'Against the belief that literacy does not itself determine the uses to which it is put and is not itself shaped by the uses made of it, I argue that literacy is the uses to which it is put and the conceptions which shape and reflect its actual use' (L...

'Against the belief that literacy does not itself determine the uses to which it is put and is not itself shaped by the uses made of it, I argue that literacy is the uses to which it is put and the conceptions which shape and reflect its actual use' (Lankshear 1987 p50). What are the misconceptions about literacy that he identifies to arrive at this conclusion? Discuss the implications of his argument for the way we think about literacy, about how children become literate and the uses of popular culture in educational contexts.

Let us attempt to understand Lankshear's argument. My interpretation of Lankshear's position is that he supports the idea of literacy as being best understood as a concept which comes into affect by its application in day to day life. I further assess his statement as literacy being also considered as the formation of ideas which forms the uses of literacy as well as creating an image to convey its use (Lankshear, 1987, p.50). The uses of literacy may be to communicate with one another or to participate in society by working, or to help others in need. Without the idea one can not put literacy into use. Such ideas must make known their use, they do so by reflecting this use to the recipient. To understand the implicatioins of this argument I will explore the misconceptions which he refers to with comments and gradually progress to his argument in the context of children's literacy. Lankshear bases his arguments against certain misconceptions of literacy which he refers to as the autonomous model. He supports his arguments with authors Brian Street (he contrasts his ideological model with that of the autonomous model) and Harvey Graff who refers to the misconceptions as the literacy myth.

Lankshear explains the views upon which misconceptions are based as follows: Both educationists and ordinary, lay people are mostly inclined to think that they either have or do not have literacy skills, those without it not only have a need for it but that they should also acquire it. Upon attaining literacy they can make use of it and choose to apply it whenever and for whatever purpose they need. According to this view the world opens to those who are literate but remains closed to those who aren't (Lankshear, 1987, p.39). Thus, a literate person has more and better opportunities than the one who isn't literate. Literacy produces good results and importance to the literate person as well as precious and valued qualities for him/her, the illiterate person gets none of these (Lankshear, 1987, P.39).

Lankshear states a minimum of three similar misconceptions within the above views. He begins with the concept that literacy is unitary that is it is a 'single thing', that is it is the same for everyone (Lankshear,1987, p.39). He explains that literate people share (regardless of differences in their levels of literacy) their possession of literacy, where as what illiterate people have in common is that they don't have literacy or they have so little of it that it is regarded as negligible (Lankshear, 1987, p.39). In this perspective literacy is seen as a technology or otherwise seen as the ability to employ the technology of print (Lankshear, 1987, p.39). Lankshear's second description of misconception is that literacy is a neutral process or tool, this is believed to be so due to the tendency to consider literacy to be a skill/technology. It is considered to be neutral in the sense that it is unattached from and not influenced by the concepts of power (Lankshear, 1987, p.40). Lankshear argues that for those who agree to literacy being neutral, its use is differentiated from the term literacy itself (Lankshear,1987, p.40). With this view of neutrality, literacy is described as a concept that does not on its own accord define, limit or influence the application that is made of it (Lankshear, 1987, p.40). Lankshear challenges the alleged neutrality of literacy, he adds that the argument that he has put forward against the understanding that literacy is unitary has strong implications for the concept of literacy being a neutral skill/technology. He believes that this concept that literacy does not itself determine the uses to which it is put and is not itself shaped by the uses made of it, is mistaken for when we adopt the point that literacy consists of real social practices and conceptions of reading and writing, the idea that literacy is neutral becomes obsolete (Lankshear, 1987, p.48). The third misconception which Lankshear states is that literacy is referred to as an independent variable. Lankshear continues by explaining that in this concept literacy is believed to be responsible for the development of outcomes but at the same time literacy is free of particular values, interests, social practices (Lankshear, 1987, p.41). He breaks the meaning down as follows: Literacy is not itself a result or a reflection of external influences, it does not approve a particular set of social values interests, practices at the cost of others, though it does make a few particular outcomes to its own credit (Lankshear, 1987, p.41). This is what Lankshear means when speaking of literacy as an independent variable.

To support Lankshear's claim that the ideas about literacy discussed above are misconceptions, Lankshear refers to Graff's book 'The literacy myth'. The belief in literacy as an independent variable is what Graff refers to as the literacy myth (Lankshear, 1987, p.43). Lankshear's understanding of the book is that it tries to show with reference to particular case studies the degree of intense myth within certain beliefs, it is understood that what is socially real is a far more complicated concept than the single routed cause and effect relationship (Lankshear, 1987, p.43).

