I must admit, I
find the topic of new literacies fascinating and frightening at the same
time. My exposure to technology tools
was a black and white television growing up and a typewriter to type my papers
during college. I used an airline
computer to book flights, hotels, and cars when I owned a travel agency in the
San Francisco Bay Area in the 1980’s, and that was pretty big time back in the
day. My first cell phone was in my 40’s
wired inside my company car. It wasn’t
until almost a decade later that I got my first IPhone 3. So you see, I didn’t grow up with much
technology. I don’t believe there is a
fear of it for many in my generation, but I’m still perplexed at why it still
seems so foreign despite my willingness to engage and use the many different
tools in both my profession and personal life.
I believe our roles, as teachers, and the understanding
of those roles, must change to meet the needs of our 21st century
students. We have to take the time to grabble with what literacy currently means,
and how our pedagogy may need to shift to meet those changes.
As I ponder how I
visualize the world of literacy embedded and fused within technology, I am
filled with wonderings and questions of what that environment will look like,
how believes may conflict, worry that many will be left behind, and that
technology without social purpose could lead to a nation of factions that are undirected,
misled, and confused. Certainly, not
wanting to be too dark regarding our future, I do have positive thoughts that
technology and literacy can open gateways of communication with paradigm and
instructional framework shifts.
I have many
questions and wonderings from our readings regarding new literacies. Take a look, and respond to whatever inspires
your thinking.
1.
I pondered on Johnson’s statement (Reading, Writing, and Literacy 2.0) that
“the preparation and support children need to meet the challenges of the 21st
century will depend as much on how
they are taught as what they are
taught. The focus here is on the pedagogy of literacy rather than the
actual literacy curriculum. It makes you
think what is it about new literacies that require new constructions of lessons
to support literacy in digital environments over what has been used in the past
with print?
2.
Will students that don’t receive instruction in
new literacies not be able to develop and construct knowledge at a competitive
level using old literacies?
3.
What is the tipping point using technology to
move the dial towards enhanced understanding and literacy knowledge?
4.
Do you think teachers believe that new literacies
are essential for thinking, learning, and knowledge construction?
5.
What do you believe? Do you think the use of
online images, photos, and videos are tools for creating meaning? Why or why
not?
6.
What would assessment in a Literacy 2.0
environment look like?
7.
How would you rate the importance of digital
technologies that “encourage student creativity and personal expression” as an
important element in schooling?
8.
If you were to focus on one or two important
reasons to foster the implementation of new literacies in our classrooms, what
would they be and why?
9.
How do you envision the gap between the “have”
and “have-nots” regarding digital environments and access to its tools?
I look forward to
your responses and input. Sorry for the
confusion on posting last week.
Apparently, it isn’t only the new literacies that are affecting my communication
understandings. Try to respond by Sunday
for this blog post, and then again by Thursday for John’s posting. We will then be current. Happy Labor Day everybody!
Hi Barbar, thanks for letting us start. I want to discuss your question #1 first. To my interpretation, Johnson seems to emphasize the importance of “integrating” new literacies (NL) in our curriculum by not having it more than traditional literacy, but rather, by having it on a balanced way with the traditional literacy. I really like the phrase you used, “new constructions of lessons.” However, I’d like to point out that the “new” lessons are not 100% new. Our goal, as Johnson implied, is to equip our students with the NL because NL will “allow them (students) engage with digital environments as a learning resource” (p.9). Johnson has presumed that NL shares the core components of traditional literacy. He pointed out that traditional reading, for example, requires a reader’s four elements, i.e., cognitive capabilities, motivation, knowledge, and experiences. The knowledge here includes “vocabulary and topic knowledge, linguistic and discourse knowledge, and knowledge of comprehensive strategies” (p.8). In digital reading, interestingly, this knowledge has three more aspects in addition to the vocabulary and other types of knowledge, such as “knowledge of informational text, web-based search engines, and informational website structures” (p.8). Therefore, I believe the NL supports and expands the traditional literacy, so teachers may not construct a brand new lesson, but an evolved lesson. This discussion leads me a follow-up question about how to portion the digital and print texts in our classroom. On what percentage, should teachers have digital and paper texts? 50:50? Also, with that in mind, is having a text in both media (digital and paper) better than a text only in one medium?
ReplyDeleteJohn, thank you for your responses. I agree that NL is about an evolvement. I believe what Johnson was driving at was NL is not just about technology, but rather how we use technology to further enhance one’s journey of learning with digital tools that require knowledge of their implementation and validity.
