![]() Nonetheless, a small number of classroom practices have carefully included localities in the design and enactment of critical literacy. The more recent frameworks are increasingly embracing more key tenets of critical literacy, but the tenet of localities still has no place in these frameworks. The additional category of practical approaches is created to refer to frameworks that combine the critical and textual approaches and include more key tenets of critical literacy with a stronger focus on classroom practices. The application of the frameworks identified in this review defies the rigid divisions between critical and textual approaches because text still plays an important role. ![]() ![]() Adapting the classification put forward by Luke and Woods (2009), the review divides the frameworks into critical pedagogy, textual, and practical approaches. The present study critically reviewed the frameworks of critical literacy applied in the classroom practices of language arts and language education within the last twenty years. How these frameworks have been translated into classroom practice is an area much unexplored. It is to be published by Ricerche di Pedagogia e Didattica/Journal of Theories and Research in Education (2021).Ībstract: A large number of frameworks and models have been created to help translate the highly philosophical theory of critical literacy into practice. This article in press reviews the commonly applied frameworks of critical literacy in language arts and language education. Reimagining a science of reading based on these principles has the potential to make it both more robust and more socially just, particularly for students from nondominant cultures. Finally, we propose that reading education should attend closely to linguistic, cultural, and individual variation, honoring and leveraging different strengths and perspectives that students bring to and take away from their learning. Justification is offered for the focus on textual dexterity and literate dispositions, and we include research‐based suggestions about how reading educators can foster student growth in these areas. Second, the framework suggests that reading education should nurture important literate dispositions alongside those textual capacities, dispositions that include reading engagement, motivation, and self‐efficacy. ![]() The framework proposes, first, that reading education should develop textual dexterity across grade levels in the four literate roles first proposed by Freebody and Luke: code breaker (decodes text), text participant (comprehends text), text user (applies readings of text to accomplish things), and text analyst (critiques text). In this article, we propose a different framework for the science of reading, one that draws on existing literacy research in ways that could broaden and deepen instruction. Although well intentioned, this focus directs attention toward a problematically narrow slice of reading. Science of reading is a term that has been used variously, but its use within research, policy, and the press has tended to share one important commonality: an intensive focus on assessed reading proficiency as the primary goal of reading instruction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |