Broken Promises: Reading Instruction in Twentieth-Century America

Abstract

m One of the most important developments in the social sciences in recent years has been the growing awareness that prevailing theories may reflect the legitimizing philosophies of dominant groups. The critical approach to social science theory seeks to discover the ways in which theory and practice serve the interests of groups that dominate the state apparatus, including education. This is nowhere more evident than in language studies, where the interests of the state and those of minority language groups are often directly contradictory. What is disturbing is that the field of ESL has been remarkably free from such critical analysis. For instance, most ESL practitioners accept the view that learning English is a path to economic and social advancement, rather than a barrier to groups who often have no realistic opportunity to become fluent in English. Thus most second language acquisition (SLA) theories emphasize psychological and social-psychological factors such as motivation, while ignoring the links between language learning and power and dominance. With few exceptions (such as Fairclough, in press), work in ESL/SLA ignores questions such as: Who benefits when minority language groups are required to learn English for employment? What are the consequences of the belief that a single language is more effective than several languages for national communication? How does ESL serve to block the access of large numbers of people to economic resources and political power? Given the failure of ESL/SLA to confront such questions, it is not surprising that ESL is often seen by members of minority language groups as an agent of sociopolitical domination. Although no ESL book deals with these questions, a new book in a closely related field-reading instruction-offers ESL specialists a valuable window into critical analysis. Patrick Shannon's Broken Promises: Reading Instruction in Twentieth-Century America

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.