can raise their awareness of current sociopolitical inequalities and the hegemonic effects of dominant educational practices. Furthermore, teachers may prefer transforming these dominant oppressive ideologies through critical collaboration with their colleagues (Kincheloe, 2009). In this regard, language teachers as transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1992) have a prominent role in enforcing dialogical actions with their colleagues and learners to reach socially constructed transformative knowledge in a non-transmission-based yet egalitarian and intersubjective process (Freire, 1970; Kincheloe, 2011b).

Although it is unrealistic to expect that collaborative CP alone will change teachers’ views and practices mainly shaped by individual, institutional, and sociocultural traditions and constraints, enacting a critical and collaborative dimension in language teacher education can help teachers co-construct knowledge that is responsive to their individual, local, and cultural needs (Kincheloe, 2011b; Kohli et al., 2015). In this sense, several forms of action research, including critical (Kincheloe, 2011a), participatory (Santos, 2016) and collaborative (Burns, 1999; Ceylan & Çomoğlu, 2023); teacher study groups (Francis et al., 1994); lesson study (Lewis & Hurd, 2011; Uştuk & Çomoğlu, 2021); critical friends groups (Andreu et al., 2003); reflective practice groups (Aydın & Çomoğlu, 2023); and professional learning communities (Hord, 1997) can function as emancipatory instruments leading to an educational and social change.

Since the PD of English language teachers through critical collaboration is important, this systematic review aims to investigate the empirical research conducted in Asia, South/Central/North America, Europe, Australia, and the Gulf countries to shed light on the role(s) critical collaborative PD practices play in teachers’ immediate environments and society overall.

Method

As there is a growing interest in using research evidence to inform educational practices, systematic reviews serve as secondary research, conveying a broad and synthesized view of a particular research topic, which could otherwise not be possible by single studies (Newman & Gough, 2020). Hence, in this study, we conducted a systematic review to analyze and synthesize previously conducted critical collaborative PD research and develop new perspectives for the future of critical collaborative PD (Nye et al., 2016). We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart diagram (Figure 1) to portray the study selection process (Haddaway et al., 2022).

Figure 1
PRISMA Flow Chart

Search Strategy

We searched the following databases: Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, ERIC, and ResearchGate. Various keyword combinations and Boolean operators (and/or) were used to get more results and to see relevant studies using different words in their titles (Newman & Gough, 2020). We used the following variations of “ELT teachers”: “language teachers,” “TESOL teachers,” “EFL teachers,” “ESL teachers,” and “English teachers.” Similarly, we used various combinations for “teacher education”: “professional development,” “teacher development,” “professional growth,” and “teacher collaboration.” We used the following keywords for “critical pedagogy”: “culturally responsive pedagogy,” “peacebuilding,” “social justice education,” and “transformative pedagogy.” Finally, we used these variations for “collaboration”: “dialogic,” “dialogic interactions,” “sharing-based,” “study groups,” and “community of practice.” We conducted a thorough search on each database (by screening at least 30-40 pages of results) until we could no longer find any relevant studies.

Study Selection

Study selection was based on the following nine criteria: (a) We focused on qualitative research studies since the majority of the studies in this area are qualitatively-based; (b) we focused on CP-informed collaborative PD studies including collaboration between any of these parties: teacher, teacher educator, and researcher; (c) we looked for explicitly collaborative PD practices but also included several studies that signal vague collaboration between the parties; (d) we read the full texts to reach a final decision about the nature of the study; (e) we excluded the studies that were solely based on perceptions, needs, and expectations; (f) we adopted a broad lens to include studies from all over the world; (g) we did not solely rely on research articles but also included book chapters, conference proceedings, and MA/PhD dissertations; (h) we did not set a particular time limitation for the systematic review to provide a holistic view of how CP-informed collaborative PD has evolved historically; and (i) we limited our search to studies written in English. We finally included 67 studies in our review: 44 at the in-service level, 20 at the preservice level, and three with teachers from both levels. As for the contexts of the studies, 26 were conducted in Asian countries (e.g., Indonesia, Iran, Korea), 19 in South America (e.g., Argentina, Colombia), 13 in North and Central America (e.g., Canada, the United States), five in Europe (e.g., Spain, the United Kingdom), three in Gulf countries (e.g., Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates), and one in Australia.¹

Data Analysis

Following Newman and Gough’s (2020) interconnected stages for a systematic review, we first coded the studies, evaluated their quality, and synthesized their findings. We recorded the information about the research topic, methods used for PD, the role of collaboration and CP, and the findings for each study (Newman & Gough, 2020). The initial coding process enabled us to form a comprehensive table presenting each study’s key characteristics. Using the table, we re-evaluated each study regarding appropriateness for the review (Gough, 2007). Eventually, we synthesized the studies by mapping them to one another and looking for common patterns to reach overarching themes (Newman & Gough, 2020). The insights we gained from the earlier stages of the review process helped us get familiar with the studies and identify the common patterns in their findings (see Table 1). In line with Newman and Gough’s (2020) synthesizing phases, we read the original texts individually, came together several times to identify the common patterns, and finally agreed upon the three overarching themes.