DeleteAs educators of printed text we have instructed students in the process of gaining knowledge and information through a series of steps and strategies that we guide. With accessing information on the Internet, much of the decision-making is made now by the individual. Individuals are deciding what search engine to use, the sites to explore, the hyperlinks to follow, and the text they decide to pursue. The process can be quite complex when you think about it.
Reading from print does not require so many decisions--your job as the reader is "static" in terms of the text situated in one place, verses open to different places to go and explore, and possibly refocus what the original intent of one's goal was when the process began.
The understanding that I got from the reading as it pertained to time spent with digital and paper text was keep the focus on the intended outcome, in other words, first determine the goal of the lesson. Johnson wrote once you have the goal and objectives of what you are wanting the student's to learn, discuss, and explore, then make the decision regarding what, if any, digital device or media component will best engage and foster the learning of the intended lesson. The challenge for many of us (or me at least) is making the necessary time to investigate and explore for myself what sites, processes and pitfalls are best to know and instruct to achieve the desired results.
One thing that really stuck out to me was the idea that digital text is/can be considered a different genre that requires different skills to become fluent and construct meaning. I particularly appreciated the statement by Johnson that "it is not safe to assume that students who are competent in one genre will have no problems mastering others." After teaching fourth grade for many years, and having explained the "Fourth Grade slump" to many parents, I can absolutely agree with this statement.
DeleteThe reason I bring this up is because I feel like viewing digital texts as a different genre may help to answer your question about how much time should be spent on digital texts versus paper texts. Just as we rely on traditional genres for specific purposes (non-fiction for facts and information, etc), I think it is safe to say that we can call on digital texts as needed to enhance our instruction, increase student understanding, and create opportunities for students to make connections between their learning and their social literacies.
Thoughtful discussion, and I think that looking at digital texts as a new genre is important. It is not so much about how much of traditional texts and how much of digital texts as it is which type of text is appropriate for your purposes and which social practices and aspects are the focus of the interaction with text.
DeleteThanks Barbara, MacKinley, and Dr. Beach. Indeed, it is really good to notice that digital text is a new genre, which requires more and different types of "decision-making" processes. So, we - as a teacher, need to consider how we can empower our students for the efficacies of NL on learning, in which our students and we together learn the NL simultaneously.
DeleteThe second question is also a thought-provoking one, so I'd like to give my thought on it as well.
ReplyDelete2. Will students that don’t receive instruction in new literacies not be able to develop and construct knowledge at a competitive level using old literacies?
The lack of new literacies aspects might impede students’ knowledge building process, especially in the 21st century; however, I think that students who receive instruction only in traditional literacies can still construct knowledge. What’s missing though could be that the students might not be well ready for utilizing and benefiting from the new literacies - again not for constructing knowledge. New literacies is just around us, and is constantly evolving. What all of the readings so far imply, to me, is that if teachers do not integrate the new literacies, we educate our students literacy skills proper for 1950s, not for the 21st century. One reason behind this notion could be the consideration about social context. Both Johnson and Beach et al. emphasized the importance of the connection between a text and students’ social context (practices). With that in mind, teachers should incorporate new literacies in the classroom because our students’ social context (outside of the classroom) already requires new literacy skills for their daily life. “We believe that students’ uses of digital tools…reflect what students need to acquire for success in the 21st century – uses of tools that represent a shift from solely print-based English language arts instruction” (Beach et al., p.2). Given this point, I think that students still can construct knowledge even if they received instruction with old literacy only; however, they would encounter difficulties in maneuvering the new literacies, which is essential for success in the 21st century. In addition, to some extent, the lack of new literacies in instruction might hinder their construction of knowledge as well, because knowledge building is vigorously made via digital interactions, just as what we are doing now. :) This is just my thought, so I am curious about others' opinion. What do others wannabes think about this topic? :)
John, I agree with you 100%. For all the reasons you listed above. All students should have opportunities to evolve, interact, and receive guidance and instruction on interpreting NL text. Bias and the quest for what is really "truth" are navigated by the individual when exploring knowledge and information online. If there is not guidance or an understanding of how to negotiate all of this information, those that have not been provided access with the same opportunities will certainly be at a disadvantage. Digital text interactions are happening more outside the classroom than inside the classroom in many places; not only in communities, but globally as well. For those "have nots", how will they compete on the same level as those locally and globally that already are embedded in new ways of designing and interpreting multi-modal text and online information?
DeleteWell said, both of you!
DeleteHey Wannabees! Sorry I've been out of touch for a few days. My family had a trip planned to the mountains since my husband had some leave and we have NO technology available at the cabin. No phone, no cell, no cable, no internet. I have temporarily obtained a connection by bribing the store owners in the town near our cabin. :)
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I really enjoyed this weeks reading. I am feeling like I have a much better understanding of what this class is all about and I am excited to learn more. I felt like all of the reading was very interconnected and complimented each other. Questions that I was left with after reading the Knobel article were answered by reading Johnson Chapter 1, and likewise with BABR Chapter 1.
Barbara you asked "Do you think teachers believe that new literacies are essential for thinking, learning, and knowledge construction?" I found myself asking the same question. In my position I work with brand new teachers, some of whom are straight out of University teacher prep programs, and yet I have not encountered a single teacher who is utilizing the new literacies in their classrooms. It makes me wonder how, if our brand new graduates (the ones who have had the most recent exposure to the newest information regarding best practices), aren't being exposed to this information, how will veteran teachers not only get the information, but embrace it? So I have to say "No, they don't believe they are essential", but primarily because they are unaware of this transformation. I don't know exactly how this information can be made more readily accessible either. The CCSS very clearly address this transition (as pointed out in the BABR text), yet I fear that until publishers make new technologies part of their literacy program/curriculum, many teachers/administrators/districts are going to miss out on this.
It's especially confusing because academia has picked up on technology so quickly, so while budding teachers are required to implement new literacies in their undergraduate or grad degrees, it doesn't move into k-12 classrooms. Could it be a general assumption that kids just know technology and new literacies because they are Gen-Zs and grow up with it? Or maybe that can be reversed to posit that perhaps it's that old gen educators are assuming the new gen educators will add this naturally, as part of a post-Internet generation? Is it partially due to absolute underfunding of k-12 schools, that maybe educators feel they need expensive tech to make access to it equal before requiring on-line components to their lessons? Is it the textbook writers who seem to put online access into college textbooks but not 2nd grade textbooks? I know curriculum is at least trying to integrate new literacies with or without the new tech, but I don't know if that's used everywhere. But I suppose that's getting into pedigogical philosophy (that will never be answered) and not so much a response to the readings :-/
DeleteMost of the schools that I work with in OKCPS are severely lacking technology in the classrooms. The largest school that I work with has over 1000 students and only one computer lab with ~30 desktops in it.there are 2 carts with laptops, but many of them no longer work and/or the wifi is incapable of supporting so many devices, that most of them crash while students are working on them. I don't know of a single classroom that has more than 2 desktops in it, and teachers are not able to have access to the wifi on the personal devices, so even grants for iPads are pointless because they can't get online. So while teachers may have a desire to embrace new literacies in their classrooms, there are definitely obstacles regarding funding and equipment.
DeleteThat is deeply unfortunate and, even more sadly, not surprising. And it's not something that can be required of the students (due to lack of private access for some students). If we can just invest in the original tech and wifi, it'll be so much cheaper in the long run, but I'm probably preaching to the choir.
DeleteI also think that new teachers aren't getting what they need to integrate new literacies into classrooms. Staci Vollmer, my doc student, will be investigating that topic in her dissertation.
DeleteBarbara you also asked "How would you rate the importance of digital technologies that “encourage student creativity and personal expression” as an important element in schooling?"
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if you have encountered this in your schools, but I have never seen as much apathy and downright disregard by students for academic performance and achievement as I have in the past 2 years. This attitude appears to me to be pervasive throughout the metro area, across the content areas, and across the grade levels (from pre-K all the way up to high school and beyond). I am confident to generalize and say that at this point many (most) kids just don't care about learning and school. I do believe that one factor that plays into this apathy is that students don't feel valued or respected as individuals. So I wonder if students were allowed more creativity and expression in the ways in which they are asked to demonstrate their learning, if they would be more interested, more engaged, and more likely to take pride in their work? I wonder if "we" have failed these kids and "we" are the ones responsible for their apathy towards school and learning? BABR calls them "digital natives" and points out that sometimes teachers can be intimidated by the technological knowledge their students bring to their classrooms. As a result perhaps some teachers have made a conscientious decision to not include digital technologies in their classes. However, I also think that we can go back to my previous statement that many teachers may not have the knowledge/information/experiences necessary to see how these new technologies can increase engagement and achievement.
