Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature

Author(s): Rebecca Rogers and Inda Schaenen

Source: Reading Research Quarterly , JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014, Vol. 49, No.
1 (JANUARY/FEBRUARY/MARCH 2014), pp. 121-143
Published by: International Literacy Association and Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43497640

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley and International Literacy Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Reading Research Quarterly

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
■ Critical Discourse Analysis
in Literacy Education:
A Review of the Literature
Rebecca Rogers
Inda Schaenen
University of Missouri- St. Louis , USA
Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)
pp. 121-143 I doi:10.1002/rrq.61
© 2013 International Reading Association
85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ABSTRACT
This article is a critical, integrative literature review of scholarship
studies from 2004 to 2012 that draws on critical discourse analy
We discuss key issues, trends, and criticisms in the field. Our me
was carried out in three stages. First, we searched educational
to locate literacy-focused CDA scholarship. Second, we complet
lytic review template for each article and encoded this data into
spreadsheet to assess macrotrends in the field. Third, we develo
mata to interpret the complexity of issues related to research d
examination of 76 literacy-focused empirical studies and theoreti
in scholarly journals reveals trends in the questions that researc
interesting enough to pursue, the theories they find useful, and th
interactions that capture their attention. Our findings demonstrate
scholarship has been conducted in many areas of literacy studies,
policy, academic writing, the preparation of literacy teachers, pr
development, textbook content, curricular design, assessment, an
education. We explore four foundational areas in the field that
cially ripe for debate and critique: context, reflexivity, social ac
deconstructive- reconstructive stance toward inquiry. In the disc
compare the findings of this literature review with an earlier re
lished in 2005, reflecting on three decades of CDA in literacy st
identify directions for future scholarship.
cation. In this review, we synthesize and assess the corpus of
Critical this cation.thisresearch
researchdiscourse
publishedIn between
this published
2004 andreview, analysis we between (CDA) synthesize is 2004 flourishing and and assess 2012. in the Theoretically literacy corpus edu- of
2012. Theoretically
commensurable with the wave of research in literacy studies focused
for the last two decades on social and cultural processes and contexts,
CDA attracts researchers interested in relationships between language
and power in formal and informal literacy education settings.
In 2005, 26 years after the publication of books that proved foun-
dational in the field (Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979; Hodge &
Kress, 1979), R. Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and
Joseph (2005) published a review of CDA in educational research,
examining the scholarship from 1983 to 2003. Nearly another decade
has passed, and we wondered about developments in CDA in the field
of literacy education since the publication of the 2005 review. At that
time, research in literacy education represented 39% of the total num-
ber of CDA studies in education (18 of 46). Within educational settings
overall since that time, research in literacy education from 2004 to
2012 produced nearly 5 times as many studies (N = 76). This scholar-
ship represents 30% of all studies in education calling on CDA (76 of
121
This content downloaded from
257); with respect to growth, it corresponds to the as a result of their study. Overall, the studies included a
phenomenal expansion of the approach across all robust treatment of context, attending to both micro
education-related disciplines. and macro discourses when interpreting the findings of
The significant proportion of literacy scholarship in a study. In the discussion, we consider the findings of
all CDA in education since 1983 signals the special rela- this literature review in light of the results from 2005,
tionship between CDA and literacy education and reflecting on three decades of CDA in literacy studies.
therefore warrants focused study now that CDA is well
established as stance and methodology in the field of
education. The following four questions guided our
inquiry: CDA in Literacy Education
CDA includes a set of approaches that emphasize a dia-
1. What is the nature of CDA research in literacy
education from 2004 to 2012? lectic process for investigating power relations and how
they are constituted through discourse practices. CDA
2. How does CDA help us better understand literacy is especially characterized by an interest in the proper-
education? Why are researchers turning to CDA ties of real language by users in context, a study of
specifically or including CDA among other action and interaction, an interest in the nonverbal
methodological approaches to literacy research? aspects of communication, and a focus on the social
3. How has CDA in literacy research expanded and cognitive aspect of interaction (Wodak & Meyer,
knowledge in the researching and teaching com- 2009). With roots in critical social theory, critical lin-
munity? What have been some of the key findings guistics, sociocultural studies, and critical pedagogy,
across this corpus? CDA has never been confined to any single discipline
4. How does CDA in literacy research address four and continues to be theorized and practiced in interna-
key elements of research design? tional working groups and conferences, including
recent gatherings in Europe and North America. For
We begin by presenting a concise history of CDA in the purposes of targeting this review, we distinguish
literacy studies. Next, we discuss the methods that we between critical approaches to discourse analysis and
used to generate this selection of scholarship. Our ex- CDA, the former implying a wider tradition of scholar-
amination of 76 literacy-focused studies in scholarly ship. For a detailed chronology of background theory
journals reveals trends in the field over time, including and early developments in CDA, see R. Rogers et al.
those relating to questions and topics that researchers (2005) and Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000). For those
find interesting to pursue; the theories they find useful; interested in wider approaches to discourse analysis, we
and the kinds of texts, interactions, and contexts that recommend Rex et al.s (2010) comprehensive review of
capture their attention. Scholarship has been conducted discourse analysis work in the field of literacy studies.
in many areas of literacy studies, including literacy and Historically, literacy studies have shared many of
language policy, academic writing, the preparation of CDA's assumptions. In the 1980s, literacy research
literacy teachers, professional development, textbook turned away from psychological, individual models of
content, curricular design, evaluation and assessment, literacy to explore the social and cultural contexts in
and bilingual education. Drilling into four key themes which literacy practices, processes, and conceptions
in current CDA scholarship that are especially ripe for arose, including settings for teaching and learning.
debate, we present a nuanced exploration of researcher Foundational research by scholars such as Heath (1983),
reflexivity, analytic context, social action, and recon- Street (1985), Luke (1988), and Gee (1990) recognized
structive and deconstructive orientation. the ideologically charged nature of texts in contexts.
The majority of the articles that we reviewed Barton, Hamilton, and Ivanic (2000) bolstered this
included at least a basic level of reflexivity. Similarly, theearly work and had a tremendous impact on how
overwhelming majority of articles attended to bothreading and writing were conceptualized. Literacy
structure and agency, showing how participants strug- researchers began to examine the relationships between
gle against dominant ideologies and forge counterrepre- literacy and power and, in so doing, look for method-
sentations. The authors represented in the corpus of ological and theoretical tools to accomplish this task.
studies varied in their interpretation of social action. In January of 1991, a group of scholars (Fairclough,
Whereas some of the studies took an explicitly interven-Kress, van Dijk, van Leeuwen, and Wodak) gathered for
tionist approach, the majority were moderate in their a symposium in Amsterdam to discuss the theories and
methods of CDA. What resulted was a more formalized
stance toward social action. That is, as a result of their
findings, the authors (or the participants they studied) tradition of CDA, still diverse and interdisciplinary but
called for or took some sort of social action (e.g., curric-sufficiently coherent for application in a variety of dis-
ular change, forming a study group, reanalysis of texts)ciplines, including literacy studies. In 1990, Van Dijk

122 I Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
had launched Discourse & Society , and the CDA tradi- (2002), Pitt (2002), R. Rogers (2003), and Stevens (2003).
tions discussed at the Amsterdam meeting were pre- These 16 studies, in total, comprise the literacy studies
sented in a special issue of that journal in 1993. reported on by R. Rogers et al. (2005).
In 1994, an international group of scholars met in Also in 2000, volume 3 of the Handbook of Reading
New London, Connecticut, to take up then-pressing Research included a chapter written by Gee that empha-
questions regarding literacy. Representing North sized the convergence of discourse studies and socio-
America, Europe, and Australia, the New London cultural studies of literacy. Gees work in critical
Group included Courtney Cazden, Bill Cope, Norman discourse studies, alongside that of Blommaert, Collins,
Fairclough, James Gee, Mary Kalantzis, Gunther Kress, Comber, Janks, and Allan Luke, spurred the growth of
Allan Luke, Carmen Luke, Sarah Michaels, and Martin CDA in literacy research in the early years of this
Nakata. The New London Groups (1996) work sessions century. Indeed, Gee s (1990, 2012) influential and pop-
considered the integration of cognition and context, ular book Social Linguistic and Literacies: Ideology in
skills and meaning, and the relationship between gram- Discourses , is now in its fourth edition.
matical structures and communicative functions. Over the last 10 years, collaborations among literacy
Ultimately, the New Literacy Studies (NLS) that scholars of different perspectives and geographic areas
emerged from these conversations posited people as have resulted in diverse research networks, journals,
designers of meaning and highlighted the existence of conferences, and working groups. In 2003, educational
multiple literacies embedded within and constructed by researchers using approaches to CDA inspired by Gee
sociocultural practices, each with a history and network and Fairclough met in St. Louis, Missouri. What re-
of norms and values. NLS made room for a second wave sulted was a collection of essays that brought theories of
of studies emphasizing the social and cultural nature of learning together with CDA in a diverse range of educa-
literacy practices and processes. Indeed, the series tional settings (see also R. Rogers, 2011). The year 2004
Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education edited saw the first of what has become an annual working
by Allan Luke included a number of influential titles conference on discourse analysis in educational
that recognized the sociopolitical nature of literacy research (including literacy) that alternates between
practices. What scholars building on the tradition of Indiana University and Ohio State University. By 2005,
NLS lacked, however, was a methodological link for a conference presentations in other settings as well as
fine-grained analysis of how power was enacted, was re- book chapters devoted to CDA were increasingly
sisted, or transformed. CDA offered this link. appearing, another sign of the growing interest in this
CDA in literacy education is woven from several approach (Burns & Morrell, 2005; Carter, 2005; Gee,
methodological strands. One of the earliest comprehen- 2005).
sive essays devoted to CDA and general educational re- In 2011, a North American CDA conference was
search was Allan Lukes "Text and Discourse in held at the University of Utah. Most recently, groups
Education: An Introduction to Critical Discourse met in Asconia, Switzerland, in 2011 and in Munich,
Germany, in 2013. The conference, Critical Approaches
Analysis," published in the 1995/1996 volume of Review
of Research in Education. Fairclough s (1989, 1995) Analysis Across the Disciplines, continues
to Discourse
methodology provided a textually oriented form of to meet
dis-every other year. Globally, the flux and growth
course analysis alongside sociological theories ofinpower,
the field has warranted a follow-up review.
culture, and social life. Bloome and Talwalkar (1997)
published a book review essay called "Critical Discourse
Analysis and the Study of Reading and Writing" in
Reading Research Quarterly that synthesized four Designof of CDA in Literacy Studies
Fairclough s books. By the late 1990s, a handfulConsiderable
of em- discussion among CDA scholars has
occurred
pirical studies were published that, for the first time,around four interrelated qualities of research
designand
used the version of CDA associated with Fairclough that are salient in literacy scholarship that
his followers. draws on CDA (e.g., Bartlett, 2012; Blommaert & Bulcaen,
As reported by R. Rogers et al. (2005), eight 2000;
studies
Gee, 2011; Lewis, 2006; van Dijk, 2010). Researchers
were published in 2000 or before, representing themake decisions regarding reflexivity (researcher self-
pio-
positioning),
neer work with CDA in literacy studies (e.g., Bergvall & context (the domain or boundaries of the
Remlinger, 1996; Comber, 1997; Egan-Robertson, 1998;
inquiry), deconstructive-reconstructive orientation (high-
Figueriredo, 2000; Moje, 1997; Orellana, 1996; T.agency and/or structure in discourse), and so-
lighting
Rogers, Tyson, & Marshall, 2000; J.R Young, cial2000).
action (the degree to which research impels political
Another eight were published between 2000 and commitment
2003: in the world). In this section, we confine
Bloome and Carter (2001), Hinchman and Young
our discussion to the theory relevant to these qualities.
(2001), R. Rogers (2002), Gebhard (2002), Nichols
Later in the review, we return to these aspects of design:

