There are clear overlaps in the above definition with the contextual and contingent nature of literacy practices. But there are criticisms to be made of the Scottish version of social practice. First, the social dimension might be downplayed in favour of an individualised view of skills attainment as depicted in the last bullet point. A learner-centred individual focus is only an element of social practice. If it involves abstracting individual skill levels from the social and cultural contexts, where literacies are used, the result might be a decontextualized functional model of literacy.
Campbell (2011) also makes the point that the approach to social practice in policy makes no reference to the literacy of power and how this might be addressed in practice. Unless social practice is embedded in groups involved in local or social action, it is hard to see how this might be achieved. Moreover, the focus on measuring attainment, which is based on “distance travelled” through individual learning plans, sits uncomfortably with a top-down approach of quality inspection, monitoring and data gathering which to be meaningful creates measures for success that are de-contextualised.
To return to Hamilton's point (1996), which I referred to at the beginning of this article, competing ideologies have influenced who stands under the banner of adult literacy and what purposes they see it serving. The social practice model may complicate this because of its commitment to diversity but this might be translated simply into a learner-centred approach. Does this mean that the ideological purposes informing the work are much the same as they were before?
Ackland (2011) also argues that the term social practice can operate as an “empty signifier”, a term devoid of precise meaning which holds together too many disparate views. In other words, without a sophisticated understanding of what social practice might mean, it becomes a “catch all” term to accommodate everything. The strength of the social practice model is in the conceptual shift to uses of literacy because this destabilises that idea of a fixed standard. At the same time it also complicates how practitioners apply a social practice model. Compare, for instance, the pedagogical implications of literacy as stages on a ladder (relatively straightforward, fixed rules to apply, etc.) with the holistic wheel of literacy (complex patterns of literacy activities which vary according to context and purpose). As Ackland points out, training in adult literacies has made progress but is still developing. There are initial volunteer tutor training programmes (Initial Training in Adult Literacies Learning, ITALL) for volunteer tutors, a new Higher National Certificate for more experienced tutors and also more intensive 18 month, part-time training courses, studied in four blocks with a notional 300 hours of study for each block, which leads to the award of a Teaching Qualification in Adult Literacy (TQAL). However, this level of training involves a demanding commitment for sessional practitioners with only 4-5 hour tutoring contracts, and little support necessary for sustaining their commitment. In these circumstances it may well be full-time workers, not necessarily tutors, who are in a better position to benefit from training; yet, it is the tutors who are engaged with learners.
Building the curriculum to engage, motivate and expand learners' literacy practices requires experience and expertise that has to be developed in a workforce that is by no means stable. The task of providing the quality and depth of training, across the range of practitioners in Scotland, employed sessionally on temporary and fixed hour contracts, should not be underestimated.
Conclusion
The ambiguities and ambivalence of community and the commitment to a social practice perspective has been key to maintaining an open and wide curriculum for learners involved in the provision of adult literacies. The agency of practitioners is critical to this outcome and much has already been achieved in demonstrating how creative and critical literacies linked with adult learners' lives can be developed. However, the overall
13
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62