On first reading the text we are being asked to respond to, I
thought, yes, this makes a lot of sense.
It is, of course, people who develop literacy (more correct to say
literacies) and it is a good thing that literacy scholars should focus carefully
and sensitively on the people as they make their way along life’s literacy
highways of the present day (which many call the “modern era”). I thought of some person sitting happily at
his or her computer, singing or humming their favorite tune, wanting to know
how this little ole computer works and how to use the various software programs
that go with it. I thought: most people
want to sit at their computers and tinker with all the interesting software
instead of having to go to work or school.
So I read the required reading in this course and …
To begin with, I agree with Coiro et al. (2008) that the new
literacy context is far too complex for a single research approach or
perspective (as cited in Wilber, 2010, p. 3).
Therefore, to respond to the above quote by Gillen and Barton requires a
multi-level approach. Lankshear and
Knobel (2011) point out that there are many literacies besides text-based
practices and that these various literacies have significant differences among
them (p. 76).
One thing that I noticed about the quote we are being asked to
respond to is that Gillen and Barton mention who (the people are doing things
with texts), how (the people make sense of texts and use them in their own
lives), what (the texts), but not why (things happen as they do). Lankshear and Knobel (2011) present some answers
as to why things happen regarding certain literacy issues (but from a Marxist perspective). I will discuss Lankshear and Knobel’s approach
a little later.
Since I wanted to understand much more why things happen in a
literacy context, I searched online to see who else might have explored the
whys of literacy as a social practice. I
actually found some sources (not in the course syllabus) that shed light on why
things happen as they do when literacy is viewed from a social practice
perspective. For example, Jerome Harste
(2003) states that “literacy
can be thought of as a particular set of social practices that a particular set
of people value. In order to change
anyone’s definition of literacy, the social practices that keep a particular
(and often older) definition of literacy in place have to change” (p. 1). I thought Harste’s statement sheds light on
some very important power issues that Lankshear and Knobel (2011) also analyze. Based on Harste’s viewpoint, we are not
dealing with random social practices that casually or accidentally evolve to
help impart to people technical skills in a disinterested manner. We are dealing with a set of social practices
that involve issues of access and power (Gillen and Barton, 2010, p. 9).
Harste sheds further light on how literacy
training occurs -- in a classroom setting.
Harste (2003) states that: “it is important to ask, in terms of a
classroom setting: What
kinds of social practices are in place and, as a result, how is literacy being
defined? Who benefits from this
definition of literacy? Who is put at
jeopardy? What social practices would I
have to put in place to make the everyday literacies that students bring with
them to school legitimate (p. 1)? This
statement is very interesting because it contrasts ever so sharply with Gillen
and Barton’s given statement. Why? In my opinion, Gillen and Barton try to sound
neutral (and even benign) about literacy as a social practice – because they do
not say anything negative about the current state of literacy – as a social
practice. Harste mentioned (above) that
certain students are put in jeopardy by how literacy is defined by those in
power (in this case: the teacher) and Lankshear and Knobel also make a number
of negative statements about some of these literacy practices. These will be discussed shortly.
It should be
noted that Lankshear and Knobel (2011) state that classroom learning is founded
on texts as information sources (p. 190) and that schools are based on books,
and school literacy is “operational” (p. 190-191). Lankshear and Knobel (2011) also state that reading
involves “techniques of coding and decoding” (p. 191). This operational emphasis matches Green’s “operational
strategies to receive and transmit meaning (Green Diagram).” In Green’s Three Dimensions of Literacy
diagram, common literary
practice “uses the language system to decode and encode in a range of contexts.” This operational approach is significant for Lankshear
and Knobel (2011) because the “emphasis [of school] is very much on
technical or operational aspects: how to
add sound, insert a graphic, open and save files, create a Hypercard stack and
so on” (p. 191). I do not see a problem with schools using an operational
approach – even as Lankshear and Knobel described it -- because I want schools
to teach students these technological literacy skills and I believe many
students want to learn such skills. I
also think that Lankshear and Knobel (2011) contradict themselves somewhat by stating
that schools focus on teaching students how to “drive” the computer (which I
think is a good thing) but then state that these technologies are “mere” tools
to fit the new technologies into the already established curriculum (p.
191). There may be some “business as
usual” as far as curriculum structure is concerned, but these technological
literacy skills are essential (and popular) in today’s educational settings and
contexts.
The idea of defining literacy takes me
back to Gillen and Barton, who offer a “broad definition” of digital
literacy. I think that Gillen and Barton
offered a definition of digital literacy that, as aforementioned, appears
benign enough. The reason is that Gillen
and Barton (2011) almost make it appear as if all people voluntarily and
neutrally “make traceable meanings using digital technologies (p. 9). I keep wondering (and wondering some more)
why Gillen and Barton do not mention, as part of their broad definition, anything
about the power relationships that underlie digital literacy in a social
context. Gillen and Barton (2011) did
list access and power as a key concept in literacy studies (p. 9).
