How do we frame “Literacies in New Times?”
I
always believed that in order to effectively teach literacy teachers would need
to use more than one approach, tool or program. This week my belief became
stronger than ever! After listening to
my classmates’ video-presentations and after reading all of the required
articles for this week, I can say for sure that we need to have some type of
balance when teaching literacy and never rely solely on one specific method or
approach. In his publication on Literacy, Luke (1990) states on pages 7 and 8
that:
“…But rather that each of these general
families of approaches displays and emphasises particular forms of literacy,
such that no single one will, of itself, fully enable students to use texts
effectively, in their own individual and collective interests, across a range
of discourses, texts and tasks.”
Other
important piece that needs to be considered when teaching literacy is the
cultural aspect that students bring with them to the classroom. I loved what
Green (2012) says in his book about the significance that culture ‘brings to
the table’ when producing meanings to the subjects we teach. On page 6, he
argues that: “Subject-area learning is cultural learning; in learning the
subject, one is also learning the culture.” In countries like Canada, USA, and
Australia where the influx of immigrants is very high, attending to the
cultural differences of students is something that we should expect to see as a
norm. Isn’t it? I wonder if that is a common idea amongst educators…(?)
The
four approaches to literacy education summarized by Ludwig (2003) were
something very thought provoking. Even though these ideas do not sound like new
concepts, it was certainly a great reminder of the approaches we will face when
teaching Literacy, such as the skills, the personal growth, the cultural heritage, and
the critical-cultural approaches.
What I
found very interesting were the “frameworks” for learning and teaching literacy
that would support the four approaches listed above. Ludwig (2003) presents
them in her article: - Four
Literacy Resources developed by Peter Freebody and Allan Luke (1990) and - Three Literacy Dimensions developed by Bill Green
(1988). I believe that we have used similar taxonomy in our Canadian schools,
perhaps in different levels. I like the idea of looking at literacy in a more
“holistic” way, as Green (1988) suggests. If we are able to put together the
language aspect of literacy with its operational systems, taking in
consideration the cultural pieces, we could certainly take students’ learning
to a more advanced critical level.
When people think about literacy or what means to be
literate, many times individuals would think only about the mechanical act of
reading and writing. However, as educators, we know that being literate has a much
more significant meaning, which would translates to: - being able to use our critical thinking, comprehension
and solving skills when faced with any difficulty in school and in life. I
believe that this is my own definition of literacy!
References:
Dyson, A. (2013). Rewriting the Basics – Literacy Learning in Children’s Cultures.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Freebody, Peter & Luke,
Allan (1990). Literacies
programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: An Australian
Journal of TESOL, 5(3), pp. 7-16. Retrieved from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49099/
Green, B. (2012). Subject- Specific Literacy and
School Learning: A Revised Account. In B.
green and C. Beavis (Eds) Literacy in 3D: An Integrated in Theory and
Practice.
Camnerwell, VIC: ACER.
Ludwig, C. (2003). Making Sense of Literacy. In Newsletter of the Australian Literacy
Educators' Association.