As a public school teacher, I’ve seen how critical literacy can really change the way students engage with texts. One example I found comes from a study by Fajardo (2024), where college teachers in the Philippines used multimodal texts, such as news articles, social media posts, and visual materials, to help students question power, bias, and representation. Instead of just reading for information, students were guided to ask deeper questions: “Who benefits from this message?” or “Whose voices are missing?” They even wrote blog posts and opinion pieces in response to what they read.
The strength of this approach is that it builds critical thinking and social awareness. Students don’t just learn to read—they learn to reflect, analyze, and speak up. It also connects learning to real-life issues like poverty, gender, and politics, which makes lessons more meaningful. However, it’s not always easy. Some students struggle with abstract thinking, and teachers need strong facilitation skills to guide discussions, especially when topics are sensitive or political (Fajardo, 2024; Lalas, 2019).

Now, if we compare this to functional literacy pedagogy, the focus shifts. Functional literacy is about practical skills, reading instructions, filling out forms, using digital tools, or managing money. It’s very useful, especially for learners in ALS or those preparing for work and daily life. Both approaches are learner-centered and connect literacy to real-world needs.

But here’s the difference: functional literacy helps students do things, while critical literacy helps them think about things. One builds survival skills, the other builds awareness and voice. As teachers, we need both, so our students can read the world and not just live in it.

APA References:
Fajardo, M. F. (2024). Teaching critical literacy using multimodal texts to college students in the Philippines. University of Wollongong.
Lalas, J. W. (2019). Critical theory, pedagogy, and literacy. UP CIDS Discussion Paper 2019-14.