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature ! 123

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
first to report how we applied them in our analysis of social forces more emphatically than to fine-grained lin-
the literature, second in our findings to describe our guistic analyses, or to fine-grained analyses more than
data with the greatest nuance possible, and finally in to the wider social context in which the discourse
our discussion. emerged (Widdowson, 1998). As Gee (2011) argues, an
important issue for the analyst is determining which
contexts to attend to, what he refers to as the frame prob-
Reflexivity
lem. Obviously, the analyst cannot attend to all contexts
Acknowledgment of the researcher's identity and role in
at the same time. For the purpose of analysis and inter-
the context of qualitative inquiry is crucial in the social
pretation, context can be construed across domains:
sciences. Bucholtz (2001) defined reflexivity as a pro-
social, cultural, political, economic, and others. The
cess whereby "the analysts choices at every step in the
analysis itself creates a context with its own history of
research process are visible as a part of the discourse
discourse practices.
investigation and critique does not stop with social
processes, whether macrolevel or microlevel, but rather
extends to the analysis itself" (p. 166). CDA practitio- Deconstructive-Reconstructive
ners, particularly those working with natural speech in Orientations to Power
dynamic settings, are attuned to the nuanced ways in As early as 1995, Luke pointed out the dual potential of
which researcher identity is implicated in the research CDA to operate both deconstructively and construc-
process. Illuminating researcher identity- whether eth- tively. In their deconstructive turn, analysts illustrate
nicity, mother tongue, age, gender, social class, educa- how "systematic asymmetries of power and resources
tional level, or racial aspects of identity (among other between speakers and listeners and between readers
qualities)- can open up space for increased critical and writers can be linked to the production and repro-
interpretation of data and deepen the reflexive compo- duction of stratified political and economic interests"
nent of inquiry. (p. 12). In their constructive turn, "critical discourse
analysis sets out to generate agency among students,
Context teachers and others by giving them the tools to see how
As a meaning-making endeavor, CDA can help us un-texts position them and generate the very relations of
derstand what kinds of socially significant meaningsinstitutional power at work in classrooms, staff rooms
are expressed through talk and text. Because all mean-and policy" (pp. 12-13). Just a few years later, Bloome
ing is made in context, and in keeping with a longand Talwalkar (1997) criticized the top-down, oppres-
history of scholarship and theory in the social sciences, sive understandings of power that predominated in
CDA is rooted in the assumption that language andmuch of Fairclough 's (1989) early work.
context are formed in relation to each other. That said, Foreshadowing what Luke (2004) and Martin (2004)
the relationships among context, discourse, and analy-would emphasize in their calls for a reconstructive
sis of any kind can be fraught (for a discussion, see approach, Bloome and Talwalkar (1997) called our atten-
tion to reconstruction instead of deconstruction.
Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Gee, 2011; Heller, 2001;
van Dijk, 2010). Likewise, van Dijks (2001) conception of CDA, often
For conversation analysis, context is generally lim-cited as foundational, includes the agentive aspects of
discourse. Foucault (1980), who is often cited in relation
ited to the immediate here and now of coparticipants in
to theories of power, also rejected the idea that power was
a dialogue (Linell, 1998). Ethnographies of speaking
(Briggs, 1996), interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz,solely repressive. Emphasizing the constructive nature of
1982), forms of discourse analysis (Rommetviet &power, Foucault believed that power "traverses and pro-
Blakar, 1979; Scollon & Scollon, 2004), and CDA duces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, pro-
(Fairclough, 1995; Gee, 1999) have used methods asso- duces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive
ciated with conversation analysis. These analyses have network which runs through the whole social body"
extended the account of what constitutes meaningful (p. 119). How CDA researchers understand the orienta-
contextual resources (Linell, 1998) to include some of tion of a discourse with regard to resistance or hegemony
the culturally, historically, and institutionally situatedhas become crucial to the design of inquiry.
affordances and constraints on ways of speaking that
shape speakers' meaning-making activity (see Jaworski
Social Action/Political Commitments
& Coupland, 1999, for an overview of approaches). The place of social action in the design of CDA is an
In spite of expanding the interpretive field to include important and undertheorized area. Visions of social
cultural, historical, political, and institutional contexts, action vary. Some analysts see the practice of CDA as a
CDA has been critiqued for decontextualizing discourse political act, whereas others focus on the interventions
analyses, erring by either attending lopsidedly to broad that emerge from CDA. Aligned with the perspective of

124 j Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
CDA as a political act, Luke (1995) sees CDA as "an year, journal name, educational level of study subjects,
intervention in the apparently natural flow of talk and data source (interviews, interaction, written work, etc.),
text in institutional life that attempts to 'interrupt' and other features. Third, taking up the articles as data,
everyday common sense" (p. 12). Kress and van Leeuwen we inductively developed schemata to analyze four
(1996) remind us that one of CDA's intentions has been salient areas: reflexivity, deconstructive-reconstructive
to bring inequalities of power into crisis by uncovering approaches, context, and social action.
its workings through the analysis of texts and thereby
Review of the Databases
help in achieving a more equitable social order.
Others prefer to apply the results of analysis to educa- We conducted a literature search of five electronic
tional problems, referring to the application as a form of databases from the years 2004-2012: ERIC (EBSCO),
social action. Bartlett (2012), for example, addresses the is- ArticleFirst (OCLC), PsycINFO (American Psychological
sue of uptake in CDA studies, arguing that little attention Association), MLA International Bibliography (Modern
has been given to how discourse practices are incorporated Language Association), and Web of Science (Thomson
into mainstream discourses, prompting bottom-up Reuters). We queried each database separately rather
change. Because CDA reckons with ideology encoded in than use a meta-search engine to have a clear record of
discursive constructions, researchers engaging in CDA are the source of the results. Our search terms were "critical
implicating themselves in an ideological act. The analytic discourse analysis" and "education," and "critical dis-
question, though, is how this act is articulated. course analysis" and "literacy." We searched only for
In the following sections, we describe in detail the peer-reviewed articles, excluding dissertations, unpub-
procedures that we used to construct and analyze our lished documents, reports, and book reviews.
data set. Although we chose these databases and search
terms to replicate the 2005 literature reviews proce-
dures, there were limitations to replicating the earlier
Method: Data Collection sampling strategy. The marketing interests of database
vendors, the ways databases are bundled for purchase
and Analysis by university libraries, unstable university budgets, and
Mindful of the reflexive researcher stance that is inher- the ever-evolving algorithms that drive online searches
ent in CDA, we begin this section by situating ourselves affect which articles are pulled up, what journals are
as researchers and practitioners in the field of CDA. represented, and to what degree the scholarship of dif-
Then, we describe in detail the procedures that we used ferent countries is represented in any given search. We
to construct and analyze our data set. did not have access to the vendor ProQuest, for exam-
ple, which includes a specifically non-U.S. database that
Researchers might have turned up additional scholarship published
in places such as Australia and South Africa.
As coauthors of this article, we came together through
Further, because many Latin American journals are
our shared interests in discourse processes within the
published in Spanish only, they do not appear in the
context of literacy education. Rogers is a university-
EBSCO databases. However, our search did include
based literacy researcher and teacher educator whose
international journals such as Asia Pacific Journal of
research focuses on identity, language, and power across
Education , Australian Educational Researcher ; Discourse :
the life span. A writer turned teacher, Schaenen is espe-
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, English in
cially interested in how literacy learning can emphasize
Australia , International Journal of Bilingual Education
rhetorical purpose in dynamic and multiple social
and Bilingualismy Movimiento , South African Journal of
settings. We are both white women with children but
Education , and South African Linguistics and Applied
diverge in our religious and socioeconomic back-
Language Studies . The guidance provided by university
grounds. Our own work with CDA tends to integrate
librarians and our reviewers helped us construct as com-
CDA within ethnographic contexts.
plete a sample as possible.
We located 257 articles, which will constitute our
Procedures data for a review in progress of CDA across all educa-
tional disciplines. We read and coded each abstract as
We carried out our integrative critical review in three
stages. First, we completed a search of educational(a) relevant to education but not literacy education;
databases. Second, we developed an analytic review (b) relevant to literacy education; or (c) not relevant to
template, a system for documenting and describing literacy, education, or CDA. If an article focused on
themes and qualities of research in the field.literacy
We practices and processes and used CDA, we coded
it as germane to this review. We included studies that
encoded specific template data in digital spreadsheets
were conducted in or pertained to educational contexts,
to quantify frequencies of variables, such as publication

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature 1 125

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
broadly construed. We also retained empirical, concep- and disagreement. These documents formed the basis
tual, and literature reviews in the database to discuss the of our qualitative analysis. In condensed form, most of
range of articles represented in the corpus of articles. these qualities were recorded in the spreadsheet for
Next, we cross-checked the databases to exclude over- quantitative analysis.
lapping references and collapsed all the germane refer-
ences into one document for ease of referencing. We Spreadsheets: Frequencies of Relevant Qualities
retrieved all the articles as PDFs and filed them by au- Drawing from the abstracts, the articles, and the ana-
thor s last name and publication year. lytic review templates, we created a digital spreadsheet
to track the qualities that we wanted to describe and in-
Creating the Literacy Education terpret quantitatively, first across the entire database
Data Subset ( N = 257) and then across the literacy education subset
(N = 76). For each of the qualities, we established codes
We culled the literacy education articles from the larger
for consistency. It was then possible to share data with
data set (N = 257) of CDA in education. This was not a
each other in real time, collaboratively constructing, re-
cut-and-dried process. For the purposes of this review,
vising, and sorting the columns individually, aggregat-
we define literacy education as the reading, writing,
ing by code to calculate the frequencies of codes within
talking, and interacting that comprise literacy teaching
each quality. We then compared the current state of
and learning practices and processes, within or outside
CDA in literacy research with the findings of the liter-
of school. Even with an operative definition, sortingacy subset within the 2005 review.
studies into groups generated fruitful discussions about
delineating research fields within CDA. Itself a language
Four Features of Study Design:
practice, CDA generates words about how people use
Analytic Approach to Qualities
words; as a research method, it therefore has a special
In light of the concerns, discussions, and critiques
(meta) relationship with the language practices involved
percolating in the field, we developed four schemata to
in teaching and learning about reading and writing.help us analyze the context, reflexivity, social action,
The search terms "critical discourse analysis" and
and deconstructive-reconstructive orientation of the
"literacy" identified a few empirical studies that we The schemata categorized how researchers were
studies.
excluded from the literacy subset because, although
treating reflexivity (low, medium, high), context
focused on language related to learning, they were not
(narrowly microlinguistic, midrange, microlinguistic/
primarily about discourses pertaining to reading,macrosocial),
writ- deconstructive-reconstructive orienta-
ing, talking, and interacting within or outside of school
tion (highly reconstructive, a combination of both ori-
(i.e., literacy education) but rather some other educa-
entations, highly deconstructive), and calls for social
tional topic, such as educational policy (e.g., Betteney,
action (minimal, midrange, action embedded in re-
2010) or teacher education (de Courcy, 2007). search design). The schemata were developed based on
We decided to count an article as belonging in the
the range of qualities that we noticed in the data after
literacy education data set (henceforth referred reading
to as each of the articles. We revised the language of
LED) if, and only if it met one or more of the following
these conceptual tools a number of times- before, dur-
conditions:
ing, and after our categorization process. Ultimately,
• The study came up in our search as previously we grouped every individual study into one of three
described. categories for each of the four qualities. We subse-
quently describe these analytic frameworks and our
• The article primarily focused on literacy educa-
approach to inter-rater reliability in more detail.
tion events, practices, and processes as previously
defined. REFLEXIVITY. We examined markers such as descrip-
• The authors described their approach as CDA. tion of the researcher s background, positioning vis-à-vis
the research project, and inclusion of the researcher in the
findings.
Analytic Procedures
Low reflexivity was evidenced if an author posi-
We developed an analytic review template to capturetioned himself or herself as a total outsider or unexam-
the qualities of each article relevant to our research ined insider. High reflexivity was evidenced when the
questions, using the works of R. Rogers et al. (2005) and
authors intentionality was embedded in every aspect of
Compton-Lilly, Rogers, and Lewis (2012) as guides (seethe study design and the author turned their analytic
the Appendix). We both read each study multiple times,
framework on their own participation.
completing the analytic review templates as documents
in MS Word with quoted excerpts where possible. WeCONTEXT. We analyzed whether the study was lim-
shared the files with each other, noting places of overlapited to microlinguistic interpretation or situated

126 ļ Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
within a macrosocietal, macroinstitutional, or histori- research design; these authors are taking an intervention-
cal framework: ist approach in the very conceptualization of their study
and share an explicit intention to change current
• To what degree did the researcher ground the study
educational or societal conditions. We judged an article to
in the kind of ethnographic data that illuminated
be moderate in its stance for social action if the authors (or
the setting and the discourse under examination?
the participants they studied) took some sort of social
• How much of the analysis contends with hori- action (e.g., curricular change, forming a study group,
zontal context (institutional, social, and cultural
reanalysis of texts) and reported on this action in the
in the Geertzian sense) and vertical context (his- article.
torical in a Foucauldian sense)?
Inter-Rater Reliability
Studies with minimal context are limited to micro-
As coresearchers examining a large corpus of qualitative
textual analysis within a fairly microsocial context (in-
data, we developed a multiphase approach to inter-rater
trapersonal, interpersonal, a classroom or school
reliability. First, we piloted our four schemata with stud-
setting). In studies with a high degree of context, ana-
ies that relied on written documents (e.g. Hammond,
lysts attend to the microdimensions of the linguistic/ 2006; Johnson, 2005a) and those that worked with inter-
textual interaction and also consistently situate their
actional discourse in natural settings (Assaf & Dooley,
analysis within a larger institutional/societal context.
2010; Richardson, 2007). We used this subgroup to help
There is a consistent shuttling back and forth between
us clarify and develop a shared understanding of each of
the micro- and macrostructures. Studies with a me-
the schemata. Independently, we arrived at nearly 100%
dium amount of context have some attention to the mi-
agreement in the category of reflexivity, differing only
crodimensions of texts/interactions, or the analysis may
by 1 point for one article. Less consistent were our
be limited to global/societal discourses.
interpretations of calls for social action, context, and
DECONSTRUCTIVE-RECONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH deconstruction-reconstruction. As a result, through
TO INQUIRY. peer debriefing, we fine-tuned our rubrics until we
could arrive at matching analyses as a team.
• What was the author s critical orientation to the
We then moved on to individually coding the rest of
inquiry?
the LED database. We quantified how often we agreed
• Did the research explicitly take up discoursesor disagreed for each feature within an article and
that sustain inequalities or seem to blend, blur, or across multiple articles. We continued to agree most
alternate from reconstructive (primarily con- consistently about the degree of reflexivity (67%), fol-
cerned with agency) to deconstructive (primarilylowed by social action calls (65%), deconstruction-
concerned with hegemonic structures). reconstruction orientation (60%), and degree of context
(53%). Considerable follow-up and shared close reading
In highly reconstructive studies, the research questions helped us arrive at agreement.
were intentionally framed to examine discourses that Although the inter-rater reliability scores seem low
demonstrate agency, liberation, or transformation. when considered against common quantitative mea-
Highly deconstructive inquiry concentrated on dis- sures, we offer several caveats. First, any variation in
course that sustains inequalities. The author may sug-scoring results in a lower score. Most of the differences
gest possibilities for disrupting oppressive practices but in our perceptions of context, for example, were differ-
do so only in the discussion. ences between our original scores of 2s and 3s, depend-
CALL FOR SOCIAL ACTION.
ing on which part of the study we each focused on. The
authors rendering of context might have differed in the
• In designing and undertaking research, to what
research design and findings sections of the paper.
degree do scholars of CDA feel compelled to take
Ultimately, we decided that if our attention was to make
action? evident to other researchers in the field how features like
• What, if anything, is happening as a consequence context, reflexivity, and social action have been realized,
of inquiry? we could collapse the 2s and 3s into a single, more capa-
cious midrange that allowed for greater difference to be
In studies with a minimal call for social action, the re- seen across the categories. Hence, we shifted from four
search extends a line of inquiry, opens the way for future to three possible categories for each schemata. We ulti-
study, and may even suggest ideas for pedagogical or tex- mately arrived at consensus in scoring each of the
tual change, but does not make a call for social action, em- articles.
bed action, or refer to action. High calls for social action We emphasize that our analytic intention is not
are evident when researchers embed social action in the to make our interpretive process replicable - an

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature I 127

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
impossibility in any case - but to develop a more nu- Genre of Article
anced language for discussing the criteria of important There were a total of 69 empirical studies. The two po-
themes in the field. Given the extent and quality of our sition papers (Cots, 2006; Lewis, 2006), three theoreti-
conversations, we are confident that our claims are cal articles (Henderson, 2005; Janks, 2005a, 2005b),
trustworthy. However, we also acknowledge that there and two literature reviews (Compton-Lilly et al., 2012;
may still be interpretive slippage if adapted for other re- Huckin, Andrus, & Clary-Lemon, 2012) develop ideas
search or reviews or taken up by other researchers with around CDA as a stance, method, and approach.
slightly different understandings of these key themes.

Primary Source of Data

Twenty-nine of the 69 empirical studies analyzed inter-
Results
actions. The rest of the empirical work (N = 40) exam-
Research Question 1 ined written documents, including interviews (N = 5)
and e-mail exchanges (N = 1).
What is the nature of CDA research in literacy educa-
tion from 2004 to 2012? Table 1 summarizes basic find-
ings regarding publication date, geographical setting, Journals Publishing CDA
education context, sociopolitical focus, and scholarly in Literacy Education
attribution. In addition to these data, we examined theThe preponderance of CDA studies were published by
following. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies (6); Research in the

TABLE 1
Summary of Select Findings on the Nature of Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education Databases
(2004-2012)
Publication Geographical Educational context Sociopolitical focus Citation frequency
year (N = 74) setting (N = 69) (N = 69) (N = 69) (N = 69)
2004 6 United 49 Early 3 Student identity 19 Gee, J. P. (1999). An 20
States childhood introduction to discourse
analysis : Theory and m
London, UK: Routledge

2005 7 Asia 7 Elementary 19 Teacher identity 13 Fai rclough, N. (1992). 19

Discourse and social change .
Cambridge, UK: Polity.

2006 9 United 4 Secondary 5 Racism, 14 Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical 18

Kingdom ethnicity, and discourse analysis : The critical
diversity study of language. New York,
NY: Longman.

2007 7 Australia 2 Pre-K-12 5 Gender and 9 Rogers, R. (Ed.) (2011). 13

sexualities Introduction to critical
discourse analysis in education
(2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.

2008 10 South Africa 2 Higher 12 Testing, 8 Fairclough, N. (2003). 13

education standards, and Analyzing discourse: Textual
commerce analysis for social research.
London, UK: Routledge.

2009 4 Brazil 1 Teacher 13 Social class 4 Fairclough, N. (1989). 11

education Language and power . London,
UK: Longman.

2010 9 Europe 1 Adult 8 Familiesand 2 Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, 10

education empowerment N. (1999). Discourse in late
modernity : Rethinking critical
discourse analysis. Edinburgh,
UK: Edinburgh University Press.

201 1 9 Canada 3 Community 4 - - - -

2012 13 ______ _ _

128 I Reading Researc

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Teaching of English (6); Journal of Adolescent & Adult formed, and disrupted. Literacy researchers seek to un-
Literacy (4); Journal of Language, Identity & Education derstand the relationship between literacy practices
(4); Reading Research Quarterly (4); and Bilingual (including classroom instruction) and identity forma-
Research Journal (3). Language Arts and Linguistics and tion so teachers might create spaces where students can
Education each published two articles. identify with literacy practices and, likewise, use
students' already existing identifications within the
Collaboration curriculum. Examples of such studies include Assaf
and Dooley (2010), Haddix (2010), Michael-Luna
Of the 69 empirical studies, about 30% (N = 21) were
(2008), Richardson (2007), van Rensburg (2007), and
conducted by more than one author. This percentage Wohlwend (2007).
holds steady across analyses drawing on texts (30% col-
Michael-Luna's (2008) study, for example, focused
laborations) and interaction (31% collaborations). Four
on how young multilinguals' racial identities are con-
articles featured collaborations between teachers and
structed through literacy instruction. She asked, "How
researchers (Crumpler, Handsfield, & Dean, 2011;
does language used by teachers, students and texts
Gebhard, Demers, & Castillo-Rosenthal, 2008; Michael-
within literacy events contribute to shaping a learner
Luna, 2008; R. Rogers & Mosley, 2006).
identity for students in a first-grade dual-language
classroom?" (p. 276). Moving into a teacher education
Multimodality context, Haddix (2010) asked, "In what discursive ways
do Black and Latina preservice teachers reconcile ten-
Twenty-nine percent (20 of 69) of the empirical articles
included multimodal analysis of the data. Some of thesesions between their racial and linguistic identities and
the construction of teacher identities in the current
analyses only briefly attended to multimodality, peri-
context of preservice teacher education in the United
pherally integrating a description of body positioning,
States?"
gesture, or image. Other articles included a more in- (p. 98). Literacy researchers turn to CDA to un-
depth treatment of multimodality (e.g., Marshall & derstand how such meanings and roles are negotiated
Toohey, 2010; Mosley & Rogers, 2011; Schaenen, 2010;through discourse practices.
Wohlwend, 2012; RA. Young, 2009). Only six of the 20 Another key focus for literacy researchers, espe-
cially
articles developed a multimodal transcript suggesting a those working with interactional data, is the de-
velopment
closer attention to multimodality. Eleven studies in- of values, ideas, and understandings. These
researchers recognize that literacy learning is a contin-
cluded digital/global technologies in their data set. Only
ual process that can be observed and documented
three of these studies explicitly analyzed the multi-
through
modal aspects of their data (Gebhard, 2004; Marshall 8c discourse practices across time (Chen, 2006;
Toohey, 2010; Richardson, 2007). Gebhard et al., 2008; Martínez-Roldán & Malavé, 2004;
Menard-Warwick & Palmer, 2012; Peterson & Calovini,
2004).
Research Question 2 Chen (2006), for example, designed a study to un-
cover the complexity of an L2 learners developing
How does CDA help us better understand literacy edu-
cation? Why are researchers turning to CDA specifi-e-mail practice. To capture the process of change and
cally or including CDA among other methodological development, she asked,
approaches to literacy research?
1. Did Ling s language use, including general e-mail
Researchers turn to CDA to study the discourses of
discourse features and request strategies, differ
literacy education and the discourses around literacy
education. Researchers have focused on a number of
between the e-mails sent to peers and the e-mails
sent to professors? Did her use of these discourse
core issues in literacy education, slowing down interac-
forms and strategies change over time in her
tions and pulling apart texts to help us see how people
e-mail practice?
recruit language for social purposes. Closely examining
the kinds of questions that literacy researchers begin 2. From Lings perspective, what made her change
with suggests patterns of inquiry. Some of the questions or remain unchanged in her language use in
seek to describe (e.g., "what are," "the ways in which," e-mail communication? (p. 39)
"in what ways") or to uncover (e.g., "reveal"), whereas
others seek to explain (e.g., "show," "how") and to probe Interested in the development of language ideolo-
deeply (e.g., "dig beneath the surface," "move beyond").gies, Martínez-Roldán and Malavé (2004) emphasize
the emerging nature of ideologies in the framing of
The language of these questions reflects the descriptive,
interpretive, and explanatory framework of CDA. their research. They write, "we examine both the child's
A number of researchers ask questions about how
emergent ideas about language(s) as expressed in bilin-
literate identities and identifications are acquired,
gual literature discussions, and his parents' ideological

