Comprehension+Questions

Use This Space to Ask and Respond To Specific Questions From The Reading. Might Help To Include Your Name With Questions and Answers. Also, Try Using Bold Or Italics For Answers.

1) I don't get this statement: "In some senses, the invasion of the mass media and consumerism makes a mockery of the diversity of its media and channels. Despite all the subcultural differentiation of niche markets, not much space is offered in the marketplace of childhood that reflects genuine diversity among children and adolescents."

What is meant by "genuine diversity?" Are they basically saying that the media is diverse but not in a way that reflects the true diversities of children? -Will Maybe it related to that idea of a single story that we have been discussing in class? The point was made last class that more harm than good might be done by 'multicultural education' that presents one story. Maybe there is subcultural differentiation of niche markets by the media that perpetuates a single story of those niche markets? - Lauren Group 3 thinks this means because markets are trying to sell the same product to many different people, the product cannot actually reflect diversity among consumers.

Perhaps media does not represent "genuine diversity" because it seems to emphasize stereotypes. -EG **(group 3 discussion): There may be a fixed standard for media advertising; however, when we think about schools and classrooms, there must be attention to meeting the needs of the diverse group of students. This ties into Hirsch's argument that students need to have both academic and cultural knowledge to be successful in life.**
 * I think they are arguing that although there is a diversity of media outlets and channels as well as media content, mass media and advertising is not very diverse. This is even more pronounced when looking at childrens' programing and advertising. Take a quick walk around the children's section of Target and you will quickly notice that EVERYTHING is branded. It is hard to buy a pair of socks or a backpack without Lightning McQueen or Dora the Explorer on it. Infuriating! -Brian**

2) What does the author mean by "flattened hierarchy"? It seems that capitalism and the workplace demands more credentials, thus there is a heightened sense of hierarchy. - EG I also wondered about this. What bothered me was the corporate nature of the discussion of work spaces. I wonder if this sense of flattened hierarchy applies across all work spaces. - Lauren  Group 4 discussed that this sense of a corporate and business focused "flattened hierarchy" is not applicable to all students or people within the workplace. Having this specific type of literacy to fit into this specific niche is not representative of the majority of society. It is a very closed image and idea of the workplace and shuts out the majority of people from being able to participate in this type of literacy.

I think "flattened hierarchy" is referring to fewer layers in the structure of the workplace. There is less chain of command, thus, more teamwork. It is more of a streamlined chain of command, which empowers and motivates people to work collaboratively. Ideally, people have more of a voice. This Quotation Speaks to the Flattened Hierarchy Idea. "PostFordism replaces the old hierarchical command structures epitomized in Henry Ford's development of mass production techniques and represented in caricature by Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times - an image of mindless, repetitive unskilled work on the industrial production line. Instead, with the development of postFordism or fast capitalism, more and more workplaces are opting for a flattened hierarchy."

3) The New London Group states that we can be "different people at different times." Do you think this statement is true? This is true because people act different ways at different times depending on their environment, the context (different kinds of literacy...texting/IM/Facebook/phone call/conversation) of the situation they are in and the people they are with. Also, you could say that the PERSON always says the same, but their neverending amount of discourses (ie, each interaction they have with another person or a piece of media) is constantly changing based on their environments. -GROUP 1  ** Consider our discussion last week about the importance of discourse as a source of power - discourse being the source of power more than the individual or organization. In the same vein, if you consider an individual to be the product of their communication (instead of simply a biological entity - flesh, bone, etc.), it may be easier to see the validity of the comment. Considering the value many youth place on "creating" and "monitoring" their online persona, this line of thinking may be even more valid today. -brian **

4) "There is ample evidence that people do not learn anything well unless they are both motivated to learn and believe that they will be able to use and function with what they are learning in some way that is in their interest." Should this quote guide our pedagogy? -I was also wondering about those who are not motivated to learn, what about them? - Lisa

5) "This means that, as educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life." I'm still struggling with this point. Not all working environments are the same, and how could one ever prepare all students for all of the different futures they will have? Is there a general "productive working life" preparation?

====** Interesting question. I would say that maybe our jobs as educators is not to prepare them for all the different futures they will have, but to have students learn and prepare for all the futures that they could have. This also brings to mind my mom as a student (not in the US), where she had to choose the "science" or "arts" option in 10th grade, determining which classes and the number of classes a student would have to take in a subject area. (Students in the "arts" option would still have to take math classes, but could opt out of Chemistry, for example) Would this be considered a way to prepare students for "productive working life" or would it do just the opposite? -Danielle **====

It’s probably not so much about preparing students for specific working environments, but rather the overarching idea of professionalism, collaboration, and communication. Perhaps educators can create an environment in the classroom that is friendly to all potential job-types and instead model the qualities and skills one would need in the workplace. I also agree with the comment below (Kelly's) -Martha


 * Personally, I feel like high school should not let a student choose science or the arts, because it is a time to really find out what you like (or don't like) about school. Then, in college or whatever post-secondary route someone takes, one can decide and then pursue that passion they initially discovered in high school.-Kelly **

6) "A division of labor into its minute, deskilled components is replaced by "multiskilled," well-rounded workers who are flexible enough to be able to do complex and integrated work (Cope & Kalantzis, 1995)." --- When I read this, it made me think about the PURPOSE of education- to what ends are we educating our students, why are we edjucating them, where do we want them to end up? Is the ultimate goal of our K-12 educational system to go into higher education? What about the merits of doing vocational education and entering the workforce upon graduation? (is graduation from high school/GED necessary?), What about serving the in the military or Peace Corps/Social Services field? What are the necessary skills in order to be a 21st century productive citizen that can complete on a global scale? -- Rachel G. (this refers to flattened hierarchy)

--> I think purpose of education is certainly critical in relation to this paper and it struck me as if many of the points of this article and what the authors think the aims of education should be to meet this demand of multiliteracies, is not, in fact, being met in classrooms or even post-secondary education today. In my own educational experience, I don't feel like either my secondary or post-secondary (at a liberal arts college) education placed any emphasis on preparing me for a specific job or purpose. While I think there is certainly value in a liberal and well-rounded education to produce the so-called "multi skilled" workers, it seems like the danger is producing many workers with a basic knowledge of a lot of things but no in-depth knowledge or skill of one or a few particular things. -- Margaret

Literacy today seems to be something far from what we were brought up to understand. Literacy no longer refers to the sheer ability to read and write, or speak a language fluently. Multiliteracies seems to be the new literacy, this world wide accessibility to knowledge rather than strictly communication. "Commitment, responsibility, and motivation are won by developing a workplace culture in which the members of an organization identify with its vision, mission, and corporate values." This knowledge is embedded in the funstioning of our society and it's corportate and buisness instilled values. Even though our society is so high-tech and multidimensional, I still cannot understand how we expect students in the public schools today to get to this exceptional level of "literacy." I've been very fortunate and have been in wonderful private schools all my life and I failed the cultural literacy in class quiz. There must be some changes in ALL public schools (especially the worst ones) in order to make this new idea of multiliteracy accessible to everyone. -Alex N.

7) "However, it may well be that market-directed theories and practices, even though they sound humane, will never authentically include a vision of meaningful success for all students." I'm not sure I understand what the authors mean when they say these theories and practices "sound humane." Is this somehow related to the idea of the "American Dream"?

Group 4: Standardization makes it harder to address individual needs, so its impossible to to create something that applies to everyone without forcing people to assimilate to one idea.

8) In the middle of the text, there was a lot of reference to semiotics, but there's no real definition of it. We have talked about this concept before? I had trouble following some of the text on the "What" of Multiple Literacies. Group 4: Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation

9) Group 4 Question: Although this is a theory and will apply to people designing new curricula and future plans for education, how is this different than what teachers are already doing? What changes would schools make to "adopt" this theory and put it into practice?

Group 5 response: Is there one uniform definition of what teachers are already doing? Schools need establish a multiliteracies framework/ideology as part of their school culture and make hiring decisions based on that school culture (long term). Only teachers on board with the framework.

Does the school community need to be on board too? What would this look like in diverse schools?

"Paradoxically, the new efficiency requires new systems of getting people motivated that might be the basis for a democratic pluralism in the workplace and beyond." What is "new efficiency" exactly? Are the authors saying that this motivating force could also be an asset in schools?