New+page+from+Rachel

=I forgot to do the changes on the earlier page and did them on a computer - here is my latest version - any suggested changes? Feel free to change it. Rachel.= = = =Understanding literacies =

Introduction
It is taken as read that literacy is more than reading books but the work discussed below relates to “what motivates boys to read”. I have written about the work of a parent research group which is also described elsewhere (Stelfox, Shanks 2009). A review and evaluation of this work will be followed by discussion of the social practices model of literacy. I will then consider what has happened at an international level and examine current policy in Scotland. I will discuss how my own perspective has formed and changed and conclude with implications for my professional learning. (My change to wording - chris)

The Reading Bus project began in 2006 as the focal point of a programme to promote literacy. To find out more please see the following (Stelfox, Shanks 2009, The reading bus 2009, Payne, Gooday et al. 2009, Watson, Gillies 2009, Stelfox, Watson 2007, Duthie 2005) The aims of the project are to:

 Research is an important part of the work of the Reading Bus for three reasons: to examine literacy processes so that practice can be improved; to evaluate Reading Bus activities; and, finally, to connect work on the Reading Bus with other research on literacy. See (Payne, Gooday et al. 2009)
 * 1) promote reading as a life-long pleasure;
 * 2) raise attainment and achievement of children who are at risk of early failure;
 * 3) encourage family learning in a non-school environment; and
 * 4) involve and empower parents in their children’s learning.

//Review and evaluation//
The Reading Bus Project Co-ordinator decided to set up a parent research group thus meeting both the aim of engaging parents in helping their children to read and the aim of involving parents in their children’s learning. The parents decided to explore ways of motivating boys to read but also included girls. Three parent volunteers worked with boys and girls at one school. They wanted to identify the pupils’ and parents’ views on books the pupils had selected. The parents circulated questionnaires, visited book shops with pupils and created “book bags” which included a wide variety of materials.

Conflict between parent researchers and teaching professionals
For this research three different groups of stakeholders were interviewed: parents; teachers; and other professionals. The parent researchers’ ideas of literacy and how to encourage were at odds with the views of the teachers, the teaching professionals. Street has signalled the potential for conflict when investigating literacy practices. (See Chapter 2, Crowther, Hamilton and Tett 2001)

The teachers privileged one type of literacy within the school context over another type of literacy. The teachers appeared to be denying the boys’ identity as boys. Wenger has noted the importance of recognising multi-membership in communities of practice. We are not members of one group at time but simultaneously members of many groups at the same time. (Wenger 2002, p.173)

The teachers appeared to maintain a hierarchy of books in their classrooms and school. Certain texts were “schoolbooks” and other books (the ones the boys chose) such as comics and factual books were not. The parents’ view was similar to Spender’s argument that a change does not necessarily mean a “drop in standards”. (1995) (p.11 as cited in (Ackland, Bambrough et al. 2009) p.31)

It is possible that children of families on low incomes in Scotland suffer from having non-mainstream literacy. This has been identified in the United States of America. (Heath 1994, p.91, Chen, Derewianka 2009, p.231) Gee refers to the Lancaster school’s focus on “local literacies” and this chimes with how I see the work of the parent researchers. (Gee 2003, p.13) The parents are working in a local arena, concentrating on the here and now of the boys’ reading. The boys’ reading interests were almost treated as vernacular, namely that they were to do with the personal private literacy of boys but not part of the dominant public form of literacy that school was concerned with. (Ackland, Bambrough et al. 2009, p.30) Vernacular literacies may be disapproved of and mass media literacies ignored despite their everyday relevance in people’s lives. (cited in Ackland, Bambrough et al. 2009, p.31) Ackland et al note “[s]ometimes what is perceived by the dominant culture (and in particular its education services) as a lack of literacy, can instead be a difference that is not valued.” (Ackland, Bambrough et al. 2009, p.31)

Crowther and Tett argue that a technical view of literacy “obscures the complex relationship between language, power and identity” (Crowther, Tett 1997, p.1) They believe that challenging dominant forms of literacy entails questioning class-based and hierarchical notions of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’ language, high and low culture. (Crowther, Tett 1997, p.2)

For Barton the education establishment is a socially powerful institution which tends to support its own dominant literacy practices. (Barton 2002, p.4) This dominance has grown over one hundred years of compulsory schooling in Britain. While the school may dominate there are also ‘vernacular’ literacies which exist in people’s everyday lives. Crowther and Tett argue for the vernacular literacy of Scots to be legitimated as “a resource for learning”. The vernacular literacy of what interests young boys could also be used to bring them into the classroom and let their voice be heard rather than marginalised. (Crowther, Tett 1997, p.6)

Hamilton argues it must be accepted that “forms of knowledge are defined, shaped and legitimated by power relations” and that “landscapes of learning can be analysed as topographies of power.” (Hamilton 2006, p.135) Hamilton argues that there needs to be space for learners to “bring in the funds of knowledge they already have.” She argues that the “enclosed educational spaces we currently operate within make it harder and harder to keep the frames open and to act upon our understandings of the wider landscape of learning.” She refers to “supporting the informal tactics of learners wherever and whenever these take place.” (Hamilton 2006, p.136)

For Ackland “power is productive; control is exerted not by repression but by the normalisation of certain attitudes, behaviours and beliefs through discursive practices.” (Ackland 2006, pp.2-3) Thus the hierarchy of teacher over parent is repeated and continued generation after generation.

Parents’ empowerment and increased social literacy
The parent researchers enjoyed the experience. They had become more engaged with their children’s school and developed confidence from taking part in their own research project. It had provided an opportunity for them to be included in practical tasks with the children and it was close to home. The parents felt that their findings should benefit children in the future, in their school but also further afield. The parents felt a sense of empowerment from having been consulted. (Stelfox, Shanks 2009, Payne, Gooday et al. 2009)

Stelfox noted it was “an exciting opportunity for capacity building with community members, not only in their role as researchers, but in the ongoing development of the Reading Bus Programme.” (Stelfox, Watson 2007, p.7)

There was evidence of network building going on between the parents related to the enhancement of literacy. The activities involved in this research provided a bridge or link between the parents and the school.

The project involved the notion of literacies on two levels:  The parent research group can be considered as a “community of practice”. (Wenger 2002, Lave, Wenger 1991, Wenger 1998, Gee 2003, p.5) A community of practice can be understood as occurring where a group of people are performing tasks together, learning from each other and accepting each other in this common activity. Wenger also refers to the boundaries between communities of practice. (Wenger 2002, p.173) For example, the boundaries between the parent researchers and other parents and with the teachers.
 * children’s, in particular boy’s, reading;
 * parent researchers’ social literacy.

A recent evaluation of the Reading Bus noted that two recurring and dominant themes had emerged: the importance of tasks being authentic; and the nature and role of relationships in learning. It was suggested that these factors should be “a focus for work and research, in order to better understand their nature and the ways in which they work so powerfully.” (Payne, Gooday et al. 2009, p.30)

//Theories of literacies, in particular, the social practices model//
Literacy can be defined as “a social practice shaped by the socio-cultural contexts in which they are enacted.” (Chen, Derewianka 2009, p.227 citing Moss 2002)This is in contrast to treating reading and writing as skill sets which can be easily moved from one context to another. The social practice model means exploring power dynamics and relationships.(Crowther, Hamilton et al. 2001, p.1)

For the Reading Bus Project Co-ordinator the main purpose of the Reading Bus is to make contact with the so-called ‘hard-to-reach’ parents and children. Therefore, from the beginning there were discussions with children in order to understand how literacy was a part of their life outside school. By embracing the fact that children all have rich and varied experiences of literacy away from school and that these experiences are meaningful, real and very individual the project has been able to let this understanding of ‘literacy in the lived life’ inform its practice. (Payne, Gooday et al. 2009)

Barton and Hamilton view literacy as a social practice and at the foundation of their theory is the notion of literacy practices. (Barton, Hamilton 1998) Barton defines literacy practices as “the general cultural ways of utilising written language which people draw upon in their lives. In the simplest sense literacy practices are what people do with literacy.” (Barton 2002, p.1)This does not mean that these practices are simply actions or behaviours. For Barton the social practice of literacy also includes people’s values, feelings, attitudes and their relationships with others. Rather than being within individuals, literacy practices exist in the relationships between people and within groups and communities.

The parent research group involved several of Barton and Hamilton’s six propositions about the nature of literacy. (Barton, Hamilton 1998) The second proposition that “there are different literacies associated with different domains of life” can be exemplified by the fact that the school had one type of literacy they were interested in while the boys had their own preferred literacy. The third proposition “literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some literacies are more dominant, visible and influential than others”, again this can be seen in the struggle between the school and the parent researchers’ views on suitable reading material for the children. Finally the sixth proposition that “literacy practices change and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of informal learning and sense making” rings especially true when considering the parent research group.

Barton writes that “the events of everyday life, language, literacy and numeracy are integrated and intertwined phenomena.”(Barton 2002, p.3) For the boys facts and figures and television programmes are part and parcel of their lives and so by letting their interests be reflected in new reading materials their lives inside and outside of school can be brought together. Barton described “different literacies associated with different domains of life”, for example, with home and school or school and workplace. (Ackland, Bambrough et al. 2009, p.3) For the parents in the research group their children’s literacy was located in the domains of both school and home while for the teachers it was situated in their work domain.

Street appears to take this one step further arguing that teaching literacy is about “a set of possibilities” rather than “a set of rules to be learned.” (Street 2001, p.20) Street argues against denying students “the ‘power’ to question the rules and procedures and to develop their own uses of language and literacy.” Street calls for a broadening of the concept of ‘basics’ and a shifting of “the view of language from a focus on rules towards a more creative and user-focused approach.” (Street 2001, p.21) Crowther and Tett argue that for a democracy people’s literacy is of the utmost importance. (Crowther, Tett 2001, p.108)This means not only economic participation but also political and social participation in society. (Crowther, Tett 2001, p.111)They term this “literacy for citizenship”. (Crowther, Tett 2001, p.113)

Renshaw notes that “sociocultural theory provides a conception of learners as cultural and historical subjects embedded within and constituted by a matrix of social relationships and processes.” (Renshaw 2003, p.360) However, Renshaw is wary of adopting the terminology of ‘community’ and ‘learning’ as the sociocultural theory of learning seems to coincide with the human resource development economic arguments to learn. (Renshaw 2003, p.364)

//Context of current international and domestic policy and practice//
At an international level there seems to be a global competition over skills and economic performance. Literacy initiatives have moved away from ideas of empowerment and autonomy towards economic competitiveness. (Myhill 2009, p.129) Literacy has become “a valued economic commodity” and is linked to both employment and productivity in the workplace. (Chen, Derewianka 2009, p.231) Competition between countries intensified with the growth of international testing of literacy and countries established their own assessments so that they could set standards and monitor progress. (Ibid) The USA had the earliest and most dramatic shift to this more “’hard-nosed’, policy-driven approach”. (Chen, Derewianka 2009, p.232)Literacy researchers worry that “the gains made by a more qualitative, critical perspective in the 1980s and 1990s have been eroded for the sake of political expediency.” (Chen, Derewianka 2009, p.236) A more ‘progressive’ approach to literacy education seems to have lost out to a more ‘skills-based’ approach.

UNESCO has run into problems of how to define literacy and illiteracy. (Limage 1999, p.79) A report by UNESCO’s Institute of Statistics concluded that world-wide policies and projects in the last fifty years have not reduced inequalities in literacy. (Carr-Hill 2008, p.48) Assessments of literacy rates appear useful only for countries to plot their own progress but not to make comparisons with other countries. (Ibid) This calls into question the usefulness of the International Adult Literacy Survey. This survey is co-ordinated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which places literacy and numeracy into the wider education, language and economic policy of its member states. (Hamilton, Hillier 2006, p.85) In developing countries the major hurdle in assessing rates of literacy is that “it is difficult to monitor the marginalized and poor.” (Carr-Hill 2008, p.49)

The literacy programmes of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland now differ due to the differing forms of devolution in the four nations of the United Kingdom. (Hamilton, Macrae et al. 2001) Although in the past England had a more managerialist or human resource development policy focus for literacy work than Scotland, the situation in Scotland has been moving towards that of England.

Schools have been involved in adult literacies and the Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland Report (ALNIS) recorded this. (Scottish Executive Education Department 2001) The Reading Bus project in its partnership approach has also been combining work on adult and children’s literacies. Reading Bus primary schools have been involved with the Aberdeen City Council Family Learning Team. The involvement of parents in their children’s education can lead to these adults improving their own literacies.

The ALNIS report provided a social practice model for literacy work in Scotland. However, Ackland notes the report’s inconsistency with language of social practices and lifelong learning alongside managerial-speak of targets and outputs. (Ackland 2006, p.3)

Learning and Teaching Scotland published draft experiences and outcomes in literacy and English in 2008 and recognised the importance of a child’s home and community in the development of literacy. (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2008, p.1) Being open to diversity when approaching the literacy or literacies of different individuals was also noted in the LTS draft experiences and outcomes in literacy and English. (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2008, p.4)

There has been a marked change to literacies policy and practice in Scotland with the change of Scottish Government and the new Single Outcome Agreements which are not obliged to cover adult literacy. Funding is now threatening many areas of literacies work. The Reading Bus Project has had to fight for its funding several times but at present it seems secure. (Watson, Gillies 2009) While in schools the new Curriculum for Excellence is meant to create responsible citizens who are successful learners and effective contributors. (The Curriculum Review Group 2004) Echoing Crowther and Tett’s call for “literacy for citizenship”.

//Change to own perspective//
At the outset of the research I thought the teachers would be pleased the parents were engaged and interested in improving their children’s education. However, the teachers obviously felt threatened and did not want the parents to step on their professional toes.

Mace writes of the professionalisation of teaching in the first half of the twentieth century widening the gulf between school and home. (Mace 1998, p.133) Mace also notes that the focus on the mother when looking at children’s literacy poses a risk to the women denying their own interest in literacy for themselves. (Mace 1998, p.145) It was good to realise after reading this that with the parent researchers this had not been done. They were not seen first and foremost by their genders but simply as parents. Neither the parents nor the researchers had seen the parents as “the problem”.

//Implications//
This piece of work gave me a broader base of work in the literacies field and, therefore, boosted my confidence in terms of discussing literacies and understanding the difficulties some parents have in being treated as equals by teachers. It has helped to build more security in my own practice. As the course progressed I realised I had been involved with a great deal of literacies work, for example as a Bargaining for Skills Project Co-ordinator.

As well as identifying ways for parents in general to become more involved in their children’s learning it has also made me consider how I can become more involved in my own children’s learning and how I can do more to promote literacies work.

I am currently conducting research into literacies work, the induction of new teachers in Scotland and I teach an adult evening class. By considering the meaning of literacy and literacies and hence the power of language over our lives I noticed comments from my class that before I may have quickly forgotten. Now, however, I was not only more interested in what they said about how their learning French impacted on their understanding (and hence literacy of) English but it also resonated more. For example, one student told the class

“I never knew the perfect tense existed until I studied French. I’d never come across it at school. We never learnt about tenses in English.” (18th June 2009)

Students were more aware of other people’s attempts to learn English because they were learning another language:

“my daughter-in-law is Japanese and learns English by attending 2 classes a day and practising with my son – practice makes perfect, but one must have desire and work hard.” (7th May 2009)

This particular class were keen to work between classes:

“a colleague speaks a bit of French, so we made a pact to only communicate in French when discussing work issues over “instant messenger” or email. As a result, we both consult an online dictionary all the time, with (sic) aids further learning …” (14th May 2009)

In this student’s attempt to practise French she came across a new tool (online dictionaries) and thus acquired a new form of literacy. In fact, this student felt so encouraged from improving her French that she has now decided to learn another language as well.

Barton points out that “practices in different cultures and languages can be regarded as different literacies.” (Barton 2002, p.3) In the French class the adult students are dealing with both their French and English literacies, especially when they come across new grammatical terms for English. Chen and Derewianka state “language education enables a more comprehensive conceptualisation of the field, encompassing not only an extended definition of literacy (including visual and multimedia) but also oracy, literature studies and language itself.” (Chen, Derewianka 2009, p.229)

Only on reading Barton’s paper did I realise that in my doctoral research I am concerned with a very different type of literacy, namely the micro-political literacy of new teachers. (Curry, Jaxon et al. 2008, Kelchtermans, Ballet 2002, Blase, Anderson 1995)

//References//
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">The reading bus 2009-last update [Homepage of Reading Bus], [Online]. Available: @http://www.readingbus.co.uk/<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> [06/27, 2009]. ACKLAND, A., 2006. Lizard dressed as lamb? A cautionary reading of the discourse of the Scottish Adult Literacies Initiative. //RaPAL (Research and Practice in Adult Literacy) Journal,// **60**(Summer 2006),. ACKLAND, A., BAMBROUGH, C., ROBERTS, G. and ALDRED, C., 2009. Understanding Literacies Course Handbook. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen. BARTON, D., 2002. A social practice view of language, literacy and numeracy, //ESRC Adult Basic Education Seminar Series,// 2002,. BARTON, D. and HAMILTON, M., 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge. BLASE, J. and ANDERSON, G.L., 1995. The Micropolitics of Educational Leadership: From Control to Empowerment. London: Cassell. CARR-HILL, R., 2008. //International Literacy Statistics: A Review of Concepts, Methodology and Current Data// Montreal, Canada: UNESCO Institute of Statistics. CHEN, H. and DEREWIANKA, B., 2009. Binaries and beyond: a Bernsteinian perspective on change in literacy education. //Research Papers in Education,// **24**(2), pp. 223. CROWTHER, J. and TETT, L., 2001. Democracy as a way of life: literacy for citizenship. //Powerful Literacies.// Leicester, England: NIACE, pp. 108-118. CROWTHER, J. and TETT, L., 1997. Family Literacy - Inferiorism in Scotland: the Politics of literacy North of the Border, P. ARMSTRONG, N. MILKLER and M. ZUKAS, eds. In: //Crossing Borders Breaking Boundaries 27th Annual SCUTREA,// 1997, pp126-130. CROWTHER, J., HAMILTON, M. and TETT, L., eds, 2001. //Powerful Literacies .// Leicester: NIACE. CURRY, M., JAXON, K., RUSSELL, J.L., CALLAHAN, M.A. and BICAIS, J., 2008. Examining the practice of beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional inquiry communities. //Teaching and Teacher Education,// **24**(3), pp. 660-673. DUTHIE, R., 2005. //“Read to Succeed – The Reading Bus, St Machar ASG”, Report to Education and Leisure Committee Meeting of 17th January 2005.// Aberdeen: Aberdeen City Council. GEE, J., 2003-last update, the new literacy studies and the 'social turn' accessed [Homepage of Literacy Web Australia], [Online]. Available: @http://www.schools.ash.org.au/litweb/page300.html<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> [06/27, 2009]. HAMILTON, M., 2006. Just do it: Literacies, everyday learning and the irrelevance of pedagogy. //Studies in the Education of Adults,// **38**(2), pp. 125-140. HAMILTON, M. and HILLIER, Y., 2006. Changing Faces of Adult Literacy, Language and Numeracy, a critical history. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham Books. HAMILTON, M., MACRAE, C. and TETT, L., 2001. Powerful literacies: the policy context. In: J. CROWTHER, M. HAMILTON and L. TETT, eds, //Powerful Literacies.// Leicester, England: NIACE, pp. 23-42. HEATH, S.B., 1994. What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. In: J. MAYBIN, ed, // Language, Literacy and Social Practice .// Avon: Open University Press,. KELCHTERMANS, G. and BALLET, K., 2002. The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialisation. //Teaching and Teacher Education,// **18**(1), pp. 105-120. LAVE, J. and WENGER, E., 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press. LEARNING AND TEACHING SCOTLAND, 2008-last update, literacy and English cover paper [Homepage of Learning and Teaching Scotland], [Online]. Available: @http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/Images/literacy_english_cover_paper_tcm4-468724.pdf<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';"> [06/23, 2009]. LIMAGE, L.J., 1999. Literacy practices and literacy policies: where has UNESCO been and where might it be going? //International Journal of Educational Development,// **19**(1), pp. 75-89. MACE, J., 1998. Family is more than mum and literacy is more than school. // Playing with time: mothers and the meaning of literacy .// London: UCL Press, pp. 119-146. MYHILL, D., 2009. Shaping futures: literacy policy in the twenty-first century. //Research Papers in Education,// **24**(2), pp. 129. PAYNE, F., GOODAY, M., STELFOX, K. and LEWIS, G., 2009. //An Interim Evaluation of the Aberdeen Reading Bus Project (2006-2008).// Aberdeen: The University of Aberdeen. RENSHAW, P.D., 2003. Community and Learning: contradictions, dilemmas and prospects. //Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,// **24**(3), pp. 355. SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, 2001. //Adult Literacy and Numeracy in Scotland.// Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. STELFOX, K. and SHANKS, R., 2009. The Reading Bus: A Capital Idea? //Lifelong learning revisited: What Next?// 23rd -26th June 2009 2009, Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning,University of Stirling. STELFOX, K. and WATSON, J., 2007. //Interim progress report on the Reading Bus for the Education and Leisure Committee on 24th April 2007.// Aberdeen: Aberdeen City Council. STREET, B.V., 2001. Contexts for literacy work: the 'new orders' and the 'new literacy studies'. In: J. CROWTHER, M. HAMILTON and L. TETT, eds, //Powerful Literacies.// Leicester, England: NIACE, pp. 13-22. THE CURRICULUM REVIEW GROUP, 2004. //A Curriculum for Excellence.// Edinburgh: Scottish Executive. WATSON, J. and GILLIES, L., 2009. //Interim Evaluation Report on the Reading Bus Project for the Policy and Strategy (Education) Committee on 28th April 2009.// Aberdeen: Aberdeen City Council. WENGER, E., 2002. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. In: F. REEVE, M. CARTWRIGHT and R. EDWARDS, eds, //Supporting Lifelong learning, Volume 2: organizing learning.// London: Routledge Falmer, pp. 160-179. WENGER, E., 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.