Multiliteracies

by TMD

24 comments

1 Janet Pletz { 09.30.09 at 9:09 am }

Imagine being one of ten people arriving in a small town resort called New London, in rural New Hampshire, in 1994. Each of you arrive, having come from three continents, having worked together, or studied together over the course of your professional lives. You have checked in for a week, and the group is on a mission—to discuss the state of literacy pedagogy. One of the pedagogical concerns guiding the group is ‘the question of life chances as it relates to the broader moral and cultural order of literacy pedagogy—an awareness accentuated by merging global, cultural, social and institutional changes.

“As soon as our sights are set on the objective of creating the learning conditions for full social participation, the issue of differences becomes critically important. How do we ensure that differences of culture, language, and gender are not barriers to educational success? And what are the implications of these differences for literacy pedagogy?”

In my readings this week, these questions are the ones that have fixed in my mind—and as an educator, resonate with an ethical sense of responsibility. These are not easy questions to answer in practice. The reality of working in the day to day quest to meet the literacy and educational needs of all students has swallowed-me-up in my career! As the London Group have demonstrated, these questions can prompt a lifelong commitment. Perhaps as a starting point this week, I wonder how each of you have thought about the implications of these differences of culture, language, and gender—as barriers (or not) to educational success?

2 Jeff Miller { 09.30.09 at 6:56 pm }

Hi Janet,

To respond to your question, I ended up reflecting on a teaching experience I had about 15 years ago here at UBC.
I was hired to teach English in a program for Aboriginal youth (grades 10 and 11). These students came to live at UBC for 6 weeks, and they stayed in the student residences. The intention of the program was to give these students a sense of the academic pathways that would get them into careers as well as a taste for the kinds of challenges they would face in post-secondary education. I was specifically requested to give them a shortened first year English class (I was a sessional lecturer at the time), and to expose them to the material and assessment approaches they would encounter at UBC.

Well, that is how I started out, but it didn’t go so well.

All of the students were native speakers of English, but few of them expressed any strong feelings of comfort or control when asked to write, particularly when they were asked to produce academic work. For these students, the literacy practices I was offering to teach seemed obscure, arbitrary and somewhat irrelevant to them, and in light of these perceptions, they often described themselves as being unmotivated and lacking any hope of becoming “good” at English. The “diagnostic” essay that I had the students write revealed more about the weakeness with my own curriculum than any weaknesses that might have existed in the students’ writing. The first year tour of English I had planned would reinforce these students’ perception that they couldn’t write and that, in relation to the post-secondary context, they would be on the margins of the dominating culture as embodied in an institution like UBC, unsuited to be members of the academic community.

So what to do? Fortunately, I was able to consult with some First Nations elders who were working with the program. One of the elders, in particular, told me about how uncomfortable he felt living on campus, and how it reminded him about his own experiences with residential schools. It had never occurred to me that someone could look at UBC and have such feelings. It had not occurred to me that the students might not feel at home on campus, or out of place, and that the academic writing I was teaching might, to some, seem like a white-washing the differences of culture and language away from these students.

I ended up throwing out all of the texts that I had planned to use and in their place, brought in a variety of texts all written by First Nations writers on issues that I hoped would be more meaningful to the students. Shakespeare got the boot to be replaced by Thomson Highway. Atwood lost out to Sherman Alexie. I looked for texts that offered ways for students to explore identity, politics and history from positions somewhat closer to their own experiences. I changed the assignments to focus on shorter pieces of writing, in more of a tutorial style, and had the good fortune to be able to bring in an elder to teach the students characteristics of oral storytelling. I still worked on helping students to improve their writing, but I did so with writing that was more connected to their own lives. I tried to make the writing activities less obscure, arbitrary and irrelevant so as to help them build confidence in their ability to express themselves, through writing, authentically and creatively.

I learned a lot from this experience (and went on to teach for 3 years in similar, year-long programs). In particular, I came to better understand just how much literacy practice is caught up in sociocultural issues, issues that can turn educational opportunities for some into significant barriers for others.

3 Genevieve Brisson { 10.01.09 at 11:08 am }

Hi Jeff!

