Focusing - On - EFL - Reading - Theory - and - Practice PArt V

CHAPTER FOURTEEN
BEYOND MERE TEXTUAL UNDERSTANDING:

A SKEPTICAL APPROACH TO READING
VIJAY SINGH THAKUR

DHOFAR UNIVERSITY, OMAN
RAHMA AL-MAHROOQI
SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY, OMAN
Right education will teach you how to be yourself, authentically yourself.

You are unique. There is nobody like you, never has been, never will be.
This is a great respect that God has showered on you. This is your glory,
Copyright © 2014. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. All rights reserved.
that you are unique. Don’t become imitative, don’t become carbon copies.
Osho (2000, p. 203)
Abstract
Reading is one of the most pervasive and essential of human activities
since, to reflect Patil’s view (2005, p. 54), it is a gateway to learning that
leads to major sources of insight and knowledge. Considering the structure
of reading courses and how they are delivered in ESL/EFL classrooms, it
often seems that reading is reduced to mere skimming and scanning of the
text(s). As Correia (2006, p. 16) observes, reading comprehension
exercises in most EFL textbooks are meant to check students’
understanding of the text at a superficial level. He argues that alternatives
that could produce more active and critical readers need to be considered
because, viewed psycholinguistically (Papalia, 2000, p. 70), reading is a
problem-solving practice that involves the deriving and assigning of
meaning. In this sense, it clearly goes beyond textual skimming and
scanning and relates to life skills. Concerned with the larger goal of
education, therefore, reading should promote thinking so that students can
Al-Mahrooqi, R., & Roscoe, A. (Eds.). (2014). <i>Focusing on efl reading : theory and practice</i>. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Created from uic on 2017-10-14 12:24:02.
Beyond Mere Textual Understanding 299
produce knowledge (rather than merely reproduce it) in order to survive,

grow and contribute within a competitive and complex world.
Keywords: skeptical approach, aggressive reading, critical thinking, long-

term reading programme, problem-solving, reflective thinking.
1. Introduction
Whatever we read - a book, article, poem, short story, news item,
editorial, opinion column, critique, cartoon, proverb, anecdote, even a road
sign - tries to tell us something, tries to deliver a message, tries to make us
believe. And the notion is widespread, to echo Varaprasad’s (1997)
comment, that published materials are seen as objective, unbiased truth,
reflecting the views of respected and authoritative sources such as
newspapers, journals and publishing houses. Teachers and students,
therefore, often accept the printed word without actively challenging either
content or implied assumptions, and this kind of reading, with its
submissive response to printed texts, is an impediment rather than an aid
to knowledge production. A prerequisite for producing knowledge, as
Rose and Nicoll (1997) remind us, includes a kit of analytical, lateral,
problem-solving, critical, creative, and reflective thinking. To accomplish
this higher-order goal, and by implication research, readers must be able to
respond to and question texts critically. This involves what Wallace (1990,
in Varaprasad, 1997) describes as taking assertive and skeptical positions
against a text’s “obvious” and “taken for granted” stance.
Against a backdrop of promoting higher-order knowledge production
and promotion, appropriate skills and values, this paper views reading as
an intellectually disciplined process of evaluating information critically. It
argues that the development of thinking skills should be at the heart of
reading and that language teachers have an obligation to attend to the
quality of this process in ESL/EFL classrooms as well as to the imparting
of content. A key purpose, then, is to provide from an independent life
skills perspective a rationale, ideas and strategies for developing
critical/reflective reading. In the process a link between education and
citizenship will be established.
The paper first touches on the relationship between reading and
thinking and suggests that language classes/educational institutions offer
an especially favorable context for the development of critical thinking.
Next it will consider what mature and intelligent readers should read and
how they must go beyond a mere surface understanding of the text.
Further elaboration will suggest that ambitious readers should establish a
300 Chapter Fourteen
long-range reading programme and how this might be done, with some
ideas on tasks and activities that could be exploited for wise critical
reading. The paper’s conclusion will consider relevant pedagogical
implications.
2. Reading and thinking: an interface

Reading and thinking are intertwined so intricately as to be
inseparable. All reading begins and ends in thinking. Thinking leads to
understanding; understanding to learning; and learning to knowledge. This
knowledge, however, may have no value if it fails to lead to the production
of further knowledge and eventually to skills and competency
development. Mere textual understanding may not result in knowledge
production – it may help simply in reproducing knowledge. Knowledge
production becomes possible only through the use of incisive thinking
skills. It is desirable, therefore, that thinking skills be broadened and
sharpened. Only then can acquired knowledge be transformed into a
higher-order intellectual capacity for producing useful and fruitful
knowledge that should eventually empower citizens to become agents of
social change and values integration. Values, it should be stressed, cannot
be imposed, even if conveyed with good intentions. And an internalization
of values is possible only with learner agreement. In the process of
achieving this, thinking skills – as a prerequisite – must be advanced from

a simple comprehension mode to a skeptical style of reading that
encourages readers to ask why and what for at the right times. This is what
checks the proliferation of blind faith.
We need to consider how to read with a questioning mind. A
questioning mind sees birth in aggressive reading and finally produces a
mature reader. But what is aggressive reading and how does it transform
an average reader into a mature one?
3. From aggressive reading to a mature reader

Skeptical reading, a prerequisite for critical thinking, demands
aggressive comprehension. The reader need not get enmeshed in details,
but instead sees them in a proper perspective, as part of the writing’s
overall structure and organization and giving the author’s central message
impact, conviction and solidity.
To read aggressively, says Lewis (2005, p. 114), one must develop the
habit of viewing material as a whole rather than passively absorbing it
thought by thought, sentence by sentence, or word by word. Put another
way, the reader must react to the material as a unit by seeking the answer
to one dominant question, namely, what, in essence, is the author trying to
say? An aggressive reader must learn to extract the answer quickly and
skillfully from the mass of words and details.
But this means thinking along with the writer, which is another facet of
the interface between reading and thinking. When the reader can
accurately sense how the writer has organized his/her thinking and
patterned it, then the reader – confidently, efficiently and speedily – will
be able to strip a page down to its essentials. Only then will aggressive
reading be happening.
As Lewis (2005, p. 114) argues, one of the chief merits of detecting a
written text’s pattern is that we need not read every single word, sentence
or paragraph. Instead, we can conjecture what is likely to come next, and
whether it is very important, only moderately important, or completely
unimportant to the piece’s central meaning. We may not be able to achieve
absolute success right away, but we will slowly develop a keener sense of
what the author is doing and how it is being done. With continuous
practice we will become aggressive readers, confidently traveling through
crowded texts, like taxi drivers who can weave through congested traffic
with breath-taking skill because they have practiced this so often. Their
careering may frighten bystanders, but they have the world’s best safety
record!
Now, the question that arises next is how to think along with the author
as we read. The following section discusses how to x-ray a piece of
writing, so to speak, in order to clearly see its bones – i.e. the inner
framework that holds the flesh of ideas together – and how to detect its
central themes, so that one can quickly and correctly distill its essential
meaning.
4. How to x-ray reading materials

We need to x-ray our reading material so thoroughly that it becomes an
integral and reflexive part of our everyday performance. We will then be
reading with aggressive comprehension and no longer passively absorbing
ideas and details. Instead we will recognize them as related factors that
work together to produce the impact the author is striving for.
With intelligent, persistent practice we will become more confident,
more skillful and efficient. And, as this happens, we will find ourselves
much more deeply involved in the material, more actively responding to
the author’s thinking, and moving more rapidly and purposefully in pursuit
of central meaning. Furthermore, we will also discover that our

concentration has improved.
Concentration in reading, as in any other activity, consists of such deep
and purposeful involvement that inner distractions cease, that mind
wandering is eliminated, and that the external world might as well – for
the moment – be completely non-existent, as happens in deep meditation.
Deeper involvement in material, a more dynamic response to an
author’s thinking, a faster and more purposeful pursuit of central meaning,
and better concentration are richly desirable dividends. But we can receive
them only if our investment in aggressive reading is great enough.
Simply x-raying the material is insufficient in itself for becoming an
alert and well-rounded reader. There is also a need, as Lewis (2005, p.
215) argues, to resist the “mesmerism which is resident in print” and read
the material critically. Hence, the next section discusses the importance of
skepticism in reading.
5. A skeptical approach to reading

All authors, no matter what their medium of communication, aim to
convince us that what they have to say is true and should be accepted as
such. Most reading programmes/courses try to develop greater skill in
understanding what a page of print has to say. But understanding, no
matter how perceptive, clear, or accurate, is, manifestly, not enough. To be

a maturely intelligent reader, we must be able to go beyond mere textual
understanding, which is only possible through a skeptical approach to
reading. We must be sufficiently skeptical to be in the habit of routinely
questioning – and to be sufficiently informed, knowledgeable,
experienced, and alert. Only then will we be able to decide (a) whether the
conclusions of a piece of writing are valid and soundly reasoned, (b)
whether the interpretations are trustworthy, (c) whether the selection of
facts, or so-called facts, is honest, (d) whether the author is relatively
unbiased, (e) whether the publication in which the material appears is
known to be fair in its search for truth, and (f), considering all the previous
whethers, whether or not the piece’s message deserves belief and
acceptance. Thus, people who read intelligently approach all material with
a questioning, even a skeptical outlook and achieve, to use Adams’ and
Patterson’s view (2005, p. 131), that level of understanding which entails
the distinguishing of fact from opinion, the recognition of an author’s
intent, attitude or bias, the drawing of inferences, and the making of
critical judgments.
“Critical reading”, a well-known expert, Dr. Francis Triggs, says (in

Adams and Patterson, 2005, p. 131), “requires a contribution by both the
author and the reader and an interplay which usually results in a new
understanding”. One of the basic steps in developing this new
understanding, as Heuer says (1999, in hVWQOR÷OX S ), is
clarifying assumptions that a writer takes for granted. Other obstacles to
critical thinking are prejudices, as Boostrom argues (1994, in hVWQOR÷OX
2004, p. 4), which are generally related to patriotism, race, religion, class,
ethnicity, or gender and which affect the way we think. Critical thinking,
as hVWQOR÷OXSSXWVLWUHTXLUHVDQDZDUHQHVVRIWKHYDOXHVRQ
which we base our judgment.
“Trying to see a new point of view – or at least being open to seeing
something differently – is an important strategy of critical thinking”
%RRVWURP S FLWHG LQ hVWQOR÷OX S &RQVLGHULQJ D
variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives, remaining open to
alternative interpretations, expecting a new explanation, coming to one’s
own conclusion and creating a new point of view are goals that can be
achieved through the skeptical approach to reading. The ability to
approach material critically can best be developed through wide reading,
and to judge one must have a touchstone for judgment. Our judgment, as
Osho (2000, p. xxi) argues, should be quest-oriented, where we accept
every challenge to inquire, to explore and to remain open. We should not
start with a belief, with a conclusion: rather we must start with a quest, a
question since “to start with a belief is not to start at all”. If we already
believe, how can we explore and judge?
The next section deals with strengthening this touchstone for judgment
through critical and reflective reading.
6. How to read
Kathleen B. Hester (cited in Lewis, 2005, p. 217, in Teaching Every
Child to Read), makes the following comments on what to read for critical
comprehension:
The type of reading required for critical evaluation is a complex form of

comprehension in which the reader develops the habit of appraising the
material against certain criteria. It is evident that the broader and richer the
background of the reader, the more able he will be to judge the
reasonableness, the worth-whileness, the relevance, and the accuracy of
what is read; the more tolerant he will be of material about which he
possesses insufficient background. He will criticize in the light of what he
knows about the subject.
To gain the broad and rich background of which Hester speaks, we

cannot, of course, restrict our reading to just one daily newspaper, a few
light magazines and an occasional novel.
How much influence does the reading of a single newspaper exercise
on our political and social thinking? Is it possible to keep up with the
outside world by reading only one or two periodicals consistently? The
answer is, obviously, NO. We need to try reading newspapers and
magazines with different political and social complexions. Then we will
discover that some of our attitudes come from not having heard both sides
of the story. We can come to a more independent viewpoint after hearing
opposing opinions on current issues and problems.
If we are, by background, culture, or intuition, politically or
economically liberal or illiberal in our attitudes, then we need to open our
minds to the arguments of the more conservative periodicals. And if our
leanings are more towards the conservative side, then we need to open our
minds to what writers, who are more or less liberal, have to say. We need
not be sympathetic to what writers of political or economic thought
antagonistic to our own say. But at least we need to discover what they are
saying, so that we ourselves can come to an informed judgment, because
truth, as Lewis (2005, p. 217) comments, does not lie at any extreme, but
somewhere – shiftingly – in the middle. Therefore, it is imperative to read
widely in order to sharpen our critical faculties, to develop habits of
reacting skeptically to what we read, and to broaden our background

knowledge. We need to go out of our way to hear and understand the other
side of an argument and to read opinion, lots of it, that is opposed to our
own intuitive prejudices, fears, likes, and dislikes. And when we read, we
need to keep an open mind. We must not accept anything passively or
blindly; we must demand evidence, insist on all the facts, test whatever an
author is saying against what we know and have read in other sources. We
must not succumb to what Lewis (2005, p. 217) calls, “the mesmerism
which is resident in print”. We need to be alert to detect the “vast amount
of nonsense” (much of which may be sincere, but nonsense nonetheless),
that we may find in many newspapers, magazines and books.
A discussion on “How to read” leads us naturally to “What to read”.
What follows therefore considers what to read to develop and strengthen
our skills of critical evaluation.
7. What to read
It is common knowledge that reading is a continuous, never-ending and
ever-evolving process. But many become restricted in their choice of
reading after a certain age or completion of their formal education. They

end up developing a restricted or limited interest in reading. For example,
they might simply read detective stories or novels or only books in their
professional or business field. But we do not read for entertainment or
information alone. We also need to read for intellectual growth, for mental
stimulation, for enriching our background knowledge, for increased
wisdom, and for a better understanding of ideas and the world around us.
And what kinds of books should we read for all this? The answer is
simple. We should read books, as Lewis (2005, p. 218) suggests, in fields
we have little or no acquaintance with, books that will open for us new
horizons of learning, books that will help us explore new areas of
knowledge and experience, books that will make the world and its people
more understandable to us, books we can really sink our teeth into.
We should develop an interest in both fiction and non-fiction. There
are plenty of books, for example, which may open up new worlds in such
areas as anthropology, archaeology, history, philosophy, spirituality,
psychology, logic, mysticism, occultism, semantics, sociology, education
and learning, biography, health, love and marriage, fantasy, mysteries and
suspense, business and economics, death and dying, women and feminism,
novels, poetry, etc. This has become much more convenient now that so
many books, especially old classics, are available online.
The books chosen from these fields may not necessarily be great, but
all may be supremely enjoyable, many may be deeply moving, quite a few
will increase our understanding of the world, and some will provide us
with the richest kind of emotional experience. And these, after all, are the
reasons for reading books – to be moved, to develop a mature
understanding, and to experience vicariously.
If we read a number of books from diverse fields, we will be taking a
long step towards becoming informed, well-rounded individuals. And with
broad interests developed, we will want to keep up with the latest thinking
and discoveries in many areas of life and keep abreast of what’s new in the
world. We will quickly discover the types of books that would be suitable
for delighting and stimulating us. We will find certain authors to whom we
are immediately attracted and all of whose work we will search out and
devour. When this happens, we will have no problem with finding or
making time for reading.
After discussing what and how to read, a brief discussion on fruitful
reading activities and tasks that can help develop our higher-order thinking
skills becomes relevant.
8. Fruitful activities to promote a skeptical approach

and critical thinking
The following activities, if involved as part of our reading, can
profitably heighten our critical comprehension and extend our range of
touchstones for judgment and enlightened reflection:
x We can explore views and opinions on news stories from different

newspapers, as reflected in editorials, cartoons, letters to the editor,
etc., and juxtapose them with our own judgment(s).
x We can analyze the degree and nature of bias or neutrality hidden
in news reporting, particularly in the reporting of controversial and
sensational events.
x We can investigate the ideological perspectives reflected and/or
pushed in news items.
x We can trace a fiction author’s predilections related to socio-
political and cultural issues and examine their logic, feasibility and
viability.
x We can observe sudden changes in fictional characters, consider
the reasons for those changes and thus learn to appreciate
portrayals of the best and worst in human beings.
x We can understand the possibility of diametrically opposing
interpretations of thematically fore-grounded punch lines in literary

work – particularly in poems.
x We can examine authorial vantage points and the elements of
exaggeration and reality as used in portraying situations and issues
and then analyze their appropriateness and justifiability.
The last section of this article discusses the need for a long-term plan,
as reading is a life-long and ever-evolving process.
9. The need for a long-term reading programme

We should decide on a minimum reading programme of fifty books a
year – at least one book a week. Once we start we will find this goal easy
to attain. Most of us restrict our reading unnecessarily. We claim lack of
time, the wrong kind of temperament or inability to relate to, or enjoy,
books. Nobody is born with a particular temperament or interest. We
develop them here in this world – they are not genetic. What holds us back
is that we don’t know what to read: we haven’t discovered the kind of
reading we can thoroughly enjoy or else we don’t have enough books at
hand to get into the habit of spending our leisure time in their pleasant,
stimulating and relaxing company.
We need to decide with which books we’re going to start our reading
programme and exactly when we’re going to start. We need to make a date
with one of the books on our list and keep that date – keep it as faithfully
as if we had purchased tickets to the theatre or a concert.
Whatever book, fiction or non-fiction we start with, we need to
remember to read rapidly, skim when we wish to, skip chapters or parts
that are repetitive or that do not interest us, and get an overall view of the
book’s subject matter.
However we start, we should keep reading, to complete, as suggested,
at least one book a week, but preferably two or three. We should also vary
our reading diet with occasional magazines of the more challenging type.
And, to avoid losing momentum, we should always have a few unread
books around the house – books that we plan to get to, and that we need to
get to, as soon as we’ve finished whatever volume we’re working on.
The success of our future reading programme will depend on our
discovering what kinds of books we personally find enjoyable and
rewarding, on going out and getting them, and on actually reading them,
starting either immediately or as soon as we can.
Once we get started, the pleasure and stimulation we derive will
provide all the further motivation we need. The greatest motivation, to use
Lewis’ (2005, p. 218) words, is in knowing that “the man who reads well
is the man who thinks well,” who has a background for opinion and a
touchstone for judgment.
10. Conclusion
Apart from the ideas covered above, the discussion in this article, in its
applied perspective, unfolds some pedagogically important implications:
(a) Extensive reading, both as a short-term and long-term activity, should
be an integral part of every field of education and should also involve
critical reflection of use in discussions, debates, critiques and
presentations; (b) Given the importance of skeptical reading for raising our
intellectual capacity and sharpening our critical faculties, it should be
encouraged and promoted by shifting the focus from right/wrong answers
to developing logical, original and opposing points of view that produce
new perspectives; (c) An indiscriminate reading culture should be
inculcated and promoted by providing quiet and peaceful reading spaces
alongside the library, organizing reading weeks, reading festivals, and
reading conferences, especially in university education systems.
If a vibrant reading atmosphere and critical reading culture are

established as an integral part of educational systems, then these will
eventually become a part of everyone’s life, creating well-informed,
enlightened learners and responsible global citizens and perhaps a host of
balanced writers in every branch of knowledge.
References
Adams, W. R. and Patterson, B. (2005). Developing reading versatility.
USA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Boostrom, R. (1994). Developing creative and critical thinking.
Lincolnwood, Illinois: National Textbook Company.
Correia, R. (2006). Encouraging critical reading in the EFL classroom.
Forum, 44 (1), 16-19.
Heuer, J. R. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. CIA: Center for
the Study of Intelligence. Retrieved June 19, 2012 from http://
www.cia.gov/csi/books/19104/index.html.
Lewis, N. (2005). How to read better and faster. Delhi: Binny Publishing
House.
Osho (2000). New man for the new millennium. New Delhi: Penguin
Books.
Papalia, A. (2000). Interaction of reader and text. In Wilga Rivers (ed.),
Interactive language teaching (pp.70-82). United Kingdom:

