Literacy vs. Literacies: Should We Drop the 'Y' and Add the 'res'?
Labeling and Defining Literacy in 2015:
If you have been reading anything about technology and schools, chances are you have come across something called “digital literacy.” Which means you also might have read “digital literacies”, “online reading comprehension”, “digital inquiry,” and let’s not forget “New Literacy” vs. “new literacies.” Chances are, you are confused.
You are not alone in this feeling. Admittedly, I was confused too. It seems researchers and scholars in the field have been coining and using new terms related to these new forms of literacy pretty interchangeably. Terms aside, the key takeaway here is there are new forms of literacy out in the world which are changing and developing so rapidly, our nomenclatural tendencies just can’t seem to catch up. Does that mean we should abandon attempts to break out our label makers and firmly press a new name to something? Probably not.
Literacy (and the adjectives that precede it) has always been a complex cognitive and social term related to one’s competence in a certain area. A chapter from Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and Henry notes the “meaning of literacy has also become deictic because we live in an age of rapidly changing information and communication technologies, each of which requires new literacies” (1150). With the advances of technology and their widespread influence on how people read, learn, share, etc., literacy has only grown more complex, its definition ever expanding. Some see literacy as a singular term. I however, think the singular definition of literacy is not inclusive of all of the new and exciting literacies of this era. It seems the singular definition of literacy is bound only to one’s ability to read and comprehend a printed text. A more extensive, non-traditional definition of literacy emerged with Paulo Freire’s work, as summarized in the Lankshear and Knobel reading (cited below). Lankshear and Knobel write, “[Freire’s] concept of literacy as ‘reading the word and the world’ involved much more than merely the ideas of decoding and encoding print” (p. 9). From this perspective, the word, the world, and everything in it can and should be read. Freire’s concept, through from the 1970s, seems more closely related to this era of new forms of literacy. Some see literacy as a singular definition linked only to the traditional cognitive processes associated with a traditional text. However, I believe the plural definition, inclusive of multimodal and multifaceted texts, emerges as a more accurate portrayal of what it means to be literate in the twenty-first century.
One aspect about these new forms of literacy with which I definitely agree is that they require “additional, new skills to read and effectively comprehend information online” (Coiro, 2013). However, it is important to note these new forms of literacy are not entirely replacing what we already know about literacy. Instead, these new skills, as Leu et. all write, “build upon foundational literacies” such as “word recognition, vocabulary, comprehension, inferential reasoning, the writing process, spelling, response to literature, and others…” (p. 1159). These new texts to be read, viewed, etc. are “multiple, multimodal, and multifaceted” (p.1160). They include additions to the word ‘text’, additions like the Internet, icons, audio, videos, and more (p. 1160). In publication from 2003, Dr. Coirio writes these new forms of literacy offer new “opportunities for interacting with new text formats…new reader elements…and new activities” (p. 459). She goes on to write “new texts can be characterized as hyper textual networks that explore new types of story grammar and a variety of new formats…texts are typically non-linear, interactive, and inclusive of multiple media formats” (p. 459). I definitely agree with this statement. One can look at any Wikipedia web page and see these characteristics.
However, it’s not just the texts that are new these days. Non-traditional texts are changing the way students think and act while reading. These new texts “encourage readers to navigate their own paths through the information in a non-linear way that may be different from the path of other readers or the intended path of the author” which allows students to “actively engage with the text in ways that are personally relevant” (p. 459). Further, these new texts, especially Internet based texts which include a number of links to other pages which may or may not be relevant to the text at hand, require students to use a “new type of inferential reasoning to anticipate these differences and decide whether or not each hyperlink will enhance or disrupt their search for meaning” (p. 459). I definitely agree with these ideas related to what skills students use when reading or interacting with these new forms of literacy and see how they are skills unique to non-printed texts. As wonderful as holding a paper-based book and reading it is, it seems that non-printed text have the leg up on requiring readers to use more complex cognitive skills in order to comprehend. Therefore, I think it is beneficial to talk about these processes as online reading comprehension or digital inquiries, or anything related to distinguishing these new, complex, specific skill sets to reading and comprehending non-printed materials.
Among all the naming and plurality confusion, there also lies the new literacies vs. New Literacies debacle. Basically, as Leu et. all, write “lowercase theories explore a specific area of new literacies and/or a new technology” whereas New Literacies stands as the “broader, more inclusive concept, including those common findings emerging across multiple, lowercase theories” (p. 1157). In some ways, this differentiation adds clarity by separating the broader area of study into specific areas, as one might differentiate between Biology and Microbiology. However, I argue the implementation can lead to some confusion. Simply capitalizing or using lowercase typing definitely muddies the waters when it comes to reading. Admittedly, I found myself frustrated and confused by the constant switch between a capitol ’N’ and a lowercase one. The main problem I have with this use is that it is entirely visual. If this course were to be held in a lecture hall, a professor could not just simply say both terms and have everyone be on the same page. This is unlike my example earlier of Biology and Microbiology where a reader can visually see a difference between the two words and a listener can hear an audible difference as well. As a professor or a speaker, to fairly differentiate between the two would require constant additional words or clarifying statements which would grow tedious for both the speaker and his/her audience. However, I do agree that it is important to distinguish between the two. At this point, I'm just not sure how.