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature I 129

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
discourses on language regarding the use of a minority
language for instruction in public schools" (p. 157).
Literacy researchers who use CDA have also shown a
great deal of interest in knowing the effectiveness (or inef-
fectiveness) of specific literacy lessons, discussions, or
professional development. They understand that lan-
guage is the medium of teaching and learning and need to
look closely not only at what is said but also at how it is
said. Even literacy lessons designed with equity in mind
sometimes fail. Other times, researchers are struck by the
productive and generative nature of a literacy practice or
event. Examples of these studies include Christiansen
(2004), Glaser and van Pletzen (2012), and Schieble
(2012a).
In a study exploring multiliteracies and teacher devel-
opment, Crumpler et al. (2011) asked, "How might we be
complicit in reinforcing normative ways of representing
English learners in our research? If we wish to challenge
'difference of deficit' thinking, what are the implications
for doing research in the moment?" (p. 56). Similarly in-
terested in what happens when teachers silence or pro-
mote certain topics or interactions, Rocha-Schmid (2010)
examined her own discourses as an adult educator within
the context of a parent involvement class:
The main aims of this study are, firstly, to look into whether
my own discourse practices as an adult education tutor do
justice in my intended role as a Freieran critical pedagogue;
secondly, to investigate the extent to which these practices
leave room for parents' empowerment within the classroom;
and, thirdly, to consider whether the course was successful
in raising parents' critical awareness of the school system
and the roles they play within it. (p. 346)
Other researchers are concerned with policies, spe-
cific genres, literacy programs, or textbooks. They want
to better understand how they are constructed/designed
to help people gain access and/or better understand why
powerful discourses hold the persuasive power that they
do. Examples of studies that examine the discursive con-
struction of policies include Dennis (2011), Gibb (2008),
Hamilton and Pitt (2011), Johnson (2005a, 2005b), and
Yamagami (2012). Other literacy researchers are inter-
ested in specific genres, such as young adolescent litera-
ture (e.g., Glenn, 2008; R. Rogers & Christian, 2007;
Schieble 2012b), or the notion of genre itself (e.g.,
Schaenen, 2010). Dworin and Bomer (2008) and Agiro
(2012) set out to examine texts that were widely used in
professional development and high school English class-
rooms, respectively. Prins and Toso (2008), Schmidt
(2008), and Tuten (2007) investigated the discursive con-
tours of reading programs or evaluations, such as parent
education profiles and report cards.
Schmidt (2008), for example, conducted an analysis of
a widespread computerized reading program called
Accelerated Reader. Interested in its persuasive power, she
130 ļ Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)
This content downloaded from
85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
asked, "How does [Accelerated Reader] shape ideologies
about reading, social learning, management, and motiva-
tion in students, teachers, and parents?" (p. 203).
Analyzing the powerful genre of legislation, Johnson
(2005b) investigates how Proposition 203 claimed that
bilingual education programs impede English-language
learning of language students, despite abundant re-
search to the contrary. To understand the stronghold of
this rhetoric, he examined the most prominent meta-
phors used to degrade bilingual education in public
discourse.
Questioning the link between local literacy prac-
tices and wider social discourses is another persistent
area of inquiry for literacy researchers. Seeking to un-
derstand the relationships between everyday language
and literacy practices (e.g., purchasing of books, pejora-
tive comments about immigrants) and institutional and
societal discourses (e.g., of social class, about English
learners), CDA helps literacy researchers investigate
how the discourses of/in literacy education shape and
are shaped by social forces. Examples of these studies
include Comber and Cormack (2011), Dworin and
Bomer (2008), Hammond (2006), Powell (2004), Souto-
Manning (2006), and Wohlwend (2007).
Powell (2004) illustrates how the discourses of diver-
sity, standards, and access are constructed on a universi-
ty's campus. She sought to understand how CDA can be
used to understand the relationships between language
practices and the social and political worlds in which uni-
versity educators work and teach. Comber and Cormack
(2011) examined how principals mediate national
policies.
Why do literacy researchers choose CDA? When we
looked more closely at researchers' rationale for using
CDA and not other theories/methods, we learned the
following:
• CDA frameworks have a theoretical/methodolog-
ical richness and complexity to capture micro/
micro processes. CDA is well suited for embed-
ding within ethnographic research.
• CDA frameworks are aligned with assumptions
that NLS researchers bring to their work.
• CDA frameworks are flexible enough to attend to
both structure and agency.
• CDA frameworks help researchers theorize about
the longitudinal nature of literacy learning and
development.
• CDA frameworks can provoke intervention and
be used as a pedagogical tool.
• CDA can lead researchers to see contradictory
discourses and discursive struggles that might be
important for understanding the experiences of
marginalized folks.
 • Researchers can use CDA to evaluate experi- teacher identity (Gebhard, 2004; Gu, 2009, 2010;
ences, beliefs, events, programs, and policies. Martinez-Roldan, 2005; Martinez-Roldan &
Malave, 2004; Michael-Luna, 2008; Souto-
• Researchers have acknowledged the limitations
of CDAs ability to allow participants to speak Manning, 2006)
back to the data but have found ways to make • Sociocultural assumptions, including those regard-
CDA more responsive to participants. ing immigrants and immigration (Graff, 2010)
• Racial constructs (Assaf & Dooley, 2010; Michael-
Research Question 3 Luna, 2008; Mosley & Rogers, 2011; R. Rogers &
Mosley, 2006, 2008; Trainor, 2005)
How has CDA in literacy research expanded knowledge
in the researching and teaching community? What • Gender (Clarke, 2007; Martinez-Roldan, 2005;
Peterson & Calovini, 2004; Richardson, 2007;
have been some of the key findings across this corpus?
The key findings in the set of LED studies that drew
Wohlwend, 2007, 2012)
on written texts (N = 40) tended to coalesce around • Educator professional development and educa-
seven major themes, with a few of the studies generat- tors as mediators of educational reform (Comber
ing findings with overlapping themes. These key themes & Cormack, 2011; Crumpler et al., 2011; Graff,
included issues of social justice or equity relating to ed- 2010; Haddix, 2010)
ucation in general or to teaching and learning among • Instructional design and practice (Crumpler et al.,
youths and adult learners, with the following categories 2011; Kumagai, 2007; Moita-Lopes, 2006; Mosley
of findings: & Rogers, 2011; Rocha-Schmid, 2010; Schaenen,
• Learning across social differences (Fernsten, 2010; van Sluys, Lewison, & Flint, 2006)
2005; Gebhard et al., 2008; Hammond, 2006;
Hashimoto, 2011; Johnson, 2005a, 2005b; Specifically within this latter set of findings ger-
Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Powell, 2004; Schieble,mane to instructional design, we noticed that four of
2012a) the analyses disclosed vexing, problematic, or tension-
filled teaching practices or decisions that resulted in
• Transformations in learner identity (Chen, 2006;
complex learning outcomes. In these cases, CDA helped
Fernsten, 2005, 2008; Goulah, 2011; Menard-
researchers and teacher researchers illuminate both the
Warwick & Palmer, 2012; R. Rogers, 2004; source and the course of these cross-communications
Schmidt & Whitmore, 2010)
(Christiansen, 2004; Crumpler et al., 2011; Moita-Lopes,
• Curricular materials and discourses (Dennis, 2006; Rocha-Schmid, 2010; Schaenen, 2010).
2011; Glenn, 2008; Hashimoto, 2011; Marshall & Taken as a whole, the studies demonstrate how ac-
Toohey, 2010; R. Rogers & Christian, 2007; cess to different discourse practices is unevenly distrib-
Schieble, 2012b; Schmidt, 2008; Taylor, 2008; P.A.uted across social groups. Critical education practices
Young, 2009) attempt to widen learners' experiences with multiple
• Transformations in teacher identity (Cahnmann, discourse practices, particularly for people from histor-
Rymes, & Souto-Manning, 2005; Davison, 2006; ically oppressed backgrounds. Creating powerful dis-
Moin et al., 2011; van Rensburg, 2007) courses with the potential to change mainstream
• Power and agency variability within specific con- discourses requires expanding access to and comfort
texts and/or discourses (Anderson, 2008; Gibb, with privileged discourses as well as role models who
2008; Marshall & Toohey, 2010; R. Rogers, 2004) can challenge and stretch how language is taken up in
• Movement or lack of movement across social learning environments. In the aggregate, the studies
also affirm existing findings in sociocultural studies of
class or socioeconomic identities (Anderson,
literacy that suggest that discourse practices are dy-
2008; Dutro, 2010; Dworin & Bomer, 2008)
namic, neither totally restrictive nor totally open (e.g.,
• Processes of assessment (Prins & Toso, 2008; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007). Finally, the discomforts
Tuten, 2007) that characterize many of the practices under study re-
flect the very issues that are being studied (e.g., gender,
With respect to the studies based on interactions linguistic diversity, antiracism).
(N = 29), we found four primary themes across the ag-
gregated set of findings. These themes included the
Research Question 4
following:
How does CDA in literacy research address four key el-
• Teaching and learning of English as a second lan- ements of research design? Readers are reminded of our
guage, including transformations in learner and earlier discussion of theory and analytic approach to

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature ļ 131

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the four key elements of CDA research design: reflexiv- Low Reflexivity
ity, context, deconstructive-reconstructive orientation, Moita-Lopes (2006), in a study about "queering school
and call to social action. Our purpose in the following literacy practices" (p. 33), begins with the idea of reflex-
sections is to share our process of reading and assessing ivity and even discloses the sexual orientation of her
these features of CDA in literacy research. two assistants but, oddly, engages in minimal reflexiv-
Before continuing, we caution readers against read- ity herself. Other studies with a low degree of reflexivity
ing our classification of scholarship in terms of these include Blum and Johnson (2012), Davison (2006), and
four dimensions as indicative of an authors work in Hamilton and Pitt (2011).
general. That is, although we have categorized an article
Medium Reflexivity
as high in reflexivity or low in reflexivity, we recognize
that these markers do not represent a scholars bodyR.
of Rogers and Christian (2007) include a detailed de-
work overall. Contending with space constraintsscription
of of the complexities of their interracial research
journals or the focus of a special issue, authors may
team and their consistent positioning of themselves
choose to foreground certain aspects of their work (say,
within each aspect of the article. However, the research-
context) more in one article than in another. Our pur-ers' positioning and interactions were not the subject of
pose here is not to rate or evaluate the articles but investigation.
to Other studies with a medium amount of
fine-tune the fields understanding of key aspects reflexivity
of include Goulah (2011), Gibb (2008), and
research design. Martínez-Roldán and Malavé (2004).
Thus, in the following sections we describe the dis-
High Reflexivity
tribution of articles within the range of each conceptual
area. We discuss the findings across the empirical stud-Crumpler et al. (2011) subject their interactions to the
ies as a whole and describe patterns that we noticed same level of critical scrutiny as they do the teacher par-
within the disaggregated written and interactional data ticipants in the study. Reflexivity is built into their re-
search questions: "1) How might we be complicit in
sets. To be as succinct as possible, we present only one
reinforcing normative ways of representing English
illustrative exemplar within each range to show schol-
learners in our research? 2) If we wish to challenge 'dif-
arly engagement with inquiry design, but point to other
examples for further reading and review. ference as deficit' thinking, what are the implications
for doing research in the momenti " (p. 56). Their find-
ings include a critical analysis of how their talk reifies
Reflexivity categories of disability. Reflexivity was central to other
Twenty-eight studies fell on the nonreflexive end of the studies, including Rocha-Schmid (2010), Schaenen
schemata. In these studies, the authors position them- (2010), and Souto-Manning (2006).
selves as outsiders or unexamined insiders. Thirty-five
studies move beyond disclosure of basic demographic Context in Study Design and Reporting
information and embed a reflexive stance throughout Countering the assertion that CDA is predominantly a
the article. Six of the studies exhibit high reflexivity, context-stripping exercise, 43% (30 of 69) of all the LED
meaning the authors position and intentionality is em- studies exhibited an expanded treatment of context, ex-
bedded in every aspect of the article. All of the most plicitly and with detail embedding their analyses within
reflexive studies worked with interactional data.
larger social and temporal contexts, and moved back
and on
Expecting the reflexivity in the studies that drew forth across micro- and macrocontexts when inter-
interactional data to be quite high, we were surprised
preting interactions. The studies drawing on interac-
tional
that seven fell on the extremely outsider end of the re- data tended to situate their CDA within
flexivity continuum (Comber & Cormack, 2011; ethnographic contexts, connecting the microlinguistics
Gebhard, 2004; Glaser & van Pletzen, 2012; Gu, 2010; of participant structures to social structures. The stud-
Moita-Lopes, 2006; Peterson & Calovini, 2004; Ullman, ies that drew on written data sources tended to focus on
2012). the relationship between texts and larger social, politi-
Researchers examining written data were much cal, and historical contexts or discourses (e.g., history of
more likely to not engage in any reflexivity regarding bilingual education or neoliberal policies).
analysis or self-positioning within the study. In more The majority of studies (26 of 69, or 38%) paid some
than half of the studies that drew on written data attention to the microdimensions of texts/interactions
sources (21 of 40), the author positioned himself and
or situated the meaning of the study to some degree
herself as a total outsider or unexamined insider. within a larger social or historical frame. However, there
Christiansens (2004) examination of how his written
was not the close analysis of linguistic features and the
responses to students' writing shaped the development
deliberate connecting with social structures as with the
of their academic literacies was an exception. studies with a high degree of context. Some studies in

