1

Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences with Critical Literacy

A doctoral thesis presented

by

Jacklyn Jitiam Gervais

to the

Graduate School of Education

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

in the field of Education

College of Professional Studies

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

September 11, 2020

2

Abstract

Literacy can be a powerful agent for social change that leads towards social justice in education.

The concept of literacy spans more than reading, writing, communication, and critical thinking instruction. In the field of learning, literacy encompasses the choices made around texts, the discussions and interpretations that evolve from texts, and the cultural norms that are revealed in texts. The students who arrive in the classroom are varied; it is imperative to critically analyze the systems teachers have in place for students to consider hegemonic messages in a meaningful way. The foundation of this study is determining teachers’ conceptions of transformative, socially empowering work, specifically analysis of their experiences and interpretations of critical literacy for engagement of student voice for global citizenship. Critical literacy instruction empowers students to analyze print and media to understand their world and open their horizons to the nuances and subtleties of the dominant culture that are represented in text and visual media. Inherent to critical literacy is pedagogy that provides opportunities for students to practice analyzing and reading with a critical stance and to develop habits of inquiry.

Gaining insight into teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy how this impacts the work they do in the classroom is a valuable way to see how they engage their students as transformative agents of change. There is vital need for critical learning embedded with opportunities for students to understand complex ideological issues, to reflect deeply in a transformative way, and to articulate their perspective as young citizens in a media-entrenched society. Gaining insight into the experiences that teachers have with this work required interviews that share how teachers negotiate potential beliefs about transformative work and apply them to learning experiences.

Keywords: critical literacy, voice, global citizenship

Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences with Critical Literacy 3

Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Statement of the Problem 7 Significance of the Research Question 9 Research Question 16 Definitions of Key Terminology 16 Theoretical Framework 18 Conclusion 33

Chapter 2: Literature Review 35 Topic 35 Foundations of Critical Literacy 39 Nurturing Civic Voices 44 Transformative Learning 54 Summary 64

Chapter 3: Research Design 67 Development of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis 68 Participants 74 Procedures for Study 75 Data Analysis 76 Ethical Considerations 77 Considerations for Quality Research 78 Limitations 87

Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis 89 Participants 74 Perceptions of Critical Literacy 94 So Many Literacies 98 Literacy Challenges for Educators 105 Student Voice 118 Curriculum Difference Between Social Studies and ELA 123 Conclusion 128

Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications for Practice 131 Literacy for Democratic Learning 135 Teachers’ Perceptions of Critical Literacy 141 Literacy Action for Transformative Work 146 Conclusion 150 Recommendations for Practice 152 Recommendations for Future Research 159 References 163

4

Dedication Page

This work is dedicated to my husband Anthony and our children, Mabel and Miles. I am so grateful for their love, encouragement and support during this journey. Many, many thanks and

love for Shelley, Trish and Nema for taking care of my babies during the many homework and

library hours. Their immense love and care for my children was such a gift. Thank you to my

sisters for picking up the slack while I was in school and writing. They planned birthdays, bought Christmas gifts, wrapped presents, and sent love and encouragement to keep me focused.

Lastly, this is also for my dad, Jeik. He was on my mind whole time I was in grad school.

5

Chapter 1: Introduction

The sheer amount of information that students are expected to consume, process, reconcile, and finally integrate into their schema during daily interactions is overwhelming.

Current literacy assessments reflect the difficulties students experience with comprehending the texts they face. In their work at the Harvard School of Education, Murnane, Sawhill, and Snow

(2012) explored the most pressing future issues for educators. Murnane et al. believed two major challenges face educators who are tasked with preparing students to be literacy proficient for their educational and vocational careers as well as for their future scholarly endeavors. Their first issue was the profound complexity of literacy demands emerging in the 21 st century.

Students are faced with vast amounts of information, in and out of school, and it is difficult to prepare learners to comprehend and engage effectively with varied texts.

The other issue that Murnane et al. (2012) defined is more layered and nuanced. It is directly related to the distinct achievement gap among learners, based on socioeconomic differences. Murnane et al. (2012) espoused the need to address this disconnect, writing that there is a “need to reduce the disparities in literacy outcomes between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from more privileged homes” (p. 3). Understanding how educators can best address those gaps and help all learners find academic success is imperative, especially when information comes at citizens so rapidly in and out of schools.

The failure to deeply understand and analyze text is problematic on many fronts. As

Murnane et al. (2012) explained, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are put at greater risk of failure because they are not given explicit instruction in deep comprehension (p. 7) and cannot access and analyze the information they receive. This has drastic implications for nurturing 6 democratic citizenship. Gainer’s (2012) work around digital literacy and democracy supports the idea that for a strong democracy in the 21 st century, all students need explicit instruction around the analysis of information. In her work on the intersection of critical literacy and global citizenship, Gainer (2012) called for engaged and participatory citizens “who think critically, take positions on complicated issues, and work collaboratively to solve problems” (p. 14).

Learning that is transformative includes analyzing texts and relationships found in and out of schools. Increasingly, there is awareness that schools are not areas of neutrality. The practices students experience and apply, especially in the area of literacy development, are ripe with political, social, and cultural undercurrents that permeate the learning experience (Lalik &

Oliver, 2007). Nurturing an environment that invites all learners to participate would address passivity in and out of the classroom. Motivation and relevance in education is paramount for engaging learners and addressing achievement gaps. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore teachers’ understanding of critical literacy and delve into the decisions teachers make around student voice and citizenship. To that end, this work sought to better understand how teachers conceptualize critical literacy instruction around middle school student voice as members of a local and global community. The intent of this work was two-fold. To recognize how the work is conceptualized, it was necessary to (a) gain insight into teachers’ perceptions and understanding of critical literacy and (b) determine how this understanding is reflected in large-scale philosophical decisions around student learning and in more focused decisions about daily curriculum and instruction that address voice and citizenship with middle school students.

These profound decisions directly reflect teachers’ own beliefs about social justice and student voice. 7

Critical literacy has roots in critical pedagogy. It has a primary focus on text analysis for transformative learning. Text in this case is increasingly understood as having print and media modalities. Hinrichsen and Coombs (2013) detailed the power of students focusing on meaning making and interpreting texts as opposed to composing texts. With the advent of digital practices and the power of networks, conceptions of texts are not as rigid as they had been

(Hinrichsen & Coombs, p. 7). Gaining insight into how teachers conceptualize their own thinking about critical literacy is intrinsic to seeing how they apply this to curriculum design and work with students. Through semi-structured interviews with middle school English and language arts, reading, and humanities teachers, this research attempted to determine how educators conceptualize critical literacy as a phenomenon and experience it in their work with middle school students.

Statement of the Problem

State and national standards increasingly endorse a commitment to literacy and citizenship in a 21 st century global community (Roy, 2016). The marriage of literacy and global awareness brings attention to the political nature of literacy (McLaren, 1988). Participation in and understanding of the global community means finding ways for students to learn about other cultures and perspectives. In the classroom, this requires educators to delve deeper into the relations of power that are deeply entrenched in the domain of literacy (McLaren, 1988). This is vastly different from the belief that literacy is a functional skill for decoding words and writing.

McLaren shared of critical literacy: “If the process of becoming literate is, in large part, a struggle for voice and the reclamation of one’s history, then there is also a critical sense in which literacy itself must be politically defined” (McLaren, 1988, p. 217). This adds a whole new dimension to literacy instruction for several reasons. Educators must ask whether students are 8 equipped to tackle literacy with a critical mindset and whether teachers of literacy have experience engaging students in critical work. Maybe a more encompassing question is how teachers themselves conceptualize literacy and embed it in a critical stance.

A lack of critical literacy skills among middle school students results in disengaged, passive consumers of print and media text, which in turn affects students’ global voice as citizens in the 21 st century. Alvermann’s (2002) important work specifically targeted effective reading instruction for adolescent learners. It spoke to a deep concern for reading print text, but also to navigating the increasing need for critical thinking about information-laden media. Alvermann

(2002) explained:

Effective instruction builds on elements of both formal and informal literacies. It does so

by taking into account students’ interests and needs while at the same time attending to

the challenges of living in an information-based economy during a time when the bar has

been raised for literacy development. (pp. 190-191)

An underlying assumption would be that students need explicit and engaging opportunities to develop the literacy skills to reflect and respond effectively to print and media text.

Therefore, nurturing an environment that supports students in developing their voices as knowledgeable and active citizens in the local and global community is an important task.

Included in this is getting insight into how teachers develop these critical skills at a time when information is constant and all-encompassing (Janks, 2018). Analyzing teachers’ perception of critical literacy is intrinsic to developing students’ habits of mind as critical readers of text.

While seeking to understand how teachers perceive the phenomenon of critical literacy, there are also opportunities to look into instructional practices and student work. Avila and Moore (2012) believed work that impacts engaged voices in communities of learning is the cornerstone of 9 transformative learning. Critical literacy, in particular, is increasingly recognized as a pedagogical method that advocates for citizenship in a larger sociocultural community.

Significance of the Research Question

There is power in articulating one’s needs and ideas effectively and developing agency for change (Rahami & Kashan, 2014). Critical literacy enables dialogue around ideological differences. Students become more sensitive to power discrepancies through text analysis.

Critical literacy brings awareness and understanding that some ideologies are perpetuated and recognized as the norm while some are deemed as “the other ” through lack of attention or overt, embedded messages. Finding opportunities for students to explore social issues may be an inroad into citizenship in the larger global community. Beck (2005) asserted of critical literacy to foster voice, “Literacy is an act of knowing that empowers individuals because through it, individuals simultaneously discover their voices and their ethical responsibilities to use literacy for the improvement of their world” (p. 394).

Related literature shows that critical literacy can develop multiple perspectives and allow students to view concepts from different points of view. Developing voice is the next step, because it begins the work of transformative learning. Soares and Woods (2012) wrote directly about developing student identities in their work with critical perspectives and teaching social studies. They asserted the power of a social studies curriculum that allows students to find their voices in texts and also find the voices that are missing. Soares and Woods advocated for students using their voice to question texts and authors while also being aware of multiple perspectives. Seeing multiple perspectives can lead students to articulate their ideas around current events and social issues. The significance of critical literacy for democratic learning is seen in how students use their skills to transform their own lives and seek justice for others. 10

Voice, for this study, is understood as more powerful than an actual speaking voice.

Voice includes the overarching idea that students become more knowledgeable and discerning as readers of texts in and out of the classroom. Where students may once have been passive in the learning process, they would now be explicitly invited to respond to the information presented.

Soares and Woods (2012) reinforced this idea by stating the need for social studies curricula to

“develop abilities to take a critical posture toward content, and develop their capacities to transfer social studies concepts to their own lives. Subsequently, thinking, questioning, and discussing are valued” (p. 487). Student voice is nurtured when students have time to reflect on the content they experience and can find meaningful connections to their lives. Furthermore, they articulate their ideas around the texts, either in support or dissent. More importantly, voice is nurtured when students see inconsistencies in messages and feel empowered to refute or reconstruct these messages to better represent marginalized groups.

Understanding the power of language is intrinsic to helping students develop their voice as learners and students. Critical literacies recognize language, discourse, and media. Visuals as well as print text should be carefully analyzed to assess disparate messages of power.

Increasingly, there is an understanding that “language, texts, and their discourse structures are more than neutral or factual representations of the world. Texts are means for construing, shaping, and reshaping world in particular normative directions with identifiable ideological interests and consequences.” (Luke & Woods, 2009, p. 9). Ayers (2010) argued that a democratic society promulgates the development of all humans (p. 6). For students to fully develop, they must actively engage in their learning. The abundance of text and media jargon cannot be allowed to drown out their own voices. Passive students are not actively engaged in identifying perspectives nor are they carefully looking at silenced voices in the content. It is 11 conceivable that students may not even be aware of the inherent messages of power that are embedded in content. Often, students take a text at its word value and either have not developed the habit of reading with a critical stance or do not have the skillset to do so effectively.

An exploration of critical literacy to develop voice and democracy has substantial implications for instruction. Gee (1989) explored discourse as a way to identify oneself through acquisition of social practice (p. 13). The impact of critical literacy and discourse can be seen when students work to determine what ideological messages are explicitly shared in texts and media. Students come to understand the impact of dominant ideologies on social justice issues and understand how some discourses are accorded more voice and power than others.

Freire (1998) wrote that the concept of literacy is increasingly liberating when adults understand that speaking words can be a means of transforming their reality (p. 486). For Freire, literacy is recognizing the world and one’s own place in it in a more abstract manner that is based on reflection. Freire asserted that there was a fundamental relationship between speaking words and transforming one’s reality. Freire (1998) explained that this ability to consider a different reality was vital for those learning to read and write:

If we are truly committed to liberation. Such a perception will lead the learners to

recognize a much greater right than that of being literate. They will ultimately recognize

that, as men, they have the right to have a voice. (pp. 486-487).

This idea undergirds the value of literacy work that seeks to be relevant for the lives of learners of all ages and backgrounds. The impetus for this study was analyzing how teachers have students engage with texts in a meaningful way, gaining insight into how they nurture students’ voices, and discovering how their perceptions of critical work intersects with that engagement.

Delving into the perceptions and experiences of educators as they reflect on their work is critical 12 for understanding how and why teachers move from reflection on their practice to application in the classroom. This may be a new opportunity for teachers, so it is important to have them be reflective about their perceptions and ideas about transformative learning.

Teaching for critical literacy is disruptive. Disruptive learning is significant because it may impact willingness to engage in critical literacy work that requires students to address and consider issues of inequality. Another important consideration is teachers’ level of comfort with and preparedness for working with students in critical literacy for social justice. Pradhan and

Singh (2016) explored how critical learning, specifically learning from others, transfers into everyday classrooms. They looked at how Freire’s work around praxis moved from theory into practice. Important to their understanding is the idea that “there is no single definition of critical pedagogy and there is no final version of the term. It is constantly evolving and is context specific. Various critical pedagogies are possible in a classroom and from different theoretical perspectives” (p. 263). This ambiguity is significant for teachers. A method like critical literacy invokes the unknown for educators and learners because student experiences become the primary focus in a critical classroom. A transformative classroom is not one where students are passive recipients, but instead is:

A lively place of radical possibility, a social, human place of happening where students

from diverse groups with multiple identity affiliations and psychological dispositions

come, meet, and participate in the learning process and where accordingly, the teachers

change their teaching styles. (Pradhan & Singh, 2016, p. 264)

Because the work can be new and uncertain as students and educators explore social justice issues, it is paramount to have conversations about what this looks like in the classroom and know about ways to deescalate matters if necessary. 13

As classrooms have increasingly diverse populations, it is essential that teachers understand individual students’ varied literacy experiences and narratives and are aware of how these differences can put some students at an academic advantage. Delpit’s (2002) pivotal work on language, literacy, and race highlighted the discord Black and Brown students can experience between the language that is authentic to their home lives and what is accepted in academia.

Delpit called for honoring the identity of learners, acknowledging the “discourse stacking” that is endemic in our society, and teaching normative language that reflects power and influence (p.

301). This work is liberating in itself and gives students access to multiple discourses that can be transformative on various levels, as agents at home and in the academic realm.

It is meaningful to have students identify how basic assumptions, such as universal access to quality education, manifest in different ways. In his analysis of the value of multicultural education, Olneck (2000) reiterated the idea that not all knowledge is disseminated equally and knowledge is not valued the same in different groups. Olneck (2000) compellingly asserted of schools:

We might expect the transformation of cultural capital to occur when the neutrality of the

school and its independence as a culturally authoritative institution are questioned; when

the ranges of validated linguistic, literacy, and behavioral practices within schools are

enlarged. (p. 323)

Expanding practices to include recognizing differences as strengths to be explored goes against current practices. Olneck pointed out that our systems inherently validate some practices over others and that those in the other category lack the capital they need for success (Bordieu, 1986).

Honest conversations about issues of justice are disruptive and inspire vulnerabilities, but for 14 students to feel confident about raising their voices around issues and connected to society at large, it is important to explore how to begin these conversations in the classroom.

One concern for educators who are embarking on a curriculum that is committed to fostering student voice around social justice is that students will begin to question how power and subordination are reflected in our educational system and institutions in general. Students may begin question basic notions of learning, such as that the teacher leads the lesson, chooses all relevant texts, and makes assessment decisions. Although this seems dramatic, it is important that educators be fully cognizant of what it means to learn for freedom and democracy and marry this to work that fosters learners who can think critically. Renowned literacy experts Stephanie

Harvey and Ann Ward (2017) discussed the vital need to not just teach reading, but to have teachers commit to guiding their learners into active literacy. Literacy moves beyond decoding words to encompass a more personal reflection of a student’s social and cultural experiences.

When Harvey and Ward (2017) espouse, “to make sense of their ever-changing world, develop informed positions, and take principled action, children need the technical skills to access print and comprehension strategies to make meaning and think critically about it” (p. 11), they were articulating the components of critical literacy that can disrupt the status quo of schooling.

Building these critical habits of minds requires that educators look deeply into students’ lives and communities to determine which texts are meaningful and relevant to these experiences. It means continually engaging in discussions that may push learners to consider different points of views so they can make informed decisions about the world around them.

The concept of text is evolving (Hinrichsen & Coombs, 2013). Increasingly students are exposed to media in varied formats: print, video, images, lyrics, and virtual games. These resonate with underlying messages. Developing awareness of the modes of text (media, print, or 15 a combination of both), being sensitive of potential power discrepancies surrounding writing and publishing, and practicing habits that help students discern these messages are important components of critical literacy to address. With the advent of web tools, more people have access to content and can create and publish work. Helping students understand the complex issues surrounding what is published is vital, yet considerations of teacher preparedness for this work are also necessary. An important aspect of this study is its review of literature discussing the evolving conception of text and how instruction and critical literacy helps students analyze that content effectively (Gainer, 2010b). In his work delving into policy around multilinguistic societies, Luke (2003) discussed the need to evaluate literacy work to determine how it situates learners in the larger society and workforce. Luke considered literacy in terms of the potential for capital. Luke posited that the workforce is increasingly service and information based. To effectively engage in this work, there is a need for “cognitive engagement and social interaction around spoken language, traditional print texts, and records, and digital and online communications” (p. 137). It is incumbent upon educators to evaluate how literacy instruction can encompass both print and media texts and support learners who are entering a global workforce.

A truly democratic society encourages all students to develop and use their voice to participate in the work of society. It is essential to facilitate learning that allows students to look at their world critically and come to a deeper understanding of how they can contribute as global citizens. Instruction that opens dialogue about social issues and positionality is intrinsic to this ideal. An exploration of how pedagogy is embedded with critical literacy is an important step.

Beginning this critical work involves determining how teachers conceive of their own thinking 16 about critical literacy and developing voice and also involves exploring curriculum and instruction that is developed with the habits of critical literacy.

Research Question

The concept of critical literacy is elusive; there is no clear definition. Ultimately, it is an educator’s beliefs about social justice and the resulting literacy practices and methods. Fostering opportunities for teachers to make sense of their own perceptions of critical literacy and reflect on their own experiences can lead to a deeper understanding of teachers’ conceptions of critical literacy. McLaren’s (1988) seminal work called literacy a dynamic idea. Whether it is seen as a functional, cultural, or political ideal, McLaren recognized that literacy reflects one’s history.

McLaren asserted, “Literacy is always about someone’s story. As a story by somebody and for somebody, knowledge is invariably informed by a set of underlying interests that that structure how a story is told” (McLaren, 1988, p. 220). He furthered his argument by explaining that these structures reflect cultural values, social relations, reader interpretation, and forms of assessment.

This study attempted to determine the stories of teachers as they related to critical literacy. The main research questions for this study are: What are middle school teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with integrating critical literacy into their classrooms? How do they perceive that the integration of critical literacy influences student voices as global citizens?

Definitions of Key Terminology

Critical Literacy

Defining critical literacy is paramount to this study. At the heart of critical literacy is empowerment to take control of the information presented via print text or media. This is done by participating in critical analysis of the material to identify cultural biases or subtle and overt messages that reflect the norms of a dominant culture. Developing students’ critical literacy 17 helps them question the ideologies and politics of the text or media and actively engage in the process of understanding possible biases through inquiry, dialogue, and critical analysis

(Maddox, Aikman, & Rao, 2011). What separates critical literacy from other theories is the transformative action it inspires in students. Students examine the oppressed cultures and use the knowledge and understanding they gain to mobilize social change (Maddox et al., 2011).

Johnson and Rosario-Ramos (2012) defined literacy as analysis and evaluation of the embedded social structures that perpetuate and create inequality and “the texts that embed these unequal relations, as well as the active engagement in the reconstruction of these social structures and their corresponding textual representations” (p. 50). This dynamic in which students begin to recognize the nuances of messages and work to recreate or reconstruct images to include a different voice can have an effect.

Voice

“Student voice” is a dynamic term in the realm of critical learning and social justice. In the context of critical work, it is necessary to consider power relationships in terms of how voices are shared and heard. Cultivating environments that support authentic student voice is difficult, especially considering that some voices may be heard more than others. In their work to develop a critical literacy curriculum in middle school social studies, Soares and Wood (2010) asserted that it is important that teachers know which cultural contexts can alienate some students. They shared, “Recognizing that not all voices are heard or accepted and that some voices are more privileged that others, it is essential that students learn to speak out against the unequal power relations that exist in all forms of text” (Soares & Wood, 2010, p. 489). Work that seeks social justice by facilitating opportunities to develop student voice fosters citizenship.

Learners become part of a dialogic community where they learn to speak and articulate their 18 ideas and, maybe just as importantly, they learn to listen to their community of learners. Pradhan and Singh (2016) discussed how students can learn from the other as they explore different narratives.

Theoretical Framework

Critical pedagogy, as a theoretical framework, is intrinsic to the exploration of teachers’ perceptions about critical literacy instruction and transformational work with students.

Acknowledging that certain habits and mores are valued as the norm and that others are seen as the “other” is at the root of understanding and valuing learning in critical pedagogy (Gurn, 2011).

These habits include language and literacy instruction. Given the academic achievement gaps in areas of high poverty, it is clear that some students have capital that puts them at an advantage over other students (Alvermann, 2005). Critical work disrupts hegemony when students explore injustices. As Bishop (2014) shared of critical literacy, “It is also grounded in the ethical imperative to examine the contradictions in society between the meaning of freedom, the demands social justice, the obligations of citizenship and the structured silence that permeates incidences of suffering in everyday life” (p. 52). Exploring what this looks like as teachers consider social justice and curriculum means understanding the power of Critical pedagogy and how teachers articulate their work.

Embodying critical pedagogy in the classroom means recognizing that a disparity of power is inherent to our institutions. Developing a curriculum that brings awareness to these power conflicts gives students a voice for addressing them. McLaren’s (2010) work around critical pedagogy is important to consider. He asserted:

Critical Pedagogy is a way of thinking about, negotiating, and transforming the

relationship among classroom teaching, the production of knowledge, the institutional 19

structures of the school, and the social and material relations of the wider community,

society, and nation state. (p. 1)

This idea of transformative learning, specifically having students produce their knowledge as a form of action, connects with critical literacy. Critical literacy is a way to explore cultural and sociolinguistic relationships in text, print, digital, and multimedia and analyze discourse in daily interactions.

Historically, access to education is a core value of the American dream. The notion of education as a means to success has resonated and been touted as a symbol of American democracy. The grim reality is that some students are accessing education in a more meaningful way than others. Gurn (2011) reviewed two texts on the necessity to include critical pedagogy in order to ensure that students from all backgrounds are represented in the curriculum. His work looked at how different educators had developed curriculum that invited students to share their varied literacies. Educators who do not reconcile their students’ backgrounds with the curriculum keep students at a disadvantage. Critical work in school is intriguing because it gives students the opportunity to look closely at how they are directly impacted by the curriculum they experience daily. “Although school is only one environment where people are apprenticed into cultural capital, this institution represents a noteworthy case because it encompasses a central socializing agent and serves as a powerful gatekeeper” (Gurn, 2011, p. 150). These words are in direct opposition to the belief that education is a great equalizer for future endeavors.

In her work supporting effective instruction for adolescents, specifically in reading and literacy, Alvermann (2002) explained the complexities teachers face while trying to develop literacy skills. Alvermann recognized the value education places on academic reading of texts. 20

Prioritizing this type of reading devalues the other diverse language and literacy skills students bring to the classroom. Alvermann (2002) asserted:

Effective instruction builds on elements of both formal and informal literacies. It does so

by taking into account students’ needs while at the same time attending to the challenges

of living in an information-based economy during a time when the bar has been raised

significantly for literacy achievement. (p. 191)

Critical literacy is understood to be a method of instruction that can impact how students analyze the construction of texts. In critical literacy, students develop habits as critical learners.

Instead of passively accepting a text, they read it from a critical and inquiry-based stance.

Developing habits of mind as critical learners is vital to knowledgeable and engaged citizenry.

Alvermann (2002) wrote that adolescents:

Read with a critical eye toward how writers, illustrators, and the like represent people and

their ideas-in short, how individuals who create texts work. At the same time, it suggests

teaching adolescents that all texts, including their textbooks, routinely promote or silence

particular views. (p. 198)

As a method of instruction, critical literacy lends credence to the idea that hidden and overt power struggles resonate within all texts and recognizes that students themselves can be integral components of the learning process when they engage in work that allows them to critique and analyze texts. Giving voice to students so they can refute the construction of messages or add their own perspectives is a powerful founding tenet of critical literacy.

Freire (2000) is widely recognized as the major contributor to the development of the theory of critical pedagogy. His work has influenced many current literacy scholars and their discourse around critical literacy. Rosario-Ramos (2011) explained that Freire believed that 21 education was a space where learners could practice social consciousness and develop an awareness of others living in oppressive conditions. Such preparation nurtures an understanding of people’s disparate conditions, inspires learning that resonates with transformative work, and seeks to liberate others and oneself (p. 31). She espoused that Freire understood education to be a means for social action. Critical pedagogy is fundamentally transformative and allows students to explore issues of social justice while becoming nuanced and knowledgeable citizens of their local community as well as the larger global community.

The principle that defines critical pedagogy is a commitment to changing the relationship between student and teacher. As students’ experiences are positioned as integral to the learning process, their vision of learning begins to evolve. Instead of merely receiving information reflexively, learning occurs in a dialogue (Fletcher, 2008; Luke & Woods, 2009). Freire (2000) eschewed the idea of banking knowledge, in which information passed down by the instructor is prioritized over students’ lives and personal experiences. Critical pedagogy also recognizes the critical nature and purpose of learning. Freire addressed the value of moving toward learning that is dialogic and problem posing (p. 84). He explains that this work cannot come from another person’s reality but must be grounded in the learner’s relationship with the surrounding world. For Freire, learning that resonates empowers students to look ahead to see change. Freire

(2000) urged that student learning:

Begin with the human-world relationship. Accordingly, the point of departure must

always be with men and women in the “here and now,” which constitutes the situation

within which they are submerges, from which they emerge, and in which they intervene.

(p. 85) 22

This awareness could be transformative when a learner recognizes that life is not stagnant but has the potential for different experiences.

Freire’s work on critical pedagogy “involves both the recognition that human life is conditioned, not determined, and the crucial necessity of not only reading the world critically but also intervening in the larger social order” (Giroux, 2010, p. 716). Students begin to read with intent and new purpose, as part of a larger community. Another principle that reflects critical pedagogy is mastery of written language (Luke & Woods, 2009). This mastery allows students to explore language for deep meaning and, more importantly, use their mastery of written language to reconstruct their voice for agency and social action.

Giroux (2010) explained how Freire’s work in critical pedagogy allows students to connect with their learning and be mindful of potential social justice issues. Giroux (2010) espoused of this learning: “Critical pedagogy affords students the opportunity to read, write, and learn for themselves--to engage in a culture of questioning that demands far more competence than rote learning and the application of acquired skills” (p. 1). As students become adept at questioning texts and media, they get the opportunity to reflect on their own lived experiences and see how they can give voice to issues they connect with. Giroux (2010) asserted:

Experience is a starting point, an object of inquiry that can be affirmed, interrogated, and

used to develop broader knowledge and understanding. Critical pedagogy is about

offering a way of thinking beyond the seemingly natural or inevitable state of things,

about challenging common sense. (p. 1)

Bringing this deep thinking into the realm of text analysis offers a tangible way to participate in critical literacy as students have actual material they can begin to question and evaluate. 23

Critical literacy is a direct outgrowth of critical pedagogy. A founding tenet is the allegiance and promise of transformative learning for freedom. Giroux (2010) claimed that

Freire’s work was not about indoctrination or a specific technique, but instead was:

A political and moral practice that provides the knowledge, skill, and social relations that

enable students to explore the possibilities of what it means to be critical citizens while

expanding and deepening their participation in the promise of a substantive democracy.

(p. 716).

Exploring what it means to be a critical citizen resonates in education because it goes against the idea of a teacher providing information that is deemed relevant while students just receive this knowledge. Ultimately, critical pedagogy resists a student deficit philosophy and seeks a philosophy that is intrinsically dialogic and emancipatory (Kirylo, Thirumurthy, Smith, &

McLaren, 2010). Students explore how issues such as sexism, racism, poverty, and classism impact learning institutions. Learning is infused with analysis of how such institutions can reinforce marginalization based on these issues.