I really enjoyed reading your example. It is far from easy for instructors/professors/teachers to see and understand where their students come from, what their lifeworld experiences are, and to use these experiences in their teaching. You were lucky to be able to consult with some First Nations elders, and to invite one in your classroom. What a great opportunity for the students! These students were also lucky to have you! Gee (in his essay New People in New World, 2006) explains that the set of pedagogical principles suggested by the multiliteracies project should be seen as a “Bill if Rights” for all for all children (I think the term ‘learners’ would have been a better choice of word), but “especially for minority and poor children.” Gee states that they have the right to “lots of Situated Practice”, to Overt Instruction, to Critical Framing and to Transformed Practice. It seems to me you clearly acknowledged your students’ rights and did something about it!

It is also very interesting to me that your example does not refer in anyway to the use of digital literacy. Some articles I have read (or skimmed through) over the last few weeks equate ‘multiliteracies’ with ‘digital literacies’. If students are typing a text on a computer, they are engaging in multiliteracies practices, right? The pedagogy of multiliteracies defined by the New London Group encompasses much more than the mere use of computers! At my school, all students from grade 4 to grade 6 may now work during class time on a laptop, paid by the school board. In my opinion, it clearly does not mean they engage with digital literacy in critical ways. It does not mean they know how to transform what they have learn, break it, and innovate for their own social, cultural, and political purposes (Gee, New People in New World, 2006). The introduction of a new tool does not automatically modify people’s actions.

4 Melanie Wong { 10.02.09 at 1:57 pm }

Hi!

Thank you for this rich discussion everyone!

Janet, your comments on the ethical sense of responsibility etc.. was what I have been thinking about since I read for class. All of those questions brought up by the London Group do promote a lifelong commitment. Cummins (2002) made an amazing comment that has stuck with me since I read it. He said, “our commitment is not only to the individual student who sits in front of us but also to the social fabric into which our individual realities are woven” (p. 539). I think as a language/literacy educator I need to reflect on this and recognize that this is my job.

As an ESL/technology teacher, I had a lot of instances when I struggled with meeting the needs of all my students. My school was made up over 87% ESL. We had over 37 languages. All of my students (at least in my class) were ESL. Some of them had been refugees. Others had only been in Canada for a short period of time. Often, I wondered how I could get through a day. Literacy was particular difficult in my classroom. In addition to the obvious ESL struggles with reading etc., I had to consider my book choices carefully; taking into considerations cultural factors etc.. But as The New London Group (1996), “when the proximity of cultural and linguistic diversity is one of the key facts of our time, the very nature of language learning has changed.”

I like the statement that the New London Group makes regarding how an educator’s job is not to “produce docile, compliant workers. Students need to develop the capacity to speak up, to negotiate and to be able to engage critically with the conditions of their working lives.” As educators we are suppose to be teaching for the future, teaching global citizens. I think we are doing a disservice to our profession and students when we are not considering these issues in our classroom.

Jeff, thank you for sharing your experiences! I really enjoyed reading it. Like Genevieve I agree that your students were lucky to have you!

Genevieve, I was thinking about your last comments regarding Digital Literacy and multiliteracies. I agree of course. Just because you are using a computer in the classroom does not mean that you are engaged in digital literacy in a critical way. Leu (2002) discusses how educators have to assist students become more critical consumers of the new literacies. Hopefully educators are considering this as part of their teaching practices.

Melanie

5 Peter Hill { 10.02.09 at 7:10 pm }

It’s never as easy as one thinks to get past differences in culture and gender.
You may have followed the turmoil going on at University Hill Secondary in your local Courier . http://www2.canada.com/vancouvercourier/news/story.html?id=74149cac-4a05-4510-ac3b-649a69c88844

The basic issue is that the Christian librarian feels her human rights are being infringed upon by the presence of the gay- straight alliance club.
The librarian made harassment charges against the club sponsor. Investigations by both Vancouver school board and the B.C. human rights tribunal occured. Her claims against the gay straight alliance teacher and school principal have been dismissed as being without merit.
So, as much as we think we are heading into a brave new world of diversity and inclusion, we sometimes are pulled backwards. As F. Scott Fitzgerald put it, “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

I know the example doesn’t seem to have much to do with multi -literacy, but one need only consider how, and which, students will now use the library.

As a teacher in the school, I have a slight feeling of what it must have felt like in the McCarthy era. The attempt by a teacher to make the school more inclusive turned into a two year nightmare for her.
Even though both investigations came down in the gay/straight alliance teacher’s favour, the issue won’t go away as you can see by the courier article.

Sigh.

6 Janet Pletz { 10.02.09 at 8:27 pm }

Once again, our many voices bring forward so many perspectives. Jeff and Peter, your experiences in the secondary/tertiary classroom remind us of the complex, “complicated conversations” (Pinar, 2005) of a teaching life. I wasn’t aware of the background to the issues playing out in your school Peter. Thanks for providing the link. And Jeff, amongst all the inherent difficulty, the outcome of your experiences was completely inspiring! We can only hope that we can move our students into a globalized society with the multiliterate skills to live well in the world. Genevieve, I see Gee’s comment as a “Bill of Rights” as something that will change our roles as teachers and teacher-educators now. There is such urgency, frightening so in some ways. And yes, Melanie, knowing your school in Calgary so very well, your day to day lived experience in the classroom is one that every one of the 6000 teachers in our school board should experience, a day in the life of…. becoming Canadian, and literate in a multilterate society.

Anstey and Bull (2006) describe a multiliterate person as someone who “can interpret, use, and produce electronic, live, and paper texts that employ linguistic, visual, auditory, gestural, and spatial semiotic systems for social, cultural, political, civic, and economic purposes in socially and culturally diverse contexts” (p. 41). I believe ‘becoming’ multiliterate is a lifelong venture, and while we can open doors and create deliberate, knowledgeable learning environments for exploration in schools, there is so much more beyond. I think of myself in this precise moment…if I had mark-up skills, I could have re-produced this quote into a very clear, explicit model as it appears on the page!

I do feel compelled to share my fears too. In my ‘teacherly’ and personal life, I dwell in my world with language, lived and felt for its aesthetic beauty, where the experience of meaning making through language is a pleasurable pursuit. It is my enduring piece of philosophy in my practice that my young, young students leave my classroom in June each year with this seed within them. I fear that the necessities and stresses of our complex, global lives, and the changing roles and needs of literacy, will leave the aesthetics and beauty of language ‘busted up’ for the privileged–in specificity–along distant boundaries.

I follow you, Peter..

Sigh

7 Melanie Wong { 10.03.09 at 9:22 am }

Hi!

Janet, I love that term, “multiliterate.” It really sums up our jobs as educators, or at least my job as an educator.

Peter, thank you for sharing that article. I sort of reminded me of a case in my school were Muslim students asked if they could pray in a classroom at lunch time. There was a huge discussion on it during our staff meeting. In the end, it was allowed. Although, slightly different in nature, there was this story this past week in Alberta:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/transgendered_teacher_fired

In this article, a transgendered teacher is fired from his job because his gender change does not align with the beliefs of the Catholic Church/School Board. It is mentioned that he was praised for being a good teacher when dismissed.

I agree, about your comments regarding pulling backwards and inclusion. It is becoming quite apparent from all of these news stories, this is happening.

Melanie

8 Peter Hill { 10.03.09 at 1:12 pm }

Hi Melanie et al,

I know this is starting to veer away from literacy a bit, but it does have to do with ” socially and culturally diverse contexts” ( thanks for the definition Janet.)

I imagine the Catholic church has the right to say who should or shouldn’t teach at their school. They are a private organization. (I know they get more tax money than in B.C., but I think they still get to retain the ‘private’ designation- go figure)
But I do have trouble when we start opening up our public schools to religious groups.
I wish I had been asked if a Christian club should be allowed in our school as you were with the Muslim group. I would have said no for the kinds of problems we are going through at our school.

I have nothing against these religions, but the problem with their active presence in schools is that we are talking about someone’s god. That tends to be difficult to argue with, because their god is almost always right.

My hope is that we can start to open up our curriculum to other races, genders and classes, but we are always distracted by this age-old question. How can I teach a short story by a gay author like David Sedaris, if i am constantly looking over my shoulder worrying about someone’s religious interpretation of my teaching?

Wasn’t our nation and our public school system based on the notion of separation of church and state?

It might seem messy to have to address these issues in this way, but beneath the fine sounding words of the New London group, the struggle to make our classrooms more open to under-represented sectors of society requires this kind of analysis.

Peter

9 Erin Garcia { 10.03.09 at 1:33 pm }

The focus of this course has led me to be considering the process and the technicalities of the communication, both in the reading packages and the blogs as much the actual content. I find myself searching for the correct word for this bird’s eye view perspective perhaps it is hypermediacy? I am fascinated by the flow of the blog from one idea to the next (from multiliteracies in education to human rights). As a drama teacher I appreciate the successful Offering and Accepting which is inherent to any good improvisation, and apparently any blog worth its bits and bites.

Through my participation in this blog, I am coming to a fuller understanding of the content of the course, not only through the compounded knowledge shared, but by observation of the process itself. What an amazing tool this asynchronistic multi-player conversational medium truly is. How revolutionary, that we can hold a conversation over a week’s time at our own leisure, and that I can go back and re-read the ideas stated here, and without a jarring sense of derailment, address an earlier posting thread that interests me, with no limitations on chronological sequence. So four weeks into the course and I feel like I’m starting to “get it.” (I keep searching for a word to better express the way I’ve been experiencing the content of this course, but I can’t seem to find it, any suggestions?)

From a pedagogical standpoint, I find it interesting, that it was not the articles themselves that brought me to this understanding, but through participating in the actual activity. In other words, I did not come to this knowledge through traditional “verbal” literacy, but through some other kind of literacy, perhaps interpersonal literacy.

I totally film-geeked-out when I read Messaris’ Visual Aspects of Media Literacy. I’ve studied cinema craft with a focus on cinematography, and since then it is almost impossible for me to watch a film, without being acutely aware of the visual messages being sent. In fact, as much as I love movies, I enjoy most of them a little less now, because my insider knowledge of the visual messages has rendered many of them far too predictable. Perhaps this is why I’ve come to enjoy independent and foreign films so much, because they stray from the visual formulae that I know too well, allowing me to enjoy the experience of watching a transparent film and lose myself in the story. Or at least be intrigued by the use of different visual techniques. So I’ll likely check out some flicks at the VIFF http://www.viff.org/

10 Melanie Wong { 10.03.09 at 3:00 pm }

Hi again!

Peter, thank you for raising those points. They are all very valid. I agree with your comment on the Catholic School Board having the right to decide who they want to teach in their school board. However, I think the issue with this particular case was more that the teacher was already working for the board and a competent teacher. Once the school board found out about his transgender status, they decided to fire him. I think this conversation goes a bit beyond the scope of our course and our discussion.

As for your comments about Christian clubs etcs, I understand. I think part of the issue that bothered me with this particular situation was that teachers were asked to supervise the Muslim prayer sessions. What if a Christian (or another religionous group) teacher is not comfortable with supervising a Muslim prayer time? Should we not be respecting teacher’s beliefs as well? It does create a lot of issues. My school board had decided to take on a secular approach to learning and I think that it should remain as such. As teachers, we should respect all religions and leave it at that.

Melanie

11 Richard Harris { 10.03.09 at 6:30 pm }

Hello everybody,

I enjoyed the conversations so far around the diversity of learners in schools and our necessary accommodations. Jeff, Peter, Janet, and Melanie did a great job outlining there experiences.

I was wondering if I could take the conversation in a slightly new direction. I noticed the second component of multiliteracies as outlined by the New London Group – that regarding the increasingly multimodal aspects of literacy. The two-fold definition is below:

“First, we want to extend the idea and scope of literacy pedagogy to account for the context of our culturally and linguistically diverse and increasingly globalized societies, for the multifarious cultures that interrelate and the plurality of texts that circulate. Second, we argue that literacy pedagogy now must account for the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies” (New London Group, 1996).

The New London Group did the ground work and the call to arms, and people like Messaris, Kress, Kalantzis, and Cope further specified and enhanced the work.

I agree with Kress in his statements that English (as a subject in schools) must adopt a curriculum which addresses texts that are not just words on paper from the traditional canon of literature (Kress, 144). Though, I believe that the occasional substitution of the canonical texts (with which Jeff found so much success) and the changing of what we consider “text” to be are both necessary to our students’ success.

I loved how Messaris linked these ideas to media literacy. His examples were very relatable. I completely believe that a more multi-modal approach to analysis of media texts is necessary. The syntax of the visual mediums is very fascinating.

I would also say that a multimodal perspective is valuable in text production. If we ask students to analyze multimodal texts then why not have them produce their own too? I’ve begun experimenting with this in my own teaching in recent years.

As a final note, Messaris’ account of “graphic displays of quantitative information” instantly reminded me Teresa’s mandala software for Romeo and Juliet (Messaris, 72). I think the technology is finally allowing for exciting reinterpretations of text which increasingly leans towards the visual aspect.

Richard.

12 Chelsey Hauge { 10.03.09 at 10:42 pm }

Genevieve, I wanted to briefly respond to your discussion of what multiliteracies are, and when/if they are inclusive of criticality. I think you raise a great point that writing on a computer is not necessarily critical engagement with digital literacy. Part of me agrees with you, but the other part of me thinks that the medium is important, and that there is indeed something different about writing on a computer than on a piece of paper- that shifts the kind of literacy it requires. If nothing else, the embodied experience and relationship to what is being written changes—the feel of the paper, the backspace that leaves no marks as opposed to holes in binder paper where you erased too hard, the sound of typing on keyboard. While I think critical multiliteracies definitely means being able to encode and decode messages and texts, and engage in creation of those texts, I’m not sure about the link between criticality and multiliteracy. Being literate in the older definition- as in being able to read, doesn’t mean one is critical- lots of people read newspapers, magazines, etc without being able to critically engage with those media messages. In the same way, I wonder if you can be multiliterate and be unable to engage critically with media messages- surely, we all know people who can write beautifully, edit video and upload to a server, sequence photos to tell a story, and tell stories to others without being critical of the information. In thinking about what it means to have critical multiliteracy, I found especially useful the Elements of Linguistic Design that the London Group detailed. However, I am wavering back and fourth as to whether being able to engage in a diversity of media spaces, and having multiliteracies, always means one is able to be critical of those spaces, or to think critically about the construction of those messages and spaces. I guess I think that while its ideal for people to be able to engage critically with texts, I’m not sure its critical to multiliteracy that they be able to do so.

I found the discussion on design- from Kress and the New London Group, especially interesting. While our discussion as of yet centers mostly on the mainstream schooling system, I think these ideas are also very relevant to other kinds of learning spaces where learning is unstructured or informal. The discussion around design seems to engage a tension between mainstream schooling and learning in informal spaces. I am particularly interested in learning that occurs within informal spaces, especially digital ones, so my perspective comes from that point of view. Within new media/digital spaces, how the space is designed- its architecture- permits for/releases certain kinds of mobilities, and restricts others. Related to what many of you have talked about in your posts, the media- and medium- design of space facilitates who can participate, and how they participate. I was a bit taken aback by Kress’ example of girls and boys use of digital media, where he writes:

“Now communication happens in new communicational webs. The 12 year old boy who spends much of his leisure time either by himself or with friends in front of a playstation, lives in a communicational web structured by a variety of media of communication and of modes of communication. In that, the `screen’ may be becoming dominant, whether that of the TV or of the PC, and may be coming to restructure the `page’……… In contrast, the 12 year old’s 10 year old sister is likely to live in a quite differently structured communicational web; yes TV and PC figure, but quite differently. Instead of the books on science fiction (derived from playstation games) or books on games themselves, there might be much more conventional narratives, and the
magazines might be absent. Talk would figure more prominently, as would play
of a self-initiated kind. (143)

I think Kress makes a good point talking about new communicational webs, and acknowledging the interplay of a variety of mediums in meaning-making. He also alludes to a distributed sense of self, here, which I think is key in thinking of power, knowledge, difference, and multiliteracies- reminded me of Stephen Shaviro’s work on networks. I know his mention of gender is fleeting, but fleeting as it was, it was also discerning. The way he genders this integration with networks seems a bit off.

Sure, the way that people of distinct social locations engage with media is unique, and the way that mediated spaces are structured plays a role in how Others can interact, or can subvert, but the notion that “his ten year old sister,” which I took to mean “pre-adolescent girls” use “conventional narratives” and that magazines are absent, is not very critical. Many scholars have written about active participation and use of both new and old media texts, (Radway, romance novels, McRobbie, Kearny, bedroom culture) by girls, in situations where girls subvert media materials for their own use or interact with them in empowering ways where they take advantage of the design to be active, engaged members who contribute to publics and in some cases create counter publics. Girls are, in fact, engaging in significant ways with digital media- a PEW foundation study found teenage girls are the largest growing group of social networking sites, and are more likely than boys to post visual texts- video, photo, etc- to the Internet. This definitely suggests girls are living in a communicational web where digital literacies and visual modes of communication are dominant. There is also a long history of girls’ engagement with ‘zines, and so I am confused as to what he means about magazines being absent- girls long since have been producers and creators, as well as readers, both of mainstream magazines and “zines.” As for “conventional narratives” and “play of a self-initiated kind” I am not totally clear on what he means, though I take it to mean that girls interact less with networked meaning, don’t create their own narratives (but use conventional ones put fourth about gendered beings/male gaze by the mass media) and engage in play that is self-initiated—does this mean they engage in play that does not involve media? Then, based on what I’ve already written, this is surely not the case. Kress makes some great points, but by using this example and failing to enter into the criticality of gender and digital media seriously weakens his argument.