You are not alone in this feeling. Admittedly, I was confused too. It seems researchers and scholars in the field have been coining and using new terms related to these new forms of literacy pretty interchangeably. Terms aside, the key takeaway here is there are new forms of literacy out in the world which are changing and developing so rapidly, our nomenclatural tendencies just can’t seem to catch up. Does that mean we should abandon attempts to break out our label makers and firmly press a new name to something? Probably not.
Literacy (and the adjectives that precede it) has always been a complex cognitive and social term related to one’s competence in a certain area. A chapter from Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, and Henry notes the “meaning of literacy has also become deictic because we live in an age of rapidly changing information and communication technologies, each of which requires new literacies” (1150). With the advances of technology and their widespread influence on how people read, learn, share, etc., literacy has only grown more complex, its definition ever expanding. Some see literacy as a singular term. I however, think the singular definition of literacy is not inclusive of all of the new and exciting literacies of this era. It seems the singular definition of literacy is bound only to one’s ability to read and comprehend a printed text. A more extensive, non-traditional definition of literacy emerged with Paulo Freire’s work, as summarized in the Lankshear and Knobel reading (cited below). Lankshear and Knobel write, “[Freire’s] concept of literacy as ‘reading the word and the world’ involved much more than merely the ideas of decoding and encoding print” (p. 9). From this perspective, the word, the world, and everything in it can and should be read. Freire’s concept, through from the 1970s, seems more closely related to this era of new forms of literacy. Some see literacy as a singular definition linked only to the traditional cognitive processes associated with a traditional text. However, I believe the plural definition, inclusive of multimodal and multifaceted texts, emerges as a more accurate portrayal of what it means to be literate in the twenty-first century.
One aspect about these new forms of literacy with which I definitely agree is that they require “additional, new skills to read and effectively comprehend information online” (Coiro, 2013). However, it is important to note these new forms of literacy are not entirely replacing what we already know about literacy. Instead, these new skills, as Leu et. all write, “build upon foundational literacies” such as “word recognition, vocabulary, comprehension, inferential reasoning, the writing process, spelling, response to literature, and others…” (p. 1159). These new texts to be read, viewed, etc. are “multiple, multimodal, and multifaceted” (p.1160). They include additions to the word ‘text’, additions like the Internet, icons, audio, videos, and more (p. 1160). In publication from 2003, Dr. Coirio writes these new forms of literacy offer new “opportunities for interacting with new text formats…new reader elements…and new activities” (p. 459). She goes on to write “new texts can be characterized as hyper textual networks that explore new types of story grammar and a variety of new formats…texts are typically non-linear, interactive, and inclusive of multiple media formats” (p. 459). I definitely agree with this statement. One can look at any Wikipedia web page and see these characteristics.
However, it’s not just the texts that are new these days. Non-traditional texts are changing the way students think and act while reading. These new texts “encourage readers to navigate their own paths through the information in a non-linear way that may be different from the path of other readers or the intended path of the author” which allows students to “actively engage with the text in ways that are personally relevant” (p. 459). Further, these new texts, especially Internet based texts which include a number of links to other pages which may or may not be relevant to the text at hand, require students to use a “new type of inferential reasoning to anticipate these differences and decide whether or not each hyperlink will enhance or disrupt their search for meaning” (p. 459). I definitely agree with these ideas related to what skills students use when reading or interacting with these new forms of literacy and see how they are skills unique to non-printed texts. As wonderful as holding a paper-based book and reading it is, it seems that non-printed text have the leg up on requiring readers to use more complex cognitive skills in order to comprehend. Therefore, I think it is beneficial to talk about these processes as online reading comprehension or digital inquiries, or anything related to distinguishing these new, complex, specific skill sets to reading and comprehending non-printed materials.
