{"kind":"task","effective_mode":"full","benchmark":{"kind":"benchmark","effective_mode":"full","slug":"longbench-v2","formal_name":"LongBench v2","introduction":"LongBench v2 evaluates deep understanding and reasoning over long contexts through multiple-choice questions. Its official description lists 503 questions spanning tasks such as single-document and multi-document QA and code-repository understanding.","introduction_ja":"","introduction_en":"","category":"Category not supplied","task_count":null,"acquisition_status":"Acquisition status not supplied","official_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/zai-org/LongBench-v2","indexing_mode":"noindex","profile":{"resources":[],"task_format":"","scoring":"","metric":"","size":"","answer_access":"","license":"","citation":"","maintainer":"","released":"","why_hard":"","related":[]}},"task_id":"4c564b8f-0965-5c14-b3bc-bbb8424a6b07","task_key":"train--6704a83dbb02136c067cde1b","task_revision_id":"2","upstream_id":"6704a83dbb02136c067cde1b","short_description":"In examining the sociocultural perspectives on literacy—specifically literacy as…","config":"","split":"train","body":"{\"choice_A\":\"Literacy as social practice assumes a homogeneous view of culture, thereby neglecting the unique identities and power dynamics that influence individual literacy experiences, while multiliteracies merely add new technologies to traditional literacy practices without questioning the underlying social structures that govern them, leading to a superficial understanding of literacy's role in identity formation.\",\"choice_B\":\"The critical literacy perspective posits that literacy practices are inherently tied to issues of social justice and equity, while literacy as social practice provides a framework for understanding how identities are constructed through social interactions. However, multiliteracies often create tensions by prioritizing technological proficiency over critical engagement, which can marginalize voices that do not conform to dominant cultural narratives.\",\"choice_C\":\"All three perspectives ultimately converge on the idea that literacy is a skill set that can be universally taught, disregarding the impact of cultural contexts and power relations on individual learning experiences, which undermines the potential for literacy to serve as a tool for personal empowerment and social change.\",\"choice_D\":\"The multiliteracies framework critiques the limitations of traditional literacy definitions, advocating for an inclusive approach that recognizes diverse modes of communication; however, this approach may unintentionally overshadow the critical literacy perspective, which demands an examination of how power and privilege shape access to literacy resources, thus complicating the goal of equitable literacy education.\",\"context\":\"Volume 8 Number 1 \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n            Spring 2012  \\n \\nEditor \\nLindy L. Johnson \\n                    \\n \\n \\n \\n      http://jolle.coe.uga.edu \\n \\n \\nWhat is Literacy? – A Critical Overview of Sociocultural \\nPerspectives \\n \\nKristen H. Perry \\nUniversity of Kentucky \\nKristen.perry@uky.edu \\n \\n \\n \\nAbstract \\n \\nSociocultural perspectives on literacy include various theories focused on the myriad ways in  \\nwhich people use literacy in context, which include a strong emphasis on power relations.  Yet, \\nthese theories also have important differences, and many in the field of literacy do not clearly \\ndifferentiate among them.  I provide a critical overview of influential sociocultural perspectives \\non literacy, focusing on three major perspectives: (1) literacy as social practice, (2) \\nmultiliteracies, and (3) critical literacy.  In an effort to support researchers in framing their \\nscholarly work and to support practitioners and other consumers of research make sense of \\nresearch, I discuss the ways in which each theory would answer the question, “What is literacy?” \\nas well as the affordances and limitations of these theories in terms of literacy development, \\nliteracy use, and literacy instruction.   \\n \\nPlease cite this article as: Perry, K. (2012). What is Literacy? –A critical overview of \\nsociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 8(1), 50-71. \\nAvailable at http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       51 \\n \\nIntroduction \\nRecent literacy policies and programs have been shaped in large part by cognitive and \\npsycholinguistic perspectives (e.g., Muth & Perry, 2010; Pearson & Hiebert, 2010), such as \\nthose promoted by the National Institute for Literacy (e.g., McShane, 2005), the National \\nReading Panel (2000), and the National Early Literacy Panel (2008), that focus on particular \\nskills such as phonemic awareness, fluency, and comprehension.  Although they have had a \\nlesser impact on policy and instruction, sociocultural approaches to literacy have long played an \\nimportant role in the field of literacy.  Indeed, many of the theories that literacy scholars draw \\nupon in their work emerge from sociocultural perspectives (Gee, 2000; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, \\n2007a; Tracey & Morrow, 2006) grounded in the work of Vygotsky (1978).  While sociocultural \\ntheories of literacy development and practice have been taken up in K-12 contexts, much of the \\ngroundwork for these theories originated in adult, family, and community literacy research from \\nscholars such as Street (1984), Barton and Hamilton (1998), Heath (1983), and Purcell-Gates \\n(1995).  This research has been concerned with understanding the ways in which people use \\nliteracy in their everyday lives, finding ways to make literacy instruction meaningful and \\nrelevant by recognizing and incorporating students’ out-of-school ways of practicing literacy, \\nand decreasing achievement gaps for students whose families and communities practice literacy \\nin ways that may differ from those in the mainstream or in positions of power.   \\n \\nAlthough there is no single sociocultural theory on literacy, literacy scholars sometimes treat \\nsociocultural perspectives on literacy as unified or interchangeable.  Indeed, Lewis, Enciso, and \\nMoje (2007b) argue that “the word sociocultural has taken on both great prominence, and, we \\nwould assert, some lack of clarity in application” (p. 1).  One widely-adopted graduate text, \\nTracey and Morrow’s (2006) Lenses on Reading, illustrates the way in which sociocultural \\ntheories are often undifferentiated, in comparison to cognitive theories.  This book contains one \\nchapter on social learning theories; in contrast, the cognitive theory of Constructivism receives \\nits own chapter, and Information/Cognitive Processing theories are spread over three entire \\nchapters.  Some may argue that this treatment reflects the relative “newness” of the acceptance \\nof sociocultural perspectives on literacy development; however, sociocultural and sociolinguistic \\ntheories on literacy development and practice have been influential for decades.   \\n \\nBecause of the differences among the various theories united under the sociocultural umbrella, it \\nis more appropriate to speak of sociocultural perspectives as a collection of related theories that \\ninclude significant emphases on the social and cultural contexts in which literacy is practiced.  \\nMajor theoretical perspectives within this paradigm include literacy as a social practice, \\nmultiliteracies, and multiple literacies.  Sociocultural perspectives also include an emphasis on \\npower relations; thus, critical theories play an important role in this perspective.  In fact, Lewis, \\nEnciso, and Moje (2007a) suggest that the term critical sociocultural perspective may be \\nappropriate to describe many of these theories. Having a clear understanding of the specific \\ntheories that fall under the sociocultural umbrella is important for both literacy researchers and \\nliteracy practitioners.  For example, is there a difference between multiliteracies and multiple \\nliteracies?  Are new literacies and new literacy studies the same?  The theoretical ways in which \\nwe describe literacy matter: Terms like new literacies, multiliteracies, or literacy as a social \\npractice have implications that extend beyond the pages of scholarly and professional journals:  \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       52 \\n \\nMetaphors for literacy do not stand on their own.  