Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson,2003, p.3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber,2001, p.274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson,2003, p.3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber,2001, p.274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson,2003, p.3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber,2001, p.274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson,2003, p.3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber,2001, p.274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso

Critical literacies are not new among scholars and researchers in literacy education. However, due to different theoretical bases, there is no unique definition of “critical literacy”. In their broadest sense, critical literacies refer to the ability to read texts going beyond their superficial meaning. That is, it implies approaching texts in a reflective way to understand working ideologies such as power, inequality, and injustice. In the realm of critical literacy, text is understood as a “vehicle through which individuals communicate with one another using the codes and conventions of society” (Robinson & Robinson,2003, p.3). Texts, in this sense, can be either songs, novels, poems, conversations, pictures, movies, and so on. […]

Hence, the critical literacies approach is generally contrasted with functional literacy. The former views literacy as a social practice, while the latter views literacy as the mastery of linguistic skills. In addition, Manning (1999) developed a framework to distinguish critical literacies from functional literacy by establishing the difference between their respective ideology purpose, literacy curriculum, and instruction. On the one hand, the main objective of functional literacy is to produce skilled workers for the marketplace. Consequently, the curriculum is restrictive and the instruction is individualistic and competitive. On the other hand, for critical literacies, texts are not neutral but marked by power messages, dominating interests, and hidden agendas. In order to deconstruct these texts and unveil their ideological messages and power relationships, the curriculum is to employ materials from the everyday world as text and analytic tools.

Critical scholars have overtly supported the idea that there is not a single procedure for incorporating critical literacies into the classroom, given that the particularities of the context where the foreign language is taught differ from one another. Thus, an approach to critical literacies “needs to be continually redefined in practice” (Comber,2001, p.274).

Adapted from: Jiménez, M.C. G. and Gutiérrez, C.P. “Engaging English as a Foreign Language Students in Critical Literacy Practices: The Case of a Teacher at a Private University” available at http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci_arttext&pid=S1657-07902019000100091&lng=en&nrm=iso