The author proposes that teachers of critical literacy must not only decenter texts as infallible authorities, but also decenter teachers as infallible (textual) authorities. She outlines problematic aspects of pursuing critical literacy as outcome, where there is heavy emphasis on having students parrot the teacher's viewpoint, and of pursuing critical literacy as procedure, where the emphasis is on adopting the teacher's analytic toolkit for unpacking texts. Critical literacy as personal response, where students are simply asked to respond to the text but do not confront the contingency of textual perspectives, is also critiqued. Finally, she proposes one alternative, critical literacy as dialogic engagement, that is seldom thought of as critical literacy teaching. In this orientation, the teacher steps out of the role of primary textual authority so that students may realize that multiple reading positions (not just their own, and not just the teacher's) are par for the course.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; var addthis_config = {"data_track_addressbar":true,"ui_click":true}; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2012.636335
展开▼
