May 2024 – Special Educator e-Journal

English/Language Arts Instructional Design and the Criterion of the Least Dangerous Assumption

By Monica I. Floreani

Abstract

English/Language Arts (ELA) teachers working within a wide variety of student populations face options in adopting a literacy model that improves educational results for students. Interpretation and implementation of educational philosophy for teachers who are vulnerable to scrutiny of appropriate service delivery involves distinguishing between Liberal Humanist Critical Reading or Critical Literacy Pedagogy (Cervetti, 2001). Choosing between distinctive approaches to criticality entail instructional designs with potentially different long-term effects on learning outcomes. Because there is no reliable standard to ensure optimal functioning, the criterion of the least dangerous assumption (Donnellan, 1984) may be key to evaluating literacy models as a form of intervention that develop students’ critical thinking skills and supports collaborative family-school relationships.

Keywords: Critical Literacy Pedagogy, Critical Social Justice Education, English/Language Arts (ELA), Evidence-Based Practice Interventions, Family-School-Community Relationship, Free and Appropriate Public Education, Individualized Educational Plan, Kindergarten through Twelfth Grade, Individualized Educational Program, Liberal-Humanism Critical Reading, Multi-Tier System of Supports/Response to Intervention, Students with Disabilities, Universal Design for Learning

Introduction

The content discussed in English/Language Arts (ELA) classrooms is essential to shaping the way students make sense of the world and articulating a worldview (Beach et al. 2003). Critical reading and critical thinking are commodities for individual and collective wellbeing. Literacy is a resource learners can draw from to address their problems and enhance their potential. Thus, the acknowledgement of the power of literature to shape the values of the individual and to affect the course of society may be deeply ingrained in teachers. Teacher preparation and parent training for coherent approaches to literacy learning. Criteria for reading selections and instructional goals are integral to the role of schools in developing constructive attitudes toward human relations through value stances associated with literacy. Therefore, interventions involving teacher preparation and parent training for developing students’ critical thinking skills benefit from prioritizing instructional decisions that do not presume incompetence. 

Short of a reliable standard to ensure optimal functioning, the criterion of the least dangerous assumption may be the most relevant factor in evaluating competing literacy models. This criterion asserts “educational decisions should be based on assumptions which, if correct, will have the least dangerous effect on the student” (Donnellan, 1984, p. 1). Because the criterion is to presume competence, understanding the synergistic and cumulative impact of literacy models can inform curricular decisions that have long-term effects on learning outcomes. Following the criterion of the least dangerous assumption in instructional program design can impact parent involvement, evaluation of students with disabilities, and collaborative education mechanisms (Gaitan-Delgado, 2012). In the context of inclusive education, criteria to presume competence, respect freedom of conscience, support autonomous voices, and maintain high expectations are closely interrelated.

Free and Appropriate Public Education does not require schools to maximize students’ potential or offer a specific program, but it requires schools to provide services that are “reasonably calculated” to help ensure academic progress. Students with disabilities have the right to receive an equal education to that of non-disabled students. However, improved educational results rely on how well public schools provide higher quality assurance. As members of the team that creates the Individualized Educational Plan, parents and teachers provide input based on the student’s ELA needs. Thus, demystifying the connection between literacy theory and instructional practice is conducive to a productive family-school relationship interested in a well-planned instructional design.

The instructional decisions facing ELA teachers within the context of a Universal Design for Learning framework involve Liberal Humanist Critical Reading or Critical Literacy Pedagogy (Cervetti, 2001). Coherent approaches to teaching and learning must be sought when inclusive education teachers adopt instructional practices related to objective or relativist views on knowledge, reality, language, authorship, discourse, and goals of education. If a literacy model is incompatible with the presumption of competence teachers may deprive a wide variety of student populations of measurable skills and core knowledge they should be engaging with to meet academic standards. In this way, adopting instructional strategies aligned with theoretical literacy models may be understood as a kind of large-scale intervention.

Theoretical Differences between Literacy Models

According to  Crumpei et al. (2017), social consciousness is shaped by neurological systems that assimilate information on the basis of logical and experimental demonstrations to which students participate at various cognitive levels. Criteria for Liberal Humanism Critical Reading and Critical Literacy Pedagogy ground cohesive approaches to text selections, classroom discourse, and student assessment based on distinct instructional goals (Cervetti et al., 2001). Wilson (2007) maintains both literacy models attempt to disturb the students’ worldview and provoke learning discomfort to help them engage more reflectively in the world and be more aware and understanding of a diversity of perspectives. Liberal Humanism Critical Reading is based on logical reasoning and close-reading skills while Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s sociocultural strategies“ downplay essential literacy skills and highlight a set of social practices involved in informal learning” (Perry, 2012, p. 51). The textual analysis conducted by these theoretical models subsumes value stances that are aligned with their respective learning objectives. The sets of values that undergird these models consequently serve as a basis of informed thinking that advances students’ capacity for responding to the ideas of others and expanding their social understanding.

Ontologically, Liberal Humanist Critical Reading assumes a conception of the world outside the text, but Critical Literacy Pedagogy does not. This may impact students’ worldview in terms of value stances related to human nature, what counts as real, and notions of freedom. An underlying assumption of Critical Literacy Pedagogy is that humans are social constructs and cannot have objective access to reality because there is no neutral context from which to think (Winograd, 2016). This leads to the logical conclusion that no universal human essence, no stable personal identity, and no inherent human value exist (Ferrando, 2013). Thus, the radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge is obtainable that characterizes the social constructivist perspective contrasts the perspective of Liberal Humanism that individuals are endowed with inherent dignity and natural rights. By extension, the Identitarian/Collectivist lens of Critical Literacy Pedagogy is undermined by indiscriminate tolerance while Liberal Humanism Critical Reading fosters a Universalist/Individualist perspective that supports tolerance for all different viewpoints.

Epistemologically, Critical Literacy Pedagogy is unconcerned with falsehood, or the objectivity of laws and knowledge derived through logical reasoning. Under this model, students insert meaning into texts rather than interpret the author’s intent (Cervetti et al., 2001); they approach textual meaning-making as a process of construction rather than exegesis and are tasked with problematizing the norm as the only way of looking at an issue (Lee, 2009). Conceptually, text is merely instrumental, and all knowledge is perceived as culturally constructed to gain or keep power. Text defined as including semiotic material of any mode, whether vetted or not, and its function is to encourage students to challenge the status quo for the purpose of attaining more equitable conditions through social action (New London Group, 2000).

Instructional Practices

Critical Literacy Pedagogy instructional planning– including text selections, class discourse, activities, homework, and assessments– stems from Critical Social Justice Education guidelines (Bell, 2016). Therefore, the metalanguage of Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 1989) provides students the “right” discourse for articulating Marxist/neo-Marxist and poststructuralist socio-political stances (Pinar & Bowers, 1992) and suppressing opposing viewpoints (Wallace, 2003). Behrman’s (2006) metanalysis of Critical Literacy Pedagogy classrooms noted no collaborative organizational structures. Rather, all classrooms reflected an authoritative approach to instructional practice. Within a traditionally hierarchical organization,  teachers prescribed and graded value stances rooted in the content of Critical Social Justice Education (Bell, 2016). Students “didn’t have the choice to keep the journal topic, and the teacher read and responded to the journal entry (though journal entries are anonymous). Students were even instructed what and how to write in their journals” (Behrman, 2016, p. 496). Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s structural design raises questions about students’ freedom of conscience and speech as they strive to make meaning for themselves. To engage different voices that share students’ beliefs, content must be subject to criticism and learning environments mut be non-threatening and. 

Even though presenting more than one viewpoint as a respectable argument in class discussions has been shown to increase understanding and improve reasoning, viewpoint discrimination as a form of intellectual intolerance in academic settings may be on the rise (Naudé, 2021). Critical Literacy’s seminal principle of “Repressive Tolerance” rejects tolerance for all viewpoints (Marcuse, 1965). For critical theorists, Yousefi et al. (2015) affirm, “tolerance is not considered a principle, since it is believed to be a factor leading towards the dominance of the ideologies which are already ruling the society and also the reason that freedom of speech is of no effect against the ruling dominance” (p. 108).  Therefore, the model effectively acts as an intervention to promote a critical consciousness, or “conscientização” (Freire, 1970), that transforms learners into adopting a “way of being, living, learning, and teaching” (Vasquez, 2019) designed to repress views that are inconsistent with its tenets (Goldberg and Kaufmann (2023). This transformation in students’ worldview is “organically” constructed in ways that cut across the curriculum (Vasquez, 2010) based on a Marxist/neo-Marxist and poststructuralist perception of sociopolitical claims (though unmeasurable and unfalsifiable) about culture, identity, and power. Goldberg and Kaufmann (2023) point out teachers may treat tenets of Critical Literacy Pedagogy as uncontested truths rather than as one social theory among others. In other words, despite its postmodern and poststructuralist rejections of objective truth and reality, Critical Literacy Pedagogy may lead teachers and students to disregard alternative viewpoints on complex issues.

To transform societal norms, students work within established critical discourse against hegemonic power imbalances rather than question the complicated nature of power imbalances. Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s multiliteracies approach includes student led project-based learning using social media platforms. Students’ ability to identify persuasive or propagandistic narrative, however, may be undermined by the tenets that inform the ELA content. Giselsson (2020) suggests the model’s reliance on ethos and pathos to sustain ideological critique may effectively disable evaluative criteria with which to measure the validity of truth claims. Students’ agency to engage in resistance reading (Behrman, 2006) is limited by an ideological stance and assessment scheme that grounds literacy learning in the sociopolitical stances of Critical Social Justice Education. Therefore, it may be argued that students’ freedom to reason through problems is compromised by a presumption of incompetence. Teaching students prescribed “right answers” and “definitive solutions” to vexing social issues may truncate critical thinking, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech. Furthermore, it may violate the criterion of the least dangerous assumption for a wide variety of student populations.

An approach to problem solving that limits creativity, innovation, and autonomy is not to present multiple viewpoints to issues as respectable alternatives (Goldberg & Kaufmann, 2023). To justify illiberalism, critical pedagogy proponents argue “ there is no such thing as a neutral position, and it needs to be recognized that youth and community work is about taking sides” (Beck & Purcell, 2013, p. 2).  However, top-down style of instruction can be inhibiting and result in large-scale tunnel thinking on big questions. Beck’s (2005) probe into Critical Literacy Pedagogy found “authoritative students may intimidate socially subordinate students into silence or conformity…In these circumstances, the classroom exhibits not democratic power sharing but an uneven, one-sided form of control that contradicts the mutuality necessary for true dialogue” (p. 394-395). Goldberg and Kaufmann (2023) pointed to a rise in negative learning experiences attributed to the expanding use of Critical Literacy Pedagogy.

Similarly, Wilson (2016) noted critical literacy students manifested resistance and disengagement when controversial texts were introduced. By creating a dichotomy between what might constitute home or personal beliefs and school sanctioned beliefs, violations of freedom of conscience may even result in moral injury (Williamson et al, 2021). Seas (2006) indicates repressive tolerance may create resistance on the part of students:

When students are asked to shift not only their perspectives, but also their subjectivities as they accept or reject assumptions that contribute to the pedagogical arguments being constructed [they] reject the teacher’s message because they see it as coercive, they do not agree with it, or they feel excluded by it (p. 427).

Furthermore, Apple (2008) posits discrimination may occur within classroom discussions prompting biased treatment based on beliefs students hold. Knowles (2019) asserts “within academic scholarship, very few researchers or theorists advocate for conservative notions of civic education in recent decades” (p. 263). Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s seminal theorists promote intolerance, placing the onus in selecting a literacy model and managing the relationship between theory and practice on individual teachers. The philosophical undercurrents of these literacy models are likely to have implications for the development of academic skills, social aims, character development, aesthetic sensibility, and critical thinking. Therefore, making nuanced instructional decisions in shaping students involves resisting oversimplistic binary determinations that propagate errors in reasoning. Students who struggle with comprehension may be among the most affected by the differences between these paradigmatic models.

Being a bridge builder for students with disabilities infers utilizing evidence-based practice interventions for literacy to include a respectful and free exchange of ideas. Meyers and Jones (1993) determined that the integration of theory and practice involves activities that allow students to question, clarify, confirm, and internalize new knowledge. Students’ determination of whether a teacher respects their contributions in class, or even wants contributions at all, is critical in creating an active learning environment (Meyers & Jones, 1993). Though it may be argued that Liberal Humanism Critical Reading propagates social norms, toleration for open debate and argumentation make it the model, par excellence, for academic freedom. Critical Literacy Pedagogy, on the other hand, centers on social critique anchored in radical Utopianism that dismisses logical reasoning as an overarching evaluative criterion with which to weigh truth claims (Lee, 2009).

Beyond functional literacy and higher levels of comprehension, students of Liberal Humanism Critical Reading engage in textual interpretation that requires reading in between the lines. The model is not subordinate to metalanguage or reference to a sociopolitical, literary-historical, or autobiographical context. Rather, students approach text for personal growth as context-independent and recognize inherent value in literature’s own meaning and artistic craft (Davies, 1992). It emphasizes aesthetic appreciation of the text as an organic whole unit of art. Analysis of literary elements like setting, plot, and theme are considered in making predictions and testing hypotheses as readers suspend judgment until evidence is presented. Close reading and analysis, including investigating sources, recognizing author’s purpose, and making inferences serve to practice forming judgments and detecting rhetorical devices in ways that emphasize the importance of differentiating fact from opinion, or truth from fantasy. The goal of close verbal analysis is to appreciate a work of literature holistically while connecting readers to what is “fixed and enduring” in their own identity.  This creates dispositions that favor self-critique rather than insularity. Interpretation of text includes unearthing authorial intention or meaning as a basis for understanding (Bond & Wagner, 1966) while also eliciting interpretations from the reader (Agrast, 1970) and focusing on how the author uses language to convey points. Its practices are not expected to develop naturally through student led efforts, they must be taught explicitly or actively promoted by teachers (Cervetti, 2001).

Criticality and Intentionality

Critical reading is conceived and practiced in considerably inconsistent ways since critical thinking as a concept has diffused into competing definitions, leading teachers to differ in their approaches to criticality in ELA instruction (Wilson, 2007). Though teaching criticality means different things to different ELA teachers, Ennis (1985) defines the basic meaning of critical thinking as “reflective and reasonable thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do” (p. 45). Davies and Barnett (2015) define critical thinking as the capacity to make “reasoned judgement” (p. 16). Bloom’s original and updated taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) holds logical reasoning among the higher order thinking skills, which involve determining the validity of arguments based on whether premises are true. The cycle within which reading comprehension supports literacy involves the ability to readily identify bias in validity statements (Pu & Xu, 2023) by weighing truth claims. To prevent or obfuscate this process by presuming incompetence may suppress students’ development of logical reasoning and autonomous thinking.  

Cognitive views of literacy have shifted to more sociocultural perspectives in past years (Dyson 2001). However, the traditional response practices of Liberal Humanism Critical Reading have been shown to yield better learning outcomes than Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s youth led project-based learning with a focus on power struggles associated with progressive social movements (Edwards, 2009). At the expense of proficiency of student writing skills in composition, O’Dair (2003) suggests Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s “focus [is] almost exclusively on ideological matters. To this end, recently advocated pedagogies privilege activism over ‘language instruction’” (p. 593). Likewise, Perry (2012) admits that “focusing on sociopolitical analysis with an emphasis on power does little for struggling learners in need of basic literacy skills” (p. 65).Despite the politization of the curriculum, literacy policies and standardized assessments continue to be mostly shaped by cognitive and psycholinguistic perspectives that concentrate on the formal skills and processes by which people become literate (Muth & Perry, 2010).

A significant body of research suggests that sociocultural instructional approaches with a vague focus on process rather than clarity of knowledge and purpose of ability is generally less academically effective (Archer & Hughes, 2010; Edwards, 2009; Klinger et al., 2016). In general, struggling readers have lower reading comprehension, an essential factor in academic success and the ultimate goal of reading instruction. Well-integrated high leverage practices are essential to the chain of skills undergirding reading comprehension that is key to supporting readers with low-comprehension (Riccomini et al., 2017). Therefore, educators must be intentional in teaching reading accuracy and speed using evidence-based practices such as explicit and direct teaching (Fuchs et al, 2018; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2015). Because reading can also be understood as a transaction between the reader and the text (Rosenblatt, 1977) a student’s background, language, and vocabulary knowledge also play important roles in reading comprehension. “As early print experiences have importance for later formal learning” (Lynch, 2009, p. 194), it can also be assumed that middle and high school text experiences have importance for more advanced learning to ensue. The literacy process is lifelong and effective instructional practices can have a cumulative effect. 

Many schools cannot adequately resolve the current youth mental health (Leeb et al., 2020; Panchal et al., 2021; Curtin & Heron, 2019; Kessler et al., 2005; Lipari et al., 2016) or literacy crises in the United States (DOE, 2021, 2023). Although Multi-Tier System of Supports/Response to Intervention may not meet the needs of all struggling students, it is incumbent upon teachers to make instructional choices that set learners up for success in all areas of suspected ability. Teachers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding Liberal Humanism Critical Reading and Critical Literacy Pedagogy may determine the sets of skills and values that students develop. Prioritizing educational principles over ideological or political influences favors an students’ chances of academic achievement.

