Anstey, M. & Bull, G. (2004). The Literacy Labyrinth. (2nd ed). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. C. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Eds.). Knowledge, education and cultural change. (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock.
Bourke, R. (2010). Literacies as Social Practises. Retrieved March 25, 2010, from http://blackboard.newcastle.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_1307909_1%26url%3d
Christie, F. & Misson, R. (1998). Literacy and Schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, Critical Perspectives on Literacy and Education. London: Falmer Press.
Santoro, N. (2004). Using the Four Resources Model Across the Curriculum. In Healy, A. & Honan, E. (eds.) Text Next: New Resources for Literacy Learning (pp. 51-67). Sydney, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Afterword on the Four Resources Model
While this model certainly relates in concept to the Literacy Learning Triptych, it also involves using the aspects of its framework as a whole in a similar manner. The Four Resources Model is not developmental in this respect.
Moreover, it also involves using and valuing cultural, critical, personal, and functional literacies. And both frameworks emphasise multiliteracies. However, where these frameworks differentiate is in their focus. The Literacy Learning Triptych focuses primarily on using and learning about semiotic systems and their implications, whereas the Four Resources Model provides us with a framework to discuss and plan for activities involved with using semiotic systems.
Moreover, it also involves using and valuing cultural, critical, personal, and functional literacies. And both frameworks emphasise multiliteracies. However, where these frameworks differentiate is in their focus. The Literacy Learning Triptych focuses primarily on using and learning about semiotic systems and their implications, whereas the Four Resources Model provides us with a framework to discuss and plan for activities involved with using semiotic systems.
The Four Resources Model
Another useful framework for teaching literacies is the Four Resources Model:
I’ll use my own educational experiences to explore each of these four resources, and while this is certainly not a developmental model (Bourke, 2010), I will use my own development as a platform to explore each resource progressively.
Code Breaker
Code breaking involves decoding and encoding text in order to gain or communicate some kind of meaning (Santoro, 2004). Beginning Kindergarten, this is where we learn letters every day, where I remember sound letters together with the class, spelling games, where my understand of the letters, new words, and their basic grammatical and syntactic placement allowed me to begin reading and writing.
Now, while the Literacy Learning Triptych and Four Resources Model are structured differently, we can certainly say that this resource reflects learning of semiotic systems. There is also an emphasis on functional literacies.
Text Participant
Participating in text involves the students reading and interpreting texts (Santoro, 2004). Recalling the comprehension audio / reading groups in Year One, I believe this was an emphasis on text participation, with an emphasis on cultural, personal, and functional literacies. We can also say that this resource can be related to the learning through aspect of semiotic systems.
Text User
Using texts is all about the student becoming aware of the specific audience and context of the text (Santoro, 2004). My personal literacy development as a writer can be used to illustrate my educational development that allowed me to draw on this resource. I’ve always been interested in writing. However, in Year Seven, I couldn’t even write a paragraph. I would write whole scenes in blocks of text. It was my English teacher of that year who scaffolded my understanding that each paragraph was to represent an idea, or present dialogue, and so forth. Over the course of two years, he took my ability from being restricted to code breaking and participating in text, developing my functional literacy until I was able to use text for specific purposes in appropriate contexts for a selected audience. Reflecting back on it, my reading studies back then formed personal literacies in relation to my writing, as well as cultural literacies specific to the epic fantasy genre.
Also, in relation to the Literacy Learning Triptych, this resource certainly reflects learning through semiotic systems, and also learning about them to an extent.
Text Analyst
To demonstrate that the Resource Model truly isn’t developmental, I can recall text analysis early into history studies in seventh grade, long before I had a grasp on texting using in English classes. Text analysis involves recognising that texts are not neutral but serve to position and influence readers (Santoro, 2004). To achieve text analysis, students must draw on personal, cultural, critical, and functional literacies. Moreover, this relates strongly to learning about semiotic systems in the Literacy Learning Triptych.
I’ll use my own educational experiences to explore each of these four resources, and while this is certainly not a developmental model (Bourke, 2010), I will use my own development as a platform to explore each resource progressively.
Code Breaker
Code breaking involves decoding and encoding text in order to gain or communicate some kind of meaning (Santoro, 2004). Beginning Kindergarten, this is where we learn letters every day, where I remember sound letters together with the class, spelling games, where my understand of the letters, new words, and their basic grammatical and syntactic placement allowed me to begin reading and writing.
Now, while the Literacy Learning Triptych and Four Resources Model are structured differently, we can certainly say that this resource reflects learning of semiotic systems. There is also an emphasis on functional literacies.
Text Participant
Participating in text involves the students reading and interpreting texts (Santoro, 2004). Recalling the comprehension audio / reading groups in Year One, I believe this was an emphasis on text participation, with an emphasis on cultural, personal, and functional literacies. We can also say that this resource can be related to the learning through aspect of semiotic systems.
Text User
Using texts is all about the student becoming aware of the specific audience and context of the text (Santoro, 2004). My personal literacy development as a writer can be used to illustrate my educational development that allowed me to draw on this resource. I’ve always been interested in writing. However, in Year Seven, I couldn’t even write a paragraph. I would write whole scenes in blocks of text. It was my English teacher of that year who scaffolded my understanding that each paragraph was to represent an idea, or present dialogue, and so forth. Over the course of two years, he took my ability from being restricted to code breaking and participating in text, developing my functional literacy until I was able to use text for specific purposes in appropriate contexts for a selected audience. Reflecting back on it, my reading studies back then formed personal literacies in relation to my writing, as well as cultural literacies specific to the epic fantasy genre.
Also, in relation to the Literacy Learning Triptych, this resource certainly reflects learning through semiotic systems, and also learning about them to an extent.
Text Analyst
To demonstrate that the Resource Model truly isn’t developmental, I can recall text analysis early into history studies in seventh grade, long before I had a grasp on texting using in English classes. Text analysis involves recognising that texts are not neutral but serve to position and influence readers (Santoro, 2004). To achieve text analysis, students must draw on personal, cultural, critical, and functional literacies. Moreover, this relates strongly to learning about semiotic systems in the Literacy Learning Triptych.
Afterword on Frameworks
It should be noted that just as the three levels of the Literacy Learning Triptych should be addressed in our teaching as parts of a whole (Anstey & Bull, 2004), so should these frameworks. They each have their merits and should be viewed as a part of our pedagogical repertoire, incomplete without making use of the others. By using these three frameworks as parts of a whole, we are furthermore valuing and teaching cultural, functional, personal, and critical literacies.
Framework For Teaching Literacies
As educators, it is especially important that we are aware of the different frameworks for literacy teaching, and I’ll briefly examine each of these listed below in relation to my own experiences and in relation to functional, critical, cultural, and personal literacy views and also the Literacy Learning Triptych:
• Systemic Functional Linguistics
• Critical Literacy
• IT & Literacy Teaching
Systemic Function Linguistics
According to Christie & Misson (1998), systemic function linguistics involves the view that we make language choices in terms of register, tone, and mode, depending on the context. In the classroom, this has relevance to specific KLAs. For example, the mode and register are entirely different in a science class context from a creative and critical English class context. The implication for us as educators is that we must make explicit links between subject content and subject literacies (Santoro, 2004).
Through my acquired literacy in the English KLA by Year Seven, I was able to perform adequately in writing tasks, but I constantly struggled in Design and Technology and Science because my explicit learning was insufficient and I had little to no experience in these KLAs.
We can also say that systemic function linguistics presents a functional view of literacies, encouraging empowerment via literacy and teaching it as essential for success in our every day lives (Anstey & Bull, 2004). Furthermore, considering the Literacy Learning Triptych, it relates to learning of semiotic systems.
In classrooms, I certainly remember lessons delivered in this framework emphasised in English, when discussing context, composing texts for specific audiences, and so forth. Texts are composed in specific ways for specific audiences and specific purposes.
Critical Literacy
This framework emphasises individual empowerment through decoding the ideological underpinnings of texts, as opposed to the systemic functions of texts (Christie & Misson, 1998). I can remember entire worlds opening before me when we began critically examining ancient historical sources for evidence of bias, propaganda, and prejudice. A lesson geared in this way is prime evidence of a lesson delivered critical literacy framework. Moreover, learning explicitly about the purpose and techniques of marketing and advertising in English is another example from my educational experiences.
To critically analyse a text via critical literacies, we must be aware of context and have cultural literacy of that context (Christie & Misson, 1998), and this may be sourced from personal literacies, also. For instance, when studying a Simpson’s episode in Year 11 for an English humour unit, I had additional personal knowledge from my experiences on the episode and I also had cultural knowledge of the satirical content.
Critical Literacy also represents the learning about aspect of the Literacy Learning Triptych because both the framework and this aspect of the Triptych “investigate the social, cultural, economic, ideological, and political aspects of various semiotic systems and literacies” (Anstey & Bull, 2004).
IT and Literacy
While we have already touched briefly on this, we can certainly say IT can be employed to teach semiotics with a multiliteracies approach (see the hyperlinks, highlighting, images, texts, and so forth on this blog). With IT we can incorporate personal, cultural, critical, and functional literacies, and also it can be used to teach from every aspect of the Literacy Learning Triptych.
We might use it in a classroom in the form of a webquest, or a research assignment, or simply a PowerPoint presentation to aid our direct instruction. We may also find it a convenient resource for teaching visual literacies. See the article below for a justification of teaching using online comics for visual literacy:
Visual Literacy: To comics or not to comics?
• Systemic Functional Linguistics
• Critical Literacy
• IT & Literacy Teaching
Systemic Function Linguistics
According to Christie & Misson (1998), systemic function linguistics involves the view that we make language choices in terms of register, tone, and mode, depending on the context. In the classroom, this has relevance to specific KLAs. For example, the mode and register are entirely different in a science class context from a creative and critical English class context. The implication for us as educators is that we must make explicit links between subject content and subject literacies (Santoro, 2004).
Through my acquired literacy in the English KLA by Year Seven, I was able to perform adequately in writing tasks, but I constantly struggled in Design and Technology and Science because my explicit learning was insufficient and I had little to no experience in these KLAs.
We can also say that systemic function linguistics presents a functional view of literacies, encouraging empowerment via literacy and teaching it as essential for success in our every day lives (Anstey & Bull, 2004). Furthermore, considering the Literacy Learning Triptych, it relates to learning of semiotic systems.
In classrooms, I certainly remember lessons delivered in this framework emphasised in English, when discussing context, composing texts for specific audiences, and so forth. Texts are composed in specific ways for specific audiences and specific purposes.
Critical Literacy
This framework emphasises individual empowerment through decoding the ideological underpinnings of texts, as opposed to the systemic functions of texts (Christie & Misson, 1998). I can remember entire worlds opening before me when we began critically examining ancient historical sources for evidence of bias, propaganda, and prejudice. A lesson geared in this way is prime evidence of a lesson delivered critical literacy framework. Moreover, learning explicitly about the purpose and techniques of marketing and advertising in English is another example from my educational experiences.
To critically analyse a text via critical literacies, we must be aware of context and have cultural literacy of that context (Christie & Misson, 1998), and this may be sourced from personal literacies, also. For instance, when studying a Simpson’s episode in Year 11 for an English humour unit, I had additional personal knowledge from my experiences on the episode and I also had cultural knowledge of the satirical content.
Critical Literacy also represents the learning about aspect of the Literacy Learning Triptych because both the framework and this aspect of the Triptych “investigate the social, cultural, economic, ideological, and political aspects of various semiotic systems and literacies” (Anstey & Bull, 2004).
IT and Literacy
While we have already touched briefly on this, we can certainly say IT can be employed to teach semiotics with a multiliteracies approach (see the hyperlinks, highlighting, images, texts, and so forth on this blog). With IT we can incorporate personal, cultural, critical, and functional literacies, and also it can be used to teach from every aspect of the Literacy Learning Triptych.
We might use it in a classroom in the form of a webquest, or a research assignment, or simply a PowerPoint presentation to aid our direct instruction. We may also find it a convenient resource for teaching visual literacies. See the article below for a justification of teaching using online comics for visual literacy:
Visual Literacy: To comics or not to comics?
Acquisition vs Learning
Now, I believe that Gee’s (1992, as cited by Anstey & Bull, 2004) concept of literacy acquisition (subconscious learning) and learning (as a result of explicit teaching) is essential to understanding my personal literacy learning. Students all acquire varying proficiencies at literacy from their home discourses (Gee, 1992, as cited by Anstey & Bull, 2004). I believe I knew my ABCs entering the school system, had acquired them from tv shows, having books read at home, games in preschool, but it was in Kindergarten that I was explicitly taught to read and spell via phonics.
Let’s consider the Literacy Learning Triptych for a moment:
Let’s consider the Literacy Learning Triptych for a moment:
Up to this point in my education, I’d learned of semiotics by learning letters, phonics, colours and their moods, sounds and their tones, and basic words. Much of this was acquired at home. By the time I could read, I was learning through use of semiotics. If we think about it, we can’t deny Anstey & Bull (2004) when saying that the Literacy Learning Triptych acknowledges the usefulness and differences between both acquisition and learning processes as children are exposed to learning literacy. That is to say teachers must take into account student’ prior knowledge before planning explicit literacy learning activities. Remembering that literacies are social practises, Vygotsky provides teachers with an essential theory on how more knowledgeable students can scaffold literacy learning for others:
Thinking back to the paired reading activities and group comprehension exercises, where we would all listen to stories via headphones and read along then answer questions, in first grade, the teacher was using Vygotskian principles whether she intended this or not. Through our chatting, we helped one another learn. Also, from these memories, we see the use of multiliteracies, visual with pictured books, audio readings, and text in the one activity. I’m sure many of us acquired literacy skills and knowledge through these activities by talking together, while other learned through explicit teaching.
My Definition of Literacy
First, I want to draw a distinction between language and literacy. These terms are often mistakenly used interchangeably (Anstey & Bull, 2004), when in reality language is merely one semiotic system ___ a system of signs or symbols for communicating meaning (Anstey & Bull, 2004). When we talk about literacy, we are talking about the ability to decode and use a range of semiotic systems (Gee, 1992, as cited by Anstey & Bull, 2004) However, the concept of literacy has changed over time, developing from an idea where reading and writing were regarded as separate skills (Christie & Misson, 1998) to the concept of multiliteracies. Below is a video clip exploring the possibilities of multiliteracies in the 21st century:
Gee (1990) discusses discourses as “coordinated ways of being in the world,” and this is pertinent to literacies because schools value and reproduce dominant societal discourses (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1973). In this way, marginalised or minority groups, such indigenous students or students from a low socioeconomic background, with literacies differing from the literacies of these dominant discourses can be limited, while the dominant discourses are further empowered (Anstey & Bull 2004). This is where explicit literacy teaching becomes essential for equitable outcomes for all students.
From the image above, we can see different discourses each have unique associated literacies, and from this we can see literacy is a social practise (Lankshear & Lawler, 1987 as cited by Anstey & Bull, 2004).
Exploring My Personal Literacy Development
I’m using this blog to explore memories of my own literacy development in relation to language development models and their underpinning theories, and further, how these apply practically in a secondary English classroom context. Before we can get anywhere, it’s best I define literacy. And from there, I’ll use the exploration of my memories as a platform to compare, contrast, and analyse language development models and literacy theories in terms of my own experiences.
I found the image below amusing. =P
I found the image below amusing. =P
Clearly, this doesn’t even touch on what literacy is, but to understand this demotivational poster, both cultural and visual literacies are essential (these will be explained in later entries).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)