Chapter 3 Shaping influence of discourses
3.4 Metaphors for literacy
3.4.2 Barton‘s literacy metaphors
Literacy definitions that focus on literacy as the ability to read and write are also closely related to debates about illiteracy (Kern, 2000; McKay, 1993). This understanding has invoked a number of related metaphors, all of which have been derived from the medical field; disease, (Barton, 2007); medical model (Baynham, 1995) or pathology (Boughey, 2008; Lea and Street, 2000). If literacy is seen as a tool for socio-economic-political advancement, it is easy to see why this definition of literacy is seductive in media and policy formulations (Barton, 2007). I am always fascinated when I see these reports in the newspapers about the state of literacy.
They seem to always describe literacy levels quantitatively and suggest reform programmes meant to address these levels. The discourses are also linked to political and economic debates (see Pandor, 2008). A typical formulation of this position, sometimes evident in conversations with faculty members in South African HEIs, is: ―if these black students were better taught language by qualified teachers at
Matric level, they would be able to handle academic tasks at university‖ (Bengesai, 2010 p. 16). Thus, the context in which academic literacy is acquired is perceived as a vicious cycle in which ‗ill prepared‘ students become ‗ill prepared‘ teachers, who in turn will ‗ill prepare‘ students. The implication is that academic literacy amongst these students is a ‗chronic‘ disease whose ripple effects have been felt in successive generations of black students, (ibid p.17). This understanding, according to Street (1984), is informed by the autonomous or asocial model of literacy.
When academics talk about a ‗literacy problem‘, they usually mean that there are many students who ‗lack adequate reading and writing skills‘ (Lillis, 2001).
Consequently, literacy becomes something people possess, a state of grace, and those who do not possess it have a problem, or are a problem to society. As such, it is the moral order of society that is considered to be at stake. The metaphor is usually expressed in descriptive statistics, evoking discourses of quality and maintenance of standards. In South African HEIs, where the transformation of higher education agenda has seen more black students entering higher education, a
‗second language discourse‘ has been used to explain away the learning histories of students as ‗second language problems‘. Consequently, the solution to these
‗problems‘ has centred on providing remedial instruction in English Language and the language related skills of reading and writing in special compulsory courses run by ‗language specialists‘ (Boughey, 2000 p. 279- 282). The following citation from Moutlana (2007) illustrates the way academic literacy is perceived as a ‗problem‘ in South African HEIs.
First year students [who] demonstrate deficiencies in one or more basic skills namely in language, computation, writing and study habits, skills that they ought to have assimilated quite well had they been subjected to good teaching strategies from well qualified lecturers. (p. 3)
This perception is problematic for a number of reasons. Lillis (2001) presents two characteristics which make it problematic. Firstly, it suggests that both the problem and the solution are ―constructed as being overwhelmingly textual‖ (Lillis, 2001 p.
22). In other words, the ‗problem‘ is located in the written texts that students produce. In so doing, the conceptualisation alienates students from the contextual conditions that could account for such ‗problems‘. Secondly, Lillis believes the way the problem and the solution are framed subsumes an institutional ‗claim‘ to
transparency, given that while the ―language of students is made visible and is problematised, the language of the disciplines and the pedagogic practices in which these are embedded usually remains invisible, taken as given‖ (p. 22). Thus, the Discourse is not questioned; it is taken for granted and assumes the role of the truth (Hall, 1997). The result is a quick fix practice through giving students tips on essay writing (Boughey, 2005; 2002; Lillis, 2001).
Another conceptualisation of literacy, which I believe is very dominant is educational practice, particularly in South African HEIs, is one which sees literacy as a cognitive variable which can be measured or assessed against some criteria (see Barton, 2007). The associated metaphor is that of ‗deficit‘ which has been sustained and justified through the use of standardised ‗literacy‘ tests (Barton, 2007) which measure perceived levels of literacy such as ‗basic literacy‘ or ‗required literacy‘
(Venezky, 1990). Whilst this understanding has its intellectual roots in studies in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), it has gained much currency in many debates where students who speak English as an additional/second language are taught (Boughey, 2000). The way this metaphor works is that, if students fail to meet set criteria - for instance setting out references or organise their paragraphs- they are immediately placed in deficit. In this context, the solution then centres on addressing that perceived deficit. According to Street‘s ideological model, standardised tests are both unethical and inappropriate because the standards favour particular contexts, cultures and identities, while at the same time marginalising others. Furthermore, it is reductionist in nature and reflects the notion that literacy is the acquisition of a decontextualised set of rules/codes.
Undoubtedly therefore, this metaphor, just like the problem and disease metaphors draws on the metaphor of the divide or a continuum suggesting a ‗deficit‘ in people whose literacy practices differ from those of the dominant groups and are considered to be normative (Gutierrez et al., 2009 p. 213). These metaphors present views of difference and diversity, and frame the way society perceives the literacy practices of non-dominant communities. Boughey (2000) is also quite unsympathetic about literacy pedagogy that follows a ‗deficit‘ model. In a critique of her own practice she laments that:
If I persist in doing my professional best and teaching them‘ language‘ in the way I have been trained and in the way teaching of language is popularly perceived, I will collude in denying the mass of students in the chapel access to much of what they hope and expect from a university.(Boughey, 2000, p. 280)
Hence, she is aware that reasons for teaching can serve to include or exclude students in higher education. It is important to note that the ways of talking about literacy discussed above therefore, indicate that the nature of literacy is treated as fixed, people either have it or they do not. Furthermore, literacy is only ―visible institutionally when construed as a problem [or deficit] to be solved‖ (Lillis and Scott, 2007 p. 6). Simply put, these metaphors negate the notion of Discourse, as proposed by Gee (1996). This study argues that understandings of literacy that negate Discourse are limited in providing opportunities for students to fully participate in the discourse community of their choice. This is because they prevent students from learning the discursive norms which are appropriate for their membership in these communities by focussed or narrow conceptions about the nature of literacy.