Cambridge University Press.
Patil, Z. N. (2005). Inter-lingual phonology and the reading process: Some
reading problems of Arab learners of English. In E. Ramaniah (ed.),
The Proceedings of the Fifth National ELT Conference (pp. 54-63).
Sultanate of Oman: Sultan Qaboos University.
Rose, C. and Nicholl, M. J. (1997). Accelerated reading for the 21st
century. New York: Dell Publishing.
hVWQOR÷OX(/DQJXDJHWKURXJKFULWLFDOWKLQNLQJ Forum, 42 (3),
2-7 and 15.
Varaprasad, C. (1997). Some classroom strategies: Developing critical
literacy awareness. Forum, 35(3), 24-29.
Wallace, C. (1990). Critical reading awareness in the EFL classroom.
Singapore tertiary English teachers society review, 3.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
FROM DEAD PAGE

TO MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES:
THE TEXT AND BEYOND
NAYYER IQBAL ALI CHANDELLA

UNIVERSITY OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY,
PAKISTAN
Abstract
Authentic learning and lasting behavioral change come through
adaptation to experience. In this regard, linkage between global issues and
acquired learning is essential. It means opportunities to examine attitudes,

appreciate others and shun prejudice or discrimination. The challenge for
the 21st-century teacher is to construct a modern setting rooted in ancient
wisdom through critical approaches to teaching, making students become
‘participants’ rather than mere ‘observers’. Mezirow (1991) defined
learning as a process through which we transform our taken-for-granted
frames of reference and make them inclusive and reflective. This paper
advocates ‘critical reading’ for fostering transformative learning.
Developing radical classroom practice, however, brings both possibilities
and limitations. My paper discusses a study designed to promote second
language learners’ critical literacy skills.
When we allow students to explore compelling questions and engage
with the literature they read, we nurture their intellectual and linguistic
development. My focus therefore is on a reconstructed conception of
dialogue responsive to the challenges of the teacher/student model.
When discussions are used merely to test or replicate knowledge,
students do not develop an ability to generate adequate evidence or to
construct effective rebuttals. Consequently their cognitive development
may not be enhanced. By contrast, I am concerned with presenting a
310 Chapter Fifteen
learning ‘space’ where everyone’s voice is heard, their presence

recognized and valued.
Keywords: critical literacy, close reading, intertextuality, T/S model,

critical dialogueic model, importance of cultural comfort zone.
1. Introduction
True knowledge is not simply a memorized accumulation of facts but
rather a light which floods the heart (Al-Ghazali, Ihya ulum al-din, Faris,
translation)
Muhammad Ibn Sahnun thinks there are two ways of making

something comprehensible: first, by causing its essence to be perceived by
the intellect and, second, by imagining it through a similitude that imitates
it. Assent is brought about either by demonstration or by persuasion. Thus
instruction is an interactive process that involves both the teacher and the
student. Al-Farabi argues that instruction must be a student-centered
process, in which teachers facilitate their students’ educational voyage
(Alavi, 1988; Hassim 2010).
Despite a rich tradition of knowledge transmission (albeit with a
reliance on rote learning), questions are now being asked throughout the
Arab world about education quality, with a need being expressed to shift
from methods of passive memorization to active student participation.
According to Dr Farhan (a participant in my research), teachers rely
heavily on their ministry-approved teaching materials and usually believe
that teacher guides are models of good practice. They think that English is
to be understood and learned essentially with the help of the teacher,
whose responsibility is to explain the language. He points out that
obsession with certification and assessment (IELTS, TOEFL, and SAT)
makes the learning experience stale.
Due to dramatic change taking place globally, education systems have
become a focus of critical analysis, producing severe criticism about
methods of teaching and learning.
Meanwhile, as Guefrachi and Troudi (2000) point out, there is
increasing awareness of the importance of English in the educational and
economic sectors, an awareness that has led to attempts to look critically at
English language instruction and improve proficiency in it at all levels.
Issues of quality around curriculum and pedagogy are also being
discussed. Vision 2020 is a strategic plan to improve the UAE’s education
system. It concentrates on output quality and on developing thinking
From Dead Page to Multiple Perspectives 311
strategies, creativity and independence (UAE Ministry of Education,

2000:3). Specifically, Vision 2020 states:
The focus will shift from teaching to learning, from the teacher to the
learner, from memorization to creativity, reflection, imagination and
innovation. To attain this objective, continuous training for teachers will be
provided to change the traditional roles they play into more effective roles
to promote, develop and instill the culture of innovation (UAE Ministry of
Education, Higher Education Section, http://mohe.uae.gov.ae/indexe.html).
This confirms the importance of my research focus. I believe, for

example, that attempts to teach English using programmes that emphasize
phonics and decoding skills cannot succeed. There is more to reading than
just decoding words. Thinking skills are vital too, which is why my
research emphasizes dialogueic reading.
Critical dialogue has been a focus of much research and some
commentators have written about its transformative potential for teaching
(Freire, 1997; Hooks 1994). As a result of a major paradigm shift,
educators in recent decades decided that behaviorism could not explain
complex human transactions (Rosenblatt, 1978). Thus the practice of a
passive transmission of knowledge changed to a more transactional view.
Readers are now seen to contribute to the process when they interact with
texts to construct knowledge (Vacca, 2000).
However, despite the importance of dialogueic education based on

social constructivist learning, research (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991)
indicates that 85% of the school day is devoted merely to lecturing and
recitation. There still seems to be a strong tendency to use the transmission
approach in academic practice. As some of the very best learning in my
classes has resulted from critical reading, I wanted to explore dialogueic
reading’s potential. I wanted to investigate whether students were expected
to be mere depositories of knowledge and give back only what the teacher
fed to them (Freire, 1970).
Knowledge production involves active participation by learners
through transactions with the world around them (Bransford, Brown &
Cocking, 2000). Dialogueic reading helps students to look at issues in
broad contexts, sharpen their capacity for critical inquiry and acknowledge
multiple perspectives (Gay, 1997; Banks, 1997).
2. Theoretical framework
The ‘critical’ in pedagogy is as old as civilization, associated with
Socrates and Plato in the West and with Confucianism in the East. Besides
312 Chapter Fifteen
Socrates (questioning dialogue), there was Aristotle (experiments and

applications) and Plato (nurturing the autonomous learner). For Confucius
learning could not occur without silent reflection (Confucius, 500 BC),
and within the Confucian tradition in order to realize one’s inner self one
should be completely free from arbitrary opinions. The learning process
that facilitates this meditative self is extended through dialogue. For
Confucius learning was much more than the acquisition of empirical
knowledge: to learn without silent reflection was labor in vain (Kaizuka
2002).
The Socratic image of the teacher as an intermediary between student
and universe is an ancient archetype within the Western tradition and
underlies current visions of what the teacher (and student) should be in
Adler’s Paideia Proposal (1982) and Lipman’s Philosophy Goes to School
(1988). Its thinking can be traced back to Descartes’ science of skepticism
and is seen in modern times with Freire’s (1970) critical literacy and
popular education and Giroux’s (1983) citizenship education.
Alvermann (1996), Applebee (1996), Nystrand (1997) and Wells
(2000) assert that true dialogueic discourse seldom occurs in the classroom
and that most discussion there follows an IRE sequence in which the
teacher initiates a question, the student responds, and the teacher evaluates
the response. The purpose is evaluative, whereas the purpose of dialogue
is collaborative meaning-making and a stimulation of higher order
thinking applied to issues and values. With the new school movement
(progressivism), theorists took anti-authoritarian positions, opposing the
traditional school based on teacher authority. Literacy was understood as a
social practice of inclusion and exclusion rather than as a cognitive
capacity that can be transported from one social context to another (Luke
& Freebody, 1997). From this socio-cultural perspective, literacy, instead
of being an abstract and neutral pursuit, was acknowledged as carrying
political dimensions. Thus agency could be attained through critical
examination of language and culture (Luke & Gore, 1992). Therefore, a
modern transformed view of literacy is needed that focuses on the political
dimensions of language by foregrounding such questions as how language
works, in whose interests, on what cultural sites, and why (Kelly, 1997).
Reading is a constructive act that takes place within a cultural-historical
context.
Marshall, Smagorinsky, and Smith (1995) think that teachers
emphasize certain reading conventions and discourage others, creating a
teacher-directed speech genre (Bakhtin, 1986; Wertsch, 1991). These
conventions have official sanction and therefore ensure that other ways of
reading texts are not adopted (Fairclough, 1992; Gee, 1992). There are
cultured (Lee, 1993) and gendered (Luke, 1996) ways of reading and these
have established authoritative ways of considering texts in school.
3. Social references and issues of power

According to Bourdieu (1991), language structure is guided by
hegemonic cultural forces and individual interpretation is developed by
filters created by the values of the social power structures. These filters
prevent language users from perceiving the power relations underlying
language and communication and this is why traditional views of reading
overlook its social aspects (Luke & Freebody, 1997). Critical literacy
theorists view literacy as a political phenomenon that maintains the status
quo (Comber & Simpson, 2001). Texts are seen as communicating both
explicit and implicit messages that promote specific ideologies and are
socially constructed in ways that can either empower or devalue
individuals (Gee, 1992). The critical educator wants readers to be actively
engaged in uncovering the messages found in texts. Reading then becomes
an act of involvement. Furthermore, students’ textual interpretations can
be influenced by their social and cultural backgrounds (Au, 1998). Yet
they search for ‘correct’ answers in texts because they have assumed this
to be the right way to read. But context plays a vital role in meaning
making as learners are influenced by their frames of reference. While
meanings evolve and are surrounded by power structures and culture,

certain groups enforce what they regard as ‘legitimate’ and ‘normal’ ways
of viewing the text.
4. Culture and context

Language teachers’ understanding of social and cultural contexts
shapes their approach and attitudes towards EF/SL teaching (Troudi,
2007), yet the importance of this is a recent realization (Platt & Troudi,
1997).
The socio-cultural perspective on language learning views the
classroom as a space where students and teacher create shared meanings
(Wells, 2000). Teaching thus becomes a thinking activity when teachers
work with a critical perspective (Giroux, 1981) and classroom
communication can be a means of transformation. When learners gain
power to perceive their existence critically, they learn to see the world as a
reality in process, in transformation. Texts and readers are inseparable
from the larger contexts in which they exist. It is important to explore the
socio-cultural nature of reader responses. As Bakhtin (1981) argued, the
314 Chapter Fifteen
language we encounter already has a history and the words we speak have
been spoken by others before us. As a result, what we speak always means
more than what we say and the language we use carries with it
implications and connotations that are only partly intentional.
A concept central to dialogueic reading and to my analysis is that we
use language in social situations to negotiate roles and places (Lemke,
1990; Mercer, 1995). The speaker/writer must imagine others’ reality as,
without this, the words carry no meaning. This is why it is important to
understand the context or social situation. Just as humans are influenced
by their social context, so too are messages. Vygotsky (1986) argues that
knowledge can be co-constructed between people through interaction in
social spaces that he refers to as zones of proximal development or ZPDs.
When constructing meaning, individuals draw from their cultural histories.
Thus, whether or not others are physically present, learning is inherently
social, and language becomes the medium for meaning construction and
transformation (Lee & Smagorinsky, 2000).
The context of my research, the Middle East, is undergoing a quick
transformation of the social and physical landscape. Because it is
impossible to separate education from a society’s values, it is necessary to
connect with the past to understand the present. That’s why I found it
strange that, despite rich traditions of humanistic ideas and liberalism, we
see little research on critical dialogue in the region. However, there are
some examples of innovative work, using Freire’s concept of

consciousness building, that relate to the cultural, religious and historical
context of the Middle East (Wachob, 2009).
5. Linking Constructivism and Socio-cultural Theory

with Dialogueic Reading
Social constructivists believe that reality is created through human
activity: it cannot be discovered. Individuals create meaning through
interaction with each other and with their context. Thus we are capable of
understanding ourselves through rich human expression (Taylor, 1991).
Dialogueic reading embodies a conjoined version of these two theories.
Students come with their own construction and interpretations of a text.
Interaction creates the learning experience through questions and students
share their views and question the interpretation of others. Through this
process learning is not transmitted, it is co-constructed. As Laura Billings
(2002) says, the reciprocal flow of ideas may lead to new understandings
not held in advance (Vygotsky, 1986; Wortham, 2001). And, according to
Bakhtin, dialogue is the most natural form of human speech where
meaning is determined by social situation and constructed between

speakers (2001). Thus the situatedness of dialogue, considered as a
discursive activity, makes context extremely important.
Recent years have brought a growing interest in problem solving, a
trend that emphasizes principles that work against the teacher/student
(T/S) model. There is an emphasis on process over outcome and a view
that learning how to learn is more important than learning particular facts.
Rethinking dialogue as a discursive reading practice holds promise for
developing accounts of richer and more complex dialogue.
While English language teachers generally believe discussion is
important for their students, few devote significant classroom time to it.
Nystrand (1997) found that students in classes in which discussion did
occur made more significant gains in reading comprehension and literary
achievement than students in classes where no discussion took place.
Students recalled their readings better, understood more, and responded
better to aesthetic elements of literature than students in monologically
organized classes. Subsequent studies (Applebee, Langer, Nystrand, &
Gamoran) at the Center for English Learning and Achievement (CELA)
also supported these findings.
These reasons inspired me to explore dialogueic reading practices in
the educational setting and how they help to overcome inequalities.
6. Socratic ideals and Maieutike

Plato’s three analogies for the Socratic educator – gadfly, midwife, and
stingray – are essential for understanding the Socratic idea of education.
The gadfly stings to awaken the educator, who tries to improve the
community by teaching. The midwife helps deliver others’ ideas. And the
educator promotes learning by questioning (Kahn, 1996). The method is
practiced as Sokratiska samtal (Pihlgren, 2006) and as Das Sokratische
Gespräch (Nelson, 1965).
Socratic enquiry (Socrates, 470 B.C-399 B.C) was a method of
questioning that led individuals to logical conclusions through an
inductive approach. The method had two stages, the `ironic’ or destructive
phase and the `maieutic’ or constructive phase. In the destructive phase,
through skilful questioning, the pupil was brought from unconscious to
conscious ignorance. In the constructive phase, by further questioning, the
pupil was led from conscious ignorance to rational truth. Paul’s (1990)
Socratic Questioning model, Adler’s (1982) Paideia Programmeme, and
Lipman’s (1987) model of Philosophy for Children are typical of Socratic
enquiry.
316 Chapter Fifteen
All these models celebrate dialogue through which a student becomes a

critical listener, reader and participant in learning.
One such research project is OSDE or Open Spaces for Dialogue and
Enquiry. This project is designed to have participants engage critically
with global issues and perspectives in safe spaces of dialogue and enquiry.
The aim is to develop critical literacy and independent thinking, encourage
diverse perspectives, examine the origins and implications of assumptions,
negotiate change, transform relationships and make responsible and
conscious choices. The methodology has been developed by a group of
educators and researchers from the Centre for the Study of Social and
Global Justice at the University of Nottingham (Andreotti & Warwick,
2007).
I have often taken critical dialogue to my classes and spoken about it at
conferences (e.g. Zayed University, UAE, March, 2008; SPELT, 24th,
25th, 26th and TESOL Arabia 2010) and have found that learners build the
necessary trusting relationships and take on the challenge of critically
engaging with the text and with each other. The combination of critical
literacy and independent thinking develops learners’ capacity to learn, to
analyze their contexts, and to make informed decisions.
7. Construction of new perspectives

Critical and social theorists have challenged the notion of what it

means to acquire knowledge and to put that knowledge into practice.
Research shows that the purpose of learning is to effect change. But not all
learning results in change (Dewey, 1966; Mezirow, 2000). Miller and
Seller (1990) distinguish learning as transmissional, transactional and
transformational. In order to foster transformative learning, students must
have a chance to change their frames of reference and critically reflect on
assumptions. Transformative learning is characterized by the active use of
ideas and shifts in perspective (Pugh, 2002). It involves understanding
power structures around class, race and gender. When students read texts
critically, they may move beyond them to work against oppressive
situations (Freire, 1985). Although agency can be achieved through critical
examination of language and culture (Ellsworth, 1989), barriers to it are
high, despite new pedagogical insights. My research, therefore, looked at
ways through which students gain agency during their reading of English
literature.
So the question was whether these theoretical concepts could become
pedagogical possibilities. Teachers I have interacted with, and the teacher
who was the study’s focus, all felt that dialogue develops deep
understanding. Hence my paper tries to address a concern about the gap

between educational philosophy and intent and pedagogic practice.
8. From theory to practice

The problem of adjusting to dialogueic reading is complicated because
students and teachers have been programmemed into banking models.
Dialogue has to make an impact in a field crowded with anti-critical
monologue. Freire (1970) complained that educators often consider one-
way communication as dialogueic. Teaching the purely technical aspects
of the procedure is not difficult. The difficulty lies in developing attitudes
absent in our upbringing and education.
Research shows that intellectual achievements are higher when
learners actively engage in dialogue and argumentation (Mercer &
Littleton, 2007). Classroom communication studies also indicate that
certain patterns of interaction (exploratory talk, argumentation and
dialogue) promote intellectual development by involving teachers and
learners in meaning making and knowledge construction. Applied
classroom research, such as that by Mercer, Wegerif and Dawes’ in
Thinking Together Project (2000) and Alexander’s in Dialogueic
Teaching (2004), suggests that learners’ voices should be appreciated.
My study analyzes three matters – the construction of new perspectives
(transformation), social references and issues of power (contextual

circumstances for engagement), and the possibilities dialogueic reading
offers. It portrays a dynamic classroom where the teacher attempted to
empower his students during a dialogueic reading of literary texts. And it
also asks whether teachers might achieve radical change if they challenge
students’ andro-centric readings of texts.
If teachers really do value dialogue (as do Bakhtin, Buber, Gadamer,
Gusdorf, and Rorty) because of its potential for understanding and
transformation, then they must promote sustained dialogue, because
therein always lies a chance of change.
Dialogueic reading, I contend, offers enormous possibilities for
educators. However, facilitating it is not without difficulties. It can be a
demanding and complex task for both educator and students and the
barrier for most of us is that we are unable to attain the Socratic paradox.
The figure below describes the barriers as seen by the teachers involved in
my study.
318 Chapter Fifteen
Figure 1: Resistance & barriers
I felt there was perhaps a need for more discussion time and some
participants occasionally became confused. It is always difficult to
introduce the process for the first time, but gradually we all learned to
differ and have fun! The experience was deeply meaningful for me. The
challenge was to acknowledge that there are always different perspectives
on any issue and that the choices we make affect other people.
We must respect and nurture the individual in our students so that as

teachers we can be instrumental in their empowerment. I feel anyway that
the research presented here is something of a tribute to critical dialogueic
reading.
Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of
the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them,
but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he
gathers from them (Ibn al-Haytham).
9. Research Design
I framed my study within both the constructivist paradigm and socio–
cultural theory. I chose an exploratory research design (Merriam, 1998;
Stake, 2000) because I intended to carefully examine conversations
between students and teacher in a natural setting (Denzin & Lincoln,
2000). I chose this methodology in order to observe and describe the
nature of a dialogueic reading experience and my research narrates ‘the
story’ from a participant’s viewpoint. For this reason, I observed sessions
in literature major and advanced composition classes and thus could

explore the perspectives of the teacher and students.
My research involved 20 female students enrolled in an English
department at one of the UAE’s universities and its questions explored the
potential of dialogueic reading in institutionalized educational settings.
Central to my work was Dr Farhan, a teacher keen to establish an
interactive classroom. He created dialogueic space by listening, respect
and interaction. I wanted to work with him because of his strong belief in
empowerment and agency. He encouraged students to be readers, writers,
and researchers, and helped them make sense of themselves and the world
around them. He believed students should learn to question oppressive
practice and attempt to take action against it in their local contexts (Freire,
2000; Shor, 1992). In his classroom students read lengthy canonical texts
like Oedipus Rex, Macbeth, and Antigone and wrote analytical essays
requiring original interpretations not offered by the teacher.
Most of the girls were Emirati, but some were Egyptians, Sudanese and
Palestinians, and a few were from other Gulf States. Through conversation
with them I learnt important facts about Arab females. Since contact with
outsiders is restricted, they were unable to use their English often.
Learning there mostly relied heavily on the lecturing approach (Guefrachi
& Troudi, 2000) to provide “the correct answer”, hampering effective
communication. These factors affected their participation although the
majority were eager talkers.

