EFL Reading Through
a Critical Literacy Perspective
Shin-ying Huang
National Taiwan Normal University syh@ntnu.edu.tw
Abstract
There has been an increasing number of research studies and classroom implementations of critical literacy at all levels of education in many English-language nations. However, critical literacy remains outside of mainstream concerns in English-as-a-foreign language classrooms in Asia, including Taiwan. This study explores the ways in which students respond to texts when encouraged to read critically. Through this effort, the study also aims to gain insight into how a critical literacy perspective can be implemented in an EFL reading and writing course, and to draw implications for the possibility and practicality of a critical literacy framework for the teaching of English in Taiwan and in other EFL contexts. Findings of the study suggest that students were able to discern the voices that have been silenced and question the perspectives that have been omitted in the texts that they read. In addition, they were able to draw connections between the text and their own lives and were also inspired by the texts to cast a critical lens on themselves and on the local situation. A few students, however, showed non-participation or even resistance to the inclusion of a critical lens. The results yielded important implications for practice, including ways to foster further engagement with a critical literacy stance, the choice of reading topics, the source of materials, the reading and writing connection, and the development of an action stance towards reading and re-writing the world.
Key Words: critical literacy, reading-writing connection, English-as-a-foreign-language reading
INTRODUCTION
Critical literacy draws from different theoretical orientations, including Marxism, feminism, and postmodernism (Green, 2001; Morgan, 1997). Yet fundamental to the notion is the common emphasis of literacy as social practice influenced by an individual’s lived experiences and embedded in social, cultural, political, and historical contexts (Pennycook, 2001). Critical literacy thus underscores the ability to read the word and the world (Freire & Macedo, 1987). That is, the word is necessarily embedded in the world; therefore, reading the word without consideration for the world renders the reader powerless, and reading the word is always a means through which to better understand the world.
Critical literacy also makes explicit the relations of power between languages. It understands that language is a “contradictory and unequal set of linguistic varieties whose value was defined not by intrinsic but by extrinsic characteristics” (Cox & Assis-Peterson, 1999, p. 436). In other words, relations of power determine the value of a language and the worth of the speaker, which in turn validates or invalidates that which is said. The same words can therefore imply different meanings with different consequences when it is expressed in different languages and voiced by different people. Therefore, from a critical literacy perspective, texts are not all created equal.
A critical literacy perspective thus also accentuates the ability to deconstruct texts. It means to be cognizant that discourse is socially constructed, and able to challenge the social construction of texts by questioning “common sense readings” with the aim to “create opportunities for alternative reader viewpoints” (Hood, 1998, p. 11).
Furthermore, critical literacy makes explicit the active role that a reader should take in examining texts for their underlying assumptions and power relations, including any privileges and disadvantages as a result of the authors’ ideological positioning. Ultimately, it emphasizes that readers need to be constantly vigilant of why texts are written in the way they are, and who benefits in the process.
Despite the great potential for critical literacy to enhance the complexity and depth of reading, the transition from theory to classroom practice has not always been evident. Albright, Church, Settle and Vasquez (1999) observed:
The lack of teacher writing about critical literacy in practice is the biggest problem. What’s out there is primarily being constructed by academics whose audience is, in most part, other academics…and so the ball just keeps rolling back and forth, over beyond and in a lot of cases past the classroom. Teachers’ voices need to get out there in order for us to move toward possibilities in practice. (p. 148).
Since the time of this comment there has been an increasing number of studies and classroom implementations of critical literacy at all levels of education in English-language countries such as Australia, Britain, and the United States. However, in many English-as-a-foreign language (EFL) settings, particularly in Asia, Albright et al.’s (1999) comment still rings true. Not only is there a lack of practitioner-led research and documentation regarding the implementation of critical literacy, even the majority of the English-language teaching academics do not pay much attention to the possibility of critical literacy in the EFL classroom. Critical
literacy remains outside of the mainstream concerns of English-language teaching in Asia, including Taiwan (Kuo, 2006).
A few scholars, however, have recognized the need for studies that provide detailed accounts of the implementation of critical literacy in EFL classrooms. Falkenstein (2003) proposes that in the now globalized world characterized by constant exchanges in culture, economics, technology and travel, it is crucial that researchers examine the implications of a critical literacy perspective in foreign language contexts. Likewise, Kuo (2006) and Chou (2004) also argue for research that explores the possibility of critical literacy in Taiwan. These scholars highlight the need to investigate the extent to which critical literacy imparts purpose and meaning to the act of learning to read and write in the foreign language, English.
Purpose of the Study
This study seeks to explore the ways in which students respond to texts when encouraged to read critically. Through this effort, the study also aims to gain insight into how a critical literacy perspective can be implemented in an EFL reading and writing course. Ultimately, the study attempts to draw implications for the possibility and practicality of a critical literacy framework for the teaching of English in Taiwan and in other EFL contexts.
LITERATURE REVIEW
which critical literacy has been implemented in English-language classrooms. It then delineates the studies that document the inclusion of a critical literacy perspective in tertiary language classrooms in Taiwan, and how these studies speak to the present research.
Classroom Implementation of Critical Literacy
Van Duzer and Florez (2004) explain that because of the different underlying theoretical orientations, critical literacy can be implemented with different emphases. Teachers who emphasize the politics of languages and language use may focus their lessons on how power relations affect language choices such as who can speak, what can be said, and in which language. Those who emphasize the non-neutrality of texts may focus their lessons on analyzing how texts are always written with the intention to justify, persuade, and advocate for the views of certain groups over those of others. Those who take a Freirean perspective emphasize language and literacy as an avenue through which to challenge social inequity and to take social action for the purposes of creating a more just society. However, as Brown (1999) observes, many theorists and practitioners understand critical literacy as a combination of these approaches in their implementation and actual practice. This study concurs with Brown’s understanding of critical literacy as a combination of approaches, depending on the purpose and emphasis of a particular lesson. This research highlights the non-neutrality of texts and their intentions as well as the ways power relations affect textual choices.
