Ideology in positivist research articles on issues of teaching English as a foreign language

References

1. Angus, L. B.
   1986 Research traditions, ideology and critical ethnography. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 7:1, 61–77, doi: 10.1080/0159630860070104nline
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630860070104nline [Google Scholar]
2. Apple, M. W.
   2006 Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, God and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Baker, M.
   2009 Argumentative interactions and the social construction of knowledge. InArgumentation and education (pp.127–144). Springer, Boston, MA. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98125‑3_5
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98125-3_5 [Google Scholar]
4. Biesta, G.
   2004 Educational research, evidence-based practice and professional judgement in education. Paper presented at theFaculty of Education of Stellenbosch University, Postgraduate Students Colloquium, 26 March 2004, 1–22.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Brickhouse, N. W., Stanley, W. B., & Whitson, J. A.
   1993 Practical reasoning and science education: Implications for theory and practice. Science & Education, 2(4), 363–375. 10.1007/BF00488172
   https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00488172 [Google Scholar]
6. Caterina, D.
   2018 Investigating hegemony struggles: Transdisciplinary considerations on the role of a critical discourse analysis of practical argumentation. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(3), 211–227. 10.1080/17405904.2017.1398670
   https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1398670 [Google Scholar]
7. Cobb, T.
   1997 Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing?System, 25(3), 301–315. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00024‑9
   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00024-9 [Google Scholar]
8. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, J. M.
   2012 Research on argumentation in science education in Europe. InD. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrospective and Prospective (pp.253–289). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. 10.1007/978‑94‑6091‑900‑8_11
   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8_11 [Google Scholar]
9. Fairclough, N.
   2001 Language and Power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Fairclough, N.
    1989 Language and PowerLondon: Longmans
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fairclough, N.
    2010 Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Longmans
    [Google Scholar]
12. Fairclough, N.
    2015 Language and Power (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N.
    2012 Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N.
    2013 Argument, Deliberation, Dialectic and the Nature of the Political: A CDA Perspective. Political Studies Review, 11 (3). pp.336–344. 10.1111/1478‑9302.12025
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12025 [Google Scholar]
15. Frederickson, M.
    2004 Surveying gender: Another look at the way we teach United States history. The History Teacher, 37(4), 476–484. 10.2307/1555552
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1555552 [Google Scholar]
16. Gorur, R., Hamilton, M., Lundahl, C. and Sjödin, E. S.
    2019 Politics by other means? STS and research in education, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(1), 1–15, doi:  10.1080/01596306.2018.1549700
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1549700 [Google Scholar]
17. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., and Wajcman, J.
    2008 Introduction. InE. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies, third edition (pp.1–9). London, England: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. KhosraviNik, M.
    2010 Actor descriptions, action attributions, and argumentation: towards a Systematization of CDA analytical categories in the representation of social groups. Critical Discourse Studies, 7: 1, 55–72. 10.1080/17405900903453948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453948 [Google Scholar]
19. Lim, L.
    2014 Ideology, rationality and reproduction in education: a critical discourse analysis, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 61–76, doi:  10.1080/01596306.2012.739467
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2012.739467 [Google Scholar]
20. Lin, T. C., Lin, T. J., and Tsai, C. C.
    2014 Research Trends in Science Education from 2008 to 2012: a systematic content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 36(8), 1346–1372. 10.1080/09500693.2013.864428
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.864428 [Google Scholar]
21. Luke, A.
    1995/96 Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21(1), 3–48. 10.3102/0091732X021001003
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X021001003 [Google Scholar]
22. Parkinson, J.
    2011 The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for specific purposes, 30(3), 164–175. 10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.03.001 [Google Scholar]
23. Pennycook, A.
    2001 Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. London. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. 10.4324/9781410600790
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600790 [Google Scholar]
24. Rapanta, C., & Macagno, F.
    2016 Argumentation methods in educational contexts: Introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 142–149. 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.03.006 [Google Scholar]
25. Ramsden, P.
    1992 Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Rangachari, P. K.
    1994 Quality education for undergraduates in pharmacology: a Canadian experiment. Trends in pharmacological sciences, 15(7), 211–214. 10.1016/0165‑6147(94)90313‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-6147(94)90313-1 [Google Scholar]
27. Samaie, M., Sahragard, R. and Parhizkar, R.
    2006. – A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner’s Theory of Attitudes and Motivation. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4),151–191.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Swales, J. M.
    2004 Research Genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524827
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827 [Google Scholar]
29. Shaw, P.
    2000 Towards Classifying the Arguments in Research Genres. InTrosborg (ed.). Analyzing professional genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.74.06sha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.74.06sha [Google Scholar]
30. Searle, J.
    2010 Making the social world. The structure of human civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195396171.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
31. Uzuner-Smith, S. and Englander, K.
    2015 Exposing ideology within university policies: a critical discourse analysis of faculty hiring, promotion and remuneration practices, Journal of Education Policy, 30(1), 62–85, doi:  10.1080/02680939.2014.895853
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.895853 [Google Scholar]
32. van Dijk, T. A.
    1998 Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
33. van Dijk, T. A.
    2006 Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383. 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
34. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R.
    2004 A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. van Eemeren, F. H.
    2018 Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95381‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6 [Google Scholar]
36. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., and Meuffels, B.
    2015 Effectiveness through reasonableness: A pragma-dialectical perspective. preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Invan Eemeren, H. (Ed). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Springer International Publishing Switzerland. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_42
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_42 [Google Scholar]
37. Waghid, Y.
    2006 University education and deliberation: In defence of practical reasoning. Higher Education, 51(3), 315–328. 10.1007/s10734‑004‑6388‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6388-3 [Google Scholar]
38. Walton, D.
    2013 Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. 10.4324/9780203811160
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160 [Google Scholar]
39. Wodak, R.
    2001 What CDA is About: A Summary of its History. Important Concepts and Its Developments. InWodak, R. and Meyer, C. (Eds.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London. Sage Publications Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A.
    2004 ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 257–283. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.06.002 [Google Scholar]