Rosario-Ramos further explained, “Critical pedagogy challenges traditional views on education that portray teaching as a technical profession responsible for the neutral transmission of knowledge and skills” (Rosario-Ramos, 2011, p. 32). This philosophy of teaching was the framework for this study. The study saw whether and how teachers applied this theory of critical pedagogy through their use and understanding of critical literacy. In addition, the study observed how their work can transform students as they begin to give voice to issues they encounter through varied texts and discussions.

Critiques of Critical Pedagogy 24

Fully understanding the tenets of critical pedagogy and their impact on learners is profound. Although it is recognized as an academic method of learning that scaffolds transformational work for social justice, there are those who would challenge some of the tenets of critical pedagogy. Ernest Morrell’s work (2012) describes critical literacy as a method of inquiry and collective sharing for social activism. One of the biggest arguments against this theory is determining whether educators have a firm grasp on it, founded in critique and inquiry

(Puechner, 2017). Although teachers may be interested in exploring the power of critical pedagogy, there is no specific set of structures in place for implementing it.

Although instructors may be intrigued and excited about the fundamental tenets of critical pedagogy, inquiry-based learning that values social justice, there is no set kit or plan that makes it accessible for teachers to put it into the curriculum. Chetty’s (2015) work in South Africa supporting instruction and critical pedagogy focused on how culture is not neutral. Chetty

(2015) advocated that the focus of education should be on:

The unmasking of apparent neutrality just as literacy in its profound sense is the ability to

read society, relations within it and texts or structures of signification which reflect the

individual and relations between individual and relations between individual and society

in all the multiplicity of meanings which these complex inter-relations produce. (p. 3)

The notion of individuals considering these multiple lenses and relationships of self, society, and complex relationships is daunting. Instructors are put in a position of understanding their own dynamics and then asserting these beliefs into the curriculum plan. This can be powerful and empowering for teachers who want to engage in critical and liberating work with students.

Instead of fearing the freedom that comes with a focus on critical learning, it offers an 25 opportunity for them to consider how they can negotiate this philosophy and find ways to support students in their own critical work.

Educators and experts who study the framework value the autonomy it provides teachers.

Because of this, teachers who commit to critical pedagogy theory as a philosophy and to critical literacy as a method of instruction are at the mercy of their own beliefs about social justice as they engage their students in learning.

A profound critique of critical pedagogy is its effectiveness with students from dominant cultural groups, specifically White students. Allen and Rossatto (2009) shared their experiences with White students in a teacher preparation program. The concern is whether White students, or in this case White student teachers, can engage effectively in critical pedagogy for transformative thinking. Their work revealed that students from dominant groups are especially reluctant about and resistant to readings that impel reflection and deep consideration of their own privilege as

White, middle-class Americans (Allen & Rossatto, 2009, p. 166).

Allen and Rossatto’s (2009) argument is worth deep consideration. They asserted that critical pedagogy came about to address the oppressed. Freire’s work in critical pedagogy originated in finding freedom for a poor, marginalized class in Brazil. Critics questioned whether critical pedagogy could be transformational for White, middle-class students as well as students in more impoverished communities. Just as importantly, it is important to consider teachers who come from groups with power and how they effectively develop and facilitate curriculum around freedom from oppression and transformation.

On this point, there is also concern about whether teachers can fully come to terms with their identities in a way that supports transformational learning. Allen and Rossato (2009) considered whether critical pedagogy in its authentic form can be used with White, middle-class 26

Americans. Their concern was evident when they explained: “Critical pedagogy is premised on the notion of the oppressed student as the idealized subject whose empowerment must take precedence in evaluating, devising, practicing, and imagining schooling” (Allen & Rossatto,

2009, p. 167). An important consideration is reevaluating the essential beliefs of critical pedagogy that allow all learners to reflect on their impact of the larger world and recognize the power of behaviors. In an interview with Peters (2012), Henry Giroux reminded pedagogues of the essential message that resonates in critical pedagogy:

Pedagogy is not about training; it is about critically educating people to be self-reflective,

and self-conscious about their relationship with others and know something about their

relationship with the larger world. Pedagogy in this sense provides not only important

thoughtful competencies; it also enables people to intervene critically in the world (p.

166).

The potential of critical pedagogy is that it opens the door for all learners and educators to participate in methods of learning that explore how, as a society, there is opportunity to reflect on everyone’s impact, whether as members of a hegemonic group or of a group that is marginalized. Because many schools do not have a majority of students whose backgrounds are commensurate with hegemonic behaviors, the question of whether critical pedagogy is impactful for White, middle class students is relevant. Allen and Rossatto (2009) advocated teaching for love (p. 178). They felt learning for love allows for the consideration of guilt that many oppressor students feel when engaged in critical pedagogical work. The crux of this is facilitating work where the oppressor begins to recognize the inherent hierarchies and social stratus embedded in oppression. They explained: 27

The oppressor student need to unlearn the ways in which their beliefs have consequences

that negatively affect the oppressed. The oppressor student needs to learn how to be

accountable for their group privilege and do what is necessary to put a stop to it. (Allen &

Rossatto, 2009, p. 178)

Educators that see the power of critical pedagogy for reflection and empowering students can make decisions that facilitate this work with all students, those from privileged and nonpriveleged backgrounds. The teachers can consider whether the curriculum promoted work that addresses injustices.

Response to Critics of Critical Pedagogy

A response to the critique of critical pedagogy for all students, even those that come from groups that hold power is that critical pedagogy initiates the necessary discussions around teaching for love. Allen and Rossatto called for learning that “requires interventions that help them learn how not to dehumanize themselves and others. It requires not allowing them to take on the oppressor role in dialogue” (p. 178). Understanding the perspective of the “other” underscores critical pedagogy. As they analyzed the work of critical pedagogues, Han et al.

(2015) recognized the theme of consciousness leading to praxis (p. 628). This theme opens the door for all learners to engage in critical analysis of the structures of power that are embedded in their experiences. To this end, they shared, “Teachers and students need to understand the structural/sociopolitical barrier for Others, starting with the fact that schools function as gatekeepers to Others by exclusively adopting Eurocentric cultural capital” (Han et al., 2015, p.

628). The curriculum students participate in daily reflects a selected set of mores that represents the value of one group over another, thus putting some groups at an advantage over others. 28

The value of critical pedagogy is the dialogue around issues of social justice. It is difficult to address these issues without making participants vulnerable. Freire (2000) espoused the value of dialogue that involves both those who are in positions of power and those who are in oppressed groups. In his writing about dialogic learning, Freire asserted, “Dividing in order to preserve the status quo, then, is necessarily a fundamental theory of antidialogical action”

(Freire, 2000, p. 145). This essential dialogue can ultimately spur change. Moving forward, the work of educators is to determine how the theory of critical pedagogy can seamlessly integrate into instructional planning and decision making. Increasingly, researchers have developed ways to incorporate curriculum and instruction that reflects the tenets of critical pedagogy, specifically critical literacy methods. Important facets of critical literacy include language choice in text, exploring various perspectives represented in media, and what it means to teach for social justice.

Theory in Application

Critical pedagogy as a framework made sense for this study because it provided an overarching structure for exploring teachers’ understanding of critical work in general. Critical literacy practices reflect their beliefs about social justice. The researcher used the lens of critical pedagogy to examine whether teachers’ work with voice and citizenship reflected its critical nature and transformative foundations. As teachers think about critical pedagogy and participate in their own self reflection about critical work, they can meaningfully consider their students and the curriculum they have in place for transformative work.

The thread that connects the transformative component of critical pedagogy with the beliefs of critical literacy is better understood when literacy is recognized as a political dimension of learning (Lalik & Oliver, 2007), not just as a matter of decoding and encoding. 29

When there is awareness of the political dimension, there is potential for literacy practices that address how important issues are represented in the academic setting. When the work students engage in allows them to question text and possibly reconstruct its political dimensions, students are involved in work that represents the critical pedagogy model. This idea was shared by Lalik and Oliver (2007): “When we acknowledge the political dimension operating within literacy practices, when we try to understand it, and when we attempt to influence it, we enter the educational terrain often referred to as critical literacy” (p. 46). This influence is powerful because it begins a conversation about how students can use their newfound knowledge and critical skills to share their voices and interpretations with others.

By giving priority to students sharing their representations of literacy, different questions and considerations arise about access to languages of power. Allowing students to investigate how language can situate some groups in dominant positions is intrinsic to helping students understand how they can use words to articulate their own ideas. In her discussion of critical literacy and the value of understanding four fundamental aspects of gaining insight into hegemonic language (domination, access, diversity, and design), Janks (2000) illustrated exactly how language reflects domination and subordination. Janks explained that critical literacy education is founded on the analysis of language. Janks (2000) shared her belief that critical literacy, “based on a sociocultural theory of language, is particularly concerned with teaching learners to understand and manage the relationship between language and power” (p. 176). She attempted to share a method for students to evaluate text and share their findings effectively. In her work, she looked to answer an important question: How do we help students access dominant forms of language, yet support their own literacies? Janks introduced a theory for critical analysis of messages that included the concepts of dominance, access, diversity, and design. 30

One significant criterion for social justice learning is determining one’s own position in a local and global community. Apple (2011) asserted that students should be aware of their relationship to the social world (p. 225). Educators who are devoted to nurturing citizenship integrate these ideals into their work in different ways. One way Apple begins a conversation around global issues of social justice is by developing an awareness of how one’s lifestyle is intertwined and how one nation’s need for products to sustain lifestyles of privilege determine the livelihood of those who manufacture those products. A critical analysis of concepts like exploitation encourages students to think about how the rights of people in Third World countries and in this country affect access to education and humane conditions. To further develop citizenry, Lewis-Spector (2016) shared five competencies that can be developed by educators who are committed to social justice and critical literacy work. Knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and intentions can be used to support critical literacy in content area reading. As students read the material, they can think about what they learn and then probe deeper to see what values are upheld and what the motive or intent of the piece may have been.

Alignment of Theory with Problem

Critical literacy has its foundation in inquiry and investigation. A curriculum built upon the decision to immerse students in critical literacy discourages passivity in the learning process.

Critical literacy instruction empowers students to question and critique the texts and media they are regularly assailed with. It is imperative to share with students the analytical skills that will help them evaluate content for biases and positionality; come to a more meaningful understanding of messages; and be aware of how dominant ideologies may be disseminated in literature, text, and media. Inquiry and investigation are skills and habits of mind that learners must practice as they begin to scrutinize texts. Freire explains of inquiry in learning, “Every 31 thematic investigation which deepens historical awareness is thus really educational, while all authentic education investigates thinking. The more educators and the people investigate the people’s thinking and are thus jointly educated, the more they continue to investigate” (Freire,

2000, p. 109). Students consider the voices represented, the intended audience, and the validity of the information. In addition, students challenge claims and messages that reflect power disparity. At the heart of critical media are the actions the student is mobilized to take towards greater social justice (Gainer, 2010).

The transformative and foundational values of critical pedagogy are grounded in integrating critical literacy as an instructional method and philosophy around learning. Giroux, whose educational career centered around critical learning and critical pedagogy instruction, explained of this phenomenon: “It is about critically educating people to be self reflective, and self-conscious about their relationship with others and know something about their relationship with the larger world” (Peters, 2012, p. 694). This idea of reflection and understanding emulates the work of other critical pedagogues, such as Freire (2000). This understanding of learning that allows students to better understand their positionality and begin to better recognize their relationships with others is significant. Giroux furthered his conception of critical pedagogy by asserting that critical learning must include not just reflection and understanding, but also the possibility for change. Giroux posited, “Pedagogy in this sense provides not only important thoughtful and intellectual competencies; it also enables people to intervene critically in the world” (Peters, 2012, p. 694). This work for change allows students to respond critically and have agency with the potential to intervene and disrupt the status quo. Critical pedagogy holds appeal and hope as a theory for learning. 32

Critical pedagogy as a theoretical framework undergirds every aspect of this research.

Anfara and Mertz (2006) explained that theory guides a researcher in sharing their understanding of an event effectively because “to understand theory one needs to stretch one’s mind to reach the theorist’s meaning” (p. xiv). The theory of critical pedagogy resonates in all aspects of this study and provides context for articulating the problem of practice and the resulting research question: What are middle school teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with integrating critical literacy into their classrooms? How do they perceive that the integration of critical literacy influences student voice as global citizens?

Critical pedagogy unequivocally supports the exploration of this question. Before creating a culture of transformative learning, it is essential to determine teachers’ beliefs and understandings about critical literacy and student voice. At a time when assessments and mandates are endemic to K-12 learning, this work sought to understand how teachers conceptualize critical literacy, gain insight into curriculum, and determine the impact it has on students’ voice and citizenship. Chetty’s (2015) critical work in South Africa affirmed the idea that there is a continuous debate around critical work. The visible pedagogy is characterized by traditional conceptions of learning where there is a predictable transfer of information from educator to students. In her words, “Visible pedagogy privileges teacher dominance, which in turn suggests prescriptive pedagogical models” (Chetty, 2015, p. 2). Recognizing how a teacher interprets or applies critical work enables a better understanding of the decisions made instructionally and with the curriculum. Chetty discussed how critical literacy is intrinsically connected to a constructivist model and how it might directly contrast with a teacher who leans on a more text-based, pedagogical style of instruction. When nurturing habits of mind in critical 33 readers who continuously explore issues of power and inequity, the power of teachers who engage in critical work and reflection is integral.

The problem of practice is developing meaningful, active engagement that nurtures voice and agency as a deterrent to passive learning. The problem is also the idea that students are expected to develop literacy skills as well as tenets of citizenry. Critical pedagogy resonates as a theoretical framework because it provides insight for educators about the power of critical work.

The principles of critical pedagogy are echoed in critical literacy as students are empowered to think deeply about content and language while they read and view material. The students become aware of oppressive behaviors and messages and read purposefully to critique and question content. Moreover, there is a resounding commitment to social justice, which advocates that teachers use material that directly connects with students’ lives. Students become central to the learning process. It is essential to understand how teachers view critical work and to recognize how teachers perceive this work with students.

Conclusion

The exploration of critical pedagogy as a theoretical framework was essential to conceptualizing the study and its purpose of working with teachers. The analysis of the seminal tenets of critical pedagogy provided stronger conceptions of the roots of critical literacy and the founding principles of critical pedagogy. Before doing in-depth research into critical literacy, there was a tenuous understanding that this method could be a component of critical pedagogy.

Critical pedagogy began from the desire to begin a dialogue between the oppressed and the oppressor (Luke & Woods, 2009). This is a salient issue because it reminds educators that the ultimate goal of critical pedagogy as a theory for learning is to allow students to reconstruct a narrative of their own lives and work against other, silencing views. 34

An exploration of using critical literacy to develop voice and democracy has substantial implications for instruction. Teachers need to create learning environments that support dialogue surrounding sensitive local and global issues. This can be disruptive. Educators need to be comfortable with addressing issues that may arise as students examine print and media text.

Additionally, there are many implications for helping teachers understand the changing landscape of texts as technologies continue to develop. There are also important implications for professional development that explains the tenets of critical literacies and provides time for educators to determine how they can best utilize critical literacy as a model for instruction while still meeting the mandated curriculum. Although there are many considerations around exploring a framework such as critical literacy, the potential that students could act as transformational agents of change is too powerful to ignore.

35

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Creating opportunities for students to engage in critical literacy is a vital part of working towards social justice and engaging learners in instruction that values citizenship and democracy, locally and in global communities. As adolescents develop their identities, an essential and necessary part of their schooling is empowering them to analyze the barrage of print and digital text experienced daily is. This has crucial significance for schools that educate future leaders and citizens. Gainer’s (2012) work on critical and digital literacy for democratic habits explained: “In these times characterized by limitless volumes of information, our charge as literacy educators must include equipping students to critically read multimodal texts” (p. 15).

Gainer further asserted the importance of guiding students to understand and practice how they can use this media for their own production (2002, p. 15). This construction and production of their response to messages in different modalities begins to address how students can use their voices as citizens in democracy. Critical literacy engages students in higher level thinking and dialogue that allows them to confront their own ideologies and to examine the cultural ideologies represented in their daily lives in and out of school.

Topic

An unsettling reality that threatens meaningful learning is the passivity of students in classrooms nationwide. Instead of being engaged and reflective learners who are participating in work that inspires curiosity, wonder, and self-efficacy, students are often relegated to a bystander role. In most cases, educators make decisions and students respond accordingly. Students become indiscriminate consumers of information and their voices are drowned out during daily routines. This is especially alarming when one considers the amount of information students encounter and the variety of ways they receive this information. Although this may have been 36 the traditional model, national and international curriculum standards have called for students to become more critical learners and engaged consumers of texts.

Increasingly, there is an understanding that print and media texts in and out of school are laden with hegemonic messages. The emergence of media technologies has resulted in a continuous tidal wave of information aimed at a younger audience. Morrell (2010) asserted that providing the critical literacy skills that equip students to analyze this content “is a matter of life and death” (p. 148). Although this statement may appear dramatic, when one considers that most messages are embedded with the dominant ideology, it is clear that those in marginalized positions need experiences to develop their voices to share their stories. Furthermore, those positioned in roles of dominance can begin to recognize that their experiences are shaped by ideologies as well. The danger of passive learning is that the status quo is not challenged.

A vital aspect of this topic is student engagement in the learning process. A curriculum that requires students to critically analyze texts and media can create a disruptive environment.

Students cannot remain passive audience members in the classroom as they take ownership of their knowledge through deep reflection and analysis. This work is valuable, yet this is a time when learning standards and assessments are part of the learning environment. The springboard to this study was wanting to determine how teachers conceptualize the tenets of critical literacy while negotiating expectations of the curriculum with middle school students.

Context of the Literature Review

This is a precarious time for learning. There is an onslaught of mandated assessments and required curriculum. Educators navigate a curriculum that needs to be explicit in certain skills while heeding increased pressure to facilitate learning that will prepare students for active and engaged citizenship as members of the local and global community. The inherent conflict 37 for educators is that the focus on assessments reduces literacy to the one-dimensional act of reading to answer prescribed questions. The student is situated as a passive participant. This is in direct contrast with new standards that reflect a desire that students develop their voice as civic agents, locally and globally.

The new emerging standards herald a change. There is a need for educational paradigms that allow all learners to become adept at the necessary literacy skills and also allow for learning that encourages both print and “media literacy in a multicultural society and sensitizing students and public to the inequities and injustices based on gender, race, and class inequalities and discrimination” (Kellner, 1998, p. 104). This type of learning allows students to practice their burgeoning understanding of the power of language in transformative ways while developing their voice as civic-minded citizens in their local communities and as members of the global community. Because of changing national and international standards, as well as the understanding that not all students access content in the same way, it is crucial to advocate for educational frameworks that support diverse student groups and engage students meaningfully.

A truly democratic society encourages all students to develop and use their voice to participate in society’s work. It is essential to facilitate learning that allows learners to look at their world critically and come to a deeper understanding of how they can contribute as global citizens. Instruction that opens dialogue about social issues and positionality is intrinsic to this ideal. This exploration of pedagogy embedded with critical literacy is an important step.

Research Problem

There is increased commitment to literacy and citizenship in a 21 st century global community. More than ever, it is necessary to foster opportunities that enable young people to be adept citizens who are compassionate to one another and engaged members of their society 38 and the larger global society. Exploring teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy with middle school students and delving into how this work impacts student voice gives insight into how students are engaging with texts. Recognizing how teachers negotiate their perceptions of critical literacy within the classroom and exploring how this conceptualization impacts their decisions indicates whether students are passively receiving information or interacting with it in a meaningful, transformative way.

Organization

This literature review explores how middle school teachers conceptualize and experience a pedagogical framework, such as critical literacy, in classroom instruction. Part of this exploration of a transformative method is interpreting whether the work teachers engage in with critical literacy could impact a learner’s acquisition of democratic voice. The organization of this chapter allows readers to better understand the foundations of critical literacy and the current literature around that topic. The most salient themes include: Foundations of Critical Literacy,

Nurturing Civic Voices and Transformative Learning.

First, this study sought to help educators understand critical literacy as a framework for meaningful learning. A thorough explanation of the fundamental tenets of this theory and its implications for learning is included. In addition, this study analyzed the potential that critical literacy has to nurture engaged, knowledgeable citizens in a globalized 21 st century.

Furthermore, this study sought to understand how teachers can best engage students in critical literacy work that is individually, locally, and globally transformational. Included in this literature review is an explanation of how the development of a student’s voice as a democratic citizen in a larger community can lead to transformation. An important aspect of this review is 39 literature discussing the evolving conception of text and how instruction and critical literacy helps students analyze that content effectively (Gainer, 2010a).

Curriculum standards have expanded to include citizenship and civic-mindedness as core values in the local, national, and international arenas. This review analyzes how critical literacy can provide teachers with a pedagogical framework that allows students to develop the literacy skills necessary for traditional literacy work and also invites students to participate in critical inquiry work that is undergirded in social justice. The review examines how students develop their voices through work that seeks to understand dominant messages and allows students to construct their own messages as they analyze the power of language in perpetuating dominant ideology. Supporting educators in transformative learning that engages students as civic agents and empowers them to use their voices in transformational ways is challenging, especially with middle school students.

Foundations of Critical Literacy

Critical literacy is a method of teaching that has potential for student engagement and transformative learning. The allure and the challenge of critical literacy is its social justice component. Fundamentally, critical literacy work requires learners to be active consumers of texts, searching for power relationships through the hegemonic messages inherent in them.

Teachers are tasked with helping students actively take a questioning and critical stance when exploring text (DeVoogd & McLaughlin, 2004). This is an important prospect, but a roadblock to critical literacy learning is that much of it is an ideal (Luke & Woods, 2000). Teachers who foster such learning environments must themselves be inquisitive about the philosophies and norms present in everyday experiences. “There is no list of methods in critical literacy that works the same the same way in all content all the time. No technique that promotes critical 40 literacy that can be exported to another setting without adapting it to that context” (DeVoogd &

McLaughlin, 2004, p. 15). Teachers must know their student population intimately so they can inspire work that is relevant to their lives in and out of school. Even after considering counterarguments against developing critical pedagogy, and specifically critical literacy, there is an increasing understanding of the need to have students work with a critical stance.

Critical literacy recognizes that literacy is an evolving idea. Critical literacy discourse recognizes that students are diverse. Students have varied backgrounds. Different languages and mores are practiced at home, and those practices may not be represented in school. Critical literacy work values the multiliteracies students bring to class (Garcia, Mirra, Morrell, Martinez,

& Scorza, 2015). Students’ home experiences are valued in a critically literate curriculum.

Students are taught how to navigate the new modalities of text and use them to communicate effectively. Critical literacy also recognizes students’ transformative voices as local citizens.

There is a commitment to sharing the word of the world and having students develop awareness of the world and perspectives around them. Additionally, there is an expectation that students will use this knowledge to make the world a more socially just place (Bishop, 2014).

There is no defined instructional methodology for critical literacy, but it is recognized as a theory for instruction (Behrman, 2006). Behrman explained that critical literacy is more fundamentally connected with a teacher’s beliefs about social justice work with students than an actual method. Critical literacy is evident when there is a clear commitment to social justice work and a mindfulness to help students understand that all messages, print and digital, are embedded with a political and social stance. Comber (2011) asserted that there are several ways to consider critical literacy, but the most significant tenet is that power inequities are seared into society. Comber shared that there are “varied approaches to critical literacy- which foreground 41 the fact the texts are never neutral, that discourse is constitutive, and that literate practices are inevitably concerned with power relations” (p. 7). It is through analysis of these power relations, subtle and explicit, that classrooms begin to consider potential change.

Critical literacy encourages students to critique the content they are exposed to and determine power inequities. Critical literacy and critical pedagogy have their foundations in engaged learning that seeks transformation. Giroux (2010) explained how Freire’s work in critical pedagogy allows students to connect with their learning and be mindful of potential issues of social justice. Giroux described this learning when he explained, “Critical pedagogy affords students the opportunity to read, write, and learn for themselves--to engage in a culture of questioning that demands far more competence than rote learning and the application of acquired skills” (Giroux, 2010, p. 1). As students become adept at questioning texts and media, they have the opportunity to reflect on their own lived experiences and see how they can give voice to issues they connect closely with. Giroux (2010) further asserted:

Experience is a starting point, an object of inquiry that can be affirmed, interrogated, and

used to develop broader knowledge and understanding. Critical pedagogy is about

offering a way of thinking beyond the seemingly natural or inevitable state of things,

about challenging “common sense.” (p. 1).

By challenging common sense, students begin to explore dominant ideologies and determine how messages have the potential to marginalize.

Changing Literacy

A significant shift in literacy has been the varied ways text has evolved, in large part because of technology and digital platforms. Multiliteracies is a concept that encompasses traditional print literacies as well as the new digital and media literacies students use regularly 42

(Garcia et al., 2015). In addition, it is a way of looking at literacy that affirms and values the diverse set of literacy skills students use in their lives. As active participants with the Council of

Youth, Garcia et al. (2015) expanded the concept of literacy in order to value the literacies all students bring to the classroom. In their words, “We expand the notion of language and texts to include videos, music, images and performances to capture insights into social life and ways of speaking back to power” (Garcia et al., 2015, p. 156). This evolving concept of literacy is vital to practicing voice and communicating for an audience. Multiliteracies permit new ways to create counternarratives that are authentic and reflective of the strengths students possess. As a result, the idea of text itself and what is read is changing. With this dynamic shift in textual modalities, students need to be aware of the modes of text (media, print, or a combination of both) and be sensitive to potential power discrepancies surrounding the writing and publishing.

With the advent of web tools, more people have access to content and can create and publish work. Ernest Morrell’s (2008) work on 21 st century literacy shares the many mediums students can access in school and at home. Morrell asserts that while students may be considered digital natives, there is still so much educators must address. Morrell states, “For all their digital expertise, there is still a great deal that youths have to learn about how to process the information that they are inundates with via these new portals of information” (Morrell, 2008, p. 301). It is vital to help students understand the complex issues surrounding what is published, yet it is necessary to consider teachers’ preparedness for this work.

Critical Literacy for Citizenship

The preeminent tenet of critical literacy is the inherent transformative impact it has for students. Passivity plagues students in many classrooms. Garcia et al. (2015) shared the distressing reality that only 30% of eighth grade students scored above the basic level of reading 43 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (p. 153). This is a startling call for literacy work that builds on the strengths and realities of each student. Based on their work with urban youth, the authors asserted, “Literacy, the skill that has strong conceptual links with democracy, is cut off from its civic rationale and fails to speak to the experiences of urban youth” (Garcia et al., 2015, p. 153). Garcia et al.’s work explicitly spoke to the notion that not all literacy practices are treated with respect or recognized as worthy of study and use in classroom contexts. Finding ways to make assets of diverse literacy skills is crucial to including all learners in civic engagement. Participating in critical literacy work that encourages students to delve into their learning and find meaningful connections between their own experiences and the chosen text can be a way to develop their own voices as they come to a deeper understanding about others’ lives in the global community. It is just as important to recognize how one’s own perspective is mirrored or changed through critical work.

Global Citizenship

Increasingly, the idea of citizenship is defined as “a flexible and multiple identity”

(Myers & Ebersfors, 2010, p. 485). Research espouses that the meaning of citizenship is created within each person through experiences. Much of national identity reflects birthplace and beliefs that are constructed based on personal experiences. Global citizenship is seen as more dynamic.

Unlike national citizenship, which includes an embedded personal narrative, global citizenship does not have a strong narrative, especially for adolescents (Meyers & Ebersfors, 2010.) This is especially relevant when creating opportunities for students to understand the narratives of others. As students learn about global issues, they begin to develop their own belief systems and perspectives. Citizenry and social justice are manifested through rigorous questioning of texts 44 and images. A curriculum of critical literacy affords students a chance to work towards a change in themselves and for others as they build knowledge around important global social issues.

Citizenry and social justice are manifested through rigorous questioning of text and images. The curriculum of critical literacy affords students a chance to work towards a change in themselves and others. Luke (2012) shared the premise that critical literacy favors social justice:

“As a practical approach to curriculum, it melds social, political, and cultural debate and discussion with the analysis of how texts and discourses work, where, with what consequences and whose interest” (Luke, 2012, p. 5). Creating learning experiences in which students critique pieces and analyze messages that can be oppressive can be a powerful way to gain social awareness and encourage learning about other cultures and communities.

Critical literacy has the potential to include and engage students in learning that is inherently transformational and committed to social justice. Students begin to explore and understand their own position and perspective through learning that is imbued with the knowledge that hegemonic ideals are at play in all texts. Apple’s (2011) discussion of globalization in educational policies is relevant for educators. He asserted that globalization is the result of an international economy that is more integrated and interconnected. This globalization has a far reaching impact “that is subject to severe crisis; that reforms crisis in one country have significant effects in others; and that immigration and population flows from one nation or area to another have tremendous impacts on what counts as official knowledge”

(Apple, 2011, p. 223). This in turn influences how educators respond by creating effective curriculum for a diverse student population. Pedagogical shifts towards methods that advocate for learning that is steeped in sociocultural analysis are more in demand than ever, given 45 increased understanding of the social, cultural, and political ideologies that are reflected in varied experiences and perspectives.

Critical literacy instruction allows students’ unique literacies to be meaningfully connected to their academic lives. Students engage in active learning when they question the content they are exposed to in and out of school. This exposure to text with a critical stance allows students to consider different perspectives and find relevance to their own lives. Students can engage with the material with an eye for social justice, for themselves and for others.

Moving forward, students can see how their knowledge can be a voice for democracy.

Conclusion

Critical Literacy is a way of looking at text with critical and inquiry-based habits.

Students engage in work that disrupts the status quo as they examine their own experiences in relation to the messages in text. There is a commitment to analysis that is based in social justice.

Teachers looking to integrate critical literacy work must recognize the burgeoning multi- literacies students bring to classroom, their experiences and literate strengths as well as the new modalities of text encountered in and out of school. Furthermore, critical literacy asserts the value of recognizing the experiences and perspectives of others. This has implications for students developing their identities and positions as members of a global citizenry. Critical literacy is a way for students to think about how language and discourse includes or excludes people.

Nurturing Civic Voices

Encouraging students to be active and informed citizens in and out of the classroom can prove daunting. Despite this challenge, there is momentum to nurture active and engaged 46 citizens who are knowledgeable about local and global social issues. It is vital to understand how critical literacy can foster learners who are aware of social, political, and economic conflicts while being committed to becoming members of the 21st century community. Local work in classrooms has the power to inspire global change agents.

Preparing students to be agents of social change takes time and consideration. Finding time to include this work and make decisions that support students’ engagement and relevancy requires thought. Vagle (2011) illustrated the value of working with middle school students to develop perspective. Vagle saw adolescence as a time to work with this group of learners who are continuously vacillating between their mature and immature selves as they negotiate their experiences. The students are more aware of their surroundings and the opinions of those around them, which lends itself to an understanding of perspective. It seems ideal to invite students to consider multiple perspectives and ideologies as they explore literature and texts.

Ciardiello (2004) asserted the power of literacy to advocate for social justice learning through a five component model: regaining one’s identity, call for service, accessing multiple perspectives, creating authentic voice, and recognizing social barriers that limit access.

Ciardiello shared how examining text can help students understand multiple perspectives and develop authentic voices as they examine social justice issues. Ciardiello (2004) claimed, “The ability to detect the persuasive influence of dominant discourse can help learners distinguish between the different ideologies that attempt to sway their voices on public matters” (p. 1420).

Developing a student’s voice through critical literature can inspire change agents in the community. As importantly, this sense of self can serve learners as they move into adulthood and make informed decisions. 47

Dunkerly- Bean, Bean, and Alnajjar’s (2014) article on global citizenry illustrated how students can become change agents while participating in work that is linked to content instruction. Students participated in curriculum by using varied texts to examine elements of human rights and how cultures were portrayed. The students practiced the skills of cosmopolitan critical literacy to connect with global issues. Students practiced global citizenry by learning about issues affecting citizens in a globally connected world. After much exploration of the issue and the people connected, the students were inspired to advocate for an issue they found unfair and unjust. The students acted as the voice for those who they felt were underrepresented.

As a result of the class, students created a video highlighting a human rights issue that they felt was being neglected. Because of the instruction, the students became agents for change. The students felt connected to the global community and wanted to voice their perspective and show how this issue was not being addressed in mainstream culture. This was a meaningful example of the potential impact of the intersection of literacy with print and media platforms. The students read print and media text and were able to use a media platform to communicate their message as knowledgeable citizens.

An issue that arises is how educators can do the work of critical literacy in various disciplines, not just in the English language arts (ELA) field. Social Studies has increasingly been used as a platform to do critical work. Ciardiello (2004) emphasized any work that can promote student voice and an understanding of how one’s perspective could be different from that of someone with different frames of experience. He also valued work that connects to personal experience as a means of bridging local and global citizenry. For an issue such as segregation, Ciardiello advocated eliciting student experiences with exclusion and connecting them with the larger population. To further develop citizenry, Lewis-Spector (2016) shared five 48 competencies that can be developed by educators who are committed to social justice and critical literacy work. Knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and intentions can be used to support critical literacy in content area reading. As students read material, they think about the content and then probe deeper to see which values are reinforced and what the motive or intent of the piece may have been.

While much of this work is done with print text, there are also opportunities for students to read text online or in different print media. These expanding and evolving notions of text and literacy are essential parts of the educational arena for students and teachers. Critical literacy also is committed to seeing literacy as a means for transformative work, where “students gain academic literacy skills within a transformative context oriented toward social justice and civic agency” (Garcia et al., 2015, p. 153). The theory of critical literacy recognizes that text types are more fluid today. Determining teachers’ understanding of how literacy and print is evolving gives insight into their work.

Changing Conceptions of Literacy

A crucial aspect of developing student voice through critical literacy is expanding the concept of literacy itself. This includes envisioning literacy as more than reading and developing an awareness of the different text types students navigate regularly. Literacy practices include reading, writing, listening, speaking, and thinking critically. Educators providing chances for diverse students to express these practices in varied ways is integral to student success. If only some literacy practices are accepted and implicitly and explicitly taught, many students will be at a disadvantage. Learning starts at a deficit level for many students.

Identifying the literacy practices that are authentic to learners of different cultures and societies supports their developing civic voices. Students may not feel conflicted when choosing 49 between the literacy practices used at home and those presented in school. Delpit and Dowdy’s

(2002) work on language illustrated how prioritizing the language of the dominant White middle class diminishes the value of other language practices used at home. They asserted, “The central concern is about having the freedom to go back and forth from the home language to public language without feeling a sense of inferiority” (Delpit & Dowdy, 2002, p. 12). This freedom is powerful. Students can examine the intent behind messages and use their skills and strengths as learners to create counternarratives that speak to their local communities. Continued practice and insight into the role language plays has massive implications for students who are developing their voices as part of a global community.

While the common understanding of literacy is limited to reading printed text, scholars are expanding this view to include analysis of media and other social forums, and even examining the natural environment (Burnett & Merchant, 2011). The literature explores how critical literacy can be a catalyst to analyzing other forms of texts (Luke & Woods, 2009). This is valuable to consider because it allows for greater opportunities to reconstruct the messages students encounter. Critical literacy is expanded to include print and digital texts and students can use these new literacies (Garcia et al., 2015; Kellner, 1998). Allowing critical literacy to encompass new literacies, including technologies, media literacies (Kellner & Share, 2007), and print text, is essential for teachers to consider as they proceed with critical literacy work. This movement to expand traditional conceptions of literacy promotes engagement as students develop awareness of the myriad ways they may be positioned for passivity if they do not practice habits of mind for critical analysis or inquiry. In addition, educators who expand the modalities of text also provide students with access to varied ways of sharing one’s thoughts and articulating and communicating ideas to a larger, varied audience. Part of the adjustment to the 50 more fluid ideas around literacy is considering how learning experiences afford students with chances to use these new technologies to share their voices. Students who may be savvier with digital technologies now have more tools to share their thinking.

Expanding how we perceive text has great implications for student voice. Including technologies and digital texts has increased students’ abilities to design their own messages.

When educators include media analysis, students explore how messages are intrinsic to all media types, print and digital. Bazalgette and Buckingham (2013) considered the challenges teachers face with devoting the same time to multimodal literacies as they do print texts. They asserted that if students are introduced to media literacies and multimodal literacies at a young age, there will be more opportunities for students to see that text is actually omnipresent. (p. 100). They further contended that if critical attention were brought to understanding nonprint text, learning itself would need to be reconceptualized, “notions of ‘ability’ may be disrupted, and assumptions about ‘readiness’ have to be rethought” (Bazalgette & Buckingham, 2013, p. 100). This is significant because it allows a much larger population to be engaged. Students who struggle to decode and access print text come to understand literacy as something they can excel at if media literacies is an area they can develop along with their print literacy skills.

Critical pedagogy can start at a young age, as teachers engage in media and multimodal work that allows students to look at power disparities in many modes of text. Bazalgette and

Buckingham (2013) furthered their argument for expanding conceptions of texts when they stated, “This would mean moving on from learning about how meanings are constructed and defined, towards understanding how particular points of view can be conveyed, and ultimately, how broader assumptions and ideologies are sustained” (p. 101). Students’ habits as discerning consumers of texts develop when they begin to analyze not only the text and discourse present in 51 print messages, but also how media production and visual, auditory, and spatial decisions are used to sway audiences. At a time when technology and media allow students to connect with and access ideas across fluid boundaries, the ability to analyze and synthesize new concepts is essential.

These critical skills recognize that print and media text analysis is necessary because technology has opened the door to messages from a larger global community. Students are enmeshed in a larger community because media access allows different perspectives and introduces them to a larger global community.

Analysis of text is powerful, but instruction and modeling is needed for students to take ownership of their work. Luke (2000) advocated for learning that looks at inclusive and exclusive messages to help students think about how some ideologies are normed and others have the power to erase or silence voices: “Discourses and texts are forms of capital exchange in these economies. Who gets access to them, who can manipulate and construct them, who can critique, refute, second guess them are the key educational issues of the next century” (p. 449).

Through discourse analysis, students pick up on nuances of language and hegemonic tendencies.

Discourse Analysis

Critical literacy supports students’ consideration of messages through analysis of language and discourse. This type of learning situates students in critical stances as they read with an understanding that language is a powerful tool. Providing tools for students to be thoughtful about language is a way for them to appreciate how words are impactful: “Literacy in and of itself is not necessarily empowering, but assembling particular ways with words, and other semiotic repertoires has the potential to reposition people in relation to work, learning, and everyday life” (Comber, 2011, p. 7). This understanding allows students to use language to 52 convey effective messages and to be acutely sensitive to how language situates a particular group or promotes concepts as norms.

Different questions and considerations arise about access to languages of power.

Allowing students to investigate how language can situate some groups in dominant positions is intrinsic to helping students understand how they can use words to articulate their ideas. In her discussion of critical literacy and the value of understanding four fundamental aspects of gaining insight into hegemonic language (domination, access, diversity, and design), Janks (2000) illustrated exactly how language reflects domination and subordination. Janks (2000) shared her notion that critical literacy is “based on a sociocultural theory of language, is particularly concerned with teaching learners to understand and manage the relationship between language and power (p. 176). This is seminal for transformative learning as teachers consider how they can integrate this work with learners.

Janks (2000) attempted to explain how critical analysis of text can help students communicate their ideas effectively. She looked to answer an important question: How do we help students access dominant forms of language, yet support their own literacies? Janks introduced a theory for the critical analysis of messages that includes the concepts of dominance, access, diversity, and design. Dominance recognizes that power is an innate part of discourse that perpetuates negative and unequal social relations. Close analysis helps students see how language can place readers in roles of power. The paradox is that teaching them about dominance perpetuates dominance, yet not supporting students by sharing the language keeps them at a disadvantage. Janks defines access as allowing teachers to value the literacies all students bring to the classroom. Access also includes teachers sharing the language of power so all students can use it to share their voice. This instruction focuses on dominant literacies, 53 languages, genres, cultural practices, and social interactions (2000, p. 176). Diversity accounts for the idea that reading and writing in different modalities allows learners to have a larger audience and be able to reach more people through a diverse social network. If students can access different discourses and literacies, they can affect a broader population. This is connected to new technologies as well. Design understands that students have a vast array of modes and media for sharing their new ideas. Design prioritizes media production, in contrast to dominance, which has students look closely at print text. These ideas are connected in many ways and explicit instruction allows students to practice these literacy skills and concepts.

Textbooks are still the primary resources in many classrooms. They focus on the power of critical literacy to understand positioning, especially in learning. Textbooks continue to position learners because they are created in the voice of the dominant class. Students need to develop critical habits of reading as they participate in textbook learning. Critical literacy can be an avenue for creating counternarratives to the messages in textbooks. Methods that account for literacy practices that resonate with social justice ideals position students to learn and allow them to reflect on the content and concepts in a meaningful way.

Conclusion

This change in conceptions of literacy is important. Various questions need to be considered. How are educators addressing the many literacies students bring with them? How can teachers negotiate the fact that there are literacies of normative power while helping students navigate these literacies in and out of school? Luke and Elkins (2002) shared research indicating that practices have evolved “units of literacy analysis that literacy researchers use have shifted to include not only behaviours, cognitive processes, and linguistic features, but also texts and intertexts, discourse and ideologies, interactional exchanges and sequences, and identities and 54 life pathways” (p. 671). This has major implications for supporting students in analyzing these different literacies. Moreover, understanding literacy and its many dimensions plays a large role in learning environments that are transformational and allow students to be reflective, maturing citizens who are developing their civic voices and dispositions.

Transformative Learning

New curriculum frameworks are being disseminated and enacted in schools throughout the world. There is increasing understanding that students need practice global citizenry and critical thinking. Moreover, there is a sense that students should develop critical inquiry-based stances in their learning. Globally, there are new frameworks for literacy instruction that meaningfully connect students to the tasks. These new standards ask students to look critically at information while they make meaning. Critical literacy is a method of instruction, but it depends in many ways on the teacher’s perception of social justice learning (Minott, 2011). There is no specific way of teaching that educators can latch onto, merely a commitment to having students explore power interactions. Educators explore how this method can engage students and have them use their voices as agents of change. Students’ curiosity about topics becomes the impetus for learning. Educators must navigate their understanding of literacy and social justice instruction as they make decisions in the classroom.

Impact of Policy

Policy around literacy instruction and assessment is a global issue. Comber and

Freebody (2013) discussed Australian standards that require educators to teach critical literacy and thinking skills in all subjects, including math, science, and social studies. The Common

Core standards also detail the vital need for students to meaningfully consider ideas encountered in texts and succinctly explain their interpretations. These literacy skills are expected to “lay out 55 a vision of what it means to be a literate person who is prepared for success in the 21 st century”

(National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers, 2010). Some questions begin to emerge about the critical nature of literacy as well as about how literacy can help students become critical consumers of texts and knowledgeable, democratic global citizens in the 21 st century. Because the outcry for literacy and 21 st century citizenry has been so vocal, much current research has lauded critical literacy as a means of meeting these goals. Chafel, Flynt, Hammel, and Pomeroy (2007) expanded on the idea of critical literacy as a curriculum that requires students to examine resources to gain a deeper understanding of controversial and complex content that is rich in social justice issues. Students who negotiate their understanding of texts may come away with new insights regarding the social, cultural, and political impacts of complex issues that are relevant to the global community.

While there appear to be various ways that critical literacy and critical work steeped in instruction are powerful, a roadblock to critical literacy as a theory for learning is that much of it is an ideal. Although instructors may be intrigued and excited about the fundamental tenets of critical, inquiry-based learning that values social justice, there is no set kit or plan that makes it accessible for teachers who want to add it to the curriculum. On the contrary, the educators and experts who have studied the framework value the autonomy it provides teachers. Because of this, teachers who commit to critical literacy are at the mercy of their own beliefs about social justice as they engage their students. Classroom teachers must know their student population intimately so they can inspire work that is relevant to their lives in and out of school.

Transformative Instruction . 56

A commitment to transformational learning is a continuous labor of love and is predicated on educators’ belief that students can transform their own lives and those of others.

Moreover, it aims to understand global issues and nurture a curriculum that is relational (Apple,

2011). Relational learning espouses education and instruction that is acutely sensitive to dominance and subordination (p. 229). According to Apple, this learning “requires that we situate it back both into the unequal relations of power in the larger society and into the realities of dominance and subordination- and the conflicts- that are generated by these relations” (Apple,

2011, p. 229). Relational learning may prove challenging for educators, but its potential power to develop student voice is immense. There are myriad ways this could support students’ voices as civic agents. When students become aware of dominance and subordination around the world, they can begin to read, view, listen, and think from a critical perspective. For many students, especially those in marginalized groups, this critical stance may be the first time they get to reflect on their lives and positioning in relation to other groups. This critical stance engages all learners who question dominant norms. Apple (2011) asserted the power of student work that asks pertinent questions like: Whose knowledge am I learning? How did this message become official?

Critical literacy is not a defined strategy. Teachers must negotiate their own perceptions of social justice and their students’ lives. From these personal perceptions, educators decide how to best initiate work that allows them to come to a deeper understanding of how their positionality is caused by dominance and subordination. Using critical literacy to look closely at how language positions the reader as an inclusive member or to determine which groups are left out through silencing or exclusion is a rich way to reduce passivity among learners. Luke (2000) addressed this consideration when he asked of teachers: “Can one move an educational project 57 that engages with critique of the worlds of work, community life, government, media, and popular and traditional cultures into the mainstream of state-mandated curriculum?” (p. 459).

This is the crux of the challenge for educators who value social justice: finding ways to build a curriculum that reflects social justice ideals that develop critical learners while upholding the mandated frameworks. Although critical literacy is not a set pedagogical framework, its tenets are founded in the inquiry and criticality that curriculum standards call for. Attending to these ideals in learners is a move towards students developing their democratic voices.

Transformative Instruction for Voice

Critical literacy goes beyond decoding and learning to read; it includes a broader vision of literacy in which students read texts with an awareness of the larger world (Luke & Woods,

2009). This global awareness is vital for understanding varied positions. Institutional oppression can only be examined when students understand their role and position as part of a larger society. Critical literacies recognize that language, discourse, media, and visuals, as well as print text, should be analyzed carefully. Increasingly, there is an understanding that

“language, texts, and their discourse structures are more than neutral or factual representations of the world. Texts are means for construing, shaping, and reshaping world in particular normative directions with identifiable ideological interests and consequences” (Luke & Woods, 2009, p. 9).

Teaching that values critical inquiry is inherently engaging and transformative. It positions students in an active role: learning is innovative as students hone their critical stance. They read with inquisitive disposition as their ideas lead the inquiry. The students’ wonderings and questions nurture their understanding of the text.

Gainer (2013) furthered this idea of analyzing texts when she asked students to consider texts through the eye of one who constructs texts (p. 17). This work puts students in the driver’s 58 seat as they begin to analyze with a purpose, maybe to determine the message or to think about it as a mentor text they can use to create a counternarrative. Gainer advocated looking at messages through different lenses to better understand who the audience may be. She referred to a presidential political advertisement and asked the audience to consider its message from a social class lens and an economic lens. This work invites students to be critical and explicitly models how to do this effectively. When students practice this work, they can begin to design their own messages that provide a voice for specific purposes and audiences. This idea of using varied texts as mentors is powerful. A student is not passively taking in the content but is now looking at the message to gain insight into how people are situated and how they can construct their own powerful message and give voice. In this instance, the students were guided through the teachers’ beliefs about transformational learning, and the classroom work reflected the teacher’s desire to include critical work. The students were positioned to look at the content with a more assertive stance. The students’ literacy work and analysis offered a chance to examine the advertisement with a new lens.

Critical literacy includes analysis and critique of embedded social structures to discern undercurrents of social inequality. Furthermore, critical literacy includes awareness of how texts advance these relationships (Johnson & Rosario-Ramos, 2012). Critical literacy can be transformative when students respond to representations by creating something they feel better reflects their experiences. These counternarratives are especially significant for learners in communities that are marginalized in a larger hegemonic society. Critical literacy methods allow students to reclaim their identity and voice; “these ways include implementing curricula that challenge master narratives embedded in disciplinary knowledge, using discursive practices that encourage and support reflection, and utilizing the community as a textual resource” (Johnson & 59

Rosario Ramos, 2012, p. 50). Students’ lived experiences are at the forefront of learning as they reflect on written text and construct narratives that provide insights that may go against ingrained ideologies.

According to Freire, literacy has power because “it is a courageous endeavor to demythologize reality, a process through which men who had previously been submerged in reality begin to emerge in order to re-insert themselves into it with critical awareness” (Freire,

1998, p. 485). The central idea is that literacy allows for dialogue and understanding of one’s role and beginning to reflect on transformational possibilities. If one sees literacy as an endeavor to demythologize reality, there seem to be countless ways for students to participate in critical literacy, using a variety of tools in addition to print texts. The notion of deconstructing the reality that appears in media and texts is powerful. Empowering students to break down content to see how messages could advantage one group over another inspires work that counters these hegemonic practices. Helping students recognize their reality and finding ways to determine the best way to reconstruct their roles towards a more positive end is challenging for educators.

Understanding how teachers think about critical work and position students to read and analyze with a critical stance gives insight into how teachers foster transformational habits of mind.

Disruptive Learning

Transformational work can be disruptive as students and educators explore social justice issues. Teachers’ level of comfort and preparedness for work with students in critical literacy are important considerations. It is important to have conversations about what this looks like in the classroom. Because of the changing student population, educators should be prepared to better understand and recognize their literacies and narratives and explicitly teach the normative literacies that give power and influence. It is meaningful to have students identify how basic 60 assumptions such as “all Americans have access to quality education” manifest in different ways.

In his analysis of the value of multicultural education, Olneck (2000) shared the idea that not all knowledge is disseminated equally and knowledge is not valued the same among varied groups.

Olneck (2000) compellingly asserted of schools:

We might expect the transformation of cultural capital to occur when the neutrality of the

school and its independence as a culturally authoritative institution are questioned; when

the ranges of validated linguistic, literacy, and behavioral practices within schools are

enlarged. (p. 323)

Recognizing that there are multiple ways literacy can be validated may inspire students to share their experiences at home and help all learners feel as if their varied skills can be valued in the school environment. At one time, students may not have felt this sense of empowerment.

A natural worry for educators may be that students begin to question how power and subordination are reflected in institutions of learning. Students may begin to question basic notions of learning like the teacher leads the lesson, chooses all relevant texts, and makes assessment decisions. Although issues like these seem pessimistic, they are important considerations as educators negotiate their visions for students and marry this to classwork that fosters learners who can think critically. As teachers share their perceptions of critical literacy, they may share their ideas about where and when they integrate critical learning and their beliefs behind these particular decisions.

A Place for Literacy

Some of the conversation about disruptive learning and critical learning includes finding the best time and place for it. Some educators do this in a classroom as part of a reading unit and others do it in a social studies class. Still others will take a different approach and develop a club 61 or afterschool enrichment course (Dunkerley-Bean et al., 2014). Creating spaces for this work is part of a teacher’s perception of critical literacy work and where it can make the most impact.

Beck (2005) shared her work on the places of literacy. She grappled with how place intersects with critical literacy. She wondered whether institutions such as prisons should include frameworks such as critical literacy, especially if the goal is to challenge normative behaviors and policy. This conflict is also relevant to educators in schools. Beck (2005) spoke to the struggles and difficulties teachers have with instruction that is embedded with critical literacy.

Beck (2005) highlighted the difficulties related to critical literacy: “Teaching critical literacy requires that the teacher highlight controversial, provocative issues in student-centered discussions that encourage students to reflect on their own experiences and to make changes in themselves and the world around them” (p. 399). This can be difficult for educators. Reflecting on positionality and disposition puts educators in a more vulnerable position than they may be comfortable with. This is when the commitment to critical literacy and learning for social justice needs to be considered in order to move forward effectively.

Furthermore, critical literacy brings about content that may be controversial or challenging for some students and families. Teachers may feel conflicted about introducing topics that invite debate and heated conversations. Beck (2002) asserted, “The teacher’s role is not only to encourage textual and sociopolitical critique but also to raise awareness of what constitutes responsible voice and action for communicating across spheres and in multiple dimensions: intellectual, emotional, and moral” (p. 399). This consideration to meet the student in multiple spheres is challenging. It goes against the traditional view of how educators view their role in the classroom. Freebody’s (2013) work on the power of talk and writing revealed that there is often a social pecking order to talk and interaction. Often, these interactions reflect 62 an “apparent status of the interaction as primarily managerial or instructional” (Freebody, 2013, p. 66). He suggested a model of classroom talk in which both students and teachers analyze their classroom talk and ways of knowing and transfer them to writing. This analysis takes time and fortitude, but it is the type of work that may elicit the deep meaning making students need to feel agency.

Some educators may want to include critical and transformative work but feel, for a variety of reasons, that it is not effective to include it in the classroom. These educators look for places that can best serve their students. Dunkerley-Bean et al. (2014) had two objectives when studying an elective in an urban school with a diverse cultural population, in which students were enrolled in a class on human rights and citizenship. The first was to introduce cosmopolitan critical literacy, which examines the effects of globalization and global issues. The second goal was to use the elective to advocate for human rights and citizenship education. The students participated in a curriculum that used varied texts to examine elements of human rights and look at how cultures were portrayed. The students used the skills of cosmopolitan critical literacy to connect with global issues. Students reflected on the impact of being citizens in a globally connected world and created a final product that advocated for an issue they found to be unfair and in need of highlighting. Students acted as the voice for those who they felt were underrepresented. As a result of the class, students created a video highlighting a human rights issue that they felt was being neglected. Because of the instruction, the students became agents for change. They felt connected to the global community and wanted to voice their perspective and show how this issue was not being addressed in mainstream culture. Part of the disruption teachers may feel about integrating critical literacy work is relieved by finding when and where they feel most comfortable delving into justice work with their students. 63

Although this work tends to be disruptive, the teachers’ work and beliefs about critical work and social justice leads the learning. Teachers that recognize their own beliefs about literacy and learning for democracy can provide the learning experiences or guide important conversations. Gleason, Melancon, and Klein (2010) shared their work with teachers who were engaged in learning buttressed with critical literacy. Their study reflected that “a critically literate teacher would go beyond these issues to reflect on his own teaching reading, and writing”

(p. 423). As their conversation with the participants began, they introduced teachers to critically literate practices and pedagogical decisions such as criticality and inquiry within the classroom.

The authors began with the idea that their work could ignite reflection about curriculum and student work. Gleason et al. (2010) explained, “we believed that the teaching participants to be critically literate would enable them to scrutinize the implications and call them into question, understanding that no text is neutral and all knowledge is situated” (p. 423). Teachers’ that work for transformation use this ideal to guide their work with students.

When nurturing change agents and student voices in the community, it is important to recognize the diversity of students. The literate voices developed at home are varied; providing opportunities for students to enhance these skills through sociopolitical critique is empowering.

Students become knowledgeable members of the community and begin to see that their voice can have transformative effects on different groups and issues when teachers apply their understanding of critical literacy and choose places for students to engage in critical work.

Conclusion

Transformative learning is empowering. Explicit teaching in critical literacy reminds us that texts are not neutral and promotes work grounded in inquiry and critique. Students engaged in critical literacy are empowered as discerning consumers of print and media texts. Every day, 64 students contend with a barrage of print, text, and visual images coming through myriad platforms. Critical literacy invites students to think about these messages; determine examples of cultural, political, and ideological dominance; and be aware of the inherent biases reflected in the content. What sets critical literacy apart is the potential for transformative results it inspires in students.

Summary

At the heart of critical literacy is empowerment to take control of information presented via print text or media by participating in critical analysis of its content. This type of instruction begins with a teacher’s own beliefs about democratic learning and critical pedagogy. Choosing a method such as critical literacy is a culmination of one’s understanding of critical work based in inquiry and of valuing the need to explicitly promote pedagogical routines and behaviors in the classroom that encourage students to read with a more critical and socially just stance. Critical educators remind teachers: “Universal access to reading and writing-and now, engagement with dominant digital modes of information- necessarily is about making sense of the world, about building, critiquing, and imagining possible worlds, possible futures, and possible lives (Luke,

2012). Pedagogy that reflects critical literacy elicits active agents in the learning process.

Research provides compelling ideas about why instruction and learning immersed in critical literacy might have a positive impact on nurturing student voice and citizenship. The resulting question is whether this method has resonated with teachers and whether they understand nuances of critical literacy when interpreting and implementing the curriculum.

Learning steeped in critical literacy involves engaged learners, students who are aware of power disparities represented in print and digital media, and a call to action as citizens to improve the plight of those underrepresented in literature and media. The literature expanded on 65 the intersection of critical literacy and social justice by looking at instructional practices that foster critical literacy and create opportunities through reading, writing, and dialogue for students to understand subtleties in power relationships and analyze the pervasiveness of cultural dominance.

The significance of using critical literacy instruction as a platform for social justice and democratic citizens is immense and vital. Society has the awesome responsibility to foster critical thinkers and consumers who are aware of the power of their voices and nurture compassionate citizens who are can analyze multiple perspectives with nuance. Grant (2012) asserted the importance of education that is robust in social justice and reflects on ideologies.

American education was founded on independence, autonomy, the ability to reflect critically as an informed citizen, and making moral and ethical decisions while respecting multiple perspectives and creating positive relationships with a diverse population. Grant implored schools to create learning experiences where all students flourish. Critical literacy instruction is multifaceted and complex. To be effective, educational systems must look within to determine what is valued in the curriculum. Comber (2015) made a case for schools looking within to ask serious questions about how culture is positioned and recognized in the curriculum. Schools are challenged to reflect on where resources are allocated and who makes most decisions. Comber asserted that teachers must reflect on their individual classrooms, analyze their instruction to determine whether inquiry and questioning are valued, and look at student interactions to see examples of inclusivity or power relationships.