Several scholars have demonstrated ways of including a critical perspective in the language classroom. Wallace (1992) demonstrated how to combine a critical perspective with the common pre-reading,
while-reading, and post-reading procedures. With the pre-reading activity, rather than trying to elicit background knowledge, she asks students to consider “why the topic has been selected in the first place” (p. 79). While reading, rather than trying to predict the likely outcome, she asks students to consider the various possible ways of continuing and concluding a text. She also emphasizes the importance of questioning texts as opposed to answering comprehension questions as the most common form of post-reading activity.
Bomer and Bomer (2001) suggest several “critical concepts” (p. 27), that is, issues which readers should develop an eye for when examining texts, including power, naturalization (i.e. taking things for granted), fairness/justice, voice/silence, multiple perspectives (i.e. different sides of stories), representation (i.e. showing what people are like), gender, race, class, money, labor, language, intimate relationships and families, relationships to nature, violence and peace, and individualism/collectivism. Bomer and Bomer did not present these concepts as a list for readers to go through with every text; rather, these are possible themes to pay attention to for readers who are new to reading through a critical lens.
Intertextuality, that is, “how texts draw upon, incorporate, recontextualize and dialogue with other texts” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 17), is another way of approaching texts that is crucial to the critical literacy perspective. Kempe (2001) teaches intertextuality by grouping texts. She explains that in working with a critical literacy perspective, students need to be provided with texts that can be read and analyzed in relation to one another. The purpose is to “compare and contrast the texts closely in order to highlight their
constructedness” (p. 43). Therefore, she suggests using both conventional and unconventional texts, texts encompassing different genres, texts from different historical periods on the same topics, and texts presenting different ideological stances on a particular issue. Bomer and Bomer (2001) also suggest that reading texts in relation to one another can help to illuminate gaps and silences in more apparent ways, and can expand class discussion through considerations for the different sides of an issue, different ways to present a topic, and different angles from which to understand a story.
Researchers also report on the types of questions they use to interrogate texts. Wooldridge (2001) suggests these questions (p. 261):
1. What (or whose) view of the world, or kinds of behaviors are presented as normal by the text?
2. Why is the text written that way? How else could it have been written?
3. What assumptions does the text make about age, gender, and culture (including the age, gender, and culture of its readers)? 4. Who is silenced/heard here?
5. Whose interests might best be served by the text? 6. What ideological positions can you identify?
7. What are the possible readings of this situation/event/character? How did you get to that reading?
8. What moral or political position does a reading support? How do particular cultural and social contexts make particular readings available? How might it be challenged?
Luke, O’Brien, and Comber (2001) suggest a list of seven questions from which to think about how texts are constructed (p. 116):
1. What is the topic?
3. Who is writing to whom? Whose voices and positions are being expressed?
4. Whose voices and positions are not being expressed? 5. What is the text trying to do to you?
6. What other ways are there of writing about the topic? 7. What wasn’t said about the topic? Why?
Wooldridge’s (2001) questions, particularly questions 1, 6, 7, and 8, may require a deeper level of engagement with texts, and may therefore be more appropriate for students who are more experienced with reading critically. Luke et al.’s (2001) questions are phrased in a more direct manner, and may be less intimidating for students who are less familiar with the critical orientation. These questions offer a useful starting point from which beginning critical readers can examine texts. However, although phrased differently, Wooldridge’s and Luke et al.’s questions similarly aim at directing readers to think about the ideological positioning of a text’s author and the effect of the author’s decisions on readers. These questions explicitly remind readers that what is not written also conveys a message and should also be “read.” They are particularly helpful for students who are new to the concept of critical literacy in that they provide an angle from which to think about texts. Therefore, the juxtaposing of texts and the above critical questions are good strategies through which to develop critical literacy with EFL students.
Critical Literacy in Taiwan
Critical perspectives have not received the attention of most English teachers and teacher educators in Taiwan, as observed by Ko and Wang (2007). A review of the literature in Taiwan found only
three studies of critical literacy in the EFL classroom. Chou’s (2004) paper and Falkenstein’s (2003) and Kuo’s (2006) studies delineate the inclusion of a critical literacy perspective at the tertiary undergraduate level. Chou’s and Falkenstein’s research took place in a writing course and Kuo’s study in a conversation course.
Falkenstein’s (2003) study illustrates how a critical literacy perspective was incorporated into a composition course. Students were asked to respond in writing to various prompts, including pictures, paintings, music, movies, photos, dollar bills, etc. Her study revealed that students exhibited keen social awareness, personally, locally, and also globally, and their social concerns were reflected in their writing, demonstrating an acute understanding of their own lives and the world around them. The study suggests that EFL learners are indeed able to engage in writing that is critical when provided appropriate opportunities.
Chou (2004) describes an EFL writing course in which pictures were used as a medium for writing and the development of critical literacy. She discusses one example where students were asked to interpret a picture and come up with an ending for the story delineated through the picture. Findings suggest that students “brought their prior knowledge, their stereotypes, and their social understanding into their writing” (p. 254). Chou’s study demonstrates the possible use of writing as a means for students to explore and express their social concerns and knowledge of the world.
These two studies were creative in that students were asked to respond in writing to different types of materials. However, students were not given the opportunity to engage critically with printed materials and to re-write what they had read. That is, students “read
the world” but did not specifically “read the word”. Students were not guided to engage in a critical manner with written texts as a means of exploring the connection between reading the word and reading the world.
Kuo’s study differed from the above two studies in that it was based in an EFL conversation course. Kuo (2006) used different activities to engage students in critical dialogues. Kuo found that the students reacted positively to the critical literacy conversation curriculum, which made use of activities that centered around social-issue picture books, local news, hip-hop songs, pantomime, American situation comedies, etc. Findings also suggest that when critical literacy was adopted as the pedagogical framework, students were able to draw on their own lived experiences when engaging in group discussions, and their dialogues revealed aspects of their identities as English-language learners and speakers.
These three studies demonstrate that a critical literacy perspective can indeed be successfully implemented in an EFL context, and in particular, in Taiwan. The present research complements the studies discussed above in that it draws attention to the critical reading of texts, putting emphasis on the deconstruction of texts so as to enhance students’ understanding of how textual constructions work to position readers.
METHODOLOGY
the design of the study, the action research, the process of data collection, and the ways in which the data were analyzed.
Research Design
The present study is a qualitative action research characterized by the researcher’s attempt to gain better understanding of teaching and learning in her own course. Action research differs from teachers’ everyday efforts because it involves careful and systematic planning and documentation of the processes taken to examine one’s own practice (Ferrance, 2000). Action research is also different from teachers’ everyday work in that it not only attempts to address individual practitioners’ practices, but also seeks to draw implications for practices in similar contexts.
This study is both descriptive and interpretative. It is descriptive because it aims to provide rich descriptions of the multiple perspectives through which students examined and questioned texts. The study is also interpretative in that it not only provides a detailed account of students’ development of critical literacy, but also attempts to explore the implications of critical literacy for the teaching and learning of reading and writing in EFL contexts.
As this is an action research study which was conducted in the context of one of the researcher’s own courses, data collection was part of the course implementation, and the participants were the students in the course.
The Action Research
The study took place in a course offered to undergraduate students at a national university in northern Taiwan. The
semester-long course, entitled Reading and Writing in English, is an elective offered twice a year for non-English majors. Data collection for this project took place in the fall semester of the 2008 academic year, for a total of 18 weeks.
Participants included 35 non-English majors in their second, third, and fourth years who have taken the required General English course in their freshman year. Participants were majoring in various fields, including Education, Educational Psychology and Counseling, Adult and Continuing Education, Health Promotion and Health Education, Human Development and Family Studies, Civic Education and Leadership, Special Education, Geography, Mathematics, Life Science, Industrial Technology Education, and Graphic Arts Communication.
As the title of the course suggests, equal emphasis was placed on reading and writing. Interactions 2: Reading (Hartmann & Kirn, 2007) was the required textbook. The book was deemed suitable for this course because it emphasizes reading skills and makes connections to writing. The instructor provided class handouts for the writing component of the course, taken mainly from Paragraph
Development: A Guide for Students of English (Arnaudet & Barrett, 1990) and Writing Clear Paragraphs (Donald, Moore, Morrow, Wargetz, & Werner, 1999).
In addition, the course also included a critical literacy element, which is the action research component of the study, and thus, the focus of this paper. For the critical literacy component of the course, students were first introduced to the critical stance and what it means to read from a critical perspective. Several questions, adapted from
Luke et al. (2001), were suggested as possible angles from which to critically examine and understand texts:
1. What is the topic?
2. What was said about the topic?
3. What was not said about the topic? Why?
4. Whose voices and positions are being expressed?
5. Whose voices and positions are not being expressed? Why? 6. What is the text trying to do to you?
7. In light of the above questions, what are other ways of thinking about the topic?
8. What questions do you have for the author/article?
Specifically, students were encouraged to “talk back” to texts through considering these angles, placing emphasis on questions 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 as they provide the explicit critical perspective. The purpose of these “critical questions” was to serve as a guide to help students question texts for their underlying assumptions and power relations, i.e., to interrogate the contents of a text, including any privileges and disadvantages as a result of the author’s ideological positioning. The aim was for students to remain vigilant of why texts are written in the way they are, and who benefits in the process. After the instructor’s introduction, the class then put the process into practice through group and whole-class discussions of an article.
Then, as assignments throughout the semester, students were encouraged to critically read and examine three articles in the course textbook, details of which will be described in the section on “The Reading Material.” For each article, students first read as an assignment. Then in the following class, the exercises in the textbook
related to the article were discussed, including the article’s thesis and also the main idea, supporting ideas, topic sentence, and supporting sentences of each paragraph. After these reading comprehension exercises, students were then asked to reflect on the article through a critical perspective, mainly from the angles suggested in the critical questions, and to record their “responses” in the “response pieces.” Students were not required to answer any particular question, but to consider the article from the critical lens suggested in the questions. The response pieces were assignments which students completed individually outside of class. Students were encouraged to write approximately one page, but no more than two. Each of the response pieces was allocated 10% of the course grade. Subsequent to students’ submission and the instructor’s review of their work, the instructor shared with the class her own critical reflections on the article as well as her thoughts on students’ response pieces.
Towards the end of the course, students were also asked to write a short paper in which they reflected on various aspects of their learning. This assignment was allocated 10% of the course grade, and there was no page limit. The other 60% of the course grade was allocated respectively to paragraph writing (40%) and attendance and participation (20%). This paper reports on data from the three response pieces and one part of the reflection paper which encouraged students to reflect on the critical stance introduced in this course.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was first conducted for each of the three response pieces, and then across the three pieces. Through the lens of the
critical questions, each of the response pieces was analyzed for the perspectives through which students examined and questioned the readings. Then the results from the three response pieces were compared in order to understand students’ responses in relation to the different topics represented by the three readings.
The reflection paper was analyzed for how students understood the critical stance, and the ways in which the critical stance was or was not helpful in terms of reading the articles. Findings from the response pieces were then further examined in light of the results from the reflection paper for insights into future implementation of critical literacy in EFL classrooms.
The Reading Material
The three articles were taken from the course textbook,
Interactions 2: Reading (Hartmann & Kirn, 2007, the third level out of a five-level reading series). The articles ranged from 650 to 850 words, and all belonged to the expository genre, as most textbook articles are. A brief summary of the contents of each article can be found in the Appendix.
The first article, entitled “Education: A Reflection of Society,” explains how the educational system in a country reflects “the larger culture—both positive and negative aspects of its economy, values, and social structure” (p. 8). The article then supports this statement with examples from Mexico, Japan, Britain, and the United States. This article was chosen as an assignment for the critical literacy component because it discusses a topic that is closely related to the students’ lives.
