I thought it would be interesting to explore in conversation how our emerging common beliefs and differing beliefs about digital literacies interact with NCTE's Guidelines to Multi-Modal Literacy and some projects across the country that give voice to students, providing for access, diversity, and relevancy.
Given our varied backgrounds with life and teaching and experiences using D.L., respond to NCTE's beliefs: what makes sense, what is lacking, what might we want to make sure becomes foundational pieces for D.L. in the MWP arena?
How do these projects give voice to students so they can tell their stories? Do the processes and products encourage/require critical meaning making with and from the new literacies?
I linked a couple of those sites. Perhaps you know of more? Email me or Christa with the Title and a URL and we can link those sites as well.
And the "tag" game continues (courtesy of Claudia).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I guess I'm at a loss Dave as to where I should start. Could you clarify what you're asking?
As I read through NCTE’s statements, I actually thought nearly everything aligned pretty closely with my own ideas and experiences.
I really liked that they emphasized that multiple ways of knowing “should not be considered curricular luxuries” and that “all modes of communication are codependent.”
I often talk to teachers who think adding in new literacies is a great idea and something they’d like to do if they had more time or if they get through some “important” curricular pieces first. They see it as valuable, but different and not really connected or essential to the literacy work they are already doing. It’s something extra. I think finding and sharing the great examples of teachers who approach curriculum with alternate ways of acquiring and producing knowledge built in (not separate units tacked on at the end if extra time develops—and when does it ever?) is a great way to help more people envision new possibilities when approaching their curriculum. I was at the NECC conference a few years ago and was so excited by some of the ways I saw teachers incorporating technology in meaningful ways, but I think in the day-to-day work of many school systems, literacy education looks fairly similar to what it did 20 years ago.
I also definitely agree that this type of work often demands “high levels of collaboration and teamwork,” and its one of the things I like best about it. For some reason the communal aspect seems stronger in multimodal work. Maybe this is because we are out of practice as a society at effectively sharing written work, but I tend to agree with students that adding images, sound, or performance, or playing with layout on the page or the screen makes it more fun to create products and to share them. Is this because writing then doesn’t have to be as strong because other elements carry the piece? Maybe. In some cases that might be the case, but I don’t think it has to be, and it seems the strongest pieces are still almost always those with the strong writing built in. I think it can also work the other way and the other components can lift the level of the writing.
We live in a multimodal world and our classrooms need to reflect that. I think occasionally students are right when they complain about the work they are doing being irrelevant. Another of NCTE’s statements related to this is right on:
“Ever since the days of illustrated books and maps texts have included visual elements for the purpose of imparting information. The contemporary difference is the ease with which we can combine words, images, sound, color, animation, video, and styles of print in projects so that they are part of our everyday lives and, at least by our youngest generation, often taken for granted.”
Why wouldn’t you incorporate all the tools available to you to get your point across? Students move through the world continuously combining various mediums to communicate, and really, so do the rest of us—except it seems in instruction. It worries me that our approach as teachers too often seems to be to ban what we cannot control. I understand the rationale, but really it gets to a level that’s a bit insane. Casey touched on this last week with his idea about turning all these things educators are seeing as roadblocks into opportunities. It drove me crazy that students in my school were not allowed to access email. Email is a legitimate tool that I needed students to be using to accomplish some of the literacy work we were doing. I was insulted that administration didn’t think 17-18 year olds could handle the responsibility. I think nearly every school bans MySpace and similar sites. I understand teachers don’t want to deal with one more distraction and others are worried about safety issues, but really we are the naïve ones if we believe our banning them is going to keep students away. Students like designing their pages-- what a great opportunity to work on autobiographical writing, deconstruct design elements and teach internet safety. I think more often than not the problem isn’t that students don’t know what they are getting into, it’s that they do. We’d be keeping kids safer if we dealt more with these technologies directly in the classrooms rather than just telling them to stay away.
I was impressed by the NCTE multimodal literacy statement. I liked its depth of consideration for the importance of the aesthetic. Like Christa, I was pleased that multiple ways of knowing "should not be considered curricular luxuries." I agree with you , Christa, that teachers tend to avoid bringing into the classroom tools and strategies that they can't control, or are not yet comfortable with. There is wonderful acknowledgement by NCTE that, often, in the multimodal world, our students will be teaching us ("The definitions of multimodal composing may be written by educators, but they will most likely have first been pioneered by these young people.")and that school will not necessary resemble school, but will more approximate a work environment.
Technology tools are similar to art supplies. And I think NCTE's statement supports this. Some teachers teach the tool, some teach the function of the tool for meaningful purposes. Some teach one tool at a time, others are able to support student exploration with a variety of tools in service to the creation of meaningful messages and learning goals.
I was actually surprised that there is no expansion on the notion of making meaning or on worthy purposes for technology use (thereby resurrecting it from the more banal levels of gaming and entertainment). While I would expect NCTE to say that multi-modal literacy needs to serve the communication goals and purposes of students, I think it's worth discussing whether some uses for technology are worth school time and whether some are not. For instance, is figuring out game code opening the doors of possibility for some students? Or should we concentrate on production/creation of pieces only?
