Return-Path: <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i2BElQI10689; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:47:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 09:47:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <21ED15A0.10A75F0A.0AB94E44@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AndresMuro@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-womenlit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-WOMENLIT:2887] Re: Critical Reading X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 2247 Lines: 24 There are two definitions that I have encountered. One is more traditional and the other is more radical. The traditional definition says that critical reading is not just for decoding but for understanding text and finding solutions to problems. This definition was used in the SCANS model. The idea is that when I read something, my purpose is to try to understand what the author's intention was, if there is a problem posted, what the problem is, and how can the problem be solved. The more radical definition is used by Freire, Giroux and others. The idea of this definition is that reality has two layers, one that we can see, and another that we can't. They argue that people see one layer, but they are oppressed by another invisible layer. So, the purpose of reading is to make the invisible layer visible (conscientization sp?). when people read, the question would not be what is the problem, and how do we solve it, but rather why do we have this problem in the first place, instead of other problems, who benefits from me solving this problem, and who choose this problem? The purpose of critical reading is suppossed to be to unmask hegemony. An exploration of the diference between radical critical thinking and traditional critical thinking could come up from reading H. Zinn's book and trying to analyze it. We all read history and we all probably understood it and were able to pass tests to show our knowledge. However, who benefited from us acquiring that knowledge. H. Zinn presents a totally different history. However, mastering Zinn's history would give us a very different perspective and understanding of history. The questions that could be explored from his book are: why did we read this or another history, who benefits from reading this, and why weren't we taught this before? Andres In a message dated 3/11/2004 9:19:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, AWilder106@aol.com writes: >Dear Friends, > >Recently David Rosen said that he considered "critical reading" to be an essential part of adult literacy. I am seeking some clarity on this concept from people in the field. What is it, in your mind? How do you do it in your classes? > >Thanks. > >Andrea > -- go here: www.geocities.com/andresmuro/art.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:48:14 EST