Table 1

Illustrative Examples of Codification for the Third Theme

Results

The thematic analysis of findings in our dataset yielded three major themes: (a) Developing a Critical Stance as Teachers, (b) Pedagogical Projections onto the Classroom, and (c) Social Change Within and Beyond the Classroom. We discuss each theme below, focusing on various national and regional contexts through relevant examples.

Developing a Critical Stance as Teachers

Our first theme relates to ELT teachers’ adopting a critical stance toward teaching through critical collaborative PD practices. Forty-one studies revealed that enacting CP-informed collaborative PD practices led teachers to undergo a cognitive transformation process whereby they could realize the need for a critical perspective in their professional lives. Most teachers participating in the CP-informed collaborative PD programs gained a critical stance by questioning the role of dominant ideologies in tailoring language teaching conventions. In this sense, several studies in the review highlighted that engaging in CP-informed collaborative PD practices caused teachers to read the world critically and reconsider their existing perspectives on the social, cultural, political, and educational realities in the world shaped by dominant ideologies (e.g., Sellen, 2011; Sharma & Phyak, 2017; Zhang, 2009). In some studies, this resulted in their adopting a socially more sensitive positioning to educational practices (e.g., Abednia, 2012; Hassani et al., 2020).

The studies demonstrated that gaining a critical stance as a teacher contributed to teachers’ intellectual growth (Ahmadian et al., 2021) and critical awareness to “liberate students from injustices and inequities in the society” (Safari, 2017, p. 91). A substantial number of studies in our dataset corroborates this view. Having developed an awareness of the status quo that leads to social inequities (Abednia & Crookes, 2019), gender inequities (Banegas et al., 2020), human rights and social justice (Sierra Piedrahita, 2016; Sun, 2021), and the role of peacebuilding and media literacy to prevent violence and armed conflicts (Aristizábal Cardona & Ortiz Medina, 2023), ELT teachers became intellectually more capable of making meanings out of socio-political realities impacting the world around them. In professional terms, implicating dialogic practices considering CP principles helped teachers become intellectual practitioners (Barjesteh, 2019; Sardabi et al., 2018). Several studies found that CP-informed PD programs addressing cultural and cross-cultural realities and how transformative language teaching practices could be designed in light of those realities resulted in a culturally sensitive positioning of teachers and contributed to their intellectual capital (e.g., Díez-Ortega & Cannizzo, 2020; Koubek & Wasta, 2023). With an increase in intellectual capital concerning the dominant and normative role of nativism in language teaching (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999), critical performative pedagogy in multilingual settings (Harman et al., 2016), critical multiliteracies pedagogy (Kim et al., 2020), vulnerable learners and learners with special needs (Salas Serrano et al., 2020), and critical thinking skills (Lee, 2019; Mambu, 2018), ELT teachers reconsidered their existing beliefs and practices from a critical stance.

In this light, several studies highlighted that such programs emancipated teachers and assigned them more agentive roles in education. For instance, engaging in action research and co-constructing knowledge with their peers had teachers reposition themselves as more empowered individuals in their professional actions (Alateeq, 2020; Junaidi, 2019; Yulianto, 2015). Likewise, using a transformative pedagogy through lesson study (Uştuk & Çomoğlu, 2021) and teacher study groups (Başar, Çomoğlu, & Dikilitaş, 2023) yielded emancipatory learning practices for them. Besides, a study by Brutt-Griffler and Samimy (1999) showed that by critically deconstructing the normative position of native speakers as ELT teachers, non-native ELT teachers felt more empowered since they had the chance to become aware of how nativism was presented as a norm in language teaching discourses.

Pedagogical Projections onto the Classroom

Another finding emerging from our synthesis is that the takeaways from teachers’ CP-informed collaborative PD experiences were projected back onto their classrooms. Some studies revealed that transformation was not confined to teachers’ cognition and that teachers improved their teaching practices in a way that is more aligned with CP objectives. In this sense, implementing CP principles in the classroom paved the way for a more democratic plethora where teachers could function as intellectual practitioners by improving their instructional practices, and learners could benefit from the outcomes of transformative pedagogy.