Seeking to discover and understand their perspectives and worldviews,
I present a collage of voices in dialogue, which are like Keats’s “Charm’d
magic casements”, opening up an elusive world for my readers.
These collective narratives are shaped by their cultural setting (Elbaz-
Luwisch, 2005) and it is within this perspective that my account takes you
to the class of Dr Farhan. It provides, of course, only a snapshot, because
of the space limitation and the focus is on search rather than answer, on
process rather than product.
10. Descriptions of the dialogueic reading sessions

Selecting the sessions for analysis was difficult as I found so many
thought-provoking. Farhan’s choice of literary texts was a strong factor for
exploring the effects of gender and cultural constraint in dialogue. His
selection included Hawthorne’s “The Minister’s Black Veil” and “The
Birth Mark”, “The Bamboo Blind” by Seema Jena, Oedipus Rex and
Antigone by Sophocles, Hamlet by Shakespeare, and Irving’s “Hold the
Mayonnaise” and “Rip Van Winkle”.
320 Chapter Fifteen
Due to space limitation, I can only briefly discuss the dialogueic

reading sessions I observed, but data are analyzed and presented as themes
that emerged and I will look at dialogue that becomes a vehicle for
changing perspectives. The process was co-constructed by teacher and
students.
“The Bamboo Blind”

‘Engaging them beyond facts is hard but if I can facilitate it, I think they
will be better off. Helping them understand other cultures is something
they can use in life. We can make the world better if we are open to
questioning ourselves and the ideas around us’.
These were Farhan’s comments as we walked to the class for a

dialogueic reading session that discussed Jena’s short story.
The girls’ responses to the story were based on their understanding of
social power structures. They could relate to the story for many reasons
and class interaction revealed that their interpretations were connected to
their cultural understandings of what it means to be a female.
Most shared similar experiences and understandings and Farhan felt it
important to understand how they viewed issues like race, culture and
gender. I believe his text selection helped to create the dialogueic space he
had hoped for.

This session continued for two days (45 minutes duration each).
Classes began with some ‘settle down’ time given by the teacher.
Dialogue was continuous and Farhan was a facilitator rather than an
instructor. Students thought it a rewarding experience and Farhan felt that
some had asked good questions about the text. The class began with the
following dialogue:
1. Farhan: Yes, you can ponder the title … What does it make you think
of?
2. Umna: Well … (…) BLINDS!!
3. Farhan: [smiling] Hold that thought, Umna … I’ll get back to you.
(Even if a point raised by a student didn’t seem relevant at the time it

was never disregarded)
Because of the space created by the teacher, students managed to get
into dialogue. At the end of the second day on this topic, Farhan said he
was happy because students had participated and had even cited ‘specific
evidence’.
‘There was really good listening and they made good connections between
the story and prior knowledge.’ [Farhan, 18/3]
11. Farhan, students and power dynamics

Power constructs the appearance of reality by excluding the powerless
from authoritative discourse (MacKinnon, 1995). Power within the
classroom is multi-faceted. According to Giroux (1993), students are
rarely allowed to think critically about how knowledge is contextualized
as it is presented objectively, existing beyond human control. Thus
students become passive receivers of knowledge, controlled by the social
norms (Pennycook, 1994). Dialogue in the classroom is also about
reshaping power relations through language used by both teachers and
students (Florio-Ruane & Morrell, 2004). Whoever has voice can
influence the listeners. However, some speakers gain more authority than
others because their voices are challenging and create what Readings
(1996: 161) calls an ‘asymmetrical relation’. Such factors form the
contextual circumstances and influence dialogueic readings of the text.
Farhan created an environment of engagement that helped to dismantle
these obstacles and he constructed his role as a participant facilitator who
raised questions to support reflection. When students responded, he
sometimes remained silent, wrote their ideas on the white board, signaled
appreciation (Hmm) or asked for other possibilities (Any other ideas?). At

times he repeated students’ responses thoughtfully (Possibly a sense of
insecurity?), added his response collaboratively (He faces exclusion?), or
pressed for elaboration and reasons (So why do you think he did that?).
But he took only an average of 18% of the turns to talk. Student turns were
longer and his responses were often brief but encouraging. He did not
evaluate response correctness but reacted as a fellow reader and interested
participant considering different views. He commented as follows:
We as teachers are sometimes driven by the desire to enforce our ideas.

The teaching experience is not about teachers, it is about the students.
Teachers ask questions, and never wait for students to answer either
because they are running out of time, or because they are uncomfortable
with silence (pause) Silence is fine, perhaps the students are reflecting.
Giving the students the opportunity to grow on their own is really crucial
(Farhan 16/3).
Farhan used the pronoun ‘we’ as he saw himself as being among the
students and he creatively used silence to grant them agency. Students,
however, kept overlooking their quieter colleagues and so Farhan
322 Chapter Fifteen
continued to play a central role by guarding the marginalized. Transcripts

reveal evidence of students’ emotional and linguistic growth and therefore
empowerment, leading to maturity. A student called Zara exclaimed:
Our teacher contributes to learning….We feel motivated because he is

communicative. There must be some stimulus, and we have it!
Students saw Farhan as an open-minded supporter. One called Umna

remarked:
He always challenges us to think…. in Dr Farhan’s class we talk in open

ways..... We always discuss, figure out what’s going on and why … and
what we think will happen, you know, without reading ahead..... It helped
me as a person. I learn from others’ experiences…. (class, 18/3).
12. Overcoming Resistance and Barriers

Devon Woods defines assumptions as the acceptance of a fact which
we take as true (1996). Assumptions affect classroom choices and prevent
the implementation of new ideas. Assumptions form resistance. At the end
of sessions I asked participants: ‘What do you feel you have learned in the
sessions? And do you think there is a need for change? (4/4). They said
they had learned about gender differences, how people enforce them and
the stereotypical cultural expectations placed on women through language.

When I asked Farhan about these, he identified as barriers the nature of the
school system, specific phenomena related to power structures, systems of
belief, ethical and psychological programmeming of the ‘self’ and political
agendas (24/3). He particularly stressed that gender bias lowered self-
esteem levels which ultimately affected competence.
Farhan encouraged the questioning of beliefs and students generated
life stories while reading the text. These helped in the identification of
stereotypical attitudes and taken-for-granted assumptions with particular
reference to gendered identity in Arab culture. Students were also asked to
draw comparisons between their lived and fictional experiences. They
developed different viewpoints through compelling questioning, in the
light of textual evidence that challenged the stereotypes.
Girls were very vocal during the talk about attracting attention and
Farhan supported their exploration of this topic by devoting four sessions
to it. They responded to the invitation with enthusiasm. Initially some
struggled to identify the beliefs displayed in the narratives but, after a
period of uncomfortable silence, most got involved, developing new
perspectives and ignoring their stereotypical lens. An initial perception of
women as subservient, fragile and diffident was gradually transformed. A

common theme was the awakening understanding that the identities of
both men and women permanently evolve during their interactions. As
learners read the stories from a different angle, they moved away from the
practice of othering towards a multi-dimensional understanding. The idea
was to use the narratives as a mirror for them to see the self through the
eyes of the other with a view to raising awareness of ethnocentric attitudes
and reflecting on them. Dialogueic reading encouraged these learners to
interrogate their assumptions and view the world through an intercultural
lens.
Farhan emphasized that social norms dictate a woman’s role in Arab
societies:
‘I think the emphasis on memorization contributes indirectly to the

prevalent gender discourses. We uncritically follow the long-held positions
and gendered roles influenced by memorization and authoritarianism…
reinforcing the notion that knowledge is fixed, non-negotiable and sacred’
(20/3/10).
Farhan facilitated discussion about gendered positions by including

opportunities for his students to query texts that put men and women into
specific gendered positions (Davies, 2003). His efforts brought a change in
perspectives confirmed in the conversation transcript below:
What are you learning? I asked

Huda: About culturally specific gender roles
Me: Okay, so what about it? Tell me a little bit more
Huda: I found out I’ve been unaware of my biased thinking!
Me: Really? So what does that mean?
Huda: …. My fixed notions about gender roles….The majority of us have
fixed ideas…you know, as women, through discussions…. I kind
of…experienced a mirror! I saw my ‘self’ (interaction, 18/3).
13. Alien cultural references

For many girls sessions that addressed controversial or alien topics
sometimes resulted in unintended outcomes, such as silence from students
who felt intimidated and perpetuation of stereotypes or assumptions. One
explanation for silence about gender and power issues is that these
dimensions are embedded so deeply in social processes that they become
invisible.
There are no easy ways to deal with these situations when they occur,
though Farhan at times used strategies that enabled students to express
324 Chapter Fifteen
their own ideas at the same time as they were listening to and learning
from others.
Some girls considered the author’s point of view as valid. Some agreed
with each other but even then the position they took was their own. When
I asked whether dialogue helped in understanding, the girls replied as
follows:
Mariam: Now I look at things from different angles.

Sara: YEAH…It helps a lot […] sometimes
Me: Sometimes?
Sara: Sometimes it doesn’t…. Like if somebody has an opinion about
something that I totally disagree with […] I won’t really change my mind
about it. But it’s always good to hear different opinions, just in case you
might be wrong (18/3).
Their views indicate that, although it is not easy to understand an

individual’s frame of reference, it is possible to create mutually sustaining
understanding.
14. Intercultural sensitivity

Cultural values constrain individual behavior (Richardson, 2004) and
cultural affiliations influence learners’ interaction patterns. Islam supports
education for both males and females. It has not held women back in this
area. But women still feel restrained because of social restrictions. Hence a
major concern for me was to explore the ways in which a text from a
foreign land was received through the prism of culture, a prism that pre-
programmemed the receiver to interpret the encoded message in a
particular way.
Although Oedipus Rex (a Greek tragedy) was sufficiently engaging and
ambiguous to promote interesting responses, it did not generate heated
discussion. Reported reasons were difficulty of language combined with
reluctance to discuss the topic with a male teacher. Farhan’s role was very
different in this session. Students were expecting him to provide opinion
or evaluation, whereas he was resisting being pushed into banking
pedagogy.
The girls then dug into the text as the teacher cleverly chose not to
‘tell’. Not only were there frequent interjections by Farhan – his
facilitating role also changed. During the dialogue about “The Black Veil”,
Farhan turned to Sara, whose response was under attack, and said, ‘Do you
want to respond again?’ and later, when the dialogue had turned to
society’s practice of exclusion, he exclaimed, ‘Yallah, Waffa, several
people have taken exception to what you have said. Would you like to
respond?’ In both examples, he was successfully directing traffic, whereas
in Oedipus Rex he made extra efforts. Students spoke about the
relationship between their cultural backgrounds and their participation in
dialogueical sessions. According to Zara, ‘Sometimes it is too personal
and you do not want to talk about personal things.’ The self-other
relationships that emerged through dialogueic struggle support Hall’s
(1996) view that a powerful correlation exists between an individual’s
sense of subjectivity and ethnic location (cultural soft spots). Hence,
students’ cultural ideals didn’t allow them to be assertive individuals. A
tendency to depend on Farhan for leadership was evident. However,
transition was achieved gradually and this was evident in student
compositions.
15. Silence and dominance

Bakhtin (1985) sees knowledge as historically and ideologically
constructed. To apply this concept to reading, we could say that a reader is
a knower of what s/he has come to understand within social relationships.
That is, what s/he understands exists in an historical personal relationship
with other readers. From a socio-cultural perspective, this means that those
who have experienced discussions have more practice with this kind of
reasoning (Gee, 1996). Participants in discussion benefit from the

experiences and responses of others (Rogoff, 1995). The bottom line is
that the learner is never alone; he or she follows certain patterns of activity
that have been performed already (Wertsch, 1985).
I felt that many of the participants were challenged when their long-
held but rarely questioned views were critiqued. Some, while
understanding the dynamics, had trouble identifying how ethnicity
influenced their lives. A typical example of this conceptual block was
summed up by Mona, one of the quieter students:
I’ve never thought this way. It’s good. But it’s difficult. While I often
thought how my experiences of growing up in a conservative family led
me to be ‘seen’ in a particular way, especially by ‘other’ people, I have
never thought in depth about these things. (22/3).
Farhan frequently allowed silences both after his own questions and
after student responses, something that is rare in classroom interaction.
These extended silences were helpful in provoking response. The
inclusion of silence is an enriching dimension of participation. Farhan
said:
326 Chapter Fifteen
‘Thinking minds can reflect upon any texts used in the classroom
regardless of how conventional these texts are… It is up to the teacher to
bring them up, and ALLOW students to reflect on them’ (18/3).
16. The solution: establishing a critical reading space

Dialogueic reading demands a safe space between students and teacher
as well as between students themselves. A safe space does not mean that
tension will not arise and that disagreement will not be heated. It means
being able to disclose true feelings and personal history events relevant to
class topics and reading material. When students become comfortable with
the absence of a consensus, they can truly indulge in critical learning. The
characteristics of Farhan’s dialogueic space are shown in the figure below:
Figure 2: Characteristics of a dialogueic reading space
At times the need to protect students as individuals came by way of

Farhan’s commitment to examining issues of language and power.
Through multiple readings, students interrogated the gender and cultural
representations in short stories from multicultural literature. When given
the opportunity, they demonstrated great energy and commitment:
…Yeah, I want to see the differences and accept them…I don’t have to say
that the person is wrong or should be shunned simply because the person is
different. I think this attitude can make a difference in the world (Class,
18/30).
17. Recognition and agency:

Farhan relegating his powers!
According to Brookfield (2002), the educator is not a bland facilitator,
modeling happy tolerance of multiple perspectives. Perceptions are
colonized by dominant norms and ideologies. This is done by sharing
power with the learners and giving voice to their experience.
There was no overt expression of authority in Farhan’s classroom and
thus students felt relaxed in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Facilitation,
however, involved intervention to keep the conversation on track and to
protect the rights of the marginalized. As Umna remarked, ‘What I
appreciated about this class was the opportunity to reflect.’(Class, 18/3).
Farhan thought that students regain their voice when they are given
opportunities to express their opinions in the classroom. An atmosphere of
openness was evident during reading of the story “The Bamboo Blind”
(the teacher feigning ignorance in true Socratic fashion):
1. Farhan: What were we talking about last time? Can you recall?
2. Soha: Yeah…education … as a means of escape.
3. Farhan: Escape?
4. Soha: Well, as a means of connecting with others, empowerment and a
chance to escape.
5. Mariam: We can feel what the word ‘prison’ in the story means for
Raziya[…] She is young, you know….She has a different outlook,
inspiration –beliefs.
6. Sara: [***] And “The Bamboo Blind”?
7. Amna : I know what’s a blind but I have never seen a bamboo blind.
8. Mona: Well, I think it must be a blind of some sort.
9. Umna: I feel BLIND has deeper meanings here.
10. Farhan: BRAVO! Carry on.
The students engaged with each other and formed an understanding of

events in the story. Farhan was present but did not dominate the talk.
Students moved between the roles of facilitators, evaluators and
interrogators as they constructed an understanding built on each other’s
comments, challenging each other’s views in order to make sense of the
text. Finally, the above example shows that the teacher’s role is distinctly
inconspicuous. Lehman and Peters (2001) argue that when a teacher’s
control over a discussion is strong, students tend to remember facts from
the reading instead of questioning one another to interpret the text
together. Farhan explained: ‘My students experienced enlightenment as
they came to realize that knowledge wasn’t what I stuffed into them, but
something which is already inside them, waiting to come out’ (20/3).
328 Chapter Fifteen
Farhan suggested one interpretation of “The Birth Mark”, Mariam a

second, and perspectives were triggered by the dialogue. Students felt
relaxed in an atmosphere of mutual respect. An essential human need is to
be recognized as a whole being and individuals become empowered when
this need is satisfied and acknowledged (Taylor, 1997). Empowerment
being an exercising agency, it was fostered as the class interacted with one
another, including their teacher. Huda acknowledged discovery and
possibilities:
I can sense a great change in the way I feel and think about things. It’s like
the very texture of my mind has changed… a lot, […] I feel competent and
confident (20/3).
Farhan’s facilitation kept the conversation on track, though students

having greater space than the instructor was evidence of a shift in power
relations. Farhan said:
Students should be given time to think and reflect upon what they are
reading. I notice that teachers ask their own questions. Why can’t students
ask? Their questions are valuable. It is important to give students space to
think, question…. (18/3).
Compositions revealed evidence of student emotional and linguistic

growth and their views suggested that the environment was favourable.
The teacher’s role in orchestrating classroom discourse is important but
we must also consider the students’ perspectives as individuals in specific
cultural settings. According to Mercer (1995, p. 50), ‘appreciating the
learner’s angle on classroom conversations means recognizing that
learners have their own interpretations of events’. Thus, the
communicative approach cannot be mapped out by the teacher alone: we
must consider all contextualization cues. This led me to investigate
whether the students did indeed experience a change in their perspectives.
18. Influence of dialogueic reading on thinking

and perspectives
In critical education, people develop the power to perceive their
existence rationally and objectively. They come to see the world as not
static but as a reality in process, in transformation (Freire, 2000). Our
dialogueic reading provided freedom to explore ideas, especially about
controversial issues. Through dialogue, participants challenged each
other’s perspectives, which caused a shift in personal perspectives based

on a sharing of ideas. As Sara remarked:
Discussion gives me the opportunity to learn about different views. I like

the way Dr Farhan allows us to share our views. It really helped me to see
others’ point of view, it helped me grow (23/3).
Student pleasure in class engagement seemed to stem from this feeling

of growing as a person and learner. They clearly respected each other’s
views as they agreed and disagreed.
Amna remarked:
‘Reflecting on the story…I thought how it connects to what I am expected

to do and about the choices I make. It forced me to think about what I was
learning. It helped us see others’ struggle and thinking’ (16/3).
Students learnt to trust the validity of their own ideas and experience
and to recognize that literary works deal with real, relevant issues that they
themselves can and do write about. Their own writing as a result of
dialogueic reading was detailed, emotional and analytical, confirming the
subtle transformation they had gone through.
There was consensus among participants that dialogueic reading
produces a growing understanding of the text as the perspectives of others
are also given consideration. Participants identified factors influencing

comprehension, which included reading an ambiguous text closely with
open-ended questions, student-dominated discussion, open-mindedness
and making connections between prior and new knowledge.
There were no generalizations, but only specific comments from
participants. Also, when an individual argued strongly, the rebutted
students were named and evidence given. Analysis, then, suggests that a
different approach to education is possible, through which multiple
perspectives can be encouraged and valued (Wegerif, 2008).
The following interaction depicts how reading a text moves on two
levels:
30. Farhan: FEAR! What was she afraid of? Yes, Mariam, you smiled! I
think you can guess what the girl was feeling like?
31. Mariam: Yeah. Oh, well, kind of ….She was afraid she will lose her
identity.
32. Farhan: Identity and food!!! That’s food for thought (laughs). Do you
think about food like that?
33. Sara: YEAH, sure the way we cook and eat….
34. Zainab: And if some ingredient is missing…from our food…our
lives….
330 Chapter Fifteen
35. Farhan: AHA!!

