Freire & Maceado (1987) – Ch. 1, Luke & Freebody

Freire & Maceado (1987) – Ch. 1

Outline
• “Reading does not consist merely of decoding the written word or language; rather, it is preceded by and intertwined with knowledge of the world”(29).

• “The understanding attained by critical reading of a text implies perceiving the relationship between text and context”(29).

• “…reading the word, the phrase, and the sentence never entailed a break from reading the world…reading the word meant reading the word-world”(32).

• “Mechanically memorizing the description of an object does not constitute knowing the object”(33).

• “I always saw teaching adults to read and write as a political act, an act of knowledge and therefore a creative act”(34).

• “…reading the word is not preceded merely by reading the world, but by a certain form of writing it or rewriting it…”(35).

• “To sum up, reading always involves critical perception, interpretation, and rewriting of what is read”(36).

Comments

The Importance of the Act of Reading is echoed by Reading and Colonization.  Luke and Freebody’s assertion that “Reading is about reading cultures and worlds” is resonant in Freire’s testimonial that reading “is preceded by and intertwined with knowledge of the world “describing his own progression from “reading the world” to “reading the word.” He describes the continuously interactive and dynamic process of interpreting the word from the world and the world from the word:  “Reading the world always precedes reading the word, and reading the word implies continually reading the world.”

Upon reading Freire’s account, I could not help but wonder why sequentially, this week’s reading was assigned after the due date of our own written auto/biographies instead of before.  Both articles, in fact, broadened my perspective and made me want to go back and expand on my original piece in light of new ways of considering the experience of literacy.

Freire’s emphasis on the importance of contextualized learning and dismissal of rote memorization should be taken to heart in the development of AP curriculum.  Freire seems to integrate the psychological and sociological models of reading more effectively than Luke and Freebody.  He references both the political and creative implications of literacy and acknowledges the centricity of the student in the process, rather than the teacher. 

Luke & Freebody

Outline
Reading and Colonization
• “…reading is a social practice using written text as a means for the construction and reconstruction of statements, messages, and meanings”(185).
• Reading is tied up in politics and power relations of everyday life (185).
• Colonial education: “the goal of literacy education was the successful introduction of the student into a cannon of classical English literature”(186).
• 19th century and early 20th century:
o Two-stage model: “the basics” followed by “the classics”

Reading and Social Epistemologies
1. Reading and writing are social activities
2. All texts are motivated—there is no neutral position from which a text can be read or written
3. We learn about appropriate reading and writing positions within the relationships that take responsibility for our learning
4. Institutionally purpose-built repertoires of “selves” are represented to us either explicitly or otherwise in all of the texts we read and write (193-4)

Cross-Cultural and Historical Examples of Reading
• “Different cultures and subcultures frame up who, what, and when people read for particular social purposes”(195).
Redefining Reading: From Psychological to Sociological Models
Formalizing and summarizing the contrast between psychological and sociological perspective on reading
• “Our principle purpose here is to disrupt contemporary common sense notions about reading”(207).
• “This move is significant in terms of how we see difference and diversity in the classroom”(208).
• “We argue for a social practice hypothesis: that one learns to do with reading what one is taught to do and what is valued and encouraged and useful in cultural, interpretive communities, and sites”(212).

The Elements of Reading As A Social Practice
• “The issue is, what kinds of reading practices and positions should schools value, encourage and propagate?”(213).

• “To reshape the selective tradition, there are several imperatives:
1. That we attend to critical pragmatic, text-meaning, and coding elements of reading at all stages
2. That we move away from a focus on psychological models toward those sociological models
3. That we integrate the analysis and study of new text forms of multimediated postmodern culture
4. That we focus instruction on how community, workplace, and everyday cultural texts and discourses work, linguistically and politically”(221-2).
• “The issue is how we want to shape reading, how we want to form a selective tradition of materials and practices”(222).

Comments

In Shaping the Social Practices of Reading, Luke and Freebody advocate a shift in paradigm from the psychological model of reading to a sociological model of reading.  Acknowledged in the caption to Table 12.3, comparing the features of the two models, though not fore grounded in the text, is the proposition that “the models provided here are not mutually exclusive and may overlap in some significant ways.”   Given the diversity of cognitive functioning documented by current research, discounting the psychological framework of the individual brain is as counterproductive as ignoring the sociological implications of content and stance in reading curriculum and pedagogy.  Society can ill-afford to ignore either.  Of equal import to the unique identity of each reader who is, after all, greater than the sum of his demographic parts, and the selection of material to be showcased is the power relationship between teacher and pupil as was effectively demonstrated in the excerpted classroom and kitchen table exchanges.  As long as a “sage-on-stage” persona is adopted by the educator, the student is at the mercy of that higher authority.  A “guide-at-side” model recognizes the collaborative element of education and empowers the student to approach learning more authentically, rather than under an assumed identity.  Traditional methods of assessment and the significance given to grades and test scores have a corrupting influence at every level of education since they serve as gatekeepers for future educational and professional opportunities. 

What is ambiguous about the chapter is its practical application, given its political implications. Who calls the tune?   The chapter acknowledges the power of education to indoctrinate and urges adoption of pedagogical practices which promote critical literacy, practices which have been exemplified in our prompts and which should underlie education at all levels. However, given the culture wars already being waged in America’s classrooms wherein Kwanza can be celebrated in one but not Halloween, evolution can be presented in another, but not creationism, promotion of the sociological model will generate controversy and its contemporary adjunct, litigation. A public acknowledgment of “the rightful significance of sociopolitical contexts and issues in reading instruction” would have most school board members ducking for cover. Without further clarification the chapter raises issues of cultural relativism.  Or is it advocating a totally free marketplace of ideas? What does that look like? Without an agreed-upon canon– for which inclusivity and diversity could be the model instead the hide-bound Western-centric Great Books catalogue–or even an agreement for the necessity of a canon, it remains unclear under the sociological model, despite their acknowledged importance, what texts should be taught.  Or is all that is necessary knowledge on the part of the reader of how to approach the text?  But does not the reader have to engage first? 

It is disappointing that within the chapter a credible counter-argument for acculturation as a legitimate end of contemporary education in so diverse a society is not presented and critiqued.  The   example of highlighting the ambiguity of legal terms in a lease agreement seems to support an argument for the necessity of acculturating citizens to standard equitable concepts of reasonableness, negligence and quiet enjoyment.  To the extent that individuals from varying backgrounds constitute a single society governed by rule of law, a shared commonality of understanding is necessary for the regulation of social conduct within legal boundaries.

Advertisement