Bringing Refutation Texts Back to Their Literacy Roots: What do Critical Literacy and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Have to Teach us About Students’ Conceptual Change?

Allison Zengilowski, B. Nash, Brendan A. Schuetze, D. Schallert
{"title":"Bringing Refutation Texts Back to Their Literacy Roots: What do Critical Literacy and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Have to Teach us About Students’ Conceptual Change?","authors":"Allison Zengilowski, B. Nash, Brendan A. Schuetze, D. Schallert","doi":"10.1177/23813377221109544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Refutation texts are resurfacing as a suggested antidote to misconceptions and “fake news.” In a previous critical review of the refutation text literature, we, the author team, suggested further interrogation of the assumptions these texts imply: that learners share the same common misunderstanding about a topic, and that there is one “truth” that should replace the misconception. Building from Hynd’s feminist critique of refutation texts, we present in this essay a consideration of how these authoritative and prescriptive texts fit into an educational landscape being transformed by foci on students’ autonomy and funds of knowledge. In this position paper, we present the argument that refutation texts and their associated research may conflict with critical literacy perspectives and culturally responsive pedagogies. We examine these three perspectives for how they may view learning and literacy, and conclude the essay by proffering suggestions for future research on refutation text manipulations and for considering how refutational texts might be incorporated in classroom settings that enact culturally responsive pedagogy and critical literacy perspectives.","PeriodicalId":91923,"journal":{"name":"Literacy research : theory, method, and practice","volume":"51 1","pages":"341 - 358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literacy research : theory, method, and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23813377221109544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Refutation texts are resurfacing as a suggested antidote to misconceptions and “fake news.” In a previous critical review of the refutation text literature, we, the author team, suggested further interrogation of the assumptions these texts imply: that learners share the same common misunderstanding about a topic, and that there is one “truth” that should replace the misconception. Building from Hynd’s feminist critique of refutation texts, we present in this essay a consideration of how these authoritative and prescriptive texts fit into an educational landscape being transformed by foci on students’ autonomy and funds of knowledge. In this position paper, we present the argument that refutation texts and their associated research may conflict with critical literacy perspectives and culturally responsive pedagogies. We examine these three perspectives for how they may view learning and literacy, and conclude the essay by proffering suggestions for future research on refutation text manipulations and for considering how refutational texts might be incorporated in classroom settings that enact culturally responsive pedagogy and critical literacy perspectives.
把反驳文本带回到它们的识字根源:批判性识字和文化响应教学法对学生观念转变的启示是什么?
反驳文本作为误解和“假新闻”的解毒剂重新出现。在之前对反驳文本文献的批判性回顾中,我们,作者团队,建议进一步质疑这些文本所隐含的假设:学习者对一个主题有相同的共同误解,并且有一个“真理”应该取代误解。从海德对反驳文本的女权主义批判出发,我们在本文中提出了对这些权威和规定性文本如何适应以学生自主和知识储备为重点的教育格局的思考。在这篇立场文件中,我们提出了反驳文本及其相关研究可能与批判性读写观点和文化响应教学法相冲突的论点。我们研究了这三种观点,以了解他们如何看待学习和读写能力,并为未来对反驳文本操作的研究提供建议,并考虑如何将反驳文本纳入制定文化响应教学法和批判性读写观点的课堂环境中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书