36. Mariam: Food won’t be the same!
37. Soha: We won’t like it.
38. Sara: And we will be very sad.
39. Farhan: What about you, Nayyer (including me in the dialogue)? Are
you fussy about food too?
40. Me: Yes, of course. The ingredients, manner of cooking, even the
serving dishes count, the way we cook and serve reveals our feelings
towards the family…the guests.
41. Farhan: Do you think it’s only about food or is there something else
bothering her?
42. Sara: Food is only an expression to show what she may miss deep
down. She is afraid of a second marriage…. No, in fact the children
she will be moving in with.
43. Farhan: (smiles)
Farhan doesn’t comment further, as if deliberately allowing the

thoughts to ‘brew’ and sink in.
The talk that involved food, love and marriage ended up on
perspectives. There was a shift in ‘long held’ ideals. A small peep into
themselves went a long way in developing new perspectives. Some girls
considered the author’s point of view as valid. Some agreed with each
other but even in that agreement the position they took was their own.
Exploratory talk created a contextual foundation that promoted
connection to the text in ways that went beyond basic, literal thought. The
following interaction shows a gradual construction of new perspectives:
1. Mariam: I notice the hidden power relations here. The characters are
‘gendered’ by the writer. I believe our attitudes are all guided by
culture.
2. Farhan: Umm….So, where are you in the text, Amna?
3. Amna: I want to become a revolutionary…. and remove inequalities
and injustice.
4. Soha: I did not know that the story had so much. I thought… in
reading, as long as meanings became clear, we would understand
everything.
5. Umnia: I can see what you mean. The stories have much more to offer
than word meanings…they are about relationships, about how others
feel.
6. Farhan: ‘Others’…like us!! Umnia can you say more about this?
(Class session on “The Bamboo Blind” 25/3)
I asked students what they had gained by dialogue:
While studying literature you have evidence for an assertion in the text you
are reading. When you come to the class with evidence from the texts, do
you ever change your position?
They all agreed that their point of view changed when they learned
about the perspectives of others. They acquired analytical skills. I asked
the girls if the session had made a difference in any way and Waffa
replied:
Yeah… I think now I can see that people are struggling most of the time
and that’s only because they don’t accept differences. It’s like better
understanding of differences and acceptance of differences. (23/3).
In spite of taking firm positions, students acknowledged the

importance of being able to change one’s position. Waffa was a good
example. At the beginning of the “The Bamboo Blind”, she passionately
argued in favour of the protagonists. Then during the session several
students argued against the characters being totally innocent. In the end,
Waffa saw their point and wrote about her changed opinion, thus
indicating the influence that critical reading of the text had on her. By
bringing up things that otherwise go unnoticed, teachers can open a space
in which students can consider who they are as they critique what culture
tells them they should be.
Students used questions to shape their reading experience. They
understood the reasons for this and were unanimous in acknowledging the
positive impact it had on their learning.
Table 1: Student views on dialogueic reading

Enthusiasts Quieter ones
Soha: Aysha:
We talk about any issue for quite I thought about the story and
a while….You say what you think listened to what others said.
and other people can agree and Though I didn’t talk much, I now
disagree. know more.
Mariam: Aala:
I liked “The Bamboo Blind” the The discussions helped me
best because everyone had an question myself more….
answer… and they were our own….
332 Chapter Fifteen
Umnia: Meliha:
Asking questions…giving evidence There are more answers in the
and proving your ideas is fun…. text than I had thought. I felt too
We try to think about what to say shy to talk but I enjoyed
and find a part in the text that listening to others.
supports our idea…and explain to
people what the idea is.
19. Understanding difference

Farhan suggested that students should read and discuss texts to expand
their understanding of other cultures. It helps them to see that not everyone
shares their belief systems and raises important questions about the stances
they take on different issues. Therefore, teachers need to include
multicultural texts that represent racial, ethnic, and social classes and that
present a number of perspectives.
As students learn how to engage, they realize how their views
influence their interpretation of texts and interaction with people. This can
be difficult. Students sometimes resist reading texts in ways that require
them to examine their own beliefs and actions or that are not in line with
their cultural and social expectations. They feel uncomfortable moving
beyond their views of the world and in reading and discussing texts that
challenge their ideas. Additionally, they sometimes feel it isn’t their place
to question dominant beliefs or to critically examine others’ beliefs. Most
girls, as in this group, have strong ideas about morality and values,
viewing themselves as guardians of such values, and so are less inclined to
discuss controversial issues.
20. Modern Socrates!

In accepting his ignorance, Socrates accepted that there was a real
difference between knowledge and mere opinion. Dialectic results in
intellectual progress through critical evaluation of diverse perspectives.
Socrates believed that enabling students to think for themselves was more
important than filling their heads with right answers. Mercer, Wegerif and
Dawes (1999) also emphasize that students need to have an openness to
alternative perspectives. Farhan of course followed Socrates’ path.
This was reflected in the kind of language that all participants were using
in their exchanges (including the teacher): ‘I don’t know’, ’I can’t really
tell’, ‘I’m not sure’. These words expressed uncertainty and signalled the
openness of class members to multiple perspectives and possibilities.
Especially interesting was the use of ‘I think’ by the teacher, through

which he indicated the possibility of other ideas.
Rehana commented: The discussion about text was an eye opener. I
always used to believe whatever is given in the textbook as truth; today I
learnt that we should not accept everything blindly. (3/04). Discussion
provided an opportunity to critique other views and challenge long-held
assumptions. This was evident on occasions when the girls changed their
stance.
If students are allowed to maintain open minds, their thoughts develop
and mature in a process depicted in the transcript below:
Farhan: SO, do you think blindness helped…?

The one who can see sees nothing (Oedipus);
the one who can’t see sees more clearly.
Umnia: How can you say that, sir? … He is still confused, isn’t he?
Farhan : Who is Oedipus?
Umnia: I get it …. The Oedipus who had physical sight had been living a
life of self-deception.
Mariam: Yeah….Are there truths about ourselves that we cannot see now
but we might see some time? Should we consider ourselves responsible for
the mistakes we make, or blame some evil demon which makes us do
them?
Farhan: Umm…. Interesting thoughts, girls!!!
From the input of all participants, it was evident, that students read
complex texts on controversial issues and then acknowledged the
perspectives and interpretations of others, gained in-depth understanding,
and constructed complex views of the issues, confirming that critical
reading can open up possibilities for social structure transformation.
Participants in my study felt a fundamental shift in their attitudes.
Zainab felt collaborative ‘talk in open-minded ways’ gave her a social
existence that affirmed her sense of herself as a reader and thinker.
Mariam thought her learning was ‘so much about herself’. As she learned
‘to open up mind’ she became ‘aware of things through different
perspectives’ and she saw ‘a different world full of detail’ in which she
‘felt confident to speak out.’
During a group interaction (25/3), I asked how students felt about
reading through dialogueic as opposed to other kinds of reading. They
indicated that it motivated them and was a positive influence. Their
responses included phrases like ‘I get the opinions of others’ reading,’ ‘I
take better notes,’ ‘I am more careful,’ and ‘I am looking for points I can
use in the argument’. All felt it promoted thoroughness and focused
reflection and thinking. I asked what they thought the purpose was. The
334 Chapter Fifteen
answers included ‘to gain deeper understanding,’ ‘exchange and develop

ideas,’ ‘think independently and analyze critically’. One student added,
amusingly, ‘And the teacher knows if we really read the text! ’(interaction,
20 /3).
Critical reading, however, is never easy. Sometimes the students are
resistant to change. So I asked the girls, ‘To what extent has the experience
been different (if at all)? Sara said, ‘What impressed me is that when I try
to engage in reading and writing, that’s my major focus. I never used
to…THINK…really.’ Amina believed that students during lectures do not
understand, but only repeat….
Farhan encouraged student thinking through statements such as ‘OK.
Can we read the text again and see what we can find? Can you connect
that with what Mariam said?’ And ‘for whom is Hawthorne writing?’
(Class, 23/3) He used open chains of interaction (with no evaluative
feedback) in order to explore his students’ views.
But students went beyond sharing ideas. They worked together to
produce an understanding of the story. They pooled their thinking in order
to make meaning together. Exploratory talk characterized the collective
work of students as they used language, reasoned together and formulated
meaning (Mercer, 1995). Collective reasoning is an intellectual activity
that takes place during discussion as students build new understanding
together (Mercer, 2000). In Mercer’s (1998) view, exploratory talk is co-
reasoning ‘where students (sometimes with the teacher) share relevant

knowledge, evaluate evidence, and consider ideas in an equitable way’
(Wilkinson et al. 2006, p. 28). Three essential elements here include
reasoning for opinions, alternative views, and challenging each other’s
ideas in critical but constructive ways (Mercer, 2000).
21. High-level thinking about text

Most student responses included at least one discourse feature that
indicated high-level thinking of a kind that goes beyond mere textual
givens. Students asked authentic questions about the texts, which included
instances when they gave one-word responses to reaffirm or retract a
previous utterance (like ‘Yeah,’ ‘No,’ -um’….), when they faded out
without completing an idea (Well, I think….), when they asked procedural
questions (What page is that on?), and when they agreed with another
student (You are right....). The comments of some students reflected
engagement in thinking that went beyond obvious details.
Webb (1995) thinks students listen to elaborated explanations and
benefit from this because they have opportunities to understand the topic
of discussion in better ways. Below are discussion excerpts showing

higher-level thinking:
Turns Indicators of HLT

coded in the turn
Mariam: Okay. Death by chocolate? That’s weird! Who Authentic question
can die of chocolate? Generalization/ speculation
Soha: I think the teacher is referring to the story “Hold Generalization/analysis,
the Mayonnaise”. reference to text
Mariam: Okay…. Yes, the story about a second Elaborated explanation
marriage and food! Generalization/analysis
Amna: Food and above. Well, she was afraid she would Authentic question
lose her identity, wasn’t she?
Soha: Uhm.... Food is only an expression, a concrete Generalization/analysis
show of what she may miss. Deep down she is afraid of Reasoning/cultural reference
a second marriage….
Umnia: We revere the dead and create a perfect picture Reasoning
of them. So you are always competing against that Reasoning/cultural reference
perfect picture. When the wife is dead she is not
criticized.
Figure 3: Excerpts from the discussion showing higher-level thinking
22. Dialogueic reading reflected in writing tasks

Dialogueic reading forced students to examine their own ideas after a
close reading of the text and enlightening class discussion on it. Their
writing reflected this close reading. Sara and Umna showed a strong use of
analysis and elaboration in their writing and used persuasive textual
citations. Waffa not only analyzed the text in writing, but made use of
prior knowledge and finished her writing with open-ended questions.
Amna’s style was direct, open and well organized. There were certainly
multiple examples of students employing analysis and elaboration in their
written work. The figure below shows different argumentative elements
that comprise elaborate thinking (Wilkinson, 2006) in each of the two
responses. These are Soha’s writing samples.
Soha’s written responses and participation in discussion show that she
appropriated the content of the discussion for her post-discussion
response. Her reasoning is more elaborate. In her first response, she made
two claims and supported each with one reason. In the post-discussion
response, she stated her position, provided an example of it, and supported
it with reasons. The post-discussion writing shows her using discourse to
reason about the text; that is, she stated a view or made a claim and
supported them with a reason and evidence from the text.
336 Chapter Fifteen
The data, then, confirm that dialogueic reading affects the experience
of the learner in another context (writing). Dialogue develops an
understanding of text and then becomes a critical link between that
understanding and written texts.
Pre-discussion writing Post-discussion writing

I think we can all be sure It was an interesting story as it is about
about what a blind is human psyche [claim]. It deals with the
[claim] because blinds are excitement of a girl who dreams of
used in modern times too marriage as a way out of her situation
[reason]. And we are girls [example]. I think the girl is excited about
so we understand how the new environment [reason]. She
Raziya feels [claim]. It assumes there will be no blinds or
seems that the story is obstacles in her new life [reason]. Of
about human emotions course the ending of the story is an
[reason]. anticlimax [claim]. I am very impressed
by author’s choice of the title too. It
created interest in the story and gave a
metaphorical association. [elaborate
reasoning]
Figure 4: Excerpts from a composition showing developed reasoning
23. Role of questions

Students usually do not spontaneously share responses if teachers do
not encourage them to do so (Gallimore & Tharp, 1990). Questions act as
a sort of useful framework. Open-ended questions allow risk taking and
initiate the thinking process. Farhan asked questions to engage students in
a critique of issues relevant to their lives (Almasi, 2002; Roberts &
Billings, 1999). And he framed many in such a way that they were
personalized. Some examples were: ‘Does it do us any good to read about
a story from another culture – people different from us – like for instance
India? What part of the story surprised you the most? Do you see, feel
bamboo blinds around you? (Class 16/3)
It seems fair to characterize his questions as purposeful, open-ended,
and personalized (i.e. connected to the lives of the students). There are two
kinds of questions – those that assess and those that assist. Questions that
assist steer students towards deeper understanding (Almasi, 2002). The
questions posed by Farhan required interpretation, assertion and evidence.
They were pivotal for the higher-level thinking and comprehension that set
the groundwork for students to begin processing the text analytically.
Zara very enthusiastically replied: ‘…reading made me rethink,

sharing aided me to transcend gender specific ways of talking’ (15-18-
22/3).
Student comment as a whole suggested that they noticed and valued
the qualities of dialogueic reading.
24. Transformation achieved!

Students shifted voice from the confessional utterances of a struggling
learner to the assertive voice of a confident knower. They changed and the
change was in relation to each other, valuing their ‘selves’ and their
classmates. There was no revolutionary change, nor was one intended by
the teacher.
Farhan was sure that learners develop voice when they are given
opportunities to discuss their opinions in class. His response to student
discourse was characterized by back-and-forth movement rather than a
linear mode of participation. Several students evaluated their own
experiences and reversed previous practices. As Umnia explained:
‘Learning is about thinking I guess. This is so powerful for me. Dr Farhan
doesn’t emphasize memorizing facts’ (23/3).
Theorists contend that transformative learning occurs as individuals
begin to examine themselves and their personal frames of reference when
exposed to meaningful learning experiences. It was heartwarming to see

participants focus on themselves as individuals.
In choosing texts that critiqued racism, sexism and prejudice, Farhan
invited students to participate in conversations about stories from
intercultural perspectives traditionally left out of the literature
conversation. He provided cultural information and through stories invited
students to look through others’ eyes (Greene, 1993). Evidence from
discussion and writing in the class suggested that his students became
quite conscious of new strategies in the context of reading and thinking. In
interviews they consistently spoke of themselves as readers making
connections, asking questions, understanding characters’ thoughts and
feelings.
The culture of dialogue can be developed in a language class by
challenging learners to use reading and writing as a means of confronting
social inequalities and human rights issues and looking for silenced voices
in all domains. Although Dr Farhan’s classroom was not a space in which
all students agreed, it became a forum in which they were able to discuss
issues and learn how to promote change within their lives. Their teacher
338 Chapter Fifteen
created a new space by helping them to reflect on personal experiences,

connecting them to the world of language, literature and society.
Based on the data, it is fairly safe to say that all participants did indeed
experience change. Findings revealed that they had changed their frames
of reference and gained new insights and perspectives.
Although dialogueic reading is challenging in terms of the tremendous
amount of work involved, such as planning engaging activities, monitoring
discussions (especially those related to controversial issues), creating and
sustaining a space for discussion, and facing student and administrative
resistance, overall, to see the shift in perspectives makes all the effort
worthwhile.
The figure below assesses learning outcomes – identified in passages
that acknowledged ambiguities in a text as a source of richness rather than
frustration. Students showed that they could do the following:
25. Closing thoughts

I have no ‘conclusions’ to offer but will simply ask my readers to
pause and reflect on the power of language and cultural practices
presented in the dialogueic reading class of Dr Farhan and 20 female
undergraduates.
During the sessions I observed, students rarely chased after the ‘right’
answer. They asked their own questions and seemed to do most of the
thinking. As Farhan began to wrap-up the discussion, he asked, ‘Any final

thoughts?’ And Umnia replied, ‘No closures! Right?’ Farhan laughed a
little as we walked from the class. ‘The kids are enjoying learning, aren’t
they? he added.
Despite challenges, critical dialogueic reading remains an exciting way
of learning. Clearly, those fearful of challenges feel uncomfortable with it.
However, every teacher takes risks when critically engaging students.
Those risks lead to uncertainties and it is within these uncertain moments
that true learning happens.
‘Understanding the self is a pre-condition to understanding others’
(Pinar, 1988:150). I myself gained insights from the participants who
willingly shared their perspectives with me. My attendancemade me think
about the implications of my experience. Leaving Farhan and his class, I
was surprised at the change I had seen and experienced. I felt as if a fresh
wind was blowing. I smiled proudly to myself as I adjusted the red hijab
that covered my head….But underneath that red hijab, I knew who I was!
References
Adler, M. J. (1982). The paideia proposal: An educational manifesto (On
Behalf of the Paideia Group), New York: Collier Books, Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Al Abed, et al (2007). Perspectives on the United Arab Emirates, In:

