All Over the Place!

         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.