Reading The Word and the World: The Double-Edged Sword
of Teaching Critical Literacy

A shorter version appeared in Voices from the Middle, Fall 2009

Virtually anyone who has recently gone through a teacher education program or who has sat through in-service trainings has heard the term critical literacy, possibly ad nauseum. The very term has become a buzzword throughout literacy circles. It is a concept that has become so central to literacy instruction that teachers are, in addition to teaching students the basics of reading and writing, also supposed to foster in their students higher-level thinking and notions of social justice. Though much has been said about the importance of critical literacy—and teachers have been charged with teaching it to their students—relatively little has been said about what it actually is, how to teach it or about the problems inherent in teaching it. Certainly there is little doubt that having the ability to read critically is empowering to students; it provides them with the tools to more fully read their world (Macedo and Freire, 1987) and become more active participants within it (Gee, 1990). But with such student empowerment come any number of potentially serious issues that, so far, have gone largely unexamined.

Literacy specialists have long pointed out that students need to develop critical thinking skills in order to function fully in the world. Without deeper reflection and critical analysis of the issues that students are learning about, these future players on our national stage are likely to repeat the same mistakes as their predecessors. Critical literacy theorists take such an approach one radical step further. They call for social action based upon the deeper conceptualizations one receives through critical reading and thinking: “critical literacy is a vehicle through which educators teach for social justice. [It] interrogates texts in order to identify and challenge social constructs, ideologies, underlying assumptions, and the power structures that intentionally and unintentionally perpetuate social inequalities and injustices” (Wallowitz, 2008, 1-2). Thus, critical literacy theorists hold that critical literacy is by definition transformative while traditional literacy—sans the addition of critical literacy—is nothing short of hegemonic (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1993; Wallowitz, 2008). Without critical literacy, students will, in essence, never break out of dominant paradigms (Kuhn, 1954); instead, they will become unwitting agents of the status quo with all of its faults and injustices (Carlson and Apple, 1998; Freire, 1970).

It is therefore teacher’s job to teach students basic literacy skills and then to help them build critical literacy on top of these skills so that they might help create a more just world. However the teaching of critical literacy is both a very difficult and a very controversial task, the results of which can easily lead to unintended and possibly counter-productive consequences. The true critical literacy educator must therefore take a critical approach to the teaching of critical literacy itself. In doing so, one finds that critical literacy is inherently a double-edged sword that can cut in many directions.

The first cut: Merely asking teachers to foster critical literacy in their students is too often akin to asking the blind to lead the blind. In my language arts methods classes, I am repeatedly reminded that these future teachers have little grasp of what it means to read critically. Far too few of them experienced critical literacy instruction in their K-12 or college experiences. Rather, many of their courses have only reinforced the idea of reading and teaching solely for comprehension. The use of detailed rubrics, step-by-step lesson plans, and predetermined measures of student knowledge/ability—in essence, telling students specifically what they need to know—have also served to deemphasize critical literacy.

Complicating the problem is the fact that critical literacy is seldom exemplified outside of the academy either. A superficial analysis of the major media outlets of our own country—sources that are by definition supposed to be critical—reveals that they present the “news” as facts and themselves as unbiased. Where and how are teachers supposed to learn to use critical literacy when there are so few good examples of it? Such an important question begs another (if not many more): Might teaching a flawed understanding of critical literacy do more harm than good?

The second cut: While teachers today are being asked to teach critical literacy, they are not told how to do so. Instead, they are increasingly required to adhere to scripted curricula, pacing guides, and norm-referenced assessments that counteract the approach critical literacy requires. Though publishers claim that their materials promote critical thinking (though they seldom claim to promote critical literacy), large-scale curricula conscripts both how and what teachers can teach and what students can learn. For example, the very questions asked within curriculum guides in some ways limit students’ ability to think ‘outside of the box’ (McGinley, Conley, White, 2000). Thus to teach true critical literacy, teachers must find the time, a sympathetic administration, and the resources to work outside of such curricula or to supplement it dramatically.

The third cut (is the deepest): The teaching of critical literacy is itself a political endeavor; we are asking students not only to question the texts that we as a society hold dear, but also to use them as catalysts to promote social change. Critical literacy encourages students to interrogate the very texts we employ to teach them and the manner through which we do so. Ironically, if we are successful in teaching critical literacy to students, we may also be teaching them to critique—and to try to change—the very materials, pedagogy, and school structure we are using to educate them. Complicating matters further is the fact that we would also be encouraging students to critique the tenets by which their own parents live and their cultures operate. The very radical nature of teaching true critical literacy tends to prove an anathema to those whose ideals are being challenged. Thus when imagining a school full of students who have been taught critical literacy, one must envision the possible results: students dissatisfied with the very society, schools, and culture(s) we are preparing them to join. Paradoxically, when charged with teaching students critical literacy, teachers should be wary of actually achieving success in the endeavor!

None of this is to discourage the teaching of critical literacy. Rather, it is meant to show that the buzzword is itself loaded and often misunderstood. If we are to teach critical literacy to our students, we must come to this noble endeavor critically. In this sense, we must use the lens of critical literacy to examine critical literacy itself and we must, as always, be open to yet another paradox in the teaching of the language arts.

Sources Cited

D. Carlson & M. Apple (1998), Power/Knowledge/Pedagogy: The meaning of democratic education in unsettling times. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.

Gee, J. (1990). Sociolinguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Taylor & Francis.

Giroux. H. (1993). Literacy and the politics of difference. In C. Lankshear & P. McLaren (Eds.).  Critical literacy: Politics, praxis, and the postmodern.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 367-377.

Kuhn, T. (1963). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Macedo, D. & Freire, P. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.

McGinley, W., Conley, K., & White, J. (2000). Pedagogy for the few: Book club discussion guides and the modern book industry as literacy teacher. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44(3), 204-214.

Wallowitz, L. (2008). Introduction. In L. Wallowitz (Ed.), Critical literacy as resistance: Teaching for social justice across the secondary curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1-9.