Twenty-six studies in our dataset reported that the teachers made sound changes in their classroom practices initiated by the PD programs they participated in. Researchers revealed that the teachers implemented pedagogically transformative actions to liberate themselves from conventional teaching practices and improved their teaching in line with CP principles (e.g., Abednia, 2012; Baladi, 2007; Hassani et al., 2020). The teachers created a sound change in their teaching by developing their problem-solving (Pineda & Frodden, 2008) and inquiry skills (Junaidi, 2019) and integrating those skills into their lessons. In many studies, this transformation in their pedagogical actions increased their agency over their pedagogical decisions (Hassani et al., 2020; Miri et al., 2017), and they integrated new dimensions into their lessons, namely multivocality (Khatib & Miri, 2016), gender issues (Banegas et al., 2020), critical multiliteracies pedagogy (Kim et al., 2020), pedagogies for vulnerable and special learners (Salas Serrano et al., 2020), and culturally responsive pedagogy (e.g., Díez-Ortega & Cannizzo, 2020; Koubek & Wasta, 2023), all of which improved their existing practices and yielded educationally sound outcomes for their learners.

The reviewed studies revealed that the traces of transformation in teachers’ pedagogical actions were detected in students’ learning outcomes. This point is demonstrated well in a study conducted in Brazil by Pessoa and de Urzêda Freitas (2012). Using new tools constructed on CP principles enabled learners to be more active agents of their learning and increased their engagement because the teacher challenged “the students’ points of view by means of some counter-hegemonic theoretical ideas” (Pessoa & de Urzêda Freitas, 2012, p. 764). We have also highlighted several studies where the pedagogical activities that gave learners the right to speak their minds and the value attached to their opinions fostered their interactions and maximized their language production (e.g., Aljahromi & Hidri, 2023; Palacios & Chapetón Castro, 2014; Rincón & Clavijo-Olarte, 2016). Furthermore, the flexible atmosphere where teachers challenged the orthodoxy of English-only policies by welcoming the use of L1 affected students’ learning positively (e.g., Khatib & Miri, 2016; Miri et al., 2017).

Social Change Within and Beyond the Classroom

Findings show that ELT teachers in the studies we reviewed also adopted and implemented a more egalitarian and empowering perspective, leading to social change within and beyond the classroom. The findings of 13 studies in our dataset show that teachers’ experiences with CP-informed collaborative PD practices led to social changes regarding social awareness and power distribution within the classroom. Some studies reported that teachers began to perceive the immediate community where they lived as a source for the curriculum to cover social realities through local and cultural knowledge (e.g., Contreras León & Chapetón Castro, 2016) and recognized the need for social change for disadvantaged groups of learners (Salas Serrano et al., 2020).

Thus, some researchers reported that the lessons designed based on social realities contributed to learners’ awareness of social and cultural realities inducing injustice in society (Gustine, 2014; Palacios & Chapetón Castro, 2014; Rincón & Clavijo-Olarte, 2016). Additionally, some studies noted that learners actively engaged in the lessons by revisiting their lived experiences (Kuo, 2006), criticizing social conflicts, finding solutions, and generating knowledge (Gómez Rodríguez & Leal Hernández, 2015). Increasing social awareness through students’ realities and reflecting on them made students “active agents who can contribute to the transformation of their social contexts” (Contreras León & Chapetón Castro, 2016, p. 143). Several studies also corroborated the view that teachers’ increased tendency to share power with their students decreased the imbalanced power relations within the class and led to more active student participation and freedom of expression (Jung, 2021; Safari, 2017; Sperrazza & Raddawi, 2016).

Even though these studies highlighted a considerable change in classroom dynamics, the change remained limited to the classroom setting. Our review revealed that only two studies address a pathway to a macro-level social change beyond the classroom. Junaidi (2019) reported on a CP-informed collaborative PD program in Indonesia, including collaborative course syllabus/content design, university-based advocacy research, and critical teaching practice in a non-profit community learning center to benefit young learners. The program empowered teachers to build a sound relationship between their profession and their role in the wider community. Likewise, Başar, Çomoğlu, and Dikilitaş (2023) indicated that both the teachers and the superiors in a language school in Türkiye became more aware of the need for critical action to transform PD practices and policies at the university level after the teachers disseminated their action-research findings to the entire university through a research seminar.

Our review highlighted several challenges that prevented CP-informed collaborative PD practices from creating a broader social change. Country-based challenges stemming from the rigid political, social, cultural, and educational policies in the Gulf and Eastern countries induced difficulties for ELT teachers in taking critical action in their classes. This is particularly prominent in the studies conducted in Iran and the Gulf countries, including the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Oman (Alateeq, 2020; Al Riyami, 2016; Sperrazza & Raddawi, 2016). Despite the challenges stemming from the political tensions, a group of EFL teachers in Iran tried to minimize the impact of detrimental factors by taking the initiative to criticize the dominance of the status quo and uncover their potential through increased teacher agency (Abednia & Crookes, 2019). Another group of teachers from a multicultural graduate course in the US and a group of teachers in Indonesia believed that their home culture would not be convenient enough to implement CP-informed practices compared to more democratic countries where teachers can act more autonomously (Nuske, 2014; Yulianto, 2015). Likewise, in Iran and Nepal, the teachers found it challenging to leave behind the dominant ideology and the proletarian teacher role assigned to maintaining the status quo (Safari, 2017; Sharma & Phyak, 2017). As Sellen (2011) explained, the strong dominance of existing societal ideologies in some contexts brought about a limited transformation contrary to expectations.

