Let's Make Literacy More Egalitarian

Lanksher and Knobel (2011) define literacies as "socially recognized ways in which people generate, communicate and negotiate meanings...through encoded texts" (p. 33). 

When I write to an audience, what is my basic goal? I'm using a series of symbols that represent sounds, to form larger symbols that create an image of that symbol in someone else's head, otherwise known as encoding. Encoding is useful if I'm trying to spread ideas to people who are not within earshot. It's also useful if I'm an artist and my intent is to create expression that's intended to move my audience. However, as technology advances ever more rapidly, how much longer will encoding and reading text, which requires years of practice to master, be the most egalitarian way to spread information and ideas?

As we move further into the millennium, technology is providing an ever evolving understanding of what these "socially recognized" methods of communication are. As educators, we must become proficient in these technologies. Lankshear and Knobel (2011) warn that teachers with "lack of digital competence" will "restrict students," thereby affecting their mastery of literacy (p. 53).

The true endgame of literacy isn't to simply open a book and decode the language. This practice doesn't necessarily ensure any meaningful outcome (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). Citing research from Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole, Lanksher and Knobel (2011) instead argue that "literacy is not a matter of knowing how to read...but rather, a matter of applying [the] knowledge" determined by circumstance (p. 36).

It's refreshing to see academics acknowledging the shifts in literacy. Whereas there are still many opponents to technology based tools of communication, as discussed in last week's blog, many researchers are beginning to apply the spirit and intent of literacy, that of communicating, and placing less emphasis on traditional reading and decoding.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New Literacies: Everyday Practices And Social Learning: Everyday Practices and Social Learning. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Literacy Debate

While education reform isn't a new movement in the American social and political scene, it has very much taken its place at the forefront of our national debate. If we're serious about equipping American students with the necessary tools for college and career readiness as is called for by the Common Core Standards, educators and policy makers need to align the definitions and interpretations of words and concepts that at one time in education seemed obvious, but have grown opaque with the advent and application of new technologies. One such concept is literacy.

Being a history teacher, as opposed to say a Language Arts teacher, I view reading and writing, the fundamental basis of "literacy," through a utilitarian lens. In other words, why was language and in turn the symbols that represent it created? Simply put, it was the need for humans to express their thoughts in a way that would be understood. As human thought advanced and became more nuanced it took advantage of new technology to spread information. Since then, we've advanced from the use of clay tablets with crude markings to communication that involves the use of various mediums, such as videos, songs, pictures and yes, text.

A recent article in the New York Times focuses on a growing debate over the value of this new literacy as it moves past its infancy to become an integral influence on the lives of the millennial generation. According to the article, traditionalists argue that "zigzagging through a cornucopia of words, pictures, video and sounds...distracts more than strengthens readers." They argue that reading books is central to "intellectual and emotional" rewards which cannot be attained through a "printout" or "at the touch of a finger." Are these critics accurate in their appraisal? I think not.

In the article, Deborah Konyk, whose daughter is used as an exemplar of modern readers, states that “Reading opens up doors to places that you probably will never get to visit in your lifetime, to cultures, to worlds, to people." I would argue that so would a Youtube video, and in a greatly more visceral way. In addition, I would argue that reading discussion forums, whether they are on dedicated discussion boards or supplements to articles or other digital entries, expose modern readers to exactly those elements Ms. Konyk seems to believe can only be attained through traditional texts.

If we look at literacy itself, apart from its tradiotnal or modern definitions, we can all agree upon its goal and the rewards it yields. As the world changes so must the concept of literacy acquisition through traditional literature. New technology is creating a new type of literacy, which is probably scary to academics who grew up around books. However, if the aim of literacy is the absorption of ideas why would the modern world, for the first time in its history, confine itself and not take advantage of new technology?

Work Cited:

               Rich, M. (2008, July 27). Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading? New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&