I attended a media literacy conference in San Francisco a few years back and was surprised at how many schools had full-scale video production labs (even in elementary schools) but were not teaching the critical literacy/media literacy skills and processes that might allow students to use the production facility in meaningful ways.
Just thinking...
And feeling the pace pick up as the week moves along!
Cheers to a great year!
I am excited that projects exist across the country - obviously I only picked two, but I didn't look very hard either - that do give voice to students and that those projects also celebrate diversity. I guess that I think of that voice as being "what the kid needs/wants" to say. I started my year with each class
beginning with a Ritual Read (my choice until they get the sense of it all and then turn it over to them) and Writing into the Day. In three days - some are telling those things they need to say (8th more than 7th). Of course, my selection of RR and Writing Into the Day stimulations help some. But I am glad to see some of them going there.
So, why am I writing about that? Oh, yes - voice. I do have a podcasting mic but haven't farted around with it enough yet. Let's give it a go - I think it would be cool to get some of those stories out there.
I think the depth I want from student work and ultimately in anything more "textured" - and I am indoctrinating my students into thinking differently about "story" and the means by which they can be told! - depends upon my ability to "get them there". To provide the foundation and framing to do the kind of reading and writing that allows for depth and ultimately providing that same depth in the textured literacy arena.
I agree with NCTE's statements and was particularly struck with the following:
The "definitions" of multimodal composing may be written by educators, but they will most likely have first been pioneered by these young people.
I think we need to live on the edge and not have to know how to do it all, but know enough to let them loose on the technology with our having the ability to hang on to their coattails and facilitate.
We also have to figure out the final assessment which I believe comes at the beginning of a sequence of study rather than going through a series of "activities" or whatever and then creating a project to somehow assess what they now know.
I also think that the work done using tech should be driven by a depth of content. That everything chosen to be used and placed next to something else is purposefully chosen with either an explicit or implicit rationale in the mind of the kid.
Anybody can fling crap at technology, but creating depth requires the ability to read that same media critically so that the kids can write in that mode in a similar fashion. Purpose, audience and rationale for choice within that genre are crucial components to assessment as well as creation and ultimately justifying to parents, admin etc. of the efficacy of this new literacy.
Christa,
You pose the wondering, "Is this because writing then doesn’t have to be as strong because other elements carry the piece?"
Perhaps the ability to craft paper/pencil text may not need to be strong, but the ability to conceptualize/imagine the story being told has to be as strong because I don't think a kid could pull off something of value without the critical ability to purposefully choose and rationalize those choices needed to use music/video/sounds/images and text to tell the story.
You also make another salient point Christa when you say that "We’d be keeping kids safer if we dealt more with these technologies directly in the classrooms rather than just telling them to stay away."
Proactive rather than reactive to what for many adults is an unknown realm. I think that is what worries so many parents. I think though that from an administrative point-of-view, the potential for abuse or for kids to be abused or whatever deserves some conversation time.
Claudia,
I liked your tool analogy when you wrote, "Some teachers teach the tool, some teach the function of the tool for meaningful purposes. Some teach one tool at a time, others are able to support student exploration with a variety of tools in service to the creation of meaningful messages and learning goals."
I suspect that all three are useful at different times for the right reasons if looked at with differentiating the curriculum lenses. I strive for the last one - especially meaningful messages with depth and clarity.
You mentioned needing to use technology to meet the communication goals of young people and NCTE's not explicitly stating that. I think I read it into something somewhere or just assumed it was there maybe, but that seems to be a crucial piece of the puzzle for sure.
I am in awe of the possibilities I can envision and those that I have absolutely no idea even exist. I need to find a way to get to the national computer conferences again. I used to go years ago - Spokane, Seattle, Portland when the school paid! I think it prudent, however, if we are to do something with tech in the writing project that we get to these conferences.
Dave,
I didn't mean to say that NCTE didn't talk about student purposes for using multimodal literacy. What I missed (and maybe this is there, too!) was some mention of what you term "depth of content." I agree with you that the student needs to have a clear rationale for creating the work.
I'm jazzed because I got a computer donated to my classroom, I now need to navigate the powers that be to be able to connect it to the network.
I'm game for attending the computer conferences! I also agree with you about clarity in assessment. Students doing the tech. piece are demonstrating a facility that is assessible. All along the way, they are developing critical thinking skills, production skills, playing around with components to affect their message.
That's all.
Claudia,
I think I am obsessed by depth - but I get so tired of paltry responses if the question of rationale is asked - even of seasoned teachers. Why do you have kids dress up pumpkins as a favorite character? Uh .. I am teaching them about character. Cripes! Just say we are having fun and blowing off some time to do it if you can't provide something better to say. I could say - go for it and have fun, but don't call it teaching.
My rant for the day.
We should investigate that conference - seems like it is often the first part of March? Mmm I will check into that one.
Good luck with the computer!
Yeah, yeah you all... but the most technology I have available to me at work is a white board. We have to rent overhead projectors. How do I incorporate technology in any meaningful ways given those condidtions? And by the way, is that a rationale for developing an inquiry project of some kind???
Post a Comment