In two other studies in Canada and the UAE, the teachers found CP theoretically complex and complained about the lack of CP materials suitable for classroom use. Hence, teachers’ need for linguistic support, preparation time, materials, and guidance was underlined as essential for implementing CP-informed collaborative PD practices (Baladi, 2007; Sperrazza & Raddawi, 2016). Especially for novice teachers, the need for more systematic and sustainable collaboration around CP was emphasized in a study by Giles and Yazan (2023), which was conducted in the US. Likewise, Kim and Pollard (2017) and Lin (2004) suggested that the principles of CP should be made more explicit for its effective implementation and that CP alone could not overcome the frustration and pessimism stemming from real-world issues.

Furthermore, the studies in our database showed that some teachers were more willing and prepared to adopt CP, while others were more cautious about proceeding, depending on their different PD pathways, beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and prior experiences concerning CP (e.g., Al Riyami, 2016; Safari, 2017). Potential impediments resulting from learners were also reported: low linguistic performance of learners (Nuske, 2014), unpredictable classroom dynamics (Yulianto, 2015), and managing learner reactions in favor of dominant ideologies (Pessoa & de Urzeda Freitas, 2012). Institution-based challenges such as curricular barriers (Nuske, 2014), lack of institutional support (Safari, 2017), and time constraints (Sierra Piedrahita, 2016) were also reported to impede the process of creating a change in the larger community.

Discussion

Our synthesis of the selected studies in this review revealed that ELT teachers’ experiences of CP-informed collaborative PD practices enabled them to develop a critical stance on their everyday practices and reconstruct their pedagogies in a transformative way (Freire, 1973; Gray, 2019). In this sense, ELT teachers were able to use the theoretical and pedagogical framework offered by CP-informed collaborative PD to transform their pedagogical practices. In most of the studies reviewed, this resulted in increased consciousness and empowerment for teachers and their learners, as supported by Freire (1973) and Kincheloe (2011a).

The critical standpoint adopted helped teachers to reposition themselves as intellectual practitioners who are consciously aware of the indoctrinated hegemonic educational views that constantly reproduce the accumulated power of hegemonic groups monetizing education to the detriment of disadvantaged groups (Kincheloe, 2008). Shifting the teacher positionality to transformative intellectualism (Giroux, 1992), CP-informed collaborative PD practices democratized educational perspectives and practices by deconstructing the universally standardized and centralized educational views and prioritizing the local and cultural epistemologies and ontologies (Bartolomé, 2004). Having developed a critical and enriched perspective into macro-level world issues impacting micro-level educational actions through CP-informed collaborative PD, ELT teachers in the studies we reviewed collaboratively unlocked new ways to democratize the language learning process and empower themselves and their learners globally through the language, as suggested by Hawkins and Norton (2009).

In this regard, CP, as a consciousness-raising framework, offered emancipatory lenses to deconstruct the hidden curriculum of the status quo and empower oppressed groups (Bourdieu, 1991; Giroux, 1988; McLaren, 1989) by drawing attention to the macro-level issues impacting educational decisions and actions such as social justice and power (Kincheloe, 2011b), multicultural varieties (Pennycook, 2006), and the hegemonic nativism that disregards non-native ELT teachers (Bayyurt & Sifakis, 2015; Canagarajah, 2007). Besides, the collaborative nature of critical PD activities had a vital role in the consciousness-raising process of teachers since they collaboratively reflected on each other’s perspectives (Başar, Kuzu, & Çomoğlu, 2023) and progressed in a supportive and safe environment (Murray, 2015).

Even though the studies in our dataset show that ELT teachers could become more critical in perspective and more transformative in their instructional practices, we found that teachers’ expected role to become social change leaders was confined to their immediate classrooms. This situation did not result from language teachers not wanting to promote large-scale societal change or engage in leadership or activism. Rather, their broader contexts did not allow them to do so.

