Multiliteracies in ELA Classrooms

With the earlier stages of blogging, Lankshear and Knobel both talk about the interesting shift that has occurred when we talk about the idea of literacies. For instance, is there such a thing as a new literacy? Lankshear and Knobel state, “We argue that certain literacies can be identified as new in a historically significant sense to the extent that they are constituted by what we call ‘new technical stuff’ and ‘new ethos stuff’”(01). They then continue to clarify by saying, “The new technical stuff has to do with their digitality”(01). In all honesty, I must admit that I had to look up the term digitality. According to Wikipedia, “Digitality is used to mean the condition of living in a digital culture…” Now, let’s take a moment to think about how I chose to look up this term. What did I use? I used an online source (digital source) known as Wikipedia. Am I using a form of literacy? Yes, I am! And according to this article, I approached my language obstacle by using a new literacy – digital literacy. Instead of going to a dictionary or even the online version of a dictionary (Britannica Online), I chose to go to Wikipedia, which is what the article claims is “the ‘ethos stuff’ of new literacies…”(02).

Stemming from this idea of new literacies, is it fair to label something as being new? After all, how long will something remain new? For me, this reminds me of when people buying themselves a  new technological device. For example, a couple months ago my dad bought me the new IPhone 5C. But how ‘new’ is it really? Soon, there will be an even newer IPhone. Does that make my IPhone 5C old? No. However, it will no longer be the newest thing on the market. And so, is it justifiable to claim that Wikipedia, Flickr, Blogging, etc. are all part of the new literacy world, or is it only temporary? Coming back to specific literacies, this article makes it a priority to focus specifically on blogging.

Lankshear and Knobel start by noting the differences between the early stages of blogging and blogging that is done today. However, please keep in mind that when I say today, I’m referring to the year 2006 when this article was written. It’s interesting how technology has advanced even further since then. Bear in mind that devices such as the IPad and the Kobo eReader were not even released until the year 2010. Nonetheless, many of the points within the article are still very relevant to our observations on the transformation of literacies in today’s day in age. Thinking back to the significance of time, the article states, “These early ‘bloggers’ tended to be computing insiders, for at least two reasons. First, you needed some knowledge of webpage and hyperlink coding in order to be able to post material to the internet”(03). This is key because it shows that our literacies are always continuing to change, shape, and develop, never remaining completely set.

Today, everyone has the ability to post anything on the Internet. This is one of the reasons as to why Wikipedia has been strongly criticized by scholars, since the information may not be completely valid. However, would you consider old Encyclopaedias to be valid? I would not, since many of the information would most likely not be accurate due to its inability to be updated. In comparison, sources such as Wikipedia can easily be updated and changed on a minute basis, as well as by a variety of people across the world. With this in mind, students need to be taught how to properly use these digital tools in order to enhance their learning, instead of just using it as an easy source. Also, it would be crucial to help students understand what information would most likely be correct versus what would be inaccurate. And so, educating students on how to blog, post information, etc. (public settings vs. private settings), is significant and is something that should not be overlooked.

References

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2006). Blogging as Participation: The Active Sociality of a New Literacy. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, US.

Wikipedia contributors. “Digitality.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 8 Jul. 2014.

– Kaya Strzalkowski

By now, most of us heading into the field of English have—to some extent—learned that incorporating graphic novels into our classrooms is no longer a cutting-edge thinking, but rather a curricular imperative. However, having yet to study a graphic novel in a classroom setting, I’m curious about my own education, or lack thereof. By taking this on as an act of current appeal, I can’t help but wonder if I’m adequately qualified to validate this experience for my students. What do I know of this modality past the obvious? Does this even matter?

My unstable position on this is not a reflection of a traditional attitude with a hidden bias to preserve what I’m instinctively more comfortable with. The graphic novel seems to have a growing appeal; I am fascinated by this form and it’s myriad forms, concepts, codes and styles. I imagine my appreciation would greatly enhanced with some expertise—as with film, or other graphic art forms. But sadly, I didn’t learn this form. And because I didn’t take to comic books as a child or beyond, I now have trouble interacting with it; I don’t know how to read it. Increasingly I observe people around me engaged in graphic novels, and I feel one thing more than any other: envy.

I observed  a high school English lesson concerning Art Spiegelman’s Maus. The lesson involved a class discussion on the holocaust and more or less mimicked a typical discussion one might observe in a typical grade eleven classroom anywhere in Vancouver. Some students actively participated, some listened quietly, some stared out the window or texted on the their phones under their desk. What occurred to me was how similar the instructor’s approach was—he might well have been teaching any other novel; there was no particular focus on the illustrations or talk of the physical presentation whatsoever. It was centred, as usual, on plot and theme. This is not a criticism either, but it raises some potential questions about graphic novels and instruction. Is this just the same as teaching anything else? Perhaps we’re perfectly qualified, provided we know what’s going on and can guide a willing group through the material. Somehow I’m not convinced though.

There is no denying the power of appeal. Any teacher—ELL or otherwise—who can engage a class or excite new students with the graphic novel is sure to keep this in their repertoire. I note, however, that as we find ourselves in an age of emerging literacies and multi-modal teaching practices, we run the risk of putting more weight on variety in the classroom rather than on substantive instruction. This is not to say that graphic novels lack substance. This is to say that they are a different form and should be recognized as more than just a clever tool to teach ELL students or kids who like comics.

Johnnie

In “Multiliteracies, E-Literature and English Teaching,” Len Unsworth explains a framework that may assist teachers when using digital resources to increase literacy and learning. The three frameworks discussed are: organizational, interpretative, and pedagogic.
Organizational: is describing the articulation of convention and computer-based literary narratives for children and adolescents.
Interpretative: addressing the increasingly integrative role of language and images in the construction of literary meanings in electronic and book formats
Pedagogic: describing various types of online contexts for developing understanding about different dimensions of literary experience.
Unsworth also argues that teachers are not comfortable using digital multimedia in their classrooms and because of that, they may reject incorporating it into their curricular and pedagogic approaches. This is extremely important. Teachers must familiarize themselves with digital multimedia rather than rejecting it. The same argument, I believe, applies to graphic novels—oftentimes, teachers feel uncomfortable teaching graphic novels because they are very uneducated on the literature. Instead, teachers see graphic novels as engaging and fun texts that cannot be taught on its own but rather as a supplemental text.
Overall, I found Unsworth’s article too simplistic. Moreover, though he makes important claims on the positive effects of e-literature and online literary resources to literacy in English Language Arts classroom, a part of me cannot help but think that teachers are already doing these things in their classroom. Perhaps I think this way because this article is outdated. Also, in regards to e-literature, I do not see why teachers would oppose e-literature. The only reasons why I think they would reject it is because it’s not the same as holding a psychical print copy of a text. The smell of books that one is drawn to does not exist in e-literature. Besides, students spend most of their day in front of a computer screen anyway so wouldn’t it be better use of their time if they were reading an e-book?
Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the following questions and points I make:
-What are people’s thoughts on the Gutenberg Project (particularly on debates around intellectual property and ownership of literary texts)? For those that are unaware of the digital library, the Gutenberg Project offers over 45,000 free ebooks.
-I am also fascinated by Unsworth’s claim that video games are not a threat to the existence of books. I would like to hear more on Unsworth’s views on video games. Does Unsworth make this claim because he believes that video games do not contribute to literacy? I guess the discussion around video games and literacy fascinates me because the same arguments were (and continue to be) once made against graphic novels. Both graphic novels and video games contribute to literacy.
-I’m also wondering if e-literature and online literary resources will also have a positive effect on other subjects besides English? If so, which subjects and how will it benefit the class?

Unsworth, Len. “Multiliteracies, e-literature and English teaching.” Language and Education. 22.1 (2008): 62-75

Does life imitate art or does art imitate life? This question has been asked in thousands of classrooms – from Harvard university to Lac La Hache middle school.  But what if these questions have been leading us astray? What if art is life? What if art has the same biological imperative to replicate and spread its genetic code, like the rest of us genetic slaves vying and vetting each other from cradle to grave? What if Macbeth has its own parasites to fool – dodging this way and that so it can pass on its progeny? If so, who are the parasites? Who are its predators? Who does Art mate with? And what does it mean for Art to evolve? What would a chromosome look like in a poem?

According to Zoologist Matt Ridley, “In history and in evolution, progress is always a futile, Sisyphean struggle to stay in the same relative place by getting ever and ever better at things. Cars move through the congested streets of London no faster than horse-drawn carriages did a century ago. Computers have no effect on productivity because people learn to complicate and repeat tasks that have been made easier. This concept, that all progress is relative, has come to be known in biology by the name of the Red Queen, after a chess piece that Alice meets in Through the Looking Glass, who perpetually runs without getting very far because the landscape moves with her…Every creature on earth is in a Red Queen tournament with its parasites (or hosts), its predators (or prey), and above all, with its mate. (Ridley 11).

