Literacy In Education

LITERACY IN EDUCATION

“You Schoolmaster will teach strictly according to text! No huckleberrying!” said the Deacon. In reply Henry David Thoreau says to his class “Your eyes must not wander from the page-to look at a leaf, or an unauthorized butterfly. You must not listen to a cricket or smell a flower that has not been approved by the School Committee. You’d better close both ears and hold your nose-though you may have to grow an extra hand to do it.”(Lawrence and Lee 1971, p.20)

The historical hierarchical structure of mainstream education has limited the development of new ways of teaching students. As argued by Freebody and Luke (2003) the historical search for a ‘holy grail’ method of instructing literacy to children has not just been counterproductive, but destructive. Through personal early schooling experience I found agreement that the institution of ‘schools’ are places that house workers who profess to teach and students who profess to learn (Wadham, Pudsey and Boyd 2007, p.247).

For young students, teachers need to awaken the powers of

imagination, literacy and critical thinking. The debate of what and how to teach children is part of what is known as the ‘culture wars’ and the area of teaching ‘literacy’ is a fiercely contested field.

In exploring aspects of ‘literacy’ in education, one must first unfold what is literacy and what is the fundamental purpose of teaching literacy today and in the future? There is firstly functional literacy where students are taught literacy to acquire literate capabilities to make sense of cultural products. This is the traditional acquisition of skills

to read and write text; code breaking. Luke and Freebody (2003, p.53) describe that ‘to be literate is to be an everyday participant in ‘literate’ societies’, emphasis drawnhere is to engage and participate in the meaning of text, additionally outlining that society contains a wide field of sites, locations and events that are filled with multi-literacy products, thus engaging with multi-literacy practices. With engaging a socio-critical perspective, literacy pedagogies aim for students to not just learn to read and write that students learn to read and write something (Dooley2004, p. 56). At the same time accumulating literacy skills strengthens an individual’s capability of participating in society in a culturally meaningful capacity, developing cultural literacies. However in contrast Dooley (2004,p.58) states also that in students acquiring proficiency in literacy skill thisis still culturally viewed as an intellectual capability for participating in social practices involving written texts and that there is on the other hand an assumption that illiteracy is a cause of great social problems.

Literacy education is often in debate and has been since the beginning of compulsory and mass secular schooling (Wadham, Pudsey, Boyd 2007, p.254). These debates are fuelled by personal, community and political held ideals and motivating goals. An example of debatable “fodder” that fuels debates of ‘a crisis of literacy in society’ (Dooley 2004) is shown in an Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) survey that found that 36% of employed Australians have low literacy levels. Also that 36% of Australian adults had only the minimum level required to accomplish everyday literacy tasks. Furthermore research showedover the last decade there has been an increase in the labour market requiring higher skill levels, which in turn disadvantages people with low literacy skill. This survey would seemingly indicate that there is some aspect of literacy teaching that is not instilling the necessary skills to those being taught. Yet the ABS Survey of Aspects of Literacy (1996) also indicated to findings that young people increased their literacy skills in the workforce and intraining and post-school education. This then seems to indicate that literacy education as a social practice is able to be built

upon readily by an individual. It is not completely clear that the data presented by DEST is accurate. Questions of who was surveyed, from what socio-economic background and cultural background are undetermined, these being integral aspects to competently analysis the agenda of the position presented by DEST.

While it is that teachers are still challenged to grapple and battle with political hierarchy policies (such as benchmark testing) that dictate the basic standard of English print literacy performance. This leads to outlining the social justice debate of an uneven distribution of individuals and communities having access to effective literacy pedagogies. In relation to social justice in education this is very important because of the socially accepted analysis that poor literacy and poverty are tightly linked (Wadham, Pudsey, Boyd 2007p. 250). Improving outcomes of students’ acquisition of literacy skills could be made where teachers are engaging with the theories of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1997). That by incorporating a postmodern pedagogy and understanding cultural identities held by individual students, educators could successfully self evaluate and enhance their approach towards studentclassroom teaching practices. Gaining an understanding of Western societies movement in attributing a capital value to an individual’sheld culture, will develop in the educator a broadened awareness to the vital direction of their teaching practice. Research in literacy education by Green, Hodgens and Luke (1997, p.12) states that schools and teaching literacy is a field of difference and power, where by students have been taught ‘to “be” different kinds of literate citizens, with stratified access to social institutions.’ This highlights the elements of socially constructed cultural capital research whereby individuals have a tendency to reproduce existing social inequalities through educational institutions. How can this change?

‘Schools are key sites where technological change, education and cultural change meet’ (Wadham, Pudsey & Boyd 2007 p.250). Consequently schools and teachers haveto make

imperative decisions relative to what versions of cultures and subcultures to present to children (Freebody & Luke 2003). At the same time the ever increasing demand in the use of new technology in the classroom has given significant rise to the importance of teaching new multiple literacies to students. New ways of teaching literacy must empower students with the tools to interpret cultures inside and outside of the expanding multicultural classroom (Kellner 2000, p. 197). As society has shifted to a workforce needing to be reflexive to the constant developments of technological practice, it is clear that an ability to be technological reflexive must be empowered upon children in education institutions. Keller (2000) claims it is critical that educators engage their students in a pedagogy that involves a broad base of acquiring skills and interests. By utilising a teaching practice that navigates within the three dimensions of literacy acquisition, operational cultural and critical and bringing a pedagogy emphasis together for today’s students’ ethics and value thinking will determine their cultural interests and workplace direction of creating future technologies and culture. Kellner (2000) extends his argument to a hopeful vision of creating a more democratic and egalitarian multicultural society.

While a possible more democratic egalitarian future will predominately be created through the development of cultivating students who are skilled to critically attempt to interpret the socially constructed reality that they live in (Wadham, Pudsey, and Boyd 2007p.6). Where it is that ‘many teachers themselves now argue that the traditional system of education and schooling must change and be supplanted by multiple and flexible forms of learning and teaching’ (Comber and Cormack 1997, in Wadham, Pudsey and Boyd 2007, p.248). It follows that as more teachers engage students in a broad base of literacy skills, functional, multiliteracy and cultural literacies this could facilitate a social shift away from the current policy driven environment of conservative neoliberalism. The issue of literacy education shall always be a contested field of debate

and it is crucial that educators are able to be reflexive to each contemporary era of future social and cultural development.

REFERENCE LIST Bourdieu, P 1997, ‘The Forms of Capital’, in A.H Harley, H. Lauder, P. Brown and A.S Wells (eds), Education: Culture, economy and society, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Department of Education, Science and Training, 2007, Proportion of Australians at each Literacy Skill Level (Prose, Document and Quantitative), ABS Survey of Aspects of Literacy, 1996. Dooley, K 2004, ‘How and why did literacy become so prominent?’, in D Meadmore, B Burnett, & T Tait (eds), New Questions for Contemporary Teachers, Pearson-Prentice Hall, NSW, pp.55-69. Freebody, P., Luke, A 2003, ‘Literacy As Engaging With New Forms Of Life: The ‘Four Roles’ Model’, in G Bull & M Ansley, The Literacy Lexicon, 2nd edn, Pearson Education, NSW, pp. 51-65. Green, B. Hodgens, J. Luke, A. 1997,’Debating Literacy in Australia: History Lessons and Popular Frictions’, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol 6, no. 1, pp. 6-24. Kellner, D 2000, ‘Multiple Literacies and Critical Pedagogies: New Paradigms’, in P Trifonas (ed), Revolutionary Pedagogies: Cultural Politics, Education and the Discourse of Theory, Routledge, London, pp. 196-221. Lawrence, J & Lee, RE 1971, The Night Thoreau Spent In Jail: A Play, Hill and Wang, New York. Wadham, B., Pudsey, J., & Boyd, R 2007 ‘Literacy in a Changing World’, in B Wadham, J Pudsey, R Boyd (eds), Culture and Education, Pearson Education, NSW, pp. 247-267.