Discussion+Questions

Use This Space To Ask Higher Order Questions That Could Spark An Engaging Discussion. Try to Mark Questions and Responses in Some Way. If You Want, Sign Your Name.

Since there are vast disparities in life chances, pinpointing the appropriate pedagogy to teach this next generation is essential. In this new paradigm (multiple communication channels, technology, globalization, etc.), it seems to me that understanding data and data inputs is a relevant skill in this technologically driven environment; additionally, with the FLOOD of information, browsing versus reading seems to be an important skill in 2012. What do you think are the most salient skills needed to find a job in today's market? How can we best teach our students these skills, so they have a chance to participate fully in public, community, and economic life? In my mind, there is content knowledge for day to day life (geography, math, etc.), and there are skills we need to know for accessing content knowledge. Most importantly, students need to learn to think metacognitively, so whatever job they take on they are able to know what it entails and learn how to do it. -AH I've worked in the private sector for 5 years. Unfortunately, at least through my perspective (I worked at market research / consulting firm, and these are generally thought to be the "knowledge jobs" computers are not going to take away), I don't necessarily believe that the skills that allow us to participate fully in public, community and economic life are necessarily the skills that you need for today's job market. It doesn't hurt to show you are well rounded on your resume, but what is really wanted, at least in the industry I worked in, are "known quantities" (i.e., they have a great reference or worked with someone at the company previously), hard workers (and flexible workers), those who are competent around clients with good business acumen (not my strong suit), someone who is not going to cause trouble or spark debate unless it is hugely important (generally, this meant someone who respects the client and rarely calls them into question). Of course, being familiar with technologies and being able to think through problems are important too, but basically I found that college did not adequately prepare me for the business world (maybe because I didn't major in business). But then again, I don't know if I would have wanted to learn about how business works in college - it's not very exciting stuff. So basically I am writing this since the skills needed are going to vary a lot by job, and I don't necessarily think that learning multiliteracies are going to help at all in terms of success in some business jobs. Sure, companies needed to know about a diverse amount of markets, but I think it's possible to do this from a business perspective without really even thinking about the underlying literacy of a particular culture or social group. At my first company we did research in the middle east and asia, and I was shocked at how little we had to know about these cultures to do the project. Nevertheless, we completed the project and the client seemed happy with it.

Kind of related to the answer above, I think the issues at stake in this paper are even more important that the authors portray. Literacy is related to education which is in turn related to this country's future, so they essentially are suggesting a plan for the country's future. However, I would think that for such a plan to actually work, there would need to be coordination with the business world, national leaders on science, math, and lots of other parties. Are people OK with the authors of this article being only in the education world (definitely a diverse representation within it), or do you think there should have been some folks outside of the education world helping to put together the initial draft of this paper? The workplace does demand a different set of knowledge and skills than taught in traditional settings. Although I think that educational institutions do teach students to communicate ideas, meet deadlines, report concisely, and ask questions, there is more of an individual (at least in my experience) approach to it. This echoes what was said before about how college might not be preparing students for the business world. I think it would have been interesting to see what people working directly with the capitalist system would have contributed to the paper. I wonder how they would have responded to this: "Corporate cultures and their discourses of familiarity are more subtly and more rigorously exclusive than the most nasty - honestly nasty - of hierarchies. Replication of corporate culture demands assimilation to mainstream norms that only really works if one already speaks the language of the mainstream. If one is not comfortably a part of the culture and discourses of the mainstream, it is even harder to get into networks that operate informally than it was to enter into the old discourses of formality." -EG "As educators attempt to address the context of cultural and linguistic diversity through literacy pedagogy, we hear shrill claims and counterclaims about political correctness, the canon of great literature, grammar, and back-to-basics." By broadening our definition of literacy, does this water down curriculum? -EG

Also, another relevant point to point out, in terms of the demand for being concise in the business world, when I started writing market research reports I was first amazed that they were bulleted PPT reports, which takes away from the cohesiveness of your findings/recommendations, also amazed by the amount of basic graphics used so that a kindergartner could understand (which always leave out important details), and then finally my just how simple and concise everything had to be. This almost ran in direct contrast to the articles I wrote as a psychology major, or how I was taught to write in English class.

"When technologies of meaning are changing so rapidly, there cannot be one set of standards or skills that constitute the ends of literacy learning, however taught."
===This is an important point, with technologies changing so constantly will we even have enough time to figure out how to use them properly? I think it is good to recognize this point which is a main reason why the one literacy strategy isn't working, but it also makes things A LOT more complicated for policy makers and educators. I haven't gotten too far in the article, but I am interested to know how such a plan to emphasize/recognize cultural differences will be implemented, especially, when all the multiliteracies are bound to get more and more fragmented over time. Is there room allowed for more of an understandable, easier-to-grasp "common American culture" while still recognizing all the different multiliteracies which exist?===

This quote is interesting and a main idea of the article: "Institutionalized schooling traditionally performed the function of disciplining and skilling people for regimented industrial workplaces, assisting in the making of the melting pot of homogenous national citizenries, and smoothing over inherited differences between lifeworlds. This is what Dewey (1916/1966) called the assimilatory function of schooling, the function of making homogeneity out of differences. Now, the function of classrooms and learning is in some senses the reverse. Every classroom will inevitably reconfigure the relationships of local and global difference that are now so critical. To be relevant, learning processes need to recruit, rather than attempt to ignore and erase, the different subjectivities - interests, intentions, commitments, and purposes - students bring to learning. Curriculum now needs to mesh with different subjectivities, and with their attendant languages, discourses, and registers, and use these as a resource for learning." This gives off the idea of assimilation and negotiation of differences as in direct competition with each other. I see room for both. Although we need to recognize and account for all the different multiliteracies that exist, shouldn't there still be some form of a common cultural literacy of America as to provide some sort of cohesiveness to our education system (I think it should be more than just negotiating differences between different cultures)? At the very least we need goals and some common values, in terms of education (and for our country), and there doesn't seem to be much of that nowadays. At some level, aren't common goals or some sort of a shared cultural literacy a way to bring people from different backgrounds together? (as discussed in the article, another way to account for multiliteracies in teaching). Thoughts? ===Hirsch writes that the decline in communication skills in classroom is due to the lack of shared knowledge. He recommends that schools increase emphasis on factual and traditional knowledge that should be shared by all Americans. ===

How would you design assessments in your classroom to allign with the NLG's views on multiliteracies, situated practice, overt instruction, and transformed practice? What are you already doing assessment wise that fits into this framework and what, if anything, would you change about your current approach to assessment? - Lauren


 * In terms of transformed practice for myself as a math teacher, I would definitely incorporate more assessments that would require students to look outside of the classroom, find applications, and create some sort of project/presentation on it. Although it is important for students to learn how to actually do the math, too many math assessments simply require students to repeat a step-by-step process without any meaning behind it. **


 * On that note, I agree with the idea that "[students] might still be incapable of reflexively enacting their knowledge in practice." It is "critical" for students to be aware of "the cultural locatedness of practices," but it seems that the typical classroom awards students who have the knowledge, rather than those who can apply the knowledge, and this seems to also exemplified by standardized testing. How can we as teachers properly assess if students are simply recalling knowledge or if they are actually pulling from their own backgrounds and experiences and immersing their new knowledge in meaningful practices? **
 * -Danielle **

"To be relevant, learning processes need to recruit, rather than attempt to ignore and erase, the different subjectivities - interests, intentions, commitments, and purposes - students bring to learning. Curriculum now needs to mesh with different subjectivities, and with their attendant languages, discourses, and registers, and use these as a resource for learning." I understand that these views on multiliteracies places a huge focus on "social futures", in particular "workplace futures, public futures, and community futures". And I understand how knowing your students and their needs is essential. I'm wondering what affect all of this has on students with special needs, who struggle with social situations, or maybe have a learning disability that affects reading,writing, and/or speaking? These students have another whole aspect of learning needs that need to be considered, which is not mentioned in this article. How will one take into consideration all the background, cultural, and learning needs to find a way to teach one class with all these needs, especially for students who already struggle socially? -Lisa

A quote above, I thought encompassed one of the biggest issues in this topic, "When technologies of meaning are changing so rapidly, there cannot be one set of standards or skills that constitute the ends of literacy learning, however taught." How can we be expected to create a one size fits all, national literacy pedagogy when we cannot create or demonstrate a lasting concept of literacy, especially when our technology is so rapidly changing that it is impossible to keep up with. Every month there is some new form of technological communication whether it be email, twitter, blogging, or wikis. It seems impossible to separate literacy from technology in today's world, but until we do so I cannot see a set pedagogy being created, or that lasts long enough to be able to be implemented or have any effect. -Alex N.

"In the remainder of this article, we develop the notion of pedagogy as design. Our purpose is to discuss the proposition that **//curriculum is a design for social futures//** and to debate the overall shape of that design as we supplement literacy pedagogy in the ways indicated by the notion of multiliteracies. In this sense, this article is not immediately practical: it is more in the nature of a programmatic manifesto. The call for practicality is often misconceived insofar as it displaces the kind of foundational discussions we have here. There is another sense, however, in which discussion at this level is eminently practical, albeit in a very general way." Do you agree with the authors' stance that "the call for practicality is often misconceived"? What skills would be practical to a social future, in the context of this article's discourse? SKills needed: Discourse on the uses and applications of technology. Increased computer literacy. Other practical skills: Cultural and social competence to prepare students for their future.

Group 4: When did literacy become content knowledge, and where are we expected to draw the line between the two?

Group 5 response: How are you defining literacy here? Reading, writing, listening, speaking or cultural literacy? Literacy and content knowledge are dependent on each other and always have been. You can't learn content without literacy and you can't share what you know about content without literacy...There really isn't a line between the two. Literacy skills are applied across all content areas.

Group 4: Does it feel as if the writers are going into this discussion with this open minded, and tolerant air about the subject, but what they are really pushing is to assimilate others to their form of literacy (corporate, workplace, etc,)?

Group 5 : Who has the power to decide which "grammars" should be used in the workplace and which should be taught in the classroom? Should teachers be teaching social grammars? How important are social grammars to the workplace?

I think many social grammars are already taught in the classroom, though perhaps not so explicitly. Being intentional is important.

The article mentions moving beyond "tokenism" several times. I think this is important as well, though in my experience many teachers feel uncomfortable doing so, or do not know how. How do you envision teachers could reach this goal effectively?