The Family-School Relationship

Best practices in education entail academic experiences that hold students to high expectations and make them feel valued. “Only by creating a new paradigm, or shared belief, of high expectations based on the principle of the least dangerous assumption can anyone, parent or professional, make decisions about students’ educational programs that will lead to a quality life in school and throughout their adult lives” (Jorgensen, 2005). Suggestions offered by family, society, and educators, whose status as peers and leaders imparts didactic, scientific, and moral authority on the suggestibility capacity of the human psyche help shape the educational process (Crumpei et al., 2017). While character education may be found in the explicit curriculum, its nuances are informed by many factors, including the school community’s cultural expectations, values, and perspectives on curricular topics.

Conflicting value stances promoted by Liberal Humanism Critical Reading and Critical Literacy Pedagogy, however, may breach the trust that drives the family-school-community relationship. Students may feel torn when a wedge is systematically driven between the “ways of being” promulgated by classroom discourse and the normative “ways of being” promulgated by some families or communities (Williamson et al., 2021). Critical Literacy Pedagogy’s principle of “Repressive Tolerance” is especially directed toward Judeo-Christian morality as part of the cultural hegemony (Marcuse, 1955). Even though a distinctly anti-logocentric stance to education is in itself illiberal, dismissal of logocentrism as antiquated, harmful even, may conflict with students’ personal freedoms to develop other kinds of worldview. Gaitan-Delgado (2016) sustains “the knowledge of what and how parents need to negotiate with the school to advocate for their children is often culturally bound” (p. 306). However, for families to intervene on behalf of their children, knowledge of the curriculum must be made accessible.

Approximately half of parents of K-12 students hold that teachers and administrators at their children’s school have values that are at least somewhat like their own and trust in school principals has been decreasing since 2020 (Horowitz, 2023). In providing guidance to parents who seek it, concerns over a lack of instructional transparency or impartiality to ideological persuasions may be a relevant issue for the multidisciplinary IEP team to discuss. Meaningful collaboration among stakeholders in inclusive settings, according to Rock et al. (2009), supports the needs of all students, but sustained collaboration between parents and school officials is especially beneficial to students with disabilities. The collective expertise of anu IEP team shares interest in research-based interventions over ineffective ones and identifying whether sets of values reflected by literacy models affect the academic and behavioral outcomes of students may be an equally important consideration.

Conclusion

Since Liberal Humanism Critical Reading and Critical Literacy Pedagogy entail different definitions of critical thinking, teachers’ critical activities could derive justification from potentially opposite sets of assumptions for understanding texts at the intersections of language, literacy, literature, and culture. Thus, parents and educators in favor of the complementary roles of Critical Social Justice Education, Social Emotional Learning, and Critical Literacy Pedagogy hold that it supports student well-being, while others consider it emotional manipulation and want it banned (Horowitz, 2023). Goldberg and Kaufman (2023) affirm Critical Social Justice Ideology has “a harmful effect on young people and negatively impacts the very people it purports to help” (p. 2). As a deterrent to negative learning experiences (Williamson et al., 2021), some states extended parental rights to resist Critical Social Justice Education stances to ninth grade. Recent scrutiny of the criteria for ELA instructional goals and text selections has led to policy reforms on parental rights in education that reinforce parents’ fundamental right to make decisions regarding the appropriateness of texts in many U.S. public-school settings (Sosin, 2022).

Potentially long-term effects of literacy as a social practice may influence how learners’ axiomatic systems rationally process understanding of reality. Belief in a common human nature, scientific rationality, and the search for truth as universal knowledge may no longer reflect mainstream attitudes in education. Appealing to the least dangerous assumption as a standard can support a vision of freedom of thought and quality education for all students. Moreover, growing awareness of literacy models as interventions may help drive consensus of what free and “appropriate public education for all” means. Devoid of a “national curriculum, teachers have tended to assert their professional autonomy quite explicitly. Given this sense of self-determination, an important question arises about ways in which English teachers see and make choices in subject aims and content” (Davies, 1992, p. 193). Teachers’ identities and personal-professional commitments influence their engagement with the texts and their students (Schwab, 2013), but support for teachers’ right to select texts has waned (Hawkman et al., 2024) due to increased attention to ethical considerations surrounding intellectual freedom and social responsibility in in the post-truth era (Hazelton-Boyle & Hazelton-Boyle, 2023). Better training in special education policies that support the most researched interventions and instructional designs for a wide variety of student populations may help guide future discretionary decisions in selecting texts that depict a diverse set of places, experiences, and voices that foster spatial and temporal self-awareness in students.

By prescribing definitive answers to complex issues, literacy instruction may presume incompetence and violate Donnellan’s (1984) criterion of the least dangerous assumption which “holds that in the absence of conclusive data educational decisions ought to be based on assumptions which, if correct, will have the least dangerous effect on the likelihood that students will be able to function independently as adults” (p. 1) This criterion calls into question limitations on the development of critical thinking posed by the discursive elements and Repressive Tolerance of Critical Literacy Pedagogy. Developing students’ critical thinking skills necessitates an objective standard for judging the strength and soundness of arguments (Giselsson, 2020). In addressing complex issues, a priori rejection of opposing viewpoints may truncate students’ logical reasoning processes with long-term effects on how they develop social consciousness and worldview.

Because ethics is the reasoning about the rightness and wrongness of conduct, logic plays a foundational role in processing ethical decision making. Truth and knowledge claims would seem baseless without foundational principles and reasons that underlie the “notions of rational deliberation and critical judgment, but also the notions of rational and moral conduct” (Scheffler, 1989, p. 76, as cited in Biesta p. 39). The relativization of language to signify that meaning is created by it rather than given by it tends to complicate philosophical problems. This approach to language may facilitate the manipulation of truth and knowledge in ways to suggest spurious correlations and confound young students who lack relevant background knowledge on complex issues. The more experienced and expert the students, the lees likely rhetorical persuasion will override logical reasoning.

Knowles (2018) sustains that empirical evidence can point to how criticality is understood and embedded in instructional decisions. Because ELA prepares students to think critically, it is important to understand how practices align with distinct theoretical models. Students are not objects of intervention but participants within a transitory relational understanding whose interest lies in their interaction with local and global communities. Thus, it may be argued that Critical Literacy Pedagogy students are held to learning objectives tied to formulaic sociopolitical stances that violate their freedom of conscience. Moreover, the model may violate the criterion of least dangerous assumption– if its underlying assumptions are wrong– its presumption of incompetence could result in long-term harm for students.

Declaration of competing interest

None

References

Agrast, C. (1970). Teach them to read between the lines. In A.J. Harris & E.R. Sipay

(Eds.), Readings on reading instruction (pp. 277-279). New York: David McKay.

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman

Apple, M. W. (2008). Is deliberative democracy enough in teacher education? In M. Cochran-Sith, S. Feiman-Nemser, & D. J. <McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions changing contexts (pp. 105-110). Routledge.

Archer, A & Hughes, C. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. The Guilford Press.

Beach, R., Parks, D. & Haertling, T., & Lensmire, T. (2003). High school students’ responses to alternative value stances associated with the study of multicultural literature.

Beck, D., & Purcell, R. (2013) Developing generative themes for community action. In: Curran, S., Harrison, R. and Mackinnon, D. (eds.) Working with Young People [2nd ed.]. Sage.

Behrman, E. H. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(6), 490–498.

Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In Adams, M., & Bell, L. A. (Eds.). (2016). In Teaching for diversity and social justice (Third). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Biesta, G. J. J., & Stengel, B. S. (2016). Thinking philosophically about teaching. In D. H. Gitomer, & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook on research in teaching (5^th ed., pp. 7-67). American Educational Research Association.

Bond, G. L., & Wagner, E. B. (1966). Teaching the child to read (4th ed.). Macmillan.

Cervetti, G., Pardales, M.J., & Damico, J.S. (2001, April). A tale of differences: Comparing the traditions, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical literacy. Reading Online, 4(9).

Crumpei, G, Mastorakis, N. E. & Gavrilut, A. (2017). The role of the axiomatic system in neuroscience. The International Journal of Biology and Biomedicine.

Davies, C. (1992). English teacher ideologies: an empirical study. British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 18, No.2.

Davies, W.M. & Barnett, R. (2015). Introduction. In Davies & Barnett (Eds.) The Palgrave handbook of critical thinking in higher education (pp. 1-26). New York Palgrave Macmillan.

Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141-150.

Dyson, A. 2001. Where are the childhoods in childhood literacy? An exploration in outer (school) space. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 1: 9–39

Edwards, J. R. (2009, April 13). V&V PAPER — E.D. Hirsch Jr.: The Twentieth Century’s Liberal Conservative Educator.The institute for faith and freedom. Grove City College.   

Ennis, R. (1985). A logical basis for measuring critical thinking skills. Educational Leadership, 43(2), 44–48. 

Erickson, K., Koppenhaver, D., & Yoder, D. (2002). Waves of words: Augmented communicators read and write. Augmentative Communication.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum International Publishing Group.

Fuchs, & Fuchs, L. S. (2015). Rethinking Service Delivery for Students with Significant Learning Problems: Developing and Implementing Intensive Instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 36(2), 105–111.

Fuchs, Fuchs, D., & Malone, A. S. (2018). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4), 194–202.

Gaitan-Delgado, C. (2012). Culture, Literacy, and Power in Family–Community–School–Relationships. Theory Into Practice. 51. 305-311. DOI: 10.1080/00405841.2012.726060

Giselsson. K. (2020). Critical thinking and critical literacy: Mutually exclusive? International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1).

Goldberg, Z., & Kaufmann, E. (2023). School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

Hazelton-Boyle, J.K., & Hazelton-Boyle, M.J. (2023) Public Librarians in the Hot Seat? Moral Injury in the Post-Truth Era, Public Integrity, DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2023.2281726

Horowitz, J. M. (2023). Parents sharply divided by party over what their K-12 children should learn in school. Pew Research Center.

Jorgensen, C. (2005). The least dangerous assumption: A challenge to create a new paradigm. Disability Solutions: A Resource for Families & Others Interested in Down Syndrome & Developmental Disabilities.6(3). Creating Solutions.

Klingner, J., Brownell, M. Mason, L.H., Sindelar, P.T., Benedict, A. Griffin, C. Lane K., Israel, M., Oakes, W.P., Menzies, H.M., Germer, K. & Park, Y. (2016). Teaching students with special needs in the new millennium. In D.H. Gitomer & C.A. Bell (eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching 5^th Ed. Pp. 63.

Knowles, R. T.  (2018). Teaching who you are: Connecting teachers’ civic education ideology to instructional strategies. Theory and research in social education, 46(1), 68-109.

Knowles, R. T. (2019). Ideology in the schools: Developing the teacher’s civic education ideology scale within the United States. Education, citizenship and social justice, 14(3), 260-278.

Lee, C.-J. (2009). Listening to the sound deep within critique in critical literacy. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/ Revue de la Pensee Educative. Werklund School of Education. University of Calgary.

Marcuse, H. (1955). Eros and civilization: a philosophical inquiry into Freud. Beacon Press.

Marcuse, H. (1969). “Repressive tolerance.” A Critique of pure tolerance. Beacon Press.

Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Naudé, A. (2021). Academic inquisition: Are universities centres of higher education or higher indoctrination? Academia Letters. DOI: 10.20935/AL130.

O’Dair, S. (2003). Class work: Site of egalitarian activism or site of embourgeoisement? College English, 65(6), 593.

