Comprobación de Hipótesis

Ever since Freire’s (2005) writings on critical awareness, Cope and Kalantzis’(1993) writings on genres and Freebody and Luke’s writings on literacy education (see Freebody & Luke, 1990; Luke & Freebody, 1997), critical literacy and genre-based pedagogy became prominent concepts, often times charged with the ultimate endeavour to emancipate the learners – and by extend the society – from societal ills. Yet, what constitutes those two notions is much more than a mere pedagogical shift in the teaching-learning process and the role of grammar and lexis within texts. The institutionalisation of critical literacy and genre-based pedagogy at the classroom level requires, as Neophytou and Valiandes (2012) argued, a conceptual shift like no other witnessed in the case of Cyprus education system. From their point of view, the fruition of critical literacy and genre awareness rests not only on the teachers but also on those in power. “The challenge”, Neophytou and Valiandes (2012, p. 13) explained, “is how to develop dialogic and emancipatory practices in a field already crowded with anti-critical

monologue”. In their single case study on how one Cypriot teacher responded to the new language curriculum, Neophytou and Valiandes (2012) concluded to the inconsistency between the proposed classroom practice and the nature of professional development provided to Cypriot teachers. From their point of view, whereas the official policy called for the recognition of teachers as autonomous professionals, the new language curriculum was introduced by those in power “through a carrot and stick approach” (Neophytou & Valiandes, 2012, p. 7). That is, instead of equipping the teachers with what it is essential in broadening their gaze to consider themselves as autonomous decision-makers and curriculum developers, professional development in Cyprus continued to regard the teachers as “empty vessels waiting to be filled with the knowledge of the wise” (Neophytou & Valiandes, 2012, p. 7). Neophytou and Valiandes’ (2012, p. 7) concern was based on their critique that the Cypriot teachers have long been regarded as faithful implementers of the policy developed by others; the “bureaucrats become the oppressors and the teachers the oppressed”, as they stated. In a similar vein, Philippou et al. (2014, p. 629) highlighted the importance of providing the Cypriot teachers with the necessary support in changing “their conceptualization”, as they remarked “from people who are merely called upon to implement change to collaborators and partners” of curriculum development. Literature suggests that critical literacy and genre-based pedagogy have been successfully implemented in countries like Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong (see Knapp & Watkins, 2005). Whether critical literacy and genre-based pedagogy can be successfully implemented in countries like Cyprus, with its long tradition of viewing the teacher as a civil servant and mere implementer of a policy developed by others (Philippou et al., 2014), is still open to question.

In the context of the new language curriculum, concerns were also raised in relation to the novelty of the concepts of critical literacy and genre awareness. Ioannidou (2012), in particular, cautioned that literacy and language pedagogy were always on the backburner of the language policies that were launched in Cyprus before the 2010 new language curriculum. From her point of view, this shift to the pedagogical models of critical thinking and genre awareness represents a new pedagogical understanding which, for many Cypriot teachers, might be novel and perplexing, considering the education and training they received during the years of the communicative approach. A study conducted in the context of the new language curriculum came to validate those concerns. In particular, Neophytou and Valiandes (2012) found that their participating teacher had developed an inadequate understanding of the new language curriculum and was confused about its objectives. Neophytou and Valiandes (2012) highlighted the issue of teacher knowledge and professional support and

concluded to the importance of providing the teachers with the professional development opportunities that would support the change in the core of their practice and ways of thinking about language teaching. Recognising and addressing the issue of teacher knowledge and professional support might be of assistance to the implementation of the new language curriculum. Yet at the same time, the challenge of addressing the issue of teacher capacity and professional development is made evident in other parts of the world, even in countries where genre-based pedagogy has been well-established for years. In Australia, for instance, Jones and Derewianka (2016) explain that the issue of teacher knowledge on genres was never addressed, despite the increased attention of Australia’s critical literacy theory (see Luke, 2000) on genre pedagogy. As they stated:

[…] more complex developments in language that realise shifts in field, tenor and mode are either ignored or addressed in ad hoc ways (Jones & Derewianka, 2016, p. 14).

From the point of view of Jones and Derewianka (2016), teachers’ limited understanding and inadequate implementation of more novel concepts associated with genre theory reflect a period of neglect in teachers’ professional development. Similar concerns were raised in the context of the NLS. Many evaluation reports were carried out that aimed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the NLS, as well as teachers’ reception of the Strategy and their capacity to carry it out in the long run (e.g. Ofsted, 1999; 2002). In its evaluation report on the NLS in 2003, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) presented evidence in support of the successful implementation of the NLS in schools across England, and underlined the teachers’ good reception of the Strategy, as well as their familiarity with the curriculum targets (Earl et al., 2003). However, the report raised the issue of teacher capacity as one that might impair the implementation of the NLS in the long run. In particular, the report made clear that, despite the provision of professional development, more support was advised to be provided to the teachers in order to deepen their knowledge over the targets of the Strategy. As the report stated:

Our data continue to show considerable disparity across teachers and schools in terms of knowledge, skill and understanding of the Strategies4. The data indicate that for many teachers, gaps or weaknesses in subject knowledge or pedagogical understanding limit the extent to which they can make full use of the frameworks and resources of the Strategies (Earl et al., 2003, p. 8).