To illustrate, the challenges faced by teachers in the Gulf and Eastern countries (see Alateeq, 2020; Al Riyami, 2016; Sperrazza & Raddawi, 2016) show that country dynamics resulting from anti-democratic governance and cultural passiveness prevented ELT teachers from implementing CP in its complete sense. Besides, it is seen that ELT teachers in democratically advantageous countries such as the US and Canada could be more prepared to freely engage with CP with the support of non-governmental, international professional learning organizations. Thus, considering the impediments we detected in our dataset, reconsideration of theoretical and practical aspects of CP, particularly within CP-informed PD programs, to offer more comprehensible and tangible materials for ELT teachers can facilitate the conceptualization and implementation of CP more efficiently (Lin, 2004; Yulianto, 2015).

As for the teacher, learner, and institution-based constraints, the studies in our review revealed that the way teachers experience CP-informed collaborative PD practices might vary because of their existing knowledge, beliefs, pedagogical habitus, and willingness. In this sense, prioritizing teachers’ previous habitus and practical theories (Bourdieu, 1977) and customizing CP-informed PD through responsive mediation (Johnson & Golombek, 2016) without indoctrinating CP principles in a transmission-based way can enrich the potential impact of CP. Foregrounding teachers’ willingness to plan PD practices and steps is also a prerequisite to fostering sustainable PD outcomes (Burns et al., 2022). As some learners’ linguistic performance and their tendency to dominate critical discussions (Nuske, 2014; Pessoa & de Urzeda Freitas, 2012) can disrupt the critical atmosphere of CP-based lessons, the adaptation of course materials and preparing classroom discussion protocols might alleviate the potential challenges that may occur in the classroom. Also, institution-based constraints such as curricular obstacles, workload, and lack of institutional support (Nuske, 2014; Safari, 2017) hindered teachers from reaching the critical objectives of CP-informed collaborative practices. Hence, administrative support seems vital in sustaining the continuous cycle of CP-informed collaborative PD practices in language teacher education (Burns et al., 2022) and creating a more impactful social change.

Furthermore, CP-informed collaborative PD practices may increase their potential to create a more considerable social change despite the impediments mentioned above by extending their scope into the larger community (Junaidi, 2019) and disseminating the outcomes with other stakeholders of the educational ecosystem (Başar, Çomoğlu, & Dikilitaş, 2023). As Junaidi (2019) reported, conducting advocacy research collaboratively as a critical PD tool for the benefit of a non-profit organization in the community can promote the praxis to bridge the critical theory and culturally informed practices for transformation. Likewise, as Başar, Çomoğlu, and Dikilitaş (2023) addressed, disseminating the takeaways of a CP-informed collaborative PD program through a research seminar can make teachers’ work more visible and influential to ignite institutional social change by displaying that teachers can take the initiative to transform pedagogical conventions. Such actions to socialize CP and make it more visible in the community can enforce the opportunities to build inter-institutional partnerships, leading to more sustainable projects to maximize the scope of social transformation (Noffke & Somekh, 2009). Enlarging the scope of collaboration and enriching the collaborative dynamics within an educational ecosystem can also increase the possibilities for social change. Consequently, collective action can be succeeded through non-hierarchical collaboration among community members, which reciprocally contributes to each community member’s agency and potency. This generates collective consciousness, emancipating the members’ new position within the community (Brutt-Griffler & Samimy, 1999; Drury et al., 2015).

Recommendations

In light of the findings from our review, we see that CP-informed collaborative practices have a substantial role in the professional growth of ELT teachers across the globe since they are provided with emancipatory PD tools to initiate a conceptual and pedagogical transformation in their educational settings. The reviewed studies reveal that CP is a fundamental and contemporary framework continuing to impact research studies on language teachers’ PD through collaborative practices based on non-hierarchical teacher partnerships and/or communities to take collective action (Drury et al., 2015). Despite the context-bound challenges language teachers might face, CP-informed collaborative PD practices have the potential to enable them to reconstruct their perspectives and pedagogies and ignite a new pathway for possible social change within and beyond the classroom. Hence, future research could explore the sustained impact of CP-informed collaborative practices on ELT teachers’ professional growth to advance understanding in this area further. Additionally, further studies in diverse educational contexts could provide insights into the adaptability and effectiveness of CP frameworks in fostering pedagogical transformation and promoting broader social change.

References

Abednia, A. (2012). Teachers’ professional identity: Contributions of a critical EFL teacher education course in Iran. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 706-717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.005

Abednia, A., & Crookes, G. V. (2019). Online language teacher education for a challenging innovation: Towards critical language pedagogy for Iran. In H. Reinders, C. Coombe, A. Littlejohn, & D. Tafazoli (Eds.), Innovation in language learning and teaching: The case of the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 241-261). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13413-6_12

Ahmadian, M., Maftoon, P., & Birjandi, P. (2021). Collaborative discussion circles: A path towards critical language teacher development. The Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice, 14(28), 157-179. https://doi.org/10.30495/JAL.2021.687051

