Question:

 Are  there  specific  stages   Not  explored:  CL  &  

Question:  How  do  CL  skills   In-­‐service  teachers’  attitudes  changed  
of  development?   aboriginal  students.    
develop  and  advance?     Not  explored:  Differences  
as  they  explored  the  meaning  and  
between  y oung  students  VS  
potentiality  of  literacy  education.  
Recognised  the  sexualisation  and   older  students’  abilities.    
degradation  of  women  in  popular  rap  
Not  explored:  
videos  as  well  as  that  there  are  many  
Came  to  understand  how  authors   Students’  VS  
perspectives  on  this  issue  –  situated   Introducing  CL  to  in-­‐ Question:  Are  teachers’  
construct  texts  to  position  r eaders  &  
knowledge.   Enabled  perspective  taking     teachers’  c ritical   negative  beliefs  about  CL  
that  they  do  not  have  to  accept  the   service  teachers  (Lee  
  interpretation  of   legitimate  issues?    
ideologies  presented  in  texts  .   &  Runyan  2011).  
texts.  
African  American   th th
  Year  4  students  
11  &  12  grade  white  
Question:  What  level  of  thinking  
females  (age  17-­‐19)   students’  perspective  taking  
(DeNicolo  &   Political  aspect  of  CL  troubles  teachers;   Question:  Does  CL  effect   (Blooms  taxonomy)  do  normal  
Not  explored:  How  students’  CL   (Richardson  2007).   (Haertling,  Beach  &  Parks  
  Franquiz  2006;   view  children  as  innocent,  naive  and  in   academic  achievement?     literacy  lessons  VS  lessons  that  
skills  change  with  age/   2007).   need  of  protection;  &  fear  that  a  CL  
experience?   Green  &   promote  CL  encourage?    
curriculum  will  have  negative  impacts  on  
  Cochrane  2003).   students  (Comber  2001).  

  Children  can  r ecognise   Middle  school     Concerns  about  parents  disapproval  of  certain  books   Need  to  include  critical  literacy  within  
how  they  are   and  topics,  protecting  the  innocence  of  students,  and  
High  school     Access  to  educational   the  general  capability  “Literacy”  
positioned  by  texts   the  negatively  influence  that  certain  texts  may  have  on  
(ACARA  2011).  
  and  can  understand   students  beliefs  and  behavours  (Schmidt,  Armstrong  &   discourse  (Sharp  2012).  
matters  of  equity  (Hall   Everett  2007).  
Were  able  to  jointly  
question  a   nd  discuss  how   1998).    
Infants/early  years     Age  groups    
texts  are  produced  to   Students  who  did  not  have  access  
manipulate  r eaders.   Removes  educational  
  Improves  academic  outcomes     to  the  dominant  language  or  
Teacher  hesitations       disadvantage  (Janks  2001;  
discourse  performed  worse  
2004;  Sharp  2012).  

CL th  c
3-­‐5  year  olds   academically  (Janks  2004).  

 te on
wi
  To  what  

xt tro
Question:  

s  d
(Vasquez  2007)   To  aid  in  developing  informed  

on vers
extent  can  young   Identify  and  clarify  

’t   ial
Importance     critical  c itizens  (ACARA  2011).  

ha  is
ideological  
  critically  
children   Question:  Does  the  

ve su
 to es  
perspective  
‘Access  Paradox’  

 d  
analyse  texts?    

ea
(Boutte  2002).   A  w “Access  Paradox”  

l  
a
  you y  to  
en To  acquire  cultural/linguistic   explains  disadvantage  
explain  trends  in  
ng  
stu gage Critical Literacy (CL) Need  access  to  
capital  (Janks  2001;  2004).   school  drop-­‐outs?  
To  engage  young  children   den   CL  discourse     (Janks  2004).  
ts    
  in  CL  (Boutte  2002).   Picture  books      
Not  explored:  CL  and  the  
Recognise  ideologies  embedded  in   Question:  Can  CL  positively  
internet,  TV,  photographs  
      texts  (Comber  2001;  Boutte  2002).   Produces  the  understanding  
or  multimodal  texts. affect  how  students  
Question:  What  is  the   that  other,  discourses  and  
interact  with  people  from  
most  effective  way  to   Multimodal  texts/   Literature  Types     Classroom  Practice     ideologies  are  legitimate  and  
  teach  students  how   Multiliteracies  (Siu-­‐ teaches  how  to  work  within  
diverse  backgrounds?  
Indirect    
to  critically  analyse   Runyan  2007)   Every  day  texts   diverse  systems  (Luke  &  
  multimodal  texts?     Carpenter  2003).  
(Vasquez  2007)   Student-­‐run  literacy  circles   Critical  Features  Guide  
Student-­‐  vs.  
 
