SCET Journal 2020

Prompting

Critical Thinking

ers need to be able to interrogate assumptions and ideologies they bring to any text. They need tools to uncover the purposes of language within a text in order to exact the truth. Thinking critically demands that readers stretch their cognitive capability in making meaning from a text to understanding how meaning is manipulated in particular ways (Clary et al., 2018). Per figure 1, the Four Resources model for reading, developed

place. Reader-viewers as interrogators transcend the literal level of meaning, to infer from texts and con- texts to interrogate - question and challenge - what they read and view (Serafini, 2012). Contexts for Learning At the expense of developing young peoples’ understanding of the online world, educators and parents have engaged in knee-jerk reactions to mon-

by Freebody and Luke (1990; 1999) and later expanded by Serafini (2012) to accommo- date reading–viewing multi-modal texts, is a four-tiered framework for equipping readers with key resources (or roles) for uncovering how texts are posi- tioning them and any variance in what they are reading. Serafini (2012) adopts a critical literacy stance in an expanded four re- sources or “social prac- tices” model for reading multi-modal texts where the reader-viewer is positioned as: (1) navi- gator, (2) interpreter, (3) designer and (4) interro-

itor the usage of devices in stemming the flow of online content intended to lure young people. “Instead of placing trust in the latest gadget, faith must be placed in the expertise of teachers to sustain classrooms that reflect the contexts of learning that are encoun- tered outside of schools and in the real world” (ILA, 2018, p. 3). A more ap- propriate response invites students to engage in a continuing and meaningful conversation intended to foster their understanding and assess the usefulness of information for them- selves (Orlando, 2017). The International Reading Association (2018) advo-

Coding Practices: Developing Resources as a Code Beaker — How do I crack this text? How does it work? What are its patterns and conventions? How do the sounds and the marks relate, singly and in combinations? Pragmatic Practices: Developing Resources as Text User — How do the uses of this text shape its composition? What do I do with this text, here and now? What will others do with it? What are my options and alternatives?

Text-Meaning Practices: Developing Resources as a Text Participant — How do the ideas represented in the text string together? What cultural resources can be brought to bear on the text? What are the cultural meanings and possible readings that can be constructed from this text? Critical Practices: Developing Resources as Text Analyst and Critic — What kind of person,

with what interests and values, could both write and read this naively and unproblematically? What is this text trying to do to me? In whose interests? Which positions, voices and interests are at play? Which are silent and absent? Figure 1. Four Resources Model of Critical Reading. (Luke 2000)

gator (p.150). For example, reader-viewers as navi- gators consider print-based multi-modal texts (e.g. picture books, graphic novels, manga, textbooks) and digital multi-modal texts according to their purposes for reading, and the meaning negotiated in transacting with such texts. Navigating multi-mod- al texts require reader-viewers to pay attention to visual elements as well as the grammar, structure, and typography identified with written language. Reader-viewers as interpreters engage in making meaning and responding to varying images and texts. Reader-viewers as designers make decisions about which aspect of the text is being navigated to consider and interpret; in effect, they actively design the text to be read situated in a particular time and

cates for “powerful literacy instruction:” Powerful literacy instruction should prepare stu- dents today to produce, communicate, interpret, and socialize with peers, adults, and the broader world they will enter when they graduate. Such in- teractions require a mastery of written and spoken language and a familiarity with literary devices and rhetorical structures, skills historically grounded in literacy instruction (p. 2). By example, ELA teachers can involve their students in meaningful literacy engagements by drawing on stu- dents’ out-of-school literacies (Clary et al., 2018): Metaconversations in which teacher and students explore the features of out-of-school literacy practices and their application for in-school literacy tasks.

2018/2019

C CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS

23