Lynch, J. (2009). Preschool teachers’ beliefs about children’s print literacy development. Early Years 29(2), 191–203.

Muth, W. R. & Perry, K. H. (2010). Adult literacy: An inclusive framework, In D, Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts, Third Edition. New York: Routledge.

New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(1),  66-92.

Pearson, P. D., & Herbert, E.H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base for practice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39, 286-294.

Perry, K. (2012). What is Literacy? –A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71.

Pinar, W. & Bowers, C. A. (1992). Politics of Curriculum: Origins, Controversies, and Significance of Critical Perspectives. Review of Research in Education, 18, 163–190.

Pu S. & Xu, H. (2023) Curriculum and the cultivation of critical thinking: A critical realist conception. Educational Philosophy and Theory 0:0, pages 1-11.

Riccomini, P.J., Morano, S. Hughes, C.A. (2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially designed instruction, high leverage practices, explicit instruction, and intensive instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 50, No 1, pp. 20-27. DOI: 10.1177/004005901774412.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1977). The transactional theory of the Literary work: Implications for research.

Rubin, D. B. (2017). COUNTERPOINT: Standardized IEPs: One size fits none? Journal of Law& Education, 46, 227-229. 

Ryndak, D., Morrison, A., & Sommerstein, L. (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in general education settings: A case study. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(1), 5-22.

Schwab, J. J. (2013). The practical: a language for curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(5), 591–621. org/10.1080/00220272.2013.809152

Seas, K. (2006). Enthymematic Rhetoric and Student Resistance to Critical Pedagogies. Rhetoric Review. (25) 4 (4): 429. JSTOR 20176747.

Vasquez, V. (2010), Critical Literacy isn’t just for books anymore. The Reading Teacher, 63: 614-616.

Vasquez, V. M., Janks, H., and Comber, B. (2019). Critical literacy as a way of being and doing. Research and Policy. Language Arts, (96)5.

Wallace, R. M. (2003). Online Learning in Higher Education: A Review of Research on Interactions among Teachers and Students. Education, Communication & Information, 3, 241-280.

Williamson, V., Murphy, D., Phelps, A., Forbes, D., & Greenberg, N. (2021). Moral injury: The effect on mental health and implications for treatment. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 8(6), 453–455.

Wilson, K. (2007). Critical reading, critical thinking: Delicate scaffolding in English for academic purposes(EAP). Thinking Skills and Creativity. Vol. 22(2016), pp. 256-265

Winograd. K. (Ed.) (2015). Critical literacies and young learners: Connecting classroom practice to the common core. Routledge.

Wolf, W. (1965). The logical dimension of critical reading. In M.A. Dawson (Ed.),

Developing comprehension: Including critical reading (pp. 166-169). International Reading Association.

Wolff, R. P. Moore, B., Jr., & Marcuse, H. (1969). A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Beacon Press, 95-137.

Yousefi, Z, Yousefy, A., & Keshtiaray, N., (2015). Liberal humanism and its effect on the various contemporary educational approaches. International Education Studies; Vol. 8, No. 3; Canadian Center of Science and Education.

About the Author

Born in Arlington Heights, Illinois, Monica moved to Mar del Plata, Argentina, in elementary school. She completed middle and high school in Wilmette, Illinois, and then moved to Lugano, Switzerland, where she studied Humanities. As a certified Montessori Teacher and School Director in Early Childhood Education, her career began with student centered and cooperative approaches to teaching and learning. Her graduate studies in English Education prepared her to work with a wide range of K-12 students. She speaks English Spanish, Italian, and French and has collaborated in a variety of educational settings within Special Education. She provided supervision of teacher training programs and oversight for compliance of federal, state, and local licensing mandates, and coordination of special educational and health services as a Family Services Coordinator in Head Start and as Teacher Mentor and Disabilities Coordinator at The United Way Center for Excellence in Early Education Demonstration School. She later taught English (6-12) and Spanish (K-12) in inclusive general education classrooms in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. As a 2022 federally funded TEACH LAB PROJECT scholar, she received intensive training to improve services and results for students with disabilities. Building connections between the areas of Language, Literacy, Literature, and Culture and important topics within Special Education is at the forefront of her interests within the field. She holds a B.A. in Liberal Arts/Humanities and an Ed.S. in Curriculum and Instruction. She is currently a PhD candidate in Language, Literature Literacy, and Culture in the Department of Teaching and Learning at Florida International University.

Book Review: The Energy Bus: 10 Rules to Fuel Your Life, Work, and Team by Jon Gordon

By Shante Humphrey

            Jon Gordon grew up in Long Island, NY, in a Jewish-Italian family. He did not have a positive household, and he often engaged in fights with the neighborhood kids. When this occurred, he felt like he was fighting for his life. After high school, he attended college at  Cornell University. Here is where he learned about teamwork, culture, and leadership. Mr.  Gordon went back and forth between law school and a dot-com job. He struggled at work and his  team was collapsing. His family life was also falling apart due to stress. Gordon eventually  ended up losing his job and did not know how he was going to provide for his family. His wife  even began to question him, asking him where the man was she married. The real challengecame when she threatened to leave him. He blamed her for the tribulations he faced. Jon was the type of person who was constantly trying to prove himself to others and gain the valid status of being successful; this made him even more miserable. A life changing moment occurred in his life when he forgave his father for leaving him. This was the first step in letting go of his past.

Later on, Gordon became committed to serving and helping others. This was the beginning of turning his life around. He escaped a life of misery and depression by encouraging and inspiring individuals. It was the blueprint for his writings and speaking engagements. Years later, he is a distinguished speaker and author on positive attitude, and is passionate about the development of positive leaders, teams, and organizations. He believes that in order to get through challenging times, you have to have a positive attitude.