Alateeq, H. (2020). Critical pedagogy among EFL writing teachers at a university college in Saudi Arabia: A step from theory to practice [Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter]. Open Research Exeter. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/125332

Aljahromi, D., & Hidri, S. (2023). Using critical reflections in action research to enhance students’ interactivity in online EFL learning contexts. Educational Action Research, 31(1), 153-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2165522

Al Riyami, T. K. S. (2016). Introducing critical pedagogy to English language teachers at tertiary education in Oman: Attitudes, potentialities and challenges [Doctoral dissertation, University of Exeter]. Open Research Exeter. http://hdl.handle.net/10871/23511

Andreu, R., Canós, L., de Juana, S., Manresa, E., Rienda, L., & Tarí, J. J. (2003). Critical friends: A tool for quality improvement in universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462065

Aristizábal Cardona, A. J., & Ortiz Medina, J. M. (2023). Envisioning paths towards peacebuilding in foreign language teacher education. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 28(1), 49-68. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v28n1a03

Audrain, R. L., Ruiz, E. A., Maresso Wyatt, L. G., Nailor, N., & Weinberg, A. E. (2023). Sustaining teachers through collaboration and autonomy: Outcomes of a professional development experience. The New Educator, 19(2), 121-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688X.2023.2203202

Aydın, B., & Çomoğlu, İ. (2023). Reflective practice groups in ELT: An emergent model for professional development. In B. Gün & E. Üstünlüoğlu (Eds.), Exploring the principles of reflective practice in ELT: Research and perspectives from Turkey (pp. 78-105). Equinox.

Baladi, N. (2007). Critical pedagogy in the ELT industry: Can a socially responsible curriculum find its place in a corporate culture? [Master’s thesis, McGill University]. eScholarship. https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/9306t2058

Banegas, D. L., Jacovkis, L. G., & Romiti, A. (2020). A gender perspective in initial English language teacher education: An Argentinian experience. Sexuality & Culture, 24, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-019-09604-8

Barjesteh, H. (2019). Dynamicity of transformative L2 materials preparation model in EFL classroom: Place of critical language pedagogy in teacher education. Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly, 38(2), 47-79. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2020.34142.2707

Bartolomé, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97-122. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23478420

Başar, S., Çomoğlu, I., & Dikilitaş, K. (2023). Teacher study groups as a collaborative platform for action research: An ecological perspective. Professional Development in Education, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2283429

Başar, S., Kuzu, E., & Çomoğlu, İ. (2023). Reflection and collaboration in EFL teacher professional development in Turkey: A systematic review. In B. Gün & E. Üstünlüoğlu (Eds.), Exploring the principles of reflective practice in ELT: Research and perspectives from Turkey (pp. 6-31). Equinox.

Bayyurt, Y., & Sifakis, N. C. (2015). ELF-aware in-service teacher education: A transformative perspective. In H. Bowles & A. Cogo (Eds.), International perspectives on English as a lingua franca: Pedagogical insights (pp. 117-135). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137398093_7

Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Brutt-Griffler, J., & Samimy, K. K. (1999). Revisiting the colonial in the postcolonial: Critical praxis for nonnative-English-speaking teachers in a TESOL program. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 413-431. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587672

Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Burns, A., Edwards, E., & Ellis, N. J. (2022). Sustaining action research: A practical guide for institutional engagement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429265273

Canagarajah, S. A. (2007). The ecology of global English. International Multilingual Research Journal, 1(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15257770701495299

Castañeda-Londoño, A. (2021). Moving from what do English teachers know? to how do English teachers experience knowledge? A decolonial perspective in the study of English teachers’ knowledge. GIST - Education and Learning Research Journal, (22), 75-101. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.1002

Ceylan, E., & Çomoğlu, I. (2023). Action research in initial EFL teacher education: Emerging insights from a CAR project. Educational Action Research , 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2023.2187854

Contreras León, J. J., & Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2016). Cooperative learning with a focus on the social: A pedagogical proposal for the EFL classroom. HOW, 23(2), 125-147. https://doi.org/10.19183/how.23.2.321

Crookes, G. V. (2015). Redrawing the boundaries on theory, research, and practice concerning language teachers’ philosophies and language teacher cognition: Toward a critical perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 99(3), 485-499. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12237

Cruz-Arcila, F., Solano-Cohen, V., Briceño-González, M. L., Rincón, A., & Lobato-Junior, A. (2023). Resisting hegemonic discourses on the relation between teaching second languages and socioeconomic development. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 25(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v25n2.103953

Díez-Ortega, M., & Cannizzo, H. (2020). Reflective teaching and critical language pedagogy in a Thai EFL context. In P. Vinogradova & J. K. Shin (Eds.), Contemporary foundations for teaching English as an additional language: Pedagogical approaches and classroom applications (pp. 288-293). Routledge.