Students   should  be  encouraged   teacher-­‐  led    
around  texts  (DeNicolo  &  
1. Main  area  of  research  identified  
Illustrative  texts   Snack  package   Franquiz  2006)   Enables  students  to  negotiate  the  meaning  
(dark  purple)  
to  critically  analyse  political  
Multicultural     (Vasquez  2007)   Direct     embedded  in  texts  and  share  perspectives  
photographs  
  (Janks  2012).   Mass-­‐media   on  racial  discrimination.   2. Different  pockets  of  research  
(Richardson  2007)   identified  (blue)  
Authentic  convocations  driven  by  
  Causes  students  to  question  
Texts  selected  based  on   Conversations  forces  students  to  
3. Sub-­‐pockets  of  research  
discriminatory  events   nge   students  (McCloskey  2012).  
in  text  challe identified,  if  present  (pink)  
Not  explored:  At   what  age  
CL  occurs  w
hen  Events   students’  interest   shift  perspective.  
(DeNicolo  &  Franquiz  2006).     “C rit ica l  
  be   erstanding  – increased  likelihood  of   4. Key  research  findings  outlined  
can/should  students   students  und   2000).  
encouraged  to  critically   te rs”   (Appleman   engaging  in  CL  practices  .  
enco un (aqua)  –  NOTE:  each  of  these  is  
analyse   political  photographs?   Produces  tension   Reading  doesn’t  =   Asking/answering  seven   Question:  Which  
between  beliefs  
a  conclusion  derived  from  a  
understanding  à  recreated   Need  for  explicit  teaching   preconceived  questions,  linguistic   type  of  CL  approach  
and  those  in  text   characters  in  their  own   analysis,  text  clustering/comparing,  
formal  research  STUDY  (not  
(Sharp  2012).   has  greater  
(Haertling,  et  al.   image  (Dressel  2005).   visual  analysis  and  joint  construction   just  something  someone  w rote  
benefits?  
2007).   Often  r ejected  text   activities  (Green  &  Cochran  2003).     in  an  article).  As  such,  each  of  
events  which  
Haertling,  et  al.  
n er  
  these  should  have  a  reference  
conflicted  with  their   Don’t  need  to  look  at  
ear
(2007)  explains  
beliefs.   s  c
o-­‐l controversial  issues.     to  a  PRIMARY  source.  
Dressel’s  (2005)   a
Only  subtle   er  
results.   Te
ach Deconstruction  and   5. Existing  gaps  in  the  literature  
transformations  in  
reconstruction  of  text  through   Pre-­‐test  <10%  adopted  critical   (orange)  
students’  understandings  
stance,  post-­‐test  75%  did.  
occurred.  
textual  analysis  activities   6. Links  drawn  between  consistent  
(Vasquez  2007).  
and  contradictory  findings  
Strategies  =  identify  characters  who  
are  disadvantaged  d ue  to  their   (purple)  
membership  to  a  non-­‐dominant  
Scaffolding  activities  allowed  
Can  Metacognitive   7. Although  not  strictly  necessary,  
cultural  group;  teacher's  role   as  co-­‐
Question:  How  does  CL   learner;  opportunities  to  interact   Further  research  is  required  to  see   students  of  all  levels  engage  in  CL.   thinking  influence  how   general  conclusions  based  on  
change  the  nature  of  literacy   with  people  from  diverse   the  effects  of  student  preferred  texts   students  critically  evaluate   synthesis  of  the  literature  are  
backgrounds.   texts?    
in  primary  classrooms?     as  curriculum  materials  in   also  identified  (green)  
encouraging  CL.