A Model for Teaching Critical Reading in an ESL Curriculum
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/esnbu.23.2.7Keywords:
ESL, critical reading, four resources model, text decoder, text participant, text analyst, text userAbstract
This case study explores one Bhutanese ESL teacher’s implementation of Freebody and Luke’s (1990) four resources model (FRM) to teach critical reading (CR) in his grade-9 English classroom. A semi-structured interview was conducted with the teacher and thematically analysed to understand his initial perspectives on CR and teaching strategies. Based on his initial interview data, the researcher recommended him implementing the FRM to teach a poem of his choice from the grade-9 English curriculum in three lessons. The FRM is organised around four reader roles that engage and empower readers as text decoders, text participants, text analysts and text users. A thematic approach was used to analyse the audio recordings of the teacher’s FRM implementation and written lesson reports. The study also analysed his post-implementation interview data to examine the implications and challenges of using the FRM in ESL classrooms. The study showed that the teacher found the FRM effective and practical, allowing him to scaffold and enhance his students’ knowledge and skills to engage in various forms of meaning construction, learn and analyse language usage, critically engage with the text and promote literacy practices.
References
Adams, P. (2006). Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education 3-13, 34(3), 243-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898893 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270600898893
Benson, P. (2012). Learner-centered teaching. In J. C. Richards & A. Burns (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to pedagogy and practice in second language teaching (pp. 30-37). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024778.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024778.005
Boronski, T. (2022). Critical pedagogy: An exploration of contemporary themes and issues. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315101811 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315101811
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Creswell, J. W., & Guetterman, T. C. (2021). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
DiYanni, R. (2017). Reading responsively, Reading responsibly: An approach to critical reading. In R. DiYanni & A. Borst (Eds.), Critical reading across the curriculum (1st ed., pp. 3-23). Wily & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119154907.ch1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119154907.ch1
Donnelly, P. (2007). Inking your thinking: The ultimate meaning making strategy. Literacy learning, 15(1), i-viii.
Flint, A. S., Kitson, L., Lowe, K., Shaw, K., Humphrey, S., Vicars, M., Rogers, J., & Ware, S. (2019). Literacy in Australia: Pedagogies for engagement (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Freebody, P. (2007). Literacy education in school: Research perspectives from the past, for the future. ACER Press.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: An Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7-16.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1999). Further notes on the four resources model.
Gibson, J., Angeles, S., & Liddle, J. (2019). Deciphering Arrernte archives: The intermingling of textual and living knowledge. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication (18), 29-45.
Gillis, V. R., Boggs, G., & Alvermann, D. E. (2019). Content area reading and literacy: Succeeding in today's diverse classrooms (8th ed.). Pearson.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2008). Looking in classrooms (10th ed. ed.). Pearson.
Harris, P. (2006). Reading in the primary school years (2nd ed.). Thomson Social Science Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2016). The practice of qualitative research: Engaging students in the research process (3rd ed.). Sage.
Hill, S. (2006). Developing early literacy: Assessment and teaching. Eleanor Curtain Publishing.
Hill, S. (2012). Developing early literacy: Assessment and teaching (2nd ed.). Eleanor Curtain Publishing.
Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203878033
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 29(1), 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025
Kintsch, W. (2005). An overview of top-down and bottom-up effects in comprehension: The CI perspective. Discourse Processes, 39(2-3), 125-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651676
Kroll, J. F., Sumutka, B. M., & Schwartz, A. I. (2005). A cognitive view of the bilingual lexicon: Reading and speaking words in two languages. The International Journal of Bilingualism, 9(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090010301 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069050090010301
Larson, B. E., & Keiper, T. A. (2007). Instructional strategies for middle and high school. Routledge.
Latham, G. (2014). Struggling readers: A complex label. Practically Primary, 19(3), 33-35.
Linda-Dianne, W. (2015). Coteaching for parent-school-community engagement: Seen through the four resources model. Practically Primary, 20(1), 4-6. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.206880
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1999). A map of possible practices: Further notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.
Luke, A., & Woods, A. (2009). Critical literacies in schools: A primer. Voices from the Middle 17(2), 9.
Luke, A., Woods, A., & Dooley, K. (2011). Comprehension as social and intellectual practice: Rebuilding curriculum in low socioeconomic and cultural minority schools. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 157-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.558445 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.558445
Macknish, C. J. (2011). Understanding critical reading in an ESL class in Singapore. TESOL Journal, 2(4), 444-472. https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2011.269747 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5054/tj.2011.269747
Manalo, E. (2020). Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and critical thinking: Research-based strategies for the classroom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429323058 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429323058
OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 reading framework. https://doi.org/10.1787/5c07e4f1-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5c07e4f1-en
Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, A. H. (2010). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
Rasse, C. (2022). Poetic metaphors: Creativity and interpretation. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.15
Riley, K. (2015). Enacting critical literacy in English classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(5), 417-425. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.371 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.371
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2019). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed.) (pp. 451-477). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110592-28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110592-28
Ruddell, R. B., Unrau, N. J., & McCormick, S. (2019). A sociocognitive model of meaning-construction: The reader, the teacher, the text, and the classroom context. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of literacy (7th ed.) (pp. 204-232). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110592-13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110592-13
Rush, L. S. (2004). First steps toward a full and flexible literacy: Case studies of the four resources model. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(3), 37-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558410 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070509558410
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
Santoro, N. (2004). Linking literacy model to SOSE textbooks: Using the four resources model across the curriculum. Ethos, 12(4), 9-15.
Scarino, A. (2014). Learning as reciprocal, interpretive meaning-making: A view from collaborative research into the professional learning of teachers of languages. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 386-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12068.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12068.x
Serafini, F. (2012). Expanding the four resources model: Reading visual and multi-modal texts. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 7(2), 150-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480x.2012.656347 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2012.656347
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Simandan, V. M. (2012). Using the four resource model to map out plans for a literacy lessoon. Journal Plus Education, 8(1), 232-240.
Tompkins, G., Smith, C., Campbell, R., & Green, D. (2019). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Tompkins, G. E., Campbell, R., Green, D., & Smith, C. (2015). Literacy for the 21st century: A balanced approach (2nd ed.). Pearson Australia.
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. The Gilford Press.
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2017). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. Guilford Publications.
Underwood, T., Yoo, M. S., & Pearson, P. D. (2007). Understanding reading comprehension in secondary schools through the lens of the four resources model. In L. S. Rush (Ed.), Secondary school literacy: What research reveals for classroom practice (pp. 90-116). National Council of Teachers of English.
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2021). Affective Jacob's ladder reading comprehension program: Grade 3. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003232940 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003232940
Vasquez, V. M. (2017). Critical literacy across the K-6 curriculum. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642277
Viana, V., & Zyngier, S. (2020). Language-literature integration in high-school EFL education: Investigating students' perspectives. Innovation in language learning and teaching, 14(4), 347-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1608999 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2019.1608999
Wilson, K. (2009). Reading in the margins: EAP reading pedagogies and their critical, postcritical potential [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Technology, Sydney]. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/2100/839/2/Whole02.pdf
Winch, G., Ross Johnston, R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L., & Holliday, M. (2020). Literacy: reading, writing and children's literature (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. Jolm-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Ugyen Tshering
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All published articles in the ESNBU are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don't have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
In other words, under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license users are free to:
Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material
Under the following terms:
Attribution (by) - All CC licenses require that others who use your work in any way must give you credit the way you request, but not in a way that suggests you endorse them or their use. If they want to use your work without giving you credit or for endorsement purposes, they must get your permission first.
NonCommercial (nc) - You let others copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify and use your work for any purpose other than commercially unless they get your permission first.
If the article is to be used for commercial purposes, we suggest authors be contacted by email.
If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, authors will notify ESNBU at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1 Public Domain Dedication waiver CC0 1.0 Universal.
Copyright
Copyright for articles published in ESNBU are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. Authors retain full publishing rights and are encouraged to upload their work to institutional repositories, social academic networking sites, etc. ESNBU is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.
Exceptions to copyright policy
Occasionally ESNBU may co-publish articles jointly with other publishers, and different licensing conditions may then apply.