Right,” discusses how, despite of the many problems of an urban environment, Curitiba, Brazil has found innovative ways to improve the quality of life. Unlike the previous article in which the author takes a seemingly neutral stance, in this article, Curitiba was introduced as a success story of urban development, calling the city a “symbol of the possible” (p. 29). This article was chosen because the issue of urban development is a topic that students in Taiwan can relate to.
The third article, “Banking on Poor Women,” introduces two programs which aimed to help women “break the cycle of poverty and the problems that are associated with it” (p. 53). The author introduces Grameen Bank and Global Fund for Women as admirable examples of how banks can help break the cycle of poverty worldwide. This article was chosen because it focuses on a topic that may be less familiar to the students, giving them a chance to respond to an issue they were less likely to have encountered before.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This part of the paper discusses the findings from both the response pieces and the reflection paper.
Response Pieces
This section addresses the ways in which students responded to texts when encouraged to read critically. Findings from the response pieces suggest that students exhibited a critical stance in relation to
these categories: textual choices, silenced voices, social relations, and the true meaning of success. Apart from critically examining texts for their constructedness, a few students also made connections from the texts to the world, and also exhibited a self-reflective stance. The section concludes with a discussion of some students’ lack of engagement with the critical perspective.
Textual choices. In response to the article entitled “Education:
A Reflection of Society,” students were mainly critical of the author’s textual choices. Several students questioned the author’s underlying assumptions for privileging some countries at the expense of others, and identified possible reasons for such decision, as well as the consequences of the author’s ideological positioning on readers.
For example, S27 1 demonstrated keen observation in considering the role of the textbook publisher in the choice of content. She speculated that “this [textbook] is published by the U.S., so the education in the U.S. has been written in2.” She further shared that it may be a better idea to “choose some different countries which are more representative and conflicting,” perhaps a country from every continent, as well as countries that are less well known to the world. Similarly, S11 considered it a better idea to write from “diversified perspectives. Not all from highly developed western countries such as American, United Kingdom, but from some developing or undeveloped countries….[Otherwise] readers [would understand] the
1
For ease of identifying the students whose response pieces and reflection papers were quoted, a number was given to each student. For example, S27 refers to the student who was assigned number 27. The numbers were assigned in no particular order.
2
In order to retain students’ voices, all of the quotes represent students’ original writing, including any errors in grammar or word usage.
main idea merely from America-centered perspective and ignore the situation in other countries.” Here, students questioned the choice of the four countries over others, and were dissatisfied with what they felt to be U.S.-centered or Western-centric perspectives. They were critical of the power relations involved in an author and publisher’s choice to include and to exclude, representing only countries related to the U.S. geographically (i.e., Mexico) and culturally (i.e., Britain), or one that is economically influential (i.e., Japan).
In addition, a few other students questioned the author’s choice to present stereotypical views of education in different cultures, for example, the “lack [of] explanation of the reason why the university degree is so important” (S29) for Japanese students and families. She proposed that “giving not only the description of the surface appearance but also explaining the interior cause is the better way” to write. As with S22 who criticized the author’s superficial coverage, S29 seemed to detest writing that merely confirmed widely popularized stereotypes, and suggested that an analysis of the underlying causes of the phenomenon may be more illuminating for readers than presenting merely educational phenomenon already widely known or assumed. In sum, these students exhibited an acute awareness of the presence of an author’s (and publisher’s) deliberate choices in the construction of a text, and were also attentive to the possible consequences of these textual choices on readers.
Silenced voices. In response to the article “A City That’s Doing
Something Right,” students questioned the power relations in what was written and what was not written, particularly, whose voices were heard and whose were not in the description of a successful
development program. Rather than being positioned by the article’s optimistic tone and praise of Curitiba’s accomplishments, several students were able to draw attention to another aspect of city development and planning not mentioned in the article. They were wary of the perspective from which the article was written, and was concerned with the lack of residents’ reaction towards the city’s development efforts. They also questioned who has the right to participate and the power to have their voices heard.
S16, S23, and S29 were concerned that the residents’ voices were never presented in the article. S16 was most specific. In relation to a creative way of garbage collection mentioned in the article, S16 questioned: “It may be so efficient; [but on the other hand], how convenient/inconvenient is it for the people?” In addition, S16 went further to question the seeming lack of residents’ participation:
Although there are many creative methods to solve the city problem which are established by the government, people don’t really involve in the policy decision…. After all, the government can listen to the voice from the people. A country truly shouldn’t belong only to the authorities; the people also have the right to manage the development of the country.
In the same vein, another student questioned the decision-making process, a dimension not often highlighted when the outcome is portrayed as successful. S28 was curious about “the interaction between the government and the people when the policy was being carried out,” and asked: “Did they meet any problem at that time? How did they solve it and reach the common consensus?” S28 was savvy about the inevitability of disagreements during policy formation and implementation, and the power struggle over whose
concerns became accentuated and, ultimately, whose interests meant more in the final decision.
S17 examined the lack of residents’ voice from a different angle. She suggested that the article was written “through government’s view” and that “the general public or even the lower class people’s voices were not being expressed.” By intentionally pointing out “lower class people’s voices,” S17 was making reference to the politics involved in whose voices can be heard and whose are generally not. S17 also attempted to consider the question of why some voices were not expressed. She wrote that “I guess it would be too risky to include any subjective reaction.” Here, she pointed out the power relations involved in the intention to exclude the voices of some in order to achieve the purposes of others. It is interesting that although the article did not specify authorship, S17 assumed that the article was written “through the government’s view,” a reasonable speculation given that the article was full of praise for the city mayor’s commitment. Unlike S17 who assumed that the article presented the government’s views, S30 questioned who the author was and whose point of view the article represented. This is a keen observation on her part, given that the government is not the only party who stands to benefit from positive publicity.