Practitioners who want to foster voices as learners and citizens are concerned with work that addresses this passive learning and provides opportunities for transformative learning. Ayers

(2010) further asserted the potential for democratic learning in which students begin “to think for 66 themselves, make judgments based on arguments, to develop minds of their own. We want them to learn to ask essential questions that are like the students themselves- always in motion, dynamic, and never twice the same” (p. 5). Developing these skills lays a foundation for engagement with and awareness of social justice issues. The acquisition of voice through critical literacy in grounded in the idea that schools, like other institutions, can reproduce inequalities. It is also understood that schools become places where students can develop the critical skills to be aware of injustices and be more adept at identifying and, in some cases, giving voice to those injustices (Beck, 2005). In this transformational capacity, students begin to see themselves as empowered citizens.

67

Chapter 3: Research Design

Determining teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy and the impact they have on their work with student voice and citizenship is complex, particularly because the tenets of critical literacy are subjective. The potential power of critical literacy stems from teachers’ personal beliefs about social justice and the analysis of text. A study of the perceptions that teachers have about critical literacy requires a method that is steeped in participant reflection and narration of thought, as well as the researcher analyzing and responding to the participants’ experiences.

Smith (2011) explained that the value of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) is “the detailed examination of the personal lived experience, the meaning of the experience to participants and how the participants make sense of that experience” (p. 9). IPA was used in this study because it afforded the opportunity to gain insight into the work teachers were doing with critical literacy. It also allowed the researcher to infer the teachers’ varied understandings of critical literacy, gradients of knowledge, and perceptions about this topic. While some teachers may be comfortable using the term and incorporating its tenets into their curriculum, others may not have much experience with the method of critical literacy. The researcher was eager to hear the teachers’ stories and reflections about critical work.

IPA encourages the construction of meaning as an ongoing process. The researcher was integral to the participants’ meaning making through responsive questioning and deep data analysis. Larkin et al. (2011) espoused IPA for inquiry and analysis by asserting: “IPA offers an established, systematic, and phenomenologically focused approach, which is committed to understanding the first person perspective from the third-person position, so far as possible, through intersubjective inquiry analysis” (p. 321). This back and forth relationship of inquiry, 68 analysis, and reflection became the basis of understanding the teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with critical literacy in their instruction.

Development of Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis

Heidegger’s work is understood to be the foundation of interpretive phenomenology. His focus on hermeneutics and the interpretation of phenomena was the key difference between interpretive phenomenologies and Husserl’s beliefs. Husserl’s work in phenomenology was concerned with the essence of a phenomenon and understanding the participant’s perception of that experience. IPA research is fundamentally descriptive. A critical tenet is phenomenological reduction, in which a phenomenon is stripped of connotation and brought to levels of existence.

Husserl believed that bracketing , reducing ideas and judgments about a concept and the natural world, allows one to examine its essence. He advocated clearing one’s mind of preconceptions:

“To get to the sphere of absolute consciousness, you have to let the worldly go away and then inhibit what’s left. To inhabit what’s left, you must look to the Phenomenological method”

(Husserl, 1913, p. 2).

Interpretive phenomenology has roots in hermeneutic philosophers “who argue for our embeddedness in the world of language and social relationships, and the inescapable historicity of all understanding” (Finlay, 2009, p. 11). Social relationships provide an opportunity to share in meaning making because the analysis of language leads to deeper understanding. Heidegger veered from his predecessor, Husserl; his concept of phenomenology recognized the experience of being. Heidegger, as well as the philosophers Gadamer and Ricoeur, advocated for the original conception of phenomenology, which stems from deep description and also accounts for language and relationships rooted in understanding (Finlay, 2009). This sense of being a part of a social and cultural network brings about research, which includes hermeneutics. Hermeneutics 69 allowed exploration of the concept of being in the world rather than only knowing and describing the world. IPA also includes deep description but goes further to include hermeneutics and interpretation. A researcher’s role evolves; phenomenologists bracket their ideas so they do not interfere with the participant’s description and meaning making.

Potential Outcomes of IPA

Qualitative methods have similarities. Discursive methods, such as narrative research, take a more nuanced approach to analyzing the linguistic and conversational elements of a conversation. J. A. Smith (2011) asserted:

While IPA researchers talk to participants and analyze what they say in order to try to

learn about how they are making sense of their experience, discourse analysts examine

what participants say in order to learn about how they are constructing accounts of the

experience. (p. 10)

IPA allowed teachers to share their perceptions of critical literacy and gave the researcher the opportunity to delve into their responses to get a stronger sense of how they interpreted their work.

IPA gained popularity in response to the perceived limitations of discursive psychology

(Larkin, 2011). Discursive psychology (DP), while also assuming that interpretations of being are shaped and limited by shared language, believes that the socially created nature of someone is the most relevant thing to explore. IPA “differs from DP because of its explicit interest in understanding participants’ accounts under circumstances when the personal is made especially salient” (Larkin et al., 2011, p. 327). This focus on the evocative experience sets IPA apart from other qualitative methods. Because the researcher was looking for the teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy, it was imperative to understand the personal. Their experiences and their 70 thinking revealed their conceptions of critical pedagogy. The saliency of their personal accounts helped the researcher analyze their responses regarding critical literacy and classroom work.

IPA research is inductive; throughout the inquiry, a researcher is making sense and interpreting how a participant is making sense of experiences. J. A. Smith (2011) labeled this concept the double hermeneutic , “whereby the researcher is trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of what is happening to them” (p. 10). The inductive nature of

IPA allows for the participants to lead the discussion. The researcher is responsive to the participant as the participant strives to make meaning. Brocki and Weardon (2006) espouse of

IPA, “In comparison with content analysis, which seeks to produce a quantitative analysis of discrete categories from qualitative data, in IPA the importance of the narrative portrayal remains paramount, with the final analysis providing a detailed interpretative analysis of themes” (p. 89).

The major concern is understanding how the participant conceives the phenomena and makes sense of their personal experience.

Source of IPA

Much of the early work around IPA developed in the field of Psychology, especially with

Health care researchers in the UK (Smith, 2004). Smith described IPA as having 3 embedded elements, an epistemological position, a set of guidelines that undergird the research process, and a corpus of empirical research (p. 40). This makes sense because as Smith (2011) explains IPA looks to examine experience that is deeply significant to the existence of participants. The idiographic nature (Rafique & Hunt, 2015) allows a researcher to be integral to the meaning making process. The researcher acknowledges that her perceptions and conceptions were part of the analysis process. 71

Also, at its heart, IPA is reflexive. Material is interpreted with the knowledge that a researcher’s own position and understanding of the topic will be accessed through reflection and analysis. A researcher’s personal understanding is intrinsic to making sense of information.

Furthermore, the context in which a participant is situated is connected to the meaning making.

The idea of intersubjectivity allows people to make connections with each other (Larkin et al.,

2011). Husserl’s belief in bracketing one’s ideas or suspending any assumptions about life and experiences is more difficult in IPA. This reduction to the essence of a phenomenon (Dowling,

2007) changes IPA to allow inquiry and reflexivity as a researcher interprets the sense making.

Larkin et al. (2011) added that bracketing shifts in IPA to examining one’s preconceptions as opposed to suspending them. This examination allows an open-mindedness that IPA researchers must adhere to as they look at each case ideographically.

IPA is most concerned with analyzing and interpreting what participants describe. One critique of this method is it does not take a questioning or critical stance. Pringle, Drummond,

McLafferty, and Hendry (2011) elaborated on this idea by explaining that, in contrast with other methods, when researchers interview participants there is a tendency to “interpret belief and accept participants’ stories” (p. 21). Therefore, there is little suspicion or critical questioning of ideas. Pringle et al. (2011) further asserted, “Implications stemming from IPA need to be firmly rooted in what the participants are actually saying, with direct quotes being used widely to substantiate findings” (p. 21). There are fears that this limits the interpretive facility. Because the sessions with participants were recorded and transcribed, the researcher was able to closely examine the participants’ language and use that evidence while interpreting themes for each individual participant and for the group as a whole.

Data Collection with IPA 72

IPA was important to this research because it opened the door to see how people conceptualized critical literacy and, more importantly, how this transferred to work with students. Fine’s (2015) work around teachers’ literacy-related beliefs reflected that there was a disconnect between teachers’ beliefs and the actual work they did with students. The researcher was concerned with first seeing how teachers conceptualized the phenomena of critical literacy and then with observing how this intersects with their work, specifically around student voice.

IPA provided an opportunity for the researcher to question the participants about a phenomenon, explore the deep description of their responses, and then go further to gain insight into the work the teachers did to see how they conceptualized their understanding of their practice. IPA required that the researcher share her own experiences yet withhold critiques and stay true to the description of the phenomenon until themes began to emerge from analysis. Collecting data during semi-structured interviews opened the door for the researcher to ask follow-up questions for clarification, better understand the participants, and allow the participants to expound on their ideas and further their own exploration of their experiences.

IPA is idiographic. It has a focused concern with a person’s compelling experience.

Even with multiperson samples, each analysis is done ideographically (J. A. Smith, 2004). This iterative process requires researchers to engage in a detailed exploration of each case until the ideas are exhausted before moving on to the next case. J. A. Smith (2004) shared that many studies have smaller samples, around five to eight participants. The researcher was committed to representing each different telling while parsing through each sample for understanding and description. J. A. Smith (2004) shared, “Only when that has been achieved, is there an attempt to conduct a cross-case analysis as the tables of themes for each individual are interrogated for convergence and divergence” (p. 41). For researchers concerned with nomothetic results, the 73 deep and iterative process of going through the transcripts and data leads to finding themes that have the potential to reach larger groups. The ideographic and narrative methods of IPA allow the exploration of individual experiences that may have general power.

Of utmost importance is that a researcher, as much as possible, analyzes the participant responses. J. A. Smith (2011) asserted that interpretations cannot be pulled on cue from the participants. There is a vital need for engagement with and interpretation of that which comes from a participant. A participant shares an account and a researcher must make meaning concurrently. This means looking at the content to determine emerging themes. Additionally,

Larkin et al. (2011) reminded researchers that “IPA is committed to the use of verbatim transcript data” (p. 322). Staying close to the transcript is essential to understanding the cognitive and affective process the participant engaged in while making sense of the compelling experience.

The most common way to collect data is through semi-structured interviews with a small participant sample (J. A. Smith 2011). There is some leeway in terms of interview styles. Many researchers conduct semi-structured interviews, which allow them to guide the conversation in some way and still respond to the participant. A founding component of analysis is the idea that

IPA researchers should let the participant lead the conversation as much as possible. Usually a researcher has a few main themes to explore in an interview, along with some discussion prompts, but less structured interviews invite the participant into the driver’s seat. Rafique and

Hunt (2015) explained of semi-structured interviews, “it capitalizes on IPA’s ability to explore unanticipated and unexpected findings” (p. 3). Further, there is a consensus among researchers that “IPA researchers do not attempt to verify or negate specific hypothesis established on the basis of extant literature; rather they conduct broader research questions which lead to the 74 collection of expansive data” (Smith, 2004, p. 43). This idea highlights the notion that interpretation should remain as grounded to the text and data as possible.

Through an iterative process of reflection, identification, description, clarification, interpretation, and contextualization, the account of a phenomenon can be explored in a meaningful way. This study’s participants took part in interviews about their critical literacy work with middle school students. The IPA method was an opportunity for the researcher to observe and analyze their responses to better understand their perceptions of critical literacy work with middle school students.

Participants

The scope of this research included two important objectives. The main goal was to gain insight into teachers’ perceptions and understanding of critical literacy. The secondary purpose was to determine how their understanding was reflected in the decisions they made regarding curriculum and student work around student voice. Critical literacy has roots in critical pedagogy, with a primary focus on text analysis for transformative learning. Gaining insight into how teachers conceptualized their own thinking about critical literacy was intrinsic to seeing how they applied this to curriculum design and their work with students.

Through semi-structured interviews with middle school ELA, reading, and humanities teachers, as well as class observations, the researcher attempted to determine how they were making meaning of critical literacy as a phenomenon and integrating it into their efforts with middle school students’ voice and citizenship. The setting of the study was two middle schools in the same district in New England. The geographically large, coastal suburb was about an hour outside of Boston. The population of students was predominantly White, with over 87% of students selecting Caucasian as their race in 2017 (Massachusetts Department of Education, 75

2018). While there was limited racial diversity, there was a distinct socioeconomic divide.

Almost a quarter of the students were considered economically disadvantaged and over 37% of the students were in the high-needs category.

The data were collected over 4 to 6 weeks. The researcher sent an invitation to all of the

Grade 6-8 humanities teachers in the middle schools, including ELA, strategic reading, and social studies teachers, seeking volunteers. Seven teachers participated in the study. Noon and

Halem’s (2018) review of IPA best practices suggested three was the optimal sample size for master’s work and four to 10 participants was optimal for doctoral-level research. Each interview was done in a one-on-one, face-to-face format. There were two opportunities to converse with participants. During the first meeting, the researcher interviewed the participants.

The second session was an opportunity for the researcher to share the transcripts of the recorded interviews and follow up with any additional questions. It was also a chance for the participants to ask questions or expound on any residual ideas they had from the initial conversation.

Procedures for Study

There were several important procedures throughout the study. Obtaining Institutional

Review Board (IRB) approval was the first step in initiating the research process. In order to achieve this, it was critical to create an environment where the participants were treated in a respectful and safe manner. Additionally, there were consent forms detailing what would be done together, highlighting the fact that their work was voluntary and confidential (Roberts,

2010). The next step was reaching out to gatekeepers at the designated schools. Detailing the purpose of the study and the plan for implementing it was an essential component of the work. It was important for the participants and the schools to understand the work. Once the district was aware of the work, the researcher began the process of soliciting participants. The participants 76 included middle school humanities teachers. Prospective participants were recruited via digital media, such as a Google form, and with a written letter. Because the researcher was part of the district in which the study was conducted, the researcher could recruit participants via a staff announcement. During faculty meetings and through staff news, the researcher explained the process and purpose of the data collection and included an email for interested parties to reach out. The interviews took place in the schools in locations the participants were comfortable with: classrooms, the library, or conference rooms. One of the final questions was a request to contact the participants with further questions or to clarify answers if needed.

Data Analysis

Data analysis for qualitative studies revolves around analysis of words (Miles,

Huberman, & Saldana, 2013). Based on recordings of interviews or notes and observations, the data are meticulously revisited to determine interpretations and iterations. Taking the transcripts and the initial raw data and beginning the coding process and interpretation is the main part of analysis (p. 72). Looking for meaning among myriad thoughts as a researcher creates codes becomes “deep reflection about and, thus, deep analysis and interpretation of the data’s meanings” (Miles et al., 2013, p. 72). As a researcher revisits the data from each participant and then further looks for patterns between subjects, nuanced data analysis begins.

Interview analysis reflected IPA’s tenets. The information represented the participants’ narratives and it is the researcher’s role to read through the responses and synthesize the information for evidence of themes. Data analysis for IPA studies follows an iterative procedure: initial encounter with text, determining preliminary themes, clustering themes among participants, and tabulating themes (Biggerstaff & Thompson, 2008). The researcher began a nuanced analysis of the data with a set of question prompts and the initial detailed description of 77 the responses. Biggerstaff and Thompson (2008) shared this complex process when they advocated for students deep in the analysis process “to think more conceptually about the issued they have identified as themes from their data analysis. This is the move from categories and themes to super-ordination- the interpretive (second to third stage) stage” (p. 220). This deep analysis of the words reflects the holistic nature of qualitative studies.

Ethical Considerations

Every effort was made to ensure the safety and anonymity of the participants. This was a qualitative study, and therefore most of the interaction with participants was through semi- structured recorded interviews, field notes, and follow-up conversations. With this in mind,

Roberts (2010) cautioned researchers that ethical considerations should be adhered to at all phases of a study. Roberts explained that ethical considerations and issues could “arise around all decision points in the research process-from the initial design planning, to the initial design planning, to collecting data, accessing a research site, writing it up, and disseminating the results” (Roberts, 2010, p. 35). With this understanding, there was a commitment to designing and implementing the study with a sensitivity to the IRB’s policies around participants’ rights as volunteers. Additionally, the researcher was well-versed with the school district’s codes of ethics for study participants. Roberts (2010) cautioned interviewers to be cognizant of the gatekeepers at various levels of a school or district who regulate access to different interview sites. Obtaining the consent of these gatekeepers as well as the participants was crucial to beginning the interview process. Equally important is keeping the participants as informed as possible (Creswell, 2013). All researchers must be vigilant in their awareness of the participants’ rights as volunteers and let the participants know their rights. As a colleague of the participants, 78 it was incumbent on the researcher to be faithful to the words of the participants while making meaning of their responses.

A researcher must be forthcoming about where the information would end up after transcription and how it would be used in the study. It is important to communicate rights, such as letting the participants know they may exit the process at any point. It is also important to inform participants that they would be interviewed and recorded and to let them know that they would be given a fictitious name when transcribing and analyzing the information. During the analysis process, a researcher must stay within the confines of the data given by participants. A researcher cannot falsify data or fabricate information in any way (Roberts, 2010). Roberts reminded researchers that it is unethical to change results to bias the study in any manner.

Ethical considerations are essential to the research process. Making sure the participants and the data are treated with respect is necessary to obtaining the most reliable information. Roberts wrote, “Sensitivity to these issues and how you respond to them determines whether or not others question or trust the results” (Roberts, 2010, p. 35). Ultimately, this trust and care for details helped the researcher be diligent in her analysis. Respecting the vulnerability the participants might experience was important to keep in mind.

Considerations for Quality Research

Credibility

Ensuring the credibility of the study was paramount. The questions were vetted to ensure they did not lead the participants in any way. The participants had the opportunity to answer in their own words. Clarifying questions were essential to ensure their words were interpreted appropriately. The interviews were recorded after participant approval and then transcribed through a credible company. The participants also had the opportunity to read the responses if 79 they chose. The researcher reached out to interested parties who responded to the recruitment document and scheduled appointments individually. Additionally, the researcher went over any risks and addressed related questions and concerns before introducing the consent form for participants to sign. The researcher also reminded teachers of the voluntary nature of the study; this was reinforced when the teachers received their own copy of the consent form to refer to as the study continued.

Transferability

This was an IPA of teachers’ understanding of critical literacy as a method of analyzing text and the potential impact it has on their work nurturing voice and citizenship. IPA was a good way to explore this puzzle because it allowed more than one participant to share perceptions of the phenomenon and provided an opportunity for each of the participants’ words and documents to be analyzed deeply and ideographically. This study attempted to determine teachers’ perceptions of a concept, and deep analysis of each piece was intrinsic to that process.

IPA is considered a double hermeneutic practice (J. A. Smith, 2004). This was vital because much of this research required the researcher to analyze, interpret, and make meaning of the participants as they made sense of their understanding and perception of critical literacy.

Additionally, the questions prompted the participants to think about how their understanding was reflected in their work with students.

Internal Audit

The researcher conducted all interviews associated with this study. Each interview was audio-recorded and transcribed by a transcription company. The recordings were on an app on the researcher’s password-secure phone. The transcripts were saved on the researcher’s password-secure computer. Each teacher had a pseudonym to protect their identity and ensure 80 confidentiality. Creswell (2013) asserted the importance of researchers sharing their work and how this enhances the credibility of the analysis. He contended, “It is important the researcher not only detail his or her experience with the phenomenon, but also be self conscious about how these experiences may potentially have shaped the findings, the conclusions, and the interpretations drawn in the study” (p. 216). The following is a list of the methods adhered to in the study to maintain credibility:

Interview questions. A major consideration the researcher mulled over was how the interview questions and the overarching research question situated the participant. The researcher wanted to explore teachers’ conceptions of critical literacy and gain insight into how that affected their work relating to voice and citizenship. The researcher began to think more critically about the questions and wondered whether they put participants at a disadvantage.

Rubin and Rubin (2012) explained that participants should be no worse off after the interview was complete and hopefully would come away having an impactful, positive experience. To this end, the researcher was attentive to the responses and reactions that participants expressed. The researcher anticipated that the interview questions might evolve a bit based on specific responses, but for the most part the researcher intended to stay with a core list of questions and follow-up questions. This allowed the researcher to focus on the individual responses and to begin the coding process in an effective way.

Observational notes during interviews. The researcher made notes for follow-up questions to get more detail on the concepts discussed by participants. The researcher also made a note if there seemed to be a slant or an inner conflict present in the responses.

Researcher’s journal. An important component to maintaining credibility was the use of a researcher’s journal throughout the research process, from conception of interview questions 81 to analysis of responses. This journal allowed for deep reflection on the experience and consideration of issues the researcher experienced. The researcher hoped to keep a record of her process and connect it with the related literature and interviews.

Field notes. Miles and Saldana (2014) discussed the importance of a “fieldworker” (p.

301) keeping a record to note any inconsistencies that arise and a journal that shares “what you genuinely think is going on” (Miles & Saldana, 2014, p. 301). There are times when one account may differ from other accounts; making note of this and a researcher’s experience adds to credibility when reporting data.

Coding software. The researcher used Google tools to analyze the interview transcripts and create memos within the specified codes to help make sense of the assembled information and data. Rubin and Rubin (2012) explained the significance of effective coding with qualitative interviewers. They asserted, “The core part of your early analysis is to recognize and identify concepts, themes, events, and examples and then mark them in the text” (Rubin & Rubin, 2012, p. 192). Exploring codes is the essence of a researcher’s role. Rubin and Rubin further explained that a program can only help organize and retrieve the information; it is a researcher who gives weight to certain responses and analyzes the codes to provide a better understanding of the problem. In their words, “Qualitative analysis requires the attention to variation, to differences in emphasis, to shades of meaning, that go beyond mere counts (Rubin & Rubin,

2012, p. 192). Coding was an essential part of the researcher recording the participants’ words and then looking for patterns and themes reflected in them.

Self-reflexivity and Transparency

Sensitivity to potential bias is a vital component of research. Being aware of beliefs and ideologies that may influence behaviors and interactions with others is a valuable part of a 82 scholar-practitioner’s role. As Machi and McEvoy (2012) explained, “These preconceptions, personal attachments, and points of view present both strengths and weaknesses for the research effort” (Machi & McEvoy, 2012, p. 18). My positionality statement is an effort to explore how my own experiences led me to this problem of practice. This section traces how my conceptions pose potential areas of bias as I move forward in the research process.

As a literacy coach with a master’s degree in reading, a fundamental tenet I value is the power of texts that resonate with students to engage them in work that may be transformative.

This transformation can be found in shared interpretation that comes from collaborative discussion or from creating a product representative of deep learning. Transformative learning is evident when curiosity and wonder are triggered and students begin their own explorations based in inquiry or conversations about their reading. As a middle school educator, I believe that an overwhelming issue to address is passivity and lack of agency. Finding work that allows students to develop their own voices as agents of change is something I aspire to.

Working in a middle school setting, technology has been an intrinsic aspect of my pedagogy because it allows students to create in response to their learning. I have spent much of my time developing with teachers, through coteaching and modeling, lessons that include digital and print text. The teachers look for engaging ways to facilitate participatory learning and often they turn to technology for support. I have focused on ways we can use print and media text to engage students in work that engages learners and decreases passivity. Specifically, I am interested in a methodology that has the potential to develop the voices of students as democratic citizens. I have begun to explore critical literacy as a framework to develop students who are fully engaged in meaningful learning that allows them to look at issues through a critical lens. 83

Personal background. As the eldest daughter of a father from the Marshall Islands and a White middle-class mother who wanted to make her mark in the world by joining the Peace

Corps at a young age, I had a different childhood than many. My father was able to finish Grade

8, and my mother earned a teaching degree before heading off to the Marshall Islands and meeting my father. In the Marshall Islands, my father worked in maintenance and my mother was a teacher. Although the poverty rate in the Marshall Islands is high, we lived relatively comfortably with two incomes. After my second sister was born and I became school aged, we moved back to the United States to live closer to my mother’s family and attend American schools. My mother did not have her master’s yet and with three children, two under the age of two, she could only work part time. My father was able to get janitorial work. Money was extremely tight, and we lived with my mother’s parents while my mother went back to school for her master’s. On many mornings, I remember my mother waking up hours before the rest of the household to finish her schoolwork. This taught me how much she valued learning. It also instilled in me the transformative power of education. We were able to finally leave my grandparents’ home after a few years. We rented for a while before my parents could buy their first home.

Currently, I am a teacher in the district where I attended school. Many of the faculty are middle- and working-class White Americans. The district is very large and there is a diverse economic population in this coastal town in southeastern Massachusetts, but there is very little cultural diversity. As a student, I felt this lack of diversity. My sisters and I looked different and had different experiences at home. As a teacher, I am inspired to include work that encourages students to learn about important global issues and also learn about differences within each other.

Briscoe’s (2005) explanation of the power of interpretation resonates because it illustrates the 84 value of listening and being sensitive to each varied voice in the classroom. Briscoe explained that no one has all the answers and interpretations, “but this is not necessarily a bad thing; rather than being an argument for an exclusive representation of the other, it is an argument for the most inclusive possible representation of any group” (Briscoe, 2005, p. 35).

Potential for bias. As a Marshallese American woman, I feel strongly about providing voices for those who may be considered the other (Briscoe, 2005). I am extremely protective of the Marshallese culture and its impact on my life and the lives of others. The power of social media has allowed me to connect with family and school friends that I had as a child in the

Marshall Islands. I have been acutely sensitive to differences between the cultures, mainly because those differences were glaring to an eight-year-old moving to the United States. The privacy of life here was so different than what I was used to, and I was aware of negotiating my interactions to ensure that I was behaving in a manner that I felt reflected the norms of my new country.

When I was applying to the doctoral program, I was witnessing, via social media, a trend that was very upsetting to me. A new dietary supplement was being used and sold by other

Marshallese people who were living in the United States. They were using outlets such as

Facebook to sell the supplement. Many of the promotions they used seemed geared towards

Marshallese people on social media. Much of the text was written in English and Marshallese and the images used to sell the supplement showed the Marshallese living in the United States in an extremely positive light. I was having a difficult time viewing these posts and thinking about the effects they could have. As I watched via social media, more and more Marshallese people expressed they were also now using the supplement. I did not know about the background of the supplement. I was concerned about the fact that other Marshallese people were using their voice 85 as citizens living in the United States to encourage Marshallese people to buy this product. I was left with a bad taste in my mouth wondering how many people were spending their money on a product because they trusted the results shared online. This issue bolstered my own interest in exploring methods that are innately critical and promote inquiry.

As a teacher and as a literacy coach, I have been concerned with passive learning, more specifically surface-level reading and analysis. Given what I perceived happening with my

Marshallese friends and family, I strongly desired to investigate a way to look at print and media text in a way that encouraged and facilitated reading and that promoted engaged and critical consumers of print and media. Fennell and Arnot (2008) provided meaningful food for thought.

I do not want to subjugate Marshallese as meek victims, but I also want to promote the concept of criticality in an age of continuous media. Fennell and Arnot claimed of indigenous learning,

“It is the denial by Western feminist of African women’s power within such indigenous relational worlds, forms or negotiation, friendship, and systems of knowledge construction that relegates them to the status of subject/victim, rather than their cultures” (Fennell & Arnot, 2008, p. 525). Parsons’s (2008) work provided a different lens for thinking about my biases. Parsons asserted , “A capital view not only illuminates differences between groups, but also celebrates the distinctions (e.g. culture) as invaluable assets and advocates their uses resources in improving a group’s status” (p. 1128). By providing a voice through a framework that is fundamentally

Western in nature, what risk is there in taking knowledge away from the Marshallese culture?

Aligning with the other. Critical literacy as a means of achieving social justice is something I am biased towards. It is of utmost importance for me to be part of work that looks to celebrate diversity, encourage meaningful conversations, and help students find confidence in discovering their voices. Learning that celebrates differences has the potential to transform and 86 develop learners who are committed to social justice. My experiences in reading instruction, in middle school teaching, and as a Marshallese American woman has led me to a place where I am eager to explore pedagogy that allows students to develop their voices through analysis of text.

Briscoe (2005) stated, “ideologies are largely constructed according to one’s experiences, which are influenced by one’s demographic positionality” (p. 34). I am an American woman who has checked boxes labeled “Pacific Islander/Other” my whole life. As a woman and part of the

Marshallese community I identify with the other. As a scholar in higher education, I am also conscious of the fact that I am in a position through my education to impact others, which awards me a voice of power. I feel compelled as a scholar-practitioner to use my voice as a means for social justice in education.

Beliefs about learners. I contend that a curriculum that allows students to analyze text and media to determine voices of power and introduce the idea of the other would be a step towards a more democratic classroom. Introducing students to an educational plan that provides opportunities to look critically at hegemonic disparities and introduces the voices of the other is an essential part of learning and critical thinking. Because many of the students I work with share common experiences, Briscoe’s (2008) discussion of universalities was interesting. It is easy to disregard the other’s voice if it is not a part of one’s daily experiences. Introducing texts that highlight marginalized voices may lead to greater sensitivity. “Thus, universalism usually results in the promotion of a particular as the universal, a particular that privileges the writer’s group while disenfranchising others” (Briscoe, 2008, p. 27). I see value in students participating in meaningful learning that is undergirded with a social justice lens. Gainer (2013) shared about the power of critical literacies when reading moves beyond decoding and surface comprehension: “We need to understand the messages of authors and the interpretations of 87 readers are bound by cultural, historical, and political lenses” (Gainer, 2013, p. 16). I am intrigued with the power this instruction has to develop citizens who are aware of important issues in their own local lives and to develop, as middle school students, their voices as they emerge as global citizens. Finding ways for students to explore different iterations of text, print, digital, visual, and others is a task that cannot be ignored. In this era of learning, it is important to consider the access students have to these texts:

We are as a people surrounded by more text now than at any other time in human history.

The power to be thoughtful about those texts and to write those thoughts down with skill

and precision is every bit as important and essential to the life of modern citizens as the

ability to write a Small Moment story or an argumentative essay. (Roberts, Tolan, &

Marron, 2014, p. vi)

While we as a society might easily swipe through these important messages, helping students be thoughtful about the impact they could have on their own lives, and maybe more importantly on the lives and voices of others, cannot be underscored or undervalued.

Limitations

The power of the IPA method is “allowing the reader to parse the narrative in two different ways” (J. A. Smith, 2004). Because of the nature of IPA, the researcher deeply studied the participants making sense of their own experiences in their personal and social world while making sense of these interpretations (p. 40). A hefty limitation is the opportunity for misinterpretation, because the final analysis was ultimately from the perspective of the researcher. Another limitation is the voluntary nature of the study. The educators were recruited from one district and they could opt out at any time. If the researcher needed to meet to clarify some aspect of the data, it was possible the participant may not have been available, thus limiting 88 the analysis. As a member of the educational staff in the district where the study took place, another consideration was how forthright the staff were in sharing their ideas. While the topic may not have been controversial, there was potential vulnerability in sharing their understanding of critical literacy and the work they did with students to develop their voices as citizens.

89

Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore teachers’ understanding of critical literacy and delve into the potential impact of instruction embedded with critical literacy. This work sought to better understand how teachers conceptualized critical literacy instruction in their work with middle school student voice as members of a local and global community. The research question that guided this work is: What are middle school teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with integrating critical literacy into their classrooms? How do they perceive that the integration of critical literacy influences student voice as global citizens?

Participants

The participants were middle school teachers, in Grades 6 through 8, in the fields of

English language arts and social studies. The district the study took place in was large. There are two middle schools in the district, each housing students in grades six though eight. Teachers from both schools were included in the study. Both schools have the same curriculum coordinators and follow the same curriculum scope and sequence. The teachers had varying experience with teaching and literacy-embedded instruction. The educators were forthcoming with their responses and made meaning of the questions and literacy in general. Each teacher was asked to talk about their role and some of their background as educators. Many shared their preservice teaching as well as their reasons for choosing to teach at the secondary level. Their underlying tone resonated with the apparent love they had for this age group and their respective disciplines. This section provides a synopsis of the teachers’ profiles at the time of data collection:

Jane 90

She was in her second year of teaching Grade 6 ELA and social studies, with 3 years total as an elementary teacher. During the year of data collection, she earned her master’s in special education. Jane had her certification in elementary, Grades 1-6, general education. Jane talked about a social issues unit that was added to her scope and sequence that was steeped in social justice. She felt this was a valuable way for students to see different experiences of the characters.

Kelly

She had been a middle school strategic reading teacher for 6 years. Kelly had a 4-year break, and before that taught middle school for 3 years. Prior to that, she was a reading interventionist for first graders for 4 years. Before that, she was a second grade classroom teacher for 3 years. As a reading teacher, Kelly shared that many of the skills explored in her classroom allowed students to think critically about the content and respond with interpretation and questions.

Laura

At the time of data collection, Laura was a Grade 8 ELA teacher. She was retiring after teaching for 31 years. Before her permanent position, she began by subbing and then taught high school for a bit, but most of her career had been in the middle school setting. Much of Laura’s own professional development included work around critical media literacy. She described much of her curriculum was based on student choice. This includes choice in assessments and products students created.

Molly

She was a Grade 8 ELA teacher who had been teaching middle school for 12 years. She graduated with an English major and began to substitute after graduation. Molly had her 91 master’s in middle school English and at the time of the interviews was beginning another certification program, in library science. Molly had taken advantage of opportunities for professional development in literacy and was part of the school’s Literacy Support Team, which included opportunities to attend conferences to support literacy in the classrooms.

Faith

She was a Grade 8 civics teacher. She had been in this position for 12 years.

Immediately after completing her undergraduate degree in teaching, Faith went into a master’s program for teaching middle school, Grades 5-8. She was certified to teach history in Grades 8-

12 and began her career by teaching Grade 8 civics as soon as she finished school. Faith discusses the challenge that sometimes comes with discussions about politics with grade eight students. She also discussed the power of a community action project she does with her students.

Kyle

He was a Grade 7 world geography teacher who began his career as a history major. He had an advisor who suggested that he try middle school and he enjoyed it. Kyle appreciated the age of the students and liked the topics in the curriculum. He explained that he had been doing this for a while and was not sure he would be able to enjoy the same types of discussions with younger children. Kyle was concerned with some of the reading skills he noticed with his grade seven students. He explained that their achievement gaps impacted the work with students.

Hillary

She was a Grade 7 geography teacher. Hillary was a history major as an undergraduate and worked in the private sector after she graduated. She decided to get a degree in education and was teaching seventh grade. Hillary discussed some of the work she did with students and media literacy. This is especially important in her position where students often study maps and 92 graphs when looking at regions of the world and resources people have. Hillary also explained that she used novels to help students better understand the culture of the regions of study.

Interview Analysis

The responses were personal to each participant and reflective of their perceptions of critical literacy. It was clear that there was little to no knowledge of the term “critical literacy” as a distinct theory guiding pedagogy. The educators shared their perceptions of literacy and critical work in general, but the teachers were unclear about the term or had not heard of it.

Anticipating this, one question briefly explained the major tenets of critical literacy. The teachers were told about the fundamental social justice aspect of critical literacy and its potential to explore messages for power disparities. Moreover, the question explained that looking closely at messages to see whether there were inherent power inequities and having students consider whether there were hegemonic behaviors could influence their understanding of how others were positioned politically, socially, culturally, sexually. Teachers were asked to share their experiences with this work, their perceptions about this type of learning in general, and how it played out in the classroom.

Several themes resonated throughout the data collection. The teachers’ responses reflected the teachers’ grappling with the following concepts: Perceptions of Critical Literacy,

The Many Literacies and literacy jargon heard in current times, Literacy Challenges, Student

Voice, and Varied Curriculum work between Social Studies and ELA educators. The most prominent themes involved teachers’ perceptions and considerations of critical literacy and what it meant to them. Terms such as “perspective” and “choice” were frequently used as teachers discussed their perceptions. The work the teachers developed with these terms in mind was often part of units that included novels. Another important idea that arose was the challenges teachers 93 faced regarding literacy and critical work. Another clear theme was the many different literacies that the teachers discussed. Their perceptions of critical literacy were in the field of information or media literacy. While critical literacy could certainly encompass information and media literacy skills, the question was whether the underlying component was a belief in social justice or redefining the teacher-student relationship to give the student more voice in their learning.

The biggest challenge the teachers faced was in reading skills. The students had difficulty accessing information because they lacked reading skills, both fluency and comprehension. The teachers felt this achievement gap greatly impacted the work they did with students. Another challenge that resonated was their concern about addressing controversial topics and the pushback they might face from parents. The participants were able to share their personal concerns with being too political and their attempts to remain on a middle ground while exploring potentially controversial content.

An important purpose of this study was to gain insight into how critical literacy work influenced students’ voices as local and global citizens. Much of the literature on critical literacy takes place in social studies classrooms. Different scholars have used social studies classrooms to explore various ways power has promoted or dismissed voices in history and current events.

In English classrooms, teachers have been able to look closely at how various texts situate different groups. In addition, ELA classes have been a space for looking closely at the different perspectives and voices represented in literature. To this end, the most surprising finding in the data may have been the difference in how ELA and history teachers integrated what they perceived and articulated as critical literacy work into their curriculum. The final theme that emerged related to student voice and citizenship. The data analysis reflected that, as a whole, the educators did not feel the students had much opportunity to share their voices in and out of the 94 classroom. Other than in some select school groups such as student senators, there was little evidence of students being able to voice their opinions. Under this umbrella of voice, the teachers began to share what they did in the classroom to promote student voice and citizenship.

This included sharing in the classroom or considering responses to various texts.

Perceptions of Critical Literacy

The most profound theme that emerged was that humanities teachers had varied experiences with critical literacy pedagogy and had different understandings and interpretations of critical literacy. While this difference could be attributed to the different disciplines the teachers taught, there was discrepancy among the ELA and social studies teachers as well. Each educator had their own interpretation of critical literacy. Some teachers believed critical literacy meant knowing critical information. Others thought it referred to knowing the foundations of reading and writing. While the interpretations were varied, two important ideas were consistent.

There was an overall feeling that encouraging choice and prioritizing students’ awareness of other perspectives was important for students in ELA and social studies classes. The ELA teachers discussed using novels to introduce students to different perspectives and providing choices in the texts the students read. The social studies and civics teachers were in agreement that their classes involved getting students to see other lives and experiences.

Choice and Perspective

There were some differences among the humanities teachers’ responses, but two words were repeated often: choice and perspective. The researcher believes that teachers’ reflection on the power of choice was important because it spoke to the student-teacher dynamics that play a big part in critical literacy. Critical literacy asserts that there is a deeper component to reading than pure phonics and word decoding. The educators believed that students read with an 95 awareness of the world, an understanding of others around them, and knowledge that there is no neutrality in texts. They emphasized having students look at pieces while keeping an open mind to different perspectives. To this end, the question remains whether the use of choice and perspective in teaching reflects a pedagogical philosophy of critical literacy. Are these concepts themselves experiences with critical literacy?

Choice . Laura described how using a workshop method that allowed for more choice initiated decision making among her students. Laura stated:

And with the workshop method came a lot of freedom for me and a lot of freedom for the

students. And I found the more choice the kids had, the more I was able to nurture a love

of reading with them.

She mentioned that choice extended to book selections and assignments and products. Laura further asserted:

So instead of let’s say when I first started teaching, I knew what I wanted them to learn.

And everything I did was directed toward that. That started to change. Everything I do is

outcome based. I know where I want them to be, but they had more choices in how they

got there.

A paradigm shift like this opens the door to students having more say in learning outcomes. There is also something to be said about students being aware of what they are working towards and having a shared understanding of the lesson and its objectives. When asked how critical literacy was integrated into his classroom, Kyle stated: “choice.” When asked what he meant by this, he said choice had the power to help students feel part of the learning environment and, more importantly, that they could take ownership of their learning. Kyle’s words around choice were profound: 96

Yeah, and that can take place in a number of ways. Whether it’s creating policies in the

classroom, it could be giving them options on letting them choose a topic for a geography

fair project. It could be on a test; you can have this option or this option. And just give

them choices. Because it does give them, it empowers them when they have choice.

Who doesn’t like to have choices? When it comes to their learning, it’s no different.

Whether it is a choice among novels, a formative assessment, or how they showed their understanding, the teachers emphasized providing students with choice.

Perspective. Helping students identify perspective was a concept introduced many times during data collection. Jane discussed using books and a social justice unit to develop an understanding of others, especially those who are in the classroom. She explained the profound ways books can help students encounter more than one perspective and shared her understanding of critical literacy: “You’re reading, you’re taking in what you’ve read and you’re having an opinion based on whatever it is. It could be anything. It’s making you analyze and see it from two perspectives rather than just one.” She went on to say that she hoped students developed a sense of empathy for those around them as they began to see more perspectives.

Having a window into someone else’s life and developing a sense of empathy from perspective was picked up by Laura when she shared of her work:

So, if we’re reading something, I really, really emphasize figuring out what voice is

telling the story. Is it a first-person perspective? If it’s a first person's perspective, how

would that story change if somebody else was telling that?

Jane explained that the work the students encounter helps them reflect on perspective:

“And I actually have them do writing on that. They might have to retell something from a different perspective. Jane provided an opportunity for students to retell a story from another 97 viewpoint. Perspective learning can have students speak with a marginalized voice if they choose to. The researcher believes that this kind of instruction should be explicit so students consider hegemonic behavior in books.

Kyle talked about his Grade 7 geography classes and explicitly stated the connection between perspective and his understanding of critical literacy. As he worked through his understanding or conceptions of critical literacy, he touched upon having students understand other perspectives and went back to student reading levels. When asked about critical literacy work, Kyle responded:

Depends on the text that you’re reading, if that’s going to be the definition of critical

literacy. Where you’re looking at it from different perspectives and breaking it down.

And seeing it from different perspectives, but I also think I, when I hear critical literacy,

my first thought it you have to be able to have a, well. Like an SRI [Scholastic Reading

Inventory], can you read at grade level?

This statement embodied much of the conversation about teachers’ experiences. While the teachers may have sought out texts that would allow students to recognize perspectives, students’ reading skills were a roadblock to moving forward.

Evolving Teacher and Student Roles

The researcher believes that the value of learning undergirded with choice cannot be minimized. This addresses an intrinsic aspect of critical literacy pedagogy, the student-teacher relationship. The teachers posited that when they gave choice, they perceived that they were putting the learning into students’ hands and allowing for student ownership of learning.

Teachers had different levels of comfort with this. Molly and Laura both spoke to the idea of sharing learning outcomes with their students and providing them with a variety of ways to show 98 their learning that were meaningful to the students. Molly explained, “Every year I teach, I’m so much better at letting go of what I want them to do, and I’m better at saying, ‘This is the skillset.

Here are the different ways you can get there.’” This was a way to have students make decisions about instruction and use their voice in the classroom.

Valuing perspectives touches upon critical literacy work as well, because the students begin to consider the world through a different lens. It was not clear how far the teachers delved into nurturing awareness of other perspectives, but there was potential for students to reflect on their own positionality, develop an awareness of other perspectives, and consider how one perspective could have more power than another. Additionally, perspective work lends itself to becoming more nuanced in understanding which messages are hegemonic in nature. It was no clear whether this was the intent when highlighting new and different perspectives.

Conclusion

Providing time for students to think about and consider other perspectives is an essential component of critical literacy. For students to understand their own position and be aware of any power relationships, they need time to consider their experiences and to see and hear the experiences of others. Text is an important way to do this. Moreover, providing choice is a fundamental tenet of critical literacy because it begins to address the relationship between student and teacher and gives more agency to the students. Questions still abound whether the work was done to reach the outcome of students being more aware of hegemonic behaviors. Are teachers planning work that is critical in nature so students can delve into issues of justice?

So Many Literacies

Three of the seven educators worked in the social studies department. Although they had higher learning, all of them at least a master’s degree, they had not participated in any literacy or 99 reading courses as part of their preteaching courses. The researcher believes that this is significant because there was an expectation that they would include literacy skills in their instruction, but the data reflected that the teachers were making sense of literacy skills and expectations based on their own work and understanding of literacy, not from formal literacy education.

The salient idea that came to light about the meaning of critical literacy was confusion among the many terms used to describe literacy. Key ideas like bias, confirmation bias, and critical media literacy were used to describe critical literacy and the literacy practices the students were engaged in. The differences between critical literacy and information literacy are nuanced, and their responses indicated that the teachers were using language that may have been more aligned with informational literacy. Informational literacy could be considered critical in nature because there is an understanding that students should be more cognizant of author bias or purpose.

Kelly, a reading teacher, stated her frustration with students who seek text that reaffirms their thinking. She worried about students who perceive information based on their own opinions and have confirmation bias. Kelly asserted of her seventh-grade students,

“Confirmation bias, when it’s just like, this is what I think I know, so this is how I am going to understand it.” While Kelly seemed to want her students to be more discerning and critical of the texts she chose for class, she saw students being quick to latch onto some information and not being critical in their thinking.

Additionally, the social studies teachers discussed routinely looking at graphs and images. Hillary’s perception of critical literacy was reflected in the work she did looking at images and maps with her seventh grade students. These practices could fall under media 100 literacy or critical media literacy. Laura specifically referred to a course on critical media literacy and developing critical habits of mind with her students. The conversations with the educators revealed that the teachers were engaging in literacy work, but much of the work was guided by their curriculum and standards as opposed to their ideologies about social justice or their consideration of transformative learning. The lack of clarity around the different literacy terms was reflected in the descriptions the teachers shared. Much of the conversation the teachers had about critical literacy resonated with components of information and media literacy.

Information Literacy

Information literacy, critical literacy, and critical theory in general have similar skills attached to them, so it can be very difficult to distinguish the nuances between them. When asked to define critical literacy, there was an emphasis on teaching the skills to be more critical and evaluative of information. Many of these skills are embedded in the method of critical literacy, which is committed to exploring language and to noticing language and the social, political and cultural inequities found in texts. Because of this, students who are learning in an environment of critical literacy are always engaged in analysis, which includes looking at information effectively. The goal of information literacy, which has its roots in library science

(Weiner, 2011), is to nurture academic critical thinking skills, such as analysis and synthesis, with an emphasis on finding and evaluating information. Weiner explained that critical thinking skills are often comparable and further posited, “These two ideas have much in common.

Traditionally, information literacy has been a focus of research and instruction by academic librarians while critical thinking has been considered the faculty discipline specialist” (Weiner,

2011, p. 82). Possibly because many new state and national curriculum frameworks have students think critically and because of the emphasis on finding evidence to support ideas, many 101 of the teachers’ responses and experiences with critical literacy were more aligned with critical thinking and information literacy.

Kyle said the history and science informational literacy standards impelled him to conduct analysis with students. Much of Kyle’s work was done with the standards in mind.

Kyle shared how he “felt the district and the curriculum has a greater emphasis on literacy in general.” He further explained, “So, I think from state level, or federal level, the emphasis on history teachers, or social studies teachers, as supporters of literacy it’s in those frameworks.”

This is important because he referred to the research the students did and the difficulty they had with it. The standards require students to read informational texts and write their own informational pieces, and Kyle saw that students needed to become more adept with this skill.

Kyle described his experience with students:

And just to watch him look at text, that was, it wasn’t, I don't think the text was too

complex for him. He’s a pretty good reader. And I’m just sitting next to him, and

watching him look at this website and try to find information, and he, it was like scrolling

down. And then I’m like, “Whoa you missed it.” And then it's like zoom back up and just

visibly watching him. I’m like, “You need to just slow down and process what you’re

doing.” “But I am doing it.” And I’m like, “Not very effectively.”

Kyle’s experiences with literacy were a result of the framework and the literacy requirements for his field. He was making sense of critical literacy as he reflected on the curriculum he followed, a curriculum that asks students to do research and think about the author intent and bias. His focus was on the lack of effective research skills among the students, skills that were more aligned with information literacy. 102

Molly’s discussion of bias in her journalism unit showed the confluence of literacy ideas.

She illustrated how students needed to reflect on their own position on topics so they could recognize bias in journalism: “I also think it’s so important to teach about bias in journalism, and what are our own biases and what are our own prejudices.” Having students find topics that are relevant to them and think about how their own perceptions may impact the piece are important skills for them to practice. Her students were engaged in researching articles and analyzing the language and rhetoric.

Although Hillary did not directly discuss information literacy, she did discuss the issues she saw when students conducted research for the Geography Fair. Hillary felt the students did not know how to effectively look for information. She lamented students’ lack of skills when they were tasked with conducting independent research. Her experience with the students was that they had trouble finding appropriate resources when conducting their own research. This was highlighted when she explained the difficulty they had finding:

Good resources that are at their level. They go to Wikipedia. The readability of

Wikipedia is terrible. I can pick from Wikipedia and find. They look at it and they start

doing the copy-paste thing because they don’t know what else to do.

Hillary’s experiences reflected the work she did with her students. Although these were essential literacy skills, especially in terms of finding the resources students might need to communicate effectively, this was a fraction of the critical literacy philosophy.

Media Literacy

While sharing their perceptions of critical literacy, a lot of the teachers referred to work that may fit better under media literacy. Critical media literacy is an important aspect of critical literacy. With the increasing modalities of media, this form of literacy pedagogy has become 103 more prevalent in the curriculum (Gainer, 2010b). Critical literacy has historically been connected to print text, but critical media literacy opens the door for students to look at hegemonic messages and information shared through the many forms of media they encounter daily. Laura probably had the closest experiences with critical literacy. She said, “I took a media literacy course. And it just really opened my eyes to evaluating websites. To just print media, electronic media. How messages are shaped, how people are manipulated.” The researcher found it interesting that Laura’s knowledge came from a literacy course she had taken. Her work resulted from learning about media literacy and bringing that interpretation into her classroom.

Media literacy was present again when Faith reflected on eighth-grade students’ difficulties with literacy: “I think media literacy is as important, if not more important, for these students when it comes to interpreting information that may or may not be true or false.” Faith taught in a social studies department. Faith posited that media literacy had value in her discipline because there was an expectation to explore current events. She discussed how she began to have students consider the sourcing of digital text. Faith also shared that her students got some media literacy instruction in a course taught by the librarian:

A lot of that revolves around current events in my class and being able to interpret current

events, whether it is...usually from a news source or from a social media source. I think

media literacy is as important, if not more important, for these students when it comes to

interpreting information that may or may not be true or false, and I know they get some

media literacy in… Oh what’s that class?

Her concerns with students and media literacy as a topic may have been better explained when Hillary talked about her work teaching Grade 7 geography. Hillary said that in geography, students are continually looking at images: maps, charts depicting information about people and 104 land, images of different locations and cultures. The ability to look closely at these images and begin to question what is being shared and how it is interpreted was a significant part of the discipline. She furthered her discussion of media work when she spoke of the work students did online. She asserted that the close reading work of highlighting and underlining significant content and annotating what they feel is important was not a skill that transferred to digital work.

Hillary shared of her students: “Then they're taught all these strategies in ELA about highlighting, underlining, circling, marking things, but then we’re asking them to read so much online and we want everything to be digital. It doesn’t translate for them.” Hillary espoused the idea that media literacy did not allow for critical skills, like reading print text, as in ELA. This view of how media literacy impacted the understanding of print text was revisited when Jane shared some of the critical work she did with her students. Jane felt that students had a good grasp on media literacy because of the prevalence of media in students’ lives, but did not feel that the skills resulted in better readers. Jane’s opinions were reflected in her response:

Oh, they do a really good job at responding to media based, whether it is images or

graphics. I feel like that’s so easily accessible right now in this day and age, but also I

think it takes away from the actual principle of reading. So yes, it’s better for their

cognitive understanding, but in terms of making them better readers, I don’t know if it

does.

Jane saw the value of using media to support understanding, but she did not feel this work supported their actual fluency and comprehension. Jane’s conversation began to shed light on another topic, foundational literacy skills, which is when teachers discuss the complexities they face in reaching struggling readers.

Conclusion 105

The researcher believes that this discussion about informational literacy blurring lines with critical literacy is important. Is it enough to be aware of concepts such as fake news or be able to identify an authors’ bias? The dissonance appeared in the work the students were doing.

The skills the students engaged with reflected receptive literacy skills, which include “reading, listening, and viewing because they involve working with language generated by others and received by us” (Wolsey & Lapp, 2017, p. 54). Students may be more used to experiencing this than expressive tasks, which consist of work, “where we produce language other expression that communicates (Wolsey & Lapp, 2017, p. 54).” It is in this production, and maybe counter- production, that agency is most powerful. It may benefit all educators to consider Freier’s

(2000) idea of praxis. Are students reflecting on the words and engaging in action that looks toward justice? There was an emphasis on bias and looking deeply at texts, but there was not a deep connection to the undercurrents of social justice nor to reading messages with an awareness of social class, gender bias, racial inequities, or socioeconomic disparity. Are students responding in a way that shows their consideration of issues and language? The idea of reading the word and world and then using this as an agent against hegemonic messages is at the heart of critical literacy work.

Literacy Challenges for Educators

The participants were asked to highlight their experiences with literacy instruction. As they shared examples of work, there was consistent discussion about two major challenges they experienced while engaging in critical literacy work. Each teacher discussed specific challenges they encountered with having students access information due to perceived gaps in reading ability. Additionally, they shared their impressions of the students’ ages and their overall comfort with introducing concepts or texts that could be seen as controversial. As they shared 106 their considerations about controversial topics, the teachers reflected on their curricular decision making. They had an overwhelming commitment to respecting the age and maturity level of students when they considered classroom instruction and curriculum design. Moreover, they were aware of how the students’ home lives might intersect with critical literacy work.

A challenge that emerged when discussing literacy was a widespread concern about students’ literacy skills, in general and especially in perceived reading and writing gaps. The teachers shared their concern with students’ ability to read, write, and understand vocabulary; they felt this was a big factor in students’ overall success. Furthermore, these deficits influenced decisions about resources and pedagogy. Teachers were compelled to spend time on vocabulary and discussion to help students understand the content. The teachers hesitated to use some texts they felt students would struggle with. The district had students take an assessment to determine students’ Lexile scores, and the teachers were especially concerned with the varied levels among students. The scores reflected such a large discrepancy that teachers felt ill prepared to meet their students’ needs.

Controversial Topics for Middle School Students

When asked about critical work, the participants shared examples of their work and also discussed the students’ age and maturity. While teachers felt they could have conversations with middle school students that they would not be able to have with younger students, they were not comfortable with introducing topics that could be seen as controversial. The teachers acknowledged that middle school was an ideal time to introduce new concepts, but they seemed to perceive that some topics might receive pushback. The educators felt that the students were developing their own personalities, so this was a good age to introduce them to more abstract ideas they may not have experienced before. Jane pointed to the maturity of her students: 107

“Getting them to think outside their own box and their own world with the variety of social, socioeconomic status, just in my classroom alone, they can’t relate because they’ve never been through that.” In the same vein, she talked about having learners respond to texts or share their opinions and feelings about a topic, but because of their age and development as sixth graders as well as the framework standards, she explained: “But we only focus, we don’t counter. So we only focus on the side they stand on.”

Laura, a veteran Grade 8 ELA teacher, shared her thinking around age and topics with a positive light. She shared of her students, “I just absolutely love middle school kids. I like their energy, I like their silliness. Eighth grade especially because their abstract thinking is starting to kick in, and I find that pretty exciting.” Laura’s feelings about her students was reflected in the work she did with them. She described “helping somebody become a more sensitive, empathetic human being.” She later expounded on looking at an important issue such as the Holocaust and its impact on her students: “We used the Holocaust as a model and then branched out into some other things that happened in history where people made choices that hurt other people.” Laura saw the value of acknowledging and exploring topics such as the Holocaust for nurturing kinder human beings. She explained that its power was in helping her students become more sensitive and empathetic people, which was her ultimate goal.

There was a consensus that middle school was a good time to have students learn about the world around them and consider various other viewpoints. There is also a real concern that going too deep into some topics or bringing up issues of social justice might lead to pushback from home. Hillary’s responses reflected her experiences with her classes: “Seventh grade for me is the sweet spot because they're still young enough that they’re engaged, enthusiastic, excited about whatever you’re doing. They want to know. They're curious about the world.” 108

She discussed how students view issues globally versus how they view themselves as citizens in their own communities:

I almost think that's because their community they take for granted. It just seems like,

“Oh yeah, this is the way it is.” They don't see themselves as being a part of any because

they just think, “The way we are is the way we are, and that's not going to change.” They

don’t realize that there are adults making decisions on a daily basis.”

While Hillary did not specifically mention critical literacy at this point, the researcher thought this was an interesting interpretation she shared about how students viewed themselves in their communities, both in the classroom and outside of it.

Home-School Connection

When teachers were asked about looking at issues of social justice; reading content for gender, class, race, and sexuality; and including content that could be controversial, the researcher was surprised to hear them worry about including text that might incite anger at home.

Furthermore, the researcher found it interesting to hear the teachers explain that they felt compelled in some cases to withhold some of their own opinions in an effort to not reveal their beliefs to their students. These responses communicated the internal debate the teachers experienced while trying to navigate their positions on topics and what they felt was appropriate to discuss. In attempting to get her seventh-grade students to see varied perspectives or arguments, Kelly expressed frustration about confirmation bias when she discussed the magazine her class had access to and the political leanings it inherently portrayed:

When either the magazine itself is trying to get them to think of both sides or if they set it

up that way, more so than… I find it very liberal leaning, which is fine with me, but it

makes me think about because obviously if students were not, and trying to be fair, but I 109

think I am probably doing more of the working either feeding it or in reactions or how

they react to it.

Kelly’s response reflected her experiences with students’ positionality and personal conceptions of issues. She was concerned about the students having what she called confirmation bias, which may be related to age. Kelly revealed her conflict with her own fundamental beliefs about social issues, which she regards as liberal, and how she negotiated this with the more conservative leanings students’ families might have. The conflict between home and school work was reinforced when Jane shared, “Oh, I find as a teacher, you walk a fine line on what happens outside of the world and what happens in side your classroom because you can only control what is said and how things are skewed.” This preoccupation with teaching without being too political or giving too much of their own opinion was shared by other participants.

When asked about her experiences with these concepts, Molly replied that it was the responsibility of educators to explicitly talk about:

What happens when those things aren’t respected? What does it look like when people

are discriminated against because of gender, race, religion? What does it mean to be the

type of person that says, “No, I’m not going to do this,” and stand up to it?

