The plethora of ways in which we communicate and make
meaning has left me stunned and forced me to readjust my position and view
towards literacy and the various practises surrounding it. It has become clear that the texts that we
interact with and literacy practices which we employ are playing a massive role
in constructing, narrating, mediating, and also exploring our different
literacy identities (Moje & Luke, 2009).
The reading for this week would focus on the various
lifestyles and influences which people are judged upon, as either positively or
negatively affecting their learning potential, as well as the lifeworlds which
each individual brings with them into their learning environment.
It has never been easier to identify the differences in, and
variety of learners from different backgrounds which make up the modern
classroom of today. There are three main categories, or demographics, with
which student’s chance of scholastic success is often judged upon. These are
based upon the material, corporeal, and symbolic differences between students (Kalantzis
& Cope, 2012).
All of these factors can influence heavily on a student’s
lifestyle, but as material differences are the most relatable category to me it
is the demographic I shall focus on. Wealth has often been describes as the
great divider of society, and this rings nowhere more truly than for students
of today. Differences in socio-economic status can either provide us with, or
rob us of, the essential needs of life like shelter, safety, food, and our
health and wellbeing (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).
These basic needs play a crucial role in a child’s academic
performance in all areas of schooling, but what is often not considered is the
culture and context of children, both from privileged and impoverished
backgrounds. One significant contextual factor influencing children’s learning
ability, identified by Basil Bernstein is a term he coins ‘linguistic codes’.
Where children from working class backgrounds are concerned, there linguistic
code is based upon assumptions and experiences had by those in their community
which are generally quite informal. From the perspective of a middle class
child, their linguistic code is more conceptual and abstract, which meaning is
easily made to strangers and involves a style of speaking which is similar to
writing. It has been suggested that this differential in linguistic codes is a predominant
factor in the different success rates of socioeconomically different children
as the language of schools is a foreign one for working class children. This is why working-class children do not do
so well at school. School speaks a language that is foreign to them (Bernstein,
1971).
I believe this rings most true for me as both my parents
were highly educated individuals and I was constantly exposed to ‘linguistic
code’. I have never undergone any shortage of resource, whether it be money,
academic assistance, food, or transportation. I have always been
demographically located in optimal coastal locations, close to major cities and
‘good’ schools. I believe these optimal materialistic factors have had a huge
influence on my success at school and have assisted me in reaching this point
today.
It is extremely easy, and occurs far too often, that
children will be grouped into designated demographics and prediction and
expectations of their futures will be made accordingly. It is imperative for
all people, especially teachers, to realise that while a child’s background may
inform us of possible traits and skills, no child can be simply assigned to a
demographic (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012.
For a child to truly be understood and catered for one must
first consider their lifeworld. A student’s lifeworld is their set of skills,
values and beliefs which they bring with them to their learning environment.
These are often based upon influences from friends, family, community,
demographic location, religion, and culture (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).
As you can see the lifeworld approach offers a much more detailed
and informative view into a person’s life and background. Once again I will
accredit my parents for having the largest role to play in my development as
their constant involvement in my life has shaped all areas of my lifeworld and
even with the death of my mother, my father has still always managed to find time
to be involved in the majority of the aspects of my life and assist me in any
way he can.
It is clear then that when we are trying to engage students
we must look to their lifeworlds and consider all aspects of their lifestyle,
as a judgment by group demographic alone will nearly always result in
disadvantage and inequality (Kalantzis & Cope, 2012).