Students’ responses demonstrate an acute understanding of the privileges and disadvantages in relation to texts. They shared the critical recognition that some, most likely those in power, inevitably benefit as a result of the author’s positive portrayal of the program. Being able to question an article for the voices that have been silenced is to understand that whatever one reads represents an author’s
deliberate efforts to express certain perspectives over others in order to achieve particular purposes. Rather than passively reading for purposes of acquiring knowledge, students were able to seek inconsistencies in texts and gaps in the way information was presented.
Social relations. In response to the article “Banking on Poor
Women,” the following students expressed their awareness of the power dynamics surrounding wealth, race, and gender. One student highlighted the power relations involved regarding what and whose concerns and issues can and do receive enough attention to become the focus of writing. S17 shared:
I was glad to see that women were finally being respected by the society. Ethnic issues have always been discussed, however, it seems like people tended to care more on the bigger issues only. In other words, it wasn’t usual to see people talk about the unfair treatments to women, especially black colored women.
By pointing out how women of particular ethnicities frequently become victims of injustice but are seldom given due attention, S17 connected ethnicity and gender as simultaneously imposing marginalization and discrimination, exhibiting an acute awareness of the often intersecting systems of oppression. In addition, S17 also demonstrated keen awareness in realizing how “bigger issues” such as racial conflict and ethnic discrimination often receive more attention than issues that affect only a smaller portion of people.
The article prompted other students to reflect on the strong ties between financial strength and power. S16 stated: “In some way, it’s not hard to find that the more fortune you have, the more credence
you are given.” Similarly, S22 commented on how the already upwardly mobile tend to become more powerful while the marginalized easily fall victim generation after generation:
Rich men will earn more money; however, pauper will live hard more and more. For example, people who born in rich family, who has more resource, he/she can get better education and get the job easier than other people due to their parents’ social relationships.
These students were critical of societal power structure, and demonstrated awareness of how those in control often use their power to maintain the status quo. Responses to this article allowed students to exhibit their critical awareness of how power relations are intertwined in social institutions and systems of interaction.
The true meaning of success. In both the articles “A City
That’s Doing Something Right” and “Banking on Poor Women,” students were able to cast a critical lens on the programs that were set forth by the authors as successful examples. They were critical of the articles from the angle of the question: What was not said about the topic? Students demonstrated critical awareness of the authors’ ideological positioning, manipulating texts (i.e., leaving out certain truths) in order to achieve certain effects. That is, they recognized that some voices would undoubtedly have been ignored in the process of painting a portrait of success for the programs.
In relation to Curitiba, S33 took care to point out that even programs that are known to be successful may have undesirable consequences for some, and critically examined the often overlooked aspects of social programs believed to be successful by many. He was
specific in questioning whether the programs were beneficial to all parties concerned. S33 asked, “Curitiba’s garbage collection is a job for the poorest people. Does it really improve their lives? I mean if beggars get the job, some fresh foods may be not helpful because they don’t have a kitchen.” S33 implied an acute awareness of how social programs often have the best intentions, but could sometimes end up harmful in unintended ways. He also questioned whether the innovative programs were designed with considerations for all citizens. For example, in relation to the agricultural operation system which recruits drug and alcohol addicts, S33 asked: “Is it safe to provide the job for them whose state of [mind] is not good enough?...If not, I think it’s terrible to buy their products.”
Aspects of both programs presented in “Banking on Poor Women” were also questioned. A few students cast a critical gaze on microlending. For example, S8 expressed a degree of ambivalence: “To my sadness, it is clear that the program is only appropriate to someone who is diligent and can follow the rules” in terms of paying back loans. Here, S8 drew attention to those of even lesser privilege who might be in conditions of life that prevent them from even taking advantage of programs such as microlending. He was critical of the common notion that blames the poor for their lack of diligence, work ethic, and obedience, a seemingly neutral and benign concept. However, as Bomer and Bomer (2001) point out, it is an ideology which assists those in power to maintain the status quo by holding the marginalized responsible for their own underprivileged situation, to the extent that even those impoverished believe the power distribution to be natural. Although not stating his opinion in these exact terms, S8’s response points to a critical awareness of the assumptions
underlying the program’s premise.
In a similar vein, S4 cautioned that the solution should not end with providing only for less privileged women in rural areas, but should be mindful of the urgency to fight poverty in urban areas. Because microlending did not prove successful in urban areas, S4 reminded readers that “we still [need to] think another solution to solve the problem about women’s work in society.” S4 drew attention to the voices that were not heard in this article, namely, poverty-stricken women in urban areas, and was critical of the true “success” of programs that benefit only a particular group of people.
S1 was also critical of the methods adopted by the program in attempting to eradicate poverty. She pointed out that there are also other issues just as pressing as loaning money to women to start businesses, for example, “care of children and also their chances of education,” issues which were not mentioned in the article. S1 questioned whether loaning money to encourage business ventures is the best or the most effective way to stop the vicious cycle of poverty. In sum, S8, S4, and S1 demonstrated an acute critical response to texts, not merely questioning the content but also the basic assumption put forth by the programs described in the article. They were able to approach an unfamiliar topic through a sharp critical lens.
The word and the world. The article, “Education: A Reflection
of Society,” prompted the students to reflect on their own concerns of education. Many students responded to the topic by voicing their concerns of local and regional circumstances, making a critical connection between the text and the world (Bomer & Bomer, 2001;
Calkins, 2000). Some eagerly reflected upon the educational system in Taiwan, either through reflecting on their own experiences or by comparing it with those in other parts of the world. Other students showed interest in the comparison between the educational system in the West and the East.
In relation to “A City That’s Doing Something Right,” several students were inspired by the text to cast a critical lens on the global situation. S30 shared:
It seems not enough to provide the way to solve problem, but to explicate the reason causing the problem and the process how the government step by step find out the best solution and implement it. If the article can mention about that, it will be great information to the world.