...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The three beliefs about literacy described by Lankshear are beliefs which Street refers to as the autonomous model which assumes that literacy is autonomous from the specified social contexts in which it is used (Lankshear, 1987, p.43). Street approves of the ideological model as opposed to the autonomous model which in short means that literacy is mostly a condition of how reading and writing are imagined and used within specified social settings (Lankshear, 1987, p.43). Let us briefly consider the approval of the ideological model to explain Lankshear's argument and to progress towards commenting on the models and supporting one of them. Lankshear has connected the misconceptions to the autonomous model. Street claims that this model is to be based on the 'essay text' type of literacy, it is a narrow culture-specific literacy practice (Street, 1984, p.1). This model is known to be identified with 'progress', 'civilisation', individual freedom and social mobility (Street, 1984, p.2). Literacy is singled out to be an independent variable (Street, 1984, p.2). Street argues against this model and supports his argument with the help of Labov. In Labov's studies on young Blacks in the ghettos of New York, U.S.A it showed that cognitive 'deprivation' was based on the misinterpretation of the true meanings of the statements and actions of the Black youths (Street, 1987, p.26). Labov argues that the labelling of this particular form of speech used by the young Blacks as being ungrammatical and using this as evidence of cognitive deprivation is actually forms of dialect (Street, 1984, p.26). He supports his argument by indicating that when linguists listen to Black children speaking and saying "He crazy" they hear highly structured systems with many grammatical categories which are important parts of any logical system coming from a non standard dialect (Street, 1984, p.26). Labov in his tests also revealed much better results for clever youths who were labelled ESN (Educationally Sub Normal) and he demonstrated that the tests that were being used were mostly social conventions of a dominant class as opposed to universal logic (Street, 1984, p.27). Street simplifies his ideological model by revealing his research in Mashad, a holy city in the province of NE Iran. He explains by providing a model that came out of the religious schools called 'Maktabs'. The leading 'tajers' (middlemen) in the villages who arranged the fruit trade learnt as youngsters in these 'maktabs' a specified type of literacy, they used and adapted these skills to the needs of their new commercial position. This adaptation is what Street refers to as upholding the ideological nature of literacy practice (Street, 1984, p.12). He thus argues that what is taken in the autonomous model to be qualities inherent to literacy are infact conventions of literate practice in particular societies (Street, 1984, p.4). Street upholds Lankshear's argument against the misconceptions of literacy by this ideological model of literacy. Street is clear and informative in persuading us to support such an argument. To Street, those who consider this model put their attention towards social practices of reading and writing (Street, 1984, p.2). This model emphasis the importance of the socialisation process in the building of the meaning for literacy for the people who take part and thus it is concerned with the social institutions through which this procedure operates (Street, 1984, p.2). This model is cautious towards the western liberal educators who uphold the 'openness', 'rationality', and critical awareness in their teaching (Street, 1984, p.2). Graff in his research supports both Lankshear and Street. He refers to the literacy myths in 19th century Canada and concludes in his research that schooling and the techniques for teaching literacy are mostly types of a control of one over others. He was able to show how the concepts of literacy being autonomous and neutral was imposed by ruling groups who imposed social control upon the disturbed lower groups. He thus explains that it would be a misinterpretation in these situations to represent the procedure of acquiring literacy as pointing towards greater 'criticalness' and logical functioning (Street, 1984, p.11).

The misconceptions discussed by Lankshear (which are supported by Graff and Street) thus brings Lankshear to his conclusions. I have supported Lankshear's argument because of my concerns towards the autonomous model, Lankshear is able to point out how this model is deconstructing the value of literacy and showing an elitist view towards the concept of literacy, however, it could be argued that the autonomous model may at times be the stronger argument. For example, Labov's research on the Black youths, although being a cross cultural perspective of studying how various social groups think, may not get the support of purists who believe in imposing their concept of literacy upon the ethnics and working class. I consider my views as that of a realist and I feel that it will be difficult to prove to today's society about the proficiency of ghetto language in an educational context, however one must admit that this language has prestige amongst its users.

The concept of literacy is a difficult one for us to grasp. We may make distinctions between formal literacy obtained through an academic establishment and 'informal' literacy obtained by the interest for knowledge with only a limited or no schooling background. Although formal literacy is more prestigious, Graff has revealed tests that many High School graduates and college students are illiterate, he reveals statistics of low literacy rates in the U.S.A, Hungary and France. These countries being some of the modern industrial countries of the world. It is comforting to know that the ideological model encourages a broader, more open view towards literacy. It is the ability to apply literacy skills in a new environment, using and interpreting skills and thus adapting them to the requirements of the new environment. It is this type of perspective towards literacy which is opposed by the autonomous model and if such is the case will restrict valued literacy amongst people of a wide cross section of society. Lankshear's argument stands for the opening up of literacy, his understanding will consider and acknowledge children's literacy through participation and interaction as a positive contribution towards the progress of their literacy. His view will find a place for the impact and contribution that popular culture has for children's literacy developments.

Let us now look at how children become literate and the role that popular culture plays in children’s literacy. Goodman reveals that children both discover and invent literacy as they actively take part in a literate society (Goelman et al, 1984, p.102). Goodman continues, different types of personal and environmental conditions play vital roles in literacy development, he puts it to our awareness that children’s literacy development increases out of their experiences and the views and attitudes towards literacy that they encounter as they mingle and exchange information with social groups (family, community, other socio-economic classes, ethnic groups, races, religions) (Goelman et al, 1984, p.102-103). As children take part in society they are influenced by their surroundings through friends and the media they are introduced to the world of popular culture. It is my understanding that children from different backgrounds have usually a common tendency to identify with and take in images of fictional characters from popular culture. They think about these characters, identify with what they stand for and produce work based on these characters in the forms of drawings, story writing etc. Jackie Marsh reveals how the popular fiction character Batman was used to set up a range of literacy activities which encouraged both boys and girls to participate. This project was very successful comments Jackie and she emphasises how the children took part in various types of literacy activities. ( [16.10.01]). Most of the popular culture that the children are introduced to are from the media (J.Marsh, 2000, p.119) Kress explains that In fun parlours, children are absorbed in complete concentration with pseudo interactive electronic games, he stresses that this pastime has no link to linguistics skills, instead he highlights muscular, cognitive and affective natural character which are being formed as a result of participating in these activities (Kress, 1997, p.2). Kress comments that today’s children who are absorbed in fast paced programmes on TV, the electronic fun parlour, video and computer games are being taught a new kind of ‘training’ which is in this day and age most likely to be the most important and useful kind of training that children will receive (Kress, 1997, p.5). I would argue though that without supervision and guidance this ‘training’ will not contribute to developing children’s literacy skills. I would however support Kate Pahl’s understanding that boys’ interest in cartoon characters, if valued could allow development of stories such that it would bring about more specific meaning making. She supports this statement by introducing Elaine Millard’s arguments and her suggestions that boys could develop their work by using popular TV characters (E.Millard, 1997, p.173).

The use of popular culture in children’s literacy can be similarly compared to the learning in the ‘maktab’ schools in NE Iran. Lankshear’s argument has great implications towards our understanding and progress in literacy. Today’s understanding of literacy is in debate, there are various thoughts on how we should impose literacy on the society. Whereas Lankshear’s arguments support the masses, the misconceptions he states supports the best few. Lankshear gives a good argument for his conclusions, he is convincing in his approach and supports his argument well with the help of Street and Graff. Jackie Marsh makes a competent effort in exploring the potential of popular culture in motivating children towards literacy and the acquisition of literacy skills through this medium.

Word Count: 2,464.

Bibliography.

Goelman, Hillel; Oberg, Antoinette & Smith, Frank, (1984) Awaking to literacy, Heinemann Educational Books, London, U.K.

Kress, Gunther, (1997) Before writing, rethinking the paths to literacy, Routledge, London, U.K.

Graff, H.J, (1979) The literacy myth: Literacy and social structures in the 19th century, Academic Press, London, U.K.

Lankshear, Colin with Lawler, Moira, (1987) Literacy, Schooling and Revolution, Falmer Press, Lewes, East Sussex/ Philadelphia, U.S.A.

Marsh, Jackie, (2000) contemporary Issues in Early childhood, volume 1, Number 2, Tellytubbies Tales: Popular Culture in the Early Years Language and literacy curriculum.

Millard, E, (1997) Differently literate, boys, girls and the schooling of literacy, Routledge, London cited in Pahl Kate, (1999) Transformations: meaning making in nursery education, Trentham Books Ltd, Staffordshire, U.K.

Pahl Kate, (1999) Transformations: meaning making in nursery education, Trentham Books Ltd, Staffordshire, U.K.

Street, B.V, (1984) Literacy in theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/pub/marsh.html