Needed: A change in literacy pedagogy
It is undeniable that today’s varying communication media has drastically changed the very nature of literacy, such that reading and writing is no longer confined within the boundaries of a particular social context, nor do the standardized forms of the national language define it (New London Group, 1996). With the ever-increasing expansion of our social networks, new forms of communication and representation are emerging as we creatively find multimodal ways to exchange our ideas and share our knowledge on a global scale. As a result, we are seeing variability in communication and meaning making strategies depending on the cultural, social, or domain-specific context in which they are found. Given the multiple forms of literacies present in our every day life, I agree with the New London Group that there is a pressing need to create a broader, more encompassing, and relevant definition of literacy. I also believe that it is necessary to critically re-evaluate the fundamental structures on which we base the development and representation of literacy pedagogy in order to address the disparities in educational outcomes (New London Group, 1996).
As mentioned by Leander and Boldt (2012), learners are no longer passively consuming information, but rather creating it in dynamic ways using multiple modalities. In addition, students are becoming active participants in a myriad of diverse communities in out-of-school settings. As a result, they are exposed to diverse forms of communication and representation and must learn how critically analyze, process and interpret texts, ideas and meanings as they transition from one community to another. It is apparent that these types of interactions and dialogues are becoming increasingly prevalent in society and in the workplace. Therefore, it seems necessary to implement teaching and learning practices in education that will support the development of digital skills and multiliteracies in order to ensure the success of learners in their future working and social lives.
Despite the increase in cultural and linguistic heterogeneity observed in society and the workplace, traditional literacy pedagogy remains largely static and linear, thus preventing students from being able to “expand their cultural and linguistic repertoires” (New London Group, 1996, p. 69). As student population is becoming increasingly diverse in the classroom, it is imperative that teaching and learning strategies value and support these differences so that education can become more appropriate for all cultures and relevant to students’ lives. Kawagley & Barnhardt (1998) discuss how students can benefit from learning experiences in which they are encouraged to create and share meaning using ways that are fitting to their culture and methods of learning. Therefore, I believe that the use of different communication modes, such as text, oral, visual, audio, or gestural patterns, can help students express their ideas, make connections to prior knowledge, gain different perspectives, develop complex information networks, and ultimately promote a more in-depth understanding of the world they live in.
It is evident that one of the primary goals of education is to prepare students so they are able to succeed, participate, and thrive in society and in their working lives. However, teaching “mere literacy” (New London Group, 1996) is no longer enough as it does not accurately reflect the realities of students’ lives and forces them to conform to a homogenized community they cannot relate to. Therefore, in order for students to succeed in the foreseeable future, a paradigm shift is necessary. However, it is worth noting that we are beginning to see changes in educational approaches, as many teachers are introducing new practices that far better support the development of 21st century skills. In my opinion, I believe that these modifications have been facilitated in response to the increased availability of information online. As more teachers, instructional designers, researchers, etc. share their knowledge, ideas and feedback on a large scale, I remain hopeful that it will continue to broaden people’s understanding of education and literacy while inspiring positive change.
References
Kawagley, A. O. & Barnhardt, R. (1998). Education Indigenous to Place: Western Science Meets Native Reality. Alaska Native Knowledge Network. Retrieved from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/curriculum/Articles/BarnhardtKawagley/EIP.html
Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2012). Rereading “Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”: Bodies, Texts, and Emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), pp. 22-46.
The New London Group. (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.
“It is evident that one of the primary goals of education is to prepare students so they are able to succeed, participate, and thrive in society and in their working lives.” This comment in your post resonates with me because it really mirrors the goals of 21st century learning. That is, to utilize the tools and technologies available to prepare students to function, thrive and contribute to society outside of the classroom. As the New London Group notes, learning and learning activities need to be “embedded in social, cultural and material contexts . . .[and] as part and parcel of collaborative interactions with others of diverse skills” ( NLG, 1996, p. 82). In other words, literacy transcends the mere ability to decode printed text. Multiliteracies require students to, as you point out, use and interact with many modes of communication and to share their learning in multiple ways. The New London Group’s suggestion of situated practice is an interesting one. This practice requires teachers to create learning opportunities for students to actually apply their learning in real life situations so that students understand that their classroom experiences have purpose outside of the school environment. As a primary teacher, I often struggle with how to build foundational skills required for students to be successful while, at the same time, developing these learning opportunities for students. I have come to the conclusion that some skills still require good old fashioned, repeated practice. These skills first need to be developed so that students can focus on other modes of literacy later on. At the same time, I attempt to build in varied literacy opportunities in various forms and platforms. I think it must be a balanced approach. In the end, the learner remains the focus and the cultural contexts of students need to be acknowledged so that we can support the development of student understanding.
Hi Rachel
While reading your very interesting post I was reminded again of the disparity between my daily life as a teacher here and the daily lives of teachers in Canada (are you in Canada by the way?) What you say about the need to go beyond the traditional notion of literacy is so true- but I find this notion in conflict with the exam based British influenced system within which I teach.
Although it is commonly recognized globally that New Media affords new pedagogies and student centered learning, we often become curtailed by the fact that at the end of the day the students need to regurgitate information in exams that basically decide their lives for them from a very early age, the first of which is in grade 5.
As a Canadian who was educated in Canada almost completely, I often feel like I am being asked to use “technology” in a sort of surface manner where web 1.0 teaching is seen as innovation. When I try to go beyond that mode of information delivery towards a more student centered approach, the looming exam expectations curtail me and pull me back to “real teaching” (not my words).
Everything you say is so relevant and applicable to the Canadian context, but I am conflicted with how to use it here while still straddling the exam system and producing results in a way that are valued here by educators, parents and students.
Hi Rachel:
As I read the New London Group document and your post, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a situation within my program and with a particular adult student. The student was of aboriginal ancestry, and fairly traditional in his ways of knowing and communicating. He had finished every course towards earning his Grade 12 standing except for an English course. I had worked with him extensively and supported him in other classes, but I was not the English instructor. He was not a strong writer, and found it very difficult to express himself and to reveal himself introspectively. He was, however, an amazing artist and could represent his feelings through art in a way that I had not seen. Unfortunately, the instructor was not open to accepting any other format other than written analysis, and my student did not receive his Grade 12. I have always been bothered by that failure of our system to accommodate the student. I therefore wholeheartedly appreciate the comments of the New London Group (1996) when they comment, “[t]he role of pedagogy is to develop an epistemology of pluralism that provides access…This has to be the basis of a new norm” (p. 72). Are we beginning to conceive a world where literacies can be equally respected and represented?
The recommendations of the New London Group (1996) are, in my opinion, consistent with the overarching goal of equipping learners with the tools to be productive and successful citizens within the society. Why, a decade later, are we still not any further along this journey towards multiliteracies is both surprising and disappointing.
The New London Group. (1996) “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.