Through this lens, our genes are adapting fast enough to outsmart our competitors, parasites and predators. Our genes are driving our bodies (gene vehicles) on a continuous treadmill that won’t allow us to stop evolving. We cooperate and conflict like crabs in a bucket. Anything that threatens the spread of our DNA is a threat. Anything that helps is a friend or a mate.

The Garden of Eden isn’t about a garden. It’s about the human burden/responsibility of choice, it’s about Pandora, it’s about temptation. Like the human body, The Garden of Eden is a vehicle to pass along genetic scripts – human characteristics and traits that have been left after millions of years of evolution. The depression and shame of Raskolnikov is the result of certain evolutionary demands of the genus Homo 3 million years ago. Today, that same shame is portrayed in the movie The Machinist with Christian Bale. Both texts evolved in Red Queen fashion for their times. Crime and Punishment was a great novel, but it could never compete with Breaking Bad today.

If Art is alive and created about us and for us and by us, then why do we not embrace it like our kids? And why do we always seem to reject new Art? Why did it take so long to appreciate Duchamp’s toilet? Why did Gogol die in poverty? Well, maybe its because deep down these texts carried the hard truth of our burden to evolve. It’s painful! It’s literally death to us! And perhaps we instinctually resent and reject it for its pain and throw nostalgia, money, ethos and anything we can to slow it down. It’s same instinct as the proverbial, “Can you believe kids today?” or “Computers are turning us into Robots.” We really don’t want to run anymore.

And like the parent who takes his bratty, loud kids to the play centre in Macdonalds, the artist sends his or her adaptation in the world. Most people will hate the art but if the art somehow contains the raw truths of the Genetic codes of people, it will survive. Shameless Adaptations like, The Passion of the Christ, are always suspect.

We tend to disregard adaptations of the classics: “The manifest ubiquity of narrative adaptations in contemporary culture notwithstanding, the critical tendency has been to denigrate them as secondary and derivative in relation to what is usually (and tellingly referred to as the “original.” (Bertolottim, Hutcheon 443)

Because of the times we live in, these adaptations tend to be associated with film and abridged novels. I remember my elderly grade 8 English teacher reprimanding me because I watched the movie The Outsiders before the book. The movie wasn’t real, according to her. It wasn’t real in the same way I believe now that emoticons aren’t real English. The fact that we denigrate these particular Adaptations is cultural, but the impulse is biological. Perhaps, we resent these adaptations because of the burdens we carry to adapt and transform if we are going to survive.  And when our lives have been dedicated to studying and proclaiming expertise and authority on “real art,” new art and mediums can work to undermine the human capital we have worked so hard to acquire. Why would a Shakespearian scholar welcome the replacement of Julius Caesar with The Sopranos? This would only work to undermine his or her survival and reproduction value.   These new forms offer little economic or social incentives to an “expert” in the field.  When we dismiss Bieber’s Baby and deny it as a timeless classic, are we parasites? Are we Predators? Are we mates? Maybe we are all three at once because Art only dies when it is ignored.

The more we hate Artistic works, the more they come to life in spite of us. It’s like Lady Gaga once said, “People will talk, so let’s give them something to talk about.” And we did. We talked about Elvis’s pelvic thrusts and we were disgusted as we tuned into “Meet the Kardashians” and regretted ever signing up for Facebook while scanning our news feeds. We have been appalled by mutations. And we, soon to be crusty old teachers will denounce some electronic device that claims its art twenty years from now and throw up our arms in evolutionary exhaustion proclaiming it’s not real, it’s not real. Some of us might even say, “Sit down, put your head phones in and I want those Conventions of Reality Television Essays and the Canonical works of Reality Television tweeted in by the end of class.”  While the evolutionary treadmill motors on,  and some agent is trying to sell a “Meet the Kardashians” adaptation to a rich virtual reality art producer in the Hollywood hills. The literary genes will continue to find a way.

–Brian Boyce

Works Cited

Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically.” New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.

Ridley, Matt. The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature. Harper Perennial, New York, 2003.

In my opinion, Bortolotti and Hutcheon present a fine argument in trying to get people to snap out of the expectations that an adaptation of any variety should not be considered as a “success” based upon the fidelity it has in accordance with the original work. They present an argument that is highly interesting in discussing that we should take a biological approach in discussing how successful a piece is based upon three characteristics, which are: persistence, abundance and diversity. They present that our expectations of an adaptation is much too singular and they argue that there is in fact a need to expand our horizons and base an adaptations success on it’s own characteristics (based upon cultural influences from the time) and not only upon our own expectations of what the work derived from. They say that we as a culture make our decisions of an adaptation based upon how close it is to the original, instead of acknowledging the fact that there has been a story told in a similar way before, but what we are seeing is a change to the story.
Their take of the “profound process” that is adaptation is one that I find quite persuasive and that I believe should be taken into serious consideration while considering adaptations of a work. Something that I agree with is that there needs to be recognition of what the adaptation is. Like in biology, the evolutionary traits of where the piece or organism comes from. We need to recognize that one is not better or worse than the other, rather there has been a change. Like with mutation there may be a benefit, detriment or neutral effect after the change has occurred; we should decide strictly upon what is being presented at the moment in time and not based upon where it comes from. The description of what has changed is what is important and whether or not proliferation happens from the new form is what is essential to understand. They present the idea that in order for something to be fairly judged and not just based upon similarities to the original, one must take into account the cultural significance of the time and what is popular and relevant. I find that the arguments they present are a generalization of the population, however I agree with the need to look as adaptations as a completely separate piece of work and take an increased biological ideological approach to what it is we are experiencing through a different medium.
It is in my belief, that diversity is something to be celebrated and not thwarted or cut off. What makes us different is what makes everyone and everything interesting. Just because we do something differently doesn’t necessarily mean that we are wrong and I believe that that is what the authors are trying to get across. Diversity and the change is what makes us want to read or watch something; if we knew exactly what was going to happen or how they were going to portray a piece then why would we watch it? There needs to be something different to engage us and keep us entertained and watching as opposed to just reusing the same material over and over again.
Overall, I found the article to be something of great interest. I believe that there is immensely profound work done through adaptations that largely get overlooked because of what the general public believes should or should not happen. We become those that know more than the artist does through their own personal interpretations and we get so caught up in what we think is right based upon what we know from the original, that we cannot see past our own ideas. I am talking in a very general and widespread way, however I believe that many of us do this. Keeping all of their arguments and ideas in mind, I hope to become a person that respects an adaptation for what it is and not analyze it based only upon where it came from.

Roberta Coleman

Works Cited:

Bortolotti, G. and Hutcheon, L. (2007). “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success” — Biologically.” New Literary History, 38(3), pp. 443-458.

I believe that visual literacy is an important skill that often goes underdeveloped (or is neglected altogether) in current teaching practice.  The primary context in which these skill are taught is in the visual arts (which, to an extent, are elective courses).  As a result, the development of these skills can be interpreted as “elective” as well and therefore unimportant.  This is far from the case as much of the media that our students engage with on a regular basis and that we are routinely exposed to as well usually has a visual component that is often central to the meaning of the piece.  In order to be considered “literate” in contemporary society, students must be taught the skills necessary to “read” these images and identify the meanings and ideas that they represent, or else they will find themselves in a situation that is equivalent to signing a contract that they cannot read, or navigating an urban terrain full of signs written in a foreign language.

Because visual media has become such a central part of our everyday experiences, we process images so quickly that it is easy to absorb those persuasive messages without realizing that we are doing so.  To this end, I really appreciated the guidelines that this article recommended as they provide a simple framework that students can use to “cross-reference” the visual media that they are presented with; they can incorporate these questions into their daily practice and engagement with visual media without even really having to think too hard about it. The tools and questions that were provided in the article can easily be used in an English Language Arts classroom to promote visual literacy in conversation with “conventional literacy” and critical thinking.  The concepts presented in the article, like the intended purpose of a persuasive image, the explicit and implicit content presented in an image, inferences that the author/artist is making (and is asking the audience to make as well), and the technical devices that are being used to convey those messages are also “transmedial” so an activity where a student “reads” a persuasive image can be used to scaffold skills that they could then use to criticize the literature that we are reading in class.

Since we are largely in the business of teaching critical thinking skills, I think we have a responsibility as educators to use whatever resources we have available to us (such as those presented in the article) to integrate visual literacy into our teaching practices so that our students can be literate across all platforms when they leave our classrooms.

(Sarah Lowen)

I find the topic of incorporating graphic novels into the English classroom fascinating. Growing up, I had wide access to this type of literature – from the Sailor Moon manga to Archie comics. However, I was always informed that it was not considered “real” reading, because you were only looking at pictures with minimal text.

As I became more exposed to graphic novels, I soon realized that this genre was largely underappreciated, even though it was so widely read. During my practicum, I noticed how even struggling readers would enjoy reading comics, but they would never admit that to their English teachers.

To combat the stigma associated with graphic literature, I designed a lesson all about comics for my ELL class. I provided an example of a comic strip I had written, a blank template, and a procedure for designing their comic strip. I was thrilled with the results. The students were engaged during the lesson, and they were noticeably intrigued by the concept of writing a story with images and limited text. Many of the students enjoyed using a different type of creativity in their assignments, which was evident in the detailed drawings they had. Even students who were initially hesitant to draw ended up enjoying the use of a different genre. There were also drawbacks to the assignment. The topic of the comic strips was “superheroes”, and students had the chance to develop their own superheroes. However, because of time constraints, the students’ stories were very brief and lacked depth and character development. Therefore, if I was to do the same assignment again, I would ensure that there was enough time for students to write a well-developed story.

With that experience, I strongly agreed with Frey and Fisher’s intentions. As teachers, we are constantly seeking new ways to engage learners, and using students’ interests in the classroom is a great idea. As we are increasingly using technology and social media in an educational setting, it seems reasonable to use alternative forms of literature and entertainment as well. Choosing a topic that is interesting to students minimizes the challenge of getting learners to be engaged, allowing teachers to focus on the designing the lesson. It is also important to have students recognize the importance of multimodality, and encourage them to think critically of the media around them. The truth is that our world is changing constantly with the development of new modalities, literacies, and technologies; as teachers, we should have students explore these new opportunities rather than just stick with traditional content.

If someone had told me when I was a kid that reading comics was a valid form of reading, I would have read even more than I did. I believe that hesitant and struggling readers would benefit greatly from a more positive relationship with graphic novels.

Visual literacy extends beyond the critical analysis of illustrative or photographic image, and includes all of the visuals included in a given product: the colours, shapes, fonts, and layout. What conventions of this layer of communication do you consciously understand and interpret, and how much of it is interpreted on a subconscious level?

The article talks about how important it is for students to be aware of visual manipulation, and suggests multiple different ways of introducing projects aimed towards this in the classroom. Bearing potential class compositions in mind, what are some possible difficulties that may present themselves, or how might these activities where students are producers need to be adapted?

Some digital images are edited so well that it is impossible for the average person to tell if an image has even been altered. Do you feel that critical viewing should only be applied to photos that have been altered? Or should we assess and evaluate all visual images regardless of editing?

How can we incorporate learning about visual elements and principles and understanding different cultures’ visual coding systems into subjects like English and Socials

How can teachers teach students about what makes an image persuasive in relation to their particular teaching subject?

What are the most important aspects teachers should be aware of when creating technology rich activities for students to explore visual images?

(Ashley & Co.)

The book Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising, by Paul Messaris, informs the reader about the ways that advertising communicates messages by using images, which, unlike text, can convey a message that is implicit. Images can mimic the visual world and serve as photographic proof that something has happened; they can elicit emotions by simulating the appearance of a real person or object; and images can establish a link between the product and some other image. By bringing out emotions in people, the images used in advertising can create a message that is impressionable, memorable, and sustained; when information is paired with emotion the neural pathway that is created in the brain is made stronger, which causes an increase in the impact and memorability of the message. Emotion in advertising can be linked to the human need for love, to love and be loved. One example of this emotional reaction is the desire to be loved and the fear of inadequacy that results from not measuring up to the norm of feminine beauty that the media presents as an essential component to falling in love. Women want to be loved, and in order to be loved the media sells to them the idea that they need to attract men in specific ways. Advertisers create a beauty norm, which is one that is nearly to impossible to attain because the norm is presented by specially selected models who fit the norm, and who vigilantly monitor their weight and appearance in order to maintain it. Most of advertised images are photos shopped, furthering the standard o beauty from the appearances of the female population. By creating this idealized beauty standard, the advertisements communicate to girls that they need their products to help them achieve it. This creates fear in women, believing that they do not measure up and are not beautiful, since they do not look like the models in the photos. In order to attract someone and be loved, women feel that they need to change and look more like women in the photos, creating a consumerist society of females that will buy products and keep the companies in business.

