Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for the study draws on two main theories: Street’s theory of literacy as ideological practice and Foucault’s theory of power which enables us to explain the discursive and complex concept of dominance in the phrase “dominant discourse of literacy”.

1.7.1 Theory of Literacy as Ideological/Socially Situated Practice

This study is theoretically framed within a social view to literacy which acknowledges that literacy practices are always ideological. The concept of ideology is an issue which has been strongly addressed by Street (1984, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2010). Street distinguishes between two models of literacy namely, the autonomous model and socially situated or ideological model. The socially situated or “ideological model of literacy, offers a more socially sensitive perspective to literacy practice as they differ from one context to another. The ideological model is a reaction to the autonomous model which assumes that literacy is a monolithic entity and merely a technical and neutral set of skills” ( Street, 1999) . Rather, the ideological model of literacy holds the view that literacy is a socially situated practice. In this sense, literacy, is always contested, not only in its meanings but also in its practices. Hence particular versions of it are always "ideological".

As Street (1999) explains, “Literacy practices are located not only within cultural wholes but also within power structures” (p. 57). As social practices and institutions are implicated in our understanding of literacies they address the intersection of literacy and power.

My argument for social theory of literacy in an EFL context like Iran sees examination-oriented pedagogy as an isolated or decontextualized four-skill concept which can be easily measured. The main concern of this pedagogy in these classrooms is on transferring information existing in the FEL textbooks and curriculum as it is. Indeed, this pedagogy introduces literacy practices as if it is monolithic, universal, technical and neutral (Chege, 2009; Reed, 2006). Hence, this view, as Street (1999) argues, conceptualizes literacies and their practices as embedded in ideology and power relations, cultural values, and social roles which are nurtured or imposed by particular groups and institutions in each context either EFL or ESL. Thus, questions about

acquiring, developing, and participating in literacy practices are necessarily complex, discursive and socio-political questions. They are always embedded in a specific world- view and the adherents of that world view have a desire for that view of literacy to dominate and to marginalize others (Street, 1994).

1.7.2 Foucault’s Theory of Power

This study is also framed using Foucault’s social discourse theory on “power, knowledge and ideology” (1979, 1980, 1984, 1990, 2008). In Foucault’s view, discourse construction is the main source of knowledge. Other literacy scholars like Gee (2014), Friere (1996) and Giroux (2010 a & b) who have critical views to literacy have made the link between knowledge and literacy. As such they saw knowledge and hence also literacy as not only ideological/socially situated but also power-related.

My argument for choosing Foucault’s theory on power, knowledge and ideology (1990, 2008) is that it contributes to explaining the complexity and discursivity of power-related nature of literacy in each context. Pennycook (2001) has argued that existing ideological models of literacy unlike their claims, failed to comprehensively address the centrality and discursivity of power in the conception of literacy due to being linear, non-critical and depoliticized. Thus, the use of Foucault’s theory to analyze literacy practices in an examination-oriented setting in this study addresses the gap in theorizing literacy studies.

Foucault (1979, 1984, 1990, 2008) argued that in every society, discourse, knowledge (and hence literacy) production is selected, controlled, organized and also redistributed by discursive power relationships. Different from many other critical theorists, Foucault avoided dichotomizing the issue of power relations. In fact, he conceptualizes power relations as discursive practice seen in every educational system, at curriculum, assessment or pedagogy. In effect, he did not look at this issue in terms of either domination or powerlessness as seen in the literature. Rather, in his

conceptualization of power relationships, he foregrounds resistance, critique and question as significant determinants to explain discursive nature of power relation of knowledge and hence literacy production. In his view, resistance, critique and question may even be shaped in moments of dominance. People, for example, teacher and student through taking different contextual stances can resist, question and critique to challenge the prominent power in each context. In his view, any resistance to, question and critique of knowledge production in the whole context of education, contribute to shedding more light on the discursive nature of power relations which are shaped in educational settings whether those in the core curriculum or those enacted in the classroom pedagogic practices.

Hence, Foucault’s social theory of power besides Street’s ideological model of literacy thus enables us to answer to the central questions of this study such as: what are the taken-for-granted literacy practiceas shaped in examination-oriented settings and “control” teachers to follow a specific pedagogy in their ELT? What are the effects of following high-stakes examination-oriented approach in English language literacy education which has intentionally been embedded with power-related discourses of specific groups in the classrooms? These questions which are embedded in the key research questions in this study justify the necessity of such theoretical framework.