When Students Choose their Own Sponsor of Literacy – a Critical Perspective
Matthiesen, Christina LU
(2017)
11th ARLE International Conference
- Abstract
- Fundamental to critical literacy is not only a focus on ideology critique, but also a commitment to the inclusion of culturel and linguistic minorities as well as an engagement with discourse in the construction of social and materiale relations, everyday culture and political life (Luke, p. 6). In addition, Ira Shor highlights values such as ”participatory”, ”affective”, ”situated”, ”multicultural”, ”dialogic”, ”desocializing” and ”democratic” (Shor, p. 17). The literate practice of student-driven imitation indeed holds these values (Matthiesen) – for instance by asking the student to find and select a textual model herself which she would like to learn from, that is, in other words her own sponsor of literacy (Brandt). Yet, the literate... (More)
- Fundamental to critical literacy is not only a focus on ideology critique, but also a commitment to the inclusion of culturel and linguistic minorities as well as an engagement with discourse in the construction of social and materiale relations, everyday culture and political life (Luke, p. 6). In addition, Ira Shor highlights values such as ”participatory”, ”affective”, ”situated”, ”multicultural”, ”dialogic”, ”desocializing” and ”democratic” (Shor, p. 17). The literate practice of student-driven imitation indeed holds these values (Matthiesen) – for instance by asking the student to find and select a textual model herself which she would like to learn from, that is, in other words her own sponsor of literacy (Brandt). Yet, the literate practice of student-driven imitation does not necessarily imply a focus on ideology critique or desocializing. Actually, the literate practice of student-driven imitation may forster unconscious repitition. In this paper I analyze and discuss the practice of student-driven imitation in terms of its possibilities and limits in the perspective of critical literacy. I will give examples of student work from within the practice of student driven imitation and examine their relation to ideology and desocializing in order to point to possible cultural, political, and pedagogical implications. Brandt, D. (1998). Sponsors of Literacy. College Composition and Communication, 49(2), 165–185.Luke, A. (2012). Critical Literacy: Foundational Notes. Theory Into Practice, 51:4–11.Matthiesen, C. (2016). Student-Driven Imitation as a Means to Strengthening Rhetorical Agency—Or, Propelling Quintilian’s Chapter on Imitation into Today’s Teaching. Advances in the History ofRhetoric, 19(2), 208–224.Shor, I (1992). Empowering Education. Critical Teaching for Social Change. The University of Chicago Press (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/dde066a9-f803-470b-8939-caff820fb75f
- author
- Matthiesen, Christina
LU
- publishing date
- 2017
- type
- Contribution to conference
- publication status
- published
- conference name
- 11th ARLE International Conference
- conference location
- Tallin, Estonia
- conference dates
- 2017-06-15 - 2017-06-17
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- dde066a9-f803-470b-8939-caff820fb75f
- alternative location
- https://arle.conference-system.com/reports/abstract-book/ARLE%202017?event=4
- date added to LUP
- 2025-08-08 15:36:11
- date last changed
- 2025-09-11 17:00:51
@misc{dde066a9-f803-470b-8939-caff820fb75f,
abstract = {{Fundamental to critical literacy is not only a focus on ideology critique, but also a commitment to the inclusion of culturel and linguistic minorities as well as an engagement with discourse in the construction of social and materiale relations, everyday culture and political life (Luke, p. 6). In addition, Ira Shor highlights values such as ”participatory”, ”affective”, ”situated”, ”multicultural”, ”dialogic”, ”desocializing” and ”democratic” (Shor, p. 17). The literate practice of student-driven imitation indeed holds these values (Matthiesen) – for instance by asking the student to find and select a textual model herself which she would like to learn from, that is, in other words her own sponsor of literacy (Brandt). Yet, the literate practice of student-driven imitation does not necessarily imply a focus on ideology critique or desocializing. Actually, the literate practice of student-driven imitation may forster unconscious repitition. In this paper I analyze and discuss the practice of student-driven imitation in terms of its possibilities and limits in the perspective of critical literacy. I will give examples of student work from within the practice of student driven imitation and examine their relation to ideology and desocializing in order to point to possible cultural, political, and pedagogical implications. Brandt, D. (1998). Sponsors of Literacy. College Composition and Communication, 49(2), 165–185.Luke, A. (2012). Critical Literacy: Foundational Notes. Theory Into Practice, 51:4–11.Matthiesen, C. (2016). Student-Driven Imitation as a Means to Strengthening Rhetorical Agency—Or, Propelling Quintilian’s Chapter on Imitation into Today’s Teaching. Advances in the History ofRhetoric, 19(2), 208–224.Shor, I (1992). Empowering Education. Critical Teaching for Social Change. The University of Chicago Press}},
author = {{Matthiesen, Christina}},
language = {{eng}},
title = {{When Students Choose their Own Sponsor of Literacy – a Critical Perspective}},
url = {{https://arle.conference-system.com/reports/abstract-book/ARLE%202017?event=4}},
year = {{2017}},
}