Developing Critical Learners

The theme of this week’s readings is to help teachers raise cultural awareness in students and to develop a critical approach to pedagogy.  Chapter 26 of Brown described what it meant for teachers to use a critical pedagogy.  Critical teachers determine the power implications in language teaching and help students see these political and societal connections (Brown 513).  These teachers do not robotically follow the curriculum; they change the curriculum to correct inequalities in society.  They understand that language itself symbolizes power, and they also make students aware of this connection.  They inform students that 80% of websites are in English even though the vast majority of internet users in the world are not native English speakers (Kumar 240).  The fact that people need English to acquire information about other topics underscores the implied superiority of English compared to other languages.  

Teachers need to do more than simply alert students to inequalities in society; they need to help change the perspectives of students by helping students learn to analyze all sides and perspectives of an issue.  It is essential that teachers present all sides of issues and not just a different side.  Presenting one side of an issue—even if it is a unique side—is still biased.  Teachers need to be as neutral as possible in the language classroom (Brown 519).  They help students develop the skills they need to create social change, but they do not coerce students into carrying out specific changes.  It is implied that education is influenced by political motives.  But how corrupt would it be if teachers used students to carry out their own unique political agendas?  For this reason, teachers need to keep their personal beliefs out of the classroom.

Kumar expands on Brown’s discussion by describing the biases of traditional teaching materials and textbooks.  These materials do not offer the various perspectives and influences that students need to develop critical thinking skills.  Even the textbooks that do offer alternative perspectives are often flawed because they ignore “multicultural and subcultural variations within national or linguistic boundaries” (Kumar 268).  This is one of the biggest problems in U.S. language education.  Even when teachers think they are promoting diversity, they are perpetuating stereotypes by labeling all members of a culture in a similar manner.  For example they may create unfair stereotypes by saying things like, “Mexican like to eat tacos; Spaniards take naps after lunch called siestas.”  There are a wide variety of foods eaten in Mexico that go beyond the Taco Bell menu.  Having lived in Spain, I know that many Spaniards use this time off work after lunch to spend time with family, to do chores, or to continue working.  Does it bother you when people from other countries say things like “Americans are lazy”?  It is equally offensive to people in other countries when they are labeled the same way by Americans.  To avoid this kind of stereotyping, teachers and students need to develop critical cultural consciousness.  This concept calls for people to recognize that no one culture embodies the best or worst of human experience (271).  Furthermore, not all people living within the boundaries of a culture embody the common characteristics of people in that culture.  Both teachers and students need to recognize that people will not act a certain way just because of the language they speak or the color of their skin.  This should be a major tenet of language education.