Assignment Week 2

In your journal post, consider the concept of interactive participant and represented participant as identified in the semiotic theory in Kress and Van Leeuwen Chapter 2 and its link to the social context of literacy.  

Kress and van Leeuwen substitute the word participants for objects because this term is more precise in meaning because the term participants signifies some type of relationship between the participants.  In addition, Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) state that there are “two types of participants involved in every semiotic act” (p. 48).  These are “interactive participants” and “represented participants” (p.48).  Kress and Van Leeuwen say that it is the participants who speak, listen, write and read or make images or view them (p. 48).  The participants are the ones doing something actively.  The represented participants are the people, places, or things (including abstract things) represented by speech or writing or image (p. 48).  The represented participants are the participants that the interactive participants are speaking, writing, or producing images about (p. 48). 

Kress and van Leeuwen point out that social meanings underlie all communication by interactive participants (p. 20).   In addition, whatever communication is undertaken by a participant occurs in a “social context” (p. 15).  The patterns of representation and the patterns of interaction all take place in a “social context” (p. 15). 

Kress and van Leeuwen also say that every visual design (like all semiotic modes) fulfills three major functions (metafunctions): the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual (p 42-44).  The concept of metafunctions has been taken from Michael Halliday’s work on linguistics.  

Kress and van Leeuwen think that the visual, like all semiotic modes, has to serve several representational and communication requirements.  These requirements can be represented by the three metafunctions.  As applied to the visual, social interactions underlie these metafunctions.  The ‘interpersonal function is “a function of enacting social interactions as social relations” (p. 15).

Kress and van Leeuwen point out, in terms of the ‘interpersonal metafunction’ that any semiotic mode has to be able to project the relations between the producer of a (complex) sign, and the receiver/producer of that sign.  That is, any mode has to be able to represent a particular social relation between the producer, the viewer and the object represented” (p. 42).

Kress and van Leeuwen say that “visual communication is always coded” (p. 32).  Coded communications is dependent on the culture or society it arises out of (p. 34).  Therefore, the culture is the social context for coded communications, whether written or visual.

Kress and van Leeuwen state that “semiotic modes, similarly, are shaped both by the intrinsic characteristics and potentialities of the medium and by the requirements, histories, and values of societies and their cultures” (p. 35).  Thus, semiotic modes are determined by the social context in which they arise out of.

Kress and van Leeuwen point out that a depicted person may be shown to address viewers directly, by looking at the camera (p. 43).  “This conveys a sense of interaction between the depicted person and the viewer.  But a depicted person may also be shown as turned away from the viewer, and this conveys the absence of a sense of interaction” (p. 43).  

In sum, participants are involved in relationships with one another and these relationships between the interactive and represented participants take place in a social context, which often depends on culture.

References

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.

    London, New York: Routledge. 

Assignment Week 1

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.