{"title":"被间隙沉默?批判性读写能力在苏格兰卓越课程中的地位","authors":"Jennifer Farrar, K. Stone","doi":"10.1108/etpc-03-2019-0041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nCritical literacy foregrounds the relationship between language and power by focusing on how texts work and in whose interests (Luke, 2012, p. 5). It is highlighted as an “important skill” within Scotland’s national educational framework for 3-18 year olds, the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), yet, as this paper aims to show, what the concept means is far from clear for policy users (Scottish Government, 2009e).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nUsing a lens that draws from critical discourse analysis, critical content analysis (Luke, 2001; Beach et al., 2009; Fairclough, 2010) and Ball’s method of policy analysis (2015), the authors find that the term “critical literacy” has been applied incoherently within key CfE documentation, including the frequent conflation of critical literacy with critical reading and critical thinking.\n\n\nFindings\nThe authors argue that the CfE’s use of “critical literacy” is a misnomer, given that the version presented is an amalgamation of literacy-related competences drawing largely from psychological and not socio-political perspectives of literacy.\n\n\nSocial implications\nThis is a missed opportunity, given the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to social justice in policy terms (Scottish Executive, 2000; Scottish Government, 2016), not forgetting the powerful benefits that a critically literate stance could bring to Scotland’s learners at this time of communicative change and challenge.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nWhile the authors offer a contextualized view of the ways in which the term “critical literacy” has been incorporated into Scottish educational policy, they propose that its implications go beyond national boundaries.\n","PeriodicalId":45885,"journal":{"name":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Silenced by the gaps? The status of critical literacy in Scotland’s curriculum for excellence\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Farrar, K. Stone\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/etpc-03-2019-0041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nCritical literacy foregrounds the relationship between language and power by focusing on how texts work and in whose interests (Luke, 2012, p. 5). It is highlighted as an “important skill” within Scotland’s national educational framework for 3-18 year olds, the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), yet, as this paper aims to show, what the concept means is far from clear for policy users (Scottish Government, 2009e).\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nUsing a lens that draws from critical discourse analysis, critical content analysis (Luke, 2001; Beach et al., 2009; Fairclough, 2010) and Ball’s method of policy analysis (2015), the authors find that the term “critical literacy” has been applied incoherently within key CfE documentation, including the frequent conflation of critical literacy with critical reading and critical thinking.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe authors argue that the CfE’s use of “critical literacy” is a misnomer, given that the version presented is an amalgamation of literacy-related competences drawing largely from psychological and not socio-political perspectives of literacy.\\n\\n\\nSocial implications\\nThis is a missed opportunity, given the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to social justice in policy terms (Scottish Executive, 2000; Scottish Government, 2016), not forgetting the powerful benefits that a critically literate stance could bring to Scotland’s learners at this time of communicative change and challenge.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nWhile the authors offer a contextualized view of the ways in which the term “critical literacy” has been incorporated into Scottish educational policy, they propose that its implications go beyond national boundaries.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English Teaching-Practice and Critique\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English Teaching-Practice and Critique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-03-2019-0041\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Teaching-Practice and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/etpc-03-2019-0041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
批判性读写能力通过关注文本如何工作以及谁的利益来强调语言和权力之间的关系(卢克,2012,第5页)。在苏格兰3-18岁儿童的国家教育框架中,它被强调为一项“重要技能”,即卓越课程(CfE),然而,正如本文旨在表明的那样,对于政策使用者来说,这一概念意味着什么还远远不够清楚(苏格兰政府,2009)。设计/方法论/方法使用批评性话语分析、批评性内容分析的视角(Luke, 2001;Beach et al., 2009;费尔克劳(Fairclough, 2010)和鲍尔(Ball)的政策分析方法(2015),作者发现,在CfE的关键文件中,“批判性素养”一词的应用并不连贯,包括经常将批判性素养与批判性阅读和批判性思维混为一谈。研究结果作者认为,CfE使用“批判性读写能力”是一种用词不当,因为所提出的版本是读写能力相关能力的融合,主要来自心理而不是社会政治的读写能力观点。社会影响考虑到苏格兰政府在政策方面对社会正义的承诺,这是一个错失的机会(苏格兰行政部门,2000;苏格兰政府,2016年),不要忘记在这个交流变化和挑战的时代,批判性文化立场可以给苏格兰学习者带来的强大好处。原创性/价值虽然作者对“批判性素养”一词被纳入苏格兰教育政策的方式提供了一种情境化的观点,但他们提出,它的含义超越了国界。
Silenced by the gaps? The status of critical literacy in Scotland’s curriculum for excellence
Purpose
Critical literacy foregrounds the relationship between language and power by focusing on how texts work and in whose interests (Luke, 2012, p. 5). It is highlighted as an “important skill” within Scotland’s national educational framework for 3-18 year olds, the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), yet, as this paper aims to show, what the concept means is far from clear for policy users (Scottish Government, 2009e).
Design/methodology/approach
Using a lens that draws from critical discourse analysis, critical content analysis (Luke, 2001; Beach et al., 2009; Fairclough, 2010) and Ball’s method of policy analysis (2015), the authors find that the term “critical literacy” has been applied incoherently within key CfE documentation, including the frequent conflation of critical literacy with critical reading and critical thinking.
Findings
The authors argue that the CfE’s use of “critical literacy” is a misnomer, given that the version presented is an amalgamation of literacy-related competences drawing largely from psychological and not socio-political perspectives of literacy.
Social implications
This is a missed opportunity, given the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to social justice in policy terms (Scottish Executive, 2000; Scottish Government, 2016), not forgetting the powerful benefits that a critically literate stance could bring to Scotland’s learners at this time of communicative change and challenge.
Originality/value
While the authors offer a contextualized view of the ways in which the term “critical literacy” has been incorporated into Scottish educational policy, they propose that its implications go beyond national boundaries.
期刊介绍:
English Teaching: Practice and Critique seeks to promote research and theory related to English literacy that is grounded in a range of contexts: classrooms, schools and wider educational constituencies. The journal has as its main focus English teaching in L1 settings. Submissions focused on EFL will be considered only if they have clear pertinence to English literacy in L1 settings. It provides a place where authors from a range of backgrounds can identify matters of common concern and thereby foster broad professional communities and networks. Where possible, English Teaching: Practice and Critique encourages comparative approaches to topics and issues. The journal published three types of manuscripts: research articles, essays (theoretical papers, reviews, and responses), and teacher narratives. Often special issues of the journal focus on distinct topics; however, unthemed manuscript submissions are always welcome and published in most issues.