They are part of a particular \\nview on literacy that has implications for how we think about learners, how we \\nthink about what they ought to learn and how this could be achieved. (Papen, \\n2000, p. 12) \\n \\nGiven the ways in which theories shape our understandings of literacy learning and instruction, \\nmy goal in this manuscript is to provide a critical overview of influential sociocultural \\nperspectives on literacy.  As there simply is not enough space for a complete review of all \\ntheories that fall under the sociocultural umbrella, I focus this review on three major \\nperspectives: (1) literacy as social practice, (2) multiliteracies, and (3) critical literacy.  I discuss \\nthe affordances and limitations of these theories; that is, the ways in which these theories are – \\nand are not – useful in speaking to literacy development, literacy use, and literacy instruction.  \\nThis critical overview may be helpful for literacy researchers in framing their scholarly work; it \\nalso may help practitioners and other consumers make sense of research emerging from this \\nparadigm.   \\n \\nFraming the Perspective \\nSociocultural perspectives on literacy are related to sociolinguistic conceptualizations of the \\nways in which language instantiates culture (e.g., Gee, 1996; Halliday, 1973), the ways in which \\nlanguage use varies according to contexts (Bakhtin, 1986), the relationship between language use \\nand power (Bourdieu, 1991), and the ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1994).  Halliday, \\ncoming from a functional linguistics perspective, suggested that culture is realized through \\nlanguage.  Language, thus, is never independent of social world, as it always occurs within and is \\nshaped by a cultural context.  According to Gee (1996), language “always comes fully attached \\nto ‘other stuff’: to social relations, cultural models, power and politics, perspectives on \\nexperience, values and attitudes, as well as things and places in the world” (p. vii).  Literacy, as \\none form of language use, therefore reflects all of this “other stuff.”  Sociolinguists have \\ndescribed the many ways in which language and literacy are patterned according to context – \\nwhat Bakhtin (1986) referred to as speech genres.  Gee’s (1996) construct of Discourses as an \\n“identity kit” similarly illustrates the ways in which language is connected with social roles and \\ncultural and political contexts.  Bourdieu (1991) suggested that language, as a set of practices, is \\nmore than a system of words and grammatical rules, but “also an often forgotten or hidden \\nstruggle over the symbolic power of a particular way of communicating” (Duranti, 1997, p. 45).  \\n \\nAn emphasis on culture, activity, identity, power, and the sociocultural contexts in which literacy \\noccurs engenders approaches that align with this epistemological viewpoint.  In advocating for \\nan ethnography of communication, Hymes (1994) argued that “facets of the cultural values and \\nbeliefs, social institutions and forms, roles and personalities, history and ecology of a community \\nmay have to be examined in their bearing on communicative events and patterns” (p. 12).  \\nResponding to calls for situated understandings of language and literacy in use, much of the \\nempirical work that has led to the development of current sociocultural perspectives has emerged \\nfrom ethnographic research, discourse analysis (Rex et al., 2010), and other situated case studies \\nof literacy in practice.  According to Street (2001), various perspectives coming out of \\nanthropology and sociolinguistics focused researchers on the ways in which people used reading \\nand writing in different contexts.  As Street notes,  \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       53 \\n \\nThe rich cultural variation in these practices and conceptions leads us to rethink what we \\nmean by them and to be wary of assuming a single literacy where we may simply be \\nimposing assumptions derived from our own cultural practice onto other people’s \\nliteracies. (p. 430) \\n \\nMuch sociocultural research in literacy, therefore, is built on an assumption that “an \\nunderstanding of literacy requires detailed, in-depth accounts of actual practice in different \\ncultural settings” (Street, 2001, p. 430).  Street warns, however, that it is not enough “to extol \\nsimply the richness and variety of literacy practices made accessible through such ethnographic \\ndetail: we also need bold theoretical models that recognize the central role of power relations in \\nliteracy practices” (p. 430).  \\n \\nMajor Sociocultural Theories of Literacy \\nIn the following sections, I describe the theories of literacy as social practice, multiliteracies, \\nand critical literacy, describing what is common among the three perspectives, as well as what \\ndiffers among them.  Because literacy as a situated social practice underpins other theories \\nwithin the larger umbrella of sociocultural theories on literacy, I devote more space to the \\ndiscussion of this particular theory than the others in this manuscript, in order to lay the \\ngroundwork for understanding other theories.   \\n \\nLiteracy as Social Practice  \\nThe theory of literacy as a social practice has been heavily influenced by Street’s (1985) early \\nwork in Iran.  Grounded in data that described the various ways in which people used reading \\nand writing for different purposes in their everyday lives, Street’s theory contrasted autonomous \\nand ideological models of literacy.  The autonomous model – under which most formal literacy \\ninstruction operates – conceptualizes literacy in strictly technical terms.  That is, literacy is \\nassumed to be a set of neutral, decontextualized skills that can be applied in any situation.  \\nLiteracy is something that one either has or does not have; people are either literate or illiterate, \\nand those who are illiterate are deficient.  The autonomous model attributes important \\nconsequences both to individual cognition and to society through the intrinsic characteristics that \\nliteracy is assumed to have.  In contrast, the ideological model conceptualizes literacy as a set of \\npractices (as opposed to skills) that are grounded in specific contexts and “inextricably linked to \\ncultural and power structures in society” (p. 433).   \\n \\nOthers working within this tradition (e.g., Alvermann, 2008; Gregory & Williams, 2000; \\nHagood, 2002; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007a; Luke, 2003, 2004; Purcell-Gates, 2007), \\nsometimes referred to as the New Literacy Studies, have added to this theory.  As Street (2003) \\nexplains,  \\nWhat has come to be termed the “New Literacy Studies” (NLS) (Gee, 1991; Street, 1996) \\nrepresents a new tradition in considering the nature of literacy, focusing not so much on \\nacquisition of skills, as in dominant approaches, but rather on what it means to think of \\nliteracy as a social practice (Street, 1985).  This entails the recognition of multiple \\nliteracies, varying according to time and space, but also contested in relations of \\npower…and asking “whose literacies” are dominant and whose are marginalized or \\nresistant. (p. 77) \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       54 \\n \\nIn this sense, the term New Literacy Studies is essentially equivalent to literacy as a social \\npractice.  What is “new” in this sense?  As Lankshear and Knobel (2003) explain, “the New \\nLiteracy Studies comprise a new paradigm for looking at literacy, as opposed to the paradigm, \\nbased on psychology, that was already well established” (p. 2; emphasis in original).  In other \\nwords, the New Literacy Studies challenges autonomous paradigms of literacy.   \\n \\nThe theoretical work of Barton, Hamilton, and others based at the Lancaster Literacy Research \\nCentre in the United Kingdom has been particularly influential in further developing theories of \\nliteracy as social practice.  In answer to the question “What is literacy?,” theorists of literacy as a \\nsocial practice would say that literacy is what people do with reading, writing, and texts in real \\nworld contexts and why they do it: Barton and Hamilton (2000) note that “in the simplest sense \\nliteracy practices are what people do with literacy” (p. 7).  They caution, however, that practices \\ninvolve more than actions with texts; practices connect to, and are shaped by, values, attitudes, \\nfeelings, and social relationships.  Social relationships are crucial, as “literacy practices are more \\nusefully understood as existing in the relationships between people, within groups and \\ncommunities, rather than as a set of properties residing in individuals” (p. 8).  