Over the last few days, I’ve been watching the flurry of Twitter posts coming out of the New Literacies Institute conference that’s been taking place in Massachusetts this week. Quite frankly, I’ve had moments when the amount of information (and the number of browser windows open on my computer) has been pretty overwhelming, so I can only imagine what it’s been like for the participants.
In an attempt to focus my thoughts and find a way to put all of that information into some kind of context, I took a step back by asking a fundamental question: “To what are they referring when they use the term “new literacies”? The first thing I looked at was this video — a brief scan of how different teachers tried to symbolize new literacies:
A few symbols jumped out at me: arrows, question marks, stick people, technology tools, and a globe. The challenge with interpreting visual symbols is that they can be pretty subjective. But, here goes … new literacies are related to communication, collaboration and enquiry by people and between people using a variety of technologies that can fuel global interaction. I particularly liked the one piece of chart paper with a gigantic question mark; in that instance, I didn’t think of enquiry but rather that “new literacies” is, at this point, a big open question.
Then I visited the New Literacies Collaborative Ning, and saw a prompt on the forum asking participants at the conference to post their initial ideas of new literacies. Two points that emerged for me as I read through the posts were: the use of technology tools, and composing/interactive students. Specific definitions listed actions that students should learn to perform in relation to online information and multimedia: locate, comprehend, synthesize, evaluate, read, write/compose, collaborate, communicate, and think critically.
I got a kick out of how similar the definitions were to the one I formulated for digital literacy. But, more importantly, I started to wonder how “new” this literacy really is. If we remove what makes it new – current technologies/multimedia – couldn’t all of those action words be applied just as easily to the “old” literacy? Within the context of “old” literacy tools – books & print media, paper, pens & pencils, typewriters – was it ever considered enough to be able to simply use them? Hasn’t education always involved a two step process: first, develop a competency using the tools and then, second, learn to locate, comprehend, synthesize, create, etc.? If a student can read the words on a page, but can’t comprehend them or reflect on them, would we ever consider them literate? Certain aspects of writing change with the new technology, particularly in terms of collaboration and the potential for a global audience. But, has it not always been important to teach students about the importance of audience? And then there’s the “old-fashioned” writer’s workshop – writing and learning collaboratively is not really “new”.
Another video then caught my eye on the Ning. (Heads up: this is a long one. You need around 90 minutes to watch the whole thing.) After watching it, I was left questioning the use of the word ‘literacy’ in the term “new literacies”.
(Here’s a link to the PDF of the presentation slides.) Near the beginning of his presentation, Yong Zhou clarifies how he is using the word: “literacy is the basic ability to function … to live in the community.” Is that literacy, or is that competency? When he talks about global competency as a new literacy, it’s not clear why he wants to recontextualize it that way. I absolutely agree with what he’s asserting; our experience is increasingly global as distance becomes a non-issue, and young people need to build knowledge, understanding, and empathy beyond their own backyard. But, is that literacy? Or, is it competency coming from knowledge and understanding, just like studying law makes you a competent lawyer (as opposed to a literate lawyer). Literacy is essential for global competency, but I’m not sure about global competency as a ‘new literacy’.
In the end, I’m still left wondering about “new literacies” but now my questions are a little more specific. Shouldn’t literacy be defined separately from the tools and skills needed in the development of literacy? Is it not problematic to include any subject area knowledge under the ever expanding umbrella of “literacy”? Would it not be better to emphasize the importance of literacy in the process of acquiring any subject area knowledge, including global competency? Is there a danger of ‘muddying the waters’ too much – could the required focus on the core literacy that results from reading and writing be lost?
