Reflect #2

LABELING AND DEFINING LITERACY IN 2017

As a result of reading the reading materials and organizing my thought, I think I should use term literacies as plural form. There are two main reasons for this. First, it can be explained in sociocultural approach of literacies research area. To understand plural feature of literacies, it is necessary to examine the distinction between “Discourse” and “discourse” first. Gee defines Discourses as ‘ways of being in the world’, which integrates words, acts, gestures, attitudes, beliefs, purposes, clothes, bodily movements and positions, and so on including identities. “Discourse” is the discourse of a person’s primary discourse and its distinctive language use is called as “discourse” with a small ‘d’. According to Gee since there are multiple secondary Discourses, and since literacy and being literate are defined in terms of controlling secondary language uses, there are multiple literacies and ways of being literate(Lankshear & Knobel, 2008). Thus, from a sociocultural perspective, literacies reflect diverse social practices. Literature is bound up with social, institutional and cultural contexts, and can be understood when they are situated within their social, cultural and historical contexts (Alvermann, 2003; Hammerberg, 2004; Lankshear & Knobel, 2008).

Next, the clue can be found in the changing meaning of literacy as an expanded concept. According to Lankshear & Knobel (2008), the meaning of literacy has been gradually expanded. With increasing concern of government and policy, the importance of literacy education has been increasingly emphasized. As a result, related industries have grown, and as academics continue to grow in interest, there the interest in how to define literacy have been grown. Therefore, the meaning of literacy has reached the level of collecting almost all the knowledge and learning that is considered to be educationally valuable, from merely the ability to read and write. And “literacy becoming a metaphor for competence, proficiency or being functional (Lankshear & Knobel, 2008).” Thus, various types of literacies are created.

However, we should keep in mind, according to Lankshear & Knobel (2008), that the meaning of “new” here is different from “new” as defined by the sociocultural view. The “new literacy studies” that Gee and other researchers have argued are closer to the sociocultural perspective. To become really new, new literacies need something new, different from existing literacies. Lankshear & Knobel (2008) pointed out two new things. First, the emergence of multimodal text (post-typographic) facilitated by the development of digital technology is one of its characteristics. Second, there is “ethos stuff” which is different from technology stuff. For example, they are often more ‘participatory’, more ‘collaborative’, and more ‘distributed’, as well as less ‘published’, less ‘individuated’ and less ‘author-centric’ than conventional literacies. I think that the affordance provided by new technology would create a more participative and collaborative atmosphere in a more affective or sociocultural way.

The term referring to reading comprehension in the online environment, especially in the Internet, has also been changed. According to Leu, Forzani, Rhoads, Maykel, Kennedy, and Timbrell (2015) and Castek, Coiro, Henry, Leu, and Hartman (2015), there were some people who express confusion that although both offline reading comprehension and online reading comprehension share many commonalities, this term seems to emphasize the differences only. Furthermore, the researchers found that online reading occur mainly for a problem solving process through information acquisition so that they consider online reading comprehension as a digital inquiry process. As a result, the term online research and comprehension replaced the term online reading comprehension. According to Leu et al (2015), the new term is more accurate and makes the somewhat distinctive nature of online reading easier to understand because online research requires skill with additional technologies and also requires additional practices.

Finally, there is a dual theory about new literacies. According to Leu et al (2015), the lowercase theories are suitable for describing specific areas of new literacies and / or a new technology. Lowercase perspectives also include areas that focus on disciplinary base. These lowercase theories are better able to keep up with the rapidly changing nature of literacy in a deictic world because they are closer to the specific types of changes that are taking place.

The broader concept, New Literacies, is a consistent and integrated principle that brings together the common results of several lowercase views. This, in turn, can provide a theoretical direction to inform research on contexts that change more rapidly at lowercase levels. The Internet is one example of the principle of New Literacies in that it enables new social practices with technologies such as instant messaging, social networks, blogs, wikis, and email.

I agree that literacies are plurals. In terms of both socio-cultural aspects and the development of digital technology, literary activities are not singular but plural. However, digital literacies and new literacies obviously have different meanings. So I think it is more important to use it correctly because each term has its own range of use. For example, Lankshear & Knobel (2008) pointed out that new literacies do not have a one-to-one correspondence with new digital electronic technologies. Similarly, the terms digital literacies or multimodal literacies cannot be used in the same sense as new literacies. New literacies have a more comprehensive meaning.

While, regarding the term online research and comprehension, I basically agree with the flow of researchers’ thoughts and logic until the term emerge. However, since it has more specific and concrete meaning, this term might not include general reading comprehension in online environment such as reading for recreational purpose.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

I think online research and comprehension is as important as or more important than traditional reading comprehension. First, offline reading comprehension is important in that it includes various cognitive functions and strategies needed for basic reading of paper-based texts, which is the sum of the accumulated knowledge. And because new literacies are extensively re-conceptualized existing traditional literacy, offline reading comprehension is share basic things with the online research and comprehension. In online research and comprehension, since the main medium is written language, it has much in common with offline reading comprehension such as vocabulary knowledge and reasoning. In that respect, it can be said that both are equally important.

However, there are new features and strategies that are unique to online research and comprehension or that are more emphasized or emphasized than offline reading comprehension. Coiro and Dobler (2007) suggested that Internet reading in online environments may require more complex reading strategies in terms of prior knowledge, reasoning strategies, self-regulation strategies, and motivation. Also, Coiro (2011) found that online research and comprehension is a unique part of offline reading comprehension, with about 15% of other explanations. And, as Lankshear & Knobel (2008) pointed out, these differences are not simply related to new digital machines, but also require something else in terms of sociocultural and defining aspects in terms of affordance. As this situation will continue to deepen, I think online research and comprehension needs to be emphasized even more.

 

 

Reference 

Alvermann, D. (2003). Exemplary literacy instruction in grades 7–12: What counts and who’s counting. International Reading Association.

 Castek, J., Coiro, J., Henry, L. A., Leu, D. J., & Hartman, D. K. (2015). Research on instruction and assessment in the new literacies of online research and comprehension. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 324-344.

 Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 352-392.

 Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth‐grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading research quarterly, 42(2), 214-257.

 Hammerberg, D. D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for socioculturally diverse classrooms: A review of what we know. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 648-658.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

 Leu, D. J., Forzani, E., Rhoads, C., Maykel, C., Kennedy, C., & Timbrell, N. (2015). The new literacies of online research and comprehension: Rethinking the reading achievement gap. Reading Research Quarterly, 50(1), 37-59.