Mackinley I am right with you on your observations. Culture has evolved with technological advances, and students are now able to access information whenever they want using a technical device that is connected to the Internet. Many students ask of school and their teachers (especially those in upper grades), "What can you teach me that I can't find on the Internet?" Old ways of instruction that feature lectures, powerpoint presentations, and being fed information with a follow up of filling out literal lower comprehension level questions based on book readings are not current with our generation of students. In my opinion, we are failing those students that need the tools to navigate all the information that they have access to through a reasoning process, critical thinking, and peer discussion to construct what is truth. I absolutely agree that teachers make decisions not to include technology in their classrooms for several reasons. I agree with you that some may be intimidated by their lack of technical knowledge and exposure, and some may not have the tools in and out of school themselves to use to a necessary level for implementation. I do believe for most teachers, it is the lack of training in implementing these digital tools, and a lack of understanding of how new literacies can enhance education goals and objectives. Teachers need professional development in how to instruct using new literacies to enhance understanding, promote collaboration, and engage students in ways that are current with the realities and needs of the 21st century students.
ReplyDeleteAs a student (not a teacher) who grew up half pre-Internet and half post-Internet (almost literally to the year), I can say that post-Internet, I checked out completely. I was always a straight-A student, but when I got to high school, unless the teacher could enhance upon the book I read for them and the self-study I did for fun to understand it, I had no reason to waste my time in their over-crowed class, and I'd check out. The ideas you had about allowing the kids to be individuals and put more emphasis on creation and perhaps even adding novelty of instruction to that (e.g., a Skype session with their favorite author whom they wouldn't have had the guts or means, necessarily, to contact on their own), I think are great ideas. These are kids who, when they know something, share it on YouTube or who already know how to mix their own music on professional-grade apps or who debate religion or philosophy with adults in chatrooms. We have no idea what level of knowledge they have about a particular thing; and with new literacies not being used in classrooms as much as they should be, some kids who are amazingly literate that way may come across to themselves, or sadly their teachers, as "slow" on old literacies. Why put effort forth in a classroom where one is considered less than if online, after school, the student debates the finer aspects of mechanical engineering with a CERN intern online and is able to not only keep up but is considered a peer rather than a "failure." I'd say that's especially true for ELL students, though John correct me if you've seen different or if you don't think this is an issue. It seems especially easy for ELL students to check out if they can go home and learn the same thing in their own language online.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it's not so much just about teachers adopting the teaching and integration of new literacies but that it's even more about competing with them. Why learn from someone who is teaching to the lowest common denominator in your overpopulated class and who might not be able to see a student's talents due to the number of other students when you could just mess around on your phone and lean more? And the only solution I see for that is to offer them something they don't have, a hybrid of new and old lits that include knowledge-creation activities in real-world settings, rather than mimicking them online like the student could do themselves. Perhaps new literacies is part technology, but I believe that due to its nature it's also about re-purposing old literacies in addition to integrating them. But once again, I'm not in the College of Education, so this may be a lot of stuff that is covered by other classes or that isn't even thought of, for all I know; and it's all definitely more personal philosophy and theory than based solely on what we just read.
You bring a really interesting perspective to this, and I appreciate your honesty about your experiences. I was already done with my undergraduate degree when email was emerging, so my experiences with tech in the classroom and related to my learning are completely different.
DeleteAnd I really look forward to reading all of the group's perspectives for just that reason. My only experience in non-digital natives adopting new technology is my mom's discovery of the Internet last year (it opened her world in such a beautiful way). Speaking with people who learned it all as adults will really help my own studies on teaching adults through technology.
DeleteI think your observations are quite on target--I'd only hope that the majority of high school classrooms do not represent what you experienced, but sadly many may. The roles educators must assume are supporting students to think critically and reason through all the information that is available to them. I agree that students yearn to gain knowledge from real-world encounters and discuss real world issues. Everything you discussed brings up several of Dr. Beach's topics she asks of her students, which are, "What is schooling?", "What is learning?", "What is the role of the teacher?", and "What role does education play in a democratic society?" Wrestle with those for a while--When I finally started to accrue some answers, I began to become cognizant of the fact that I have to be a "change-agent", active participant , and advocate. Education is not keeping in step with our culture's evolvement--there's no question. So, how I handle it is do what I can to become a teacher that will support our kids success in the 21st century--in regard to technology...it's one step at a time, but I won't give up until I'm where I need to be. I think by your observations and insights, you may be a change-agent too!
ReplyDeleteI think you will help so many students create knowledge just for the reason that you notice things like that, being a change agent, and you obviously want to try to understand and meet them on their levels. I look forward to reading more of your experience and insight.
DeleteThanks to all of you for your insightful discussions. Keep digging into theory adn making connections as well. You all bring important voices to the table.
ReplyDelete