After discussing the New London Group article with my group in class, I feel like I have a better understanding of the main point that they were trying to make about multiliteracies and the pedagogy of literacy. When looking forward to becoming a teacher myself, the concerns raised by the New London Group hold significance in my future, as well as the future of my students. As an educator, how am I supposed to develop lesson plans that abide by educational standards while allowing my students to express their individual creative ability? With regards to the design of multiliteracies, how are we as future educators supposed to establish guidelines or “semiotic codes” that inspire our students to be actively engaged with their reading/writing?

         As these concerns were being passed around my group, we began discussing the idea of creative writing vs. academic writing. While these two types of writing have their distinctions, one may argue that successful writing and/or reading involves actively using both. In the attempt to broaden a students’ accumulation and application of literacy, isn’t it necessary to introduce them to the entire spectrum of such? The New London Group addresses this issue in their article:

“To be relevant, learning processes need to recruit, rather than attempt to ignore and erase, the different subjectives — interests, intentions, commitments, and purposes — students bring to learning. Curriculum now needs to mesh with different subjectivities, and with their attendant languages, discourses, and registers, and use these as a resource for learning (12).”

         But as I reread this passage from their article and skim the headlines for each section I wonder, is the pedagogy of literacy able to undergo significant change? Can the learning process of students be altered to fit a more “relevant” time period? Because as I brought this up in a prior class, I was surprised to find out that the “issue” of the younger generations ability to utilize their literary practices has been ongoing for decades. Although it seems as though this day and age is more technologically advanced than any other, I guess that any older generation could assume that theirs was the most equipped with new and abstract literacy practices. I agree with the New London Group and their inferences about changing the pedagogy of literacy, however I cannot shake my true feelings about the ability to change it.

         While we discuss, analyze and riff off new ideas regarding the pedagogy of literacy and the concept of “multiliteracies” I cannot help but wonder if things will ever substantially change. As technology advances further and a new way of abbreviated speaking is coined as literacy, I as a future educator am both puzzled and concerned by its evolution. I would love to embrace the development of literacy as a constituent form of knowledge, however I currently see the usage of such technology and computerized form as more of a hinderance to the accumulation of literacy than anything else.

Prior to the first day of class, I had a very narrow view of the concept of “literacy.” To be literate, in my opinion, would simply entail that one had the ability to read and write with moderate proficiency. Scribner points out that the term “functional literacy” today is the grey area of proficiency necessary to communicate effectively and function within society. From the office, to school, to home to the grocery store-the literacy we use in each social aspect of our lives is somewhat different and gives us the ability to communicate much further than simply reading and writing. The ‘social view of literacy’ is how we as a society define literacy as both an individual pursuit and as a social construct.

Being literate goes beyond the ability to write a passage to another person or understand what a person is saying. It is not a simple individual accomplishment one achieves in his or her lifetime. Literacy can never fully be accomplished or finished, but is constantly evolving- a skill that requires patience and focus to people’s opinions, beliefs and stories. Additionally, literacy has several different meanings. Business communication is much different than communication among peers or family members. In a professional environment, with a general census on appropriate language, literacy varies from situation to situation. A manager will write a memo to his employees far differently than writing an email to lay off an employee. This type of writing and understanding of appropriateness in literacy takes skill and time. Becoming literate is never fully accomplished, and is improved with the progression of an individual’s experiences.