Teachers’ knowledge of phonics teaching was a recurrent issue. In its first year evaluation review on the NLS, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted, 1999, p. 19) identified teachers’ lack of capacity to teach phonics in the ways prescribed within the NLS; a problem that was then attributed to the limited professional support provided to the teachers and to “the reluctance of a minority of […] schools to recognise its importance”. In its 2002 report on the NLS, Ofsted listed a number of positive outcomes and developments, including the “significant impact” that the NLS had “on the standards attained in English and on the quality of teaching over the last four years” (Ofsted, 2002, p. 2) and the “positive impact” of teacher training on “teachers’ knowledge of grammar and awareness of the key teaching approaches” (Ofsted, 2002, p. 12). However, the report identified persisting issues that impaired the implementation of the NLS, including the teaching of phonics and the professional support that was in place for assisting the teachers to build their knowledge on phonics teaching. As the report stated:

The guidance from the NLS on how to teach phonics was not helpful enough in enabling teachers to teach phonic knowledge and skills systematically and speedily from Year R onwards (Ofsted, 2002, p. 35).

The reports discussed above highlight the fundamental issues of professional development and teachers’ subject matter knowledge. It was as early as 1998 that Beard (1998, p. 11) highlighted the issue of teachers’ “capacity to successfully deliver a service”, and their “ability or willingness […] to comply with the rules”; ultimately urging for the provision of adequate professional support to teachers. From the point of view of Beard (2011), such issues were the outcome of the limited attention payed to teachers’ subject matter knowledge in the years that preceded the implementation of the NLS. Beard (2011, p. 76) traced this problem back to professional development and to “teachers ‘not knowing what they do not know’ ”. His remark was well expressed in the work of Willows (2002). In his words:

[t]raining teachers to implement instructional methods when they don’t really truly understand the underlying rationale is futile. Without understanding, teachers do not have the knowledge to adapt an instructional strategy to address various student needs (Willows, 2002 par. 1).

From Webb and Vulliamy’s point of view (2007, p. 568), however, the issue of professional development and, importantly, teacher capacity, reflects the then government’s “lack of trust in the teaching profession”, further suggesting that the negative portrayal of teachers on part

of the government served to mandate an immediate change at the classroom level and to hold teachers and schools accountable for the implementation of the NLS. Webb and Vulliamy (2007, p. 568) concluded that the constant “pressure for compliance […] exerted on schools through Ofsted”, and the shift “from professional autonomy to contractual responsibility”, had a subsequent impact on how teachers viewed themselves as professionals (Webb & Vulliamy, 2007, p. 562). But apart from the issue of teacher subject matter knowledge and professional development, it could be argued that such concerns were raised just about when the teaching of phonics became a pedagogical debate (see Rose, 2006). The controversy can be traced back to the dispute on whether phonics should be taught from a synthetic or analytic approach (see Wyse & Goswami, 2008). The synthetic approach promoted a letter-by-letter teaching of reading (phonology) and, on the other hand, the analytic approach emphasised on the sound- symbol relationship (Goswami, 2007). Expert reviews in England concluded that synthetic phonics is an effective teaching method and that its adoption had led to significant improvements in students’ reading skills (Rose, 2006). In particular, the Rose Report (2006, p. 4) stressed the importance of adopting a synthetic approach to the teaching of phonics in early reading programmes, arguing that it “offers the vast majority of young children the best and most direct route to becoming skilled readers and writers”. The Rose Report (2006, p. 29) also expected that systematic phonics should be taught “by the age of five, if not before for some children”. In their response to the Rose Report, Wyse and Styles (2007) argued that no evidence can be found to support Rose’s (2006) claims that a systematic programme of phonics teaching is of benefit to children of the age of five. In their critique, Wyse and Styles (2007, p. 37) cautioned that introducing systematic phonics to five year old children might be “an inappropriate curriculum”. They further remarked that one way to address the teaching of phonics is to link the teaching of phonics with texts for meaning comprehension.

Genre theory was also becoming a terrain of extensive debate (Devitt, 1993). Both the NLS and the new language curriculum, which is the focus of this study, put particular emphasis on genre awareness. In the context of the new language curriculum, genre-based pedagogy was regarded as an integral part of critical literacy (Ioannidou, 2015). Its explicit reference within the new language curriculum meant the recognition of texts as sociocultural products (MoEC, 2010b). In the context of the NLS, the increased attention on genres served the honing of metalinguistic skills (Beard, 1998). Tackling genre was thus regarded as a valuable element of the NLS as it provided the platform for the targeted enhancement of students’ literacy skills and lexical competence (Beard, 1998). This increased attention on genres, however, was accompanied by terminological and epistemological issues. American genre theory, for

instance, regarded genres as a dynamic product of language and context, thus paying particular emphasis on issues such as social context and social action (Kress, 2009; Miller, 1984), and limited attention to the semiotic and linguistic features of genres, which have been the building blocks of the Australian genre theory (Matsagouras & Tsiplakou, 2008). The primacy of the context versus the linguistic structure and vice versa confused the terrain of genre-based pedagogy, making it difficult to define what genre is and whether it should be regarded as a dynamic5 or a fixed6 construct (Matsagouras & Tsiplakou, 2008). From Kress’ (2009, p. 208) point of view, for instance, this dichotomy in the understanding of genres “had become highly problematic as a means of describing social practices”. He further argued that the attention should shift from the lexico-grammar features of texts to their social function. Contrary to the emphasis on grammar and lexis; as proposed by the Australian paradigm (Matsagouras & Tsiplakou, 2008), Kress (1993, p. 23) proposed a broader conception of genres; maintaining that their primary purpose should be the study of the dynamic tie between “meaning and function: what does this bit of language mean because of what it does”. On the other hand, Matsagouras and Tsiplakou (2008) maintained that the confusion on whether genres are to be regarded as fixed or dynamic infused the terrain of language teaching with uncertainty. They further argued that the dimension of teaching responsible for the discovery of the role of grammar in the construction of genres – or else the enhancement of metalinguistic skills – has yet to reach a point of success, as a result of this dichotomous point of view.

In a similar vein, the turn to critical literacy was both welcomed as a necessary evolution to language theory and widely criticised for divorcing literacy from the pure pleasure of reading (Simpson & McMillan, 2008), and for disassociating language teaching from the enhancement of the basic reading and writing skills (Lau, 2013). The general critique has been that critical literacy, by virtue of its attention to the social nature of language, can only be practiced by students who have already mastered their basic language skills (Lau, 2013). This concern was reflected in a study that was conducted in the context of the new language curriculum. Ioannidou (2014) found that her participating teachers were reserved about integrating socially-oriented texts, believing their young students would not be able to engage themselves with discussions about the role of language and its social and cultural nature. Such

5 _{For example, the American genre theory regards genres as products of their social context. This leads to the}

understanding of genres as dynamic forms which, according to Miller (1984, p. 153) “create a particular effect in a given situation”.

6 _{From the point of view of the Australian genre theory and its emphasis on the systemic-functional approach to}

concerns, also evident in other studies as well (Lewison et al., 2002), gave rise to the debate on whether critical awareness is a useful and appropriate skill to be mastered at the primary school level; a debate summarised by Lau (2013, p. 25) into the following question: “At what age or grade level can students be introduced to CL [critical literacy]?”. For Lau (2013), this question reflects the ways in which critical literacy has been misrepresented as a practice that requires higher order skills. From Lau’s (2013, p. 25) point of view, however, critical literacy is a skill that is cultivated in time and with the provision of “classroom conditions and social structures as well as modeling practices that foster student learning”.

“But large-scale educational reform invariably creates debate”, as Beard (2011, p. 80) neatly stated. It was made apparent in the discussion herein that rarely there is one right way to introduce a change; and this is particularly true for the domain of language education. The question of whether the new language curriculum can stand the test of time is still open to question, as remarked earlier. This question is of course multidimensional. As it appears from the discussion thus far, this question is directly linked to considerations about teachers’ subject matter knowledge and the constant demands placed upon them for updating, or better upgrading, their teaching repertoire as well as enhancing their pedagogical understanding in general. Yet, considerations about the continuation of the new language curriculum are also linked to the quality of professional development provided to teachers, and this is what the legacy of the NLS has left behind it.

3.6 Chapter Summary

This Chapter started with identifying and elaborating on the two waves of language policy in Cyprus; each regarded as having been launched to satisfy political or pedagogical concerns. These two waves; the communicative approach to language teaching and the 2010 new language curriculum, were brought together to identify their differences in terms of the language being promoted, the pedagogical values upon which they were founded, and the pedagogical content that each promoted to be taught inside the classroom. This Chapter also identified some of the misgivings associated with critical literacy and genre-based pedagogy. Building on the example of the NLS, this Chapter concluded to the importance of “giving priority to ‘second order changes’”, as Beard (1998, p. 11) remarked; that is, on equipping the teachers with the knowledge base needed so to take ownership of their profession and the constant changes around them.