Barton and \\nHamilton (2000) outlined six propositions about the nature of literacy: \\n \\n1. Literacy is best understood as a set of social practices; these can be inferred from events \\nwhich are mediated by written texts \\n2. There are different literacies associated with different domains of life \\n3. Literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some \\nliteracies become more dominant, visible and influential than others \\n4. Literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural \\npractices \\n5. Literacy is historically situated \\n6. Literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of \\ninformal learning and sense making. (p. 8) \\n \\nDrawing upon Heath’s (1983) work, Barton and Hamilton differentiate between literacy events \\nand literacy practices.  Literacy events are observable; that is, we can see what people are doing \\nwith texts.  Practices, in contrast, must be inferred because they connect to unobservable beliefs, \\nvalues, attitudes, and power structures.  Due to the emphasis on literacy events, those who work \\nwithin this framework of literacy as social practice tend to focus on print and written texts.  \\n \\nAn example may be useful here in illustrating the nature of literacy as a social practice.  \\nSudanese refugees frequently engaged in literacy events that involved reading the Bible for \\nvarious purposes (Perry, 2007, 2008, 2009), such as following along during a church service, for \\nBible study classes, or for guiding personal prayer.  As a social practice, these events connected \\nwith the larger life domain of religion or spirituality.  Reading the Bible was done purposefully, \\nfor a variety of reasons, as the refugees engaged with their Christian communities.  This practice \\nhas been shaped by the social institution of the church, with historical and power dimensions.  \\nHistorically, socially, and politically, the practice of reading the Bible is generally valued among \\nthe mainstream culture of the U.S., which has been predominantly Judeo-Christian.  Thus, the \\npractice of reading the Bible is, at least in the U.S., more dominant, privileged, and valued above \\nthe practice of reading other holy texts, such as the Quran.  However, this practice must also be \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       55 \\n \\nconsidered in the historical context of the participants’ lives: In the Sudan, African Christians are \\na minority that has been actively oppressed by the Arabized Muslim majority.  Reading the \\nQuran was a more dominant and privileged practice that was valued above reading the Bible; in \\nfact, reading the Bible (practicing Christianity) could have serious negative consequences.  \\nFinally, this practice has changed for these refugees as their contexts have changed.  Many \\nparticipants switched to reading the Bible in English instead of in their native Arabic, in order to \\nactively participate within American Christian communities. \\n \\nOne critique of existing theories of literacy as social practice is that the connection between \\nliteracy events and literacy practices has been, at best, vague.  How can practices be inferred \\nfrom events?  In our ongoing work with the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study (CPLS), \\nPurcell-Gates and I have used the theory of literacy as a social practice to frame our \\ninvestigations of literacy in various marginalized communities.  Over the past eight years, the \\nprocess of analyzing the data across multiple case studies has allowed us to develop a model \\n(Figure 1) that represents the theoretical relationship between literacy events and literacy \\npractices (Purcell-Gates, Perry, & Briseño, 2011).   \\n \\nThe central, shaded layers of the model represent observable literacy events, beginning with the \\nagent’s intent for reading or writing, and then moving to the text itself.  For example, a refugee \\nfrom Iraq may read through online admissions information for various university programs to \\nlearn information about program(s) to which he or she might apply.  Together, this function or \\ncommunicative intent (locating admissions information), along with the actual text (online \\nuniversity websites), mediates the agent’s purpose for engaging in the event (to apply for – and, \\nideally, to obtain – admission to a university program).  This immediate social goal is shaped by \\nlarger domains of social activity (such as schooling), which are in turn shaped by other \\ncontextual layers.  For example, the applicant’s personal history, along with beliefs and values, \\nwill help to shape which types of programs he or she might apply for.  If the applicant had \\npreviously been educated and worked as a doctor in Iraq, he or she might apply for medical \\nprograms in order to be certified to practice in the U.S.  Power relationships and social structures \\nare integral to this context: If, for example, the applicant cannot provide documentation of his or \\nher prior educational attainment, due to having fled his or her country under duress, this lack of \\ndocumentation will shape whether or not he or she may apply to certain programs. \\n \\nAlthough the theory of literacy as social practice may not explain the process of how people \\nlearn to read and write, it can help to describe what types of knowledge are needed in order to \\neffectively engage in given literacy practices.  By investigating the practice of literacy brokering \\namong Sudanese refugees (Perry, 2009), in which individuals seek informal help with texts and \\nliteracy practices, I identified three broad aspects of knowledge that adults need in order to \\neffectively engage in literacy practices: lexico-syntactic and graphophonic knowledge, cultural \\nknowledge, and written genre knowledge (Figure 2).  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       56 \\n \\nFigure 1. Model of a literacy practice.  \\nReprinted from Purcell-Gates, V., Perry, K.H., & Briseño, A. (2011). Analyzing Literacy \\nPractice: Grounded Theory to Model. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(4), 439-458.  \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       57 \\n \\n \\nFigure 2. Aspects of knowledge needed in order to engage in literacy practices. \\nReprinted from Perry, K. (2009).  Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering \\namong Sudanese refugee families.  Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 256-276. \\n \\n \\n \\n \\n \\nLexico-syntactic and graphophonic knowledge consist of knowledge of vocabulary, syntax, and \\nhow a given language is encoded and decoded in print.  Cultural knowledge includes beliefs, \\nvalues, and expectations.  Genre knowledge includes knowledge of the textual features, uses, \\npurposes for use, and organization of given genres.  This model illustrates the usefulness of \\nviewing literacy as a set of social practices, because it shows that cognitive skills (e.g., the ability \\nto decode) are only one part of what it takes to be literate.  In addition, individuals must have a \\ngreat deal of context-dependent knowledge to engage in a literacy practice.  \\n \\nFor example, one refugee family needed help understanding the meaning of, as well as what they \\nwere supposed to do with, sweepstakes documents they had received in the mail.  The wife had \\nunsuccessfully tried calling the company for more information to learn what they were supposed \\nto do to claim the $1,000,000 they believed they had won.  Neither participant knew how \\nsweepstakes programs worked in the U.S., and because they did not know how to either read the \\nfine print or read between the lines, they took the documents’ statements at face value.  As the \\nliteracy broker in this event, I had to explain the concept of a sweepstakes to the couple.  I \\nshowed them some of the “tricky” language the letter used (e.g., you will win “if you have the \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       58 \\n \\nwinning number” [emphasis added]) and shared that my family referred to this type of text as \\n“junk mail,” reflecting our belief that it was “not good.”  These refugees, who were literate in \\nseveral languages, needed access to a great deal of information in order to know what to do with \\nthe sweepstakes documents.  Without cultural background knowledge regarding the sweepstakes \\nand other similar schemes in the U.S., without experience with the genre of direct-mail \\nmarketing ploys, without knowledge of the registers used in such genres, this couple could not \\nmake sense of the documents, and they were at a loss as to what to do with them. \\n \\nMultiliteracies \\nBoth derived and distinct from theories of literacy as social practice is the theory of \\nmultiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), developed by the New London Group.  