Dikilitaş, K., & Griffiths, C. (2017). Developing language teacher autonomy through action research. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50739-2

Drury, J., Evripidou, A., & van Zomeren, M. (2015). Empowerment: The intersection of identity and power in collective action. In D. Sindic, M. Barreto, & R. Costa-Lopes (Eds.), Power and identity (pp. 94-116). Psychology Press.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2004). Reflective practice in action: 80 reflection breaks for busy teachers. Corwin Press.

Farrell, T. S. C. (2019). Reflective practice in ELT. Equinox.

Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. Routledge.

Francis, S., Hirsh, S., & Rowland, E. (1994). Improving school culture through study groups. Journal of Staff Development, 15, 36-39.

Freeman, D. (2001). Second language teacher education. In R. Carter & D. Nunan (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of other languages (pp. 72-79). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667206.011

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). Continuum.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. Continuum.

Giles, A., & Yazan, B. (2023). Constructing teacher identity in teacher collaboration: What does it mean to be a teacher of culturally and linguistically diverse English learners? Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 16(1), 36-45. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160104

Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition (1st ed.). Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Towards a critical pedagogy of learning. Bergin & Garvey.

Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education (1st ed.). Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling. Westview Press.

Gómez Rodríguez, L. F., & Leal Hernández, M. (2015). Transactional reading in EFL learning: A path to promote critical thinking through urban legends. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 17(2), 229-245. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.calj.2015.2.a04

Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189

Granados Beltrán, C. (2009). A framework for the construction of academic communities. Revista Folios, (30), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.17227/01234870.30folios39.50

Gray, J. (2019). Critical language teacher education? In S. Walsh & S. Mann (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English language teacher education (pp. 68-81). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659824-7

Griffiths, V. (2000). The reflective dimension in teacher education. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(5), 539-555. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(00)00033-1

Gustine, G. G. (2014). Critical literacy in an Indonesian EFL setting: Sustaining professional learning [Doctoral dissertation, Deakin University). Deakin Research Online. https://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30067332

Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Heinemann Educational Books.

Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimized digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230

Harman, R. M., Ahn, S., & Bogue, B. (2016). Reflective language teacher education: Fostering discourse awareness through critical performative pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.06.006

Hassani, V., Khatib, M., & Moghaddam, M. Y. (2020). Contributions of Kumaravadivelu’s language teacher education modular model (KARDS) to Iranian EFL language institute teachers’ professional identity. Applied Research on English Language, 9(1), 75-102. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2019.117913.1470

Hawkins, M., & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 30-39). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042710.006

Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2016). Mindful L2 teacher education: A sociocultural perspective on cultivating teachers’ professional development. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315641447

Junaidi, A. (2019). Critical English teacher pedagogy in Indonesia: A case of opportunities. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12586304.v1

Jung, H. (2021). Towards critical literacy in Korean high school EFL classrooms: Narrative inquiry into teacher emotions and the use of critical materials [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa]. ScholarSpace. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/81667

Khatib, M., & Miri, M. (2016). Cultivating multivocality in language classrooms: Contribution of critical pedagogy-informed teacher education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 13(2), 98-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2015.1137197

Kim, M. K., & Pollard, V. A. (2017). A modest critical pedagogy for English as a foreign language education. Education as Change, 21(1), 50-72. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2017/492

Kim, S., Ramos, K. A., Chung, H., & Choi, S. (2020). Integrating critical multiliteracies pedagogy in ESL/EFL teaching. Journal of English Learner Education, 11(1), 54-82. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/jele/vol11/iss1/4

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2009). Contextualizing the madness: A critical analysis of the assault on teacher education and schools. In S. L. Gronke & J. A. Hatch (Eds.), Critical pedagogy and teacher education in the neoliberal era: Small openings (pp. 19-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9588-7_2

Kincheloe, J. L. (2011a). Exposing the technocratic perversion of education: The death of the democratic philosophy of schooling. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy (pp. 1-19). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_1

Kincheloe, J. L. (2011b). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex epistemology. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg, & K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy (pp. 227-243). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-397-6_19

Kohli, R., Picower, B., Nieves Martinez, A., & Ortiz, N. (2015). Critical professional development: Centering the social justice needs of teachers. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 7-24.

Koubek, E., & Wasta, S. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ experiences on becoming culturally responsive educators: An action research case study. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science , 16(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2023.160102

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.

Kuo, J. (2006). Collaborative action research on critical literacy: Investigating an English conversation class in Taiwan (Publication No. 3215172) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Lee, S. C. (2019). Integrating entertainment and critical pedagogy for multicultural pre-service teachers: Film watching during the lecture hours of higher education. Intercultural Education, 30(2), 107-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1534430

Lewis, C., & Hurd, J. (2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Heinemann.