She continued, though, to share that in her experience, this is not the case with all educators.

Molly reinforced this idea when she said:

That’s ignorant to think that that's inappropriate, but I definitely think that some great

teachers think that that's inappropriate and they don’t want to touch on that stuff. They

don’t want to deal with parents, and the pushback from parents.

Molly shared that she did work with the Holocaust, which was a unit the students connected deeply with. She explained that she had done this for several years and had not had any 110 pushback. The researcher wonders whether this is because it was explored from a historical lens rather than as a current topic.

Another example of concern over pushback came from the civics teachers’ work with the political climate. A social studies teacher explained she did a lot of work with elections and important related issues. This position put her in a space where she discussed issues of interest constantly. She discussed one of her goals at the end of the year:

Personally, my goal at the end of the year is I ask... And I do this. I ask the kids, “Am I a

Democrat, or am I a Republican?” And I have them take a vote. My goal is to have them

think 50-50.

Faith went on to talk about not wanting to be too liberal or too conservative and wanting to evoke a sense of balance in the content and her conversations with students. This experience of wanting to find balance and providing two sets of perspectives was a decision that many of the teachers made when they evaluated their own ideologies and philosophies in the classroom.

Molly best summed up this conflict when she stated:

I feel that when you allow... It’s hard because you do have to be politically correct in the

way of not pushing your own belief system onto students, which is a challenge with this

sort of critical literacy that you’re talking about.

There was a sense that families and home experiences would work against the teachers’ work. Kelly closed by sharing her thoughts about including critical analysis: “I’m comfortable with it, but sometimes I don't because I’m like, well, this is going to take some research to get this right, because otherwise they're just going to be debating on false information.” The researcher found Kelly’s comment interesting. She seemed to have an inner debate about getting the kids to be well versed in some topics, unease about parents’ feelings about the potential 111 liberal views of the articles, and considerations about the time and resources the students needed to become knowledgeable. What came to light was that teachers use books to do critical literacy work. Although the teachers felt trepidation about initiating discussions around social justice, there were ways they felt this could be done, mainly through the curriculum and framework standards and with the use of novels.

Critical Literacy and Curriculum

Consideration of the resources needed to do work in critical literacy involving controversial topics is central to understanding how the teachers conceptualized work steeped in critical literacy and thinking with a critical stance. The teachers negotiated their understanding of age; their perceptions of what texts students engage with; and the realities of student’ skills as readers, writers, and critical thinkers. Much of the work they described as critical came from the prescribed curriculum or the skills determined by the curriculum frameworks. Jane shared that this was the first year they had a new ELA curriculum. During the reading and writing units of study curriculum, her students had a social issues reading unit. In this unit, students began to think more deeply about power and to recognize that some perspectives and characters were not treated the same because of sexuality, immigration, mental health issues, and racism. Jane felt that students had an opportunity to engage in critical literacy during this unit: “So in our units of study, the social issues unit, they do a lot of work on power. The power struggle, the weaker character versus the stronger, the more dominant character.”

Molly also divulged that many of her beliefs about social justice came through during her reading units. She felt the classics unit was a good place to have students think critically about novels that are considered part of the literary canon. During the historical fiction unit, she had students engage in choice book clubs around the Holocaust. Because historical fiction was part 112 of the curriculum calendar, Laura also saw this as a time when students could think about different groups of people and how people are treated because of cultural and religious differences. Laura posited of her Holocaust work:

Helping somebody become a more sensitive, empathetic human being. And that whole

last term was generally...what we used is we used the Holocaust as a model and then

branched out into some other things that happened in history where people made choices

that hurt other people.

Jane, Molly, and Laura were ELA teachers who used novels to have students begin to explore power and perspective. The novels seemed to be a window through which the students could peer at the characters and explore relevant issues. Maybe the safety of a novel, as opposed to a controversial article or media text, supported critical literacy. It was also possible that the concern with pushback from home was eliminated because these units were required and there was safety in everyone following the same scope and sequence and using the same material and resources.

What resonated was how the social studies teachers also used novels as part of their instruction. In this way, students in geography could engage explore the content from class in a narrative form. The geography teachers explained that they included regions of the world in their curriculum and had begun to use novels like The Breadwinner and A Long Walk to Water to provide context for the regions they explored. The use of these texts was a powerful way for students to experience the lives of people in the region and for the teachers to begin conversations about religion or cultural differences with their seventh graders. Kyle articulated how novels had been integral to supporting his curriculum: “Doing novels with students has been really eye-opening and intriguing because it puts them in a different place, but yet they’re getting 113 good content.” The novels provided ELA and social studies teachers with a lens for considering topics that could be controversial and for highlighting new narratives and perspectives.

Possibly because students could initiate some of this conversation from the books, it was easier for the teachers to discuss social issues and inspire students to think about important topics. Faith, who taught eighth grade, referenced Malala Yousafzai who the students learned about in geography, and how thinking about Malala’s experience helped them make positive, transformative choices:

We’re not all Malalas, obviously, but we can do small things and we can do some big

things. So having them use those themes to kind of craft their service learning projects,

so that they might not make as big a difference as the person that they read about.

The use of novels segues into the next challenge the teachers faced with critical literacy.

Each participant stated that their most pressing issue with literacy as a whole was the diverse reading ability the students brought to school. They felt students were not able to read the material effectively and lamented the reading achievement gap.

Gaps with Reading Levels

The researcher is a middle school literacy coach, which involves supporting reading and writing and communicating with ELA and content area teachers. The participants’ responses showed concern about reading, comprehension, and basic decoding at the secondary level.

Alford and Kettle (2017), among others, discussed the intersection of critical literacy with basic foundational reading skills. They explained how critical literacy is part of the contemporary conception of literacy. Critical literacy is integral to literacy development and to fostering reading and writing. They wrote, “The skills of reading and writing are recognized as basic literacy practices that are foundational to critical engagement with the text and textual practices 114 that constitute social life” (Alford & Kettle, 2017, p. 187). Students need critical literacy as a social practice to engage in a technologized world with an influx of text, but the fundamental literacy skills are essential to being able to engage critically. Students must be able to read and write to even access the information; this resonated in the teachers’ responses. Dissonance between wanting the students to think about perspectives, and have empathy and kindness, and recognizing students’ needs to interpret reading and comprehend facts was a common thread among the participants.

As each teacher discussed challenges they faced with literacy instruction, they often used the word “Lexile.” All students in Grades 6 through 9 in the district took a Scholastic Reading

Inventory (SRI) three times a year, which yields a Lexile level. Peel’s (2017) work on critical literacy in the face of the Common Core explained that Lexile refers to a readability measure that states Lexile ranges in relation to grade levels (p. 105). Lexile scores were explicitly discussed or referenced by many of the participants in the study. Faith, an eighth-grade civics teacher, shared her biggest challenge with her students:

I think the biggest challenge with literacy is the variety of reading levels and the fact that

students are not grouped based on ability. We have students who might have an SRI

score that’s putting them at third or fourth grade level, and we have students who are past

12 th grade level in the same class.

She thought this was significant, considering that her students were expected to enter high school the next year and she was concerned about reading issues in middle school. Hillary, a Grade 7 geography teacher, discussed “decoding” as one of her two main challenges, the other being vocabulary instruction with the new words in the curriculum. She shared her students’ difficulty with reading words and how this impacted their larger understanding of the text they 115 were exploring. Kyle, another Grade 7 geography teacher, discussed the gaps he saw in literacy among his students. He was hesitant to respond, worrying about speaking with a literacy coach.

His answer reflected what his colleagues shared in many ways:

I might regret saying this, but I have got to be honest with you. I think whether it is

research or actually asking kids to do reading, is actually getting kids to sustain their

attention long enough to actually do the assigned reading.

Kyle went on to talk about helping them find topics they enjoyed researching and doing all the scaffolding to get them to read the content, but they just would not do it. He lamented that the students did not actually read even if it looked like they were. Kyle explained, “Now if that is lack of patience, if that is because some kids just aren’t proficient readers.” Kyle went on to say,

“Because kids that struggle to read, that’s a huge problem. But that would be my biggest challenge. Is just getting the to sit there and actually do the expected reading.” Much of Kyle’s frustration came from students reading print and digital texts.

Faith, Hillary, and Kyle were part of social studies and history departments. Their concern with students’ reading levels could be attributed to the fact that they were secondary content area teachers who did not feel confident about their abilities to “teach reading,” but this concern with reading skills extended to the educators in ELA departments as well. Jane, a Grade

6 teacher who was certified as an elementary teacher and had a master’s in special education, discussed the challenge of meeting such a diverse group of students with varied levels of reading skills. When asked about her biggest literacy challenges, she stated, “Definitely the range of their Lexile levels. You can have a third grade or fourth grade reader, and then you can have almost a 12 th grade.” Meeting these needs on a basic reading level was difficult enough, but

Jane continued by explaining the difficulties she had when attempting higher level analysis: 116

“And me having them break down and analyze what they’re reading can be extremely challenging, especially when you're doing like a poetry or a higher level text. Getting everybody to understand and cater to their understanding.”

Kelly was a K-12 certified reading teacher who currently taught Grade 7 reading, had also taught elementary students, and had spent a lot of time teaching students to read as a primary grade teacher and as an interventionist. She still struggled with students who had lower reading abilities. When working with her middle schoolers, she tried to embed higher level skills, but was hindered by what students were able to do. Kelly espoused:

It depends on the kid, but I actually kind of like that I have that background in elementary

and the really basic reading because you realize that some of the weaker readers are...

They’re not doing that or they’re not thinking about like, “That word doesn’t even make

sense, I should stop reading,” which I think is helpful to remind the older struggling

readers about the basics.

She found it difficult for some students to engage and think more deeply about content when they were still struggling with the actual words, much less inferring larger ideas.

Molly alluded to a concept that was closely intertwined with critical literacy, the idea of critically reading canons of literature. She discussed students having difficulty accessing and persevering through these higher level books in her class and how that impacted the critical stance they may take against classics. Molly posited of the dissonance between some readers’ levels and the work they do with texts: “For example, having a student read like a classic novel, like say Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde , the story is very high interest, but it’s difficult to read.” She implied that although there are many ways to critique and question some of the texts in the 117 curriculum, how much of this can be done when students are struggling to even access the content?

Conclusion

When asked about their work with critical literacy, the teachers expressed very specific challenges they faced, not just with critical literacy, but with literacy skills in general. The teachers were concerned about introducing topics that may be considered controversial, mainly because they were worried about the pushback they may receive from home. There are topics around sexuality, class, socioeconomics, race, politics, and religion that are addressed when educators look towards a liberatory curriculum, but there was unease about doing this work. The researcher found it interesting that regardless of the grades – sixth, seventh, or eighth – there was concern with bringing up topics that may be controversial or draw backlash from home.

Furthermore, teachers were concerned about using texts or including discussions that might show how the teacher felt about certain topics. They believed that addressing these topics was important when students begin to consider their own voice and identities. Sometimes finding a topic that students felt connected to was the impetus for students working through a challenging text.

The second challenge that each teacher discussed was their profound concern with their students’ reading skills and how this achievement gap impacted their learning. In both ELA and social studies classes, teachers felt constrained in their work because the students had difficulty with basic reading skills, vocabulary, and comprehension. Each participant shared their distress over literacy skills and the challenges they had meeting such diverse reading skills. The researcher believes it is intriguing to think about the intersection of the two biggest challenges the teachers brought up: worry about the appropriateness of topics and the reading achievement 118 gap. Critical literacy and the topics, though they may be controversial, are relevant to students’ lives. The researcher believes it would be interesting to see whether texts about these topics would engage students and promote their individual voices in the classroom and beyond.

Student Voice

The ultimate goal of this study was to explore middle school teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy and gain insight into how their interpretations of critical literacy pedagogy impacted student voice and their curriculum decisions. The underlying assumption was that teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about social justice may come into play in their work with students and, furthermore, may influence student voices as they emerge as citizens in their immediate environments and globally. With this in mind, teachers were asked to discuss, based on their experiences in the classroom and as stakeholders in the schools how students’ voices were nurtured. The answers were varied and personal to each educator. Clearly, the teachers did not feel the school offered many opportunities for students to be vocal in leadership roles, but the teachers felt they were better able to advocate for students to have more voice within their own classrooms. The participants shared their thoughts about transformative work to nurture student voice.

Transformative Voices

Many participants expressed that the schools they worked in did not offer many opportunities to foster student voice in and out of school. They felt that while there were some student leadership groups that had the opportunity to share their ideas, this was not the case for many students. When the teachers talked about their own work in the classroom, more examples came up about having students use their voices. When asked what opportunities in the classroom students had to share their voices, Jane explained, “We don’t have much vocal student 119 engagement” at school. She went on to describe that there was not much opportunity for students to have a voice and that discussions were mostly led by teachers. She added that while she did not see the school as having places for students to be vocal, she recognized that students can thrive and be instrumental in their learning during enrichment courses. Jane asserted:

But I really think it’s in art, and it’s in music, and it’s in tech, and it’s when there’s no

restriction for the most part. Yes, they may be following your rubric or guideline, but it’s

that right side creativity of their brain where they really start to transform and see it.

When pressed to describe whether she felt students could be transformative in the work they did in her classroom, Jane lamented the lack of opportunity in the curriculum for this work.

Jane shared her interpretation of the curriculum she taught: she felt it “limits the transformative aspect.” Earlier in the interview, Jane had talked about students reading books about important social issues, engaging in important discussion, and seeing other perspectives, so the researcher found it interesting that she did not connect those experiences with nurturing student voice. It appeared that Jane equated specific activities of leadership or students speaking in more formal ways with having voice. This idea was reiterated among other participants. Laura experienced students practice using their voice by having them explore speeches and write their own speeches about topics they were committed to. She also referred to having students write a lot and be able to communicate effectively in their writing.

Molly shared having students write their thoughts. Molly’s words, probably more than others, encompassed how she used writing as a means for students to talk about issues and perspectives they dealt with in literature. For Molly, the proof of learning came out in the questions and responses she initiated with her students: “I think of utilizing research, utilizing new ideas, thinking things through. Creating structure in education that allows for a deeper more 120 rigorous questioning and for kids to develop ideas on their own.” This was expounded upon when she shared how students made new meaning from the text they were dealing with. Molly explained her expectations in the classroom while analyzing text:

Then we write from the other side of the story. Then they look at that piece, and then

they figure out where they stand. The goal is to come up with a new idea. Maybe it’s not

reinventing the wheel, but it’s what is the 14-year-old’s voice in this?

Molly saw this writing as authentic versions of themselves, which ultimately is students practicing sharing their voices.

Kyle responded that Grade 8 students had more opportunity to do service learning projects that gave them a voice, but he did not see that as much in the other grades. He felt time was a big issue, as was the sheer amount of work they were expected to do in addition to the curriculum. It was difficult to have students develop voice because of these other expectations.

Kyle said the critical work for voice was disrupted by a number of issues: “But in seventh grade,

I feel like, it’s we want you to do more writing, we want you to do more, incorporate more technology, incorporate more public speaking. Incorporate more service learning.” His frustration leaked through he shared, “And then at the same time, cover all this material. And I think sometimes I push those service learning projects behind.” There are demands on teachers, and Kyle’s words reflected his belief that a lot of the things that could lead to transformational work and advocate for student voice were not prioritized.

The researcher found Molly’s response to be interesting. Her response regarding whether there were opportunities to support student voice was to talk about choice. She discussed how she focused on the skillsets she wanted to support and less on the activities needed to get there.

She offered students more choice in how they did the work, which allowed them to show more of 121 themselves. Her concern was that she did not think this was the norm at the school or for most teachers. In Molly’s words: “I’ve seen a lot of things like where people think they’re giving choice, and I don’t really think they are yet.” She went on to discuss the importance of teachers letting go of some expectations and using students’ preferred intelligences. For Molly, student voice is found when “People let go of that and push towards the multiple intelligences, and push towards allowing choice for what skills to get there with and strategies to use. I think voice comes through with that.” In this instance, Molly recognized that students’ voices as members of the classroom are considered when educators begin to give them more say in their learning.

The students could use their strengths or choose the tasks they felt most connected to as a means of showing their learning. While the teachers may have felt there were no opportunities for the students to develop their voices in a larger arena like the school, there was a perception that this could happen in the classroom. One way this happened was through student writing.

Voice as Citizens

The teachers in the social studies department spoke more explicitly about citizenship, most likely because their subject and content area spoke more deliberately to this. Faith’s experience was that Grade 8 students liked having the opportunity to share their developing ideas as they became more aware of their positions as citizens in relation to the government. Faith saw students begin to articulate their ideas and share their voice when they began to make their own judgments. Faith illustrated this when she explained letting them make their own judgments:

Especially about things that maybe their parents have always told them specifically they

should believe, whether they should be a Democrat or a Republican. And suddenly, they

have a voice, and they get to understand what both of these terms mean and what it 122

means to be a citizen. And then they can kind of choose their own stance on a lot of

things.

Faith went on to speak about a service learning project that she and another Grade 8 teacher facilitated with their students, which was a positive experience. She believed the best way for students to share their voice was for them to research and articulate their findings around a topic that they were committed to:

But I feel like giving them that voice really keeps them engaged, and I feel like that’s the

number-one best thing that we do all year both on my floor and on the third floor, is our

citizenship service learning project.

This was the best activity she felt she did with her students, but it was done once a year.

The researcher found it interesting to contrast the experience of Faith, a Grade 8 teacher, with that of Hillary, who taught Grade 7 in the same department. Hillary shared how her seventh-grade students did not see themselves as citizens. Although she tried to get them to think deeply about ideas introduced in her world geography class, in her experience the students needed to be explicitly reminded to have a voice. As classroom conversations about being engaged and vocal citizens continued, she began to see their voices emerge. Hillary explained that she articulated citizenry to students when she told them: “‘You can't be neutral. You can try to be, but you're either being a positive contributor or a negative contributor,’ and I make them mull that over a lot.” She tried to articulate this work further and espoused the value of engaging students: “They don't think they have a voice when they’re younger, but they think of it so locally, like just them and their friends. They think have a voice maybe with their parents and their teachers, and that's about it.” This may speak to the age of students, but she also noticed that they began to develop their sense of being a part of a larger community: 123

Now they’re discovering, “Oh, I can write something. I can write to my senator. I can

write a letter,” or “I can get students on the bandwagon to sign a petition, and I’m going

to bark up somebody’s tree until I get something.’’

Hillary’s work seemed to be a culmination of the teachers’ thinking about student voice. They wanted the students to have voices and felt compelled to get them to think deeply about certain subjects, whether through print text or with projects. These experiences were facilitated by the teacher to get students to think about how their own lives intersect with the bigger citizenry.

Conclusion

Teachers conceptualizing the idea of voice and citizenship was probably a more formal endeavor than the critical literacy methodology advocates for. The teachers spoke of service learning projects and speech writing. The researcher believes these experiences they facilitated were important, but there is value in work where students are reflective and create and construct meaning in a way that is relevant to their lives. Jane’s words summed up how the teachers might be doing this work yet are unable to articulate it as critical literacy instruction. She reflected on her students’ work while reading in the social issues unit. She discussed how students needed to be aware of the lives of the characters and to consider what the author was trying to say to the readers. Students needed to be are aware of the learning and importance of “background knowledge they need of the subject plus all the inferential thinking they need to do to know what is this person trying to say about this topic.” When students began to consider hidden meanings or make inferences, they were more likely to be critical about messages and to be aware of power and peoples’ position in these texts. A critical method of instruction is more accessible when refection and action are at the forefront of the teachers’ pedagogy.

Curriculum Difference Between Social Studies and ELA 124

The researcher found it interesting to see how different teachers explained how the work they connected with critical literacy. This last finding involves differences between the social studies and the ELA teachers’ shared perceptions of critical literacy. The underlying belief among both groups was that students should be thinking critically about the content; the difference was evidence, methods, and practices. Clearly, the type of critical literacy work the teachers developed was vastly different between the two fields. This could be attributed to standards or curriculum design. The ELA teachers often used texts as a means of looking into people’s lives. They also were comfortable with many skills, like questioning, having choice, and reflecting on issues, that social studies teachers did not discuss. Hillary, a social studies teacher, even mentioned that she often followed the lead of her ELA team member. When she knew the ELA teacher was in an argumentation unit, she could “piggyback in my classroom, how they can use the skills from that to do debate and discussion in social studies.” The social studies teachers seemed less confident about their work around literacy and were more concerned with Lexiles than the ELA teachers. The perception of critical literacy work was different for ELA and social studies teachers. The researcher thinks it is possible that the frameworks led to these differences, but their perceptions of critical work and how it might lead to voice played a big part as well. The ELA teachers focused on analysis of the different texts students worked through. Terms such as “synthesis” and “reflecting” were prominent throughout the interviews. The social studies teachers were more focused on disseminating relevant content and trying to get students to know the information effectively.

English Language Arts Teachers

The ELA teachers shared their efforts to get students to analyze information and texts as part of their critical work. Jane weighed in on the conversation about critical literacy when she 125 talked about looking critically at media: “So we look at commercials or we look at video footage or we look at a photo and we do a lot of like perception, this is what we perceive.” She acknowledged that there were specific ways she had students look at messages: “So yeah, I’ve brought definitely a lot of video clips and advertisement.” She explained this work was done when talking about looking at propaganda. She felt this work was an important way for students to become more critical as they explored the different media forms and analyzed what the messages could reflect.

In her reading classes, Kelly talked about working with students to help them read more deeply into the text to see what the author was attempting to say. She talked about habits she would like to see her students develop as they read for meaning. Kelly saw value in getting students to analyze material and reflect on its potential meaning and bias. Kelly stated:

I guess really basically it’s just not taking whatever form of literacy just at face value.

You’re like, I read it, it’s true, that’s the way it is. You know, to reflect on what you’re

viewing or reading. I mean, you can get really into it, like authors’ perspective or bias

and all this, but I think just very basically it’s just kind of reacting to what you're reading.

The researcher believes that students reacting to the reading is important because it offers them a chance to think about the information and respond as they see fit. Writing becomes a way for students to make meaning and share their ideas. This idea was prevalent among all the ELA teachers. For Laura, reading content and responding through writing was such a norm in her classroom that often she did not distinguish the two tasks. Laura explained that writing to text occurs naturally through various iterations of her pedagogy: 126

I think that what has happened over the years is that writing and reading blurs for me. So

they’re always writing. This is important. Reading and writing in this case are

interchangeable. The analysis is seen in reflection with the pieces.

Laura went on to explain that writing was the most profound way she had found for students to share their ideas about text. From this writing, she gets the students’ thinking. More importantly, writing was a time for the content and the analysis to sink into the students’ schema.

Laura expounded on the power of writing in her class by stating: “The proof from me is always in their writing. So whatever direction I've tried to lead them in, how do you show me that you've assimilated that? What are you walking away with?” A teacher uses writing as a way for students to consider the information they are reading in a more meaningful way. Thinking critically is an essential aspect of critical literacy.

Molly shared some work she did with complex texts her students experienced during a classics unit. She had the students analyze the content by questioning the text, including being critical of the characters and the norms portrayed in the books. She wanted students to be able to read and interpret the books independently, without guiding them to a specific understanding.

The researcher believes this was powerful because it allowed students to engage the text in a way that made sense to them. They questioned what they did not understand. Molly found value in teaching skills that helped students find meaning. A priority in her class was “teaching the kids the skills to push through and muddle through the rigor of something that's a little bit more dense.” More than the other participants, this strictly addressed the salient parts of critical literacy. Molly’s students were looking at texts, making sense of the information as they were prompted, and being explicitly taught to question the material and the intent. The focus on analysis and looking deeply at text resonated with the ELA teachers. 127

Social Studies Teachers

The biggest difference among the responses around critical literacy for ELA and social studies teachers was the work the students engaged in. The social studies teachers were concerned with imparting discipline-specific skills or concepts to their students. They wanted to make sure the students got those concepts. The ELA teachers were concerned with having the students think about the material or analyze what they read. This may be because of standards.

Kyle directly referred to how difficult it was for students to get the content from the reading and discussed how challenging it was for students to do this effectively. When explaining the power of critical literacy, Kyle shared what he saw in his students:

There’s so much at everybody’s fingertips, all this information that can be read. Right?

So what does it mean to read with a lens? What does it mean to get more out of what

you're supposed to be reading, and not just looking up answers?

Kyle asserted that teachers have difficulty getting students to think deeply about information. He worried the students had a lot of information, but did not necessarily have the skills to access or look through the content to access what was relevant. Hillary also talked about students lacking the critical skills to look up information online. She wanted them to be able to read, but lack of vocabulary and knowledge of other cultures hindered their understanding of print and digital texts. When she introduced new concepts, Hillary tried to give them the background they needed to make meaning. She wanted her students to feel confident with moving forward, “comfortable with the vocabulary because there are new words to geography or to history that they've not heard.” She reinforced this idea and continued to develop her own understanding of critical literacy work and critical pedagogy: “At the middle school level, what's critical for me to get across is so much more skills, concepts, and ideas-related because you're 128 almost building the foundation so that they can then add the content in later.” Hillary’s words indicated that the social studies teachers wanted the students to learn specific concepts. Their work sought to do this.

Conclusion

Several relevant themes resonated from the interviews. An important theme that emerged was the teachers’ own perceptions and understanding of critical literacy. Much of the conversation was about providing students with choices and including work so students could consider different perspectives. The teachers were able to share how their choices led to students having more input in their learning and how it was important to foster a perspective of empathy and citizenship. Another theme was the many types of literacy initiatives in our current education environment. Teachers discussed other important literacy skills, such as information and media literacy, when sharing their perceptions of critical literacy. While many of the skills in these other methods overlap with critical literacy, the social justice component of critical literacy and learning for democracy was the hallmark of critical literacy.

Another major theme was the challenges teachers faced when they made decisions about critical literacy work. The first challenge was a reluctance to discuss controversial topics or include text that they felt might garner pushback from home. A common thread of deep appreciation for the age group and an innate sense of worry about pushing issues too much ran through the participants. Molly summed up the concern that each teacher shared with this work at the end of her interview, when she articulated her thoughts about critical literacy:

I feel that when you allow... It’s hard because you do have to be politically correct in the

way of not pushing your own belief system onto students, which is a challenge with this

sort of critical literacy that you’re talking about. 129

It appears to the researcher that their experiences reflect the worry they had negotiating some topics they may have wanted to discuss given the students’ home experiences. Another challenge that hindered the teachers’ work was grave concern about achievement gaps in general literacy skills. Even when teaching middle school students, the teachers felt they could not do critical work and look deeply at some texts because the students struggled with basic reading skills.

The fourth theme was around critical work for voice. There were mixed results around student voice. The teachers shared their opinions about nurturing voice in the school as a whole and then explained how the work in their own classrooms could promote student voices as members of the classroom and as citizens outside of it. The issue of fostering student voice as a result of critical literacy pedagogy was not explicitly stated, but the researcher thought it was important to get a glimpse into how teachers conceptualized the development of voice.

The fifth and last theme was the different critical literacy work the teachers did as ELA and social studies teachers. It became clear that there were different expectations around critical work from the two different disciplines. The ELA teachers spent much of their time describing the analysis of text they engaged in, while the social studies teachers described their interpretation of how to get students to know discipline-specific skills and information.

These themes illustrate the various ways the educators perceived critical work with their middle school students as well as their consideration of how to get students to look critically at texts. They also highlight important challenges that educators experience with this work. These challenges impacted their decisions around voice and citizenship because they had to consider which texts and topics would best fit their students’ diverse needs and expectations from home.

While the teachers shared that they tried to include work around voice and citizenship, they felt 130 they could do more. Moving forward, this study will explore how the participants’ work reflects the considerations of other scholars and educators.

131

Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications for Practice

This study was a qualitative exploration of middle school teachers’ experiences with critical literacy and its impact on student voice and citizenship. The interviews were conducted using an interpretive phenomenological analysis approach. IPA guided the interviews, in which the questions were semi-structured to allow the researcher to follow up in attending to the participants’ responses. The concept of critical literacy is new to some educators and the double hermeneutic hallmark of IPA allows for the researcher to ask questions as the teachers made meaning of concepts. An understanding of Critical Pedagogy Theory and its fundamental underpinnings was essential to recognizing the findings.

Critical Pedagogy Theory and Findings

The main findings of this study are intrinsically connected to critical pedagogy, the theoretical framework anchoring this study. Freire intended critical pedagogy to begin as a dialogue by a learner to share their experiences and transform their life as they read the word and are connected to the world. Scholars recognized that there was uncertainty about what this meant in the classroom. Moreover, scholars felt the tenets of critical pedagogy theory did not address reading textbooks and language discourse (Luke, 2012). This signaled a need for critical literacy practices. This is the most profound connection between the theory and the study. The later findings signal even more connections.

One of the findings is related to teachers’ making sense of democratic learning. Another finding is about the work teachers do with transformative learning for student voice. These are hallmarks of critical pedagogy as a theory for education. Freire (1970) explained critical pedagogy as a way of learning that is problem posing and stresses the human-world relationship.

Learning through a liberatory lens invites students to consider their positionality and explore it 132 across various issues that are relevant to their lives. Furthermore, critical pedagogy work puts students in empowered positions. Students come to an awareness that they can engage with the learning by questioning, dissenting, or taking a critical stance. The students’ voices are triggered as they move from a passive learning stance to discovering how content is connected to their lives and those of others. The justice component invites students to share their ideas around these issues and give voice when they feel compelled.

Furthermore, teachers interested in critical pedagogy recognize the dialogic nature of the theory (Kirylo et al., 2010). The interplay between the student and teacher roles is a large part of the findings. With an understanding of multiliteracies, teachers can start to navigate students’ cultural and language strengths and foster transformative learning, where students actively engage with texts. In critical pedagogy, there is an effort to determine a more discernible way for students to examine the world around them and begin to grapple with important issues of social justice found in both implicit and explicit texts. In the words of Luke (2012), “The alternative is to begin from learners’ worldviews, in effect turning them into inventors of the curriculum, critics and creators of knowledge” (p. 7). Educators who use critical practices want knowledge to stem from the students’ ideas of power relationships. The students are making decisions and interpretations based on their own knowledge and critical thinking.

Another connection between critical pedagogy and the findings is the need to examine the literacy learning that teachers engage in during preservice teaching. The findings suggest that secondary teachers, like the middle school teachers in the study, do not spend enough time learning about literacy practices. Other than content literacy, the teachers are not trained in literacy instruction and do not have background in methods like critical literacy. Because of this, the teachers are not aware of the liberatory leanings of critical literacy. This is similar to critical 133 pedagogy as a theory for learning; perhaps teachers are not aware of its tenets as a general theory of learning. Pradhan and Singh’s (2016) assessment of critical pedagogy in the classroom concluded, “There is no single definition of critical pedagogy and there is no final version of the term. It is constantly evolving and is context specific. Various critical pedagogies are possible in the classroom from different theoretical and critical perspectives” (p. 263). This idea was reinforced in this study of critical literacy. The teachers were making sense of critical literacy as a method of instruction based on their own definitions. After more preservice instruction about critical theories in general, it would be interesting to see how the educators’ responses were different when asked about the critical work they did with students.

An important finding is the need for more learning about critical literacy. This could also be said of critical theory, in which teachers and students view learning with a frame of social justice and freedom. While traditional experiences with education have seen the teacher choosing texts and leading discussions to help students locate specific information, critical work invites teachers to value a curriculum that highlights students’ experiences.

Critical work is an important endeavor for teachers, but it takes time and reflection to engage deeply and meaningfully. Thomas et al. (2010) shared their thinking about critical literacy, but their words could be applied to critical theory pedagogy as well: “Instruction is indeed a social and political act, and our beliefs and lived experiences influence the choices we make. Our willingness to turn the lens on ourselves is ultimately what will create more space for critical literacy practices” (p. 93). This study explored middle school teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy and of the impact their work had on student voice. Critical literacy does this work through analysis of texts to find power relationships within them, but it originated from critical pedagogy as a theory of learning that looks at power dynamics in general. Having 134 students understand their positionality based on culture, social class, gender roles, and religion, and look at other perspectives, is essential to transformative learning. Teachers’ thinking about these issues is paramount to understanding their work with students.

This chapter is organized around three overarching findings. The most significant finding reflects the current and traditional understanding of literacy as a whole and the power of recognizing literacy instruction as a foundation for liberatory learning. It is difficult to fully comprehend a teacher’s perceptions of critical literacy without taking ample time to think about the potential for instruction founded on a social justice position. The first theme reflects resounding concern about critical literacy work and about addressing some topics because of student age and fear of external pushback.

The next finding is a call for literacy work as part of pre-service teaching programs. The teachers’ responses reveal a need for more literacy instruction for pre-service and veteran teachers in secondary education. This second finding acknowledges the participants’ understanding of critical literacy. The participants had varied understandings of critical literacy, and their interpretations and experiences reflected the different work they did with students. The teachers valued helping students see different perspectives and made efforts to include more choice options in their learning, but they were still unsure about the social justice aspect. The surrounding research reflects that social justice underpins critical literacy. The beliefs that teachers have about social change and democratic learning are at the heart of this work. The teachers’ hesitancy to fully embrace the social justice underpinning, or more importantly to address issues of power around important social issues such as gender, sexuality, race, and culture, may be addressed by better understanding the literacy education secondary practitioners experience themselves. This offers insight into teachers’ comfort with literacy instruction in 135 general and whether more education in preservice programs or in professional development for veteran teachers would impact their willingness to engage in critical work.

The last finding mirrors educators’ consideration of student voice. While the teachers wanted the students to have more voice, they were unified in acknowledging that the schools did not provide opportunities for students to develop their voices. Interestingly, many participants agreed that students who were in leadership groups had the opportunity to make a difference and have voice. With this in mind, this finding directly addresses transformative work for student voice. Specific aspects of critical literacy work stress an understanding of multiliteracies (New

London Group, 1996). These espouse the significance of supporting a variety of cultural literacies and language practices as well as supporting their voices through effective information literacy in an increasingly digital world. This digital world recognizes a shifting understanding of print and media texts, which include messages grounded in political and cultural undertones.

Literacy for Democratic Learning

The lack of clarity regarding critical literacy and critical work in general is a fundamental complaint that resonates in research on critical literacy. Much research explains of critical literacy stems from an educator’s own beliefs about social justice. Scherff (2012) discussed her study on preservice teachers developing critical stances. Scherff explains that since the original work of Freire, “Many educational researchers and theorists have worked to define and describe what we now consider to be the essential tenets of critical literacy, such as raising critical consciousness” (Scherff, 2012, p. 44). An ideal of critical literacy is that literacy is an opportunity for students to be agents for change if literacy instruction is explored using a transformative lens. 136

The first finding is the importance of having teachers think about literacy as a tool for liberatory learning. The question involves teachers’ perception of literacy and whether they see literacy as what Cridland-Hughes (2012) described as a space for action and activism. Much of the teachers’ considerations and worry about including texts with controversial issues can be best addressed by recognizing the political space that surrounds literacy practices. Cridland-Hughes described a community’s commitment to literacy and wrote that literacy is best understood in an arena where students recognize their part as agents of social change. Beliefs about literacy may start to change when conceptions of the term evolve and it is imagined differently: “Literacy is practiced in the community focused on the critical acquisition of knowledge as a precursor to thoughtful action” (Cridland-Hughes, 2012, p. 197). Until this changes, teachers may continue to see literacy as a specific set of skills that need to be taught rather than as a theory for democratic learning.

The teachers’ responses to challenges with literacy instruction and with critical literacy centered around students’ low reading scores. Across the board, teachers were most vocal about achievement gaps in basic reading skills. As educators in the humanities, the teachers felt most vulnerable when finding resources or supporting students who struggled with reading the course material. There was palpable concern that there would be pushback from home if the instruction became too political or included discussion and reading of topics that may be deemed too controversial. Allowing a broader perception of literacy and seeing it as a foundation for democratic learning may give teachers a different lens for thinking about the texts they use while considering the relevancy of the topics to students’ lives. With this evolving conception of literacy, teachers may begin to think about students’ skillsets in a different way.

Evolving Understanding of Literacy 137

Along with teachers’ unease with introducing controversial issues like racism or power inequities due to perceived repercussions and their consideration of achievement gaps in reading, a bigger idea that is emerging has to do with how teachers conceive and interpret literacy instruction. Teachers’ conceptions of literacy are intrinsically connected to how this reflects the curriculum plans and their classroom instruction. If the conception of literacy is shaped by the ideal that it is students’ ability to read and summarize texts, this could impact what they consider acceptable in the classroom.

Lytle (2013, as cited by Dharamshi, 2018) addressed how literacy instruction for preservice teachers must reflect a wider view of literacy. Lytle’s preface in Dharamshi’s “Seeing the Everyday Through New Lenses” referred to literacy practices being framed with a larger lens. Lytle (2013) explained, “Literacy, teaching and literacy teacher education are critical social practices. They are not transmittable. Learning from and with students occurs in social, cultural, and highly political spaces” (p. xvi). This is especially important in teaching because it may be in direct opposition to how many conceptualize literacy learning. A focus on transmitting knowledge relegates learners to a passive role. The students are put in the position of learning what others deem important.

Critical literacy is viewed by Lytle and other literacy educators as a liberatory practice.

For this understanding of literacy to be pervasive, educators and preservice educators need to think deeply about what literacy is for and seek to determine what it resists (Lytle, 2013, p. xvii).

Lytle believed that “literacy teaching and teacher education are fundamentally about equity, access, and justice. They are about learning and teaching as political acts” (Lytle, 2013, p. xvii).

It is important to treat this idea of teaching as political because it opens the door to acknowledging that literacy is more than reading words: it is about considering the larger world 138 and the issues that impact ourselves and other citizens. Wilson (2014), as part of her discussion about student readiness for literary theory, reminded educators that “literacy, not age, is the factor that matters” (Wilson, 2014, p. 69). Students, even young children, can be reflective when looking at high volumes of text. They can think deeply about language and discourse and consider who and what is being said and whom a message supports or silences.

When literacy is recognized as a means for students to change their lives and have a voice in their learning, teachers can decide to put students’ experiences at the forefront of learning.

Texts are chosen to inspire students to think about their lives and those of others and to see how they can be agents of change. This leads to the next important idea, the interaction between teachers and students that is a hallmark of critical literacy work.

Scholar-Educator Interplay

Teaching imbued with a critical philosophy has the potential to be groundbreaking. The traditional and expected roles of educator and scholar are directly impacted. Teachers who are concerned about critical methodology understand that both teachers and the students in their care need to develop critical skills. Rahimi and Sajed (2014) looked at the intersection of critical pedagogy and critical thinking when they explored learning that is transformational and nurtures learners as agents of change. They understood that the nature of critical work disrupts the traditional educator-student interplay. Furthermore, Rahimi and Sajed (2013) presupposed that educators with a critical mindset recognize this truth about learning: “Critical Pedagogy is involved with curriculum transformation and mandates in the inclusion of participants in the decision-making process of education” (p. 42). This is a new concept for some educators and puts teachers in unchartered territory. Historically, learning came from a mindset of “banking methodology,” as introduced by Freire (2000), in which teachers provide information for 139 students so they learn the curriculum. Increasingly, there is an awareness of the power of having students become integral to their own learning. This includes students asking questions of the content, recognizing the purpose of the information presented, and seeing who might benefit over someone else.

Shannon and Luke (1991) explained that the value of critical literacy is that it breaks down the teacher-student relationship. The roles are transformed so the experience of students is at the forefront of the learning. Further, they espoused, “To do so we have to become learners of students’ cultures and language: we have to reposition students as teachers of their knowledge.

These are central moves towards dialogic teaching” (Shannon & Luke, 1991, p. 519). The difficulty of this philosophy is that it the interpretation is unique to each educator. While those who are interested in critical learning may want a decisive answer on how best to move to this dialogic learning in the classroom, it is a dynamic and complex process for instructors (Thomas et al., 2010). Acknowledging and prioritizing students’ experiences, like language and cultural norms, and having students make decisions about their own learning supports their learning and their achievement.

Addressing the Achievement Gap with Critical Literacy

Exploring ways to teach such diverse skills, especially when reading required texts, is a challenge for all educators. Increasingly, literature looks at how critical literacy work can engage learners, especially those with significant achievement gaps. Offering a chance for students to connect deeply with the material and feel its relevance to their experiences must be an avenue for doing this. Kalbach and Forester (2006) reaffirmed this quandary when they said,

“Many teachers face a tragic irony: test-driven curricula will often minimize the opportunity students have to truly engage with each other and the material being studied; yet, increasing 140 student engagement leads to higher student achievement” (p. 70). These participants referenced

Lexile levels and reading ability, which are determined with assessments. This information should be a steppingstone to instruction, but it seems to have restricted the content and the instructional decisions educators make because of what they see as deficits. An educational methodology based on a critical philosophy is constructed upon the idea of literacy coming from a strengths-based model of learning. The students look at important issues that are relevant to their lives and share their interpretations and understandings of the material.

Reimagining student-teacher interactions and putting students in a role where they are integral to the curriculum has significant implications for addressing the achievement gap.

Kalbach and Forester (2006) pushed back on the “banking of knowledge” when they explained that this instruction directly impacts the students who most need to connect with the information and the content they need for success (p. 71). Kalbach and Forester directly addressed the achievement gap and the self-esteem of students when they discussed the power of content that develops critical thinking skills. They wrote that banking instruction limits opportunities for students to relate to material that allows them to construct their own meaning and offer their knowledge and thinking to their peers. The banking model, where teachers choose the content and choose which information to prioritize, limits students’ interaction with texts and their relevance in their lives.

If we are truly concerned about students’ success as readers, revisiting the content we expose the students to as well as giving them time to make their own interpretations and explore its relevance to their lives must be at the forefront of planning and instruction. Kalbach and

Forester (2006) found that “The opportunity to enhance the content by bringing their own lived experience is minimized, and those students who most need the opportunity to connect 141 personally to the material will be the first to check out” (p. 71). Striving readers especially need to be exposed to text that is relevant to their lives to engage them in the reading process. The concern with checking out is that students do not work through complex text. As teachers work out how to do this work effectively with their students, literature shows us that this work can also be done outside the school walls.

Teachers’ Perceptions of Critical Literacy

The second finding has to do with secondary teachers’ lack of training around literacy work in general. This study explored teachers’ perceptions of critical literacy, but uncertainty with recognizing the tenets of critical literacy was secondary to the educators’ challenges with literacy work in general. Current research recognizes the importance of exploring the preparation teachers have for critical literacy in the secondary grades. Because of changing curriculum policies, the teachers in this study were trying to integrate their understanding of literacy instruction with their concerns about discipline-specific content.

Additionally, there is increasing discussion about preservice work during literacy instruction for secondary students. Six of the seven teachers had certifications for secondary subjects, ELA or social studies. Most their preservice teaching programs were in content instruction. The new state frameworks have a commitment to literacy in all content areas. With these policy changes, educators for secondary students in all content areas and in all grades are expected to teach literacy skills that are specific to their fields.

Policy, whether state, district, or the nationally mandated Common Core, suggests a tacit belief that all educators, regardless of discipline, should have a solid foundation in literacy instruction. This is not the case, especially for secondary educators like the ones showcased in this study. Having teachers be confident in their literacy instruction is not unattainable, but it is 142 just not feasible currently because of the lack of literacy courses in teacher preparation courses.

Lesley’s work around policy and pedagogy reiterated this when she discussed the changes in the

Common Core (2010) and the lack of change in preservice work:

While college readiness standards such as the Common Core State Standards contain a

focus on literacy skills and pedagogy designed to close the readiness gap, equal emphasis

on reading/literacy education competencies/standards/coursework for preservice teachers

has not followed suit. In the United States, the majority of states leave the decision of

whether to require any coursework in literacy education for initial secondary level

certification to teacher education programs. (p. 136)

This is powerful to consider as teachers navigate the nuances of the new standards. Kyle shared how he knew almost nothing of literacy work when he first started. The reading teacher on his team and the literacy coaches in his school supported his work. Additionally, he credited the district’s commitment to literacy across all content with helping him. Hillary and Faith also gave credit to the English teachers on their team for integrating some literacy work into their own instruction. These teachers happened to work in a district that provided some professional development. Laura discussed taking a media literacy course on her own. This work came after the teachers were in the field and maybe resulted from the state assessment and changes in the curriculum frameworks. This does not reflect the work of preservice educators.

Lesley went on to say that most educators in the secondary track take only one three- credit literacy course in their education programs. Furthermore, much of the curriculum for that course is content literacy. Lesley explained content literacy was the reading and writing skills needed to understand the content in a course. Some of the strategies highlighted in content literacy are anticipation guides, Know-Want to Know-Learn (KWL) charts, and other strategies 143 that focus on background knowledge and supporting schema. More importantly, a lot of these skills are there to help students understand the textbook. The implication of this is critical. The worry the teachers expressed over the reading gap is understandable. Content literacy strategies presuppose competency in reading and a focus on comprehension. They do not address motivation or actual foundational reading skills as much. Literacy work becomes more challenging when teachers are not confident about addressing the needs they see in their students.

Difficulties with Critical Literacy in Practice

This lack of clarity about critical literacy is characteristic of the ambiguity around interpretations of critical pedagogy in general and the difficulty practitioners have with putting a true social justice method in practice. Behrman (2006) articulated why critical literacy is confusing: “Critical literacy is usually described as a theory with implications for practice rather than a distinctive instructional methodology” (Behrman, 2006, p. 490). Understanding the implications of this is where the ambiguity lies. How do educators interpret these implications for learning? Behrman then explained that as an educational theory, “critical literacy espouses that education can foster social justice by allowing students to recognize how language is affected by and affects social justice” (p. 490). These ideals are not discussed at length in many educational courses; without time and focus on developing one’s practice around the ideals, it is difficult to see and explain them in practice. Behrman went on to explain that there are no clear strategies educators can grab onto. While this can be seen as a critique, this can also make it powerful. The space for this work allows teachers to develop their own habits of mind as agents of transformational social justice and to articulate their expectations for student work and agency. 144

Teachers know their students. They can see which materials are relevant and support students in their work as change agents. Minott (2011) discussed the connection between reflective teaching and critical literacy and how this influences the tasks a teacher performs in a critical literacy classroom. His work revealed the profound connection between a teacher’s reflection, their beliefs, and the work they engage in. Minott explained the value of reflective teachers: “Reflective teachers need to develop and use self-directed critical thinking and ongoing critical inquiry in their practice, initiated by them and not administratively decreed” (Minott,

2011, p. 74). This is rigorous work for educators who are already overwhelmed with the day-to- day workings of a classroom. When conducting the interviews, the participants appeared nervous when they felt they did not know exactly how to describe critical literacy; when many talked about perspective, choice, and empathy; and when they described other components of literacy. This lack of clarity is common. What resonated from Minott’s work was his discussion about beliefs: “Critical literacy allows a person to see beyond the familiar and comfortable and involves understanding that language, practices, and texts are always informed by ideologies, beliefs, and perspectives, whether conscious or otherwise” (Jones, 2006, as cited by Minott,

2011, p. 74). Putting these beliefs into action is the essence of critical literacy work. Unless we take the time to reconsider the meaning of literacy, explore its potential as a liberatory practice, and then negotiate this with our own beliefs, it is challenging to see what it might look like in the classroom or how it could impact students in a profound way.

What Critical Literacy Could Look Like

There is a social justice component of critical literacy. A deep-rooted sense of teaching for social change is at the foundation of critical literacy as a theory for learning. It does not come with a program to institute. In practice, it looks like teachers having students explore 145 various voices in the texts they read, understanding the sourcing of text, being aware of authority, and critiquing many texts. A significant part of critical literacy work is students writing in response to messages. Writing is a means for students to articulate their beliefs and explain how the text impacted themselves and others as readers and citizens.

In practice, critical literacy provides an opportunity for dominant culture discourse, especially among middle school students who may lack skills and motivation. Alvermann

(2005) defined aliteracy as having the ability to read and decode but choosing not to read for a variety of reasons. This came up in the conversations with the teachers. There was a frustration with the lack of reading and lack of motivation. Alvermann (2005) continued discussing self- efficacy by espousing the power of feeling capable of completing reading tasks: “There is substantial research to suggest that motivation to complete certain literacy tasks is heightened (or lowered) by the perception we have about our competencies” (p. 9). This is significant when considering how critical literacy as a theory of teaching can be a way to support students’ literacy achievement overall. When students look at cultural discourse and develop habits of reading with a resistant stance, especially when exploring the content that most relates to their lives, they start the reading process with an advantage. They begin to recognize that literacy practices and tasks are relevant and meaningful.

When teachers have the opportunity to learn about literacy practices and reflect on how best to integrate this work, they can envision what this work looks like with their students. Like many secondary teachers who began to reevaluate their curriculum and texts when the new standards came out, Lloyd and Wertsch (2016) shared their journey as self-described White, middle class educators with Grade 9 students in a suburban school. They integrated instruction based on critical literacy when reading informational texts in an ELA classroom. In redefining 146 their course, they explored the Common Core strands “Craft and Structure” and “Integration of

Knowledge and Ideas” to find informational pieces; focused on close reading of informational texts; and examined nuances of words, tones, and purpose. Additionally, they chose to look closely at arguments and multiple points of views. With these skills in mind, Lloyd and Wertsch

(2016) began to consider how they could “develop a meaningful curriculum that promoted literacy and justice for all students” (p. 24). This in itself was a new venture that takes time to develop and implement. Their reflection and work were further revealed when they explained,

“We needed to revise both text and practices in our classrooms. The impetus to explore the complexities of race, class, and gender through nonfiction grew out of this collective work”

(Lloyd & Wertsch, 2016, p. 24). This snapshot reflects the thinking of the study participants. It is also symbolic of much of the research into critical literacy.

Literacy Action for Transformative Work

As they stated during the interviews, the teachers did not feel there were many opportunities for students to develop their voices as change agents in the school, the local community, or the global community. Additionally, there was little mention of engaging in transformative social justice work, other than having students develop an awareness of perspective and including choice in the instruction. The irony is that critical literacy itself inherently engages student voice by igniting students to question language and the explicit and hidden power relationships. Kalbach and Forrester (2006) reviewed the works of Freire (2000) and Giroux (1993), which spoke of students exploring how written language positions cultural groups. They explained that the value of critical literacy instruction is found when students “are encouraged to uncover agendas and messages within the critical literacy process” (p. 73).

Furthermore, Kalbach and Forrester (2006) espoused the power of Freire’s work on critical 147 literacy, which “maintains that a dialectical union may be constructed and nurtured through theory and practice, reflection and action to reexamine, and if necessary, change one’s practice”

(p. 73). Students’ voices are activated in the practice of allowing them to question and use their critical stance.

While the traditional model of learning may have included very distinct roles for students and teachers, with the teacher disbursing knowledge to passive learners, scholars concerned with transformative learning have begun to change. Johnson and Rosario-Ramos (2012) illustrated this in their work with transformative action in education institutions. For them, the power of critical literacy is found when students have more opportunities to “critically analyze the socio- political histories and cultural life and practices of their communities and to actively participate in the process of reading, and writing their worlds” (Johnson & Rosario-Ramos, 2012, p. 50).

This is important to consider in terms of application to the classroom. Students using their voice does not have to be a massive production. It can be an opportunity for them to become connected to the world around them and feel empowered to speak up with confidence when they see injustices or practices they question. These findings begin to describe a variety of ways that students are beginning to use their voices and critical habits of mind as well as examples of teachers negotiating the tenets of critical literacy and work for justice and agency.

Whether they actually voice their opinion out loud or not, work that allows them to practice their inner dialogue as citizens in a transformative way empowers students and teachers as agents of change. The words they choose to construct and reconstruct meaning, to share multiple perspectives, or to question intent nurtures of student voices and engages them as emerging citizens. Kalbach and Forrester (2006) remind educators that it is: 148

The ability for students to engage in critical literacy that will enable them to contribute to

the world. The act of engaging in one’s world contributes to the ability of our society to

maintain and ensure for the next generations an authentic democracy. (p. 74).

Its power lies in reminding students that their voices are central to the learning and that the learning reflects issues that are relevant and encourage agency in their own lives. Instead of receiving information indiscriminately, they are part of learning that ignites their voices.

Multiliteracies

An important finding related to transformative learning is the concept of multiliteracies.

The traditional view of literacy instruction or literacy pedagogy has been limited. The New

London Group (1996), which consists of literacy experts, described the traditional conception of literacy as strictly “formalized, monolingual, monocultural, and rule-governed forms of language” (p. 61). This limited view of literacy pedagogy places one language, one set of cultural norms, and specific language rules as the goal to work towards, potentially relegating other literacy practices as deficits. Continuing to prioritize one set of practices puts many students at a disadvantage if they are not allowed to share their language or cultural strengths.

Literacy instruction that values multiliteracies invites students to delve into their own literacy strengths and use these as a means for agency. The New London Group tried to change literacy pedagogy to support diverse populations. It also had a commitment to instruction that recognized that texts were evolving at a fast pace and that students needed specific, explicit instruction that would allow them to navigate and use these new digital texts to effectively communicate their ideas. This new iteration of literacy instruction enables multiple discourse.

The New London Group (1996) advocated for two influential components of literacy pedagogy. 149

First we want to extend the idea and the scope of literacy pedagogy to account for the

context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly globalized societies,

for the multifarious cultures that interrelate and the plurality of texts that circulate.

Second, we argue that literacy pedagogy now must account for the burgeoning variety of

text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies. (p. 61)

Awareness of multiliteracies is powerful because it honors the experiences of students, including those at home, where multiple languages may be spoken or cultural practices highlighted. Students see that there is more than one right way to communicate. An understanding of multiliteracies is important for pedagogy because it may allow for a variety of assessments or choice about how students share their understanding. Although the teachers in this study focused heavily on low reading scores, attending to multiliteracies provides a vision of looking at students’ whole lived experiences. Furthermore, it provides teachers and students with a wider range of tools for articulating their ideas. Pedagogically, multiliteracies focus instruction on using print and digital media to help students regulate the information around them. The New London Group (1996) believed there was dire need to develop this critique.

They advocated for double-pronged literacy work when they espoused:

To account for the context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly

globalized societies, for the multifarious cultures that interrelate and the plurality of texts

that circulate. Second, we argue that literacy pedagogy now must account for the

burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia

technologies. This includes understanding and competent control of representational

forms that are becoming increasingly significant in the overall communications

environment. (p. 61) 150

Consideration of students’ cultural experiences is tantamount to teaching that seeks to empower students. School is seen as a place where they can fall back on their experiences as an avenue for success. When schools highlight one single culture’s practices or rate one language of discourse as the bar, others are implicitly seen as not meeting the standard.

Democratic learning with a nod to multiliteracies places students’ strengths as the bar, not a set of prescribed skills. Furthermore, having all students become adept at informational and media skills provides them with critical habits. Students can see potential in using these skills to address the messages they encounter. The New London Group (1996) saw this as an opportunity where “the objective of creating learning conditions for full social participation” (p. 61). This is the ultimate transformative voice: students seeing themselves as valued members of the classroom and being able to use all their literacy practices as they desire. As they continue to develop this voice and understand its effectiveness, there is so much potential to use this voice outside the classroom environment as well.

Conclusion

The research questions for this study were: What are middle school teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with integrating critical literacy into their classrooms? How do they perceive that the integration of critical literacy influences student voices as global citizens? The findings reflect the themes from the study and related findings in current research. The first finding is about expanding our understanding of literacy. When it is viewed as a democratic method of instruction, teachers can make decisions about topics of study and print content to support students’ transformative learning. Students’ lived experiences are at the epicenter of learning and students begin to see themselves as an integral part of their own learning. Because of the students’ deeper involvement in their own instruction, the roles of teacher and student are more 151 fluid. Students get to look at the material through a more critical lens and consider its impact on their own lives.

The concept of critical literacy is not widely known, especially among secondary teachers. It is evident was there was uncertainty about critical literacy as an instructional theory among the middle school teachers in this study. The second finding that emerged is teachers’ consideration of critical literacy. Secondary teachers, such as the ones in this study, do not have much training for literacy instruction in their preservice courses. They perceive challenges to implementing critical literacy work and to developing literacy in general. Because it is a set of beliefs, teachers’ perceptions include challenges with putting it into practice and ways teachers could try to integrate this work with their students. The big challenge is helping striving readers find success. Critical literacy inspires these students because it advocates for learning and text that is relevant to the students’ lives. Struggling students may tend to check out at points in their education. The goal of critical literacy is to help students think about their own experiences while attending to the text with a critical stance.

Another finding is directly related to understanding how critical literacy can lead to student voice. The findings reflect the importance of having students think about language in a meaningful way. Through discourse analysis, students can become more skilled at looking at messages and determining any hidden messages. One of the most important ideas about transformative voice is multiliteracies. Multiliteracies account for changing text types and promote student development of skills for digital as well as print media. More importantly, multiliteracies recognize the importance of valuing the diverse lives of students. Multiliteracies embrace the different cultures and languages practiced at home. They recognize that there cannot be one standard language that is valued in schools. For students to feel success, they need 152 to use their strengths, which could be using their home language to share their ideas. Based on these findings, several recommendations for future work have been developed.

Recommendations for Practice

Teaching for critical purposes is challenging for several reasons. The commitment to justice and revisiting instruction seems to go against traditional learning. A recommendation resulting from this study is to include critical work, specifically critical literacy instruction, in structured, long-term increments or in preservice coursework. Scholars are increasingly exploring several literacies: critical, multicultural, information, and media. Clarity is needed even with literacy educators. Having all teachers, even secondary, higher education, and preservice teachers, become more skilled in these is essential. A course in critical pedagogies and critical theories would push teachers to explore their own conceptions of literacy and emphasize the underlying democratic foundations of literacy. Literacy coursework could refocus the work of literacy instruction to help each learner use reading, writing, critical thinking, and communication to impact the world, their own close knit communities, and the larger, far- reaching community. True literacy work invites students to question the status quo, look for instances of injustice, and be more knowledgeable about the world around them.

This redefinition of literacy is especially important for secondary teachers. This research revealed that secondary teachers are still concerned about basic, foundational reading gaps. This is addressed in critical literacy, where students are participants in learning that is fueled by material that is relevant to their lives. The students are asked to be critical consumers in all their classes, not just in the vacuum of ELA learning. A science teacher, a social studies teacher, and even a math teacher can help students look at information in a more critical way. Whether they are exploring information in print text or studying maps and charts and media in any discipline, 153 there is always power in having students question the norms and messages that are reflected in a text.

As a practitioner, there are several ways the researcher could support critical literacy work. As a literacy coach, much of the researcher’s work is in professional development with secondary content teachers. In this role, the researcher envisions dedicating her time with teachers to sharing the traits of critical literacy, facilitating professional development, and having teachers explore work from a critical and questioning stance. There was concern about having the time to do this work, given their curriculum needs. It is essential to provide examples of how this could look in the classroom and how students could engage in analysis of language, text, and media in all disciplines. The researcher’s work is that of a literacy scholar-practitioner.

Secondary educators are experts in their fields. For collaboration to work, it is important that they see that their work and curriculum are still valued and that this literacy work could also help their students find success.

A seminal RAND study reflecting teachers’ self-efficacy around reading instruction showed that teachers who felt they could significantly impact their students’ reading motivation and learning in general had higher reading results among their students than educators who felt constrained by the environment and impediments to reading achievement (Tschannen-Moran &

Johnson, 2011). That study stated that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy as reading teachers was a clear factor in helping their students. This concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) has gained momentum and is especially valuable when considering that secondary teachers may be experts in their own fields, but may feel vulnerable when faced with teaching reading, writing, critical thinking, and general literacy practices that historically may have been perceived as skills for humanities departments. 154

Because critical literacy is an abstract theory, teachers who philosophically agree with its tenets need to see it in practice, have time to integrate it into their own curriculum, and reflect on its effectiveness. Structured professional development where teachers explore how they can reflect on their own work and explore how social justice work fits into it would be a safe place for teachers to begin integrating critical literacy into their work with students.

Another recommendation for practice is for educators interested in critical work to choose one unit of study or one thematic unit where they could incorporate critical literacy work.

Two of the teachers in the study mentioned units in their curriculum calendars in which they were able to explore issues of power. One was a Grade 6 social issues unit and the other was a

Grade 8 Holocaust unit. In both instances, the educator was able to include texts and discourse that inspired students to think about power relationships within the novels and articles. Through a critical lens, the students were engaged with the content and able to have conversations about how people were treated. Jane mentioned her Grade 6 students looking at issues of gender, poverty, and immigration and seeing new perspectives. Molly and Laura were able to have students explore how people treated each other and delve into society’s response to the

Holocaust. The geography teachers were able to talk about introducing their students to regional cultures in their curriculum. Taking opportunities to self-reflect on how a unit could be reframed from a critical standpoint could reap benefits.

To do this transformative work, it is imperative to advocate for stakeholders to see the impact of liberatory learning can have for all students, not just those positioned to benefit from the normative ideology. In addition, it is vital to recognize how students can gain insight into how they themselves are positioned; this understanding is a first step in action towards change.

In her work to provide culturally relevant pedagogy, Ladson-Billings advocates for learning that 155 encourages all to find success as opposed to the current model which leaves many some students disenfranchised. For Ladson-Billings, her vision of learning recognizes the power of students in learning process. “Thus, the goal of education becomes how best to “fit” students constructed as “other” by virtue of their race/ethnicity, language, or social class into a hierarchical structure that is defined as a meritocracy” (Ladson-Billings, (1995), p. 467). Transformational learning empowers agency when students are compelled to construct messages in a more just way.

Students recognize their role as learners is more dynamic. They can integrate their voices and experiences into the work. Students also begin to question and evaluate the content with a social justice lens.

There are very specific ways stakeholders can nurture critical literacies. Schools, and the community at large can take steps to foster social justice learning that is steeped in students being transformational.

District

• The district highlighted in the study has policy in place that lends itself to critical

work. The Educational Vision and Mission Statement, found in the Faculty

Handbook, implicitly connect with the transformative nature of critical literacy

work. The Educational Vision states the district’s desire to graduate learners that

are “confident, critical thinkers, productive and creative lifelong learners”.

Additionally, the vision and mission statement reflect the district’s commitment

towards “socially responsible, engaged citizens capable of adapting to change in a

technologically advanced and multicultural society” The mission statement

further explains they are, “committed to providing a comprehensive educational 156

experience that is high quality, challenging, and enables each student to develop

and maximize individual potential”.

• Commit to sharing the foundations of critical work through professional

development. There has been a visible commitment to Social- emotional learning

and there are opportunities to marry the idea of social learning for staff and

students as they do identity and positionality work. Additionally, in department

meetings, there are opportunities to facilitate conversations around social justice

issues and critical literacy instruction that is discipline specific.

• Explicitly look for connections with curriculum and the social justice standards

found in the Teaching Tolerance. The four domains of these social justice

standards are: Identity, Diversity, Justice and Action. Providing time for

educators to explore these standards is critical because much of the work

educators engage in may already have these standards embedded, but the teachers

or the curriculum does not explicitly name them as social justice work.

• Administration can share their value of this work by highlighting examples of

their staff and students doing transformative work. The educators in the study

mentioned many of the students they felt were using their voice for transformative

work were in special school leadership groups. Recognizing the transformative

work that is steeped in learning for democracy includes a curriculum that is based

in inquiry and a critical stance. It is active and allows for students to read, view,

and listen with a sense of agency that even as younger citizens, they can question

bias, authorship and reconstruct messages to be more just. 157

• Educators in the study were concerned with assessments and the achievement gap

reflected in reading scores. Being explicit in sharing different ways to assess

student work around critical literacy is an essential component of promoting this

work with educators. Part of this could be a review of what assessments are

already in place and a conversation on whether these assessments are providing a

complete picture of the students. Teachers and administration can consider and

evaluate how questions and assessments are being used and whether they are

asking students to contribute their authentic thinking and interpretations.

Furthermore, to advocate for democratic learning it’s important to see what tasks

students are being asked to accomplish and determine whether the the questions

are open-ended in nature to allow for reflection and construction of ideas.

Teachers can also think about how students are being asked to complete their

work. Do the students have the opportunity to see the content through a variety of

modalities to help all learners find success? Can the products the students create

be in a different format than pen and paper to allow students to concentrate on

their message in a way that they feel successful with? This means they might be

able to respond orally or through digital tools if possible.

Community

• Recognizing and including the community at large in curriculum development is

an essential part of teachers’ critical literacy work to nurture student voices as

citizens. Learning that connects the community to enhance construction of

identity is powerful. Encouraging students to be aware of their own positionality

and look at content with a critical view while analyzing concepts that are 158 intrinsically exclusionary has the potential to benefit communities, locally and globally. Apple (2011) discusses the idea of fostering democratic citizens that have a strong sense of identity in their own local communities and using critical pedagogies to nurture citizens in a global community. Students engaged in critical literacies are aware and empowered to make changes as citizen or give voice to others when they encounter oppression. Work that recognizes a students lived experiences in the community allows for relevance and motivation.

Opportunities for students to explore the community institutions and learn about them in a critical manner or connecting these institutions to curricular agendas can be a powerful way to marry the the learning to students’ home lives. Reaching out to libraries to have them take stock of the works they have around social justice or having the students find the areas in the library that highlight community members to see who the authors are, the content they include provides ways for students to give feedback to community members. Maybe students recognize that there are gender disparities or a lack of black authors in the stacks.

Maybe they look at the town section and see which local artists are highlighted.

Schools can talk with the local hospital to better understand how differences in how race impacts healthcare. In a politicized environment, students can create questions based on readings and reach out to the local police and get information around related topics they have read about or experienced having to do with criminal justice or race.

159

Critical literacy intrinsically allows for social justice. Luke et al (2009) explain, “critical literacy models have an explicit aim of developing useful, powerful mastery of texts to transform lived social relations and material conditions” (Luke et al., 2009, p. 9). As students become more nuanced in recognizing the social ideologies promoted in texts they can ascertain how these constructed ideas may undermine other people. This problem of practice should garner support because it opens the door for active, engaged transformational learning. Developing learning communities where students practice citizenry and understanding others is instruction that can’t be ignored.

Moving forward, educators who value this method and want to include it as part of their repertoire should develop an understanding of creating environments that are inclusive and nurture thoughtful discussion of social issues. Silvia Cristina Bettez (2011) shares her beliefs around creating learning environments where students read and discuss sensitive issues of social justice. She explains this is a complex task that includes “troubling knowledge, addressing a broad range of social issues and recognizing that anti-oppressive practices are always becoming, not fixed” (Bettez, 2011, p. 76). Although critical learning communities can be volatile, uncomfortable and disruptive to sensibilities, students begin to see their role as educators as well as students. hooks (1994) also espouses teaching with love and respect and allowing all voices to be heard.

Recommendations for Future Research

Much of the literature on this topic comes from urban areas, where there is a more diverse student population, or from areas that have high rates of learners falling behind in achievement. The participants in this study worked in a district that was predominantly White and in a suburban area in the Northeast. The researcher wonders whether some of the answers 160 reflected the student population. The participants were all White Americans with at least a master’s degree in education. There was discomfort about discussing important issues that could be controversial. It would be interesting to revisit this study in a different setting to see what themes emerged, and then compare the results.

Perhaps more important would be a study to determine whether secondary preservice teachers in a White, suburban area would be more apt to engage in critical literacy work if their programs offered courses on critical pedagogy, and on critical literacy in particular. Tschanner-

Moran and Johnson (2011) analyzed studies of literacy instruction and self-efficacy. One of their most profound and relevant conclusions connects deeply with this study’s findings. They explained:

Beginning teachers who graduated from reading specialist or reading-embedded

programs were more willing to experiment with teaching methods whereas beginning

teachers who graduated from general education programs tended to make decisions about

teaching and learning in relation to external factors. (Tschanner-Moran & Johnson, 2011,

p. 753).

Some of these external factors include the materials and resources being used, mandates, and perceived wishes of the administration. It would behoove our work as educators to see how secondary educators, especially in specific disciplines, explore their own thinking about literacy and what they believe it means. These courses could be a catalyst for seeing how we can encourage all teachers, not just ELA and elementary teachers, to help students find success.

Additionally, it would be important to formally track student growth and achievement after a curriculum was designed with critical literacy methodology in mind. The reality is that teachers must contend with mandated assessments and directives about curriculum resources, 161 materials, and agendas. There is palpable concern about time, curricular demands, and student results. With this in mind, it would be relevant to to explore how a group of practitioners integrated the tenets of critical literacy and their own beliefs about critical work alongside the mandates of the job. If teachers fear to introduce some topics, it would be interesting to see how a model would work where practitioners went through a pilot that included transparency with home and the community. The teachers could take part in a program that mentored them as critical pedagogues. Teachers could learn what critical literacy is; develop curriculum or use the mandated curriculum; and identify ways to integrate lessons founded upon beliefs in justice, critique, and positionality. In addition, the class or program would include a home component.

This could be a letter sent home talking about the critical literacy work or a consent form so students could explore issues such as gender, race, class, or religion in a critical way. An important part of class would be having teachers reflect on and articulate their own beliefs about these subjects so they could communicate student goals in an effective way. To include the community, there could be a component where students shared their new understanding and gave voice to the new information they had gained. There could be a part where students reflected on how their work and their voice could impact the world. Additionally, the class could offer ways to reach out to the community to include it in the work. With this in mind, there still would need to be accountability in the students’ work.

There are many challenges with teaching middle school students. There are concerns about their achievements, questions on how to engage them, and hopes that school can be a place where they can find relevance and connect in a positive way with others. Teachers are aware of the number of texts students encounter and want them to be able to engage in discourse around this material, but because of concerns with curriculum mandates, low reading scores, or 162 addressing challenging topics, teachers experience difficulty doing critical literacy work. The tenets of critical literacy offer an opportunity for teachers to gain a different understanding of literacy and envision its power for students to be critical and informed citizens. These recommendations describe efforts to share the social justice foundation of critical literacy and introduce spaces where students can develop critical habits of mind and analyze language and messages.

163

References

Alford, J., & Kettle, M. (2017). Teachers' Reinterpretations of Critical Literacy Policy:

Prioritizing Praxis. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies: Re-examining and Re-

envisioning Criticality in Language Studies, 14(2-3), 182-209.

Allen, R., & Rossatto, C. (2009). Does Critical Pedagogy Work with Privileged Students?

Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(1), 163-180.

Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy

Research, 34 (2), 189-208.

Alvermann, D. E. (2005). Literacy on the edge: How close are we to closing the literacy

achievement gap? Voices from the Middle, 13 (1), 8-14.

Anfara, V., & Mertz, Norma T. (2006). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research.

Apple, M. (2011). Global Crises, Social Justice, and Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher

Education, 62(2), 222-234.

Avila, J., & Moore, M. (2012). Critical literacy, digital literacies, and common core state

standards: A workable union? Theory into Practice, 51 (1), 27-33.

doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.636332

Ayers, W. (2010). TEACHING IN AND FOR DEMOCRACY. Curriculum and Teaching

Dialogue, 12(1/2), 3-10, A177.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Bazalgette, C., & Buckingham, D. (2013). Literacy, media and multimodality: A critical

response. Literacy, 47 (2), 95-102. 164

Beck, A. S. (2005). A place for critical literacy: Critical literacy instruction can have a place in

institutions where student voices are deliberately curtailed. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 48 (5), 392-400.

Begoray, D., Higgins, J. W., Harrison, J., & Collins-Emery, A. (2013). Adolescent

reading/viewing of advertisements: Understandings from transactional and positioning

theory. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (2), 121-130. doi:10.1002/JAAL.202

Behrman, E. H. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom

practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49 (6),

490-498.

Bettez, S. C. (2011). Building critical communities amid the uncertainty of social justice

pedagogy in the graduate classroom. The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural

Studies, 33, 76-106.

Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A. R. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A

qualitative methodology of choice in healthcare research. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 5(3), 214-224. doi:10.1080/14780880802314304

Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and

Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood, New York, pp. 241–258.

Briscoe, F. M. (2005). A question of representation in educational discourse: Multiplicities and

intersections of identities and positionalities. Educational Studies, 38 (1), 23-41.

doi:10.1207/s15326993es3801_4

Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2011). Is there a space for critical literacy in the context of social

media? English Teaching, 10 (1), 41-57. 165

Cammarota, J. (2011). The value of a multicultural and critical pedagogy: Learning democracy

through diversity and dissent. Multicultural Perspectives, 13 (2), 62-69.

doi:10.1080/15210960.2011.571546

Chafel, J., Flint, A., Hammel, J., & Pomeroy, K. (2007). Young Children, Social Issues, and

Critical Literacy: Stories of Teachers and Researchers. YC Young Children, 62(1), 73-81.

Chetty, R. (2015). Freirean principles and critical literacy to counter retrograde impulses in the

curriculum and assessment policy statement. Reading & Writing, 6(1), E1-E7

doi:10.4102/rw.v6i1.71

Choudhury, M., & Share, J. (2012). Critical media literacy: A pedagogy for new literacies and

urban youth. Voices from the Middle, 19 (4), 39-44.

Ciardiello, A. V. (2004). Democracy’s young heroes: An instructional model of critical literacy

practices: Young students can become critically competent and caring citizens by

exploring historical social justice issues through critical literacy. The Reading Teacher,

58 (2), 138-147.

Comber, B. (2011). Changing literacies, changing populations, changing places: English

teachers’ work in an age of rampant standardisation. English Teaching: Practice and

Critique, 10 (4), 5-22.

Comber, B. (2015). Critical literacy and social justice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

58 (5), 362-367. doi:10.1002/jaal.370

Comber, B., & Freebody, P. (2013). Literacy education in a changing policy environment:

Introduction. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 36 (2), 65-66.

Cresswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Approaches . Sage: Los Angeles 166

Cridland ‐Hughes, S. (2012). Literacy as Social Action in City Debate. Journal of Adolescent &

Adult Literacy, 56(3), 194-202.

Cridland-Hughes, S. (2015). Caring Critical Literacy: The Most Radical Pedagogy You Can

Doughty, H. (2014). Critical Theory, Critical Pedagogy and the Permanent Crisis in Community

Colleges. International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology, 5(2), 29-

44.

Delpit, L. & Dowdy, J. K. (2002). The Skin that we Speak . New York: The New Press.

McLaughlin, Maureen, & DeVoogd, Glenn. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension:

Expanding reader response: Critical literacy helps teachers and students expand their

reasoning, seek out multiple perspectives, and become active thinkers. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1), 52-62.

Dominguez, N., Duarte, Y., Espinosa, P., Martinez, L., Nygreen, K., Perez, R., ... Saba, M.

(2009). Constructing a counternarrative: Students informing now (S.I.N.) reframes

immigration and education in the united states. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,

52 (5), 439-442.

Dover, A. G. (2016). Teaching for social justice and the common core. Journal of Adolescent &

Adult Literacy, 59 (5), 517-527. doi:10.1002/jaal.488

Dowling, M. (2007). From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological

approaches. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44 , 131-142.

Doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026

Rafique, R. & Hunt, N. (2015). Experience and coping behaviours of adolescents in Pakistan

with alopecia areata An interpretive phenomenological analysis. International Journal of

Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being , 1-13. 167

Dharamshi, P. (2018). "Seeing the Everyday Through New Lenses": Pedagogies and Practices of

Literacy Teacher Educators With a Critical Stance. Teacher Education Quarterly, 45(1),

7-29.

Dunkerly-Bean, J., Bean, T., & Alnajjar, K. (2014). Seeking asylum: Adolescents explore the

crossroads of human rights education and cosmopolitan critical literacy. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58 (3), 230-241.

Fennell, S., & Arnot, M. (2008). Decentring hegemonic gender theory: The implications for

educational research. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,

38 (5), 525-538. doi:10.1080/03057920802351283

Fine, D., Morewood, Aimee L., Barnes-Rowland, Charline, Faini Saab, Joy, Nichols, Jodi, &

Swan Dagen, Allison. (2015). The Literacy Beliefs and Practices of Middle Level

English Language Arts Teachers, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Fletcher, Ian Christopher. (2008). Critical Pedagogy: Radical History in Two Spaces. Radical

History Review, 2008(102), 23-26.

Freebody, P. (2013). School knowledge in talk and writing: Taking ‘when learners know’

seriously. Linguistics and Education, 24(1), 64-74.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1998). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard Educational

Review, 68 (4), 480-498.

Gainer, J. S. (2010a). Critical media literacy in middle school: Exploring the politics of

representation. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 (5), 364-373.

doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.5.2

Gainer, J. (2010b). Critical media literacy in the 2.0. Language Arts, 88 (1), 69-70. 168

Gainer, J. (2012). Critical thinking: Foundational for digital literacies and democracy. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56 (1), 14-17. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00096

Gainer, J. (2013). 21 st ‐century mentor texts: Developing critical literacies in the information age.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57 (1), 16-19. doi:10.1002/JAAL.210

Garcia, A., Mirra, N., Morrell, E., Martinez, A., & Scorza, D. (2015). The council of youth

research: Critical literacy and civic agency in the digital age. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 31 (2), 151-167. doi:10.1080/10573569.2014.962203

Gee, J. (1989). Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction. Journal of Education, 171(1),

5-17.

Gee, J. P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies ideology in discourses (4 th ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Giroux, H. A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the

promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715-721.

doi:10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715

Gleason, M. L., Melancon, M. E., & Kleine, K. L. M. (2010). Using critical literacy to explore

genetics and its ethical, legal, and social issues with in-service secondary teachers. CBE -

Life Sciences Education, 9(4), 422-430. doi:10.1187/cbe.09-09-0065

Godley, A. J., & Loretto, A. (2013). Fostering counter-narratives of race, language, and identity

in an urban English classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24 (3), 316-327.

doi:10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.006

Gur-Ze'Ev, I. (2003). CRITICAL THEORY, CRITICAL PEDAGOGY AND THE

POSSIBILITY OF COUNTER-EDUCATION. Counterpoints, 168, 17-35. 169

Gurn, A. M. (2011). Critical pedagogy in the classroom and the community. Curriculum Inquiry,

41 (1), 143-152. doi:10.1111/j.1467-873X.2010.00536.x

Finlay, L. (2009). Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology & Practice,

3(1), 6-25.

Han, K., Madhuri, T., & Scull, M. (2015). Two Sides of the Same Coin: Preservice Teachers’

Dispositions Towards Critical Pedagogy and Social Justice Concerns in Rural and Urban

Teacher Education Contexts. The Urban Review, 47(4), 626-656.

Hepple, E., Sockhill, M., Tan, A., & Alford, J. (2014). Multiliteracies pedagogy. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58 (3), 219-229. doi:10.1002/jaal.339

Hinrichsen, J., & Coombs, A. (2013). The five resources of critical digital literacy: A framework

for curriculum integration. Research in Learning Technology, 21 (1)

doi:10.3402/rlt.v21.21334 hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. NY: Routledge.

Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas: A general introduction to pure phenomenology. (W. R. Boyce Gibson

Trans.). London, New York: Collier, Macmillan. (Original work published 1913)

Janks, H. (2000). Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy

education. Educational Review, 52 (2), 175-186. doi:10.1080/713664035

Janks, H. (2018). Texts, identities, and ethics: Critical literacy in a post ‐truth world. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62 (1), 95-99. doi:10.1002/jaal.761

Jocson, K. M. (2009). Steering legacies: Pedagogy, literacy, and social justice in schools. Urban

Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 41 (3), 269-285. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-

0103-0 170

Johnson, L. R., & Rosario-Ramos, E. (2012). The role of educational institutions in the

development of critical literacy and transformative action. Theory into Practice, 51 (1),

49-56. doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.636337

Kalbach, L., & Forester, L. (2006). The word and the world: A lesson in critical literacy and its

impact on student achievement and self esteem. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue,

8(1), 69-292.

Kellner, D. (1998). Multiple literacies and critical pedagogy in a multicultural society.

Educational Theory, 48 (1), 103-122.

Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy: Crucial policy choices for a twenty-first-

century democracy. Policy Futures in Education, 5(1), 59-69.

doi:10.2304/pfie.2007.5.1.59

Kirylo, J. D., Thirumurthy, V., Smith, M., & McLaren, P. (2010). Issues in education: Critical

pedagogy: An overview. Childhood Education, 86 (5), 332-334.

doi:10.1080/00094056.2010.10521420

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465-491>

Lalik, R., & Oliver, K. (2007). Differences and Tensions in Implementing a Pedagogy of Critical

Literacy with Adolescent Girls. Reading Research Quarterly, 42 (1), 46-70.

Lesley, M. K. (2014). Policy, pedagogy, and research: Three issues affecting content area literacy

courses for secondary-level teacher candidates. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53 (1),

50-71. doi:10.1080/19388071.2013.826761 171

Lewis-Spector, J. (2016). Building strong futures: Literacy practices for developing engaged

citizenship in the 21st century. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(1),

86-95.

Lloyd, R. M., & Wertsch, S. (2016). “Why doesn’t anyone know this story?” Integrating critical

literacy and informational reading. English Journal, 105 (4), 24-30.

Luke, A. (2000). Critical Literacy in Australia: A Matter of Context and Standpoint. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (5), 448-461. Retrieved May 31, 2020, from

www.jstor.org/stable/40017081

Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy

in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38 (1), 132-141.

Luke, A. (2012). Critical literacy: Foundational notes. Theory into Practice, 51 (1), 4-11.

doi:10.1080/00405841.2012.636324

Luke, A., Woods, A., Fisher, D., Bruett, J., & Fink, L. (2009). Critical literacies in schools: A

primer. Voices from the Middle, 17 (2), 9-18

Machi, L. A. & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success (2 nd ed.).

Thousand Oaks: SAGE

Maddox, B., Aikman, S., Rao, N., & Robinson-Pant, A. (2011). Literacy inequalities and social

justice. International Journal Of Educational Development, 31(6), 577-579.

Mass.gov, (2018, March 30), Department Of Elementary and Secondary Education

https://www.mass.gov/orgs/department-of-elementary-and-secondary-education

Mclaren, P. (1997). Critical Pedagogy. Teaching Education, 9(1), 1.

McLaren, P., & Freire, Paulo. (1988). REVIEW ESSAY - Literacy: Reading the Word and the

World (see abstract of review in SA 37:3). Harvard Educational Review, 58(2), 213-234. 172

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods

sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Minott, M. (2011). Reflective teaching, critical literacy and the teacher's tasks in the critical

literacy classroom. A confirmatory investigation. Reflective Practice, 12(1), 73-85.

Morrell, E. (2010). Critical literacy, educational investment, and the blueprint for reform: An

analysis of the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Journal of

Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54 (2), 146-149. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.2.7

Murnane, R., Sawhill, I., & Snow, C. (2012). Literacy challenges for the twenty-first century:

Introducing the issue. The Future of Children, 22 (2), 3-15. doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0013

Myers, J. (2010). ‘To benefit the world by whatever means possible’: Adolescents' constructed

meanings for global citizenship. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 483-502.

Myers, J., & Eberfors, F. (2010). Globalizing English through intercultural critical literacy.

English Education, 42 (2), 148-170.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in

history/social studies, science, and technical subjects . Washington, DC: Authors.

Noon, E. J. (2018). Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis: An Appropriate Methodology for

Educational Research? Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(1), 75-

83.

Olneck, M. (2000). Can Multicultural Education Change What Counts as Cultural Capital?

American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 317-348. 173

Parsons, E. R. C. (2008). Positionality of African Americans and a theoretical accommodation of

it: Rethinking science education research. Science Education, 92 (6), 1127-1144.

doi:10.1002/sce.20273

Peel, A. (2017). Complicating canons: A critical literacy challenge to common core assessment.

Literacy, 51 (2), 104-110. doi:10.1111/lit.12106

Peters, M. A. (2012). Henry Giroux on democracy unsettled: From critical pedagogy to the war

on youth. Geopolitics, History and International Relations, 4(1), 156-174.

Pradhan, J. K., & Singh, S. (2016). Learning to learn from the other: Subaltern life narrative,

everyday classroom and critical pedagogy. Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism,

38 (3), 261-270. doi:10.1080/01440357.2017.1290601

Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E., & Hendry, C. (2011). Interpretative

phenomenological analysis: A discussion and critique. Nurse Researcher, 18 (3), 20-24.

Puechner, S. D. (2017). Justice at the gate? Negotiating tensions between critical literacy and

“culture of power” pedagogies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 61 (3), 327-330.

doi:10.1002/jaal.702

Rahimi, A., & Sajed, M. (2014). The Interplay between Critical Pedagogy and Critical Thinking:

Theoretical Ties and Practicalities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136(C),

41-45.

Reidel, M., & Draper, C. (2011). Reading for democracy: Preparing middle-grades social studies

teachers to teach critical literacy. The Social Studies, 102 (3), 124-131.

doi:10.1080/00377996.2010.538758 174

Roberts, C. M., (2010). The Dissertations Journey: A Practical and Comprehensive Guide to

Planning, Writing, and Defending Your Dissertation (2 nd Ed.). CORWIN: Thousand

Oaks.

Roberts, K., Tolan, K., & Marron, A. (2014). Units of Study in Argument, Information, and

Narrative Writing: A Common Core Workshop Curriculum . Columbia University:

Teachers College Reading and Writing Program.

Rosario-Ramos, E., Lam, Wan Shun Eva, Lee, Carol, & Rapp, David. (2011). Literacy for Social

Change: Looking at Critical Literacy in Institutional Practice, Classroom Instruction and

Adolescents' Critical Examination of Texts, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Roy, B. (2016). Toward a Global Critical Literacy: Literature, Community Engagement, and the

Global Commons from an American Perspective. Higher Learning Research

Communications, 6(2), 74-89.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data . Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications

Sawch, D. (2011). Asking and arguing with fact and fiction: Using inquiry and critical literacy to

make sense of literature in the world. English Journal, 101 (2), 80-85.

Shannon, P., & Luke, A. (1991). Critical literacy. Reading Teacher, 44 (7), 518-519.

Shields, C. M. (2004). Dialogic leadership for social justice: Overcoming pathologies of silence.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 40 (1), 109-132. doi:10.1177/0013161X03258963

Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis

and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology, 1(1), 39-54. doi:10.1191/1478088704qp004oa 175

Smith, J. A. (2011). Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis.

Health Psychology Review, 5(1), 9-27. doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.510659

Soares, L. B., & Wood, K. (2010). A critical literacy perspective for teaching and learning social

studies. Reading Teacher, 63 (6), 486-494. doi:10.1598/RT.63.6.5

Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(4),

64-82.

Teaching Tolerance (2016). Social Justice Standards: Teaching Tolerance Anti-Bias Framework.

Teachingtolerance.org

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.

Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Johnson, D. (2011). Exploring literacy teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs:

Potential sources at play. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 751-761.

Vagle, M. D. (2011). Lessons in contingent, recursive humility. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 54 (5), 362-370. doi:10.1598/JAAL.54.5.6

Wilson, B. (2014). Teach the How: Critical Lenses and Critical Literacy. The English Journal,

103(4), 68-75.