From theoretical discourse to classroom practice: postcolonial criticism, pedagogical translation, and student reception in multicultural contexts

Abstract

Introduction This study explores how postcolonial criticism is pedagogically translated into classroom practice and received by students in multicultural literature classrooms. It examines students’ engagement with five focal postcolonial concepts—otherness, hybridity, mimicry, subalternity, and ambivalence—and considers how their cultural backgrounds and prior understanding of postcolonial criticism shape their reception of these concepts. Methods Adopting a qualitative research design, the study collected data over one academic semester through semi-structured interviews and classroom observations. Participants included 10 undergraduate students in literature-related humanities programs, with two each from Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China, together with three university instructors teaching literature and literary theory. Classroom observations were conducted across 12 teaching sessions. Interview transcripts and observational field notes were analyzed thematically, with cross-cultural comparison and triangulation used to identify conceptual difficulties, pedagogical practices, and patterns of student reception. Results Students struggled with the complexity of theoretical language and displayed uneven prior understanding of postcolonial criticism’s anti-colonial and anti-Eurocentric foundations. Their understanding also varied across the five concepts: otherness and hybridity were relatively more accessible because students could connect them with experiences of marginality, cultural mixing, and identity negotiation, whereas mimicry, subalternity, and ambivalence required greater conceptual and historical clarification. Localized examples, dialogic teaching methods, and peer perspectives improved the accessibility of theoretical discourse. Reception also varied across cultural contexts: Malaysian and Chinese students connected the theory to identity and marginality; Japanese and South Korean participants showed ambivalence toward its relevance and applicability; and Russian students often resisted its application to their own literary and cultural contexts. Discussion The findings highlight the classroom as an interpretive community in which postcolonial theory is not only simplified for pedagogical purposes but also negotiated, contested, and reimagined through cross-cultural interaction. Students’ resistance and ambivalence may therefore function as forms of critical engagement rather than simply as failures of comprehension. These results underscore the need for adaptive pedagogical strategies that balance theoretical rigor, conceptual clarity, historical grounding, and cultural sensitivity in literary education.