Socio-Cultural Dimension of Literacy

Introduction:

Research conducted by the various disciplines has always had a significant impact on how educators approach literacy instruction in their own classrooms. At certain points over the last few decades one discipline may have held more sway than others, however, there has often been ‘cross pollination’, or borrowing among the disciplines. In the last decade, emerging research has begun to redefine “literacy” in terms that reflect its’ multidimensional nature while at the same time acknowledging the realities of the diverse societies in which we live. Two important concepts, “culturally responsive instruction” and “critical literacy” have come to the forefront of discourse. According to Washington State University professor, Stephen B. Kucer, these are the “two routes through which this new sensitivity to diversity is [currently] being explored” (Kucer 2005, p.4).

In the second edition of his book, Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings (2005), Kucer asserts that literacy is “dynamic and multidimensional in nature”, and for “literacy instruction to be effective”, it must be viewed as such (p.4). In the text, he provides an in depth explanation of the four interrelated dimensions of literacy used by readers and writers as they construct meaning. These aspects are defined as the “cognitive, linguistic, socio-cultural, and developmental”. Kucer states that these dimensions do not operate in isolation. They work in a fashion that is “transactive and symbiotic” in nature; each effects and is affected by all the others (Kucer, 2005, preface). Kucer believes that these dimensions can best be described through an examination of the roles, or positions that readers and writers adopt when they “transact with written language”. These roles include the “code breaker” (linguistic dimension), “meaning maker” (cognitive dimension), “text user and critic” (socio-cultural dimension), and “scientist and construction worker” (developmental dimension). (p.5)

In order to assist the reader in understanding his explanation of this multidimensional view of literacy, Kucer (2005) employs a graphic representation composed of series of concentric rings radiating outward (Fig 1.1, p. 5). He places the cognitive dimension at the center of the “literacy act” and the developmental dimension at the furthest most point of the figure. The “heart” of the “literacy act”, or the cognitive dimension, is described by Kucer as the “desire of the language user to explore, discover, construct, and share meaning”. (p.5) It is essentially the “mental processes, strategies, or procedures the individual engages in to construct meaning”. (p.91)

The ring encompassing the figure’s center represents the linguistic dimension; it is defined as the “language vehicle through which these meanings are expressed”. Kucer (2005) states that the cognitive and linguistic dimensions of literacy are connected because through the construction of ‘meaning’, “there is a transaction between the individual’s mind (cognition) and text (the linguistic)” (p.91).

The next ring in the graphic representation depicts the third dimension, the socio-cultural. In rounding out his cursory description of “literacy”, Kucer (2005) declares that it is more than just “individual acts and language use… [it] is a social act as well” and that “meaning and language that are built and used are always framed by the social identity (e.g. ethnic, cultural, gender) of the individual and the social context in which the language is being employed”. (p.5)

The outermost ring of the visual represents the developmental dimension of literacy. Kucer, conceives of “literacy” as progressive in nature. He prefers the phrase “becoming literate” rather than “being literate” because it more accurately describes the ongoing relationship that people have with written language and the fact that over the course of their lives people “may encounter literacy events [which require them to use] literacy in new and novel ways”. (p.5) It is Kucer’s belief that “becoming literate means learning to effectively, efficiently, and simultaneously control the linguistic, cognitive, socio-cultural, and developmental dimensions of written language in a transactive fashion” (p.4).

Assignment: Reflect on the dimension by answering the following guiding questions.

Focus: Socio-cultural Dimension

Part I. What are the key components of this dimension?

For Kucer (2005), the cognitive and linguistic aspects of literacy tend to underscore the commonalities “among, texts, readers, and writers” (p.197). In his opinion, focusing on these two aspects of literacy limits our understanding and disregards the extremely important social aspect of written language. Such a narrow focus, “situates literacy in the individual person, rather than the society of which that person is a member” (p.197). If literacy is viewed in such a manner, it therefore becomes divorced from the world (Baron, 1992; 1997; Elster, 2003; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). Consequently, Kucer (2005) maintains that reading and writing should not be considered “individual acts of thought and language”, they should be viewed in terms of a “patterned social act of a group” (p.197) Additionally, literacy simply does not happen because someone possesses and applies the requisite cognitive or linguistic skills, it happens because literacy is an expectation of the group to which the individual belongs. A further correlate idea that Kucer (2005) puts forth is that the literacy practices of the group reflect “the very nature of the group and the group’s position within the society” (p.198) For example, Kucer (2005) states that most socio-cultural examinations of literacy tend to place an emphasis on the use of literacy by “others”; “otherness” in this case being defined by socioeconomic status, culture, gender, or any other characteristic that would set the individual apart from the “norm”. In this case, the viewer is placed in a privileged position in which their own literacy tendencies are the measuring stick by which all others are compared. This pattern is most often reflected in American society when the “observers” are from dominant groups such as “European Americans, males, or the middle class”. (p.198) These dominant groups tend to be blind to the socio-cultural basis for their own literacy uses and view groups they deem as “other” as multicultural, ethnic, etc.

