Three subsets of language and literacy through three sets of relationships

(mainly in the English speaking world) is centred on a range of participants involved in curriculum formation and implementation. There are three sets of relationships. The first and foremost is the macro-context of language and literacy teaching: the impact of social,

political, educational and cultural change on language and literacy teaching, for example the expansion or change of the themes of the prescribed texts including the incorporation of multi-cultural authors. The second is the opinions of educational professionals versus those of the general public and wider community. The third is the power relations within the language and literacy classroom: that is, teachers as the medium of curriculum implementation who assume the role of passing on the values and cultural heritage of the language community versus students as youth and recipients of the values and knowledge and as potential rebels and critics of a given world.

2.3.4.1 The macro-context of the language teaching on literacy and literature.

themes. The texts are not confined to the great classical works, but extended to contemporary works including multi-cultural authors. For instance in the Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE) syllabus in Victoria, not only Shakespeare and Dickens’ works are valued in the prescribed text, but the narratives and experiences of authors with non-Anglo backgrounds, such as Amy Tan, are also valorised in an increasingly demographically and culturally diverse society (VCAA, 2011 and 2012).

Social, cultural and educational changes also expand the territory of literacy. Due to the ubiquitous existence of electronic visual images, e-media and the revolution of information technology, along with traditional inscriptions, the ability to access and use on-line

information and critique as well as to produce visual images are all counted as literacy and classified as visual literacy and information literacy (Sawyer, 2007). In the English syllabus of NSW, viewing and representing are added to the traditional four skills or activities of listening, speaking, reading and writings (NSW syllabus). In the Australian Curriculum of English (F-10) implemented in 2014, “listening, reading and viewing” and “speaking, writing and creating” are included in the “communication processes” to address the traditional print texts as well as “visual” and “multimodal” texts (Australia Curriculum 2014 ).

2.3.4.2 The difference between the professional opinions and public opinion or the mass media’s biased opinions.

The claims with respect to what literacy is by the English Teachers’ Association of NSW in response to the cry of “literacy crisis” reflect the differences and conflict between the insider and outsider. We cannot ignore the agency of teachers of language and literacy in the

negotiation of the boundary and identity of the school subject; that is, teachers of language and literacy are competing for higher prestige in the education field, therefore, the

complexification and broadening of the subject would help them as well as the profession to gain higher social capital. This is evidenced in the NSW English teachers’ claim that the English subject should not be reduced to literacy in the narrow sense and should involve more items in its teaching menu, such as thinking skills, aesthetic appreciation, and personal development (NSW English Teachers Association).

2.3.4.3 The power relations within the language and literacy classroom

expands the definition of literature to students’ talk rather than the sterilised adult literature only model. The inclusion of popular culture and youth culture in the English language and literacy class stems from the development of and commitment to the growth model and a student-centred philosophy in this site (Doecke & McClenaghan, 2004). Doecke and McClenaghan (2004) argued that popular culture is not homogeneous and teenagers are not stereotypical mindless consumers who consume anything that is served up to them. Doecke and McClenaghan believed that discussing, debating and enjoying TV episodes, magazines or comic books help teenagers to negotiate meanings and tastes and to affirm their individual and collective identities. Nevertheless, Doecke and McClenaghan did not advocate that middle-aged teachers should catch up with the latest fashion wave; instead, they proposed that the teachers should lay the emphasis on “the processes of interpretation and

discrimination in which students engage whenever they talk about their interests and enthusiasms” rather than prioritise particular texts, or genres of popular culture (p. 53). The input of high culture and popular culture reflects a more democratic pedagogy and more balanced power relations in the language and literacy classroom (Doecke & McClenaghan, 2004), as the promotion of popular and youth culture in the English class actually challenges the dominant and hegemonic status of “great” texts. Doecke and McClenaghan argued that the merits of the “great” texts such as Henry Lawson’s short stories should be valued and assessed in the classroom context and students should be placed in a position where they can articulate their tastes. The validity of students’ perspectives on culture and society should also be recognized and considered in the curriculum (Doecke & McClenaghan, 2004). The two interesting case studies that they referred to underpin the idea that the topics and themes that are relevant to students would bridge school life and adolescent cultural life, thereby

enhancing their linguistic and thinking skills. The use of the language and literacy subject to learn to identify issues, organize materials, formulate arguments and persuade the audience with a variety of rhetorical techniques is a trade-off between, or integration of, students’ existing cultural knowledge and the traditional syllabus of imposed knowledge and skills. Acknowledging the nature of resistance of young readers in the language and literacy

classroom, which is based on students’ general attitude of cynical contempt of schooling and the society, Doecke and McClenaghan (2004) called for the maintenance of the dialogue between the teachers and students. While teachers are delegates and representatives of authority, and the upholders of the rules and regulations, students are traditionally deemed as

the recipients of the knowledge, skills and rules of society. Affirmation of the students’ intelligence and imagination and the provision of a space for students to articulate their experiences are sufficient justifications of the student-centred approach of the 21st century language and literacy classroom.