The Energy Bus was inspired by Jon Gordon’s true experience when he met a bus driver who influenced him with wisdom and positive energy. There are powerful perceptions provided throughout the book to overcome adversity, as well as bring out the best in yourself and your team or organization. These perceptions are laid out in ten rules. These ten rules can be useful for  anyone who wants to overcome challenges, build strong teams, and live a happy, satisfying life.

This book is for adults that get stuck in the negative cycles of life. It shows you how to change your work and personal relationships by becoming more positive. It also describes how anyone can turn their miserable life and negativity into a positive life of love, joy, and enthusiasm. Gordon takes readers on a motivating ride that reveals ten rules for approaching life and creating positive thinking that can lead to success. Through a fictional story, he states and describes these ten rules that he claims are necessary to create desired outcomes in life. They can be applied to life, work, and relationships.

Main Themes

The main theme of the Energy Bus is the power of positive energy and how it helps shape our lives and help us find happiness. It includes optimism, trust, enthusiasm, purpose, and passion. (pg. xv) Optimism is the principle that anything is possible; it drives people and businesses. It creates jobs and drives new inventions. If you can believe, execute, and turn this belief into reality, you can change the world. (pg.68) Positive energy, along with vision, must be greater than doubt. Jon Gordon emphasizes the importance of creating and maintaining positive energy in one’s life and work. He argues that this energy can help individuals and organizations can achieve their aspirations and conquer impediments. The main character, George, appears to have it all; a wonderful job, a family, and anything he could want, but he is unhappy and feels like he is losing control. The setbacks he come across make him question the meaning of life, until he meets Joy, the bus driver. She recognized his struggles and invited him on a voyage to a happier life and he accepted. George’s experiences demonstrates how feeling out of control and hampered by stress can create unhappiness. The book emphasizes that taking control and having a vision can empower individuals to have the life they aspire to have.

Jon Gordon states you are the driver of your own bus; this is actually Rule #1. It simply means you are in control of your future. (pg. 26) Joy encourages George to take control of his life by being the driver of his own bus and He had to make decisions and choices about his life. He strongly feels that positive energy drives your bus onward, while negative energy obstructs your engine. As we go through life, we are tested. Challenges, adversity, and obstacles have to be defeated in order to be successful. Gordon believes that positive energy is the answer. Give yourself positive energy boosts throughout the day, so you can overcome negativity and motivate or energize others around you. (pg. 49) 

Cheerful and purposeful living is another main focus of this book. The goal is to nurture an optimistic outlook, screen at those who drain your energy, and embrace positivism. Gordon continually emphasizes that positive results arise from positive people and positive teams. He also believes that Energy Vampires exist. These are people who drain your energy, and suck the life out of you, your goals, and vision. (pg.73) It is essential to identify and eliminate negativity. Positive energy can help you feel excited, energized, and optimistic about life. When that energy is negative, others feel it draining them; when it is positive, they feel elated. Gordon believes that the outcomes in life are not dependent on good and bad luck, or good and bad employees or family members. We are surrounded by different people, who emit different energies. You would often find yourself, as well as others, getting drawn towards those who give off positive energy while deterring those who generate negative energy.

The overall theme is that events + perception/positive energy = outcome. (E+P=O) (pg. 46)  In other words, there are some things you cannot control, but what you can manage is how events are perceived. So, if you have positive thoughts, you can achieve better results. Maintaining positive energy as fuel is emphasized throughout the book. It suggests that negative energy can be transformed into positive energy by changing our perspective and focusing on gratitude.

Teamwork and communication are both important in achieving happiness in an individual’s personal and professional life. Gordon emphasized that it is important to tell othersabout your life’s vision and invite them with you on your journey; this is Rule #4. George realized that he could not succeed alone and that he needed the support of others. Joy introducedhim to this concept, and he learns that the more people he has on his bus, the more positive energy he will have to fuel his ride and see results. This was put into practice when George created bus tickets for his team at work. He shared his vision with them and invited them to join him. This would create a positive and supportive environment, and lead to a successful journey. Gordon states that not everyone will be on board, but not to waste time on them. He reiterates that the more energy you waste on those that do not share your vision and get on your bus, the less energy you will have for those that do come onboard. A positive team creates success.

The overall message for team leaders is that you have the power to control your team and it is up to you to point them in the right direction. Gordon argues that leadership is key in creating positive energy in an organization and emphasizes the importance of leaders setting the tone and creating optimism and positivity. A theme related to this idea is recognizing the importance of your team members by giving them time, recognizing them, and showing your appreciation. This will create strong and positive relationships. Gordon points out another interesting theme, and that is the importance of defining purpose and making work fun. Success is easier to achieve when employees are enjoying what they do.

The kind of energy you give off has an effect on whether others want you around. These feelings can inspire, uplift, or energize those you come in contact with, according to the author. You can also repel people by giving off negative energy. Gordon repeatedly stresses that the more positivity you are around, the happier you will be; you will have a better stance on life, and become a motivator for others. He also accentuates to not think negative thoughts and focus on the positive things in life.

Key Quotes

“Positive people, positive communication, positive interactions, and positive work and team cultures produce positive results.” (pg. xv) – This quote summarizes Gordon’s belief onpositive energy. There comes a time when we feel like the weight of the world, our expectations, and our desires are on our shoulders. In order to achieve our best work and be the best that we can be, Gordon states we should reframe our thinking towards positivity. By choosing to focus on the positive aspects of our lives and surround ourselves with positive people, we can create a successful and fulfilling life.

“Always remember that you are the driver of your own bus…if you don’t take responsibility for your life and control of your bus then you can’t take it where you want to go.”(pg. 26) – We are continuously reminded of this throughout the book. You are in the driver’s seat. Once you take control of the wheel, you are taking control of your life. The kind of ride your bus has is up to you. You create your life, and a vision needs to be developed to determine where you are going.

