As I read and re-read the \u201cDigital Literacy\u201d article by Dobson and Willinsky and \u201cA Pedagogy of Multiliteracies\u201d by The New London Group, I couldn\u2019t help thinking that something was missing.\u00a0 Both articles put forth new ideas and provided the reader with valuable and thought provoking information and yet were incomplete.\u00a0 What is missing is a page in the articles which explicitly states how to \u201ccreat[e] access to the evolving language of work, power, and community, and [foster] the critical engagement necessary for them to design their social futures and achieve success through fulfilling employment.\u201d (The New London Group, p.1)\u00a0 The multiliteracies approach strives to fulfill the above goal, which is a noble one, but the article left me wanting practical strategies which I could use in my Grade 5 classroom, consisting of students ranging in reading and comprehension levels from none at all (ESL students as well as native speakers) to Grade 7.<\/p>\n
The authors of the \u201cA Pedagogy of Multiliteracies\u201d article assert that \u201cliteracy pedagogy now must account for the burgeoning variety of text forms associated with information and multimedia technologies.\u201d (p. 2) I absolutely agree because if we don\u2019t, then the students will not be able to fully participate in and take advantage of the new media.\u00a0 I also strongly believe that we must not give ourselves wholly to the new.\u00a0 We must also make room for three R\u2019s \u2013 Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic.\u00a0 For the students to be able to fully participate in their community they must be well grounded in the basics of reading and writing.\u00a0 I am not sure if we can skip the basics but I am sure we can teach concurrently with teaching them to navigate the superhighway of the new technologies.\u00a0 The authors agreed that the \u201cdisparities in educational outcomes did not seem to be improving.\u201d (p.3) \u00a0They went on to state they agreed that \u201cwhat students needed to learn was changing, and that the main element of this change was that there was not a singular, canonical English that could or should be taught anymore.\u201d (p.3)\u00a0 The article was written in 1996 but I am glad we still teach the standard English language, including Canadian spelling.\u00a0 \u201c[Cultural] differences and rapidly shifting communications media\u201d (p.3) notwithstanding, we must have a clear picture of what it is we want our students to achieve and how we are going to do it.\u00a0 Having a single standard of English language will not hamper students\u2019 progress.\u00a0 If anything, it will help level the playing field as long as we teach it to all students and expose them to the cultural differences and the rapidly shifting communications media.<\/p>\n
The idea of multiliteracies is a sound one but we must not stray too far from reality with its bright, vibrant and multi leveled students who come from an incredible array of backgrounds.\u00a0 We must remember that many teachers who are currently working in the classrooms come from pre technology based education and will need instruction and support to themselves become comfortable with the new technology.\u00a0 Not all teachers are yet comfortable in giving up the reins of power and the repositories of knowledge and allowing their classrooms to become collaborative environments not just among students but with the teacher as well.\u00a0 The change to a classroom where the teacher is the facilitator in students\u2019 acquisition of knowledge is here but it is far from being the norm yet.<\/p>\n
The authors assert that \u201cas educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implication of what we do in relation to a productive working life.\u201d (p.6)\u00a0 As educators, we must be cautious not to focus all our efforts on teaching solely to the \u201cworking life\u201d of students and the demands of the marketplace.\u00a0 It is one thing to teach our students to be adaptable, innovative, creative, critical thinkers but we must be careful which one we promote:\u00a0 \u201cas opening new educational and social possibilities or as new systems of mind control or exploitation.\u201d (p.7)\u00a0 The authors, when stating that \u201cit may well be that market-directed\u00a0 theories and practices, even though they sound humane, will never authentically include a vision of meaningful success for all students\u201d (p.7) need to take a stronger stance and state that it will never include all students, and it should not include all students.<\/p>\n
If \u201cour job is not to produce docile, compliant workers\u201d (p.7) then we need to allow students to question, teach them how and then allow them to question the teachers and the information presented to them and the way it is being presented.\u00a0 We cannot ask students to \u201cdevelop capacity to speak up, to negotiate, and to be able to engage critically with the conditions of their working lives\u201d (p.7) without allowing them to do the same in the classroom.\u00a0 We must go even further and demonstrate it by questioning ourselves.\u00a0 We cannot produce students who are critical thinkers by ourselves being \u201cdocile, compliant workers.\u201d<\/p>\n
I feel that these articles highlight the disparity between the academically centered educators, and those of us in the trenches.\u00a0 \u00a0While their ideas are good, they lack grounding in the real world issue of a modern classroom.\u00a0 If we are to achieve a true multiliteracies approach, there must be a melding of the classroom teacher and the academic educator.<\/p>\n
Dobson and Willinsky’s (2009) chapter “Digital Literacy.<\/a>\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http:\/\/pkp.sfu.ca\/files\/Digital%20Literacy.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n