Ghareeb, E., Al-Abed, I. (eds.) London: Trident Press, 36–73.
Al-Ghazali (1933). Ihya-ulum al-din, Volume 2, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Almasi, J. F. (1995). Teaching strategic processes in reading, solving
problems in the teaching of literacy, New York: Guilford Press. .
—. (2002). Research-based omprehension practices that create higher-
level discussions. In C. Block, LB. Gambrell & M. Pressley (eds.),
Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory,
and classroom practice (pp. 229-242). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Alexander, R. J. (2004). Towards dialogueic teaching: Rethinking
classroom talk, 1st edition, New York: Dialogueos.
Alavi, S. (1988). The role of the teacher in the training and upbringing of
children. In Muslim educational thought in the middle ages. New-
Delhi: Atlantic Publishers.
Alvermann, D. E. (1996). Interrupting gendered discursive practices in
classroom talk about texts: Easy to think, difficult to do. In Reading
research report, 54. National Reading Research Center. University of
Georgia.
340 Chapter Fifteen
Andreotti, V. & Warwick, P. (2007). Engaging students with controversial

issues through a dialogue-based approach. In Critical literacy in global
citizenship education. Professional Development Resource Pack.
Derby: Global Education.
Applebee, A. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming
traditions of teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Au, K. (1998). Socio-constructivism and the school literacy learning of
students of diverse backgrounds, Journal of Literacy Research, 30 (2),
297-319.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogueic imagination: Four essays, By Bakhtin,
Michael Holquist, Caryl Emerson. Translated by Michael Holquist,
Caryl Emerson, Vadim Liapunov. Contributor Michael Holquist, Caryl
Emerson: University of Texas Press. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
—. (1985). The formal method in literary scholarship: A critical
introduction to sociological poetics. Goucher College Series. Boston:
Harvard University Press.
—. (1986). Speech genres and other essays. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Banks, J. (1997). Educating citizens in multicultural societies. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Billings, L. & Fitzgeralds, J. (2002). Dialogueic discussion and the Paideia

seminar. American Educational Research Journal, 39 (4), 907-941.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain,
Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
Brookfield (2002). The power of critical theory for adult learning and
teaching. Open University Press, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill International.
Comber, B. & Simpson, A. (2001). Negotiating critical literacies in the
classroom. In Barbara Comber, Anne Simpson (eds.). Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Confucius (500BCEc). The great
learning, Trans. James Legge, Retrieved on September 18 2012 from
http://classics.mit.edu/Confucius/learning.html.
Davies, B. (2003). Shards of glass: Children reading and writing beyond
gendered identities. In Language and Social Processes. Hampton: The
University of Michigan Press.
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Introduction: Entering the field of

qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 1-8). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1938). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective
thinking to the educative process (revised edition). Lexington, MA:
D.C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working
through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard
Educational Review, 59 (3), 297-324.
Elbaz-Luwisch, F. (2005). Teachers’ voices: Storytelling and possibility:
Issues in curriculum theory, policy, and research. Greenwich CT,
Information Age, IAP.
Florio-Ruane, S. & Morrell, E. (2004). Literacy research methodologies.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Foucault, M. (1989). Power/Knowledge, Ed. C. Gordon, New York:
Pantheon.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
—. (1985). Reading the world and reading the word: An interview with
Paolo Freire, David Dillon, Language Arts, 62 (January): 15-21.
—. (1997). A response. In P. Freire, J. W. Fraser, D. Macedo, T.
McKinnon, & W. T. Stokes (eds.), Mentoring the mentor: A critical

dialogue with Paulo Freire (pp. 175-199). New York: Peter Lang
Publishing, Inc.
—. (2000). Education for a critical consciousness (ed. and trans. M.
Bergman Ramos), New York: Continuum.
Gallimore, R. & Tharp, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching,
learning, and schooling in social context. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Gay, G. (1997). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and
practice. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
—. (1992). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 12, 31-48.
—. (1996). Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural
mind. In D. Kirshner and J. Whitson (eds.), Situate cognition: Social,
semiotic, and psychological erspectives (pp. 235-260). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giroux, H. (1981). Ideology, culture and the process of schooling.
Barcombe: Falmer Press.
342 Chapter Fifteen
—. (1993). Towards a pedagogy of critical thinking. In Re-thinking

reason: New perspectives in critical thinking. Kerry S. Walters (ed.),
Albany: SUNY Press.
Greene, J. (1993). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of bilingual
education. Claremont: CA: Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.
Guefrachi, H. & Troudi, S. (2000). Enhancing English language teaching
in the United Arab Emirates. In K. Johnson (ed.), Teacher education:
Case studies in TESOL practice series (pp. 189-204), Alexandria,
Virginia: TESOL Inc.
Hall, S. (1996). Critical dialogues in cultural studies, (eds. D. Morley and
K-H Chen). New York: Routledge.
Hassim, E. (2010). Elementary education and motivation in Islam:
Perspectives of medieval Muslim scholars. (Ibn Sahnun, M) 750-1400
CE, Cambria Press.
Hooks, B. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Education as the Practice of
Freedom. NewYork: Routledge.
Kaizuka, S. (2002). Confucius: His life and thought. Mineola, New York:
Courier Dover Publications.
Kelly, E. A. (1997). Education, democracy, and public knowledge. San
Francisco, C A: Westview.
Kahn, C. (1996). Plato and the Socratic dialogue. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Lee, C. & Smagorinsky, P. (2000).Vygotskian perpectives on literacy

research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry.
Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives,
Occasional Paper Series. London: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
—. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London and
Bristol: Taylor & Francis.
Lipman, M. (1987). Philosophy goes to school. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Luke, C. (1991). Feminist politics in radical pedagogy. In Luke, C, Gore,
J. (Eds.) Feminisms and critical pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Luke, C & Gore, J. (1992). Feminisms and critical pedagogy, New York:
Routledge.
Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1997). Constructing critical literacies. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin and Cresskills.
Lehman, A. & Peters, D. (2001). Pondering the significance of big and
little or saving the whales: Discussions of narrative and expository text
in fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. Reading Research and

Instruction, 40, 297-314.
MacKinnon, A. (1995). Education into the 21st century: Dangerous
terrain for women? London: Routledge.
Marshall, D., Smagorinsky, P. & Smith, M. (1995). The language of
interpretation: Patterns of discourse in discussions of literature. NCTE
Research Report, 27, National Council of Teachers of English.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on
a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, J. P., & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum, perspectives and practice.
Mississauga: Copp Clark Pittman.
Mercer, N. (1987) (ed.) Language and literacy from an educational
perspective 1: Language studies. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
—. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers
and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
—. (1998). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk amongst teachers
and learners. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
—. (2000). Words and Minds: How we Use Language to Think Together.
London: Routledge.
—. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analaysis: Analysing classroom talk as

a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 137-
168.
Mercer, N. and Steve, H. (2008). Exploring talk in schools: Inspired by the
work of Douglas Barnes. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Mercer, N. & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of
children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. & Dawes, L. (2000). Children’s talk and the
development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational
Research Journal, 25 (1), 95.
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R, & Dawes, L. (1999). Children’s talk and the
development of reasoning in the classroom. British Educational
Research Journal, 25(1), 95-111.
Nelson, L. (1965). The Socratic method. In Leonard Nelson, Socratic
method and critical philosophy: Selected essays. New York: Dover
Publications.
Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse: Student
engagement and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of
English, 25 (3), 261-290.
344 Chapter Fifteen
Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (2003). Towards a rhetoric of everyday life:

New directions in research on writing, text, and discussions. Madison,
WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Boston: Harvard University
Press.
Richardson, P. (2004). Possible influences of Arabic-Islamic culture on
the reflective practices: Proposal for an education degree at the Higher
Colleges of Technology in the United Arab Emirates. International
Journal of Educational Development, 24(4), 429-436.
Rosenblatt, M. (1978). The Reader, the text, the poem: The transactional
theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in
social context. In A. Alvarez, P. del Rio, & JV Wertsch (eds.),
Perspectives on Sociocultural Studies of Mind. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a
rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical
Thinking and Moral Critique.
Pinar, W. (1988). Contemporary curriculum discourses. US: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick.
Pennycook, A. (1994). Critical pedagogical approaches to research.
TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 690-693.

Platt, E. & Troudi, S. (1997). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking
child’s place in the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language
Journal, 81, 28-49.
Pihlgren, A. (2008). Socrates in the Classroom : Rationales and Effects of
Philosophizing with Children. Dissertation, University of Stockholm.
Pugh, K. (2002). Teaching for transformative experiences in science: An
investigation of the effectiveness of two instructional elements.
Teachers College Record, 104 (6), 1101-1137.
Popkewitz, T. (2004). Is the national research council committee’s report
on scientific research in education scientific? On trusting the
manifesto. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 62-78.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social
change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435-454). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, E. (1997). The theory and practice of transformative learning: A
critical review. Information Series NO. 374. Columbus: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, Ohio State

University.
Troudi, S. (2007). Teaching world languages for social justice: A
sourcebook of principles and practices. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29 (4), 633-634.
Vacca, J. (2000). Reading and learning to read. New York: Harper
Collins.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (Translated by A. Kozulin).
Cambridge Ma: MIT Press.
Wachob, P. (2009). Power in the EFL classroom: Critical pedagogy in the
Middle East. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogueic or dialectic? The significance of
ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British
Educational Research Journal, 34 (3). doi: 10.1080/14119207015
32228. Retrieved on October 1 2013 from http://elac.ex.ac.uk/dialogue
iceducation/userfiles /DialOrDialBERJ(1).pdf.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogueic inquiry in education. In C.D. Lee and P.
Smagorinsky (eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. (1985). The significance of dialogue in Vygotsky’s account of
social, egocentric, and inner speech. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 3, 150-162.
Webb, N. (1995). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and

learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz and N. Miller (eds.),
Interaction in cooperative groups. (pp. 102-119). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilkinson, L. (2000). Direct observation. In G.M. Breakwell et al. (eds.)
Research methods in psychology (pp. 224-238). London: Sage.
Wilkinson, et al. (2006). What the approaches look like: A conceptual
framework for discussions: Making sense of group discussions
designed to promote high-level comprehension of texts. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada, April 11-15, 2005.
Woods, D. (1996). Literacy instruction for adolescents: Research-based
practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Wortham, S. (2001). Ventriloquating Shakespeare: Ethical positioning in
classroom literature discussions. Working papers in applied linguistics
17 (2), 47-64.
Zappen, J. (2004). The rebirth of dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the
rhetorical tradition. Albany: State University of New York Press.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
TEACHING CRITICAL READING STRATEGIES
ESTHER BOUCHER-YIP
WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE, USA
Abstract
Research studies on teaching reading skills in the second or foreign
language (ESL/EFL) context have found that language proficiency can be
taught simultaneously with teaching critical reading and thinking skills.
Teachers have also found that by including elements of critical reading in
reading lessons the dynamics of the reading class are enhanced as well as
students’ active participation in the dialogueic and constructivist reading
processes (Zhang, 2008). This chapter describes how the teaching of
critical reading skills enhances and supports language proficiency in the

ESL/EFL context. Teachers, in providing reading instruction, should be
encouraged to exploit the text as a means to develop integrated language
skills and critical thinking. Critical reading strategies are therefore
discussed for those teachers who seek to introduce a new dimension into
reading instruction.
Keywords: reading strategies, critical reading, critical thinking, English

language learners.
Introduction
While reading skills are an important aspect of developing language
proficiency, less attention has been given to teaching critical reading skills
in the language classroom. This chapter advocates the teaching of critical
reading strategies that could be integrated into ESL/EFL reading activities.
Critical literacy is important to include in instruction for students learning
English as a second or foreign language because, as Wallace (2003) puts
it, “criticality cannot be linked with innate linguistic competence but is
Teaching Critical Reading Strategies 347
socially and educationally learned” (p.4). In other words, reading is

regarded as a social, critical, and interpretative process rather than a set of
skills that language teachers should seek to develop in the language
classroom. This chapter will provide an overview of how critical reading
and critical thinking skills are closely related and described in the
literature. Against the background of these descriptions, approaches and
strategies in classroom procedures for teaching students to read critically
are discussed. Finally, teaching critical reading beyond teaching
comprehension is addressed with a focus on analyzing and evaluating
arguments.
A brief overview of the literature

Discussions about critical reading in the literature are often pursued in
terms of teaching critical thinking skills. Teaching students to become
critical readers is most often discussed in relation to literacy and language
learning. In these contexts, discussions on teaching critical reading and
thinking are drawn from a number of related theories concerned with the
constant interplay of reader and text in the meaning-making process
(Auerbach, 1999; Brown, 1999; Clark, 1995; Hood, Solomon, & Burns,
1996). Research on teaching reading skills in the ESL/EFL context reveals
that language proficiency can be taught simultaneously with critical
reading and thinking skills. Crookes and Lehner (1998) suggest that
“critical pedagogy should be seen as a social and educational process,
rather than as a pedagogical method” because it is more concerned with
how language can effect personal and social change than it is with how to
teach language more effectively. Approaches to defining critical reading
are numerous, but rarely complementary. Barrett (cited in Clymer, 1968)
uses a taxonomy approach in describing critical reading, while Robbins
(1977) and Smith (1974) define it in terms of a skills hierarchy. On the
other hand, Carver (1971) and Goodman (1970) see critical reading as part
of a broader model of comprehension.
As for how critical reading is described in the ESL literature, we can
turn to Benesch’s (1993) review of critical thinking (or critical reading),
which she claims is often listed as one or more of a number of
hierarchically-ordered cognitive skills. She cites Eskey and Grabe (1988),
who define critical reading as evaluating the author’s arguments. This is a
skill that follows skimming for the main idea and scanning for specific
kinds of information. Evaluation, along with analysis and synthesis, is also
part of the critical thinking skills required of high-intermediate to
advanced language students in content classes (Richard-Amato & Snow,
348 Chapter Sixteen
1992). In other words, reading tasks such as evaluation, inference,

analysis, synthesis, and comprehension are defined as higher-order skills.
In a slightly different approach, writers such as Cummins (1989),
Graman (1988), and Wallerstein (1983) define critical thinking as a
democratic learning process examining power relations and social
inequities. In classrooms that feature critical thinking, students are
encouraged to participate actively and raise issues of concern in their daily
lives (Auerbach & McGrail, 1991). In a similar vein, Wallerstein (1983)
argues that the impact of public policies on students’ personal issues is the
crux of critical thinking: “Critical thinking begins when people make the
connections between their individual lives and social conditions. It ends
one step beyond perception – towards the action people take to regain
control over social structures detrimental to their lives” (p.16). While
some may argue that this approach to teaching critical reading is
“political”, Cummins (1989) and Shor and Freire (1987) claim that all
curricula are political, either encouraging or discouraging students from
questioning the status quo. According to Benesch (1993), ESL teachers
can adopt a cognitive orientation by inviting ESL students to analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate topics divorced from the social origins of these
themes. However, she argues that reading and thinking critically mean
asking language learners to investigate their experience and its relationship
to the language, politics, and history of the new culture. It is, thus,
important for ESL/EFL students to learn to approach reading materials

with their own thoughts and express their own opinions about issues
presented in the readings.
Despite the challenges in defining critical reading in practice, many
researchers and instructors agree that teaching students to read critically is
meaningful and a necessary endeavor for both the students’ future
academic studies and for their reading proficiency in general (Macknish,
2011) . The next section discusses the importance of critical thinking and
how ESL teachers can help a great deal in encouraging critical reading and
thinking in their classroom by creating a critical community.
Critical Thinking in Reading

Critical thinking has been defined by Chaffee (1988) as a
metacognitive endeavor. He explains that it is an active, purposeful and
organized process in which we make sense of our world by carefully
examining our thinking and the thinking of others in order to clarify and
improve our understanding. When applying such skills in reading, it
means taking learners beyond the development of basic literacy skills such
as decoding, predicting, and summarizing and asking them to become

critical consumers of the information they receive. While ESL and EFL
learners need to develop decoding and vocabulary skills in order to read
better, critical reading encourages learners to engage with information
sources and to question the social contexts, purposes, and possible effects
that these have on their lives. For some learners, critical reading can be
one way of exploring the new language and culture in which they find
themselves. For example, ESL students attending university in the United
States could take the opportunity to discuss and examine readings on
values, traditions and institutions in their new environment.
Creating a critical community

As language teachers, we have access to a class of diverse students
who may offer us a ready-made interpretative community. Thus, language
learners bring different knowledge and cultural resources to bear in textual
critique. The nature of this classroom community is discussed extensively
by Wallace (2003), who sees the classroom as a ‘critical community’. She
offers a comprehensive account of what a critical classroom community
means in her book Critical Reading in Language Education. According to
her, members of a critical classroom community articulate awareness
about matters of social justice in the contemporary world. What then is the
role of the teacher in this community of language learners? In a class

centered on text analysis, Wallace suggests that the teacher could point to
the unequal treatment of participants within texts, the manner in which the
reader is positioned, and the relative openness of a discourse in a text that
allows for textual analysis in a critical reading course. She adds that
“...membership of such a critical community involves both teacher and
students being alert to how power relations are embedded not just within
the texts we critique in class, but are continually reproduced in and
through classroom interactions” (p. 93). Hence, for the teacher, reading
critically in a critical community generally means providing learners with
opportunities to think critically about issues from various perspectives,
allowing students to challenge any possible assumptions that may underlie
the issue and encouraging students to explore its possible alternatives.
Some would argue that critical reading skills also involve problem-solving
skills and a degree of creativity. This is especially true for ESL/EFL
students who are preparing for college-level courses or undergraduate
studies. In most college courses, students are expected to come up with
possible solutions and counter-arguments, which involve the ability to
analyze the material carefully. As English language teachers, we should be
350 Chapter Sixteen
preparing our students with skills to read difficult or controversial texts. In

the next section, strategies for teaching critical reading beyond
comprehension are presented after a brief discussion on the importance of
reading critically.
Why is learning to read critically important

for ESL students?
In many ESL reading classes a typical lesson consists of a pre-reading
phase that activates and builds background knowledge, guided reading of a
text, and post-reading exercises that include comprehension checks,
discussion and writing activities. This is usually followed with exercises to
develop skills, such as determining main ideas, finding supporting details
or arguments, guessing at unfamiliar vocabulary by using context clues,
and expanding linguistic competence (e.g. through word study and
sentence analysis exercises). In such a skill-building approach, Shih
(1992) argues that it is assumed that the practice of basic skills will enable
students to handle actual content-area reading assignments. For those
beyond the beginning level of language proficiency, this discrete-level
approach is not sufficient to equip ESL students to meet the demands of
real content classes (Shih, 1992). In her research, Shih found that ESL
students experience a large leap in moving from the relatively short, varied
readings of ESL classes to the complex discourse they must manage in

their content classes. In addition, she mentions “critically reacting to the
content” as one of the demands on ESL students of academic classes,
along with “recalling main points and details and synthesizing information
from reading” (p.290). Thus, reading critically means going beyond
merely recognizing words and comprehending ideas. Reading teachers
should regard comprehension as only the beginning of reading critically
and encourage students to question the text by analyzing and evaluating
what they read.
The next section continues to explore critical reading by focusing on
strategies drawn from Axelrod and Cooper’s (1987) book, which provides
helpful principles and which teachers can adapt and use in helping ESL
students to meet the demands of college readings.
Beyond comprehension: Steps to reading critically

Critical readers approach whatever they read in an active and
questioning manner. They get ready to read by thinking about their
purpose in reading, planning their follow-up, and skimming the text. The
six steps suggested by Axelrod and Cooper (1987) will be briefly

described and explained here; however, the final strategy of ‘analyzing the
argument’ warrants more discussion, since it may be a new and
challenging task for many ESL/EFL students. To keep students engaged
and motivated, it is important that teachers provide support and guidance,
especially when reading difficult passages.
The first step in reading critically is previewing. Students should be
taught to read actively, with pencil in hand, and to be ready to perform
specific tasks on the text as they read. Teachers should encourage students
to answer the following questions by writing down their observations
either on the text itself or on a separate sheet of paper:
What do I (the student) know about the author?

