LABELING
AND DEFINING LITERACY IN 2018
As scholars have come to see literacy as embedded within social
contexts, the term has broadened from a previous emphasis on the reading and
writing of printed text to include other types of knowledge (Lankshear and
Knobel, 2008). As we begin to conceptualize literacy or reading within their
sociocultural contexts, we might see that texts and our work with texts are parts
of these contexts, these lived situations, which of course involve much more
than just print and decoding. As Lankshear and Knobel (2008, p. 13) explain:
From
a sociocultural perspective, it is impossible to separate out from
text-mediated social practices the ‘bits’ concerned with reading or writing (or
any other sense of ‘literacy’) and to treat them independently of all the
‘non-print’ bits, like values and gestures, context and meaning, actions and
objects, talk and interaction, tools and spaces.
Literacy, then, comes to include the construction of meaning in contextualized situations (Hammerberg, 2004), including practices, ways of knowing, being, or maneuvering within these contexts. Given the multitude of contexts and situations, there are
many of these ways of constructing meaning, and the term literacies (rather than literacy)
emerges to suggest the multitude of these ways of making sense of things within
social contexts (Hammerberg, 2004, p. 649):
Ways of being literate, then, change depending upon the
cultural practice one is engaged in, making a notion of "multiple
literacies" possible (Scribner & Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). Because
literacies are seen as multiple, changing on the basis of the social and
cultural context in which communication occurs, sociocultural theories see
identity as fluid and changing too.
New literacies are described as “new” in a number of ways and for
a number of different reasons. They could be said to be technologically new in
the sense that digital texts and communications have allowed for different
types of text that often include, but are not limited to, alphabetic print.
These digital texts often mix modalities and incorporate features such as
hyperlinks (Johnson, 2014). At the same time, we might say that such features are not
exclusively new or relegated to the digital realm; texts that include non-print
features have been around for thousands of years (Siegel, 2006) and might be
said to be “new” even if they are not digital or are in fact quite old.
A second way of discussing new literacies is to emphasize the
types of practices surrounding texts, both online and offline texts, that are
developing in our era. These might include a more widely distributed creation
and publication model, interaction between authors and readers, greater
collaboration, and, to bring this topic explicitly into the classroom,
publication for audiences beyond teachers. These are the types of activities
referred to by Lankshear and Knobel as the new “ethos” (2008, p. 25) of new
literacies.
I agree with the general viewpoint and description of literacy
practices taken by scholars within New Literacy Studies. While I am more apt to
emphasize, alongside online texts, the ways in which non-digital texts can function in these “new” ways, and to dwell on the arts and aesthetic experience (Dewey, 1934) when thinking
about these practices, I see this difference more as a different area of
emphasis rather than a disagreement, although, as I’ve mentioned before, this is an area I am still exploring.
Is there any benefit to
talking about these processes as online reading comprehension or digital
inquiry, or does it create more confusion?
To me, when considering the benefits of terms such as “online
reading comprehension” or “digital inquiry” in relation to new literacies, each
term emphasizes different aspects of literacies in our current context. Any
term that includes words like “digital” or “online” of course emphasizes literacies
connected to computers (of one sort or another), while broader terms like “new
literacies” might be said to be less descriptive or precise, but perhaps more
inclusive. Particularly given the ongoing buzz in school districts surrounding
technology, "online reading comprehension" seems to offer within the term a way
to keep the conversation focused on student literacies rather than the
technology itself.
Similarly, "digital inquiry" has implications for curriculum and
instruction that suggest what for many would be a “new” way of thinking about
teaching. The term suggested by Castek et al.’s (2015) piece on internet
reciprocal teaching, “new literacies of online research” highlights both the
newness of new literacies as well as the research and inquiry aspect of reading
online, which positions online reading as more of a distinct activity from
reading comprehension. Ultimately, I think something is gained and something is
lost with each term. Literacies are so complex, multifaceted and interconnected
that perhaps we are bound to need a family of terms that could be used to
emphasize different aspects of multiple literacy practices that are undertaken
in new and continually changing ways.
As I try to make sense of the landscape of research on new
literacies, I do find often find myself confused and asking questions about the
use of different terms within overlapping schools of thought. For example, what
are the overlaps and differences between multimodal theory, multiliteracies,
social semiotics, and New Literacy Studies? If I wasn’t trying to put together
a larger picture of literacy research though, I don’t think terms like “online
reading comprehension” or “digital inquiry” would add to that confusion – it
only becomes confusing for me when trying to parse how so many different
writers are using these terms.