S30 expressed a social justice stance that is concerned with extending the solutions of a city to the benefit of the world. In the same way, S1 was also interested in details related to the implementation of the programs. She asked, “What happens if someone does not pay in the bus tube?” And “how much trash is equal to a potato or a carrot?” Her reason was that such details may sometimes be critical when other cities seek to replicate the experiences.
In addition, the article also promoted a few students to turn a critical gaze on local environmental issues and the government’s role. S2 was critical of the Taiwan government’s lack of commitment to such issues, and expressed acute awareness of the politics of policy implementation. She said:
I think it’s because the government doesn’t want to change our circumstance. For example, the poor collect garbage in our country as well, but they never earn enough money for living….But the government doesn’t see it, the entire bureaucrats do is maintain their civil power by catering to the people above.
S26 and S36 similarly expressed keen concern for the situation in Taiwan. In the words of S36:
I am very impressive in the creative solutions that the less affluent city Curitiba have to fight against the problem causing by the overcrowding…If an unknown city can have the foresight and do that much things for their citizens, why the cities in Taiwan cannot do something?
Likewise, S21 was anxious for Taipei to embark on an environmental protection mission of its own.
These students demonstrated how reading the word can become a means through which to better understand the world. Indeed, critical literacy does not end with the deconstruction of texts, but necessitates a critical consciousness in the deconstruction of the texts of the world and an active stance in the promotion of a more just society (Shannon, 1995). Two students did seem to take a step in this direction, as discussed in the next section.
Self-reflective stance. Two students reflected on their own role
in relation to injustices in the world. In response to “A City That’s Doing Something Right,” S8 asked:
Why can’t I become the person who also planning creative, extremely intelligent and useful solutions like Curitiba. I am a senior [in college] now and I wish my job is doing something good to better the world after I become a member of society.
“Banking on Poor Women” prompted S20 to reflect on her role. She wrote:
The article is a good example for us to know that there are a lot of unfair things we can think about how to improve. And I make a wish one day I also can do some programs to change the world into better.
The ability to recognize one’s own responsibility towards the construction of a more just and equal society is an essential component in the development of a critical stance. A critical literacy stance is not only concerned with reading the word and the world, but ultimately, to re-write the word and the world. By directing their attention to the local situation and their own possible role, the students have expressed an eagerness not only to read the world but were actually embarking on the first step toward re-writing the world.
Non-critical engagement. Although many students demonstrated the ability to approach texts through a critical lens, there were also students who showed little evidence of critically engaging with the texts. For example, in each of the three response pieces, a few students responded to the critical questions as composition exercises. In addition, some response pieces merely provided a summary of the articles or expressed admiration for the effort of the various programs to alleviate societal problems. This was particularly obvious in students’ responses to “Banking on Poor Women.” The students perhaps felt challenged by the foreignness of the topic. Unlike the other two articles, students seemed to lack a personal connection to this issue.
many of the students to examine texts through perspectives which may not have been immediately evident. At the same time, it was also obvious that despite repeated encouragement and discussion, a few students still chose to adopt a non-critical lens towards texts. It is possible that the students did not feel ready to examine the texts critically, as the course lasted only one semester. Reading through a critical lens, particularly in English, is not something with which most of the students had experience, and therefore, may be difficult for some students to grapple or come to terms with. Students’ learning could perhaps be better studied over a longer period of at least one school year.
Green (2001) suggests that “[a]lthough clearly a number of potentials exist within critical literacy, the translation of such theory into practice is not easy” (p. 11). Kempe (2001) similarly cautions that “alternative discourses are likely to face difficulties in gaining acceptance since they challenge existing power structures” (p. 41). This is most likely in EFL settings where the norm is a reverence to texts as the authority on the target language (Wallace, 1999), and where the main priority of language learning is the accumulation of linguistic knowledge in order to achieve desired levels of proficiency. In such cases, the focus on the development of a critical stance may be deemed unnecessary, if not considered an impediment to the emphasis on more important skills. Therefore, the lack of critical engagement may also be an act of non-participation (Canagarajah, 1993; Norton, 2001) or resistance. It is outside the scope of this study to explore students’ non-participation to the critical perspective, but this is indeed an area which merits further research.
Reflection Paper
Students’ reflection papers revealed that most of the students reflected on the critical stance as a significant part of this course. A few of the students demonstrated that they contemplated on the ways in which the critical approach influenced how they read. S31 wrote that “the critical questions help me to read an essay with my own opinions. I would not just read it and agree. In other words, I would sometimes have a different way to think of the same topic.” Similarly, S6 shared that the questions helped her to consider “if the material has any logical structure and reason. Is there still something the author missed? Does the article is inclined to a side?” S7 acknowledged that critical questions remind “you to think about things connected with reading materials, [and] are good for providing you another aspect of this essay’s topic.” S11 reflected that “I can read an essay in diverse points, such as probing whose voices are being ignored, how would I write about the topic if I were the author and so on.” In addition, S1 shared: “I get used to stop to ponder the detail of the paragraph now…I would understand what I’ve missed.” Other students shared that the critical questions “not only train my reading ability but also stimulate my brain” (S23), and “help me to think more deeply about the reading materials” (S22). Such opinions were shared by many. However, the students did not elaborate on what they meant by thinking more deeply.
A few students seemed to have understood the critical questions to be similar to comprehension questions. S25 reflected that “to ask myself the critical questions could check whether I have truly understood.” S15 shared that the “critical questions can inspire my thought so that I can have more ideas to write.” In a similar vein, S29
suggested that “[w]hen the paragraph is talking about something of personal concern, it would inspire us.” S35 wrote, “I think is speak out the notion after read article.” Ten other students, however, did not include a reflection of the critical stance in their papers.
Results from the reflection papers suggest that most students shared a favorable attitude towards critical literacy. However, many students shared a rather superficial understanding of what a critical stance is and how such a stance relates to the critical questions as possible angles through which to consider texts.
PEDIGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
The response pieces and students’ reflection papers suggest that the inclusion of a critical lens in the EFL course yielded positive results in the development of a critical perspective towards reading and writing for the students. Findings also provide several insights into how a critical literacy perspective can be better implemented in EFL courses. Pedagogical implications are detailed below.
