Friday, May 20, 2016

New Literacy, Social Practice & Participation


       Gillen & Barton (2010) write, “The distinctive contribution of the approach to literacy as social practice lies in the ways in which it involves careful and sensitive attention to what people do with texts, how they make sense of them and use them to further their own purposes in their own learning lives" (p. 9).  To get a clearer understanding what Gillen & Barton are describing, I’d refer the reader to the story of Gil, a fifteen-year-old turntablist who is followed by Researcher Leif Gustavson.  Turntablism is an artistic form of mixing vinyl records to create scratches that are woven into soundtracks.  In the 1980’s-90’s, turntabling was a distinct urban African American/Latino practice that was deeply rooted in discourse of social justice and equality issues (i.e. racial discrimination, profiling, capitalism, urban violence, etc.).  It was condemned by the dominant culture and honored in the counter culture of young people like myself.  In discussing Gil’s meaning making out of texts and the ways he interacts with texts through turntabling, the reader is able to really appreciate the attention and skill it takes to understand what goes into “turntabling”.  Oriented at current struggles in daily life, a turntablist:
1.     Is using an experimental process and that’s often original.
2.     Is subversive and is challenging the status quo in terms of language and understanding.
3.     Often works in public, providing opportunities to discuss with others the significance of what is being “scratched”.
4.     Often involves the audience in watching and questioning the tracks being used.
5.     And performs in public spaces, where people are engaged in what is happening, discussing or challenging and “there is a multiplicity that contributes to the vitality of the creative practice” (Lankshear & Knobel, p. 107).
As person that was very drawn to turntabling and the social justice issues that often engendered the practice, I was always amazed at the ways that artists could use the texts and “further their own purposes in their own learning lives” and “social practice”.  

      Gillen & Barton (2010) state that “each learner is an amalgam of diverse experiences, capabilities and understandings affected by the entirety of their personal history including experiences of physical strengths and weaknesses” (p. 17).  Young Gil is an amalgam of his early experiences and is using his ability to interpret texts and interact with the texts (soundtracks) using different capabilities and understandings.  For all of us, we are also interacting with texts and using diverse experiences to understand: (1.) how we will decipher what we read, (2.) come to understanding through discourse, and then (3.) communicate with others.  Using digital literacies, Gillen & Barton demonstrate how digital literacies are being used too (p. 11): 
      1.  Enhance cognitive development through curriculum using new digital technologies.
      2.  Support learning communities to work collaboratively to problem solve and co-construct knowledge.
      3.  Work in multidisciplinary teams to create useful tools.
      4.   Increase authenticity and overcome access issues.
While digital technologies are illustrated that respond to these four key areas to co-create knowledge and build communities of people, Gillen and Barton recognize that concerns remain.  Fears include: (1.) that traditional knowledge is neglected, (2.) the superficial nature of popularity outweighing critical thought, and (3.) how do teacher keep pace with how fast technology is progressing (p. 11)?

       In regard to the fears of some regarding new literacies in digital media, Dana Wilbur (2010) asserts that new literacies have evolved through the use of digital media and ways that people learn.  She points out that “technical stuff” ad “ethos” has revolutionized literacy (p.2).  Through the use of technology such as texting, our language has changed.  It has become shorter, more immediate and is being altered through the use of a variety of new phrases, emoji’s and abbreviations (i.e. LMAO = laughing my ass off).  Many of the abbreviated expressions are a real challenge for people like me that are newer to learning digital literacy.  In terms of “ethos”, she discusses the participatory nature of the “new literacy” through digital media.  Because the field has become so large and has provided more people with opportunity to participate, the prior way of knowledge as being in the hands of the few, the powerful, has been expanded to include other voices that were previously retrained.  For the powerful, the argument is about who deserves “authorship and challenges notions of expertise” (p. 2).

      In terns of literacy in regard to social practice and literacies that can evolve through media, I’d suggest readers to watch the movie, Paper Tigers. I took my colleague Muhammed Harris to see the film several weeks ago so we could think about the importance of understanding new literacies in light of abuse and neglect of high school kids in school today.  Paper Tigers http://papertigersmovie.com/, is a documentary about a group of students that have been affected by developmental effects of trauma in their lives.  While the film is primarily focused on dealing with working with kids with traumatic backgrounds, it was filled with new literacies and ways of telling their story and making sense of being powerless as kids kicked out of public school and attending a Day Treatment Type program for troubled youth.  The staff used very personalized ways of communicating with the youth using their primary way of telling their story and dealing with traumatic effects of abuse and meglect.
     
