Dr. Jaxon,

Please excuse group 1 from class today.  We’ve decided to meet elsewhere on campus to discuss Words at Work and Play.

Thanks,

Stan

The short section of the New London Group’s article “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies” I read gave me the impression that these scholars have become less interested in the what of teaching literacy, and more concerned with the how.  The scholars have chosen to identify four major pedagogical frameworks within which literacy is being taught (or was being taught at the time this article was written).  They are: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice.  The authors of this essay are quick to point out that two of these, stiutated practice and overt instruction, may not provide the perspective necessary to obtain the multi-cultural worldview the scholars (and myself) have deemed vital for modern learning.  Furthermore, they recognize that these pedagogical formats are often occuring simultaneously, without the teacher or students being aware (so for all you future teachers, don’t worry about it too hard).

This concept of multiliteracy often occruing without much thought reminded me of the Mike Wesch film.  New technologies allow us to express ourselves in complicated ways without being forced to understand the framework, or mechanics, which are allowing it to exist.  I hope it isn’t too obtuse of a connection, but the beauty of teaching is the ability to utilize these tools (overt instruction, transformed practice etc.) without having to be aware that they are being used in the first place.

We’ve learned over the course of the last month that literacy can no longer be defined as an individual test of skills. Rather, literacy can and should be studied within a social context. I take this to mean several things. Firstly, as expressed by John F. Szwed, the old model of literacy is outdated and increasingly unuseful.  Literacy is taking new and varying forms. Secondly, as expressed by Sylvia Scribener, definitions of literacy change depending on environment. Finally, as expressed by Deborah Brandt, individual literacies are shaped by sponsors and by the literacies of previous generations “piling up” around us.

According to Szwed, literacy can take different forms depending on one’s age, socio-economic class, ethnic group etc. Depending on these factors, it would be possible to encounter “a variety of configurations of literacy, a plurality of literacies.” Understanding of this concept becomes vital as educators continue to teach and test on an outdated set of principles.

Scribener addresses this concern in the section entitled “Literacy as Adaptation.” She asks, “Do all communities and cultural groups in our class based and heterogeneous society confront equivalent functional demands?” Taken within the social context, schools can develop different curriculum depending on perceived literacy necessities. This becomes tricky as state and federal organizations begin making broad policy changes.

These government entities are one example of what Brandt describes as “literacy sponsors.” Sponsors take the form of anyone o anything that has shaped an individuals literacy practices (either positively or negatively). Taken within a social context, these sponsors are often encountered over the course of one’s life (i.e teachers, peers, bosses etc.). Furthermore, literacy has the potential to pile up, with multiple forms or layers of literacy from previous generations encountered in a single household and potentially in conversation with one another.  For example, a child may take notes with pad and pencil in the style of his grandparents while watching a movie on his father’s television, only to turn around and post what he’s learned on a school sanctioned blog site.

 

“People aren’t going to touch books anymore.”

I’ve been thinking about the demise of “analog” text quite a bit lately.  Chico State’s own literary magazine, The Watershed Review, has gone to an online only format.  There are some great advantages to it.  We can actually publish more per issue now.  But, it breaks my heart to think that someday kids won’t be able to enjoy the “old book smell.”

 

Throughout her groundbreaking essay “Literacy in Three Metaphors,” Sylvia Scribner references the challenges of complete understanding regarding technology and its effect on literacy.  For instance, wIthin the section entitled “Literacy as Adaptation,”  Scribner references scholar M. McLuhan’s article, “Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.”  She writes, “[One view]… is that new technologies and communications media are likely to reduce literary requirements for all.  A responding argument is that some of these technologies are, in effect, new systems of literacy.”  Now this quote may sound like the same old hulabaloo regarding “the internet as literacy” or “text messaging as literacy” or “video games as literacy,” but the shocking thing is, this essay was written in 1984, there was no internet, there were no text messages, and there weren’t any video games like those that kids are playing today.  McLuhan was referencing T.V!  T.V was the scary new technology that was going to have untold effects on the literacy of our youth!  Remember, like Dr. Jaxon taught us, Socrates was afraid that writing was going to destroy man’s ability to remember.  Fast forward 2400 years and we became afraid that T.V was either going to reduce our literacy requirements, or were amazed that it could teach us new forms of literacy.

Scribner goes on to tell us that in the future, access (or lack of access) may contribute to a socio-economic divide when it comes to literacy.  Now one could argue and probably find evidence that technology is not universal in this country.  I’m sure some people don’t have access to the internet, or a computer.  Some people may not even have access to a television.  But, I would argue that it is not nearly the issues it was perdicted to be thirty years ago.

The lesson is this: scholars have been unsure of the ways our literacy was going to be changed by technology for longer then we think.  The conversation continues today, but by tomorrow, our kids will be laughing that we managed to get our literacy-panties in a knot over Facebook and emoticons.