Textbooks, particularly in developing countries, are used as a tool to propagate the agendas of state and other groups in power. This paper informs the reader on the issue of how a tertiary level English textbook used editors’ voice to form the opinion of its readers by shaping facts and perspectives depicted in the texts. The editors of the textbook not only censored the information to block autonomous learning, but also attempted to misrepresent the themes of various texts to meet the censorship guidelines set by the textbook-board and/or the state. The paper aims to raise the question of learner autonomy and learners’ right to access information in its original form to be interpreted independently in the schematic background of each individual. By pointing out the issue and initiating the discussion, the paper hopes to bring awareness in the less explored area of the use of language power in the Pakistani educational context. 1. Introduction Textbooks have a central role in educational setting and are considered an essential tool to achieve the learning goals. This status has given substantial significance to textbook as a learning tool, due to which greater care is required while selecting and designing the contents, structure, and layout of textbooks in order to suit learning needs and goals. Apart from catering to learners’ interests and learning needs, the texts and the selection of texts may have a hidden agenda to promote the desired ideologies of various sections of a society and state. Such a dimension of textbooks also accentuates the power of education which a state or certain group/s may exploit by controlling the learning materials and hence minds of people. This paper specifically refers to the controlling power of involved groups in developing a textbook [1] by analysing the predetermined and moulded message of texts embedded in a follow-up section titled as “Theme” written by the editors of the book. The purpose of this section in the textbook is to inform learners of the main idea of the text and other related information essential to understand the texts. However, the editors of the textbook have taken this opportunity to propagate certain notions, misleading students’ understanding of the texts towards false or inaccurate perception of the world. This paper uncovers this particular aspect of misusing the language power to serve vested interest of certain individuals and/or groups to intentionally or unintentionally shape the desired ideologies among students at a stage which is significant in forming their own view of the world. 2.
References
[1]
English Book—1 for Intermediate Classes, Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore, Pakistan, 2006.
[2]
L. Thomas, S. Wareing, I. Singh, J. S. Peccei, J. Thornborrow, and J. Jones, Language, Society and Power, Rutledge, London, UK, 2004.
[3]
N. Fairclough, Language and Power, Longman, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
[4]
N. Fairclough and E. Wodak, “Critical discourse analysis,” in Discourse Analysis, P. Paltridge, Ed., Continuum, London, UK, 2006.
[5]
Y. Liu, “Discourse, cultural knowledge and ideology: a critical analysis of Chinese language textbooks,” Pedagogy, Culture and Society, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 233–264, 2005.
[6]
R. Phillipson, Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1992.
[7]
J. Gray, “The ELT course book as cultural artifact: how teachers censor and adapt,” ELT Journal, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 274–283, 1992.
[8]
M. Coratzzi and L. Jinn, “Cultural mirrors materials and methods in EFL classroom,” in Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning, E. Hinkle, Ed., pp. 149–176, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 1999.
[9]
E. Ndura, “ESL and cultural bias: an analysis of elementary through high school textbooks in Western United States of America,” Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 143–153, 2004.
[10]
National Curriculum for English Language (Grades I-XII), “Government of Pakistan,Ministry of Education,” 2010, http://www.moe.gov.pk/Curriculum.htm.
[11]
J. Asghar, “Change for the better: an evaluative study of a textbook,” Language, Individual and Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 404–422, 2013.
[12]
M. Afzal, A Failed Curriculum Reform, 2014, http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/15-pakistan-curriculum-reform-afzal.
[13]
M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Tavistock, London, UK, 1972, translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith.
[14]
R. Wooffitt, Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction, SAGE, 2005.
[15]
M. Bloor and T. Bloor, The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An Introduction, Hodder Arnolds, London, UK, 2007.
[16]
B. Paltridge, Discourse Analysis, Continuum, London, UK, 2006.
[17]
E. P. Goldenberg, “Principles, art, and craft in curriculum design: the case of Connected Geometry,” International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 191–224, 1999.
[18]
H. C. Hill, “Policy is not enough: language and the interpretation of state standards,” The American Educational Research Journal, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 289–318, 2001.
[19]
J. P. Spillane, B. J. Reiser, and T. Reimer, “Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 387–431, 2002.
[20]
R. Kubota, “Critical multiculturalism and second language education,” in Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning, B. Norton and K. Toohey, Eds., pp. 30–52, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA, 2004.
[21]
J. Asghar, “Review of reading goals in the national curriculum of English language (grades 11-12) in Pakistan,” Academic International, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 292–298, 2014.
[22]
S. Canagarajah, “Subversive identities, pedagogical safe house, and critical learning,” in Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning: An Introduction, B. Norton and K. Toohey, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004.
[23]
W. Morgan, Critical Literacy in the Classroom: The Art of the Possible, Routledge, London, UK, 1997.