“There is an energy to thought and when you identify what you desire and write down your vision, you begin the process of mobilizing the energy to create the life you want.” (pg. 35) -Here, Gordon states that you have to look inward to create the life you want. First, you have to  perceive things the way they are. In other words, understand where you are in life at the presentmoment. Secondly, imagine the life you want to create. Remember the regrets and the accomplishments, and visualize them as goals. Decide you want it more than anything, proceed with it,  on and believe you can accomplish it. Write your vision down because it will remind you of your goals, and you will also see how far you have come.

“Every crisis offers an opportunity to grow stronger and wiser; to reach deep within and discover a better you that will create a better outcome.” (pg. 40) – Gordon encourages readers to embrace a positive mindset and accept obstacles as opportunities to grow. We have to acknowledge challenges as being short-term setbacks . Once we do this, we can prevail over adversity and achieve our goals.

“No one creates success in a vacuum and the people we surround ourselves with have a big influence on the life and success we create.” (pg. 73) – Gordon states that the people that surrounds us determine if we are successful or not.

“Your positive energy and vision must be greater than anyone’s and everyone’s negativity. Your certainty must be greater than everyone’s doubt.” (pg. 77) – With this quote,Gordon emphasizes the importance of having a positive mindset when faced with negativity anddoubt. In order to achieve our goal, we must be optimistic. We have to believe in ourselves andembrace positivity; thus, turning challenges into opportunities for growth and success.

“Purpose is the ultimate fuel that moves you towards your vision.” (pg. 131) – Gordon believes this is necessary for your journey. Knowing your purpose keeps you focused and energized. It is imperative to have a well-defined vision and devotion in life. By identifying what is important to us, setting goals, and reminding ourselves of our purpose, we can stay motivated and committed to achieving our vision.

“Remember, youhaveonly one ride through life so give it all yougot and enjoy the ride.” (pg. 164) – Gordon points out that we only have one life to live, and life is short. So, we should try to live it to the fullest and enjoy it. Decide what is important to you; do what makes you happy and everything else will fall into place.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Jon Gordon’s book is one of the many that stresses the idea of positive energy; it is an advocate for positive energy.  The Energy Bus encourages you to be optimistic about life and be positive. It is an easy book to read that you can probably finish in one day. The ten rules listed are actually inspiring and motivates you.  They guide you on how use energy to have a meaningful life. This book is also great for employers and employees because it encourages productivity, creativity, and teamwork.

Although this book is inspirational and a motivating, it forces the idea that anyone who does not believe in “positivity” are “energy vampires” and should be terminated from their place of employment. It is forcing positivity onto people and pushing out those who disagree. Gordon  makes you believe that all problems are sources from negativity, and anything can be repaired with positivity. This undermines problems like mental illnesses, such as anxiety or depression.  These disorders cannot be magically corrected by saying that positive energy attracts positive things. It is not easy for those suffering from mental illnesses to shake negative thoughts. This book is also repetitive. Gordon’s main ideas are repeated throughout the book in different ways, but they all mean the same.

Comparison to Fullan

Fullan’s Leading in a Culture of Change and TheEnergy Bus by Jon Gordon, both advocate that before creating change in others, you must start from within. Leaders from both

prospectives state that you have to believe in yourself before you can lead others to change.

Leadership is not based on a one size fit all solution to anything. However, it is based on morals, purpose, and attitude. How will you create an environment of change in a culture? As a leader, you can demand changes based on your authority. However, according to Fullan, those kinds of changes are not lasting changes because there was no buy in from the staff. In order for change to truly happen, the people working for you or under you have to understand why the change is happening and share the same vision. In Michael Fullan’s Leading a Culture of  Change, it teaches you strategies to be a great leader or run a phenomenal company. This is done in 5 core competencies: moral purpose, understanding change, building relationships, creating and sharing knowledge, and creating coherence. These five competencies are supposed to help you become a more effective leader.  Whether you are leading a company, school, or district, they will help you achieve effective leadership.

Fullan believes that moral purpose is valuable and exists in a form that can be developed and brought to life. It is natural, but it needs to be nurtured by leaders to grow. Secondly, understanding change, is the hardest concept to grasp. We never want things to change and never understand why it has to, yet change is inevitable in the world we live in. This essentially means that building meaningful relationships are important no matter where you are. The better the relationship between you and the people around you, the more successful you are. Another valuable tool is creating a collaborative culture through workshops, peer groups or even observation groups. According to Fullan, an organization must emphasize knowledge sharing as a responsibility and provide opportunities and incentives for people to participate in it. When new interactions and ideas cause the organization to transition into a new state, this leads to an increased coherence.  Fullan believes these are the ways to create success in a dynamic world.

The Energy Bus is a book that gives life principles for success. The energy you project is the energy that you will receive in return. It explores the idea that there is no success is negativity. This book focuses on ten guidelines for turning positive thoughts and energies into desired life outcomes. Anyone who wishes to overcome obstacles, form effective teams, and lead a happy, satisfying life can benefit from these ideas. This book also explores principals about life that in turn helps you become a better leader.. The principles that Gordon speaks about in his book are easy to understand and are straightforward. If you master these principles, you will be successful no matter where you are or who your with.

In Gordon’s The Energy Bus, it states that “you can take your bus anywhere you want it to go.” This simply means the vision is yours, your attitude will determine the success of your vision. The energy you give will be the energy you get in return. In Fullan’s Leading in a Culture of Change, he addresses the framework that makes a successful leader. Both The Energy Bus and  Leading a Culture of Change emphasize that relationships with the people you work with can make or break your organization. It is important to build a rapport with colleagues in a positive way, which will help to strengthen the foundation of the organization. However, both books emphasize the most important theme, which is positive relationship building. To be an effective leader, you must form positive relationships with those you are responsible for leading; they must include those who are willing to follow and share your vision.

References

Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

Gordon, J. (2015). The energy bus: 10 rules to fuel your life, work, and team with positive energy. Wiley.