References

Gillen, J & Barton, D. (2010) Digital Literacies: Research Briefing for the TLRP-TEL (Teaching and Learning Research Programme – Technology Enhanced Learning). ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme. Literacy Research Centre, Lancaster University, (pgs. 30).
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M.  (2013) a new literacies reader: Educational Perspectives.  Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York (vol. 66).
Redford, J. (2015), Paper Tigers,  KPJR Films, http://kpjrfilms.co/paper-tigers/about-the-film/.
Wilber, D.J.  (2010).  Special themed issue: Beyond ‘new’ literacies. Digital Culture & Education, 2:1, 1-6.

4 comments:

  1. Hi Wales. I very much appreciated the points you brought up in your blog. I share the concern that you mention from Gillen and Barton, in that: how are we, as educators, able to keep current with the fast pace of technological progression? I wonder, after reading your profile, if you experience any difficulty in introducing new technology to the parents and families you currently help?
    My (Early Childhood )facility has struggled with finding ways of engaging parents and families as well as keeping communication lines open. New doors have been opened with the use of tools such as blanket texts, Facebook, and satellite feed that allows families to view their child in his/her classroom at play.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Virginia,
    To be honest, the hardest part about keeping up with technology and progression has to do with the front end, my employer! We have so much work to do with employee who manage and are responsible for our work. My agency has been researching, studying and strategizing how I can use basic social media with clients for the last 3 years. There are many "old school" people (managers) that don't understand what we (new and upcoming more technology savvy people) are doing. They're are some valid concerns too about ethics. I will be looking into some of this through my work and hopefully in this class and will try to publish in regard to this.
    One of the first things I am beginning to learn about in terms of what we want to do with parents using social media is to first do some assessment with our communities. What do they want? What do they need? How do they see themselves as being able to benefit from new and emerging ideas we have about how to communicate, connect and teach? If we spend time doing some assessment, then we can determine a Rate of Investment (ROI).
    I think what your agency is doing sounds golden! How wonderful that they are open and transparent. This must have been a big challenge for teachers o have gotten used too. After 3 years, I am now using Facebook too but it is so confined, limited and small I am afraid that the experiment has been set up to fail. I see face book, texting and Instagram as way to create more democratic involvement in what parents are doing with me and will each other. For me it's a way to build and strengthen community. For my employer I think this is very intimidating because it also opens up doors to more responsibility and participation on our end, as teachers and program coordinators, to be a part of what's happening and deal with "unhappy customers" that may at times create a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really like how you incorporated the story of Gil and his turn tabling. It goes to show how literacy and texts can come from a variety of sources and cover such a wide range of activities, which really helps pull the social perspective into the picture.

    The quotes you provided from Gillen and Barton do a great job of summarizing the positives of digital literacies, along with the concerns. I believe that technology definitely has a place in the classroom and can enhance learning, but sometimes I do wonder, is it going too far in some cases? Are there too many instances where technology is being used, and traditional methods of teaching and learning (which may be better suited for certain situations) being forgotten?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Wales,
    I wanted to get your opinion about one word you mentioned in your response to Virginia: ethics. The issue of ethics is a very loaded issue indeed. On one hand, as we discussed earlier in response to Christen's post, it is imperative that families who may not have the same opportunities to access technology be considered, so that a gap does not begin to occur between those who have (technology) and those who do not. From a teaching perspective, I want to provide as many avenues of communication as possible with the parents of my students, so I can promote collaboration for the sake of the children. However, the other part of this issue is the ethics.... The teachers in my school have been told not to give out their phone numbers, emails, home phones, etc. It is strongly suggested that the primary means of teacher accessibility is for parents to call the school directly. Of course this entails the parents sitting through an automated system which eventually will lead them to the secretary. Not exactly promoting collaboration.
    So how can we move into this new generation of literacies when ethics will always be at the forefront of some schools' perspective? How could this type of informal (or even formal-like this blog) communication be regulated by a school?
    This class has really started to raise these important questions in my case, and I would love to hear your opinion, as someone who works so closely with parents on an everyday basis.

    ReplyDelete