Literacy at work: Different Conceptualization of Literacy and their Implications for Vocational

Education Trainers

INTRODUCTION

The concept of literacy as covered in the course material is a paradigm that is difficult to

define and intellectualize without the application of a number of different models of the concept.

My rationalization of what literacy denoted prior to beginning this course was highly restricted and

equally narrow minded. I like most others understood literacy to simple signify an individual’s

ability to read and write. While the concept of literacy according to Chrisomalis (2009, pp. 59 -74)

is thought to have emerged with the development of computational devices and numeracy as early

as 8000 BCE, the oxford online dictionary chronologizes the term as originating from the word

literate that first came to use in the 19th century (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014). Since the introduction

of reading and writing emerged in ancient civilizations, the concept of literacy has evolved to

encompass complex sets of abilities to comprehend and apply dominant symbol systems of a

culture for both personal and community development. While the principal conceptualization of

literacy is still defined by the life-long intellectual practice of attainment and giving meaning

through the decoding and encoding of printed or written text, notion of literacy and what it means

to be literate has over the years developed to encompass a range of complex language and

theoretical underpinnings which provide necessary platforms for the comprehensive

comprehension of the concept (Kelly, 2014; Green & Dixon, 1996; Millican et al, 2007). This essay

discusses the different conceptualizations of literacy from a multi- perspective angle and outlines

their implications for vocational education teachers and trainers in the 21century.

According to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO,

p. 13) literacy is defined as “the ability to recognize, understand, decode, produce, compute and

communicate through the use of written and printed materials associated with different contexts”.

From UNESCO’s definition, the term literacy can therefore be employed to signify a variety of

learning practices and or processes that enable individuals to develop knowledge and potential,

attain personal objectives and participate fully in respective communities and wider society. Based

on the above definition and stated objectives of the paper this essay employs Belisle’s (2006) three

fundamental perspectives on literacy to discuss of the conceptualization of literacy as assumed by

scholars and educational/ learning institutions. According to Belisle (2006), the first and most

simplistic concept of literacy is that of function. This idea of literacy as supported by Millican et al,

(2007) conceptualizes literacy as a functional process wherein individuals apply the practice of

reading and writing as means to facilitate or enable their everyday functions in life and sufficient

management of their lives. The second, conceptualization of literacy by Belisle, which is slightly

more comprehensive than the first is the concept of literacy as a social and cultural practice. This

idea of literacy as supported by Street (1996), conceptualization literacy as a social and cultural

practice wherein the encoding and decoding of texts is dependent on patterns that are shaped and

supported by contexts shaped by social and cultural influences. The third and most powerful

concept of literacy as put forward by Belisle and supported by Martin (2008), conceptualizes

literacy as powerful process that influences or entails the transformation of the manner in which

individuals think and act. This perspective of literacy according to Freire’s (1972) and Millican et al,

(2007) is generally referred to as the radical approach to literacy and encompasses the

rationalization of literacy as the practice of critical reflection and tool used for social change. This

essay outlines the different conceptualization of literacy by discussing the Autonomous (functional

and contemporary dimensions), the ideological (social and cultural dimensions) and radical

(critical reflection and social change dimensions) models of the discipline. In doing so the easy also

makes

The Autonomous Model

The autonomous model of literacy is one of two models introduced by Street (1995) that

functions from the assumption that literacy in itself is an autonomous practice undertaken on an

individual level that will impact other cognitive and social practices. According to Street (2000, pp.

7-8), the autonomous model starts from the premise that literacy is simply a neutral and technical

skill that is rooted in knowledge and cognitive capabilities and concerned with the manner in which

individuals address reading and writing. The conceptualization of literacy in this sense is rooted in

the constructs of knowledge, identity and being. While this model of literacy provides a key

underpinning framework for literacy and learning in general it is limited in that it disguises some of

the other dimensions that reinforce or support it. With the definition of the autonomous model of

literacy provided by Street it is not farfetched for this paper to categories, the competency

approaches of literacy conceptualized by scholars in the 1800’s and 1900’s under this model.

The competency based approach to literacy also referred to as the literacy as a skill

approach focuses primarily on the practice of reading and writing. This approach to literacy

operates on the premise of literacy being a set of applicable skills related to the practices of

encoding and decoding language and symbols. According to the Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development, the competency based approach to literacy can be summed up as “the

ability to understand and employ printed information in daily activities at home, at work and in the

community – to achieve one’s goals and develop one’s knowledge and potential (OECD, 2000). This

conceptualization of literacy is what Luke and Freebody (2000) in the Four Resources Model refer

to as code breaking and meaning making. At the very basic level, the competency approach literacy

concerns itself with the ability to match symbols and sounds. The competency based approach to

literacy according to Richards and Rogers (2001) lays emphasis on the outcomes of learning in that

it address what learners are expected to do rather than what they are expected to lean about. This

approach to literacy emerged in the United States in the 1970’s as a means to refer to the

educational movement that advocated for the description of leaning goals in terms precise

quantifiable descriptions of skills, knowledge and behaviors that learns should possess at the

conclusion of course of study (Savage, 1993). While this approach to literacy is crucial and clearly

evident in compulsory education levels wherein children are taught the relationship between

English alphabet letters and particular sounds, it is less clear in the higher and vocational education

setting. Darvin (2006, pp. 10 - 18) helps make the relationship between the competency approach

to literacy and vocational education training clear by illustrating through an empirical study that

literacy practices in VET classrooms mirror the best documented strategies of teaching reading in

content areas.

The implications of literacy as a skill to vocational education training (VET) is that this approach

advocates for an outcome based style to learning wherein the learner’s ability to apply basic and

other skills in situations that are encountered in everyday life is the objective. While vocational

education teachers according to Darvin (2006) employ the use of numerous texts much like

university or higher education teachers do, the main difference between the two is that text in the

two settings are employed differently. Most VET classrooms are filled with trade publications,

complex technical manuals, diagrams, schematics, safety codes, legal documents and special

interest magazines. Since the competency based approach to literacy focuses on the practice of

reading and writing its implication for vocational education trainers and educators would primarily

be focused on delicately interweaving social aspects of cognition with knowledge surrounding

personal choices and motivation by promoting nonlinear disordered reading that allows learns to

attain the specific set of skills or knowledge required for their needs. Skills attained from this

approach of literacy are in essence independent and generic of the context within which they are

used. This implies that skills attained in one situation can be applied to other situations and also

measured through assessments.

While there are no automatic one on one relationships between certain teaching methods

and a particular theory of literacy it is important to point out that most approaches to education or

literacy in formal establishments of learning tend to associate themselves more closely with an

autonomous model of literacy than ideological or radical model. This is illustrated from the essay

discussions above wherein the autonomous model of literacy can be closely seen to be associated

with skills based approach and more narrowly a transmissional approach to learning at both

compulsory schooling and post compulsory education levels (Lillis, 2001; Sealey, 1999; Lea and

Street, 1998; Willinsky 1994).

The Ideological Model

The ideological model of literacy as outlined by Street (1996), conceptualizes literacy as a

social practices. This model of literacy is a relative new approach that adds to the traditional model

by broadening its view to incorporate literacy as a practice. This perspective of literacy according to

Millican et al. (2007) is shaped by the underpinning theory and research that forms the basis of the

New Literacy Studies (NLS). According to Street (1996), this model of literacy proposes that the

practices of reading and writing do not simply involve the skill of decoding and encoding symbols

and text or conducting certain tasks in isolation but instead involves social relationships, values and

attitudes.

The main underlying principle behind this conceptualization of literacy is that different

literacies or literacy practices are generally associated with varying domains of life i.e. school,

home, family, workplace and communities. While some of these domains are dominated by female

individuals such as the domestic and family domains, others are dominated by males such as the

public domains. The above categorization of various domains of literacy according to Barton and

Hamilton (1998, p. 7) are significant in that “literacy practices are shaped by social rules that

regulate the uses and distribution of texts prescribing who may produce and have access to them”.

Because the practices of reading and writing have varying functions and applications across

cultures and history as illustrated by Kelly (2014, pp. 2-4) through the use of the London Beanie

excerpts it is evidently inaccurate for scholars to adopt an exclusively autonomous view on literacy.

The language in use module developed by Halliday (1978, 1985) is one such model that falls

under Street’s (1996) ideological model of literacy. Halliday’s model focuses on the manner

individuals use language in making meaning through drawing from the work of anthropologists to

propose that language is a social situation product that occurs within a particular culture. Eggins

(2005) functional interpretation of language use is observed as having a social perspective by

describing literacy related purposeful and goal oriented actives as genres which take place within a

specific cultural context. According to Eggins, the language that individuals use whether written or

spoken within a certain social setting is dependent on what he refers to as register. A register in

this regard comprises of field, tenor and mode wherein the field refers to what is being spoken or

written about (the topic), tenor refers to who is writing or speaking to whom and their situational

dynamics (such as relationships and roles, formality or informality of language use etc.) and mode

which refers to the manner in which individuals communicate (i.e. form or communication –

written/ spoken/ visual, channels of communication – face to face/text book or manual/e–

learning). Eggins (2005), language in use model can also be framed up using Luke and Freebody’s

Four Resources’ Model which puts forward a list of four resources that students need to develop in

order to address the literacy demands of their lives. Luke and Freebody’s text user and text

analyst’s models are what encompass the social and cultural aspect of literacy. The text user

‘resource’ proposed by Luke and Freebody focuses on outlining the importance of appreciating the

manners in which texts shape or are shaped by certain cultural and social functions.

The implications of this approach to literacy with regard to Vocational Education Training

are that VET trainers and educators need to be mindful of the textually mediated social worlds that

form the bridge between different discourses. Since VET settings are typically full of texts such as

manuals, instructions handbooks and schematic diagrams among others, it is important that

learners are taught to decode and encode such text with reference to particular social connotations

the texts and symbols poses. This notion of literacy is further supported by Gee (1995, 2011) who

puts forward the idea writing and reading within particular contexts – or Discourses. Since VET

learners are generally enter a new discourse when undertaking their course it is imperative that

trainers and educators impart their socio-cultural experiences within the discourse to learners.

Without an individual’s familiarity of text within a particular discourse it becomes challenging for

them to interact and function effectively within their social-cultural setting as pointed out in

Papen’s (2009) health literacy study.

The Radical Model

The radical model of literacy is generally regarded as an empowerment tool by all those

who engage in literacy practices or education. This perspective of literacy according to Freire and

Macedo (1987) is shaped by the notion that the development of literacy skills alone does not

necessarily lead to social change or empowerment but can be used as a means or tool towards

attaining transformation at both a societal and individual level. The radical model of literacy, which

is also referred to as the literacy as a critical reflection perspective is grounded in Freire’s (1972)

conceptualization that regards literacy to be an active process which encompasses aspects such as

interpreting, reflecting, exploring, interrogating, engaging, probing and questioning activities that

lead to the general transformation of the individual and the society.

The radical approach to literacy therefore largely focuses in imparting critical thinking and

reflection skills to learners which encourages inquisitiveness as opposed to loyalty the existing

state of affairs or the status quo. Luke and Freebody’s (2000) Four Resources Model to literacy can

be viewed as encompassing a radical approach to literacy in that the text analysis resource engages

learners in the practice of actively building literacy as a transformational tool through its analytical

processes. This approach to literacy heavily influences the adult education and VET in that learner’s

in these setting are concerned with better themselves through the acquisition of skill that would

enable them to function more effectively both in their personal, professional and social settings.

According to Freire (1972, p. 28) “the central purpose of education is the role it plays in enabling

individuals to reflect and act on the world in order to transform it. From this view, the role of

education is not merely to assist individuals in fitting in and conforming or simply to attain

employment and engage in economic activity but rather to help individuals in actively engaging in

the development of their communities and the world they live.

This view of literacy can be seen as being further supported by Ford (1994) who defines

literacy as being an important practice due to the influence it provides individuals with regard to

equipping them with the skills needed for political considerations such as power sharing and

decision making. The implication for this approach to literacy in the VET setting is that it requires

educators and teachers to fashion curriculum in a manner that provides learners with the skills and

knowledge necessary to critically reflect on their environments and enact transformational changes

that benefit not only themselves but also the society in large. Emphasis in VET instructional

approaches should therefore, in this regard focus on assisting learners to critique texts.

CONCLUSION

This essay has provided a discussion on the various conceptualizations of literacy and

attempted to outline their different implications to the vocational education and Training (VET)

setting. In order to provide a structured and somewhat comprehensive discussion of literacy

concepts, this essay focused on the autonomous, ideological and radical models of literacy. While

the overall analysis of varying literacy concepts revealed that some in the literacy discipline tend to

think that the differences in theoretical models of literacy are of little significance to educational

practice, it was clear from the information reviewed that there is an urgent need for both policy

makers and educators to be mindful of theoretical literacy models since such models play a huge

role in influencing learning polices and practice. One such illustration of the importance of

theoretical models of literacy provided in the essay was the manner in which the autonomous view

of literacy acts as the main underpinning structure for all forms of formal education. While the

autonomous model of literacy is the most highly associated with most forms of formal education

worldwide, this essay pointed out the importance and implications of ideological and radical

approaches to literacy to people’s development and consequently role in society. This essay also

highlighted the fact that different theoretical conceptualizations of literacy have differing

implication to the teaching practice largely due to policy frameworks adopted by learning

establishments. Having a strong understating of literacy theories not only helps educators to shape

the curriculum taught in educational institutions but also helps in their development of teaching

methods and practices that best address and suit the needs of learners in general.

REFERENCES

Bélisle, C. (2006). Literacy and the digital knowledge revolution. In A Martin & D. Madigan (Eds).

Digital literacies for learning (51-670). London: Facet.

Chrisomalis, S. (2009). The Origins and Coevolution of Literacy and Numeracy. In Olsen, D &

Torrance, N (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Literacy (pp. 59-74). The Cambridge

handbook of Literacy (pp. 59-74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Darvin, J. (2006). On reading recipes ad racing forms: The literacy practices and perceptions of

vocational educators. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 50 (1): 10 – 18.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin

Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. South Hadley, MA:

Bergin & Garvey.

Ford, L. (1994). Rethinking ‘Watpala Way’ in literacy education. In P. O’Connor (Ed.), Thinking work

(pp. 161-167). Sydney: Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Coalition.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses (2nd ed.). London: Taylor &

Francis.

Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. (3rd ed.). New York:

Routledge.

Green, J. & Dixon, C. (1996). Language of literacy dialogues: Facing the future or reproducing

the past. Journal of Literacy Research 28 (2): 290-301.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.

Kelly, A. (2000). Literacy at work 3015EDN/7141EDN Study guide. Griffith University

Lea, M. and Street, B. (1998). Student writing in higher education: an academic literacies approach.

Studies in Higher Education 11 (3): 182–99.

Lillis, T. (2001). Student Writing: access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.

Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint.

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43 (5), 448-461.

OECD (2000). Literacy in the information age. Final Report of the International Adult Literacy

Survey. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Martin, A. (2008) Digital literacy and the “digital society”. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.),

Digital literacies: Concepts, politics and practices (pp. 151-176). New York: Peter Lang.

Millican, J., McCaffrey, J., & Merrifield, J. (2007).What do we mean by literacy. In Millican, J,

Merrifield, J & McCaffrey, J. (eds). Developing adult literacy: approaches to planning,

implementing, and delivering literacy initiatives (pp. 32-42). London: Oxfam Publishing.

Oxford Dictionaries (2014). Definition of Literacy in English. Retrieved from: Oxford Dictionaries

<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definitio/english/literacy>.

Papen, U. (2009). Literacy learning and health: A social practices view of health literacy. Literacy &

Numeracy Studies 17 (1): 19-34.

Richards, J & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Savage, L. (1993). Literacy through a Competency-Based Education Approach. In Approaches to

Adult ESL Literacy Instruction. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Sealey, A. (1999). Teaching primary school children about the English language: a critique of

current policy documents. Language Awareness 8 (2): 84 – 97.

Street, B. (2000) ‘Introduction’ in Street, B. (ed.) Literacy and Development: ethnographic

perspectives, London: Routledge.

Street, B. (1996). Preface. In M. Prinsloo& M. Breier (Eds.), The social uses of literacy: Theory and

practice in contemporary South Africa (pp. 1-9). Bertsham, South Africa: Sached Books.

Willinsky, J. (1994). Introducing the New Literacy. In Stierer, B. and Maybin, J. (eds) Language

Literacy and Learning in Educational Practice (pp. 1 – 14). Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters/Open University Press.

UNESCO (2013). The Plurality of Literacy and its Implications for Polices and Programs. Retrieved

from: UNESCO.org

<http://www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136246e.pdf>