What does the title tell me?
What kind of text is it?
What else do I know about the context of the text?
What can I discover about this text by skimming it?
The next step is annotating. This process is essential in critical reading

because it focuses the student’s attention on the language of the text.
Students should read the text multiple times to become familiar with the
content and language. This step is crucial in understanding the kind of
careful and close reading that is required for developing successful reading
skills. Also, it is a great strategy for demonstrating how understanding of a

reading changes and deepens when it is read and thought about more than
once. Therefore, teachers should allow for sufficient class time and invite
discussion to help students complete this step effectively. When more time
is given for this exercise, students tend to add further annotations on
second and third readings. Teachers should instruct students to write in the
margin any of the following:
questions
comments and reactions
definitions
main ideas
In addition, students could underline, circle or box in the reading itself

when they identify any of the following:
x special uses of language, such as images or oppositions

x features of style
x words to be defined or people and events to be identified
352 Chapter Sixteen
The next step is outlining. According to Axelrod and Cooper (1987),

this process may be part of the annotating task, or it may be a separate
critical reading activity that follows and extends the student’s annotation
of a text. Students identify the main ideas by looking for the sequence of
main points that carry the readings along. Teachers should remind students
that some paragraphs may contain no main ideas, while others may
contain one or more. Then, students should be instructed to underline the
main ideas on the text or list them in their own words in the margin.
The fourth strategy is summarizing the reading. For ESL students this
step may be a challenge, especially when the reading is long and the ideas
are complex. Teachers should make sure that students have identified and
understood the main ideas of the readings before proceeding with the
summary. One way is to discuss the article, encourage students to ask
questions about content, and have them recall main ideas in the reading.
Taking an inventory builds on and extends annotating. In applying
this step, students analyze and classify their annotations. Axelrod and
Cooper suggest that students should search systematically for patterns in
the text and interpret their significance. Inventorying is a three-step
process:
a. Students examine their annotations for patterns or repetitions of any

kind.
b. Students list and group the items in the pattern.

c. Students decide what the pattern indicates about the reading.
It is helpful to remind students when reading closely to make

inventories of the following:
x Students’ annotations, in order to summarize and expand their

observations about the reading.
x Oppositions within the text, in order to discover the conversations
taking place between the author and other writers and readers, and
even between the author’s own ideas and values.
x Figurative language, in order to uncover clues about the author’s
attitudes and feelings on the subject, the writing situation, and even
about the writer himself/herself.
The five steps described above provide opportunities for the students
and teacher to discuss the reading and their ideas in class. While critical
readers proceed on a literal level by recalling, comprehending, and
applying what they have read, critical reading also involves approaching
the text on an analytical level, analyzing and evaluating what they have
read.
Thus, in the final step, students learn to read critically by analyzing

and evaluating arguments. In reading and thinking about arguments
critically, teachers should guide students in identifying the author’s main
point or position and the evidence that supports it. This can be achieved
through a series of questions or by providing students with a checklist.
This strategy is fully explained by Axelrod and Cooper (1987) and ESL
teachers can adapt and apply these principles in teaching students how to
analyze and evaluate their readings.
To help students identify which statement is a claim and which
statements support the claim, teachers should guide students to cues within
an argument that indicate the role various statements play.
Cues or words in the reading to suggest a claim:
therefore, thus, then, it follows that, hence, implies that, so, you see that,
points to, as a result, one can conclude that, consequently, demonstrates
that, suggests that
Cues or words to suggest supporting statements:
because, since, for the reason that, in view of, for, in the first place, given
that, as shown by, assuming that, first, second, the following reasons
Additionally, if an argument provides few or no cues, the following

questions help students to identify the role of the statements:
To identify the claim, ask:

What point is the writer attempting to establish?
What is being asserted as true?
What is the writer trying to convince me about?
To identify supporting statements:

Why should I accept this claim as true?
What reason or evidence does the writer give for this claim?
On what basis should I accept this claim?
In providing a useful guide to teachers, and to demonstrate how they

can exploit a text for critical thinking, a celebrated essay by Dr Martin
Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, can be used as an
example.
In the first paragraph of the essay, the word “conclusion” was used by the
writer:
354 Chapter Sixteen
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great
stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s
Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate...”
Once students are able to identify this claim, they should be prompted
to identify the statements supporting it. The sentence continues with a
series of who clauses that define characteristics of the white moderate.
Since each who clause in the opening paragraph forecasts a reason
developed in the following paragraphs, students can reasonably conclude
that each one could be restated as a because clause. For example, Axelrod
and Cooper suggest the following outline of King’s argument with Roman
numerals for claims, capital letters for major supporting statements, and
Arabic numerals for additional supporting reasons, evidence, or
assumptions (p. 27-28):
I.
I I. The Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is …
the white moderate
A. Because the white moderate is more devoted to “order” than to justice
(para 2)
1. Law and order should exist to establish justice
2. Likens law and order to dangerously structured dams that block the
flow of social progress.
B. Because the white moderate prefers a negative peace (absence of

tension) to a positive peace (justice).
1. The tension already exists
2. It is not created by nonviolent direct action
When students have identified the claim and supporting statements,

they may begin to evaluate it. They should be reminded that a successful
argument appeals to readers’ sense of logic, their emotion, and their sense
of the author’s credibility. Thus, teachers should guide students in
evaluating an argument by examining how these appeals are made and
how convincing they are.
To evaluate the logical appeal of an argument, students should:
Identify the kinds of support offered

Apply the test for reliability
Apply the tests for appropriateness and consistency
To evaluate the emotional appeal of an argument, students should ask

themselves:
Do I feel manipulated by this argument?
To evaluate the ethical appeal of an argument, students should ask

themselves:
How would I characterize the tone of the argument (the writer’s attitude
toward the subject)?
What kind of person does the author seem to be?
While this last step may seem challenging and time-consuming, it is a

crucial step in helping students to develop as thinkers. To recapitulate,
reading and thinking critically about arguments or texts that are persuasive
requires students to analyze the argument by identifying the claim and the
supporting statements and then evaluating the argument. Scrutinizing these
two aspects of the text will help students to determine the text’s reasoning
and whether it is accurate, authoritative and convincing.
Selecting texts for critical reading

When selecting texts for English language learners to read critically, it
is important to consider more than just the content or topic. Teachers
should select works that lend themselves to the teaching of specific
reading strategies. Since college texts and academic readings present a
variety of linguistic and structural challenges, teachers need to expose
ESL/EFL students to a wide range of readings and teach them critical

reading skills that will help them not only to comprehend these difficult
texts but also to question and evaluate what they read. Therefore, when
selecting texts for students to read critically, teachers should choose those
that:
x can be read for multiple purposes (vocabulary, examples, structure)

x present various types of evidence and support
x challenge students linguistically and cognitively
x develop students’ cultural literacy
Careful consideration of text selection could be done in collaboration

with colleagues and students who may provide valuable input about
learners’ proficiency level and intellectual interests.
Conclusion
One of the goals of a reading class is to develop students’ ability to
read texts carefully. However, helping students to become critical readers
356 Chapter Sixteen
will take much practice and patience. Teaching students to become critical
readers means helping them to interact with texts through careful listening,
writing, conversation and questioning. Additionally, in a critical reading
class ESL teachers should work on developing students’ ability to interpret
texts by using their own ideas and becoming informed by the ideas of
others. When students begin to read critically, they question, evaluate,
extend, analyze, interpret, and apply what they are reading. Not only do
they become more engaged in their reading, they also learn about the
world around them. They also become better researchers and writers.
Reading critically and writing well are important to each other. Reading
critically helps students notice the text itself – its sentences, rhythms, and
forms. When especially ESL students remember what they have noticed, it
influences their writing. This provides many possibilities for them to
present their own ideas and feelings. ESL students learn to write well
when they have learned to read critically. Wallace (2003) claims that
understanding a text conceptually and linguistically must be a starting
point for all reading positions. She believes that all learners, whether
reading in a first, second or other language, are, from the earliest stages,
potentially both making meaning from texts and engaging in critique (p.5).
How can language learners engage in language critique when they are still
in the process of acquiring aspects of the language system? Wallace
reminds us that the notion of ‘criticality’ is not linked to linguistic
competence but is socially and educationally learned (p. 6). Hence,

teachers who seek to introduce a new dimension into their reading
instruction are encouraged to go beyond teaching comprehension and
encourage ESL/EFL students to develop thinking skills through carefully
selected readings that require them to critically look at the texts and the
world around them.
References
Auerbach, E. & Wallerstein, N. (1987). English for the workplace. ESL for
action: Problem posing at work. Wokingham: Addison Wesley.
Auerbach, E. (1999). Teacher, tell me what to do. In I. Shor & C. Pari
(Eds). Critical literacy in action (pp. 31-52). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Auerbach, E. & McGrail, L. (1991). Rosa’s challenge: Connecting
classroom and community contexts. In S. Benesch (ed.). ESL in
America: Myths and ossibilities (pp. 96-111). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook/Heinemann.
Axelrod, R. B. & Cooper, C. R. (1987). Reading critically, writing well: A

reader and guide. St Martin’s Press: New York.
Benesch, S. (1993). Critical thinking: A learning process for democracy.
TESOL Quarterly Special-Topic Issue: Adult Literacies, 27(3), 545-
548.
Brown, K. J. (1999). What kind of text – for whom and when textual
scaffolding for beginning readers? The Reading Teacher. 53 (4), 292-
307.
Carver, R. P. (1971). A computer model of reading and its implications for
measurement and research. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 449-471.
Chaffee, J. (1988). Thinking critically. 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
Clark, R. J. (1995). Developing critical reading practices. Prospect. 10 (2).
65-75.
Clymer, T. (1968). What is ‘reading’? Some current concepts. In H.M.
Robinson (ed.). Innovation and change in reading instruction, Sixty-
seventh yearbook of the national society for the study of education,
Part II, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cummins, J. (1989). The sanitized curriculum: Educational disempowerment
in a nation at risk. In D.M. Johnson and D.H. Roen (Eds.). Richness in
writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 19-38). White Plains, NY:
Longman.
Crookes, G. & Lehner, A. (1998). Aspects of process in an ESL critical

reading pedagogy teacher education course. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (2),
319 – 328.
Eskey, D. E. & Grabe, W. (1988). Interactive models for second language
reading: Perspectives on instruction. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine and
D.E. Eskey (Eds.). Interactive approaches to second language reading
(pp. 223- 238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, K. S. (1970). Behind the eye: What happens in reading.
Reading Process and Programme, 3-38.
Graman, T. (1988). Education for humanization: Applying Paulo Freire’s
pedagogy to learning a second language. Harvard Educational Review,
54 (4). 433- 448.
Hood, S., Solomon, N. & Burns, A. (1996). Focus on reading. National
Centre for English Language Teaching and Research. Sydney, New
South Wales: Macquarie University.
Machnish, C. (2011). Understanding critical reading in an ESL class in
Singapore. TESOL Journal, 2 (4), 444- 472.
Richard-Amato, P. A. & Snow, M.A. (1992). Strategies for the content-
area teachers. In P.A. Richard-Amato & M.A. Snow (eds.). The
358 Chapter Sixteen
multicultural classroom: Readings for the content-area teachers (pp.

145-163). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Robbins, R. H. (1977). Relationships between critical reading and selected
measures of literal and interpretive reading. Paper for the annual
meeting of the International Reading Association, Miami Beach,
Florida.
Shih, M. (1992). Beyond comprehension exercises in the ESL academic
reading class. TESOL Quarterly, 26 (2), 289 – 318.
Smith, B. (1974). Critically reading for propaganda techniques in grade
six. Unpublished MA thesis, New Jersey: Rutgers University.
Wallace, C. (1999). Critical language awareness: Key principles for a
course in critical reading, Language Awareness, 8 (2), 98-110.
—. (2003). Critical reading in language education. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Wallerstein, N. (1983). Language and culture in Conflict: Problem-posing
in the ESL classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Zhang, L. J. (2008). Contructivist pedagogy in strategic reading
instruction: Exploring pathways to learner development in the English
as a second language (ESL) classroom. Instruction Science, 36, 89-
116. doi 10.1007/s1125-007-9025-6.
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
PERSPECTIVES ON FOSTERING CRITICAL

THINKING THROUGH READING WITHIN
ESL TEACHING AND LEARNING
MANOURI SAMARASINGHE
SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY, OMAN
Abstract
This chapter is based on two rationales. First, it foregrounds the idea
that all learners need to be trained to think critically. Second, reading (and
the teaching of reading as a skill) can be the most effective way of
fostering critical thinking in L2 learners. The discussion anchors reading
in ESL learning contexts because ESL readers are often disadvantaged

when it comes to concept formation in knowledge construction because of
their L2 language difficulties. Thus, within a constructivist paradigm,
where the learner is located socio-culturally when constructing meanings,
criticality becomes a central issue in understanding multiple
interpretations.
Reading should be used as the most effective route to critical
independence in ESL learners because reading critically will develop
judgmental skills necessary in the world beyond the classroom (Cotter &
Sacco Tally, 2009; Fisher, 1997; Paul, 1995; Ripley, 2007; Spears, 2003;
cited in Macknish, 2011:445).
Keywords: Reading, critical thinking, dispositions, ESL contexts of

education, teacher awareness.
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC), in Nicomachean Ethics opined, “the present

treatment is not for the sake of study, …; for we do not enquire in order to
know what virtue is, but rather in order to become good, since otherwise
it would not benefit us.”
(Cited in Salmieri, 2009, p. 315)
360 Chapter Seventeen
Introduction
The hitherto neglected concept of critical thinking in education has
returned to many disciplines, including those of philosophy, psychology,
science, and education (Brunner, 1996; Paul, 1995) and the need to foster
it has been emphasized by several commentators (Dewey, 1938; Brunner,
1996; Bailin, 1999; Carr, 1988; Ennis, 1987; Facione, 1992/2010; Fisher,
2005; Halpern, 1984, 1998; Paul, 1993). The reasons range from
developing critical thinking to be better learners – as The National
Education Association (1961) of America suggests (“…the common
thread of education is the development of the ability to think” (Mayer,
1992, p. 386) – to living ‘the good life’ and making the world a better
place. Beyer (1995) says: “What critical thinking truly entails is
developing the capacity to make reasoned judgments in one’s academic
work and in one’s life beyond the classroom” (Beaumont, 2010, p. 430). A
reason emphasized by Mulnix (2010) is that it “encourages important
dialogue with oneself, allowing one to reason well and to adopt reasonable
rather than simply comfortable positions” …and “that compels us to seek a
rational basis for our beliefs …” (p.472).
Historically, and before the birth of schools and universities, thinking
and logical reasoning (syllogism) were considered key intellectual skills
when educating individuals. Socrates wanted to make learners question
everything in life, whereas Aristotle believed it was logic that transformed

the average individual into a higher-level thinker. However, the need to
develop effective thinkers remains and even more so today, as rapid
globalization has taken higher education across geographic, socio-
economic and political boundaries, while also raising the question whether
quality has kept pace with quantity.
Among the distinctive qualities education has valued and maintained
the imparting of knowledge and the development of reasoning assert
prominence. Piaget (1978) emphasized this when he said that “one of the
goals of education has been to form minds which can be critical, can
verify, and not accept everything they are offered” (Ginsburgh & Opper
1979, p. 238). On achieving the goals of education, Bailin et al. (1999)
agree that “… support for teaching critical thinking at all levels of
education is extremely strong in North America and the UK” (1999, p.
285).
Indeed, many countries have acknowledged children’s right to an
education, as found in documents such as ‘The Declaration of the Rights
of the Child’ (UN, 1959, p. 1386 XIV), though, again, quality seems to be
rarely mentioned. The inadequacies of some systems (Richmond, 2005),
Perspectives on Fostering Critical Thinking Through Reading 361
especially in the developing countries, have provoked criticism including

that from The World Bank (2005, p.71) which raises concerns over “…the
knowledge gap between the subject matter currently being taught and the
knowledge and skills that are required...in a competitive globalized world”
(p.5). This gap has not only widened as a result of education policies (or
lack of them) and methodologies, but has cost many countries dearly. In
the Arabian Gulf, for example, Al-Dhafry (2003) is highly critical of
regional strategies, emphasizing that “a staggering 70% of the jobs
available in the market at present are dominated by an expatriate labor
force” (cited in Al-Issa, 2012, p. 147) because local education fails to
produce the skills wanted by the job market. These are not only vocational
and language skills but also autonomy, higher-order thinking, and critical
thinking that enhance employability (human capital). As Richmond (2005)
says, “…think critically and strategically in terms of real-world
opportunities and constraints” (2005, p. 12). Such issues have profound
implications for the vast investments being made in education and
highlight the need to train individuals able to make appropriate choices
and take responsibility for their decisions.
Furthermore, Richmond’s (2005) analysis in relation to the fostering of
the concept in countries such as “Thailand (Somwung & Sujiva, 2000, p.
87), Japan (McVeigh 2002, p. 99), Yoneyama (1999, p. 146), China
(Upton 1989, p. 21), Indonesia (Ajisuksmo & Vermunt, 1999, pp. 56-57),
and India (UNESCO 1989, p. 57)” (2005, p. 12), indicates how

pedagogical approaches and techniques, and student-teacher relationships,
emphasize culture to the point of hindering the development of thinking in
learners (2005, p. 4-6). Wallace (2003) highlights similar concerns,
insisting that ESL contexts are rather limited in their ability to foster
criticality. Her view, among many others’, is that these constraints are a
result of not having opportunities “…to engage in critical reading
discourse due to limited time, large classes, lack of priority in an exam-
based syllabus, or a tradition of not publicly questioning an authority”
(cited in Macknish 2011, p. 448).
Research by Alazzi and Chiodo (2004) reveals that 80% of Jordanian
school children agree that they never learned critical thinking as a skill.
They say that teachers complain about not having ‘enough time’ to teach it
and that the learners care for nothing apart from grades. Alazzi and Chiodo
(2004) also believe that job security has lulled such teachers into settling
for comfortable routines rather than raise self-awareness about teacher
strategies that foster critical thinking, change, or intellectual growth. Their
research also reveals that these teachers have confessed to encouraging the
learning of factual information to pass exams (cited in Bataineh, and
Alazzi, 2009, p. 57; also Issa, 2012, pp. 23,147 on the same point about
the Omani context), because “…using factual information for critical
thinking” can create conflicts in exams when students actually take time to
think, which unfortunately contributes to such concepts as ‘the banking of
education’ (Freire, 1970; cited in Brass, 2010, p. 329), where knowledge
is, as it were, invested by teachers in learners. This has a resonance within
Asian-Arabic contexts because of traditional rules against confronting
respected elders as knowledge-givers (Li & Baldauf, 2012). On the point
of rote-learning within the Arab-Islamic contexts, Al Busaidi (2005)
argues that Arab learners may treasure rote-learning as a principal strategy
because Islamic culture privileges the learning of the Qur’an by
memorization alone (also Al-Issa, 2002), but he emphasizes the need for a
repertoire of skills for these learners’ survival at university level (2005, p.
2). Facione (2011) takes a similar line, saying that “knowledge and skills”
as a modern focus are not enough, and that the objectives of education
need to include intellectual development and a disposition to engage ‘in
thinking for the common good’ that is linked to social responsibility.
The concept of common good has long been part of educational
philosophy. Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC), in Nicomachean Ethics (written
350 BCE), discusses how all human activities aim at ends that are
considered ‘good’ by humans, and how most of these activities may act as
means to higher ends (such as happiness), because one does not seek
happiness for the purpose of achieving something else (Salmeiri, 2009, p.

