Critical literacy is among the most
important subjects for developing English teachers. As we talked about
extensively last class, there is an internal struggle within many English
teachers about how and what to expose their students to in terms of language
and its political authority. Although we acknowledge that all students should
feel a level of respect in regards to their own language and dialect, there is
also a level of access that can really only be revealed through the study of
the “power language.” I think critical literacy attempts to unite this divide
within the classroom, as it empowers students to view language as a tool for
social justice, and exposes students to the political and social implications
of varying dialects and languages. In the United States, for instance,
countless high school students enter school each day and speak (almost
exclusively) a valid dialect called African American Vernacular English. It is
first important to acknowledge the legitimacy of this language and its purpose
as a dialect, in order to respect the language differences of all students.
Legitimacy aside, the unfortunate truth is that AAVE is not the power language of our modern society, and a student that is
fluent in only AAVE will have access to far less societal rewards than a
student who is also fluent in the power language. Since the power language
today is Mainstream English, it is important (for reasons of access) for
teachers and students alike to approach it as such. Critical literacy promotes
the idea that “language is not neutral” and all language situations are
political at heart (Behrman 2006, p. 480). Language communication is perhaps
the most political aspect of human life, as we all use language to represent ourselves to our immediate
surroundings.
With that established, it is
important for students to be equipped with the proper language tools in order
to have access to multiple environments (beyond their “home” environment). Critical
literacy helps expose students to these differing environments, as it develops
students’ inquiry and analytical skills when addressing a text (Molden, 2007). Why
was this written? What is the audience? How do I receive the text? Why was this
included in my curriculum? All of these questions are critical for
understanding the overall political purpose and power behind any given text. New
research and studies about tangible classroom practices involving critical
literacy will be key for the sustained impact of the theory, however as our
readings revealed for this week, there are already many diverse practices being
used in classrooms to promote critical literacy and to empower students
language use and recognition abilities.
I like this post. The question I always have is: how do we strike a balance between allowing students to use their native language and dialects while also improving their command of standard English? I always find this to be a troubling problem. We can, on one hand, allow students all the freedom in the world to use their native language/dialect, but what happens if they can't pass the standardized test because of their lack of mastery with standard English? We can, on the other hand, emphasize the use of standard English entirely, but what happens if the students become disillusioned and bitter towards their own culture and language?
ReplyDeleteI guess what I'm saying is there has to be a way for the students to understand that (1) their native culture/language/dialect is important and should be used in the classroom but also (2) the society at-large will only grant them power and influence if they master the conventions of the dominant language and value system. So, how do we do that?