Critical thinking and social change and literacy a video

Literacy, critical thinking and social change: I came back from a walk on this sunny Sunday and decided to talk about the subject of my last few posts.

Comments

[Valina Eckley]

Steve,

This is why I think English majors should never teach ESL as a carrier. Now, I majored in broadcasting and I have a masters in communication. On thing that was always brought up at my university was the difference between Comm people and English people. Comm people are in general more practical than the English people. We believe that communication needs to strive to deliver a message clearly and easily. These messages need to be accessable, and without jargon and other noise.
Whereas, the English people tend to keep themselves locked away in their members only club, AKA the Ivory Tower, as it was called. They like to go on and talking about power and discourse in society and other things which normal, everyday people like you and me have no clue what they are talking about.

I think a fellow student and a professor in my grad program put it nicely when they said that what these people are doing is exercising their academic job security. They don't really have a job, so they make up all this academic fluff just to make themselves sound smart in order to keep their job. But it is all just fluff.

Along these same lines, I once got into a heated debate with an English teacher who was an English major. I corrected a sentence, to which she snapped at me telling me that I don't need to correct it because it is something that is said in business.
My response was, it was unclear, and could be said more effectively using simpler language. And then she got on and on about how she was an English major, and how much better she was, and I was wrong and so on.

Anyway, I believe I have only two major functions as a language coach. First is to get people to read and listen more, because I know that is the only way they are going to improve. Second, is to help people communicate clearly. I don't care about this whole power struggle, changing people's minds, making activists, and teaching 'critical thinking.' I think people should just have fun, talk about things that are interesting to them, and strive to communicate clearly and effectively.

That is my stance, but maybe I am in the minority.

[John B.]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for posting your comments on this interesting and provocative discussion.

As a lover of learning and of reading in particular, I think that some English teachers should help students understand the meaning of difficult texts. This deeper meaning is what I would call "beyond literacy." I love to read but I have to admit, there is a lot of "literature" that I have read, the meaning of which I found extremely difficult. Sure, I understood the story line, the plot, etc. and I almost always enjoy that a lot. If I don't, I prefer to put the book down and read something else. However, I believe that some authors are trying to tell us more than just a simple story through their writing and that is what I could see the need for a teacher, or a critical essay or even a university course. On the other hand, I agree that teaching how to understand these deeper meanings is not the job of literacy teaching in the sense of teaching one how to read. However, by the time a person gets to university, they should be able to do that (I hope). So I suppose that is why university teachers are so adamant about their role in teaching critical thinking.

I'm not really clear whether these literacy teachers you are commenting on are supposed to be teaching literacy in the sense of "how to read" or are they teaching at a much higher level than that. If their job is to teach how to read English as a second language, or how to read for those who are trying to learn basic reading, then I agree the critical thinking part is out of line at that stage. If they are teaching students that want to understand the deeper message of what they are reading, then they have the right to share their understanding or critical views of what the writer had to say and stimulate discussion in the class regarding this sort of thing.

I believe in the value of fiction and non-fiction as pure enjoyment of the story and also the value of fiction or non-fiction to comment on social problems or philosophical ideas. I think that the job of a teacher is to promote the love and appreciation of their subject and through that a deeper understanding. I feel badly that so many teachers at all levels cause more students to hate their subjects than to love them. This is to me the greatest tragedy of all education.

[Paige]

Hi, Steve!

Wow, I don't think I'll be able to write as much as those other commenters did, but I guess I do have some sort of an opinion on this issue.

I think social change is really important for people to take part in... I mean, we're not mindless robots. We should be able to (and even be encouraged to) challenge our own society-- especially when we're learning how to WRITE. Not read. Learning how to read and learning to read better will help you develop your vocabulary, which, in turn, will help you express your ideas more clearly when you write. Of course, through reading, you should subconsciously be "expanding your horizons" (for the lack of a better metaphor), but I do not think it should be the focus in a literacy classroom. These students need to know how to comprehend the denotations of the words they are reading before they should be forced to decide how to change society. When they know how to read and they don't need to be instructed in literacy anymore, then they should be freer to think about these things, but in a literacy classroom, the sole focus should be getting the students to read. That would only make sense... right?

[Bart Anderson]

Sounds like you're encountering culture shock there, Steve! I'm not a fan of academic jargon, but I think the people you criticize have some good points.

Perhaps the most interesting way to look at it is through the history of languages. Languages are always connected with politics - they really aren't neutral.

The dialect of those in power is taught as the one proper language; the dialects of those out of power is taught as wrong, ugly, unfashionable. As they say, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy."

For ex: After the Norman Conquest, French was the official language, Anglo-Saxon, the language of the conquered. Later upper-class English was held to be proper; regional dialects were made fun of. Gaelic was persecuted in Ireland. Accents are still a sign of class.

In European countries there is a tension between the national language (like Italian or Spanish) versus regional dialects or languages (e.g. Catalan).

So, the choice of which language to teach or to write is a political issue.

A second point is the WAY in which language is taught. In colonial situations, for example, language is part of an acculturation process. Those who learn the language also pick up the values that accompany it. Not just the French language, but the glory of La Civilisation Francaise and a consequent disparaging of the local culture. And either you learn the language and values or you didn't get access to the good jobs.

Alternately, language can be taught in such a way to develop the critical powers of the student. Paulo Freire, I guess, was a leading light in describing such a learning process, though it's been many years since I read him.

I'm not sure why you're so upset by all this, Steve. The kind of work that you're doing really puts you in the same camp as those you're criticizing. You are presenting thoughts and information to adults, who are free to accept or reject them. There is no force involved, no hidden agendas. As a result, your site and others like them have a liberating effect

Bart Anderson

[Steve Kaufmann]

John B,

These are basic literacy teachers. As for teachers of literature, I was always allergic to the teaching of hidden meanings and preferred to enjoy literature on my own terms. I am with Rubem Alves the Brazilian educator who said, nothing destroys the joy of reading as much as being asked to analyze what you have read and answer questions on it. But I recognize that this is a matter of taste.

Bart,

The issue here is not the choice of language to teach. I favour multilingualism and oppose the dominance of English, not in any political sense, but just in terms of my interests in learning and helping people learn many languages. These people are not saying that teaching a specific language is ideological. They are saying that "literacy" the ability to read implies ideology and hidden meanings.

Here is the latest in this exchange.

Hello Steve, George, Andres, et al:

Steve says: "I believe that literacy is neutral as to ideology since we can read whatever we want and use the tool of literacy to access any ideology we want."

But there is (1) ideology we choose, which is what Steve is talking about; and there is (2) ideology that is embedded in the way a text is written that we may not notice. This kind of ideology acts like a rider, coming in on other meaning. That rider-type of ideology is what Andres and I (and others) are talking about. It's pervasive and can be in any one of a number of venues, e.g., social psychological, etc. Further, we can read without noticing it or choosing it; and yet we absorb it and accept it as a part of "the way things are," especially if it matches other cultural ideologies.

We can find two egregious examples of "rider ideology" in the writings over the last two centuries (at least) that have to do with embedded racist and/or sexist ideologies in newspapers, books (including textbooks and children's literature), and which extends into common conversations and culture. When we read texts that assume such ideologies, we can do so with or without a critical eye.

I am old enough to remember gaining the realization that I had been accepting sexist and racist ideologies all of my life--without even noticing. I did not choose such ideologies--I just accepted them, even though they were about women, and even though I am a woman. This is what Andres and I and others have been talking about.

But there is a third kind of ideology that I (and George, I think) was referring to, and that is the ideology that is implicit not in the text itself, but in the institutionalization and general acceptance of reading as a necessary part of living a civilized and good life, or for life skills, or work skills, etc.

That idea is basic to us, but is NOT accepted everywhere--on the contrary in some places--and we all rarely if ever question it. Further, it has its direct ideological root in the political ideas of democracy/republicanism--that power rests in the people, and that the people cannot exercise their power until and unless they have knowledge--and access to it. Hence: being able to read--and optimally in the ways that Andres and George have written about here.

Being taught to read in this more layered way doesn't end a person's choices--on the contrary, it increases our choices, especially since we know that such reading is transferable to all sorts of intelligible venues.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My answer

Re three ideologies

1) There is ideology that may exist in an article that promotes an ideology. Agreed.
2) There is ideology that may be embedded or implied, racism, sexism or whatever. Agreed

This the ideology of specific texts. It is not literacy itself that is ideological, any more than human speech is inherently ideological in nature. If you read enough, and widely enough, or listen to a variety of points of view, you will encounter a variety of ideologies and draw your own conclusions. I have read widely and am not persuaded by the ideology which you and Andres are defending here, for example.

3) You wrote " Further, it (literacy) has its direct ideological root in the political ideas of democracy/republicanism--that power rests in the people, and that the people cannot exercise their power until and unless they have knowledge--and access to it".

This is simply not true. The whole world, with few exceptions, aspires to literacy, whereas not all people aspire to democracy/republicanism or the recognize that power rests in the people. They still aspire to literacy. This is true in all manner of societies, democratic, republican, totalitarian, religious. Only in the most repressive societies are some members of society, usually women, denied the chance to learn to read. When a particular good is so widely recognized, valued and pursued, it cannot be called ideology, except in a sense that stretches the meaning of ideology to the point where it loses any meaning.

Nor is there any useful conclusion to be drawn from this view of literacy as inherently ideological. Are you suggesting that learning to read is not useful, that it should be denied to people? Trying to teach people critical thinking will not prevent them from forming their own conclusions, conclusions that may be quite different from yours, that may, in fact be quite opposed to yours.You cannot defend them from what you see as the hidden ideology of messages they receive, whether in writing or orally. Your effort to make them read for hidden meanings and implied ideology is, to me just another attempt to impose an ideology.

People form their own conclusions. Some of the most anti-Western Islamists are fluent in English. Learning English did not convert them to Western culture, or to Western ideology. The best solution is to let them read.

Steve Kaufmann
www.lingq.com

[John B.]

Basic literacy teachers infusing their lessons with social change ideology, critical thinking,etc., etc.? All I can say is WOW! Incredible! Maybe the process for getting money to teach literacy requires the bafflegab mindset to successfully get grants etc. and thereby promotes this type of idiocracy? I can hardly believe it but truth often proves stranger than fiction!

Regarding the teaching of literature, I have to admit, I have never taken an English class past the 9th grade, I studied music instead! However, I do read with great gusto 40 or 50 books a year, material that ranges from pulp fiction and serious literature, to science, history philosophy and politics. You are right, it is a matter of taste and so I keep on happily reading without worrying about the historical or social context or significance of the books. Too many books (and blogs), so little time! Thanks for maintaining an interesting and thought provoking Blog. I look forward to reading it almost every day!

[Bart Anderson]

Literacy absolutely has political implications.

Examples of literacy as liberation: When I was studying Spanish in Guatemala 30 years ago, literacy teachers were regularly targeted and killed by right wing death squads. The fear was that if poor people learned to read they would get uppity.

Similarly in the ante-Bellum South, states had laws forbidding the teaching of reading to slaves.

On the other hand, literacy disrupts traditional societies, just as any technological innovation does. Why pay attention to the stories of the elders, if you have access to Harry Potter?

Literacy typically means literacy in a dominant language such as English or French (as vs a local native language). And it means repeated exposure to the values of those who control the written word.

Power shifts away from traditional relationships to those who are able to master the new literacy skills and interact with the dominant culture.

An analog in mainstream culture is what has happened to organizations with the advent of computers. The winners are those who have mastered computer skills. The losers are those who haven't (for example, the newspaper industry).

You may think these changes are wonderful (I personally have benefited from). But it is untrue to say that everybody is a winner. Some people win and some people lose - this is political.

From my point of view, literacy, English as a dominant language and computerization are inevitable. If one doesn't learn how to handle them, one will be screwed. On the other hand, unless one is a CRITICAL about them, one will also be screwed.

Bart Anderson

[Steve Kaufmann]

Bart,

Many things can have political implications, sports, music, literature etc. They are not however inherently ideological statements, nor is literacy.

All major industrial societies have literacy issues in their own languages. Third world countries have even larger literacy issues in their languages. I do not know where you get the idea that literacy in non-English speaking countries " typically means literacy in a dominant language such as English or French (as vs a local native language). And it means repeated exposure to the values of those who control the written word."

What do you think literacy in China, Mexico, or Italy means?

I do not share your perspective on any of this, including the inevitable continuation of the dominance of English. By the way I understand that a Japanese scientist won a Nobel prize this year and he does not speak English.As I have said before, I believe that the importance of English will decline as people learn more regional languages to communicate in their own regions.

Neither is literacy ideological, nor is literacy tied up with learning English, nor does learning a language mean accepting the values of that culture (check out the 9/11 terrorists), nor is learning computers political, nor can teachers teach me how to think, nor are ESL learners unable to think on their own.

[Katie]

I have yet to watch Steve's video, but I just want to say, can any of you put yourself into the shoes of an immigrant? I can, having been one myself, at least for a short period of time in Eastern Europe. I was a young adult, and what I wanted, basically, was to understand everything. Very simple. Everything.

I didn't need anybody to teach me how "to think." By then, I was already pretty good at it, like most people. I was monolingual; I wasn't uneducated or stupid.

You can go to the Czech Republic today and meet ten different people who will have ten different opinions, and they speak the same language. Amazing! And they problably never had this "critical thinking" rammed down their throats.

Or maybe I just don't understand, which is also ironic, because English is my first language, and I barely understand what these ESL teachers are talking about. Perhaps I should go to them, to learn how to think!

[Steve Kaufmann]

Critical thinking for many of these teachers is a code word for thinking like the teacher.

[Katie]

Okay, I saw the video. You are spot on.

[Bart Anderson]

I'm not sure you read what I was writing, Steve. Maybe you are still arguing with the people on the other list?

This is a complicated subject and doesn't lend itself to categorical assertions. Things are different in different countries, in different periods of history.

I don't think it is particularly controversial to say that there is a connection between politics and langauges. It may be easier to talk about historical examples than about the present.

* Italy and its dialects for example. Typically literacy in Italy means being able to read standard Italian, which derives from the Tuscan dialect. And yet many Italians speak in local dialects in their daily lives. Some writers complain that they are not able to convey their deepest thoughts in standard Italian, and make a point of writing in dialect. The conflict here would be regionalism vs centalization. Spain is a similar example, wouldn't you say?

* In Greece, there was the conflict between the spoken language (Demotic) and an artificial language that looked back to Ancient Greek (Katharevousa). Which version was to be used in schools and official business? The split was apparently along left-right lines, with the the Colonels supporting the Katharevousa. When the junta was overturned in 1976, Demotic was the victor.

* In China, you probably know the situation best. But it seems to me that the government has been careful on the one hand to establish Mandarin as the official language, and on the other hand to avoid disparaging the other Chinese languages. I think they realize how sensitive an issue this is.

The Communists were politically committed to literacy, wouldn't you say? The simplified characters and pinyin had the aim of making the written language more accessible to the common people.

* During the age of the Colonial empires, teaching literacy in the language of the Empire had a political aim, namely, the development of a loyal core of locals who would assist in administering the colony. Alas for the empires, some of those who learned the language went on to foment revolutions (Gandhi, Ho Chi Minh).

* Slaves are often forbidden to read. I know there were laws against teaching literacy to slaves in the American South, and I think there were similar laws during the Roman Empire (can't remember).

To me, the subject is fascinating. It combines the two things I love: languages and history.

It's too bad that academics write in that horrible jargon - it prevents an intelligent conversation. On the other hand, it's counterproductive to let a kneejerk reaction to jargon get in the way of understanding. Consider Paulo Freire, for example - a very interesting thinker ( http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-freir.htm ), who emphasized the necessity for mutual respect between teacher and student.

[Steve Kaufmann]

Bart,

I am not arguing with the teachers. I am just telling you that I disagree with your point of view. The fact that in the past languages were imposed by conquerors, centralizers and religions does not mean that literacy, nor the teaching of literacy is political, per se. We have, let's say 20% of the population who read poorly in their own language. this limits their job opportunities and has other disadvantages. We can help them improve. We can help people learn a language that is either of interest or useful to them. Not political.

We can interpret everything that happens as one great conspiracy, but that is up to the observer. I am not that way inclined. Literacy is just literacy.

I am opposed to telling people what to read and how to think.

[Janet Isserlis]

Steve,

I think you're conflating decoding with literacy. Not sure if you're familiar with the new literacy studies, or if you'd similarly dismiss it as more jargon, but essentially, as I understand it, the main assertion is that literacy isn't only reading. It's making sense of things. Yes, you might respond, reading IS meaning. But it's possible to decode and sound out words and still not know what they mean. I've watched the video.

I don't believe anyone on the list was saying we must teach social change; nor do I believe that people can't think critically. What some may need and want is the ability to communicate in the target language the things they believe and to understand how systems work.

I disagree that immigrants need to assimilate. We all need to respect laws and conventions that serve the common good.

In that spirit, you would do your blog readers a service by giving them this URL, should they choose to read the conversations you've quoted with attribution.

http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/2009/date.html

[Steve Kaufmann]

Janet,
I believe in Ockham's or Occam's Razor.

"When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities." In other words the simple explanation is usually correct.

To most people, to read is to make sense of what one is reading. I can pronounce Turkish or Indonesian if I read them, but I cannot make sense of them. Therefore I cannot say that I read them.

Are you saying that a person can listen to a text in a language and understand it, and then decode and pronounce the words of that text, and then not understand it?

To me literacy means the ability to read, in other words to make sense of what one is decoding. Writing is a way of recording meaning, just like any recording device. People who can read, can access that meaning, just as people who own an MP3 player can access a sound file for meaning. The meaning can be an excerpt from the Bible, a speech by Fidel Castro or a speech by George Bush or a cooking recipe or assembly instructions for Ikea furniture. It is the content that can be ideological, not the skill of reading nor the MP3 player.

People, not all but most, on the NIFL listserve were very much saying that social change was at the heart of literacy teaching. Many also said that literacy was itself inherently ideological.

They also said that students need to be taught to become aware of the underlying ideological messages that they were reading, as if they could not interpret their reading themselves. In other words they need to be taught critical thinking, a quality which was not very much in evidence amongst the many ideologically conditioned contributors to the listserve.

As regards multiculturalism, I understand that many people prefer not to assimilate and that is their right. As a former immigrant, I just prefer immigrants to assimilate because in the long run I believe that serves their interests and the interests of society better in my view. I recognize that others think differently, and I have no problem with that. I just think that DNA need not dictate culture and language interests. In any case, no pressure or coercion should be applied in either direction, least of all by the state.That is why I object to the ideology of multiculturalism, which suggests that the assimilation model is somehow wrong. In fact it is what has usually happened.

I did not feel it was appropriate to provide the NIFL URL but thank you for doing so. Those readers of my blog who are interested in the full discussion can now do so, to get the full flavour.

[Bart Anderson]

On the subject of whether students need to be taught critical thinking ... and whether students naturally understand what they read.

1. Consider poetry. I can "read" poetry in French, but I will miss most of the meaning unless I have a teacher or do some background reading. The context is missing.

2. I belong to a play-reading group of mature, well-educated adults. We regularly have long discussions about the meaning of what we read. In other words, one does not automatically absorb the meaning. Shakespeare in particular will not be understood by half of the group because of 1) unfamiliar words and syntax 2) lack of familiarity with English history

3. My job is to monitor the press for stories about energy. A key skill is being able to detect hidden assumptions, propaganda, and different points of view. If one accepts everything one reads at face value, one will be manipulated.

4. These are skills that should be taught in school, and in fact I did teach them years ago when I was a high school teacher. During World War II, the U.S. government supported research in content analysis to enable citizens to analyze Axis propaganda. The resulting publications popularized terms like "bandwagon effect" and "glittering generalities". Since then, advertisers and media people have become much more sophisticated at manipulating opinion.

5. Steve is right in saying that not everything is ideological. But a heckuva lot is! One needs skills in order to find out what is ideological and what isn't. These skills are not inherent in our DNA.

Bart Anderson

[Karen]

Steve,

I think you have hit upon it when you say, "I am opposed to telling people what to read and how to think."

Didn't you know that that is what teachers' feel their job is?? ;) After all, look at the BCTF, last election they even told us how we ought to vote!

Seriously, I was given this type of social change ESL curriculum to use but felt that the approach was an insult to my students' intelligence. Besides, who has time for muddling around with all that when the students are desperate to become fluent so they can keep their jobs and function in Canada? I found it wasn't very time efficient.

Karen

[Edward Schiffer]

Language is voice, the releasing and development of voice in life. Successful language acquisition happens when the acquierer exercises her or his voice, and comes to appreciate the importance of the voice of others.

For many of the "professional" language teachers, language is grammar and structure. After 25 years of ESOL teaching, I have come to appreciate the effectiveness of the teacher who comes in from an enthusiasticall lived life of getting things done through language as a vehicle, not a subject.