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).
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).
