YAY!!! The newest issue of the Journal of Language Teaching and Research is out!!
After browsing the titles,
I choose to first read Critical Learning: Critical Discourse Analysis in EFL Teaching by Dolores Fernández Martínez, and I spent the
morning reading and reflecting on the article. Here is my review.
 |
| This is me, reading the Journal of Language Teaching and Research... except that I read it online. But this is what I feel like when I read it. |
Summary
The article begins with a brief
introduction to discourse analysis (DA), then transfers into an
introduction to critical discourse analysis (CDA)--the main
difference being that CDA looks more specifically at power relations,
control, and implicit strategy. A critical approach in the classroom,
the author claims, benefits students in the rest of their lives, as well:
“Students should learn language through exposure to different types
of texts and be aware of the fact that the study of discourse can be
applied to any text, problem, or situation” (p. 285). Fernández
Martínez then presents a proposal for a CDA syllabus, of sorts, that
includes a section on CDA Theory, a section on DA Tools, and a
section on Texts (and using them in the classroom). She quickly
discusses the first two sections, and then continues to describe six
CDA activities featuring different authentic texts (because
“authentic materials are more likely to connect with their
interests and prompt their motivation and satisfaction.” 285), as
well as questions to encourage critical discussion.
 |
| Very Critical Discourse Analysis. Notice, the critic glasses. |
Article Criticisms
My main criticism of this article is
that the introduction and the explanation of the first two sections
of the CDA syllabus were very brief and not very informative as to
the exact intention or practices of the author. It would have been
nice to have a stronger explanation of what exactly is meant by CDA
and how is it is different than normal DA. Fernández Martínez
mentioned in the beginning of the article that CDA was a method for
social change, but I think a little more development in this section
would be very helpful for the novice discourse analyst classroom
teacher. I also really would have liked to see more explanation or
example content of the “Theory” and “Tools” part, or at least
an idea of the minimum requirements to be able to successfully teach
this material....beyond telling students that the meaning of
discourse is “contextually activated text” (p. 284).
My only other criticism is really
petty. The political slogan she chose as the example for the first
activity (“Yes, we can”) was attributed solely to Barak Obama,
and while he DID use the slogan, I'm pretty sure that the president
borrowed the phrase. I believe it was taken from the translation of
the famous “Si, se puede” phrase coined by Hispanic rights
activist and migrant farmer advocate Caesar Chavez, in the 1970s.
Just sayin'.
Positives
If you overlook the criticisms about
the first two sections of the paper, however, I think you will find a
very interesting model for for creating interesting, authentic,
student-centered language activities. What's more, they could easily
be used in a Dogme ELT / Teaching Unplugged situation, where students
bring the content, and together analyze the effect, the social
relationships, and the purpose. I see many of these activities as
being particularly useful in the second language context, where
students are daily exposed to a large amount of target language
material. However, I've also noticed from teaching English abroad,
that in foreign countries, you see and hear a lot of English. In my
experience, students don't always understand the meaning of what they
are hearing and reading, even if they understand the words.
In conclusion, I would like to leave
you with the final words of the article, which I feel are especially
salient.
“All in all, the classroom presents tangible and attractive ways of interpreting contemporary culture; it is an excellent forum for teaching discourse analysis and for making students aware that there is a rich and complex world outside to be analyzed and criticalized” (288).
