As a child, most of what I can remember was playing dress ups with my younger sister and writing (now hilarious) entries in my diary. I bought it with my very own money for my seventh birthday. Although most memories from that period are ‘touch-and-go’, I do remember loving to read. And write. And talk a lot of rubbish. Not much has changed.

Growing up, Mum would read to my sister and I every night. I had a few obvious serial favourites – Clifford the Big Red Dog, Hairy MacLary (we were a dog-loving family)

But the ones that have really stuck in my memory are ‘The Moons and the Clouds’ and ‘The Big Scary House’. Why? Quite simply because they had glow in the dark pictures!

But these pictures helped me follow the story line, when I then probably did not understand the text on its own. Mum has told me that I could read simple words from about 2 ½ - 3 years of age. From my new studies in literacy development, I would now say much of this would have been word association with the pictures. I had come to understand what the pictures were and meant, and how they correlated to the story line of choice that evening.

Mum started reading to me from about 6-9 months old from picture books, and as I grew up this progressed into what Mum calls “touchy-feely” books (I have alerted her to the appropriateness of this colloquial title, given the age I would have been and the connotations with the saying). Looking back, though, this makes me think again

that this would have been helpful for me in developing links with pictures, and sensory development to different textures. These pictures would have made words and meanings easier for me to understand as I could identify the physical representation, which helped with the abstract idea of this thing with four legs that felt a different way to everything else I knew, was actually an animal that had a name. This was I, completely unaware, using a semiotic system within a personal and cultural frame.

This use of signs and symbols to convey meaning is referred to as a semiotic system (Anstey & Bull, 2004). Each semiotic system has its own set of codes and conventions (such as written language with grammar and punctuation, or as with my visual and sensory texts with different colours, shapes and textures) which are generally acquired “subconsciously by exposure to models... and practice within social groups, without formal teaching” (Gee 1992, p. 113 as cited in Anstey & Bull, 2004 p.8). I acquired the skills to recognise these visual texts and link them to everyday physical objects and creatures without any awareness of my actual learning processes. This is a crucial form of literacy, as it forms part of the understanding and basis for the codes and conventions used in everyday situations – i.e. language.

Gee (1992) suggests that although these literacy skills are picked up at a young age, this does not automatically make us literate. Rather, we have picked up on the skills required of us to understand the literacy tools in our sociocultural environment (Anstey & Bull, 2004 p. 12). As Santoro suggests (2004) “we can think of literacy not merely as a single set of skills, but as a way of operating with a variety of texts within particular sets of social situations… Literacy practices are embedded in the practices of our everyday lives” (Winch et al. 2004, as cited in Santoro 2004, p. 52). For me at this stage in my literacy development, this was recognising and using simple forms of language. This way of learning for me was in line with the theories and approaches to learning in the late 80s. A shift toward a “view of literacy as a social practice” (Anstey & Bull, 2004 p. 20) benefited me at pre-school and my early infants’ years at school, as I had been read to and reading to myself from a young age. It was considered an important social and cultural skill for me to be able to read, write and understand language. By the time I had grown up in to a fun-and-vegemite-loving toddler, Mum had introduced me to more books, but this time with more text. There were still adequate amounts of illustrations, but the words and stories became longer. The one I could first read without (much) help from a big person was ‘Who Will Play with me?’ (It’s hard being the daggy, older sister. I still frequently ask this question). Then there were the age-old favourites by Dr Seuss – Green Eggs and Ham, The

Cat in the Hat and Sam I Am. From an early age I was going to a day care lady. She was Italian, and apparently I used to be able to speak a little of the language also. Although, I’m sure I just made some of it up in the hope of sounding exotic and clever. Again, I have not changed much at all. Elisa used to teach us how to do a lot of things – cook, tie our shoelaces... sit still. As well as assisting with my reading, she was also the one who started to teach me how to start writing letters, which Mum also encouraged and picked up at home. By the time I went to pre-school at about 3 ½ - 4, I could write basic words. I remember thinking I was incredibly clever by spelling my name “Bath”, instead of “Beth”. What was the difference, really? Plus, that way I got my name in some books! I was soon brought back to reality and taught that there is actually a reasonable difference in the sounds of ‘a’ and ‘e’. Nice try. I soon learnt the difference one I got to school. We learnt the sounds and use of letters mostly through phonics, and ‘read and say’ repetition activities.

As mentioned, the push toward a more sociolinguistic approach to literacy during the 1980s meant that the various types of literacies were linked to what you were introduced to and socialised with. Previously, it was thought that literacy development was linked with cognitive development. This meant you developed your reading, writing and understanding skills as you would your ‘thinking’ skills. Essentially, your language development progressed in sync with your learning. This is referred to as the psycholinguistic approach, which is also in line with Piaget’s theory that suggests that cognitive development must come before learning (Woolfolk & Margetts 2007, p. 54). During my schooling, these debates were ongoing and so literacy was taught through a mixture of both approach (Anstey & Bull 2004, p. 21)

Anstey and Bull (2004, p. 20) list several literacy strategies that were practiced during the 1980s and early 1990s, which fit in with my education (I started kindergarten in 1994). I can remember using a hybrid model of approaches in the infants years of primary – using ‘look and say’ spelling lists, using ‘Big Books’ as a whole language approach, and the use of phonics to sound out letters, particularly vowels (I still use ‘a, e, i, o, u’ when playing hangman), and words. However, there was an emphasis on reading groups, which linked in to ideas of natural models of learning, and the integration of all language models. Reading groups were often divided into ability groups, however, so the idea of literacy as cultural capital or power is well illustrated.

I can remember a South American girl in my class who, now looking back, would struggle to read aloud to the class. It is suggested “individuals gain access to knowledge through language (power) if they possess particular codes or dialects, class and ethnicity” (Anstey & Bull, 2004 p. 20). With this in mind, Carmen did not have the same sociocultural skills to access the same kinds of language and learning tools as I did. Most of my ‘social circles’ as a child were with English-speaking Australians. Carmen on the other hand mostly came from a non-English speaking family and background, and was met with barriers to language when she arrived at school. I had been ‘trained’, if you like, in code breaking.

Luke and Freebody’s (1999) ‘Four Resources Model’ suggests that be literate, you are able to utilise four modes of text deconstruction. The first being encoding and decoding texts. Simply, this means being able to “recognise and use the alphabet, sounds in words, spelling, conventions and patterns of sentence structure and text” (p. 7). At a pre-school, and lower primary age, I had developed these skills to unpack the texts I needed to use to help get me ahead and further develop my understanding of language. This can also be referred to as ‘functional’ literacy.

Now I am at university, I can recognise that I use a more ‘critical’ literacy approach, also known as a ‘text analyst’ approach to texts and sources, particularly with my focus being on History and Cultural Studies. This links in with the ‘text user’ approach also, in so that I am able to recognise the various contexts and agendas of texts and as such am able to analyse them.

My literacy development started off very basic, and casual. I learnt how to read and write mostly in a casual, informal way at home and at day care. This prepared me for further literacy development at pre-school, primary school and helped me through all of high school where I learnt my critical thinking and analytical skills. It is funny to look back at my development, but is also a massive realisation at how much your literacy does develop over time with the introduction of new ideas and learning in your life.