As Cope and \\nKalantzis (2000) note, the group’s focus was “the big picture; the changing world and the new \\ndemands being placed upon people as makers of meaning in changing workplaces, as citizens in \\nchanging public spaces and in the changing dimensions of our community lives – our lifeworlds” \\n(p. 4).  Like the perspective of literacy as social practice, multiliteracies emphasizes the real-\\nworld contexts in which people practice literacy.  This theory also places significant emphasis on \\nthe role of power relationships in shaping literacy and literacy learning.  \\n \\nThe theory of multiliteracies differs from literacy as social practice in important ways.  The \\nconstruct of multiliteracies suggests two arguments: “The first argument engages with the \\nmultiplicity of communications channels and media; the second with the increasing salience of \\ncultural and linguistic diversity” (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 5).  While the increased emphasis \\non cultural and linguistic diversity certainly aligns with theories of literacy as social practice, the \\nemphasis on multiple communication channels is different.  As Cope and Kalantzis note, this \\ntheory “focuses on modes of representation much broader than language alone” (p. 5). \\n \\nIn other words, scholars who work within theories of literacy as social practice tend to focus on \\npractices that surround print literacy, while those who work within the theory of multiliteracies \\nemphasize what Kress (2000a, 2000b) terms multimodality.  Multimodality implies that \\nmeaning-making occurs through a variety of communicative channels “in which written-\\nlinguistic modes of meaning are part and parcel of visual, audio, and spatial patterns of meaning” \\n(Cope & Kalantzis, 2000, p. 5).  In fact, Kress and others who work within this framework \\nactively criticize those who focus primarily on print literacy practices: \\n \\nSo-called literate Western societies have for too long insisted on the priority of a \\nparticular form of engagement, through a combination of hearing and sight: with the \\nsense of hearing specialized to the sounds of speech, and the sense of sight specialized to \\nthe graphic representation of sounds by “letters”, on flat surfaces. (Kress, 2000b, p. 184) \\n \\nIn critiquing the overemphasis on written forms of meaning-making and the neglect of other \\nmodes of representation, Kress calls for a theory of semiosis that accounts for the “‘interested \\naction’ of socially located, culturally and historically formed individuals, as the remakers, the \\ntransformers, and the re-shapers of the representational resources available to them” (Kress, \\n2000a, p. 155).  That is, in answer to the question “What is literacy?,” those who ascribe to the \\nmultiliteracies perspective actively reject definitions of literacy that focus solely on print or \\nwritten texts and instead view literacy as involving multiple modes of visual, gestural, spatial, \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       59 \\n \\nand other forms of representation.  Multiliteracies scholars do not reject print literacy, but they \\nview it as only one form of representation and meaning-making among many – one that has \\nbeen, and continues to be, privileged above other forms in schooling.  The salient difference \\nbetween theories of literacy as social practice and multiliteracies is how text is defined: \\nmultiliteracies theorists do not limit their definition of text to print only and instead include a \\nvariety of forms and semiotic systems.  \\n \\nGiven the emphasis on multiple media and modes of representation, digital technologies, and \\ntheir associated literacy practices are an important focus of work within multiliteracies.  As a \\nresult, multiliteracies is often associated with the term new literacies, which may refer either to \\nliteracy practices that are associated with digital technologies or practices associated with a \\nrapidly changing social context, depending on who is using the term (Lankshear & Knobel, \\n2003).   \\n \\nThe New London Group and others have taken critical stances to higher levels than have \\nresearchers in the social practice framework (although this trend appears to be changing).  Much \\nof the work of the New London Group, for example, focuses on the changing social, economic, \\nand political world; they discuss the implications of the post-Fordist economy and globalization \\nas well as the implications these trends have on life chances and social futures (Cope & \\nKalantzis, 2000).  Thus, while many who work within the theory of literacy practice \\nacknowledge the dynamic nature of both culture and literacy practices, those within the \\nmultiliteracies framework place a much greater emphasis on the changing nature of the world – \\nand the power relationships that are constructed within – and the ways in which language and \\nliteracy use change and adapt in response.  As an example of ways in which a multiliteracies \\nperspective impacts literacy research and instruction, Alvermann (2008) paraphrases Lankshear \\nand Knobel’s (2007) discussion of mindsets: \\n \\nThe first mindset assumes that the contemporary world has undergone little social, \\ncultural, and economic change since the advent of cyberspace, except for one thing—\\ntechnologies in use are greater in number and more sophisticated. The second assumes \\nthat the world has changed significantly as a result of individuals’ eagerness to participate \\nin a networked society in which digital technologies enable new ways of being and \\naccomplishing things. (p. 14) \\n \\nA critical stance is especially apparent in the multiliteracies theory’s implications for practice.  \\nWhile researchers and theorists working within the framework of literacy as social practice have, \\nfor the most part, focused on describing the many ways in which various communities practice \\nliteracy, there has been less emphasis on implications for practice in literacy instruction.  In \\ncontrast, much of the theory of multiliteracies is intimately tied to instructional implications.  \\nThe New London Group’s work argues that education must be reformed in such a way that \\nencourages situated practice for critical understanding.  Only through this pedagogy of \\nmultiliteracies can literacy education raise critical consciousness and ultimately transform \\npractice.  Thus, in responding to the question of what literacy is, scholars in this tradition might \\nrespond that we cannot think about what literacy is without also thinking about the ways in \\nwhich literacy is taught.  For example, Alvermann (2008) suggests that the second “mindset,” \\ndescribed above, implies that expertise and authority are distributed, which blurs the distinction \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       60 \\n \\nbetween teachers and learners.  Similarly, in describing the impact of new literacies on \\ninstruction, Hagood (2003) argues that critical media literacy should involve “engaging students \\nin the analysis of textual images (both print and nonprint), the study of audiences, and the \\nmapping of subject positions such that differences become cause for celebration rather than \\ndistrust” (p. 194).  \\n \\nCritical Literacy \\nBoth of the perspectives described thus far include at least some consideration of power \\nrelationships.  Street’s work highlights the ideological nature of literacy, while Barton and \\nHamilton (and many others within the social practices perspective) note the ways in which \\nliteracy practices are shaped by power.  Kress and others within the multiliteracies framework \\ncritique those who focus only on print literacy, suggesting that this semiotic mode may be overly \\nprivileged in Western societies.  In contrast, critical theories emphasize both power and \\nempowerment, and recently have expanded to include issues of agency and identity (e.g., \\nAlvermann & Hagood, 2000; Hagood, 2002; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007a; Moje & Luke, \\n2009).  Indeed, Lewis, Enciso, and Moje call for “versions of sociocultural theory that would \\nbetter address the issues of power, identity, and agency” (2007b, p. 2).   \\n \\nIn defining literacy as reading both the word and the world, Freire (2001) recognized that \\nliteracy is more than a cognitive skill and that it includes power relationships.  For Freire, the \\nimportant point is “to understand literacy as the relationship of learners to the world” (p. 173).  \\nThat is,  \\n \\nTo acquire literacy is more than to psychologically and mechanically dominate reading \\nand writing techniques.  It is to dominate these techniques in terms of consciousness; to \\nunderstand what one reads and to write what one understands; it is to communicate \\ngraphically.  Acquiring literacy does not involve memorizing sentences, words, or \\nsyllables – lifeless objects unconnected to an existential universe – but rather an attitude \\nof creation and re-creation, a self-transformation producing a stance of intervention in \\none’s context. (p. 86; emphasis in original) \\n \\nFreire (2001) defined literacy as a process of conscientização, or consciousness, which means \\ntaking the printed word, connecting it to the world, and then using that for purposes of \\nempowerment.  For Freire, “Literacy makes sense only in these terms, as the consequence of \\nmen’s beginning to reflect about their capacity for reflection, about the world, about their \\nposition in the world, about the encounter of consciousness” (p. 106).     \\n \\nOther critical theorists also have employed similar frameworks.  Through her ethnographic work, \\nBrandt (2001, 2009) used the construct of sponsorship to explore the ways in which individual \\nliteracy development connects to large-scale economic forces.  Sponsors, according to Brandt,  \\n \\nAre any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, \\nas well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy – and gain advantage by it in \\nsome way…. Sponsors are a tangible reminder that literacy learning throughout history \\nhas always required permission, sanction, assistance, coercion, or, at minimum, contact \\nwith existing trade routes. (2001, p. 556)  \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       61 \\n \\n \\nWhile aligning in many ways with theories of literacy as social practice, Brandt brings issues of \\npower to the forefront.  She argues that analysis of sponsorship requires consideration of  \\n \\nnot merely how one social group’s literacy practices may differ from another’s, but how \\neverybody’s literacy practices are operating in differential economies, which supply \\ndifferent access routes, different degrees of sponsoring power, and different scales of \\nmonetary worth to the practices in use. (2001, p. 561)  \\n \\nBrandt highlights the ways in which literacy acts as a commodity – one that individuals and \\ngroups may appropriate, misappropriate, or even reject.  She suggests that theorists of literacy as \\nsocial practice have exaggerated the power of local contexts to determine the “meaning and \\nforms that literacy takes” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 337).  Brandt seeks to restore the \\n“somethingness” of literacy, in which literacy itself is a participant in literate events and \\npractices. \\n \\nWhile Brandt’s work focuses on larger contextual factors, many working within a critical \\nliteracy perspective have focused on identity and on the ways in which individuals respond to \\npower through literate practices, grounded in Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain’s (1998) \\nwork on identity and culture.  Identity as a theoretical construct is intimately tied to critical \\nliteracy, as Hagood (2002) contends:  \\n \\nWhat is central to critical literacy that focuses on identity is the influence of the text and \\nspecifically of identities in texts on the reader.  The text, imbued with societal and \\ncultural structures of race, class, and gender, marks the site of the struggle for power, \\nknowledge, and representation. (pp. 250-251) \\n \\nMoje and Luke (2009) offer a comprehensive theoretical overview of identity within \\nsociocultural perspectives on literacy; they note that while five general metaphors for identity \\nshape literacy researchers’ work in various ways, the commonality among them is that the \\nconstruct of identity foregrounds the actor or agent in literate and social practices.  Moje and \\nLuke contend that identities mediate, and are mediated by, the texts that individuals read, write, \\nand talk about, and that a theoretical focus on identity “is crucial, not to control the identities that \\nstudents produce, construct, form, or enact but to avoid controlling identities” (p. 433). \\n \\nThe work of French sociolinguistic theorist Bourdieu (1991) offers a helpful frame for \\nunderstanding critical theories, and for seeing the ways in which critical theories can, and do, \\nconnect with theories of literacy as social practice and multiliteracies.  Bourdieu’s work makes \\nconnections among language use, power and politics.  Bourdieu connects his concept of habitus \\n– the set of dispositions that incline us to think and act in certain ways – to that of cultural \\ncapital.  That is, linguistic utterances are signs of both status and authority.  Bourdieu, thus, \\nbelieves that all linguistic exchanges (including those involving written texts) “are also relations \\nof symbolic power in which the power relations between speakers or their respective groups are \\nactualized” (p. 37).  Bourdieu argues that the social uses of language (including literacy) also \\nsymbolically reproduce power relationships and social differences.  Various agents have more or \\nless symbolic power, depending upon whether or not their symbolic capital is recognized by \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       62 \\n \\nthose in power.  Bourdieu argues that the powerful (such as educators) do symbolic violence \\nwhen they deny or denigrate the practices of others (such as minority students).   \\n \\nWhat is Productive About Sociocultural Perspectives on Literacy? \\nThe various theories included in sociocultural perspectives have much to offer the field of \\nliteracy in general.  Notions about literacy have been shifting over the years, including beliefs \\nthat literacy is a singular skill set and that people are either literate or illiterate (Muth & Perry, \\n2010).  Conceptualizing literacy as something one does, as opposed to a skill or ability one has, \\nhelps us understand the real-world ways in which real people actually engage with real texts, \\nwhich ultimately could help educators make formal literacy instruction more meaningful and \\nrelevant for learners.  As Lewis, Enciso, and Moje (2007b) note, “Few other theories have shed \\nso much light on the education of people whose language, literacy, and very being have \\ntraditionally been marginalized or disenfranchised in schools and societies” (p. 3).   \\n \\nUnderstanding literacy as a socially-contextualized practice helps us understand the ways in \\nwhich practices may vary across diverse communities, and the ways in which they also are \\ndynamic and malleable.  Understanding multiliteracies helps us understand the varied ways in \\nwhich people communicate and make meaning, as well as resulting implications for language \\nand literacy instruction.  The focus on issues of power also helps us understand issues of access \\nthat people have, the ways in which social, economic and political structures may shape literacy \\npractices, and the ways in which people may appropriate or reject certain practices.  Running \\nacross all three major perspectives are implications for authentic literacy instruction, redefining \\nfunctional literacy, and understanding power and literacy. \\n \\nFocus on Authentic, Real-World Practice \\nSociocultural theories related to literacy focus on what people actually do with texts – the \\nmeaningful, purposeful ways in which people actually use literacy in real-world contexts.  \\nViewing literacy as a diverse set of contextualized practices helps researchers and practitioners \\nunderstand the full range of ways in which people use literacy in their everyday lives, as well as \\nthe various types of complex knowledge that users need to have in order to effectively practice \\nliteracy.  When educators understand the diverse ways in which people practice literacy – and \\nthat these ways are intimately connected with who these people are and the contexts in which \\nthey exist – they may be able to better tailor literacy instruction to meet the needs of learners.  \\nFor example, Jacobsen, Degener, and Purcell-Gates (2003) and Purcell-Gates, Duke, and \\nMartineau (2007) advocate for teaching with authentic literacy materials and activities in \\neducation.  \\n \\nAccording to Jacobsen, Degener, and Purcell-Gates (2003), authentic, learner-centered \\ninstruction means using “print materials used in ways that they would be used in the lives of \\nlearners outside of their adult education classes” (p. 1).  In other words, instructors use real-\\nworld texts for real-world purposes, not simply for the purpose of learning to read and write.  For \\nexample, immigrant students might be interested in advocating for legislation such as the Dream \\nAct; their instructor might use newspapers or internet news articles in reading instruction and \\nencourage their students to write letters to the editor or to politicians to advocate for their \\npositions.  Thus, students are engaged with real-world texts for purposes that extend beyond \\nclassroom instructional goals.  Yet, sociocultural perspectives on literacy also require an \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       63 \\n \\nunderstanding that what is authentic and meaningful in one context might not necessarily be so \\nin another; the contextualized nature of authenticity requires nuanced understandings of literacy \\npractices in order to make literacy instruction relevant and meaningful. \\n \\nAlthough a focus on real-world practices may not effectively explain how people become literate \\nin the first place, it can speak to the ways in which informal literacy learning occurs, particularly \\nin out-of-school contexts.  Theories related to literacy brokering (Mazak, 2006; Perry, 2009), \\nliteracy sponsorship (Brandt, 2001, 2009), or apprenticeship and legitimate peripheral \\nparticipation (Lave & Wenger, 1991) offer insights into the ways in which people acquire, adopt, \\nor appropriate new practices and/or facility with new textual genres.  These informal learning \\ntheories may have something to offer formal instructional practice, particularly when instructors \\nwish to teach in authentic, meaningful ways.  Understanding and acknowledging the informal \\nways in which people gain access to new texts and practices in their everyday lives may lead to \\ninsights into the effective skills and strategies learners already use that can be built upon in \\nformal instructional settings.  \\n \\nRedefining “Functional Literacy” \\nUnderstanding literacy as a diverse set of practices should force researchers and practitioners to \\nask real questions about what terms like functional literacy mean.  Papen (2005) argues that \\nfunctional literacy is increasingly defined by economic considerations, as literacy has become \\n“identified with the skills needed in the context of employment and economic development” (p. \\n9).  For example, Papen quotes Rassool (1999), who defines basic literacy as “the acquisition of \\ntechnical skills involving the decoding of written texts and the writing of simple statements \\nwithin the context of everyday life” (p. 7).  Those working within sociocultural theories of \\nliteracy would argue that a skills-driven model of functional literacy, particularly one grounded \\nso heavily in employment and economics, ignores or denies the multiplicity of ways in which \\npeople meaningfully engage with print in their everyday lives.  Sociocultural theories force \\nconsideration that individuals who might be considered “illiterate” in certain contexts may, in \\nfact, be able to effectively read, write, and otherwise meaningfully engage with texts in other \\ncontexts.  Conversely, these theories also suggest that individuals may be highly literate in some \\ncontexts, but have low levels of functional literacy in others.  Many academics I know, for \\nexample, have been very successful in academic publishing, but face great difficulties in \\nnavigating new digital forms of communication, such as text messaging or social networking \\nwebsites.  \\n \\nThe results of my own work with refugees from Sudan required me to rethink and \\nreconceptualize how I defined functional literacy and basic skills.  The participants’ frequent \\nneed for brokering related to genre suggests that functional literacy involves more than being \\nable to decode words on a page.  Skills that are “basic” to being a functionally literate person go \\nbeyond decoding, vocabulary, and syntax and include an understanding of the cultural context, of \\ngenre features and purposes, of pragmatics.  Any definition of functional literacy must capture all \\nof these skills required to effectively engage in the literacy practices of a given context.  Thus, \\nbeing functionally literate involves having an understanding of the ways in which texts are used \\nin the world to achieve social goals and purposes (Perry, 2009).  Those who work within the \\nmultiliteracies framework likely would extend this definition even further, suggesting that a \\nfunctionally literate person is one who is adept at using a variety of semiotic modes of \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       64 \\n \\ncommunication in the contexts in which those modes are used.  Similarly, critical theorists also \\nwould challenge such a simplistic, skills-based notion of functional literacy, instead suggesting \\nthat someone is not functionally literate until that person can understand their world “in terms of \\njustice and injustice, power and oppression, and so ultimately, to transform it” (Papen, 2005, p. \\n11).  \\n \\nUnderstanding Power \\nA focus on the importance of issues of power is a thread that runs throughout sociocultural \\ntheories of literacy.  Cognitive/psycholinguistic theories do not (and perhaps cannot) speak to the \\nways in which power relations shape literacy practices, and this focus on power is therefore an \\nimportant contribution that sociocultural perspectives make to understandings of literacy and its \\nuse in the world.  Sociocultural perspectives help researchers and practitioners to see and \\nunderstand the ways in which power relationships help to determine which literacy practices are \\navailable to a given community, which are dominant and privileged, and which are marginalized \\n(Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Street, 1984).  For example, Street’s (1984) work demonstrates that \\nthe written practices associated with schooling are only one type of the many literate practices \\navailable, yet they are the practices that are both dominant and valued by those in power, and \\nthus privileged.  Kress (2000b) would extend this claim even further, by arguing that a focus on \\nwritten texts and practices (and not the full range of semiotic modes) further privileges some \\npractices and modes at the expense of other meaningful and valuable modes. \\n \\nA focus on power also offers an understanding of the agentive ways in which dominant literacy \\npractices are adopted, appropriated for new purposes, or rejected (Brandt, 2001, 2009; Perry & \\nPurcell-Gates, 2005).  In fact, this perspective raises awareness that individuals are agentive, and \\nthey appropriate or reject practices in purposeful ways that meet their needs – or in some \\ninstances, even challenge the practices of those in power.  \\n \\n \\n \\nLimitations of this Paradigm \\nWhile sociocultural perspectives offer much to the field of literacy, there certainly are \\nlimitations.  Scholars who work within this tradition have a wide range of ways in which they \\ndefine the construct of literacy.  While most who fall under the theory of literacy as social \\npractice tend to focus on a definition of literacy that involves print or written text, those who \\nespouse multiliteracies do not limit their definition to print and instead expand their definition of \\nliteracy to include all semiotic systems.  Similarly, while Freire’s (2001) work involved a focus \\non teaching print literacy, he also expanded that definition of literacy to include “the relationship \\nof learners to the world” (p. 173), including the process of conscientização – connecting print to \\nthe real world for purposes of empowerment.  \\n \\nGiven these wide definitions of literacy, some of which do not necessarily involve the ability to \\nuse print, one legitimate critique of this perspective is that literacy can be so broadly defined as \\nto be almost meaningless.  Depending on the particular theory involved, literacy can be defined \\nas any form of communication/thinking, or “any old semiotic competence” (Erik Jacobson, \\npersonal communication, December 1, 2010).  In fact, common parlance has co-opted the term \\nliteracy in this very way; thus, in terms like financial literacy or cultural literacy, literacy equals \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       65 \\n \\nfacility with a particular body of knowledge, and not necessarily the ability to engage with print.  \\nWhile it is possible to maintain a focus on print literacy while also acknowledging that other \\nsemiotic systems are also in play and are important, it is also fair to claim that something is lost \\nwhen the field defines literacy so broadly.  While many semiotic systems exist, and while \\nhumans have the ability to make meaning multimodally, it is also true that there can be great \\nbenefit to understanding specific semiotic systems, such as written language, on their own terms.  \\n \\nThe paradigm’s focus on specific sociocultural contexts is an important aspect of this \\nperspective, yet it is also a potential limitation.  Understanding the unique ways in which \\ncontexts shape literacy practices – taking each context on its own terms – also has the effect of \\nlimiting the ways in which we can meaningfully speak across contexts.  Moreover, as Brandt and \\nClinton (2002) suggest, a focus on the local introduces “methodological bias and conceptual \\nimpasses” (p. 337).  Given the emphasis on social, cultural, and political contexts, researchers \\nwho work within this paradigm rightly tend to use ethnographic, discourse analysis, and/or case \\nstudy methodologies.  Yet, the nature of these methodologies also necessarily limits the nature of \\nthe claims that can be made.  Unlike methodologies that aim for generalizability, the results of \\nethnographic, discourse analysis, and case study research are context-dependent, which also \\nserves to limit the claims and other implications that can be made from these studies.  This \\ndifficulty in speaking across contexts has been a significant limitation of this perspective \\n(although the Cultural Practices of Literacy Study is attempting to challenge this limitation – see \\nPurcell-Gates, Perry, & Briseño, 2011).  Similarly, Brandt and Clinton (2002) rightfully critique \\nthis perspective as assuming “separations between the local and the global, agency and social \\nstructure, and literacy and its technology” (p. 338).  \\n \\nAnother limitation to this paradigm, to which I have already alluded, is that it does not speak \\nparticularly well to the process of becoming literate.  While we can observe the multifaceted \\nways in which people actually use literacy in their real lives, while family and emergent literacy \\ntheories attempt to address the ways in which sociocultural factors shape literacy development, \\nand while we can also observe the informal ways in which people acquire new practices, \\nsociocultural perspectives are limited in their ability to explain what actually happens when an \\nindividual learns to read and write – that is, when someone learns how to decode, encode, and \\notherwise make sense of written text.  As a result, while sociocultural perspectives make an \\nimportant – and, I would argue, essential – contribution to our understanding of what literacy is \\nand how it should be taught and assessed, this theory alone may not be able to fully explain the \\nphenomenon of literacy.  \\n \\nSimilarly, although this paradigm offers some explanations for achievement gaps in literacy \\ndevelopment (e.g., that learners with low literacy levels may experience difficulty because \\nschool literacy practices do not align well with or devalue what is considered meaningful and \\nimportant in their cultural contexts), it also does not address the real difficulties that learners may \\nhave with acquiring literacy.  This limitation may have significant, tangible consequences for \\nlearners who may have real cognitive limitations or learning disabilities.  As a result, \\nsociocultural paradigms may be limited in what they can offer instructors who are working with \\nstruggling readers. \\n \\nConclusions \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       66 \\n \\nIn addition to the above limitations, those working within cognitive and psycholinguistic \\nparadigms critique the sociocultural paradigm for ignoring issues of learning/development and \\nschooling, for having a diminished focus on print literacy and the important cognitive sub-skills \\nrelated to print literacy, and for having too few practical implications for instruction.  I have \\nattempted to address some of these critiques in my previous discussion.  For example, I have \\nshown that some newer research does look at issues of learning and development, albeit largely \\nfrom an informal learning perspective.  In adult and family literacy, for example, researchers \\nhave demonstrated practical applications of sociocultural perspectives in instruction by using \\nauthentic literacy materials and activities (Anderson, Purcell-Gates, Gagne, & Jang, 2009; \\nJacobsen, Degener, & Purcell-Gates, 2003).  Similarly, practical instructional implications also \\ncome from thinking about issues of critical literacy (a la Freire), as Purcell-Gates and Waterman \\n(2000) demonstrated in work with women in Nicaragua. \\n \\nDespite limitations and legitimate critiques, the sociocultural paradigm nevertheless has much to \\noffer theory, research, and instructional practice in literacy.  All paradigms offer both limitations \\nand strengths, and they do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.  As Papen (2005) \\nnoted, the metaphors – and, I would add, theories – the field uses to think about literacy shape \\nthinking about literacy instruction.  Because there are real implications for real learners, it \\ntherefore behooves researchers and theorists to think carefully about what various paradigms \\noffer and to not dismiss alternate paradigms out of hand.  For example, in their book, Print \\nLiteracy Development: Uniting Cognitive and Social Practice Theories, Purcell-Gates, Jacobsen, \\nand Degener (2004) critique seemingly contradictory perspectives and offer a useful lens through \\nwhich both paradigms may be united.  \\n \\nAlthough it is certainly true that the sociocultural paradigm may only poorly explain the \\nprocesses by which people become literate, and although it is also true that these theories, as yet, \\nmay be more limited in what practical implications they can offer literacy instruction, it is also \\ntrue that in order to truly understand literacy and learners, educators must see literacy and \\nlearners in all contexts, not just in the contexts of schooling.  Additionally, there also must be an \\nunderstanding that cognitive processes are shaped by the social contexts and practices in which \\nthey occur.  As Purcell-Gates, Jacobsen, and Degener (2004) claim, “to study reading and \\nwriting as if they exist separately from larger, socially related and constructed discourses is, at \\nbest, foolish and, at worst, hegemonic” (p. 66).  What is needed is an understanding that literacy \\ndevelopment can, and does, occur in all contexts – and that formal schooling is only one of those \\ncontexts.     \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       67 \\n \\nReferences \\nAlvermann, D.E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom \\npractice and research?  Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 8-19. \\n \\nAlvermann, D.E., & Hagood, M.C. (2000).  Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and \\npractice in \\\"New Times.\\\"  The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 193-205. \\n \\nAnderson, J., Purcell-Gates, V., Gagne, M., Jang, K. (2009). Implementing an intergenerational \\nliteracy program with authentic literacy instruction: Challenges, responses, and results. \\nVancouver, BC; University of British Columbia. \\n \\nBakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.) & V. \\nMcGee (Trans.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60-101). Austin, TX: \\nUniversity of Texas Press. \\n \\nBarton, D. & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community.  \\nLondon: Routledge. \\n \\nBarton, D. & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanič \\n(Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 7-15). London: Routledge. \\n \\nBourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power (Trans. G. Raymond & M. Adamson). \\nCambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. \\n \\nBrandt, D. (2001). Sponsors of literacy.  In E. Cushman, E.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. Rose \\n(Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 555-571). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. \\n \\nBrandt, D. (2009). Literacy and learning: Reflections on writing, reading and society.  San \\nFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. \\n \\nBrandt, D., & Clinton, K.  (2002). Limits of the local: Expanding perspectives on literacy as a \\nsocial practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 337-356. \\n \\nCope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social \\nfutures. London: Routledge. \\n \\nDuranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. New York: Cambridge University Press. \\n \\nFreire, P. (2001). The Paulo Freire reader (A. Freire & D. Macedo, Eds.). New York: \\nContinuum. \\n \\nGee, J. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: \\nRoutledgeFalmer.   \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       68 \\n \\nGee, J. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, \\nP.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook on reading research, volume III (pp. 195-208). \\nLondon: Routledge. \\n \\nGregory, E. & Williams, A. (2000). City literacies: Learning to read across generations and \\ncultures. London: Routledge.  \\n \\nHagood, M.C. (2002). Critical literacy for whom? Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 247-\\n266. \\n \\nHagood, M.C. (2003). New media and online literacies: No age left behind.  Reading Research \\nQuarterly, 38, 387-391. \\n \\nHalliday, M.A.K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold. \\n \\nHeath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. \\nCambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. \\n \\nHolland, D., Lachicotte, Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural \\nworlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  \\n \\nHruby, G. (2001). Sociological, postmodern, and new realism perspectives in social \\nconstructionism: Implications for literacy research.  Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 48-\\n62. \\n \\nHymes, D. (1994). Toward ethnographies of communication. In J. Maybin (Ed.), Language and \\nliteracy in social practice: A reader (pp.11-22). Avon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.  \\n \\nJacobson, E., Degener, S., & Purcell-Gates, V. (2003). Creating authentic materials and \\nactivities for the adult literacy classroom. Boston: National Center for the Study of Adult \\nLearning and Literacy.  \\n \\nKress, G. (2000a).  Design and transformation: New theories of meaning. In B. Cope & M. \\nKalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. \\n153-161).  London: Routledge. \\n \\nKress, G. (2000b). Multimodality.  In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy \\nlearning and the design of social futures (pp. 182-202).  London: Routledge. \\n \\nLankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003).  Implications of “new” literacies for writing research.  \\nRetrieved from ERIC database. (ED 478121).  \\n \\nLankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. In M. Knobel & C. \\nLankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1–24). New York: Peter Lang. \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       69 \\n \\nLave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. \\nCambridge: Cambridge University Press.  \\n \\nLewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (2007a). Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: \\nIdentity, agency, and power.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. \\n \\nLewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E.B. (2007b). Introduction: Reframing sociocultural research on \\nliteracy.  In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E.B. Moje (Eds.), Reframing sociocultural research \\non literacy: Identity, agency, and power (pp. 1-11).  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum \\nAssociates. \\n \\nLuke, A. (2003). Literacy and the Other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy \\nin multilingual societies.  Reading Research Quarterly, 38,132-141. \\n \\nLuke, A. (2004).  On the material consequences of literacy.  Language and Education, 18, 331-\\n335. \\n \\nMazak, C.M. (2006). Negotiating el dificil: English literacy practices in a rural Puerto Rican \\ncommunity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. \\n \\nMcShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for \\nteachers. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov/publications/pdf/applyingresearch.pdf \\n \\nMoje, E.B., & Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and \\ncontemporary research.  Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 415-437. \\n \\nMuth, W.R., & Perry, K.H. (2010). Adult literacy: An inclusive framework. In D. Lapp & D. \\nFisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English Language Arts, Third \\nEdition. New York: Routledge. \\n \\nNational Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early \\nLiteracy Panel. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/NELPReport09.pdf  \\n \\nNational Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the \\nscientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. \\nRetrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/smallbook_pdf.pdf  \\n \\nPapen, U. (2005). Adult literacy as social practice: More than skills. London: Routledge. \\n \\nPearson, P.D., & Hiebert, E.H. (2010). National reports in literacy: Building a scientific base for \\npractice and policy. Educational Researcher, 39, 286-294. \\n \\nPerry, K.H. (2007). Sharing stories, linking lives: Literacy practices among Sudanese refugees.  \\nIn V. Purcell-Gates (Ed.), Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, \\nliteracy, social practice, and power (pp.57-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       70 \\n \\nPerry, K.H. (2008). From storytelling to writing: Transforming literacy practices among \\nSudanese refugees. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, pp. 317-358. \\n \\nPerry, K.H. (2009). Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering among Sudanese \\nrefugee families. Reading Research Quarterly (44), pp. 256-276. \\n \\nPerry, K.H., & Purcell-Gates, V. (2005). Resistance and appropriation: Literacy practices as \\nagency within hegemonic contexts.  In B. Maloch, J.V. Hoffman, D.L. Schallert, C.M. \\nFairbanks & J. Worthy (Eds.), 54th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. \\n272-285).  Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference. \\n \\nPurcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA: \\nHarvard University Press. \\n \\nPurcell-Gates, V., Duke, N.K., & Martineau, J.A. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-\\nspecific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching.  Reading Research \\nQuarterly, 42, 8-45. \\n \\nPurcell-Gates, V., Jacobsen, E., & Degener, S. (2004). Print literacy development: Uniting \\ncognitive and social practice theories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  \\n \\nPurcell-Gates, V., Perry, K.H., & Briseño, A. (2011). Analyzing literacy practice: Grounded \\ntheory to model. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(4), 439-458. \\n \\nPurcell-Gates, V. & Waterman, R. (2000). Now we read, we see, we speak: Portrait of literacy \\ndevelopment in an adult Freirean-based class. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum \\nAssociates. \\n \\nRassool, N. (1999). Literacy for sustainable development in the age of information. Clevedon, \\nUK: Multilingual Matters. \\n \\nRex, L.A., Bunn, M., Davila, B.A., Dickinson, H.A., Ford, A.C., Gerben, C., Orzulack, MJ.M., \\n& Thomson, H. (2010).  A review of discourse analysis in literacy research: Equitable \\naccess.  Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 94-115. \\n \\nStreet, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. \\n \\nStreet, B.V. (2001). The new literacy studies. In E. Cushman, G.R. Kintgen, B.M. Kroll, & M. \\nRose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook (pp. 430-442). Boston: St. Martin’s Press. \\n \\nStreet, B.V. (2003). What's \\\"new\\\" in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in \\ntheory and practice.  Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91. \\n \\nTracey, D.H., & Morrow, L.M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and \\nmodels. New York: Guilford. \\n \\n\\n\\n \\nK. Perry / What is Literacy? A Critical Overview (2012)                                       71 \\n \\nVygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. \\nCole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds). Cambridge: Harvard \\nUniversity Press.\",\"difficulty\":\"hard\",\"domain\":\"Single-Document QA\",\"length\":\"short\",\"question\":\"In examining the sociocultural perspectives on literacy—specifically literacy as social practice, multiliteracies, and critical literacy—consider how each framework addresses the interplay between literacy, identity, and power relations within diverse cultural contexts. Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the complexities and potential tensions that arise when applying these theories to literacy education and practice?\",\"sub_domain\":\"Literary\"}","display_format":"text","language":"","answer_status":"published","assets":[],"source_url":"https://huggingface.co/datasets/zai-org/LongBench-v2","history":"initial import","indexing_mode":"noindex","subproblems":[],"grids":[]}