Among all the naming and plurality confusion, there also lies the new literacies vs. New Literacies debacle. Basically, as Leu et. all, write “lowercase theories explore a specific area of new literacies and/or a new technology” whereas New Literacies stands as the “broader, more inclusive concept, including those common findings emerging across multiple, lowercase theories” (p. 1157). In some ways, this differentiation adds clarity by separating the broader area of study into specific areas, as one might differentiate between Biology and Microbiology. However, I argue the implementation can lead to some confusion. Simply capitalizing or using lowercase typing definitely muddies the waters when it comes to reading. Admittedly, I found myself frustrated and confused by the constant switch between a capitol ’N’ and a lowercase one. The main problem I have with this use is that it is entirely visual. If this course were to be held in a lecture hall, a professor could not just simply say both terms and have everyone be on the same page. This is unlike my example earlier of Biology and Microbiology where a reader can visually see a difference between the two words and a listener can hear an audible difference as well. As a professor or a speaker, to fairly differentiate between the two would require constant additional words or clarifying statements which would grow tedious for both the speaker and his/her audience. However, I do agree that it is important to distinguish between the two. At this point, I'm just not sure how.
Implications for Teaching and Learning:
Whether it’s new or old, print or online, uppercase or lowercase, literacy belongs in every classroom. It is important to remember these new forms of literacy are exactly what I’ve been writing — new. There are ample research studies, articles, and sources out there discussing this topic, adding new findings, sharing classroom examples. However, the new skills, strategies, and practices reflect what I imagine is probably just the surface of a deep pool that researchers and scholars are beginning to swim in. Nevertheless, it is important to teach students these skills in any classroom because they are the necessary skills required for 21st century students just as it is important to teach the skills related to offline reading comprehension. In my future classroom, I imagine I will teach both sets of skills. A student must know how to read or question a text and many other skills, regardless of whether or not they’re reading a printed document or an online blog. As of right now, it seems the skills related to offline reading comprehension are the foundational skills required of any reader to be considered literate or digitally literate. Yet, the skills required for online reading comprehension are necessary for the survival in the 21st century classroom as well as the real world. Thus, I say both skills are equally important for our 21st century learners to know in order to be considered literate and digitally literate.
As a future teacher, I know I want to teach both sets of skills. But, I’m not sure if saying means I am ignoring the “deictic” nature of literacy that was discussed in the readings. I don’t know what a classroom will look like two-three years from now, let alone the nature of literacy. By then, I’m sure, new definitions of literacy will be circulating the field. I guess the best I can do is stay informed and educated so as to best meet my students needs as learners and teach them the necessary skills to survive and thrive in this world.
I want to sign off my going back to my titular question: literacy vs. literacies, should we drop the ‘y’ and add the ‘ies’? Should scholars, researchers, teachers, and more recognize there is more than one way to read, think, share, collaborate, question, and learn? In my opinion, absolutely. Whether it’s a textbook, an article, a Youtube video, a TED talk, or a tweet from an expert on the other side of the world, students are consuming information, connecting ideas, collaborating on projects, creating content, and learning. Therefore, I think the students of today and the generations to follow, will always be challenging the traditional, breaking free from limits, and redefining what it means to be literate.
As a future teacher, I know I want to teach both sets of skills. But, I’m not sure if saying means I am ignoring the “deictic” nature of literacy that was discussed in the readings. I don’t know what a classroom will look like two-three years from now, let alone the nature of literacy. By then, I’m sure, new definitions of literacy will be circulating the field. I guess the best I can do is stay informed and educated so as to best meet my students needs as learners and teach them the necessary skills to survive and thrive in this world.
I want to sign off my going back to my titular question: literacy vs. literacies, should we drop the ‘y’ and add the ‘ies’? Should scholars, researchers, teachers, and more recognize there is more than one way to read, think, share, collaborate, question, and learn? In my opinion, absolutely. Whether it’s a textbook, an article, a Youtube video, a TED talk, or a tweet from an expert on the other side of the world, students are consuming information, connecting ideas, collaborating on projects, creating content, and learning. Therefore, I think the students of today and the generations to follow, will always be challenging the traditional, breaking free from limits, and redefining what it means to be literate.
Word Count: 1,546
References:
Coiro, J. (2003). Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher.
Coiro, J. (October, 2013). Comprensión lectora en línea:oportunidades, retos y nuevos pasos. Julie Coiro (audio en ingles [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWDEr2fKxA.
Kupiainen, R. (2013). Media and digital literacies in secondary school. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). From ‘reading’ to ‘new literacy studies. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel, New literacies: Everyday pracices and classroom learning. Berkshire, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013. New Literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment.
References:
Coiro, J. (2003). Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher.
Coiro, J. (October, 2013). Comprensión lectora en línea:oportunidades, retos y nuevos pasos. Julie Coiro (audio en ingles [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWDEr2fKxA.
Kupiainen, R. (2013). Media and digital literacies in secondary school. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). From ‘reading’ to ‘new literacy studies. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel, New literacies: Everyday pracices and classroom learning. Berkshire, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education.
Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013. New Literacies: A dual level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment.