CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Developmental Background
Education in the 21st century is greatly affected by globalization. Besides mastering the
core subjects such as English, Reading or Language Arts, Arts, Economics, Geography,
Government and Civics, World Languages, Math, Science, and History, students should develop
the 21st century skills and knowledge in order to succeed in the global market place. The
partnership of the 21st century (2010: 9-10) defines the skills and knowledge into three
components: (1) Learning and innovation skills which include critical thinking and problem
solving, creative thinking and innovation, collaborating, communicating; (2) Information, media,
and technology skills which consist of information literacy, media literacy, technology literacy;
(3) Life and career skills which comprise flexibility and adaptability, initiative and self-direction,
social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, leadership and responsibility. In
order to acquire the 21st century skills and knowledge, teachers and students should make
fundamental changes in the teaching and learning process (Mc.Coog, 2008). Basically, the 21 st
century teaching and learning need a balance between teachers’ objectives and students’ needs
and input. Therefore, students should be involved in the learning process by teaching them in the
way they learn, asking their opinions, and considering their contribution in planning a lesson.
Unlike the previous generation, students in the 21st century were born surrounded by
technology. They are considered as “the native speaker” of the digital language of computer and
internet. Therefore, they are called digital native (Prensky, 2001). The term refers to all students
from kindergarten until higher education who were born after 1990’s. Compare to their
predecessors, digital natives have different characteristics (Prensky, 2001; Oblinger & Oblinger,
2005). In order to satisfy their personal needs, digital natives adapt and adopt new technologies
easily. Moreover, they have tendency to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, receive
information quickly, choose active learning rather than passive learning, and rely on
communication technologies for accessing information and carrying out social and professional
interaction.
Technology and internet become the center of digital native’s life. Today, most of young
people actively use social media such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, LinkedIn, Blogs,

1
Podcasts, and Wiki. In Indonesian context, social media is used to socialize with friends. Since
the number of social media users has increased in 2012, it become an important tool to interact
with other people, to communicate between individual and institution, and also promote their
products (Susilo & Putranto, 2018:94; Lekik, Palinggi, Rantello, 2019: 2). Today, Indonesia
enter the post-truth era (Salam, 2018: 317). People tend not to check the credibility of various
types of information obtained on internet whether all of them reflect the facts or fill with
misinformation. Consequently, hoax and fake news spread easily which might chaos and conflict
in the society.
The study conducted by Indonesian Telematics Society in 2017 show that people obtain
most hoaxes from social media (94,40%) for instance Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Subsequently, chat application rank in the second position (62,80%). Finally, websites line up in
the last position (39,90%). There are three factors which contribute the fast development of hoax:
(1) The degree of internet access, (2) Educational background, and (3) Living areas. Allcott &
Gentzkow, 2017: 217 define hoax as a false information disseminated to misinterpret the truth,
mix facts and fiction. Besides the title of the news is overused, hoax usually has interesting
images in order to lure the readers. Furthermore, people usually disseminate hoax and fake news
to deceive the information users for their personal interest
Janks (2012:150) indicates that sometimes people do not realize when they become the
agents for distributing powerful discourse through social media and portable connectivity. Both
of them become effective media to disseminate counter discourses, mobilize opposition, question
and destabilize power in the digital age. Consequently, educators need to revisit the approach
used by students to read academic texts. It is due to the fact that being literate in the
contemporary society goes beyond having the ability to read and write. In order to be literate,
Olson (1994) states that people must be able to determine which text is important, to know how
to read and interpret a text, to know how to use and apply the text in the daily life. Also, people
require critical mind to analyze the hidden assumption in the text Mc.Laughin & DeVoogd
(2004).
As people comprehend and manage the important amount of text and information from
social media and other online sources, reading becomes the most important language skills in the
21st century (Azman, Bhooth, Ismail, 2013:63). Actually, text contains more than a neutral set of
facts and ideas. They often reflect author’s beliefs about power, gender, race, and other issues.

2
Also, texts promote values and ideologies which maintain or challenge the status quo (Reisboard,
2013). For those reasons, building critical consciousness is important in reading class. Rather
than passively accept the information, teachers encourage students to question all information,
interrogate the status quo, and criticize social injustice.
Mastering traditional set of language skills is insufficient for students in the 21 st century
(Harste, 2003). They should have such ability to evaluate information from multiple sources and
develop critical competence in reading, writing, listening, and speaking in English. As a matter
of fact, language teaching in Indonesia still neglect the knowledge and skill to promote students’
critical thinking skills. Rather than focus on grammar memorization (Alwasilah, 2001;
Dardjowidjojo, 2003; Emilia, 2005;), it is important to include the framework of higher-order
thinking skills in language education (Alwasilah, 2002). Therefore, students will actively involve
in analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of texts.
The socio-cultural dimension of language encourages teachers to develop students’
critical literacy competency (Luke & Freebody, 1999; Pennycook, 1999; Norton & Toohey,
2004). It helps students to cope with different ideologies embedded in a discourse. In fact,
critical literacy practice is rare in non-western setting. Educators meet some challenges to
implement critical literacy especially in Asian countries; (1) Some teachers in Asian countries
are lack of knowledge how to put critical literacy into practice in a classroom (Falkenstein, 2003;
Ko, 2010; Kim, 2012); (2) Cultural appropriateness (Hu, 2002; Kuo, 2009); (3) Banking
education in EFL setting (Ko, 2010); (4) Western educators’ negative assumption on the EFL
students’ abilities to take critical viewpoints (Falkenstein, 2003); (5) Stereotypical perspectives
which believe Asian students as submissive and dependent learners (Shin & Crookes, 2005).
In Indonesian context, the needs to involve critical literacy in language education is
inevitable. In the digital era, students are flooded with information from various sources which
serve certain group interest. It is due to the fact that texts are produced for the hegemonic and
domination purposes, so that it cannot be separated from the authority and ideology practice.
Critical literacy helps them to discover multiple perspectives and become active thinkers
(Mc.Laughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). However, there are some existing critical literacy model for
instance The Three Dimension (3D) Model (Green, 1988); The Four Resources Model (Luke &
Freebody, 1999); The Four Dimension (4D) Model (Van Sluys, Lewison, and Flint, 2002);
Instructional Model of Critical Literacy (Ciardiello, 2004); Tool Kit for Teaching Critical

3
Literacy (Morgan & Ramanathan, 2005); Practicing Critical Literacy (Abednia, 2015); and
Critical Literacy Instruction (Paul, 2016), none of them are fit for EFL students, particularly
Indonesian students.
In order to fill the gap, the writer develops Critical Literacy Reading Instructional (CLRI)
Model. Compare to the existing models, Critical Literacy Reading Instructional (CLRI) Model
has different distinctive features. The model is used for teaching reading class in English
Department, so that it can be implemented both in English Education and English Literature
majors. Furthermore, the writer uses The Four Resources Model as the basis to develop the
model. It is due to the fact that The Four Resources Model integrates the current and well-
developed reading techniques. Critical Literacy Reading Instructional (CLRI) Model also
incorporates the principles of critical literacy; (1) Dialogue, (2) Problematizing, (3) Praxis
(action), and (4) Reflection. Therefore, the implementation of Critical Literacy Reading
Instructional (CLRI) Model in Reading class helps to promote students’ critical literacy
awareness.

B. Purposes
One of the purposes of this guide book is to give direction on how to implement Critical
Literacy Reading Instructional (CLRI) Model, the steps reflect the integration of bottom-up
theory, top down theory, and critical literacy theory. This guide book also aims to give
appropriate materials to teach critical literacy in a reading class. In addition, this guide book
provides reading assessments used to evaluate critical literacy awareness. In this globalization
era, critical literacy should be immersed and taught in language education. By finding
appropriate approach, teachers can connect what students read and see with their world where
they live in.

C. Book Coverage
The guide book consists five sections. In section one, the writer discusses three aspects;
the developmental background of Critical Literacy Reading Instructional (CLRI) Model, the
purposes of the guide book, and the coverage of the guide book. In section two, the writer
explains the theoretical foundation supported Critical Literacy Reading Instructional (CLRI)
Model which consist of the theory of reading, critical pedagogy, and critical literacy. In section

4
three, the writer presents some existing critical literacy models such as The Three Dimension
(3D) Model (Green, 1988); The Four Resources Model (Luke & Freebody, 1999); The Four
Dimension (4D) Model (Van Sluys, Lewison, and Flint, 2002); Instructional Model of Critical
Literacy (Ciardiello, 2004); Tool Kit for Teaching Critical Literacy (Morgan & Ramanathan,
2005); Practicing Critical Literacy (Abednia, 2015); and Critical Literacy Instruction (Paul,
2016). In section four, the writer explains how to implement Critical Literacy Reading
Instructional (CLRI) Model to teach reading for English Department students. In section five, the
writer provides reading materials for teaching critical literacy and reading assessment to evaluate
students’ critical literacy awareness. In section six, the writer gives closing statement of this
guide book. Finally in the last section, the writer makes list of references used in this guide book.