It is important for people to critically view images, because by engaging with them and thinking about what the messages are trying to communicate to us, we are able to put an end to becoming passive recipients of the message. When viewers confront the image and critique it, we no longer accept the message unconsciously, but receive it the way we want to. At this point we can get past the false message that a celebrity endorsed cigarette add presents to the viewer, communicating that allure and beauty comes with smoking, and understand it as a misrepresentation of what smoking does to the body and that this add is created to persuade us to buy the product. If an image is presented to us enough times it will become the norm. An example of where this could occur is with the “gang-rape” like ads produced by Dolce and Gabanna and Calvin Klein to sell clothing. In both scenarios there is a group of partially undressed men on top of a woman, some keeping her restrained, and some others acting as bystanders. Once this type of image is repeated enough times, people may consider it the norm; people can learn than male sexuality is about domination and that females enjoy being dominated by men. Since this add projects sexuality and normalcy, people will want to buy clothes to appear sexy and will not have qualms with the images or the message since it is now normal. Once we say  that “everyone is doing it”, or “buying it”, than we know that we have bought into the norm, and we have given up our freedom, are following the trends, and are no longer making a decision about the message we have received. To regain autonomy over the message that we will receive, especially one with sexual themes, we can picture, not ourselves, but a female friend, spouse, or family member, in the place of the girl being dominated by those guys. We have then personalized the girl and made her less of an interchangeable model, an object of the photographs message, but a human subject being dominated. Another way to think about these situations is to think about how a child feels about being dominated, e.g. being tied up or hurt; a child’s reaction to bondage and pain is fear and discomfort; bondage and pain has been made sexual through images; the new message is that pain is kinky and that girls like being dominated is created. Thinking about a child’s reaction to these circumstances shows us that these experiences of pleasure are not inherent to humans, but ones that have been made normal or acceptable through the messages projected by advertisements. People desire to create their own ideas about life than to accept ones that have been created to persuade them to think a certain way.

Posted by Kara Campbell

Works Cited

Messaris, Paul. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. California: SAGE Publications INC, 1997.

“Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising’s Image of Women”. Youtube. 12 March 2010. Web. 6 July 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTlmho_RovY>

Both Nancy Frey and Douglas Fisher touched on some very interesting points when discussing “the power [that graphic novels] have for engaging students in authentic writing”(24). Throughout the article, Frey and Fisher both praised graphic novels for being able to motivate and interest students in their writing and participation. However, the impression that I received from the reading was that “engaging students” seemed to be one of the only “positive” factors being emphasized concerning the use of graphic novels. In fairness, this article had one main objection which was to talk about how graphic novels, anime, and the Internet could be used to enhance students’ reading and writing ability, but there were moments when it seemed as if Frey and Fisher were still putting down these very types of literacies.

As a matter of fact, please take a look at the following quote:

“Having begun with the idea that graphic novels were comic books at best and a waste of time at worst, we now realize the power they have for engaging students in authentic writing”(24).

For me, this quote does not portray graphic novels in such a “good” light as it claims to do. For instance, is it stating that graphic novels are not a form of “authentic writing?” Are graphic novels only good for the purpose of motivating and getting students interested until they are able to venture off and do some of the “real” and “authentic” writing stuff? Unless one is using graphic novels for the purpose of “engaging students in authentic writing,” it is not a waste of time, but if one replaces a novel with a graphic novel, would that be deemed acceptable? I do not mean to suggest that the article was completely condescending towards the use of graphic novels, but that this is something that does come into question occasionally.

Please consider the following quote:

“Using graphic novels to scaffold writing instruction helped students practice the craft of writing and gain necessary skills to become competent readers”(23).

For me, this statement hints at this idea that graphic novels are good for students as a “starting point,” but that it’s nothing that students can go further in within their education. This is something that I disagree with, which is why I would love to read another article by Frey and Fisher revolving around their thoughts on the other positive factors that come into play with the use of graphic novels in classrooms.

On a more positive note, I really enjoyed the fact that Frey and Fisher chose to recall a moment where they learned from their own students. They wrote, “We were unfamiliar with the term Gosu but learned that it is a Korean gaming term that means expert. Minh explained that to be named Gosu is the highest honor in Internet interactive games”(24). This reminded me that we as teachers are constantly learning as well, and that we take on the role of both teacher and student in our day-to-day lives.

In conclusion, I think that this article was very positive in the sense of how it showed graphic novels to be a positive tool for classrooms where there are many students who struggle with the English language. However, I think that this article needs to also remind readers that there are many other functions to how useful graphic novels, anime, and the Internet can be within a classroom besides its role to simply engage students to learn about “authentic” writing, and mood and tone.

References

Frey, N. and Fisher, D. (2004). Using Graphic Novels, Anime, and the Internet in an Urban High School. The English Journal, 93(3), pp. 19-25.

– Kaya Strzalkowski