132 j Reading Research Quarterly , 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
this midrange also limited their analysis to discourses at respect to learning, identity, or transformation, the au-
the global/societal level without attending to the linguis- thors of these studies show that CDA is not only for
tic composition of the discourses. Nineteen percent (13 dismantling oppressive practices. Of this group, the au-
of 69) of the studies included minimal context and were thors of three studies (4%) referred to their approach as
limited to microtextual analyses that focused on a fairly reconstructive or positive discourse analysis. The au-
microsocial context (intrapersonal or interpersonal) thors of the remaining 25 articles (36%) focused their
without attending to a larger ethnographic, societal, or analysis on discourse that sustains inequalities, or took
institutional setting. The number was fairly evenly dis- a deconstructive orientation. Digging a little deeper
tributed across the written and interactional studies. In into these groupings, we noted that the distribution of
what follows, we give representative examples of studies reconstructively framed studies was slightly higher in
across the ranges that we have described. the interactional studies than in the written studies
(72% vs. 58%).
Minimal Context This means that, first, even studies focused on writ-
Fernsten (2008) examines the written portfolio often
an documents are avoiding the critique-only model of
English learner to theorize about the student's identities
CDA; and second, there exist sufficiently reconstructiv-
as a writer. Fernstens microanalysis focuses on the stu-ist documents and other inscribed material culture in
dent's written responses but offers minimal ethno- literacy studies to warrant inquiry and analysis (cf.
Martin & Rose, 2007). However, the written studies
graphic or institutional context. Other studies that
focused mainly on the microlinguistic within a narrow
were far more likely to analyze discourses that sustain
context include Gebhard et al. (2008), Kumagai (2007),
inequalities. Indeed, 43% (17 of 40) of the analysts who
and Schieble (2012a). focus on written documents concentrate on a sociopo-
litical topic (e.g., racism, heteronormative relations) and
Medium Context
interpret how inequalities are discursively constructed.
Gu (2010) primarily trains her attention on the long-
term interactions between two female, Chinese students
Highly Reconstructive
learning English and their conversational partnersHaddix
in (2010) explicitly set out to focus on
a Chinese setting. She contextualizes China within a
global context and theorizes about the relationshipthe discursive ways that Black and Latina preservice teach-
between the interactions and sociohistorical circum- ers reconcile tensions between their racial and linguistic
identities and the construction of teacher identities.... This
stances. There is some attention to the microdimensions
examination of their literacy and language practices eluci-
of the e-mail interactions, but the meaning and rele- dates a move beyond marginalization and inferiority to-
vance of Gu's analysis lies in its relationship to a larger ward agency and linguistic hybridity, (p. 97)
historical context. Other studies that we judged as dem-
onstrating context in this sense include Christiansen Her emphasis on generative discourses characterized
(2004), van Rensburg (2007), and van Sluys et al. (2006).
studies deemed as reconstructive. The findings illus-
trate a both/and positionality, where the preservice
High Context teachers enact their own cultural identities most readily
Clarke's (2007) study is drawn from a three-year quali-when they are in similar communities. Other examples
tative study of a fifth-grade classroom in a poor, work-of studies that were highly reconstructive include
ing community. As a participant-observer and literacy Mosley and Rogers (2011) and RA. Young (2009).
coach, she focuses on one literature circle conversation
about the book Shiloh by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor. She Studies Finding/Interpreting
enacts Fairclough's approach to CDA, moving from sit- Both Structure and Agency
uational to institutional to societal levels of analysis.Dutro (2010) studies third graders' experiences with re-
She connects the silence of the girls and the dominance sponding to a story about a Depression-era farm fami-
of the boys to the underlying ideology of male discur- ly's economic hardships from the district-mandated
sive power. Studies like Clarke's attended to both the reading curriculum. Although the story and the teach-
micro- and macrocontexts at various points in the arti- er's guide obscure poverty, the students' writing reveals
cle. Other examples include Assaf and Dooley (2010),the enduring dimensions of living in poverty. Dutro's
Dutro (2010), and Xiong and Qian (2012). analysis neither denies the structural constraints of
poverty reinforced through mass-produced curricular
Deconstructive-Reconstructive
materials nor underestimates the power of students and
Approach to Inquiry teachers to name their own class-based realities.
About 64% of all the articles included some aspect of
Similarly, authors such as Berkowitz (2012), Crumpler
reconstruction. That is, by focusing on discourses et al. (2011), and Hammond (2006) do not frame their
with

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature I 133

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
research as reconstructive analysis, but they focus on teachers featuring social justice pedagogy. Common
the interplay of structure and agency. among the studies in this group were recommendations
for proposed societal changes as a result of the findings
Highly Deconstructive (e.g., institutional, community, larger scale curricular).
Hashimoto (2011) frames her study in terms of an argu- Other examples include Dutro (2010) and Michael-
ment about the reproduction of dominant ideologies Luna (2008).
about Japanese language and identity. The analysis fo-
cuses on how the concept of international understand- Action Embedded in Study Design
ing is evoked in language policies used in schools to Cahnmann et al. (2005) focus on bilingual adults study-
create divisions between foreign languages and Japanese ing to be teachers of English learners. The authors use
languages and culture. CDA to examine the complexities of becoming a bilin-
Other studies that concentrate on illustrating how gual teacher within traditionally monolingual school
inequalities are sustained through discourses include systems. They frame the purpose of their research in
Hamilton and Pitt (2011) and Trainor (2005). action-oriented terms: "It is our goal that participants
can use local understandings of being bilingual to de-
Calls for Social Action fine themselves as both bilingual adults and bilingual
teachers"
Forty-eight percent of the articles (33 of 69) took a mod- (p. 197). However, they do not stop with re-
erate stance toward social action, calling for societal porting on these discourses. Graphics, texts, and ac-
tions (the talking pie charts, the theater of the oppressed
change as a result of their study (e.g., institutional, com-
munity, larger scale curricular) or engaging in social actions)
ac- are built into the research (which itself is pre-
sented
tion as a result of their findings (e.g., curricular change, as formative) to push change along.
forming a study group, reanalysis of texts) and report- Cahnmann et al. (2005) refer to their research as "en-
ing on this action in the article. Thirty percent ofgaged
the praxis" that seeks to "foster local identification
processes
studies (21 of 69) limited their discussion to general among our participants so that their bilingual-
ism is fruitfully used as a resource within local schools"
calls for pedagogic change or future research, indicators
of studies with minimal social action. Twenty-two (p. 197). The authors challenge CDA to report on inequi-
per-
ties and do something about them. Authors with this
cent of the studies (15 of 69) embed social action within
the research design. This interventionist orientation stance (e.g., Marshall & Toohey, 2010; Rocha-Schmid,
was equally distributed across the written and interac- Schieble, 2012b) took an interventionist approach
2010;
tional studies. These authors are clear about the need to in the conceptualization of their study and generally
make changes as a result of what analysis discloses, ended with recommendations for social change.
what such change might entail, and how to go about
getting it done.
Discussion
Minimal Call for Action
Peterson and Calovini (2004) used CDA to document In the previous sections, we attempted to provoke a
the effects of social categories (e.g., gender) on writing, careful reflection on how reflexivity, context, decon-
as mediated through the peer group interaction of four struction-reconstruction, and social action are taken
students in eighth grade. The authors conclude with up in literacy research that uses CDA. Here, we expand
implications for teachers, noting, "this model also pro-our response to the topical and thematic findings,
vides a strategy for teachers to assess the long-term describing how the field has evolved in the past eight
effects of peer-group interaction on students" (p. 138).years and comparing the findings of this literature
Other studies with traditional calls for future research review with the one published in 2005. We also discuss
and minimal calls for social action include Agiro (2012), these findings in light of criticisms that have been
Clarke (2007), and Dutro and Selland (2012). aimed against CDA and point to directions for further
scholarship.
Moderate Call for Action Most remarkable is the accelerated rate of research-
Studies with moderate calls for social action took some ers using CDA in literacy education research: 18 articles
sort of social action (e.g., curricular change, forming a
between 1983 and 2003 versus 76 in the last eight years
study group) and reported on it in the article. For ex- alone. There were nearly 6 times as many CDA studies
ample, Graffs (2010) study focused on the impact of her in education in the 2004-2012 review ( N = 257)
compared with the 1983-2003 review ( N = 46), with
multicultural literacy course in the teachers' evaluation
of dominant narratives surrounding immigrant experi-the literacy subset decreasing slightly (from 39% to
30%) relative to the general total. Just as the literacy
ences. As a result, teachers designed units of study for
their classroom and professional development for othersubset decreased within an overall increase in CDA in

134 I Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
education, the percentage of studies based on interac- were twice as many studies that focus on interactions
tional data decreased significantly, from 63% to 42% of (20 of 69), but overall, the emphasis has shifted in the
the empirical LED studies. current study to analyses of written documents (40
There are interesting findings across the two of 69).
reviews. Between 1983 and 2004, only three studies With respect to multimodal interactions, in the
were situated in elementary education and none in early original 2005 review, analyses of these data were nearly
childhood. In the current review, we see an uptick in absent. By contrast, this review showed that 29% of the
the focus on elementary classrooms (28% of the studies) articles included a multimodal analysis. However, the
and three studies set within early childhood settings lack of multimodal transcripts in the majority of these
(Moin, Brietkopf, & Schwartz, 2011; Wohlwend, 2007, studies suggests a more surface-level analysis of multi-
2012). Whereas five of the 19 studies in the 2005 review modality. We think this reflects just incremental prog-
were based in middle school or high school contexts, ress in integrating multimodality and CDA.
only 7% (5 of 69) of the LED studies in this review took Likewise, in the current review, there was a dearth
up questions in these settings. Given the ongoing con- of research that included global technologies (only 11 of
cern with high school dropout rates in the United 69), and of these, just three attended to the multimodal-
States, the continued low levels of student achievement ity of these environments. We were surprised to find
on standardized tests in communication arts, and that only two articles examined interactions in digitally
the powerful light that CDA can shed on learning, themediated environments using CDA (Chen, 2006;
dearth of studies in this area stands out. Perhaps the Schieble 2012a)ē The expansion of digital discourses
most interesting finding in terms of educational level is opens up possibilities for expanding our understanding
the explosion of CDA studies in the areas of higher edu- of communication and providing us with new ways of
cation and teacher education in the past eight years.looking at discourse. Universities are under increasing
Indeed, 36% of all the studies (25 of 69) included uni-pressure to offer online courses, elementary and sec-
versity students, half of whom were teacher education ondary schools are turning to laptop models of peda-
students. This reflects a significant increase given that gogy, and the ever-expanding global influence and
in 2004, there was only one study set in higher educa- effects of massive open online courses are areas where
tion (Figueriredo, 2000). new kinds of discourses in education are developing. As
Between 2004 and 2012, we have a fairly good repre- such, they are sites for important inquiry. Future CDA
sentation of pre-K-12 educational levels represented in research should examine synchronous and asynchro-
the scholarship. The majority of studies reported on in nous communication in digitally mediated learning en-
this review took place within the boundaries of formal vironments, the proliferation of virtual communities of
classroom spaces, meaning that other areas, such as in- learning, and the multiplying digital connections be-
formal learning sites, family and community literacies, tween classrooms and nonschool settings.
grassroots literacies, advocacy, and community orga- As our ideas of what counts as discourse expands,
nizing, are ripe for future study. This observation war- so we must continue to develop theoretical understand-
rants a shift in our concepts about educational place.ings that account for the multimodal semiotics entailed
In the sense that CDA helps explain the mutuallyby any interaction, and certainly in classroom settings
constructive relationship between language and social that are increasingly reliant on simultaneity of dis-
practices, when educational sites are understood to becourse production and responsiveness. We call for con-
less centralized in schools, and when they are more ceptual work, as well as the development of analytic and
spread across nonschool settings - families, homes,
transcriptual conventions, that attends to the multimo-
communities, cultural institutions, a digital world, an
dality of interactions- those which are digitally medi-
advertising world (all the places where people areated as well as those enacted through nonverbals, such
learning things)- then CDA in education should beas gaze, proxemics, gesture, tone, and other embodied
conceived in this larger sense of educational place. forms of expression.
Future research might also focus on practices that peo- From 1983 to 2003, there was only one example of
ple deem as powerful literacies and examine whatteacher research across the entire education database
makes them so. (J.P. Young, 2000). Between 2004 and 2012, 14% (10 of
Discourse analysis has been critiqued for its empha-69) of the literacy studies that we reviewed used a
sis on written and spoken texts as the source of mean-teacher research framework. An additional three arti-
ing, often to the neglect of meanings made in othercles reflected teacher-researcher collaborations where
modalities (Street, 1985). In 2005, we noted that the the researchers were insiders (Crumpler et al., 2011;
literacy researchers were overturning the writtenMichael-Luna, 2008; R. Rogers & Mosley, 2006). In
language bias with a focus on interactions in a majorityreflecting on the rate of collaboration in the LED data-
of the studies (10 of 16). In the current review, therebase, we noted that collaborative work was undertaken

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature I 135

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
equally frequently around written documents and attribute their procedural approaches. We call for a
interactions. widened use of CDA frameworks and more conceptual
Across time, there has been a fairly consistent focus
pieces. Indeed, in the literature that we reviewed, there
on cultural and linguistic diversity and the discourses
were only seven conceptual pieces. One area in particu-
surrounding learning. Indeed, more than half of the em-
lar needs conceptual development, and that is the syn-
ergy and dissonance between the commonly used
pirical studies (9 of 16) in the earlier review carried this
focus, and 46% (32 of 69) did so from 2004 to 2012.theories
Of and methods of CDA. Next, we turn to discuss
this number in 2012, 19% focused on cultural and lin-
our findings across the four themes in the field, partic-
guistic diversity as it relates to teachers' identities, dis-
ularly in light of criticisms of CDA.
courses, and learning whereas the focus in 2004 was on
students' identities, discourses, and learning. We see an
Reflexivity
increased focus on racism, antiracism, ethnicity, and di-
The high degree of reflexivity in the studies that we re-
versity from only one study in 2004 to 14 in 2012. There
viewed suggests that the conceptual tools for reflexive
was a surge of interest in gender and sexualities (only
scholarship have been strengthened over time. Indeed,
two studies in 2004 and nine in 2012). Similarly, there
commenting on the scholarship produced from the
was increased interest in standards, assessment, and the
commercialization of education, with numbers in this years 1983-2004, we noted in 2005 that "there was
alarmingly little reflexivity in the articles that we re-
category rising from three studies in 2004 to eightviewed.in Some of the articles did include a researcher
2012. An explicit focus on understanding the construc-
role section... .However, many of the authors did not
tion of social class through discourse practices was ap-
move from reflection to reflexivity" (R. Rogers et al.,
parent in four studies in the 2012 review. This explicit
2005, p. 386). In this review, we found that 60% of the
focus was absent in the earlier review. The fairly concen-
authors acknowledged their positionality in the re-
trated group of sociopolitical topics in the literature that
search process and, at least partially, turned the ana-
we reviewed suggests room for new areas of interest.
lytic framework on themselves in the project. In six of
Educational researchers around the world are using
these studies, reflexivity was embedded in the research
CDA. However, most of the literacy CDA studies took
questions and was a central focus of the study. The least
place in Anglophonic settings. Eighty-four percent of
reflexive studies were those that focused solely on writ-
the studies that we examined took place in the United
ten documents. Yet, a number of studies that focused on
States, Australia, the United Kingdom, or Canada.
written data sources managed to move beyond disclos-
Within this group, nearly three quarters were set in the
ing demographic information and acknowledging their
United States. There were only three references to au-
positioning in the study. This suggests that the kind of
thors from Africa or South Africa (Glaser & van Pletzen,
data source need not limit the depth of researcher re-
2012; Janks, 2005a, 2005b) This is, in part, reflective of
flexivity. In a reflexive paradigm like CDA, and even
the geopolitics of publishing and databases. It may also
given the methodological flexibility it offers, we would
be that the scholars are grounding their work in terms
expect to see, as a matter of theoretical/analytic consis-
that are less methodologically specific than those asso-
ciated with CDA. tency, the same descriptors used to describe the re-
searcher as are used to describe the participants.
The majority of scholarship drew on the approaches
associated with Fairclough and Gee. On the one hand,
working across a few CDA frameworks may allow for Context
literacy researchers to fine-tune their theoretical and
Recent work in literacy studies overturns the critique
methodological approaches, strengthening the quality that CDA tends to focus narrowly on discourses stripped
of individual studies and as collective of scholarship,
of context (e.g., Blommaert, 2005). Almost half of the
over time. On the other hand, there are a number studies
of in this review demonstrated a robust treatment
CDA traditions that may be equally as well suited for
of context, moving consistently between micro- and
the kinds of questions that literacy researchers are ask-macrodiscourses when interpreting the findings of the
ing. For example, researchers interested in examining study. Less than 20% of the studies limited their treat-
texts in their historical contexts might turn to the dis-ment of context, focusing only on the linguistics of the
course historical approach (e.g., Reisigl & Wodak, 2001).
interaction. The rendering of context - across multiple
It was surprising to us that other people (cf. dimensions - as visible helps researchers respond to the
Blommaert, Caldas- Coulthard, Lazar, Rojo, Scollon)criticism that political and social ideologies are read
have not made their way into the major parenthetical on to data rather than revealed through the data
(Widdowson, 1998). When context is visible, readers can
references for CDA in literacy studies. This is, in part,
due to the fact that people are referencing the methodssee what came before and after the interaction and bet-
of CDA rather than an array of approaches when they ter judge the trustworthiness of the claims.

136 ! Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 With respect to context more broadly construed, we and testing policies, for example, can and ought to be
believe that the literature in this review shows how dif- made with the findings that emerge from PDA. An ever-
ferently context can be taken up. Indeed, we saw how growing body of research demonstrating how empower-
the authors represented in this review decided just how ing teaching looks and sounds should, we assume, get
wide to cast the net of setting across place - from class- people thinking about how to make time to enable edu-
room, to school, to district, or town, or to the widest cationally equitable practices, the kinds that lead to bet-
possible social scopes (national, global) - or how far ter learning outcomes. Arguably, more theorization
back the history of the situated discourse needs to be needs to be conducted around productive uses of power.
reported. This diversity of approaches around context
can help scholars conceptualize the type and degree of Social Action
context that they provide in future research. Further Given the critical orientation of CDA, it is often as-
conceptual work might focus on the intersections of sumed that analysts have some responsibility to include
CDA and ethnography. an action dimension in their study. Yet, little has been
written about how critical discourse analysts conceptu-
Deconstructive-Reconstructive alize action. Perhaps as a result, CDA has been routinely
criticized for reading social and political ideologies
Analyses
onto the data rather than allowing these values to
We think one of the most interesting findings has been
emerge from the data (Widdowson, 1998). We learned
the development of a reconstructive or positive orienta-
from our review that authors varied in their interpreta-
tion in the scholarship. Indeed, the overwhelming ma-
tion of social action. The majority of the articles (70%)
jority of articles in the corpus of studies that we selected either called for social action or embedded it within
included a reconstructive element (64%). Although this
their research design. This means that literacy research-
is not an entirely new focus, it reflects the deepened
ers are considering how their critical analyses of dis-
commitment to this approach to CDA. Indeed, there
courses can result in micro- and macrolevel changes.
was evidence of a reconstructive orientation in literacy
Thirty percent of the articles did not make a call for
research prior to 2000. Comber (1997), Orellana (1996),
social action nor embed it within their research design.
and Egan-Robertson (1998) all attended to both struc-
Although these authors studied topics that were socially
ture and agency in their analysis and findings. Baxter
and politically charged, their stance toward action was
(2002) was one of the early papers that included a dis-
traditionally academic, calling for future study or rec-
cussion of positive discourse analysis. Despite these ex-
ommending ideas for pedagogical change. We found
amples, we noted in the 2005 review the emphasis on
that all the studies were fairly transparent in their
deconstructive approaches to CDA, stating, "most of
stance toward social action. We argue that this debunks
the analyses focused on the ways in which power is re-
the criticism that CDA is simply out to get the status
produced rather than on how it is changed, resisted,
quo, knocking things down without a plan for con-
and transformed toward liberatory ends" (R. Rogers
structing alternatives. A closer look at the language of
et al., 2005, p. 383). social action and theorization of action would make for
The majority of authors in the literature that we re-
an interesting conceptual paper.
viewed do not refer to their orientation as reconstruc-
tive analysis, or what Bartlett (2012), Martin (2004) and
R. Rogers and Wetzel (2013) have referred to as positive
Limitations
discourse analysis (PDA). Nevertheless, in attending to
both structure and agency, the studies demonstrate how We do not claim to have produced a definitive account
participants struggle against dominant ideologies andof the state of CDA in literacy research but one of sev-
forge counterrepresentations. Bartlett notes, eral possible readings. We recognize that reviews such
as this one are also cultural productions. That is, our
From a PDA perspective. . .the goal would be to focus on the
ways in which underlying social changes in society and the
synthesis of this rapidly expanding field of scholarship,
local discourses associated with them bring to light the con- in part, defines it and future work. Our analysis has
tradictions and tensions within the hegemonic order and sobeen somewhat insular in perspective, focusing on the
provide the wiggle room for naturalising alternative repre-field of literacy scholarship of which we are a part. We
sentations that challenge this order, (p. 10) acknowledge the difficulty we have in stepping outside
of this tradition and all of its cultural and social as-
The agentive, empowered push-up potential that sumptions. Likewise, as CDA researchers, we bring our
PDA has suggests concrete practices which policy (down- own experiences as analysts, reviewers, and writers to
ward-pushing structures, institutions, and practices) in- this review. Although this allowed us certain vantage
creasingly has no excuse to avoid. Curricular decisionspoints, others were denied.

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature | 137

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Like the researchers whose work we reviewed, we Bloome, D., & Talwalkar, S. (1997). Critical discourse analysis and
had to make decisions about which issues to include and the study of reading and writing. Reading Research Quarterly,
32(1), 104-112. doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.1.7
what to exclude. We decided on a core set of four quali- Blum, A., & Johnson, E.J. (2012). Reading repression: Textualizing
ties to focus our review. We might have chosen other the linguistic marginalization of nonnative English-speaking
qualities, such as data representation or depth of linguis- teachers in Arizona. Journal of Language, Identity & Education,
tic analysis. We chose our categories because of issues 11(3), 167-184. doi:10.1080/15348458.2012.686379
Briggs, C.L. (Ed.). (1996). Disorderly discourse: Narrative, conflict,
raised in the 2005 review and because these topics repre-
and inequality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
sent ongoing dialogue in the field. One potential criti- Bucholtz, M. (2001). Reflexivity and critique in discourse analysis.
cism of aggregating studies is that we have risked fixing Critique of Anthropology, 21(2), 165-183. doi:10.1 177/03082
the literature too categorically in one or another concep- 75X0102100203

tual space. Indeed, as we noted earlier, as we classify ar- Burns, L., & Morrell, E. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in literacy
research. In C.M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J.V. Hoffman,
ticles as high in reflexivity or having minimal social
& D.L. Schallert (Eds.), 54th yearbook of the National Reading
action, we acknowledge that we are only seeing part of Conference (pp. 132-143). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading
an authors oeuvre. However, we think the benefits of a Conference.
more granular analysis of reflexivity, reconstruction, so- Cahnmann, M., Rymes, B., & Souto-Manning, M. (2005). Using
cial action, and context outweighs the risk, particularly critical discourse analysis to understand and facilitate identifica-
tion processes of bilingual adults becoming teachers. Critical
because it offers scholars a way of critically reading and
Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(4), 195-213.
designing CDA scholarship. Hopefully, future CDA Carter, S. (2005). Analyzing text and talk through critical discourse
scholarship in literacy education will be well served by analysis. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on
having sustained analytic footholds. teaching the English language arts (pp. 375-378). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Chen, C.E. (2006). The development of e-mail literacy: From writ-
REFERENCES
ing to peers to writing to authority figures. Language Learning &
Agiro, C. (2012). Comparative critical discourse analysisTechnology,
of student 10(2), 35-55.
and teacher editions of secondary Christian American Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late moder-
literature
nity:
textbooks. Journal of Research on Christian Education , 21 Rethinking
( 3), 211- critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh, UK:
234. doi:10.1080/10656219.2012.733557 Edinburgh University Press.
Anderson, D.D. (2008). The elementary persuasive letter: Two casesChristiansen, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis and academic
of situated competence, strategy, and agency. Research in the literacies: My encounters with student writing. The Writing
Teaching of English, 42(3), 270-314. Instructor, 3 (January). Retrieved from www.writinginstructor
Assaf, L.C., & Dooley, C.M. (2010). Investigating ideological clarity.com/essays/christiansen.html
in teacher education. Teacher Educator, 45(3), 153-178. doi:10.108
Clarke, L.W. (2007). Discussing Shiloh : A conversation beyond the
0/08878730.2010.489144 book. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2), 112-122. doi:
Bartlett, T. (2012). Hybrid voices and collaborative change:
10.1598/JAAL.51.2.3
Contextualising positive discourse analysis. New York, NY:
Comber, B. (1997). Managerial discourses: Tracking the local effects
Routledge. on teachers' and students' work in literacy lessons. Discourse:
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanič, R. (2000). Situated literacies: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3), 389-407. doi:
Reading and writing in context. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.1080/0159630970180305
Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A post- Comber, B., & Cormack, P. (2011). Education policy mediation:
structuralist discourse analysis of girls' and boys' speech in pub- Principals' work with mandated literacy assessment. English in
lic contexts. Discourse & Society , 13(6), 827-842. doi:10.1177/ Australia, 46(2), 77-86.
0957926502013006760 Compton-Lilly, C., Rogers, R., & Lewis, T.Y. (2012). Analyzing epis-
Bergvall, V., & Remlinger, K. (1996). Reproduction, resistance, temologica!
and considerations related to diversity: An integrative
gender in educational discourse: The role of critical discoursecritical literature review of family literacy scholarship. Reading
Research Quarterly, 47(1), 33-60. doi:10.1002/RRQ.009
analysis. Discourse & Society, 7(4), 453-479. doi:10.1 177/095792659
6007004002 Cots, J.M. (2006). Teaching 'with an attitude': Critical discourse
Berkowitz, D. (2012). Framing the future of fanfiction: How "The in EFL teaching. ELT Journal , 60(4), 336-345. doi:10.1093/
analysis
New York Times'" portrayal of a youth media subcultureelt/ccl024influ-
ences beliefs about media literacy education. Journal Crumpler,
of Media T.P., Handsfield, L.J., & Dean, T.R. (2011). Constructing
Literacy Education, 4(3), 198-212. difference differently in language and literacy professional devel-
Betteney, M. (2010). All for one, and one for all: If texts holdopment.
power, Research in the Teaching of English, 46(1), 55-91.
Davison, C. (2006). Collaboration between ESL and content teach-
to what extent does current primary and Early Years documenta-
ers: How do we know when we are doing it right? International
tion empower teachers? Literacy, 44(2), 91-97. doi:10.1111/j.l741-
4369.2010.00551.x Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(4), 454-475.
doi:10.2167/beb339.0
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge,
de Courcy, M. (2007). Disrupting preconceptions: Challenges to
UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CB09780511610295
pre-service teachers' beliefs about ESL children. Journal of
Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis.
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(3), 188-203.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447-466. doi: 10. 1146/
annurev.anthro.29.1.447 doi:10.2167/jmmd454.0
Dennis, C. (2011). Measuring quality, framing what we know: A
Bloome, D., & Carter, S. (2001). Lists in reading education reform.
Theory Into Practice, 40(3), 150-157. doi:10.1207/sl5430421 critical discourse analysis of the Common Inspection Framework.
tip4003_2 Literacy, 45(3), 119-125. doi:10.1111/j.l741-4369.2011.00595.x

138 i Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Dutro, E. (2010). What 'hard times' means: Mandated curricula, Glenn, W. (2008). Gossiping girls, insider boys, A-list achievement:
class-privileged assumptions, and the lives of poor children. Examining and exposing young adult novels consumed by con-
Research in the Teaching of English, 44(3), 255-291. spicuous consumption. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
Dutro, E., & Selland, M. (2012). "I like to read, but I know I'm not 52(1), 34-42. doi:10.1598/JAAL.52.1.4
good at it": Children's perspectives on high-stakes testing in a
Goulah, J. (2011). Ecospirituality in public foreign language educa-
high-poverty school. Curriculum Inquiry , 42(3), 340-367. tion: A critical discourse analysis of a transformative world lan-
doi:10.1111/i.l467-873X.2012.00597.x guage learning approach. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies,
Dworin, J., & Borner, R. (2008). What we all (supposedly) know8(1), 27-52. doi:10.1080/15427587.2011. 545766
about the poor: A critical discourse analysis of Ruby Payne's
Graff, J.M. (2010). Countering narratives: Teachers' discourses
"framework." English Education , 40(2), 101-121. about immigrants and their experiences within the realm of chil-
Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and dren's and young adult literature. English Teaching: Practice and
power: Understanding relationships among personhood, literacyCritique, 9(3), 106-131.
practices, and intertextuality. Journal of Literacy Research , 30(4),Gu, M. (2009). College English learners' discursive motivation con-
449-487. doi: 10. 1080/ 1086296980954801 1 struction in China. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 37(2),
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, UK: Longman. 300-312.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Gu, M.M. (2010). The discursive construction of college English
Polity. learners' identity in cross-cultural interactions. Critical Inquiry
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study in Language Studies, 7(4), 298-333. doi:10.1080/15427587.2010
of language. New York, NY: Longman. .521488

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for Gumperz, J.J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
social research. London, UK: Routledge. bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CB09780511611834
Fernsten, L. (2005). Discourse and difference. International Journal of Haddix, M. (2010). No longer on the margins: Researching the hy-
Inclusive Education, 9(4), 371-387. doi:10.1080/136031 10500147138 brid literate identities of Black and Latina preservice teachers.
Fernsten, L. (2008). Writer identity and ESL learners. Journal Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 97-123.
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 52(1), 44-52. doi: 10. 1598/ JA AL. 52 Hamilton, M., & Pitt, K. (2011). Challenging representations:
.1.5 Constructing the adult literacy learner over 30 years of policy and
Figueriredo, D.C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis: Towards a practice in the United Kingdom. Reading Research Quarterly,
new perspective of EFL reading. Illha do Desterro: A Journal of 46(4), 350-373.
English Language, Literature in English and Cultural Studies, 38, Hammond, K. (2006). More than a game: A critical discourse analy-
139-154. sis of a racial inequality exercise in Japan. TESOL Quarterly,
40(3), 545-571. doi: 10.2307/40264543
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other
writings , 1972-1977. New York, NY: Pantheon. Hashimoto, K. (2011). Compulsory 'foreign language activity' in
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and primary schools. Current Issues in Language Planning,
Japanese
control. London, UK: Routledge. 12(2), 167-184. doi:10.1080/14664208.2011. 585958
Gebhard, M. (2002). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second lan-
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in com-
guage literacy practices. Canadian Modern Language Review, munities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University
59(1), 15-53. doi:10.3138/cmlr.59.1.15 Press.

Gebhard, M. (2004). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second Heller,

lan-M. (2001). Critique and sociolinguistic analysis of discourse.
guage literacy practices. The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), Critique of Anthropology, 21(2), 117-141. doi:10.1177/03082
245-265. doi:10.1 1 1 l/j.0026-7902. 2004.00228.x 75X0102100201
Gebhard, M., Demers, J., & Castillo-Rosenthal, Z. (2008). TeachersHenderson, R. (2005). A Faircloughian approach to CDA: Principled
as critical text analysts: L2 literacies and teachers' work ineclecticism
the or a method searching for a theory. Melbourne Studies
context of high-stakes school reform. Journal of Second Language in Education, 46(2), 9-24. doi: 10. 1080/17508480509556422
Writing, 17(4), 274-291. doi:10.1016/i.jslw.2008.05.001 Hinchman, K., & Young, J.P. (2001). Speaking but not being heard:
Gee, J.P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology inTwo dis-adolescents negotiate classroom talk about text. Journal of
courses. London, UK: Falmer. Literacy Research, 33(2), 243-268. doi:10.1080/108629601095481 11
Gee, J.P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory Hodge,
and R., & Kress, G. (1979). Language as ideology. London, UK:
method. London, UK: Routledge. Routledge.
Gee, J.P. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading.Huckin,In T., Andrus, J., & Clary-Lemon, J. (2012). Critical discourse
M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook analysis and rhetoric and composition. College Composition and
of reading research, (Vol. 3, pp. 195-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Communication , 61(1), 107-129.
Janks,
Gee, J.P. (2005). Critical discourse analysis. In R. Beach, J: Green, M.H. (2005a). Deconstruction and reconstruction: Diversity as
Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on
a productive resource. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
literacy research (2nd ed., pp. 293-318). Creskill, NJ: Hampton. Education, 26(1), 31-43.
Gee, J.P. (2011). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? Janks,
In R.H. (2005b). Language and the design of texts. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(3), 97-110.
Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in edu-
cation (2nd ed., pp. 23-45). New York, NY: Routledge. Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1999). The discourse reader.
Gee, J.P. (2012). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology inNew dis-
York, NY: Routledge.
courses (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Johnson, E. (2005a). Proposition 203: A critical metaphor analysis.
Gibb, T.L. (2008). Bridging Canadian adult second language educa- Bilingual Research Journal, 29(1), 69-84. doi:10.1080/15235882
tion and essential skills policies: Approach with caution. Adult .2005.10162824

Johnson, E. (2005b). WAR in the media: Metaphors, ideology, and

Education Quarterly, 58(4), 318-334. doi:10.1 177/0741713608318893
Glaser, M., & van Pletzen, E. (2012). Inclusive education for deaf the
stu- formation of language policy. Bilingual Research Journal ,
dents: Literacy practices and South African Sign Language. 29(3), 621-640. doi:10.1080/15235882.2005.10162855
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Kress,
30(1), G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar
25-37. doi:10.2989/16073614.2012.693707 of visual design. London, UK: Routledge.

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature | 139

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kumagai, Y. (2007). Tension of a Japanese language classroom: An Pitt, K. (2002). Being a new capitalist mother. Discourse & Society,
opportunity for critical literacy? Critical Inquiry in Language 13(2), 251-267. doi:10.1 177/0957926502013002409
Studies , 4(2/3), 85-116. doi:10.1080/15427580701389391 Powell, P.R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis and composition
Lewis, C. (2006). "What's discourse got to do with it?" A meditation studies: A study of presidential discourse and campus discord.
on critical discourse analysis in literacy research. Research in the College Composition and Communication, 55(3), 439-469.
Teaching of English, 40(3), 355-361. Prins, E., & Toso, B. (2008). Defining and measuring parenting for
Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (Eds.). (2007). Reframing sociocul- educational success: A critical discourse analysis of the parent
tural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. New York, education profile. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3),
NY: Routledge. 555-596. doi:10.3102/0002831208316205
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and con- Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination:
texts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London, UK: Routledge.
John Benjamins. Rex, L.A., Bunn, M., Davila, B.A., Dickinson, H.A., Ford, A.C.,
Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology: Postwar literacy in- Gerben, C., ...Thomson, H.(2010). A review of discourse analysis
struction and the mythology of Dick and lane. London, UK: Falmer. in literacy research: Equitable access. Reading Research Quarterly ,
Luke, A. (1995). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to 45(1), 94-115. doi: 10. 1 598/RRQ.45. 1.5
Richardson, E. (2007). 'She was workin like foreal': Critical literacy
critical discourse analysis. Review of Research in Education , 21,
3-48. and discourse practices of African American females in the age of
hip hop. Discourse & Society, 18(6), 789-809. doi:10.1177/
Luke, A. (2004). Notes on the future of critical discourse studies.
Critical Discourse Studies, 38(1), 132-141. 0957926507082197

Rocha-Schmid, E. (2010). Participatory pedagogy for empower-

Marshall, E., & Toohey, K. (2010). Representing family: Community
fund, knowledge, bilingualism, and multimodality. Harvard ment: A critical discourse analysis of teacher-parents' interac-
Educational Review, 80(2), 221-241. tions in a family literacy course in London. International Journal
of Lifelong Education, 29(3), 343-358. doi:10.1080/02601371003
Martin, J. (2004). Positive discourse analysis: Solidarity and change.
Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 49, 179-200. 700659

Martin, J., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning

Rogers, R. (2002). Between contexts: A critical analysis of family lit-
beyond the clause (2nd ed.). London, UK: Continuum. eracy, discursive practices, and literate subjectivities. Reading
Martínez-Roldán, C.M. (2005). Examining bilingual children's Research Quarterly, 37(3), 248-277. doi:10.1598/RRQ.37.3.1
gender ideologies through critical discourse analysis. Rogers,
CriticalR. (2003). Constructing consent: Histories of participation.
Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24(2),
Inquiry in Language Studies, 2(3), 157-178. doi:10.1207/sl5427595
cils0203_2 139-158. doi: 10. 1080/01 596300303040
Martínez-Roldán, C.M., & Malavé, G. (2004). Language ideologies
Rogers, R. (2004). Storied selves: A critical analysis of adult learners' lit-
erateof
mediating literacy and identity in bilingual contexts. lournal lives. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(3), 272-305. doi:10.1598/
Early Childhood Literacy, 4(2), 155-180. RRQ.39.3.2
Menard-Warwick, J., 8c Palmer, D. (2012). Eight versions of Rogers, R. (Ed.) (2011). Introduction to critical discourse analysis in
the visit
to La Barranca: Critical discourse analysis of a study-abroadeducation
nar- (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
rative from Mexico. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(1), Rogers,
121-138.R., & Christian, J. (2007). 'What could I say?': A critical dis-
Michael-Luna, S. (2008). Todos somos blancos/vfe are all white:
course analysis of the construction of race in children's literature.
Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(1), 21-46. doi:10.1080/1361332060
Constructing racial identities through texts. Journal of Language,
1100351
Identity & Education, 7(3/4), 272-293. doi:10.1080/1534845080
2237913 Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph,
G.O.
Moin, V., Brietkopf, A., & Schwartz, M. (2011). Teachers' views on (2005). A critical review of critical discourse analysis.
organizational and pedagogical approaches to early bilingual Review of Research in Education, 75(3), 365-416. doi:10.3102/
education: A case study of bilingual kindergartens in Germany00346543075003365

