What is multi-literacy?
Chapter 1 reading notes
(please see the course Moodle for other notes, too – email me and ASK if you’re curious!)
blogging away:
As a philologist, the following is a list of words/phrases that caught my particular attention while reading chapter 1 of Stuart A. Selbert’s book,
Multiliteracies for a Digital Age.
Þ undeniable
Þ moot
Þ myths
Þ touted
Þ technological façade
Þ heuristic
Þ post-critical stance
Þ here to stay
Þ malleable
Þ dizzying
Þ fails to situate
Þ avoidance
Þ commercialization
Þ paradoxically
Þ awareness
Þ declining productivity
Þ not too prescriptive
Þ disturbing
Þ tendencies
Þ corporate sponsors
Þ metaphors filter experiences
Þ interdependencies
Þ envision
Þ tendential forces
Þ implication
Þ envision
Þ integrated initiatives
and this list sort of sums up the chapter, eh? …and the entire soup that is ‘multiliteracies’?
These quotes also seemed worthy of documenting:
Þ (from the preface): “My view is that computer literacy education today is all too often a one-dimensional enterprise.”
Þ (p. 3) “…no theories or positions should be immune to critical assessment.”
Þ (p. 8) “…teachers and students should be mindful of the ways in which they can unwittingly promote inequitable and counterproductive technological practices.”
Þ (p. 8-9) [this inclusion endeared me to this book – the acknowledgment of global realities and their intertwining with multiliteracies] “(endemic poverty, violence, environmental decay, dehumanizing work practices, the dizzying pace of everyday life in a technological world)”
Þ (p. 11) [re: technological perspectives] “…only insofar as it can support the more traditional goals of textual studies.”
Þ (p. 23) “technology can encourage teachers to reconsider taken-for-granted assumptions, goals, practices.”
Þ (p. 26) “The other point that should be made is that the framework is not neutral.”
My comments/thoughts:
What is Multiliteracy? Good question! What is computer literacy? What should students know how to do? What should teachers teach? What are obstacles? These and other questions were introduced in the preface –
random thoughts:
Þ repeating patterns in history of computer technology, in academia, in cultures, in life!
Þ nothing seems so simple anymore: complications!
Þ I was struck by (surprised!) the page 6 comments about the declining productivity in banking industry – is this true? and also in US overall productivity in decline – hmmmmm…….
Þ page 7 = 25% of graduate TAs teach in a computer-based class, yet teach curriculum rich in use of technology! sigh…
Þ aside thoughts – what are implications/costs of wireless/satellite/laptops/theft/upgrades/ sigh… so many become ‘moot!’
Þ PDAs, Blackberry, MP3s – so many things I’ve NEVER used! my own ignorance, and yet I have invested considerable time and effort and mental energy toward becoming less ignorant… hmmmm…. sigh….
Þ computers were supposed to make us a paperless society, save trees: HA!
Þ I found the research into how various institutions pre-assess technological literacy quite interesting. I did a quick google search for computer literacy assessment/ computer literacy assessment free / faculty computer literacy assessment – the following sites were bookmarked for my further exploration ‘someday.’ (sigh)
o
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlissues/acrlinfolit/infolitoverview/infolitforfac/infolitfaculty.htmo
http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/inforum/studentpackage2005.htm#literacyÞ I had assumed (oh, one should so never assume!) that essentially all universities assess students AND faculty for computer literacy – but have begun to realize there is a great disparity between institutions’ policies! (and, duh, I’ve only once been assessed for my skills prior to a teaching position placement… sigh&hellip

Þ the survey (even allowing for distortion of statistics, these are telling results:
o UCLA, 67% of 33,785 faculty fear keeping current with technology
o 87% agree that computer competency enhances student learning
Þ I have this evolving philosophy to encourage an AAAA approach to ‘any’ new endeavor – Awareness, Acknowledgement, Address (the issue), Adapt and then AAAA all over again – constantly re-evaluating
Þ When I got to page 22’s subheading,
A Portrait of the Ideal Multi-Literacy Student I stopped and made this list:
o hands-on experience
o demonstrates ability to re-trace/document where obtained info
o recognizes acronyms (some)
o demonstrates ability to read/follow instructions on computer, navigation skills, AND to explain to someone else the steps taken
o describes prior success in some level of mastery of a new technological concept/software, etc.
o email/Internet/Word, Excel (basic), used in a minimum of two different venues
o global connection
o (I have trouble with all of these – realized it’s not easy to articulate multiliteracy)
definition of multi-literacy – info found on web:
http://www.pkp.ubc.ca/multiliteracies/
The term multiliteracies was coined by the New London Group (1996) to highlight two related aspects of the increasing complexity of texts: (a) the proliferation of multimodal ways of making meaning where the written word is increasingly part and parcel of visual, audio, and spatial patterns; (b) the increasing salience of cultural and linguistic diversity characterized by local diversity and global connectedness .
and Eureka! I found myself researching/refreshing my knowledge of the term heuristic! (Webster’s definition and appended info from wikipedia were quite enlightening – I actually printed them out for future reflection! (I’m hoping someone reading this will be curious enough to find the time and initiative to locate it and read it themselves!).
…back to random comments on Chapter 1,
Þ so, when I continued to read on, I realize that I’m apparently on the right track with this book and Selber’s line of thinking (whew! there’s hope!)
Þ I liked the idea of the chart on page 25, and this three-literacy (functional, critical, rhetorical) approach, but philologically (is there such a word?!), I found myself turning my nose up at some of the word choices, loving others (loved metaphor, reflective; disliked praxis, artifacts) used in the chart itself!
Þ But I like the concept of students as users/questioners/producers – but would add SHARERS/disseminators as a
crucial element also.
Þ found myself thinking, “precisely because of the paradoxes – I believe – is why so many refuse to embrace technological advances – users/questioners/producers/disseminators of the pre-technological world feel demeaned/devalued.
Þ was often reminded of a literary theory class I took years ago – reading and analyzing Derrida, Foucault, others – HEAVY stuff! but discourse, and the discussions of discourse, are insidiously intriguing to me… sigh.
Þ page 26’s comments about tendential forces made me smile – I have often used this phrase, “I am a self-described tangential with eclectic tendencies.” and found myself thinking – tendential/tangential – hmmmm! maybe I am tendentially tangential?!
Enough! Now, if anyone has actually read this, you’ll have a better grasp as to why I’m so late in posting – I’ve spent an accumulated 7+ hours on this course so far – precious hours I don’t really have to spare! sigh! And I’m still behind in the work – dang!
Currently reading: Children of the Flames
Currently watching: my computer screen
Currently feeling: thoughtful