301-315). Clearly, therefore, education acts as a primary means to the
higher end of living the good life, thinking critically to better one’s life
and the others’. It invariably brings out the idea that education is very
much socially, economically, and, therefore, politically involved (Hirst
(1998, p. 19; cited in Hager, 2005, p. 656). Brunner (1996) explains how
the concept of education extends beyond the boundaries of regular school
matters like curriculum or assessment:
What we resolve to do in school only makes sense when considered in the

broader context of what the society intends to accomplish through its
educational investment in the young. How one conceives of education, we
have finally come to recognize, is a function of how one conceives of
culture and its aims, professed and otherwise.
(Cited in p.ix-x; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2007, p. 39)
The realization of this ‘broader context’ represents policies that

characterize whose voices are heard and whose interests are served (Ball
1994, p. 16; cited in Gale 2003, p. 220). Thus, national and institutional
policies play major roles in influencing the objectives of education. For
instance, in 2003, a UK government higher education policy statement

emphasized that “we need to make better progress in harnessing
knowledge to wealth creation’ (DfES, 2003, p. 2, Walker, 2012, p. 899).
One of the reasons included was that “… higher education is becoming a
global business” (DfES 2003, p. 13; cited in Walker, 2012, p. 899).
Walker stresses that those policies (i.e. the policy-makers’) had not paid
even the minimum attention needed to promote concepts such as social
justice and equality that have for centuries been valued as objectives and
outcomes of education. On the other hand, any system of education may
adopt good policies. Gouldner (1970) once eloquently commented that
“theory is made by the praxis of men in all their wholeness and is shaped
by the lives they live” (cited in Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2007, p. 38), but
implementing them, nationally, institutionally, and individually, can
present challenges and complications that need addressing. Bernstein
(2001) clarifies one such challenge. He says “… all education is a site of
symbolic control, where ‘consciousness, dispositions and desire are
shaped and distributed through norms of communication which relay and
legitimate a distribution of power and cultural categories” (2001, p. 23,
cited in Walker, 2012, p. 905). Consequently, what all these ideas
emphasize is the need for learners to develop criticality so that with critical
awareness they can develop their own identities within their social realms.
As Grande (2000) has written, “the pedagogical is [then] fundamentally
about the way one learns to see oneself in relation to the world”, adding
that “this formation of self is “one of the core struggle concepts of critical
pedagogy” (2000, p. 471; cited in Walker, 2012, p. 905). Thus, the notion
of forming self-identify within social institutions provokes a need for
change in prevailing traditional systems of education that lack a tendency
to promote these notions.
Fortunately, the message has been heard to a certain extent. Many
institutions have begun to teach critical thinking. Mulnix (2010) says that
“colleges and universities are increasingly demanding that their faculties
instill critical thinking skills in undergraduate students” (2010, p. 464; also
Beaumont, 2010, p. 427; UNESCO, 2005b, p. 5, cited in Brunold, 2006, p.
230) though much remains to be done, because research also reveals that
lack of critical thinking skills has been prominent not only among school
or college learners, but also among most faculty members in universities
globally, who either do not really understand the concept or how to teach
it (Richard Paul, 2005; Macknish, 2011, p. 445).
Therefore, it is inevitable that such a demanding global issue remains a
problem across academia. Some education systems that have begun to
address it may also hesitate about both process and content. As Bailin et
al. (1995) stress, “there is a considerable debate about which is the most
adequate and efficacious [procedure]…” (1995, p. 286). Beaumont (2010)
attempts a clarification:
What may be lacking in the ongoing discussion of critical thinking is a way

of translating the skills associated with it into a manageable, flexible, and
usable framework or sequence – one that helps teachers introduce and
reinforce critical thinking skills in their lessons while also helping students
develop their English language proficiency (2010, p. 428).
Another question that arises in relation to the critical thinking courses

offered ‘as separate skills development programmes’ (for example, Qatar
University, 2010; cited in Romanowski & Nasser, 2012; Halpern, 1998) is
whether critical thinking needs to be taught as discipline-specific or
general. Halpern (1998) stresses that fostering critical thinking needs to be
general and that the developed/acquired dispositions and skills transfer
need to happen across disciplines. Hence, the implication is raised that
critical thinking can be, and needs to be, developed through reading,
which involves language, culture, and an individual and collective
construction of knowledge (Vygotsky, 1962: Mayer, 1992; Krashen, 1980;
Grabe & Stoner 2011; cited in Fitzsimmons-Doolan, et al., 2012, p. 258).
Corson (1999) discusses, in particular, the strengths of language as a social
institution:
As a social institution itself, a language is not just an instrumental

convenience made available by chance to individuals. Rather, it is the very
means by which individuals are socialized and from which they develop a
consciousness of themselves: an identity (1999, p. 19).
His stress on language as a means of forming self-identity scaffolds the

idea of using language to develop thinking, i.e. with input from reading to
think, because L2 learners, even at the university level, still need to
process/‘internalize’ concepts through ‘inner talk’. Though language
plays, perhaps, the largest role in one’s development of self, the
interrelated phenomena of culture (Whorf, 1956; cited in Glasersfeld,
2002) and education are also vital. This differs from the situational theory
that suggests that “learning is bound to the situation and therefore transfer
is difficult, if not impossible” (Eggen & Kauchak, 1999; cited in Liu and
Matthews, 2005, p. 285). A transfer of skills occurs across fields because
one does not forget the skills/perspectives learned through culture in a
formal learning environment, but uses them. For example, to recall two of
the points mentioned above, the Arab students’ strategy of ‘memorization’
is influenced to a large extent by their learning of the Holy Qur’an
(Nunan, Walton, & Tyacke 1987; cited in Al-Issa, 2002, p. 23; Al Busaidi,
2005, p. 2). This and the Asian/ Chinese/ Indian learner habit of not
confronting teachers for clarification because it would be culturally
offensive to do so (Li & Baldauf, 2012), shows that a transfer of ‘habits of
mind’ (in Ennis’ words [1996] – the disposition of critical thinking), and a
transfer of skills, do occur. And this is what Vygotsky (1962) insisted on
when he said, “The development of intellect and rationality beyond
situations needs to be the central aim of education” (Liu and Matthews,
2005, p. 392), just as critical thinking developed through reading as a
general skill can be applicable beyond the formal learning situation.
The concept of critical thinking

Intellectuals from different disciplines agree that critical thinking “is a
concept that can be fostered by raising awareness of it gradually” within
individuals (Piaget, 1978; Halpern, 1984, p. 3; Glasersfeld, 2002, p. 190).
The concept has inspired different definitions (Halpern, 1984 in
Psychology, and Bailin, 1999 in Philosophy), as its many aspects portray
diverse kinds of mental processing. Hence, a meaningful but concise
definition by Robert Ennis (1996) that extends across disciplines is very
useful. He defines critical thinking as “reasonable reflective thinking
focused on deciding what to believe or do” (p.166). He emphasizes
“reasonableness, reflection, and the process of making decisions”.

However, it is equally important to understand the uniqueness of critical
thinking. Rudd (2007) says, “though thinking critically utilizes higher
order thinking, critical thinking and higher order thinking are not
equivalent”, indicating that it is related to forms of higher-order processes
such as problem-solving, creative thinking and decision making (p. 48,
cited in Hager, 2005, p. 468). Another difference identified between
critical thinking and problem-solving is that critical thinking tends to focus
more on unspecified problems while problem-solving tends to focus more
on specific issues. Similarly, Mulnix (2012) cites Scriven & Paul’s
(2008a) emphasis on critical thinking as not being universal but subject-
specific according to individual dispositions, concluding that its quality,
therefore, is “a matter of degree”. They also stress that “for this reason, the
development of ‘critical thinking skills and dispositions’ is a life-long
endeavor” (2012, p. 471) affirming the stance of this chapter’s discussion.
To seek the concept’s core assumptions, contemporary perspectives
begin with the post-modernist view that “…meaning resides not in the
object of knowledge but in the process of interpretation” (Stenhouse,
1998; cited in Scott, 2008, p. 38). Embedded in this process of
interpretation, according to Scott (2008), is a constructivist (Vico, 1744;

cited in Glasersfeld, 2002, p. 2 & 13) and a Gadamerian (1975) philosophy
that says “… the process of understanding [therefore] comprises the
incorporation of the strange into the familiar …” that positions the knower
differently in future encounters (2008, p. 38), a point explained through
the concept of ‘assimilation.’
Assimilation in thinking
The knower’s position differs in future encounters as the assimilated
information has created new knowledge (by understanding and therefore,
through thinking). Piaget’s (1976) description of the theory of assimilation
reveals how these concepts are interrelated. He said:
…no behavior, even if it is new to the individual, constitutes an absolute

beginning. It is always grafted onto previous schemes and therefore
amounts to assimilating new elements to already constructed structures
(innate, as reflexes are, or previously acquired (1976, p. 17; cited in
Glasersfeld, 2002, p. 62; Phillips, 1969, p. 8; Mayer, 1992, p. 289).
Assimilation is also not just an acquisition of information but involves

a play of intricacies that Bourdieu (1992) refers to as the knowledge of the
body, i.e. the concept of ‘habitus’ within the ‘field’. For Kaufmann (2005)
it is “the set of resources called the background, which restrains the range
of possible interpretations, imposes categorizations on conscious
experiences, and shapes new events into understandable phenomena”
(p.483).
Critical thinking and the dispositions of thinking

Ennis (1996) insists on differentiating between ‘critical thinking skills’
and ‘dispositions’, stating that a disposition is “…the tendency to do
something, given certain conditions”, whereas a skill encompasses the
knowledge and ability to do something. He presents seven such tendencies
(discussing Perkins, Jay, & Tishman’s [1993] triadic theory) that a critical
thinker by nature embodies (1996, p. 169). Thus, it is recognized that
critical thinking comprises the two significant components of thinking
skills and dispositions toward thinking critically (Bailin, et al., 1998;
Beyer, 1988; Ennis, 1996). Another characteristic revealed by Facione
(2011) is that gender has no influence on the issue. He adds that the
relationship between intelligence (IQ) and critical thinking is also not very
clear due to limited research findings (2011, p. 25).
A significant characteristic of dispositions is that they highlight values.

Mulnix (2010) argues that many have identified moral values (that
contribute to dispositions) as characterizing critical thinking (2011, p.
466). For example, Facione (2011) says “strong critical thinking is not
culturally biased but, rather, [it is a] commitment one makes always to
seek the truth with objectivity, integrity, and fair-mindedness” (2011, p.
14). Secondly, Mulnix (2010) analyzes Paul & Scrivens’ (2008) definition
emphasizing the ten values that a critical thinker depicts. Their list of
values starts with “clarity” and ends with “fairness”; and Mulinix’
argument is that “being fair, being just, and being socially tolerant are
ethical stances that will or will not be justified by the method of critical
thinking” and that critical thinking “does not intrinsically contain a set of
beliefs that are the natural outcomes of applying its method” (2010, p.
472).
However, a plausible argument would be that the rationality developed
through critical thinking and values (clarity, for example) can contribute to
seeking the ethical stances of being fair, just, or socially tolerant, in
addition to individual personal attributes. Research suggests that critical
thinking encompasses both cognitive skills and affective dispositions
(Beyer, 1995; Halpern, 1999; Fisher, 2003). To clarify further, the
affective domain in Bloom’s taxonomy represents “the manner in which
we deal with things emotionally, such as feelings, values, appreciation,
enthusiasms, motivations, and attitudes”, while the specified five

categories (of the taxonomy) include “receiving phenomena” and
“internalizing values” (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964). Therefore, it
is clear that through rational thinking one may ‘internalize the values’ one
might defend in a personal stance when thinking critically. Clearly, these
reasons should indicate the urgent need to re-visit the teaching strategies
and approaches in ESL contexts in order to foster critical thinking skills
through education.
Critical thinking as a concept of education and in teaching

As for fostering critical thinking in teaching and learning, Carr’s
(2010) discussion of Aristotle’s (384-322 BCE) definition of praxis is
central. For Carr, praxis means doing something with the realization of its
being morally worthwhile. Thus, ‘doing’ entails exercising ‘phronesis’,
which he refers to as ‘practical wisdom’, which includes an “alertness,
sensitivity and attunement to the subject” (Smeyers, 2010, p. 215).
Therefore, the ‘doing’ in this context is morally infused. This is linked to
Aristotle’s concept of ‘techne’ that Gadamer (2004) describes as that
“branch of knowledge which fills the gaps nature left for human skill”. It
implies “unlimited and uncontested competence” in achieving a particular
goal, making techne’s performance manifest independent of the moral and
political qualities of human beings (O’Neil, 2004, p. 144). Though such a
brief visit to these three important concepts may not suffice to introduce
them properly in detail, the point I am trying to make is that, to me,
teaching encompasses praxis, phronesis, and techne, in that practice (i.e. of
a profession) essentially comprises an individual’s understanding of a
tradition of knowledge, beliefs based on thoughts (Stenhouse, 1975), the
ability to make meaning, and acting within that tradition for the good of
others. Therefore, I view the vital art of teaching as a practice that engages
learners beyond the mere application of theories to practice through
various tasks; and, for that reason, teachers as individuals involved in
instruction need to epitomize the dispositions that embody their moral
obligations in terms of praxis, practical wisdom and ‘unlimited and
uncontested competence’ in order to “enable learning in learners”
(Shulman 1986). All this inevitably draws attention to teacher education.
Training teachers entails the ‘science of being human’, as Kathy Hytten
(2008) emphasizes (HE 218, 235, 219), and it is my belief that, as teaching
and morality are interrelated, it is required that a teacher should become a
person who ಯsees the world aright and develops those dispositions which
may enable others to do so” (2008, pp. 333-341).

On the point of teaching critical thinking, O’Neil (2004) claims that
contemporary systems of education that desire scientific pedagogies based
on quantifiable analysis of every achievement a learner makes can
seriously undermine the virtues of phronesis, techne, and the natural
sciences. She concludes that
a wise educational policy, therefore, ... takes seriously the possibility that,
without respect for practical wisdom, narrowly defined scientific
rationality, even in pursuit of the noblest of goals, might imperil
educational reform and impoverish education (2004, p.148).
This gives rise, unquestionably, to the point that education policies,

nationally and institutionally, need to consider the creation of individuals
who can think for themselves rather than individuals focused on skills
acquisition alone. Secondly, the added implication is that not only critical
thinking needs to be fostered through education and that reading provides
the best opportunity to do so in ESL education, but that the process needs
to be addressed through context-specific policies.
Critical thinking and reading within ESL contexts

The objectives of many ESL programmes
Almost all ESL teaching programmes available today share the
common objective of preparing learners for their higher education. They
focus on developing the four skills (of reading, writing, listening, and
speaking) and the acquisition of language functions, adding ‘academic
reading and writing’ at later stages within the ESL courses, as “academic
language, or cognitive academic language proficiency, is considered a
decontextualized and dense form of language” (Cummins & Swain, 1986;
cited in Regella 2012, p. 212) that involves “higher order thinking skills”
(Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia 1964).
The subject-specificity that originated from the ‘divided line’ of Plato
(1974/ circa 375 B.C.E, Book VI. 509d–511e; cited in Vandenberg 2009,
p. 158) within higher education programmes, requires the narrowed goals
of academic vocabulary gained through academic reading and writing, on
the assumption that the acquired ‘competence’ leads to ‘performance’
(Chomsky, 1959) across disciplines as skills transfer. Thus, in order to
provide skills enhancement and acquired knowledge practice, many ESL
programmes in colleges and universities are invariably compelled to adopt
the Content-Based Instruction approach (CBI). While the contributing
reasons for the popularity of such approaches can vary from the outcomes
of ESL programmes being swayed by the national and institutional
objectives (to be in the form of mass production of human capital) to
individual philosophies of teaching (perhaps to cover the class syllabus), it
is least surprising that the concept of fostering critical thinking goes
unnoticed, oblivious to what Grabe and Stoller (2011) emphasized, i.e.
that “reading has the capacity to develop critical thinking” (cited in
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, et al., 2012, p. 259).
Reading with criticality

Research supports the view that the virtues of reading make an endless
list. Among them, a primary characteristic that programme-based readings
should carry is reading content of an appropriate level, as Krashen’s
(1980) Monitor Hypothesis (i+1) recognizes. Though monitor hypothesis
has been much debated (such as McLaughlin, 1987, p. 55; cited in Block
2003, p. 20), the concept of i+1 is still embraced in many professional
contexts, because level-appropriate content that does not distract learners
with challenging content and language offers the chance to stimulate
learning, triggering higher-order thinking skills. Supporting this, Chamot

(2009) stresses that reading materials are required to present cognitively
demanding material that suggests complexity (cited in Fitzsimmons-
Doolan, et al., 2012, p. 261) so that they stimulate ‘the dispositions of
thinking’ to activate critical thinking. In addition, there is Grabe &
Stoller’s (2011) view that the vital role of ‘reading content’ needs to be
seen as “providing rethinking connections and engaging in realistic tasks
that require interpretation, syntheses, and evaluation” (Fitzsimmons-
Doolan, et al., 2012, p. 261). Moreover, Macknish (2011) highlights the
virtues of reading and reading critically in detail, showing how critical
reading leads to critical thinking. She argues that “these understandings of
critical reading tend to be associated with critical thinking skills whereby
texts are evaluated analytically for logic and credibility” (Cotter & Sacco
Tally, 2009; Fisher, 1997; Paul, 1995; Ripley, 2007; Spears, 2003; cited in
2011, p. 445), which many academic programmes have the capacity to
adopt, since academic texts require not only understanding of content and
vocabulary but also analytical perspectives at discourse level. For these
academic readings, though subject-related, are still contextualized, and
understanding a text is context-specific as much as content-specific
because education is very much a socio-cultural and political enterprise, as
argued throughout this discussion.
Reading with discourse awareness to promote criticality

Though the virtues of reading treasured today may have been passed
on from time-honored traditions of teaching and learning, the state of flux
that the contemporary contexts of education are in demands more
understanding and criticality from learners as future stakeholders in their
societies. Hence, the knowledge, awareness, and real-life experiences that
form a learner’s background (schemata) play central roles in an
individual’s understanding of how to make meaning and Stoller & Grabe
(1997) say that “such linkage contributes to course coherence”
(Fitzsimmons-Doolan, et al., 2012, p. 261) when learners are able to make
links between the objectives and outcomes of reading (learning) and real-
life objectives. Thus, with the realization that real-life objectives are
embedded in the idea of contextual awareness, many ESL discourses have
made attempts to shift from a skills-focused approach to a socio-cultural
approach (Heath, 1983; Street, 1984; cited in Macknish, 2011, p. 445) that
was promoted by the need for “ಹ a critical literacy that would critique
language and power relations and pursue social change or transformation”
(Fairclough 2001; cited in Van Jik 2008). Similarly, describing a key
element of critical pedagogies, Kincheloe (2004) maintains that they are

“grounded in a social and educational vision of justice and equality” and
“therefore of the potential of education to transform individuals and
society” (Walker, 2012, p. 899). This, to a certain extent, contrasts with
Freire’s (1987) perception that “formal education ... cannot really be the
lever for the transformation of society” (1987, pp. 46, 129) because there
are many other elements at play involving education, as discussed above.
However, the two comments contribute to clear the assumption that
engaging in critical reading and, therefore, critical thinking, cannot be
considered an anti-social act, an opinion Bataineh and Alazzi (2009) found
among Jordanian teachers, but rather as critically assessing the strengths
and weaknesses of social institutions in order to better them.
Interpretations of the objectives of reading that affect

learner criticality
As critical reading has gathered acclaim around the world, universities,
colleges and schools have begun to include fostering critical thinking as an
objective of their education policies (Romanowski & Nasser, 2012).
Research supports the view that most universities actually emphasize, and
even support, the need for fostering critical thinking and critical reading
(Mulnix, 2012; Benesch, 2011; Halpern, 1998). However, it is argued that
during implementation, actual fostering of the concept does not take place
during formal teaching hours. According to Macknish (2011), it is not
prioritized, either in ESL reading courses (p. 448) or in teaching ESL
reading in general, due to reasons that range from teacher perspectives and
awareness to institutional policy implementation. In Macknish’s (2011)
words, as a professional engaged in teaching:
Despite one of the objectives of approaching texts critically in this

(Reading) course, no definition of critical reading was provided in the
course materials, nor were there any clear expectations, tasks, or
assessment tools for critical reading (2011:444).
Similarly, Wallace (2003) stresses that “many ESL reading courses

focus on decoding surface features of texts and teaching discrete skills for
mastery of linguistic structure” (2003, p. 4), as it is no secret that many
Asian discourses consider it their primary target to prepare learners to face
examinations (by regurgitating knowledge) rather than to be able to think
critically (Li & Baldauf, 2012). May Shih (1999) adds that “in China, a
reading course is in fact a course that uses reading to develop linguistic
knowledge” (1999, p. 24), which is a commonly acknowledged way of
teaching ESL in many other contexts as a result of an excessive focus on

grammar. Macknish (2011) strongly affirms that her “own observation is
that many ESL teachers do not help students develop critical reading (that
leads to criticality) because they do not have time” (2011, p. 449).
Moreover, to give an example from the local context, many teachers at the
Language Centre at Sultan Qaboos University (2012, Oman) stress that
grammar teaching needs to be a discrete practice (that they can make use
of) to raise awareness of content within a reading, rather than the ‘reading’
(i.e. the reading text) being used to teach grammatical points. Thus, to
refer to Elkins and Luke’s (1999) point, though they relate to a native-
speaker learner situation, ‘‘in a culture where texts are there to position,
define, sell, and, indeed, manipulate and shape a population at every turn,
to give students anything less than a fully critical literacy would be to
abrogate our responsibility as educators’’ (cited in Macknish, 2011:215).
Perceptions of native-speakers on ESL learners’ criticality

