We had a great time with the e-fellows last week when they came to Wellington to kick off their fellowship projects. First, we met the Minister of Education, Hon Anne Tolley, and snapped a photo. (In the photo: Esme Sutherland, Sue Smith, Marilyn Small, Minister Tolley, Claire Amos, Helen Rennie-Younger, Tia Fraser, Virginia Mitchell, Robyn Hurliman, Marion Lumley, absent: Deidre Senior.)
Because the theme of the e-fellows’ projects this year is literacy, on the agenda was a discussion about what we mean by literacy. Sue McDowall from NZCER framed our thinking. Definitions of literacy are highly contested, and Sue’s list of ‘literacy is/is not’ is a useful starter for discussion:
- Literacy is the way we communicate in different contexts or discourses (it is more than standard English).
- Literacy is using the language and knowing the values of the communities we belong to (it is more than the ability to know how to do something).
- Literacy is situated and multiple (it is not generic and singular).
- Literacy is constantly evolving (it is not fixed and there is no end point).
- Literacy is multimodal (it is more than print and word based).
The discussion with the e-fellows highlighted for me that while we want our young people to be proficient in the language of ‘success’ and of schooling (reading and writing in standard english), this is not the only literacy, it is constructed and value laden, and other literacy practices (social, cultural, ethical, digital, networked …) are equally as important for our young people.
The e-fellows, and the meta-research conducted across their projects by CORE Education and NZCER, will identify how the literacy skills, knowledge and dispositions needed for the 21st century are supported through e-learning contexts. I suspect this will encompass both literacy as we’ve always known it and new literacies emerging as a result of changes in technology and increasing diversity in our communities. Can’t wait!
This little video (under 3 mins) sent to me by Derek Wenmoth on new media literacies (I prefer the term multiliteracies, but it’s easy to substitute here) is a nice exploration of the skills and competencies that young people need to participate in our society. Chris Arcus suggests adding some triggers to thought and action – some examples of media, opportunities to reflect critically, and links to the key competencies – and we’re cooking with gas.
And for some glorious examples of multiliteracies in the classroom, check out the series of posts appearing on the ICT in English blog at the moment.
for me, a key point that got touched on in that discussion was that in addition to the idea that >> “Literacy is using the language and knowing the values of the communities we belong to …<<
literacies also transmit/carry values within them, and constrain the expression of some values and privelege the status of other values
given that literacies might be viewed as tools for engaging with different aspects of living, it might also be reasonable to wonder if they sets limits for how life can be understood, communicated and – consequently – lived
as an example, the ‘soft skills’ of the work place (perhaps these could be called ‘workplace literacies’) draw on – for example – Pakeha/Palangi social norms and so to become literate in this domain is to further enshrine those values as dominant and i guess to subsume other cultural values that one otherwise might draw on, in other aspects of life
now, even if what i suggest above does have some ‘truth’ to it, I really don’t know what people might do in response to that possible ‘truth’
but, perhaps, identifying possible (hidden) features of sets of literacies gives all members of a community greater possibility of critical engagement with those literacies
it’s been a long day :-)
Video now safely stored on my delicious account. Thank you
It is interesting to reflect on what is meant by”the language of success.” Quite funny to read Jane Clifton’s article in the Listener about our politician’s use of language. Are they successful?I heard the term “successful” bandied around a lot at the conference and I found myself thinking about what it means. I think that a lot of teachers have only ever been teachers and their idea of success may not necessarily be very inclusive. I really enjoyed the day in Wellington and particularly that discussion.
Cheers, Tia
Tia, thanks for your thoughtful comments … I feel a little unsettled about talking about ‘the language of success’ too … On Friday a colleague told me about his dyslexic son, who has just graduated top of his media class at polytechnic and has a job as a tv editor. He’s not literate in the traditional ‘reading and writing’ sense but he’s successful … There are new jobs and roles in society that perhaps should be changing our idea about what ‘success’ is, huh. I need to keep thinking about this one!