Investigating ideology through framing: a critical discourse analysis of a critical literacy lesson

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Csilla Weninger
{"title":"Investigating ideology through framing: a critical discourse analysis of a critical literacy lesson","authors":"Csilla Weninger","doi":"10.1080/19463014.2020.1748674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines classroom discourse from English lessons that implemented a critical literacy unit focused on a contextualised social issue. Utilising the theoretical notion of frame, the analysis of classroom excerpts highlights how ideologies about English teaching and learning at times enter the discourse of the classes, not only overtly through the teacher’s talk but also through the more subtle, interactional orchestration of activities. These ideologies, it is argued, pedagogically position the lessons with reference to a procedural, exam-oriented frame, undermining the potential of the content of the talk and the critical literacy unit. Two key implications are drawn from the analysis. First, that in settings with deeply entrenched pedagogic traditions of standards, exam-focused literacy and the attendant instrumentalist view of language education, critical literacy educators may find it helpful to make these ideologies themselves the target of a critical literacy curriculum. Second, it is argued that the notion of frame can be usefully drawn upon in critical analyses of classroom discourse to make visible and understand how ideology as an interpretive framework shapes classroom talk and the learning made possible by that talk.","PeriodicalId":45350,"journal":{"name":"Classroom Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Classroom Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2020.1748674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT This paper examines classroom discourse from English lessons that implemented a critical literacy unit focused on a contextualised social issue. Utilising the theoretical notion of frame, the analysis of classroom excerpts highlights how ideologies about English teaching and learning at times enter the discourse of the classes, not only overtly through the teacher’s talk but also through the more subtle, interactional orchestration of activities. These ideologies, it is argued, pedagogically position the lessons with reference to a procedural, exam-oriented frame, undermining the potential of the content of the talk and the critical literacy unit. Two key implications are drawn from the analysis. First, that in settings with deeply entrenched pedagogic traditions of standards, exam-focused literacy and the attendant instrumentalist view of language education, critical literacy educators may find it helpful to make these ideologies themselves the target of a critical literacy curriculum. Second, it is argued that the notion of frame can be usefully drawn upon in critical analyses of classroom discourse to make visible and understand how ideology as an interpretive framework shapes classroom talk and the learning made possible by that talk.
透过框架调查意识形态:一门批判性识字课的批判性话语分析
摘要:本文研究了英语课堂上的话语,这些课堂上实施了一个专注于情境化社会问题的批判性读写单元。利用框架的理论概念,对课堂摘录的分析强调了英语教学和学习的意识形态有时是如何进入课堂话语的,不仅是通过教师的谈话,而且是通过更微妙的、互动的活动编排。有人认为,这些意识形态在教学上将课程定位为一个程序性的、以考试为导向的框架,破坏了谈话内容和批判性素养单元的潜力。从分析中可以得出两个关键的含义。首先,在标准教学传统根深蒂固的环境中,以考试为中心的扫盲以及随之而来的语言教育工具主义观点,批判性扫盲教育者可能会发现,将这些意识形态本身作为批判性扫盲课程的目标是有帮助的。其次,本文认为,框架的概念可以有效地用于课堂话语的批判性分析,以使人们看到并理解意识形态作为一种解释框架是如何塑造课堂话语的,以及课堂话语使学习成为可能。
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
Classroom Discourse
Classroom Discourse EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信