Criticality among ESL learners is not only an internal affair because of
their connectivity with the outside world. It matters to the international
community in learning and teaching and any other professional level.
Native-speaker perceptions of ESL learner criticality do not appear mild.
Richards and Skelton’s (1991) observations reveal that “overseas students
evaluate less, and evaluate less critically. They also evaluate at a lower
standard’’ (1991, p. 40; cited in Macknish, 2011, p. 448). Undoubtedly,
these observations may have risen from extensive research, though a
number of reasons can cause such poor levels of criticality for non-native
speaker learners competing with native speakers. These reasons can vary
from individual characteristics, cultural backgrounds, lack of schemata (in
relation to past local-UK references), inadequate language skills, or
physical attributes, to reading evaluation anxiety. Meldrum’s (2000) idea
is that international students’ problems with criticality lie in the
differences between educational background and culture” and “in lack of
confidence in using the language” (2000, p. 170, cited in Macknish 2011,
p. 448). An equally concerned Corson (1999) points out how “an
individual’s reading is affected by individual cultures and societies in
conceptual understanding in creating knowledge”. He adds that “even the
private language (i.e. ‘inner talk’ Vygotsky, 1962) in which much of our
thinking is conducted is fueled by social exchanges: to a very real extent,
our capacity to think depends on the many previous dialogues we have
had”. This (1999, pp. 18-21) affirms Atkinson’s implication (1997) that
criticality is a cultural phenomenon (cited in Macknish 2011, p. 448).
Hence, it brings out the idea that certain cultures foster certain dispositions
in individuals involuntarily through socio-economic and political
discourse that lead to criticality in individuals. For example, different
modes of transmission such as reading (local/international), speaking
(formal and informal), and the media can provoke thought and argument
in self, whereas individuals in a culture without such exposure will lose
such opportunities to foster the concept.
It compels a closer look at how the culture of Oman promotes the
notion and, in doing so, one may argue that, due to the prevailing social
hierarchical system (seen in the “father of the family has the last word”
concept: Hussain, 2012), fostering criticality within social life is a
debatable idea. To add to that, the Omani learners’ reputation on critical
functioning in their academic settings has been somewhat marred by the
label ‘teacher and material dependent’ to a large extent (Nunan & Tycke,
1986, cited in Al Issa, 2002; Al Busaidi, 1995, p. 2). On the other hand, it
is hoped that the situation is being improved and that further and new
research in the field in relation to the concept may reveal so, as the data
discussed here are dated.
Fostering critical thinking through reading

in a constructivist paradigm
As “a way of understanding teaching and learning” (Phillips 1995),

constructivism has been popular among educators all over the world and
has made a great contribution towards knowledge creation. The paradigm
of constructivism is also representative of different types of understanding
extended by intellectuals spanning decades. However, a notion widely
accepted is that learning needs to be located socially for collaboration
between socio-cultural influences and constraints in the making of
meaning. It is a given that such situations involve education in formal
settings and that, as Vygotsky (1962) pointed out, “three elements are
[thus] always active: the environment, the student, and the teacher”
(Davydov 1995, cited in Liu and Matthews 2005, p. 392). Dewey (1996)
also thought so:
[T]he only way in which adults consciously control the kind of education
which the immature get is by controlling the environment in which they
act, and hence think and feel. We never educate directly, but indirectly by
means of the environment (Dewey 1996; cited in Biesta, 1997, p. 92).
To link reading to a controlled environment clearly presents ideal

opportunities for learning such as through selected themes, content,
context, teacher guidance, input, and time. A significant feature of this

collaboration is that it can simultaneously contribute to the development of
critical thinking skills and wider analytical skills. On the point of
consciousness, Vygotsky (1987) says that “consciousness is not the ability
of an individual to know all the ontological answers to the universe, rather,
it is the ability to perceive meaningfully” (1987, p. 190; cited in
Glasersfeld, 2002, p. 18), given that to understand that meaningful
perception can contribute to the enhancing of criticality in reading when
constructing meaning through a text.
Reading can take learners from a non-meaningful situation to a
meaningful one, because it facilitates acquisition of concepts in context.
Martha Nussabaum’s (1994) comments capture the essence of this. She
says, “learning something without it being in context includes interaction
that will lead to impoverished imaginations” (Holland and Phelps, 2011, p.
345). On the same point, concepts being contextualized enables readers to
visualize what is being read, as visualizing is an important aspect in
concept formation and knowledge construction for all learners.
Rosenblatt’s (1985) rationale on knowledge building matters to all ESL
readers as their education involves equal weight on aesthetic and academic
reading (from school to the university level and beyond). Rosenblatt
opines that “the ‘object’ on which the [aesthetic] reader concentrates is not
‘verbal’, but experiential; the ‘object’ is the cognitive and affective
structure which the reader calls forth and lives through (1985, p. 102,
Glasersfeld 2000, p. 145). And going back in centuries in relation to the
concept shows that Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) discussed how knowledge
engages ‘vision’ and therefore how knowledge building becomes visual
for learners rather than words in creating their own interpretations of the
world through a reading within a constructivist paradigm. Thus, to link the
phenomena involved here, as the disposition of critical thinking connotes,
reading can stimulate the tendency to think critically (Ennis, 1996) within
and beyond the text.
Fostering the concept in teaching and learning

within the context
Given the belief that “the idea of the university has stood for universal
themes – of knowing, of truthfulness, of learning, of human development,
and of critical reason” (Barnett 2005, p. 785) – a university, irrespective of
context, must not fail to promote such a concept as critical thinking not
only for the economic, social, or political reasons discussed above but
because failure to do so also signifies failure of the academy. In observing
how and how well the institutional objectives are realized according to the
outcomes of university education, Vandenberg (2003) philosophized on
these aspects. He asked:
What is knowledge good for? It opens one to the world as it opens the
world to one. It lets the being of the world and the being of the students
come into being. At least good knowledge, truth, enables one’s being in the
world as it enables the being of the world (Jones, 1977, p. 22; Soreghan,
2005; cited in Vandenberg, 2003, p. 164).
Undoubtedly, though all universities encourage good teaching that

guides learners, it is also necessary to recognize the input of efficient
teachers in fostering criticality, because autonomous professionals with
heightened awareness can be assets where national or institutional
recognition falls short. Hence, teacher education and training programmes
(again, the matter of policy, too) need to foster critical thinking
dispositions within future teachers so that they can focus on developing
the concept within their learners. After all, as Harry Broudy (1961) said,
“each discipline has its own method of investigation,” and “to persuade
the learner to perceive, classify, and relate as does the expert in a given
domain of knowledge is the unabashed objective of the realistic teaching
method” (1961, p. 323, 339–340; cited in Vandenberg, 2009, p. 160).
On the same point, weighing the options available in a context of
education such as that of Oman, teaching approaches matter immensely

because of the cultural diversity that brings out a copious amount of socio-
cultural implications for teachers and learners alike. Therefore, it becomes
a necessity to make critical thinking skills instruction an explicit part of
the curriculum, preferably at both university and school level. The idea of
developing critical thinking early is supported by Piaget’s (1956) cognitive
stage development theory which explains that the cognitive abilities of
children develop and grow along with their maturation.
On the point of achieving the key objectives that SQU recognizes on
its homepage (www.squ.edu.om, 2012), the extract below shows that it is
perhaps only, or mainly, through reading that one is able to achieve such
in-depth perspectives within a discipline. The extract reads as follows:
x Preparation of Omani youth who are strong in morals, committed to

scientific inquiry, qualified academically, and trained to be self-
dependent and ready for continuous service to their country.
x Preparation of creative and innovative Omani youth who are
lifelong self-learners.
x Provision of specialists and experts on Oman in diverse fields,

taking into account the changing need of the marketplace and
working within the framework of state policy on resource
development” (www.squ.edu.om 2012).
In addition to these objectives being universal expectations, they may

also have clearly originated from deep-seated religious, cultural, and
national attitudes. They display that the aim is to take the country into the
forefront of the world - a significant reason for those objectives to be
achieved through the sincere efforts of teachers and learners alike.
Conclusion
This discussion began by establishing the existing need to develop
critical thinking among learners in ESL contexts. It is a need that has
existed throughout human history. What it means to be critical today has
changed according to the needs of the times, just as the quality of
education has. The many interpretations of education, involving social,
economic and political phenomena, have influenced the concept of
criticality, and its need. Among the key approaches to fostering the idea,
reading flaunts the capability of enhancing awareness of wider contextual
phenomena. A closer look at the ESL context of Oman and the
implementation of policies and practices reveals the fact that the many
interpretations of education available hinder rather than foster the concept
of criticality, suggesting a need to recognize the importance of teaching
critical thinking as a course objective. Above all, it suggests an
outstanding need for clarity in approaches to education in order to achieve
this objective.
This discussion perhaps, in a broader way, raises awareness of the
concept within the Omani context; but it remains a fact that reading needs
to be identified as the most resourceful, facilitating, and enabling universal
practice that enables learners to think and to make use of a resulting
criticality beyond discipline-specific situations and, therefore, in life.
References
Al Busaidi, K. (1995). English in the labor market in multilingual Oman
with special reference to Omani employees. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Exeter, UK.
Al-Issa, A. and Al Balushi, A. (2012). English language teaching reforms
in the Sultanate of Oman: The case of theory and practice disparity.
Educational Research and Policy Practice, 11, 141-176, doi:

10.1007/s10671-011-9110-0.
Al-Issa, A. (2002). An ideological and discursive analysis of English
language teaching in the Sultanate of Oman. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Queensland, Australia.
Aristotle’s Political Theory (2012). Stanford Encyclopaedia. Retrieved
July 5, 2012 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/.
Bailin, S. et al. (1998). Common misconceptions of critical thinking
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (3), 269-283. Retrieved March 5th
2012 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002202799183124.
Ball, S. J. (2007). Big policies/small world: An introduction to
international perspectives on education policy. In Lingard, B. Ozga, J.
(eds), The Routledge Falmer Reader in education policy and politics
(pp.36-45). Oxford: RoutledgeFalmer.
Barnett, R. (2005). Recapturing the Universal in the University.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37 (6), 2005.
Bataineh, O., Alazzi, K. (2009). Perceptions of Jordanian secondary
school teachers towards critical thinking. International Education 38
(2), ProQuest Education Journals.
Biesta, G.J.J. (1997). “Education, not initiation” in Margonis, F (Ed.),
Philosophy of Education 1996 (pp. 90-98). Urbana, Illinois:
Philosophy of Education Society.
Beaumont, J. (2010). A sequence of critical thinking tasks. TESOL

Journal 1 (4), December 2010 doi: 10.5054/tj.2010.234763.
Beyer, B. K. (1995). Critical thinking. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
—. (1985). Critical thinking: What is it? Social Education, 49, 270-276.
Block, D. (2003) The social turn in second language acquisition
Edinburgh: EUP.
Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, J. (2007). An invitation to reflexive sociology.
Chicago: Polity Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Brass, J. (2010). The sweet tyranny of creating one’s own life: Rethinking
power and freedom in English teaching. Theory of Education, 6 (6),
713 – 718, Retrieved March 14, 2012 from http://www.swetswise.com.
eresources.shef.ac.uk/FullTextProxy/swproxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fo
nlinelibrary.wiley.com.
Brunold, A. (2006). The United Nations decade of education for
sustainable development, its consequences for international political
education, and the concept of global learning. International Education
Journal, 7 (3), 222-234. ISSN 1443-1475 Retrieved on September 8

2012 from http://iej.com.au 222.
Carr, K. S. (1988). How can we teach critical thinking? Childhood
Education, Winter vol., 69-73.
Centre for Critical Thinking (1996). The role of questions in thinking,
teaching, and learning. Retrieved September 20, 2010 from http://
www.criticalthinking.org/University/univlibrary/library.nclk.
Corson, D. (1999). English only and social justice. TESOL Journal, 8
(3),18-22, doi: 10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00189.x.
Critical Thinking. Retrieved July 30, 2009 from http://www.critical
thinking.org/assessment/a-model-nal-assessment-hot.cfm.
English Foundation Programme Documents. (2010-2011), Sultan Qaboos
University, Oman.
Ennis, R. H. (1987). A taxonomy of critical thinking dispositions and
abilities. In J. Baron & R. Sternberg (eds.), Teaching thinking skills:
Theory and practice (pp. 9-26). New York: W.H. Freeman.
Facione, P. A. (2011) Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why it Counts.
Retrieved on September 8, 2012 from https://docs.google.com/a/
sheffield.ac.uk/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Cai9Xa4LAjsJ:www.insightasse
ssment.com/pdf_files/what%26why2006.pdf+&hl=en&gl=om&pid=bl
&srcid=ADG.
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, et al. (2012). Extended non-fiction readers for EAP
programmes, TESOL Journal, 3 (2), June 2012 doi: 10.1002/tesj.17.

Glasersfeld, E.V. (2002). Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and
learning. London: Routledge Falmer.
Hager, P. (2005). Philosophical accounts of learning, Educational
Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 37(5), 2005.
Halpern, D. F. (1984). Thought and knowledge: An Introduction to critical
Thinking (4th Edition). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
—. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains:
Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring.
American Psychologist, 53 (4), 449-455.
Holland, K. and Phelps, D. (2011). Cultivating the philosophical
imagination: Experiencing the limits of language with Wittgenstein,
Foucault, and Habermas. Philosophy of Education Yearbook 2011
(pp.343-353). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Philosophy of Education
Society.
Hussain, T. (2012). Omani traditions: Interview. CCE Discussions, SQU,
Oman.
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, S. and Masia, B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational
objectives, Book 2: Affective domain. New York: Longman.
Li, M. & Baldauf, R. (2012), Beyond the curriculum: A Chinese example

of issues constraining effective English language teaching”, TESOL
Quarterly, 45 (4), 783-803.
Liu, C. and Matthews, R. (2005). Vygotsky’s philosophy: Constructivism
and its criticisms examined. International Education Journal, 2005, 6
(3), 386-399. ISSN 1443-1475 © 2005 Shannon Research Press.
Macknish, C. (2011). Understanding critical reading in an ESL class in
Singapore. TESOL Journal, 2 (4), 444 – 472. doi: 10.5054/tj.2011.
269747.
Meyer, R. F. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
O’Neil, L. (2004). Method’s web: Gadamer’s corrective and educational
policies, Philosophy of Education, 142-149.
Paul, R. (1993). Critical thinking: What every student needs to survive in
A Rapidly Changing World. Retrieved July 24, 2009 from www.
criticalthinking.org/about/nationalCouncil.cfm.
Phillips, J. L. (1969). Origins of intellect: Piaget’s theory. USA: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Regalla, M. (2012). Language objectives: More than just vocabulary,
TESOL Journal, 3 (2), 210 – 230.
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London:
Routledge.
Romanowski, M. & Nasser, R. (2012). How critical thinking is taught in

Qatari independent schools’ social studies classrooms: Teachers’
perspectives, International Jounrnal of Education, 4 (1), 68-92. doi:
10.5296/ije.v.4il1304.
Salmieri, G. (2009). Aristotle’s non-dialectical methodology in the
Nicomachean Ethics, Ancient Philosophy, 29, 301-315.
Shih, M. (1999). More than practicing language: Communicative reading
and writing for Asian settings. TESOL Journal, 8 (4), 22-25 doi:
10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00207.x.
The Objectives. (2012). Sultan Qaboos University Home page. Retrieved
September, 30, 2012 from http://www.squ.edu.om/tabid/2243/language
/en-US/Default.aspx.
The National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking (1996).
Retrieved March 6, 2012 from http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/
the-national-council-for-excellence-in-critical-thinking/406.
Vandenberg, D. (2009). Critical thinking about truth in teaching: The
epistemic ethos, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41 (2), 2009.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00393.x.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis. In The handbook of

discourse analysis. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen and H. E. Hamilton (eds).
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. doi: 10.1002/97804707534
60.ch19.
Walker, M. (2012). Critical capability pedagogies and university
education, International Journal of Education 2012, 4(1), ISSN 1948-
5476.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
PART VI
TESTING READING

Focusing - On - EFL - Reading - Theory - and - Practice PArt V

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Focusing - On - EFL - Reading - Theory - and - Practice PArt V

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

BEYOND MERE TEXTUAL UNDERSTANDING:

VIJAY SINGH THAKUR

Right education will teach you how to be yourself, authentically yourself.

produce knowledge (rather than merely reproduce it) in order to survive,

Keywords: skeptical approach, aggressive reading, critical thinking, long-

2. Reading and thinking: an interface

achieving this, thinking skills – as a prerequisite – must be advanced from

3. From aggressive reading to a mature reader

4. How to x-ray reading materials

of central meaning. Furthermore, we will also discover that our

5. A skeptical approach to reading

matter how perceptive, clear, or accurate, is, manifestly, not enough. To be

“Critical reading”, a well-known expert, Dr. Francis Triggs, says (in

The type of reading required for critical evaluation is a complex form of

To gain the broad and rich background of which Hester speaks, we

reacting skeptically to what we read, and to broaden our background

reading after a certain age or completion of their formal education. They

8. Fruitful activities to promote a skeptical approach

x We can explore views and opinions on news stories from different

interpretations of thematically fore-grounded punch lines in literary

9. The need for a long-term reading programme

If a vibrant reading atmosphere and critical reading culture are

Interactive language teaching (pp.70-82). United Kingdom:

FROM DEAD PAGE

NAYYER IQBAL ALI CHANDELLA

acquired learning is essential. It means opportunities to examine attitudes,

learning ‘space’ where everyone’s voice is heard, their presence

Keywords: critical literacy, close reading, intertextuality, T/S model,

Muhammad Ibn Sahnun thinks there are two ways of making

strategies, creativity and independence (UAE Ministry of Education,

This confirms the importance of my research focus. I believe, for

However, despite the importance of dialogueic education based on

Socrates (questioning dialogue), there was Aristotle (experiments and

3. Social references and issues of power

meanings evolve and are surrounded by power structures and culture,

4. Culture and context

some examples of innovative work, using Freire’s concept of

5. Linking Constructivism and Socio-cultural Theory

meaning is determined by social situation and constructed between

6. Socratic ideals and Maieutike

All these models celebrate dialogue through which a student becomes a

7. Construction of new perspectives

Critical and social theorists have challenged the notion of what it

understanding. Hence my paper tries to address a concern about the gap

8. From theory to practice

(transformation), social references and issues of power (contextual

Figure 1: Resistance & barriers

We must respect and nurture the individual in our students so that as

in literature major and advanced composition classes and thus could

majority were eager talkers.

10. Descriptions of the dialogueic reading sessions

Due to space limitation, I can only briefly discuss the dialogueic

“The Bamboo Blind”

These were Farhan’s comments as we walked to the class for a

had hoped for.

(Even if a point raised by a student didn’t seem relevant at the time it

11. Farhan, students and power dynamics

appreciation (Hmm) or asked for other possibilities (Any other ideas?). At

We as teachers are sometimes driven by the desire to enforce our ideas.

continued to play a central role by guarding the marginalized. Transcripts

Our teacher contributes to learning….We feel motivated because he is

Students saw Farhan as an open-minded supporter. One called Umna