One of the dominant themes in Chapter 9 of Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings (2005), is Kucer’s examination of how “various social groups mediate their interactions with the world” and “use literacy to produce, consume, maintain, and control knowledge” (p. 198). In making his case, Kucer (2005) cites the work of B. Ferdman. According to Ferdman (1990), our social identity consists of the totality of the groups with which we associate; these groups include “culture, socio-economic status, gender, organizations, occupation, religion, psychological, nationality, family, age, and sexual orientation”. Each of these groups has its own ideologies, requirements, and behavioral expectations for membership. These groups may socialize their members in a variety of conscious or unconscious ways, and it is “these guidelines that impact the individual’s beliefs and behaviors and frame his or her interpretations of and interactions with others” (Kucer, 2005, p.205). On the basis of these multiple affiliations, individuals will have “multiple frameworks for behaving and constructing experiences” (Kucer, 2005, p. 205) Because these group ideologies are sometimes not explicitly taught to group members, people often not aware of the origin of their beliefs and this is why they are sometimes pernicious. Kucer (2005) points out that this is most notably the case when the individual belongs to one of the dominant groups, the result being that the individual comes to view their own behaviors as “normative or universal”. What must be kept in mind is that one’s social identity continues to evolve over the course of his or her lifetime. D. Hoffman (1996) describes an individual’s social identity as “dynamic, often context specific in nature, and constituted by fuzzy borders between and among various social groups in which the individual has membership”. Yet, it is certain that each group will have its own literacy practices that are an “expression of the knowledge, values, and behaviors” of the group (Kucer, 2005, p. 206) Social groups will therefore either promote or deny the use of language as they see fit. Consequently, “[w]ith time, experience, and apprenticeship, the literacy practices of any individual come to reflect group norms and values (Kucer, 2005, p.207) Naturally, because an individual may have multiple group affiliations, they may also possess “multiple literacies”. (Kucer, 2005, .p 208) These literacies vary according to the circumstance in which the individual finds him or herself in as does the discourse in which the individual engages. Occasionally, these identities will intersect without issue, or may they possibly conflict because each group has a different set of literacy expectations or beliefs. A prime location for such conflicts to occur is a setting where the individual is not a member of the dominant group. For example, Hull & Schultz (2001) point out that “schools are a primary sponsor of literacy development and use within society and have developed their own particular brand of learning”. Adults and children have the expectation that schools will explicitly teach and hone literacy skills over the course of a student’s academic career and help them integrate into mainstream society. Schools naturally have specific rules and expectations for language use and text construction, however, these rules and regulations might be at variance with those of another group to which the individual belongs. Students might find that their natural instincts for dealing with language and text are subverted in a school setting. They may also find that their work is deemed of a lesser quality because it does not match up with the form and function of the dominant group’s view of literacy. Unfortunately, the “discourse practices of the classroom often come to be viewed as the norm [and] alternate practices are conceived of as deviant and deficient in nature” (Kucer, 2005, p.231). This tendency is reflective of what Gee (1996) deemed the “Master Myth”. “Master Myths represent a culture’s or social group’s favored views of reality. Entering a particular culture or group means becoming acculturated in these views of thinking and knowing” (Kucer, 2005, p.222). In some case, the master myths of the dominant group become tools of oppression used against nonmainstream groups.

What research has shown is that children are not raised in a literacy vacuum. Regardless of group affiliation, “most children in the United States enter school having experienced numerous literacy events within the home” and their community (Kucer, 2005, p.231) Some children will find that the literacy socialization they experienced in their homes and other community settings will be similar to what they will experience in a school, while others will find that it is very different from what they are accustomed to. For example, A. Anderson and Stokes (1984) conducted an examination of different literacy patterns for different ethnic groups across several domains. Four domains proved to be “statistically significant among the groups; they included “daily living, entertainment, religion, and literacy techniques”. Literacy took different forms and served different purposes for each group across the various domains. Additionally, research conducted by Pucell-Gates (1996) and L’Allier, & Smith (1995) indicates that socio-economic status is not a gauge of how many literacy events or the quality of these events that a child would be exposed to. However, the types of experiences might vary depending on resources available to the individual. All of the studies cited by Kucer (2005) clearly indicate that literacy is an integral part of the various communities in the United States and that there are many paths to literacy in our society that need to be recognized by our educational system and researchers in the field.

In Chapter 10 of the Dimensions of Literacy: A Conceptual Base for Teaching Reading and Writing in School Settings (2005), Kucer focuses on the relationships among power, authority and written discourse. He asserts that the “nature of texts encountered- and the understandings that children construct through transacting with the texts made available- significantly impact both literacy and concept development” (Kucer, 2005, p. 225). It is his belief that texts used in the classroom are the “product of power relationships in our society” and texts sponsored by particular groups represent particular ideologies. (Kucer, 2005, p. 225) Texts used in schools are no exception. Additionally, the background knowledge an individual brings to an interpretation or generation of a text reflects the “beliefs, ideologies, and experiences of the groups in which the individual is a member” (Kucer, 2005, p. 225) One of the major factors that influences the interpretation of a text is what the individual has been explicitly taught by sponsors. In a classroom setting, literacy sponsors include all of the following – teachers, publishers, evaluative instruments, and administrators. (Kucer, 2005, p. 226) According to Kucer (2005), sponsorship serves as the “gatekeeper for the generation, promotion, and maintenance in our society” (p.228) Therefore, it impacts what knowledge is to be esteemed, and what is to be ignored or belittled. Yet, sponsorship is not limited to the classroom, others such as political leaders, publishers, and the media can also act as the purveyors of information. The texts that are generated and promoted by sponsors though occasionally neutral can have biased perspectives that impugn the integrity of nonmainstream groups, or promote the values of the dominant group. The ideas and values put forth by the dominant group often keep it in a position of power and authority, while the nonmainstream or disenfranchised groups find it difficult to obtain a forum to express their views. In his examination of the “authority of discourse”, Kucer (2005) discusses the social constructionist view and the foundationist view of knowledge. Social constructionists believe that knowledge changes because it no longer fulfills the needs of the individuals that created it, not necessarily because it was proven untrue. Foundationists see knowledge as “objective, universal, and stable across space and time”. (Kucer, 2005, p. 231) Kucer (2005) maintains that “schools, governments, religious institutions, and the media tend to promote a foundational view of knowledge”. (p. 231) In a classroom setting, a foundationist stance is assumed toward texts and it is reinforced through the way that students are taught to interpret what they are presented with. However, readers and writers “social identities” will always impact their interpretation and generation of written discourse; their own background knowledge and experiences and that of the groups to which they belong play a role. Therefore, transaction is “widened beyond the individual and conceives of reader, writer, and text as reflections and products of relevant interpretive communities” (Kucer, 2005, p.233) It is a natural that students learn to read, write, and think in ways that reflect their social identities. However, these constructs can either support or constrain student endeavors in the classroom.

Part II. How do these components apply to your teaching?

Literacy is often viewed as the key to our culture. Too often, students who enter our classroom with different understandings struggle with acclimating to school expectations in regards to form and function in the areas of language and text construction. Teachers need to be sensitive to what Kucer refers to as the ways of “literacy knowing” that their students bring into the classroom. (p. 216) As suggested by Heath (1983) “schools need to build on and extend the abilities…that children bring to the classroom”. Teachers also need to seek out students’ specific aptitudes in order to strengthen them. It may entail teaching the students to apply particular abilities in different domains than which they are accustomed to. Additionally, it is the instructor’s responsibility as a “literacy sponsor” to help fill in literacy “gaps” by providing the students with whatever skill support they were not exposed to in other settings. An additional concern for teachers to keep in mind is that dominant group / middle class values should not be esteemed as the norm. This would necessitate a careful selection of texts employed in the classroom bearing in mind the author’s intent and the lens through which the student will view it. Essentially, the most important thing that I have learned from reading Kucer’s text is that the multiple literacies that students bring to the classroom must be acknowledged and viewed as just as valuable as the traditional concept “academic literacy”.

Part III. Why do you believe you connected with this dimension over the others?

I believe that I connected with the socio-cultural dimension of literacy more so than the other dimensions discussed in Kucer’s text because I have always been interested in how students learn to read and write and the impact that environmental influences such as family life have on the acquisition of language. I was also particularly interested in the discussion of socio-economic status, the fallacy of the “master myth”, sponsorship, and the authority of the written word.

Part IV. Write a sentence or two describing why you believe the other dimensions are important to consider when thinking of literacy.

The linguistic and cognitive dimensions of literacy are important to consider because they are foundational to an individual’s transacting meaning. It is also important to recognize the developmental dimension of literacy because “becoming literate” is a life long process. It is not a set of finite skills that can be perfected; these skills can only applied in different contexts over the course of one’s life as one encounters new literacy opportunities.

Sources:

Anderson, A., and S. Stokes. 1984. Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy. Pp. 24-37 in Awakening to Literacy, H. Goelman, A. Oberg, and F. Smith, eds. Portsmouth, NJ: Heinemann.

Baron, D. (1992, July 1) “Why Do Academics Continue to Insist on `Proper’ English?” Chronicle of Higher Education, B2-B3.

Baron, D. (1997, Jan 24) “Ebonics Is Not a Panacea for Students at Risk.” Chronicle of Higher Education, B4-6.

Elster, C. (2003). Authority, performance and interpretation in religious reading: Critical issues of cross-cultural communication and multiple literacies. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 663-692.

Ferdman, B. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60, 181–204.

Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in Discourses. Second Edition. London: Taylor & Francis.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffman, Diane M. (1996). Culture and Self in Multicultural Education: Reflections on Discourse, Text, and Practice. American Educational Research Journal. 33(3): 545‑569.

Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, 71. 575-611.

Kucer, S. (2005). Dimensions of literacy. A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in school settings. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the "TV Guide": Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 406-428

Purcell-Gates, V., L’Allier, S., & Smith, D. (1995). Literacy at the Harts’ and the Larsons’: Diversity among poor, innercity families. Reading Teacher, 48(7), 572- 578.

Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). Unpackaging literacy. In M. F. Whiteman (Ed.), Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication: Vol 1. Variation in writing: Functional and linguistic-cultural differences, 71-87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.