Gillen and Barton (2011) state later
that “developing digital literacies means working to enable students and
teachers to develop their understandings of and skills in using certain tools,
not as decontextualised competencies but in ways that are connected to other
aspects of their learning” (p.19). Lankshear and Knobel (2011) would probably
view the school curriculum’s main emphasis on “technical or operational aspects”
(p. 191) as the equivalent of Gillen and Barton’s decontextualized competencies (p. 19). The reason is that Lankshear and Knobel
(2011) view the school’s focus on the “technical or operational aspects” as the
school’s “deep grammar” and it this technical/operational focus that actually “cuts
schools off from the new (technological) literacies…” (p. 191).
Harste (2003)
stated that literacies can be deemed legitimate by someone in power (in this
case, the teacher) (p. 1). This idea of
particular literacies being changed from illegitimate to legitimate and then
accepted by the existing power structure mirrors Lankshear and Knobel’s (2011)
view that “new literacies and social practices associated with new technologies
are being invented on the streets” (p. 191) and “these are the new literacies
and practices that will (many of them) gradually become embedded in everyday
social practice (p.191). It is these
presently unaccepted new literacies that school curriculums will eventually be
measured against after these new literacies become accepted (p. 191). Lankshear and Knobel are basically saying
that the present school curriculums do not teach the skills needed to invent
new literacies and social practices – so they have to be “invented on the
streets.” Fred Garnett states that
“digital literacies are firstly about critical thinking” (as cited in Gillen
& Barton, 2011, p. 24). Garnett also
states that some writers argue for digital inclusion in our increasingly
digital society (as cited in Gillen & Knobel, 2011, p. 24). Lankshear & Knobel would probably respond
by saying that this is not enough because the power structure remains the
same. As a result, critical thinking
cannot rise to the level that FutureLab suggests, which is that: “digital
literacy means knowing how technology and media affect the ways in which we go
about finding things out, communicating with one another, and gaining knowledge
and understanding” (as cited in Gillen & Barton, 2011, p.24). Garnett further states that: appropriately designed digital technologies can
enable a more critical understanding of subjects and disciplines than that
afforded by information literacy alone (as cited in Gillen & Barton, 2011,
p.24). Garnett believes that this process
represents appropriately contextualizing digital literacies. This may correspond to Lankshear and Knoble’s
(2011) viewing functional literacy as a “revolutionary process” (p.18). This process involves mostly reading and
writing to acquire “intellectual access to their world and their place within
that world, a conception of their unique human status and vocation, and the
commitment to pursue their vocation” (p. 18).
Lankshear and Knobel (2011) also discuss “new forms of literacy” beyond
reading and writing, which includes “post-typographic new literacies”
associated with the “digital electronic apparatus” (p. 185)
In sum, there
are new forms of literacy and new literacies themselves (Lankshear &
Knobel, 2011, p. 184). It does contribute
to society and to the learning process when literacy scholars “focus on
people’s everyday activities [that] includes their vernacular ways of learning”
(Gillen & Barton, 2010, p.9). This
focus will lead to a better understanding of how people learn and how literacy
practices can be made more effective -- based on individuals’ literacy needs
rather than the other way around (where the emphasis is on institutional and
power-relationship needs). This assumes
literacy practices will be implemented with people’s literacy needs in
mind. I wonder about this and question
if it will (ever) come to pass. I am sure that Lankshear & Knobel wonder (and
continue to wonder) about the same thing!
References
Carter,
S. (2006). Redefining literacy as a social practice. Journal of Basic Writing, 25(2),
94-125. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ759701.pdf.
Gillen,
J., & Barton, D. (2010, January). Digital literacies: A research briefing by
the Technology Enhanced Learning phase of the Teaching and Learning Research
Programme. Retrieved from http://www.tlrp.org/docs/DigitalLiteracies.pdf.
Harste,
J.C. (2003). What do we mean by literacy now? Voices from the Middle, 10(3),
8-12.
Retrieved
from http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/lesson_images/
lesson1140/VM0103What.pdf.
Lankshear,
C., & Knobel, M. (2011). Literacies:
Social, cultural and historical perspectives.
New
York, NY: Peter Lang.
Wilber,
D.J. (2010). Special themed issue: Beyond ‘new’ literacies. Digital
Culture &
Education, 2(1), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/cms/wp-
content/uploads/2010/05/dce_editorial_wilber_2010.pdf.
