Esther A. Edaniol Ms.

Maria Concepcion Beltran-Montenegro

MAELLT-II Reflection #2
EN215 07 July 2018

Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Reflection

Kumaravadivelu (1999), in his framework of Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis

(CCDA), gives a new perspective on how to look at the power relations happening in the

classroom and how it represents a broader picture of what is happening in the society as seen

in classroom discourse.

CCDA, which is grounded from post structural and postcolonial perspectives, offers

that teachers should encourage the questioning of “dominant discourses as well as counter-

discourses” in aspects of ideology, power, class, race and gender. Moreover, CCDA

“represents a fundamental shift in the way the field conceives and conducts the business of

L2 learning and teaching” (Kumaravadivelu 1999, p.480). It also recognizes the diverse

cultural capitals that the participants bring with them which are engaged in the teaching and

learning process and are analysed to open teachers for alternative meanings and possibilities.

Thus, CCDA acknowledges that the realities happening in the classroom as shaped by

societal, cultural, historical and political factors and encourages the questioning of these in

the classroom.

Honestly, I have always looked at my classroom only in the surface and upon reading

this article by Kumaravadivelu made me look into the underlying forces that influences the

discourse happening in it. I believe, CCDA brings the practitioners in the field into a higher

level through reflecting on the “sociocultural and socio-political structures that directly or

indirectly shape the character and content of classroom discourse” ” (Kumaravadivelu 1999,
p.473). It also directs the teachers to move away from “knowledge transmission towards

knowledge generation… from pedagogic dependence towards pedagogic independence”

(Kumaravadivelu 1999, p.473). It is true that these realities were not always unpacked in the

classroom. Sometimes, I, as a teacher, am not sensitive with these and I do not dare to put

these issues forward. Reflecting on my years of teaching, rarely do I engage my students to

these kinds of questioning. Even I myself, do not involve myself towards this “knowledge

generation” and “pedagogic independence”. But, looking at it, this I believe is more

purposeful and will bring transformation to the society in the bigger picture. My students are

not only workers in the global arena who need skills in language and communication. They

are also members of the society who has power to transform it. The question is: are their

voices heard? Are they being acknowledged and respected? As much as the education system

advocates the greater good of the students, is this the reality in many contexts in our society?

Thus, adopting CCDA is a transformative way of unveiling of who dominates and

who are marginalized, who are empowered and who are not. Of course, it does not end there.

The more I question and challenge these, the more I should be proactive as an educator. I

should have this “critical sensibility” not only on my practice in the classroom but also on

how I also advocate this “critical-ness” in my classroom to my students. Having an

opportunity to catalyse change, I can be more courageous to dare put these discourses in the

open for the students to question and to challenge. And, I believe before anybody can

question and challenge such, the recognition of their own voice and power should be done.

And, I would start with that.

 REFERENCE

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (3),

453-484. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587674