Lin, A. Y. M. (2004). Introducing a critical pedagogical curriculum: A feminist reflexive account. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 271-290). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524834.014

López-Gopar, M. E. (2016). Decolonizing primary English language teaching. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095773

Mambu, J. E. (2018). Critical pedagogy in the ELF era: An Indonesian-based English language teacher educator’s reflection. In S. Zein (Ed.), Teacher education for English as a lingua franca: Perspectives from Indonesia (pp. 41-57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730522-3

McLaren, P. (1989). Life in school: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundation of education (1st ed.). Longman Publishers.

McLaren, P. (2015). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (6th ed.). Routledge.

Miri, M., Alibakhshi, G., & Mostafaei-Alaei, M. (2017). Reshaping teacher cognition about L1 use through critical ELT teacher education. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies , 14(1), 58-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2016.1238286

Murray, E. (2015). Improving teaching through collaborative reflective teaching cycles. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 7(3), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/24727466.2015.11790343

Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. In O. ZawackiRichter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application (pp. 3-22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1

Noffke, S. E., & Somekh, B. (Eds.). (2009). The SAGE handbook of educational action research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857021021

Nuske, K. (2014). Investigating students’ situated understandings of criticality in a Master of Arts TESOL course (Publication No. 3665289) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

Nye, E., Melendez‐Torres, G. J., & Bonell, C. (2016). Origins, methods and advances in qualitative meta‐synthesis. Review of Education, 4(1), 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3065

Palacios, N., & Chapetón Castro, C. M. (2014). Students’ responses to the use of songs in the EFL classroom at a public school in Bogotá: A critical approach. GIST - Education and Learning Research Journal , (9), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.141

Pennycook, A. (2004). Critical moments in a TESOL praxicum. In B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (pp. 327-346). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524834.017

Pennycook, A. (2006). Language education as translingual activism. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 26(1), 111-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790600608141

Pessoa, R. R., & de Urzêda Freitas, M. T. (2012). Challenges in critical language teaching. TESOL Quarterly , 46(4), 753-776. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.46

Pineda, D., & Frodden, C. (2008). The development of a novice teacher’s autonomy in the context of EFL in Colombia. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 9(1), 143-162.

Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667237

Rincón, J., & Clavijo-Olarte, A. (2016). Fostering EFL learners’ literacies through local inquiry in a multimodal experience. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal , 18(2), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.14483/calj.v18n2.10610

Safari, P. (2017). Proletarianization of English language teaching: Iranian EFL teachers and their alternative role as transformative intellectuals. Policy Futures in Education, 15(1), 74-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316681203

Salas Serrano, L. A., Tapia Carlín, R. E., & Pérez Carranza, C. (2020). Critical pedagogy in a postgraduate TESOL professional development course in México: Using the NACTIC model. In P. Vinogradova & J. K. Shin (Eds.), Contemporary foundations for teaching English as an additional language (pp. 38-44). Routledge.

Santos, D. (2016). Re-signifying participatory action research (PAR) in higher education: What does ‘P’ stand for in PAR? Educational Action Research , 24(4), 635-646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1103658

Sardabi, N., Biria, R., & Golestan, A. A. (2018). Reshaping teacher professional identity through critical pedagogy-informed teacher education. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 617-634. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.11342a

Sellen, J. E. (2011). Uncovering critical pedagogy dispositions in English language teacher education [Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University]. Research Exchange. https://hdl.handle.net/2376/2930

Sharma, B. K., & Phyak, P. (2017). Criticality as ideological becoming: Developing English teachers for critical pedagogy in Nepal. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies , 14(2-3), 210-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2017.1285204

Sierra Piedrahita, A. M. (2016). Contributions of a social justice language teacher education perspective to professional development programs in Colombia. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(1), 203-217. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n1.47807

Sperrazza, L., & Raddawi, R. (2016). Academic writing in the UAE: Transforming critical thought in the EFL classroom. In A. Ahmed & H. Abouabdelkader (Eds.), Teaching EFL writing in the 21st century Arab world: Realities and challenges (pp. 157-187). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-46726-3_7

Sun, L. (2021). Transforming pre-service EFL teacher education through critical cosmopolitan literacies: Voices from Mainland China. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.2015753

Uştuk, Ö., & Çomoğlu, İ. (2021). Reflexive professional development in reflective practice: What lesson study can offer. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 10(3), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-12-2020-0092

Yulianto, S. W. (2015). The use of critical pedagogy principles in teaching EFL Reading. English Review: Journal of English Education, 4(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.25134/erjee.v4i1.305

Zhang, L. J. (2009). Teaching critical reading to in-service EFL teachers in Singapore [Paper presentation]. 41st TESOL International Convention, Washington, USA. https://hdl.handle.net/10497/20462

About the Authors