Rogers, R., & Mosley, M. (2006). Racial literacy in a second-grade

and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1008-1018.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.201 1.04.003 classroom: Critical race theory, whiteness studies, and literacy
Moita-Lopes, L.P. (2006). Queering literacy teaching: Analyzing
research. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(4), 462-495. doi:10.1598/
RRQ.41.4.3
gay-themed discourses in a fifth-grade class in Brazil. Journal of
Language, Identity & Education, 5(1), 31-50. doi:10.1207/ Rogers, R., & Mosley, M. (2008). A critical discourse analysis of
sl5327701jlie0501_3 racial literacy in teacher education. Linguistics and Education,
19(2), 107-131. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2008.02.002
Moje, E.B. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge
Rogers, R., & Wetzel, M.M. (2013). Studying agency in teacher educa-
in chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 35-44.
tion: A layered approach to positive discourse analysis. Critical
Mosley, M., & Rogers, R. (2011). Inhabiting the "tragic gap":
Inquiry in Language Studies, 10(1), 62-92. doi: 10. 1080/ 15427587
Preservice teachers practicing racial literacy. Teaching Education,
22(3), 303-324. doi:10.1080/10476210.2010.518704 .2013.753845

New London Group, The (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Rogers, T., Tyson, C., & Marshall, E. (2000). Living dialogues in one
Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), neighborhood: Moving toward understanding across discourse
60-92. and practices of literacy and schooling. Journal of Literacy
Nichols, S. (2002). Parents' construction of their children as Research,
gen- 32(1), 1-24. doi: 10. 1080/ 10862960009548062
Rommetviet,
dered, literature subjects: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of R., & Blakar, R.M. (Eds.). (1979). Studies of language,
Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2), 123-144. thought and verbal communication. London, UK: Academic.
Orellana, M. (1996). Negotiating power through languageSchaenen,in class- I. (2010). "Genre means...": A critical discourse analysis
room meetings. Linguistics and Education, 8(4), 335-365. of fourth
doi: grade talk about genre. Critical Inquiry in Language
10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90016-9 Studies, 7(1), 28-53. doi:10. 1080/15427580903523581
Peterson, S., & Calovini, T. (2004). Social ideologies in gradeSchieble,
eight M. (2012a). A critical discourse analysis of teachers' views
students' conversation and narrative writing. Linguistics on LGBT
and literature. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 15(1/2 ), 121-139. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2004.12.001 Education, 33(2), 207-222. doi:10.1080/01596306.2011.620758

140 I Reading Research Quarterly, 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Schieble, M. (2012b). Critical conversations on whiteness with van Sluys, K., Lewison, M., & Flint, A.S. (2006). Researching critical
young adult literature. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , literacy: A critical study of analysis of classroom discourse.
56(3), 212-221. doi:10.1002/JAAL.00130 Journal of Literacy Research, 38(2), 197-233. doi:10.1207/sl5548430
Schmidt, R. (2008). Really reading: What does Accelerated Reader jlr3802_4
teach adults and children? Language Arts , 85(3), 202-211. Widdowson, H.G. (1998). The theory and practice of critical dis-
Schmidt, R., & Whitmore, K. (2010). Analyzing the language of course analysis. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136-151. doi:10.1093/
struggle in search of hope for teachers. Journal of Literacy applin/19.1.136
Research , 42(4), 385-417. doi:10.1080/1086296X.2010.524859 Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2004). Nexus analysis: Discourse and the analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
emerging Internet. New York, NY: Routledge. Wohlwend, K.E. (2007). Friendship meeting or blocking circle?
Souto-Manning, M. (2006). A critical look at bilingualism discourse Identities in the laminated space of playground conflict.
in public schools: Autoethnographic reflections of a vulnerable Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 8(1), 73-88. doi:10.2304/
observer. Bilingual Research Journal , 30(2), 559-577. doi: 10. 1080/ ciec.2007.8.1.73
15235882.2006.10162890 Wohlwend, K.E. (2012). 'Are you guys girlsV : Boys, identity texts,
Stevens, L.R (2003). Reading First: A critical policy analysis.and The
Disney princess play. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy,
Reading Teacher , 56(7), 662-668. 12(1), 3-23. doi:10.1 177/146879841 1416787
Xiong,
Street, B. (1985). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge, T., & Qian, Y. (2012). Ideologies of English in a Chinese high
UK:
Cambridge University Press. school EFL textbook: A critical discourse analysis. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education, 32(1), 75-92. doi:10.1080/02188791.2012
Taylor, N. (2008). Critical analysis of the adult literacy curriculum:
.655239
Instructional or regulative? Research in Post-Compulsory Education,
13(3), 307-314. doi: 10.1080/1 35967408023465 14 Yamagami, M. (2012). The political discourse of the campaign
against bilingual education: From Proposition 227 to Home v.
Trainor, J.S. (2005). "My ancestors didn't own slaves": Understanding
white talk about race. Research in the Teaching of English, Flores.
40(2) , International Multilingual Research Journal, 6(2), 143-159.
140-167. doi:10.1080/19313152. 2011.651524
Young,
Tuten, J. (2007). "There's two sides to every story": How parents ne- J.P. (2000). Boy talk: Critical literacy and masculinities.
gotiate report card discourse. Language Arts , 84(4), 314-324. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 312-337. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.3.1
Ullman, C. (2012). 'Before I didn't understand anything about Young,
white P.A. (2009). The Brownies' Book (1920-1921): Exploring the past
people, but now, I speak English': Negotiating globally mediatedto elucidate the future of instructional design. Journal of Language,
discourses of race, language, and nation. Discourse: Studies in Identity
the & Education, 8(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/15348450802619946
Cultural Politics of Education, 33(2), 251-266. doi:10.1080/015963
06.2012.666079 REBECCA ROGERS (corresponding author) is a professor
van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for
in diversity.
the College of Education at the University of Missouri-
In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical St. discourse
Louis, USA; e-mail rogersrl@umsl.edu.
analysis (pp. 95-120). London, UK: Sage. doi:10.4135/97808570
28020.d7
INDA SCHAENEN is an instructional coach and literacy
van Dijk, T.A. (2010). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive specialist
ap- in the Normandy School District outside of St. Louis,
proach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Missouri, USA, and an adjunct assistant professor in the
van Rensburg, W. (2007). CSL, multiliteracies, and multimodalities.
College of Education at the University of Missouri-St. Louis,
Education as Change , 12(3), 183-189. doi:10.1080/1682320070948
7187 USA; e-mail ischaenen@normandysd.org.

msBm^^mÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ^^mÊÊÊÊÊÊ^^mÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ^^^ÊÊÊÊÊÊm

Analytic Review Template

direct quotes from each of these catego
cles in a disciplinary area. Err on the si
Reviewer Initials:
than less information in each catego
Date the Review Was Completed:
information will be plugged directly
for quantitative analysis. Other portion
review template will be qualitatively an
APA Reference : of the questions on this template, y
schemata
Comments to Reviewers : Use direct quotes (context, social action, de
and add page
numbers. Attempt to capture thereconstruction, and reflexivity) and plu
terminology/language
justification
used. As we synthesize the scholarship, into
we will bethe template.
taking

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Re

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1. What type of article is this (e.g., empirical study,
theoretical paper, review of literature, position
paper)?
2. Summary of the article: What is the research de-
sign (case study, teacher research study, part of
larger ethnographic study)?
3. What educational level/setting does the article
focus on? In what learning contexts is CDA
being conducted (e.g., early childhood, elemen-
tary, middle, secondary, pre-K-12, adult, higher
education, community contexts, teacher educa-
tion and professional development, lifelong
learning)?
4a. Who are the research participants? Who is do-
ing research with whom? Do CDA researchers
tend to look at the discourses of historically mar-
ginalized groups? Do they tend to work with
small or large numbers of participants or texts?
Include the number of participants and other
descriptive information that the author provides.
What is the ethnicity of the research participants
if applicable (e.g., 10 Caucasian boys)?
4b. How many research participants are there? List
a number or estimate less than 10 or more than
10, etc.
cultural, or demographic qualities? If yes, how
(include direct quotes and page numbers)?
c. Where does this article fall on the deconstruc-
tive-reconstructive scale, and why? Provide a
number and a justification. Cite page numbers.
d. Where does the article fall on the action scale,
and why? Cite page numbers.
12. What is the sociopolitical focus of the research?
Choose one primary area (and a secondary em-
phasis area, if necessary). The critical compo-
nent of CDA entails opening up apparently fixed
practices, assumptions, or ideologies shaping (or
being constructed by) the discourse under study.
For the LED database, we identified the follow-
ing areas: (1) assessment, standards, and com-
mercialization of education; (2) cultural and
linguistic diversity; teachers' identities, dis-
courses, and learning; (3) cultural and linguistic
diversity; students' identities, discourses, and
learning; (4) social class; (5) racism, antiracism,
ethnicity, and diversity; (6) sexualities and gen-
der; and (7) empowerment and families. Please
identify what you see as the sociopolitical focus,
and then as we look across the studies, we will
group these areas.

5. What is the primary data source of this study:
interviews, interactions, written (documents,
policies), or the Internet?
6. What is the geographic location of the study?
7. How is CDA defined? Use the author s words to
define CDA (e.g., defined as a goal, a purpose, a
stance, a theory, etc,).
8. Does the author describe any critiques or limita-
tions of CDA? What do they state as limitations
or critiques of CDA?
9. What theorists/researchers are cited in reference
to CDA? (We will use this information for
counting the most frequently cited scholars in
CDA. Include complete reference from the
bibliography.)
10. What theoretical frameworks does the re-
15. What is the analytic focus/unit of analysis (e.g.,
searcher use in the paper? List the theoretical
frameworks and cite all theorists referenced.
11. Four features of research design:
a. Where does the article fall on the context scale,
and why? Cite page numbers.
b. Where does this article fall on the reflexivity
scale? Provide a number and a justification.
Cite page numbers. Related to reflexivity, does
the researcher describe himself or herself spe-
cifically with respect to identity or other social,
13. What is the research question? Quote specifi-
cally from the article and include page numbers.
It is possible that the question may be posed as a
statement of purpose. (Imagine putting the re-
search questions into a table so readers can see
the range of questions asked in each area.)
14. How is the analysis conducted (e.g., what aspects
of CDA are used?)? Could you replicate the study
based on the description of the author s methodol-
ogy? Specifically describe the method of conduct-
ing CDA and use the author s description from the
analysis section. We want to be able to discuss the
range of analytic approaches used within each dis-
ciplinary area and across the data set. Do the au-
thors take more of a deductive or inductive
approach to CDA? Likewise, if the analytic proce-
dures are not described, note that as well.
on-task/off-task conversations, moments of ten-
sion, episodes, idealized lines)?
16. What is the level of detail in describing their
CDA analytic procedures?
0 = no description provided.
1 = one or two paragraphs or less would be con-
sidered a minimal description of procedures.
2 = three or four paragraphs of CDA procedures
might be considered adequate.

142 I Reading Research Quarterly , 49(1)

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 3 = five to 10 paragraphs and beyond would be con-
sidered a detailed description of procedures.
17. Did the authors carry out a multimodal analysis?
If Yes, explain. Did they include a multimodal
transcript? If yes, describe and reference the page
number.
18. Are global technologies included? If Yes, explain.
19. Is there a theory of learning in the research?
How is learning addressed (intertextuality de-
velopmental theories, sociocultural theories)?
20. What are the key findings? Use the author s
words and include page numbers.
21. How are the findings represented (e.g., three
sections with tables, chronological arrangement
of findings, through narratives and illustrations)
22. What do the authors cite as implications of this
research? Include specific quotes and page
numbers.
23. What are the noted limitations of the work? Use
the authors words.
24. What does the author cite as future directions?
Additional comments/insights/connections across
the articles in this area:

Are you ready to successfully implement the

Common Core State Standards?

those strategies to

|' Maureen Mclaughlin í

ļ ^ Brendo J. Overtvrf . ;
2k'j2kìlzkMn 2ké4Mìr>ri ^he Common Core: Teaching The Common Core : Teaching The Common Core: Graphic
avallauie, aUUing K-5 Students to Meet the Students in Grades 6-12 to Organizers for Teaching
VâluQ tO thoSO QO'tO Reading Standards Meet the Reading Standards K-1 2 Students to Meet the
I ©2013 1 216 pp. ©2013 1 248 pp. Reading Standards
CCSS resources! I isbn 978-0-87207-815-4 isbn 978-0-87207-706-5 © 2013 1 isbn 978-0-87
IRA Members $26.35 IRA Members $26.35 IRA Members $11.95
Nonmembers $32.95 Nonmembers $32.95 Nonmembers $14.95
(Available only as a PDF e-book at
www.reading.org/CC-Bundles)

International

^^^Associaäon Order online at www.re

MjĒ^ For priority processing, enter promot
jnjņ jSi Call toll free 800-336-7323 (Outside the
fjpyy Join IRA and pay the member price -

Critical Discourse Analysis in Literacy Education: A Review of the Literature i 143

This content downloaded from

85.201.166.128 on Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:22:53 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms