I am absolutely astounded at how much I am continuing to learn in association with activities that I have long taken for granted; namely, reading and writing, thereby showing one that such is certainly reflective of the old adage that one never ceases to learn.
In keeping with my Gnostic soul searching, by way of old-fashioned reading and online exploration, I am learning that both critical thinking, creative thinking and critical literacy are important facets related to both mediums. There are many existent texts that simply cannot be verified and/or validated, aside from one’s beliefs. I am beginning to attempt to try and ascertain the agenda of each author that I visit while on my spirituality search.
Critical thinking involves logical thinking and reasoning, including skills such as comparison, classification, sequencing, cause/effect, patterning, webbing, analogies, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, forecasting, planning, hypothesizing and critiquing, attributed to the so-called “left” brain function.
Creative thinking involves creating something new or original, the aim of which is to stimulate curiosity and promote divergence. Such involves the use of a multitude of skills such as flexibility, originality, fluency, elaboration, brainstorming, modification, imagery, associative thinking, attribute listing and metaphorical thinking, all of which are “right” brain activities.
Critical literacy pertains to the reader understanding the relationships that exist between their ideas and those presented by the author of the text by focusing on issues of power that, in turn, promote reflection, action and transformation. As per Luke and Freebody and the 4 tier model they employ, readers play not only the role of code breakers, meaning makers and text users, but also the role of text critics; a role that is relatively new to my understanding.
In the course of my readings, I was surprised to learn that critical thinking and critical literacy are two different terms, appreciating that distinction that Knobel and Heath were making between the two, especially when they wrote that “you need critical thinking to do critical literacy, but you can do critical thinking without doing critical literacy” (Critical Literacies: An Introduction, p 8).
After having conducted the required Google search, I feel that I have a more concise understanding as to the difference that exists between these two confusing, and oft-times conflicting, terms.
Knobel and Heath drew an fitting comparison when stating critical literacy to being something of a chameleon, “changing from context to context and from one educational purpose to another” (p 2) for this comment is a remarkably apt one, which is precisely why there are so many differing opinions as to what ‘critical literacy’ constitutes and what it involves.
I find it fascinating to make comparisons between North American and Australian models with reference to critical literacy. “For many North American reading educators, the term “critical literacy” refers to aspects of higher order comprehension” (Critical Literacy in Australia, Luke, p 3). As a means of comparison, Luke goes on to day that “in Australia, critical literacy agendas have traveled a different pathway” (p 3) where they begin “from the assumption that reading and writing are about social power and that a ‘critical’ literacy education would have to go beyond individual skill acquisition to engage students in the analysis and reconstruction of social fields” (p 3).
As always, I am amazed at how much farther ahead Australia is with respect to the development of ‘critical literacies’. Why is it that we tend to follow the path of the US when making changes within our own country? How can we go about insisting that Canada look at what is happening, first and foremost, in Australia? Even though there is no set formula that has emerged for engagement of critical literacy within the classroom, we could do well to learn from our Australian colleagues.
I was pleasantly surprised by the conclusion that Luke was able to draw; namely, that “perhaps it is not a question of whether and how government might bring ‘critical literacy’ under an umbrella of state curriculum policy, but rather a matter of government getting out of the way so that ‘critical literacies’ can be invented in classrooms. Perhaps it is absence and silence from the centre that enables” (p 13).
W. Morgan clearly stated that “Freire argued that passive, authoritarian and alienating forms of traditional instruction function to reproduce the material inequalities of a hierarchical society” (Mapping the terrain of critical literacy, p 7). Does this not say it all? In keeping, it is clear that our schools are in urgent need of reform.
It became even more imperative that something needs to change, at least for me, upon reading that “education is one means among many by which the dominant groups in society almost invisibly, almost unconsciously, maintain their hegemony and those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged are persuaded to consent to their inequality” (Morgan, p 7). This bodes that a vital and important question be asked.
Is this dominant hegemony actually maintained in a invisible and unconscious manner, or is it just more blatant to those who suddenly have eyes with which to see the existent reality? For me, such has been the very nature of this course.
There exists a “myth of education” that sees education as being a “great equalizer” (Shor, What is Critical Literacy?, p 5). According to Shor, “critical literacy challenges the status quo in an effort to discover alternative paths for self and social development” (page 1) in that “critical literacy is language use that questions the social construction of the self” (p 2). As Shor shares, “we can redefine ourselves and remake society, if we choose, through alternative rhetoric and dissident projects” (p1). It is both imperative and critical that we begin rethinking our lives in order to better promote justice in place of inequity. How can we act against this violence, the “violence of imposed hierarchy” (Shor, p 5)?
Shor makes mention of Horace Mann (born 1796) as stating, “Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity” (p 7) due to the fact that “intellectual castes would inevitably be followed by castes in privilege, honor and society” (Shor, p 7).
John Dewey (born 1859) affirmed that “a holistic curriculum based simultaneously in experience and philosophy, in working and thinking, in action and reflection” (Shor, p 7). Dewey saw “any social situation where people could not consult, collaborate, or negotiate” (Shor, p 11) as being “an activity of slaves rather than of a free people” (Shor, p 11).
We could do well to learn from these examples. To be for critical literacy “is to take a moral stand on the kind of just society and democratic education we want” (p 18).
It is also clear that “tolerance and eternal vigilance are the cause for a better world society and environment, now and in the future, for themselves and their fellows” (Morgan, p 15) as I believe this establishes a system of checks and balances that is of the utmost importance. As educators, we have a most evident responsibility to both ourselves and our students to have a hand in producing active and responsible citizens who will critique business, government, the media and other aspects of public life.
