Week 4 - Literacy learners

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).