As a teacher thinking about practice (rather than as an emerging researcher trying to understand a field of inquiry and research), I think these terms provide fairly straightforward
connections to things I am familiar with; moreover, each term has implications for
curriculum and instruction built in. For teachers, there is an endless
amount that could be learned about teaching and very little time to do it in,
so terms that connect to things we already know and have implications for our
work can certainly make it easier to understand and make connections to
pedagogy.
Considering the way that Leu et al. (2013) use the terms uppercase
and lowercase new literacies both clarify and muddy the waters. It is helpful
to read the authors’ descriptions, as it has been helpful to read a number of
articles in this course that help clarify the landscape of research surrounding
new literacies. At the same time, the variability of the terminology used,
combined with the overlap in the terminology – Lankshear
and Knobel (2008), for example, refer to new literacies using both uppercase and lowercase
letters separately, but in a different way than is described by Leu et al. (2013) – can be confusing. In some ways, I
think these overlaps and differences between authors are the inevitable
consequence of using the same language, the same sets of words, to describe
concepts that we all think about in slightly different ways. But particularly
as a field is emerging and when things are changing so quickly, I imagine this
fluidity of terms is greater.
IMPLICATIONS
FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
No matter what you call them, do you think the online
reading/digital literacy skills, strategies, practices, and mindsets outlined
in your readings from Week 5 and 6 are more, less, or equally important for
today’s students compared to those related to offline reading comprehension,
vocabulary, and/or fluency (as discussed in reading from Weeks 1-4)? Please
explain your reasoning. How might your new thinking about these ideas impact
the way you design and implement your instruction of digital literacy and/or
online reading comprehension?
Wow – what a difficult question! I would love to
avoid it and say that I think all of these are important. If I had to choose only one thing kids could learn though, I
would have to come down on the side of kids learning offline reading
comprehension (as opposed to online reading comprehension). My reasoning is
that offline reading comprehension seems to provide a foundation for many, though
not all (Coiro, 2003) of the things we do when reading online. I would imagine it would be
easier to learn online comprehension skills if you were building on
strong offline reading comprehension skills, as many of us have done in our own
lives, and I imagine it would be more difficult to be a strong comprehender of online text without
skills in reading offline. Although, as we saw in the video from Dr. Coiro’s
presentation (2013), the two are certainly not the same.
On the other hand, we don’t really have to choose
just one. Online reading presents its own challenges and requires unique skills
and dispositions (Coiro, 2003). Given where our schools and teachers are at in
terms of familiarity with teaching different kinds of reading, and given the
relative newness of new literacies, I think it might be more important at this cultural moment to emphasize the importance
of teaching online reading, and to work to help more teachers understand how
they can teach reading comprehension in online contexts.
As a teacher, I’ve worked and plan to continue to
work to make connections between the two practices (or two sets of practices).
I think both offline and online reading make different kinds of reading easier
or more difficult, depending on the situation, and have different strengths. Anyone
who has ever agonized over the decision to buy an ebook or physical book, or
spent hours getting lost on Wikipedia can likely attest to the different
processes, associations, and even physical relationships that come from reading
in these different contexts and as teachers of reading and literacy, I think we
really can’t ignore either one.
References
Castek, J., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Leu, D. J., &
Hartman, D. K. (2015). Research on instruction and assessment in the new
literacies of online research and comprehension, 21.
Coiro, J. (2003). Expanding our understanding of reading
comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56, 458-464.
Coiro, J. (October, 2013). Online reading comprehension:
Opportunities, challenges and next steps. Keynote presentation in Medillin,
Colombia.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Los
Angeles, LA: Tarcher Perigee.
Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction
for sociocultural diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. The Reading
Teacher, 57(7), 648-656.
Johnson, D. (2014). Reading, writing and literacy 2.0: Teaching with online texts, tools,
and resources, K–8. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). From ‘reading’ to
‘new literacy studies. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel, New literacies:
Everyday practices and classroom learning. Berkshire, England: Open University
Leu, D.J., Forzani, E.,
Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J., Sedransk, N. & Coiro, J.(2013). New
literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and preparing
students for the 21st century with Common Core Standards. In S.B. Neumann &
L. Gambrell (Ed.) Quality reading
instruction in the age of Common Core Standards.
Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the Signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy education. Language Arts, 84(1), 65-77.