Design of learning spaces, from their physical architecture, whether it be how the tables are shaped or which language the keyboards are in, is not neutral. As we discussed last week, this has to do with code that allows us to even be media literate. It strikes me this is the similar to the architecture of learning spaces—in order to construct them we must be literate in the world of a carpenter, architect, and builder. Interestingly enough, this rings a bell with Audre Lourde’s argument that the Master’s House will never be rebuilt with the master’s tools. Lourde is talking about language, primarily, that without reconstructing language we are unable to subvert hierarchal power relations that privilege certain groups.

In terms of digital learning spaces and multiliteracies and knowledge/power, I think Messaris’ idea that visual language is analogic is relevant. Because it is analogic, it seems transparent, which allows structures to be erected that reinforce social relationships of power, and Messaris evokes Mulvey’s work on the male gaze in filmmaking. In a digital space, and with the advent of cheap, affordable tools, I think some of the visual language and canonical visual syntax has been subverted, if in ways we did not expect (analogous to Radway’s romance novels). At the same time, visual modes of communication definitely structure relations of power through their implicit syntax, especially in terms of gender in the examples Messaris gives about alcohol. I do think there is more to be explored in terms of gender and sexuality here, though Messaris focuses on the sex-sex relationship and the cigarette- as-health-as-the pristine-outdoors relationship, both have gendered and heterocentric overtones.

I meant to write about some other things, but really got caught up on gender here- hopefully you don’t mind too much!

13 Heidi { 10.03.09 at 10:49 pm }

Hi everyone,
I hope to contribute to Richard’s thread either here or in class, but I just wanted to respond to Erin’s comments about this blog.

I’ve been reading about the philosophy of hermeneutics and forming my own theories as to potential uses of online discourse in education. Erin, your post is now influencing these theories of mine…

“Through my participation in this blog, I am coming to a fuller understanding of the content of the course, not only through the compounded knowledge shared, but by observation of the process itself. What an amazing tool this asynchronistic multi-player conversational medium truly is. How revolutionary, that we can hold a conversation over a week’s time at our own leisure, and that I can go back and re-read the ideas stated here, and without a jarring sense of derailment, address an earlier posting thread that interests me, with no limitations on chronological sequence.”

I love this! As you mentioned, it is an experience that is hard to explain…I also feel it has to do with the time for reflection..reading a comment but then having time to mull it over before posting a response. When I first started teaching online in 2005, I was absolutely amazed with the dialogue amongst students in the forums (blogs). The critical level of the discussions went beyond what would occur in the traditional classroom. Students not only developed good writing skills but appreciated the intimacy of the course, between students and instructor, even though we never met face to face. In some cases, we felt more ‘connected’ most likely because of the online contact that occurred outside of the three hour time frame. I see these online forums as a place for recording and archiving creative process that can be accessed for reflection and analysis. It is a place for dialogical interpretation….and I really liked your phrase “interpersonal literacy” 🙂

For those who are unfamiliar with what hermeneutics means (was not that long ago that I couldn’t describe it), a very basic definition is the theory of understanding and interpretation of linguistic and non-linguistic expressions. As I tackle readings on hermeneutics for another course, I am wondering if the blog, when used in the manner we are using it in this class, can be thought of as a hermeneutic circle. In ‘Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis’ (1983) Bernstein describes the hermeneutic circle as “a type of understanding that constantly moves back and forth between “parts’ and the “whole” that we seek to understand.” He quotes Geertz when further describing it as “a continuous dialectical tackling between the most local of local detail and the most global of global structure in such a way as to bring both into view simultaneously.” This is what I was reminded of when I read Erin’s comments (thanks Erin!) 🙂

I will leave you with a quote from David Smith’s “The Hermeneutic Imagination and the Pedagogic Text” (1999) – one of my favourite hermeneutic texts so far. I know this particular post of mine doesn’t directly relate to this week’s readings, but then again maybe it does…As Genevieve pointed out above, literacy involves more than just reading and writing – we have to learn more about how our students understand the technologies they use and how they use the technologies to understand.

“In the terms elaborated by Gadamer and Richard Rorty, the hermeneutic modus has more the character of conversation than, say, of analysis and the trumpeting of truth claims. When one is engaged in a good conversation, there is a certain quality of self-forgetfulness as one gives oneself over to the conversation itself, so that the truth that is realized in the conversation is never the possession of any one of the speakers or camps, but rather is something that all concerned realize they share in together.”

14 Chelsey Hauge { 10.03.09 at 10:50 pm }

Also, can I suggest that another way of making canonical texts powerful for kids who don’t relate is through art- check out Tim Rollins and Kids of Survival, in NYC. I recall an art piece they made collectively where they read a required high school text, tore up the pages, pasted them onto gigantic canvasses, and painted wounds on top of the pages– very powerful, and fascinating way of thinking about addressing access, and shfiting relations of power through multiliteracy.

15 Heidi { 10.04.09 at 3:04 pm }

Chelsey, I agree with what you wrote about Kress’ gender example. I responded favourably to the overall argument Kress makes in his article as he highlights some extremely important issues, but I did find some of his examples to be problematic. For instance, the Islington Summer University letter/invite seemed more like a stepping stone to and inspiration for his discussion of the “dissolution of institutional frames” argument rather than a defining document that “encapsulates most of the criterial features of the current environment for education”.

I also want to point out that the curriculum debate Kress writes about in 2000 (transitioning from educating for an industrial society to educating for instability) is not new. Perhaps the discussion of “changing landscapes of representation and communication” (p. 138) is more central to current debates, however, there has been ongoing debate regarding the purpose for educating children since the early 20th century (see Pagano, J. (1999) The Curriculum Field: The Emergence of a Discipline. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), “Contemporary Curriculum Discourses” (pp. 82-105) for a condense overview that focuses primarily on debates within the United States spanning the 20th century). Most of the debates I am familiar with often originated from the pivotal curriculum texts of Ralph Tyler (1911) and Franklin Bobbitt (1918), including of course leaders such as John Dewey and more recently Eliot Eisner. Perhaps the UK history of curriculum theory is quite different. When I was studying these texts last year, I came across a reference to what I believe to be an extremely significant question for us to think about during this week’s conversations. The question was raised by Herbert Spencer in 1860. Herbert Kliebard (1975) writes of how Spencer anticipated the trend toward specificity in stating educational objectives, yet that Spencer also identified the scope of the school curriculum with life itself: “Spencer, it should be remembered, asked the question “What knowledge is of most worth?,” not merely, “What shall the schools teach?” While reading Kress, I could not help but wonder why he wasn’t acknowledging curriculum debates of the past and the potential to learn from them as we proceed towards “designing” curriculum for the future, not to mention previous discussions of perceptions surrounding knowledge (article word length restriction? context of particular journal?)

Kress writes,”What are the features of an education for instability? This of course touches decisively on the question of identity and its relations to pedagogy and knowledge.” I want to know more about this…

Michael Apple in “Ideology and Curriculum” (2004) would have us look beyond what Kress is saying to identify how we got to where we are, to examine the relationship between the institution of education and the economies of services and information that Kress writes about. Yes, design and agency will be central to future curriculum but let us not forget the knowledge we are producing. Kress touches on values and ethics within this shift from state to market, but perhaps not as much as he could have.

Apple writes, “…knowledge that now gets into schools is already a choice from a much larger universe of possible social knowledge and principles. It is a form of cultural capital that comes from somewhere, that often reflects the perspectives and beliefs of powerful segments of our social collectivity. In its very production and dissemination as a public and economic commodity – as books, films, materials, and so forth – it is repeatedly filtered through ideological and economic commitments. Social and economic values, hence, are already embedded in the design of the institutions we work in, in the “formal corpus of school knowledge” we preserve in our curricula, in our modes of teaching, and in our principles, standards, and forms of evaluation. Since these values now work ‘through’ us, often unconsciously, the issue is not how to stand above the choice. Rather, it is in what values I must ultimately choose.” (Ideology and Curriculum, 3rd Edition, p. 8)

I’m not sure where I’m going with this by bringing Apple’s neo-marxist perspective into the discussion. I just get this feeling that there is more to think about besides what Kress has given us. And, please don’t misunderstand me, I do like what Kress has to say…I’m just inspired to think beyond the text.

16 Emma Kivisild { 10.04.09 at 3:29 pm }

every time i read this blog (this and previous weeks) i want to say that i am not a teacher and i am amazed by the teachers in this class and their knowledge. and every day since reading melanie’s post i think ’37 languages. how do you do it?’ And i am glad you do.
I have a mess of ideas about media literacy and visual literacy.
And when I say ‘mess, ‘ mean, well, mess. I’d like to talk about advertising (so much money must be doing something. People with huge amounts of money don’t waste it on ineffective ads), rule of law and images, power and images and gender and race and and and, online culture, girls and videogames, blah blah.
So I picked one thing.
Because of another online brouhaha that I am reading (but not involved in thank god)that involves a store carrying a quite cute calendar that some feel is pornographic, I am thinking a lot about rules of visual literacy. Like those messaris tries to elucidate.
In the 80s, there was a move by some feminists to try to articulate a set of rules like messaris talks sbout about sexual imagery. they really tried. The rules they came up with, that defined imagery that was exploitative or degrading or dehumanizing were things like fragmentation of a body (showing only part of it), one person being higher than the other, or larger, or too many people or too few. I can’t even remember them all but the thing is – they were impossible to define but also true sometimes.
So if you shoot someone from below they might look big and strong but if you are shooting a crotch shot beneath their skirt, not so much.
So the readings made me think of those rules, and how visual literacy is about images, and words are about words, and there is a disjuncture there, that multiliteracies addresses
Rfelated to this, I have been thinking about advertising, which, unlike teaching, is using visual literacy not to include, but to target .They don’t care if people are left out if they are not who they are targeting. They are very visually literate, but they are not operating with the same inclusion agenda.
AND visual literacy grows and is challenged and changes all the time too. The vocabulary changes, in addition to each person bringing their own experiences to each image.
I feel the mess closing in.
Your admirer.

17 Chelsey Hauge { 10.04.09 at 3:52 pm }

Emma,
I enjoyed reading your ideas about advertising. This touches on something that has sparked my interest in reading these posts- the ability to be very multiliterate, to engage powerfully and persuasively with visual texts, but to not be “critical” of them, of how they are constructed.

18 Erin Garcia { 10.04.09 at 6:04 pm }

Thanks Heidi for your insight! You’ve helped me understand some of my own ideas a bit better 🙂 As far as the phrase interpersonal literacies, I’ve using the sense of the term interpersonal from Howard Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Basic overview of theory:
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

Excellent graphic representation of Multiple Intelligences:
http://naungancinta.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/multiple-intelligences.jpg

Just trying to wrap my head around this concept of hermeneutics that you’ve brought up.

19 Genevieve Brisson { 10.04.09 at 7:34 pm }

Talking of multimodality and multiliteracies: Simon and Schuster have launched the VOOK. What on Earth is the “vook” ? Well, video + book, or course!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2009/10/simon-and-schusters-vook.html

20 Heidi { 10.04.09 at 11:01 pm }

Don’t mean to add more for you to wrap your head around Erin…that’s just where my head is! I have a habit of making things more complicated for myself. Hermeneutics will always be there for you to think about when you are ready to…it’s not going anywhere…

21 Erin Garcia { 10.05.09 at 9:23 am }

Genevieve, hmmm I’m skeptical about this Vook thing. And not out a nostaliga for traditional print format. I would be very interested to see studeies on brain activity reading a book versus “reading” a Vook. I love the quiet of a book, the lack of bright and noisy stimuli, I wonder if reading a Vook would be more stressful than reading a book, I totally see it’s value for textbooks, especially ones to show processes: cooking, biology etc. But I don’t know if I’d want to curl up in bed with it to read a story.

22 Erin Garcia { 10.05.09 at 9:25 am }

wow, you can tell I wrote that last posting with the distractions of being at work, please excuse all the typos.

23 Cory Theodor { 10.05.09 at 10:01 am }

Hello all!

here’s a thought on the stability of technological change:

Kress abstractly relies on the notion that we are living in unstable times. Explicitly he writes, “Stability has been or will be replaced by instability.” He defines this age of instability as opposed to the Ford-era in which policies attempted to enact a top-down approach to institutional control. But, I am wondering is a negative definition of instability (i.e. instability of our time is defined as opposed to the Ford-era) enough of a definition. Maybe we could turn our notion of the changing times, into a model of stability. If technological change is a marker of this era, then we, the participants of this era, come to expect change with a stabilizing function. So, if technological change is something we come to expect and rely on then can’t development become a form of cultural stability? If we recontextualize stability in this way, what are some changes we could see in Kress’ argument?

24 Cory Theodor { 10.05.09 at 10:02 am }

It’s great to hear from experienced educators who navigate such a complex environment of cultures, languages, and individualities. Given that my teaching experience comes from only two years of TAing first year english here at UBC, my students and I can communicate pretty seamlessly in English, and the power dynamics are not as fraught because I am so close in age to my students, or maybe it’s worse, I don’t know. In any case, it’s tough and I applaud all of your commitment to work through these issues.

You must log in to post a comment.