Engagement with a Critical Literacy Stance
Although some students were able to critically examine texts for gaps and inconsistencies, others did not demonstrate such a keen awarenes. Even with those who did, their reflection papers suggest that they shared a superficial understanding of what a critical stance is and how such a stance relates to the critical questions as possible angles through which to consider texts. It may therefore be necessary
for the instructor, rather than merely explaining what critical literacy requires of a reader, to actively engage students in discussions and reflections of the different ways to approach texts and their underlying assumptions about the reader and what it means to read. The instructor should also explore with students the consequences of reading critically versus reading passively.
The instructor should also spend time to demonstrate what each of the critical questions aims to illuminate about the different aspects of texts. One way to focus students’ attention on the meaning and implications of the critical questions might be to work with one or two questions at a time using short passages so that students can concentrate on each question and the perspective it represents as well as the assumptions it aims to reveal. At the same time, the instructor needs also to make explicit the importance of and the ways to consider the critical questions not just individually but also as a whole, i.e. to emphasize that these questions, rather than prescriptive guidelines or comprehension questions for every piece of article, represent and remind readers of a particular disposition towards texts. This is perhaps particularly pertinent in cases where students misunderstand the critical questions as composition exercises or when their writing implies resistance to the course emphasis on the critical literacy. Even with students who already demonstrate a critical awareness, such emphasis can further illuminate how their questioning of texts reflects a different orientation towards what it means to read and write.
Choice of Topic
Some topics encourage more critical reflection than others while some topics bring forth students’ personal and local concerns. The topic of urban development was the one topic which students were familiar with and could relate to, yet one in which they did not have an emotional investment the way they had with the issue of education. This topic allowed the students to exert a deeper level of critical engagement than the other two. Conversely, on the topic of education, an area which occupies a great part of students’ lives, they were more eager to share their concerns about educational issues rather than to engage critically with the content of the article. The topic of eradication of poverty for women in developing countries is more distant and removed from the students’ everyday experiences. Perhaps due to the relative lack of exposure to such issues, most students were less capable of resisting being positioned by the text in the way the author intended, mostly showing praise and admiration for the two financial programs.
However, it is important that the instructor encourage critical engagement with a variety of topics, including topics in which students have a greater personal involvement as well as topics with which they are less familiar. The instructor may need to work with these types of topics in different ways. With the former, the instructor might first allow a group or whole-class discussion through which students can voice their personal opinions. After that, students may be in a better position to consider the topic from a distance that enables the critical lens.
On the contrary, with topics that are more foreign to students, the instructor should first allow time for students to explore and
familiarize themselves with the issues. The instructor could provide background information, and students could also be asked to search for contextual sources that would help to enhance their knowledge of the topics. When students have adequate understanding of the subject matter, they are in a better position to consider the issue through multiple viewpoints.
Source of Material
Luke et al. (2001) suggest that community texts are preferable to textbook materials because working with authentic materials enhances students’ interest in the subject matter. Authentic texts also help to transfer learning in the classroom to students’ everyday lives. Textbooks can have a disadvantage because their articles seem to stand still in time, devoid of any information as to the circumstances which brought about their existence. Contextual information is an important element in developing a critical stance towards texts because it emphasizes that texts are embedded in social, cultural, historical, and political relations. However, results from this study suggest that textbook articles worked well with EFL students who are novice critical readers. The use of a textbook seemed to have provided students a familiar and safe place from which to experiment with ways to cast a critical lens on the articles they read. Textbooks also ensure that the articles are at a reading level that is appropriate for students so students can concentrate on the critical examination of texts rather than on difficult vocabulary and sentence structures.
In addition, although textbook materials are devoid of contextual information, they benefit the novice critical reader, as an overload of information may serve to confound them. In this study,
because each piece of reading focused on one topic at a time, students were able to concentrate on the one issue without having to take into account a multitude of variables. The instructor could therefore work with both textbook materials as well as authentic texts. It may be helpful to begin with textbook articles when seeking to introduce and familiarize students with the critical stance. Then when students become more experienced, proceed with authentic materials where the emphasis includes contextual social, cultural, historical, or political influences on an author’s textual choices. Alternatively, the instructor could work with paired texts on each topic, beginning with an examination of textbook articles before moving on to authentic texts.
Reading and Writing Connection
One of the purposes for the response piece assignments was for students to author a response to another author’s writing. Green (2001) reminds us that the connection between reading and writing is an essential component in the development of critical literacy, and writing is the most effective way to develop critical readers. Therefore, in addition to responding to others’ texts, a possible follow-up activity is for students to compose essays on the same topics as the articles they examined, but from perspectives which they identified as having been neglected. That is, through their own conscious and deliberate effort at constructing texts, readers/writers can better understand how different constructions of texts aim to position readers differently, and gain insight into “how language works, the ways in which various individuals and groups use literacy to their own ends, and the reasons behind such use” (Green, 2001, p. 10). This allows students to
experience firsthand how an author’s deliberate choices regarding what to include or exclude in a piece of writing depend on the purpose of constructing the text.
Beyond Textual Analysis
The response pieces demonstrated students’ keen concern for local and global affairs. Students seemed eager to extend from the text to real world issues, not only to examine texts critically but also to examine their world critically, moving from reading the world into a place where they can start to “re-write” the world. Therefore, even though critical questions provide an angle from which to introduce students to the critical stance, novice critical readers deserve more than merely textual analyses. This study has demonstrated that an action stance should not be an afterthought of reading the word and the world, but should be a simultaneous and necessary part of any critical literacy curriculum.
Therefore, apart from the critical questions, it may be a good idea to examine textual connections, including text to self and text to world connections (Calkins, 2000). The instructor could follow such discussions with written assignments in which students share their thoughts on their own roles and local situations in relation to the topics discussed in the texts.
CONCLUSION
by the authors’ intended ways of understanding the texts, the students were able to “read against” rather than “read with” texts (Janks, 1991). Instead of reading solely for purposes of acquiring knowledge, the critical questions prompted students to seek inconsistencies in the texts and gaps in the way information was presented. The critical stance also enhanced students’ understanding that what is not written is also equally a part of the author’s message and also needs to be “read.” In addition, it gave students an arena to consider how others’ actions have solved social problems and changed people’s lives, and made them consider how they themselves can become agents of change. The texts also prompted the students to examine situations in their own cities and country, and to consider possible directions and actions towards change. By directing their attention to local situations and their own possible roles, the students were not merely reading the world but were embarking on the first step toward re-writing the world.
The inclusion of critical literacy in EFL courses does, however, require the instructor to exercise creativity. As the dominant ideology of EFL courses is to focus on the technical aspects of the language, the instructor needs to simultaneously satisfy the students’ needs and introduce another perspective. When an appropriate balance is achieved, students can develop not only a view of reading and writing as social practices but also a positive attitude towards the critical stance. This study demonstrates that it is indeed possible and valuable to include a critical literacy framework in the teaching of English in EFL contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper.
REFERENCES
Albright, J., Church, S., Settle, S., & Vasquez, V. (1999). A conversation about critical literacy. In C. Edelsky (Ed.), Making
justice our project: Teachers working toward critical whole language practice (pp. 144-162). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Arnaudet, M. L., & Barrett, M. E. (1990). Paragraph development: A
guide for students of English. (2nd ed.). White Plans, NY: Pearson Education.
Bomer, R., & Bomer, K. (2001). For a better world: Reading and
writing for social action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Brown, K. (1999). Developing critical literacy. Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Calkins, L. (2000). The art of teaching reading. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1993). Critical ethnography of a Sri Lankan classroom: Ambiguities in student opposition to reproduction through ESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 601-626.
Chou, C. (2004). A study of critical literacy in EFL writing. Journal
of Language Arts, 11, 245-258.
Cox, M. P., & Assis-Peterson, M. A. (1999). Critical pedagogy in ELT: Images of Brazilian teachers of English. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 433-451.
Donald, R. B., Moore, J. D., Morrow, B. R., Wargetz, L. G., & Werner, K. (1999). Writing clear paragraphs. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ: Prentice Hall.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for
social research. New York: Routledge.
Falkenstein, A. T. (2003). Critical literacy in an EFL
(English-as-a-foreign language) context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. Providence, RI: LAB at Brown University.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word & the
world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey Publishers. Green, P. (2001). Critical literacy revisited. In H. Fehring & P. Green
(Eds.), Critical literacy: A collection of articles from the
Australian literacy educators’ association (pp. 7-14). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hartmann, P. & Kirn, E. (2007). Interactions 2: Reading. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hood, S. (1998). Critical literacy: What does it mean in theory and practice? In A. Burns & S. Hood (Eds.), Teachers’ Voices 3:
Teaching critical literacy (pp. 11-19). Sydney, Australia: National Centre for English Language Teaching and Research.
Janks, H. (1991). A critical approach to the teaching of language.
Educational Review, 43, 191-199.
Kempe, A. (2001). No single meaning: Empowering students to construct socially critical readings of the text. In H. Fehring & P. Green (Eds.), Critical literacy: A collection of articles from the
Australian literacy educators’ association (pp. 40-57). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ko, M. Y. & Wang, T. F. (July, 2007). Teachers’ perception of critical
literacy in EFL teaching. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on New Directions in the Humanities, Paris, France.
Kuo, J. M. (2006). Collaborative action research on critical literacy:
Investigating an English conversation classroom in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.
Luke, A., O’Brien, J., & Comber, B. (2001). Making community texts objects of study. In H. Fehring & P. Green (Eds.), Critical
literacy: A collection of articles from the Australian Literacy Educators' Association (pp. 112-123). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Morgan, W. (1997). Critical literacy in the classroom: The art of the
possible. New York: Routledge.
Norton, B. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions
to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159-171). Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical
Shannon, P. (1995). Text, lies, & videotape: Stories about life, literacy,
& learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Van Duzer, C., & Florez, M. C. (2004). Critical literacy for adult
literacy in language learners. Retrieved August 9, 2007, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-1/critical.html.
Wallace, C. (1992). Critical literacy awareness in the EFL classroom. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Critical language awareness (pp. 59-92). New York: Longman.
Wallace, C. (1999). Critical language awareness: Key principles for a course in critical reading. Language Awareness, 8, 98-110. Wooldridge, N. (2001). Tensions and ambiguities in critical literacy.
In B. Comber & A. Simpson (Eds.), Negotiating critical
literacies in classrooms (pp. 259-270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Shin-ying Huang is an assistant professor in the Department of Foreign Languages at National Taiwan Normal University. Her research interests include critical theories in language and literacy pedagogy, TEFL curriculum design, and sociology of language.
APPENDIX
Summary of Reading Materials
Article 1
Title—Education: A Reflection of Society
This article explains that the educational system in Mexico reflects the country’s many contrasts and contradictions. In Japan, the intense emphasis on education has led to “examination hell” (p. 7). The most prominent aspect of Britain’s educational system is its reflection of the class system. In the United States, even though education is available to everyone, problems with drugs and crime and also lack of discipline plague many schools, and the distribution of resources is disproportionate between schools in affluent and poor areas. In this article, the author does not show preference for any one educational system, but merely explicates how education reflects societal and cultural values.
Article 2
Title—A City That’s Doing Something Right
This article introduces Curitiba’s former mayor, and how under the mayor’s leadership over 25 years, the city creatively solved problems in relation to the aspects of garbage collection, transportation, social problems, and the environment. In terms of garbage collection, the Green Exchange program allows poor people to collect trash from places where garbage trucks could not and exchange it for fresh produce. The famous “subway style” (p. 28) bus system was introduced in the section on transportation. Then the section entitled “A Creative Social Program” introduces the Green Health
