I honestly don’t know where to start from and so this time I might just walk you through how I read these articles and my thought process while reading it. I first read Leander and Boldt’s (2012) article about their concern with a pedagogy of multiliteraciies. They make the point that although the New London Group (1996) shifted a focus of one form of literacy to literacies and the multimodes in which these literacies can occur, the New London Group (1996) still thought of literacy practices as rational, structured and not messy. I would admit that it took me a while to see their point, and I only realized how important their point was when I read through Leander (2006) and Kuby and Vaughn’s (2015) articles. While I was reading the first article (Leander and Boldt, 2012), I kept thinking “Ooh these posty scholars are confusing me! I understand your point, but is this really necessary to make”. But guess what? It so is!
Our literacies practices are messy. We often like to think everything is so organized and perfect, and that even multiliteracies cannot include the aesthetic creation of online gaming characters, but they do. The readings this week show evidence of the importance of the multiliteracies. Like the subjects discussed in these articles I remember starting and stopping different writing projects as a child: writing fictional stories as a boy in Grade 6; I even tried my hands at plays; wrote poems, etc. I remember writing tons of fan letters to my favorite authors and enjoyed receiving their replies. None of these practices of mine were ever realized in the classroom. School just did not seem to be about those ‘things’. 
Edwin, I like that you recognized that this week's readings were getting us to "step outside of the box". They certainly do challenge the "norms" with regard to how we (educators and researchers) view literacy and identity. I can't help but agree with you that we should be aware of what each individual brings to the classroom - as the readings suggested there exists an embodied understanding (being) and then as subjects are exposed to and interact and engage with others, environments, tools, etc. they become and build upon their identity - picking and choosing what they are affected by to in turn enact. As researchers and educators how do you believe we can foster an environment that allows for this movement, this becoming? What do you believe it would look like? How do you suggest we step outside of the box?
ReplyDeleteEdwin-
ReplyDeleteI am drawn to the specific examples you gave for yourself...dabbling in all kinds of different and unrecognized literacies. As I'm attempting to think with the authors this week, I'm also considering the randomness and chaos that often occurred as you were selecting, creating, abandoning, revisiting and on and on and on. Your connections are solidifying much of the way I read the presentation of Lee in the Leander (2006) piece.
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteWhen I read Leander and Boldt's (2012) critique of New Literacies, it helped me to see how often we do focus on the text or the process of creating the text rather than thinking about the individual and what identities a person shifts through as they interact with the text. I found it interesting that articles describe texts as participants in the unfolding of the moment. So the different activities you dabbled in, become participants that helped your growing identity unfold in particular moments. I appreciated how these articles emphasize the relationships in the process of identity emergence, and that relationships aren't just with people but also with materials, time, and space.
~Sarah
Edwin, I think you hit on how Leander and Frank (2006) and Leander and Boldt (2012) show that identity and literacy development do not come in the neat little packages teachers and people who package literacy programs would like us to believe. As you wrote about the starts and stops, I began to worry about my students, many of whom don't get that luxury. Workshop in middle school doesn't seem to have the richness of workshop in Kuby and Vaughn's (2015) elementary classroom and I don't have the luxury of Leander and Boldt (2012) to explore than lives outside the classroom (yet). Perhaps that is where I want my research to move toward...studying the starts and stops and how those explain literacy development. Thank you, Edwin, for getting my thoughts moving. :)
ReplyDeleteEdwin,
ReplyDeleteI love that you shared a personal connection to the reading AND that you can connect it to the classroom. This continues the conversation of how we define literacy-if literacy is any form of communication then that needs to be present in classrooms.