There are two ways for me to enjoy the readings for our class. One is to learn and take something away that I can apply to my own teaching or to some other aspect of my job. Even if it just a great quote or a way of explaining something to my students, I walk away with a new folder in the filing cabinet of my mind. The other way for me to enjoy an article is to read something that causes me to storm into another classroom room and say "Did you read what so-and-so said about this-or-that? And these people call themselves experts!" Then I am politely told to go away and I return to my work.
Suffice it to say that I enjoyed this week's readings. Both gratification methods were represented. The two articles on scaffolding were interesting to me. While the two overlapped a fair bit, I found myself agreeing with Puntambekar and Hubscher over Tabak wherever they disagreed. Puntambekar and Hubscher (P and H) began from the Wood definition from 1976 that apparently gave rise to the scaffold metaphor. In that definition, an adult provided the support that was necessary for the student to be successful. Of course, the ubiquitous hand of technology is causing everyone to rethink that definition and to include sources other than adults such as peers, learning environments, and on-line tools. P and H caution that whatever you choose to call a support, the key feature of any scaffolding is that the student be able to perform the task by himself when the scaffolding has been removed.
Part of the P and H article was a discussion of the scaffold metaphor. Scaffolding is, of course, the support system that is built around a building so that the workers can reach farther and complete tasks that would be out of reach without it. The article also discusses the work of some experts who question the appropriateness of the metaphor. these experts point out that when the scaffolding is removed, the worker returns to ground zero. I think that they are missing the point entirely. In the metaphor, the student is not the worker, the student is the building and the workers are the parts of the brain that build the understanding of the student. That is why it is so important that the building stand on its own when the scaffolding is removed. That feature of the metaphor is very important to me. When P and H go on to say that "Merely providing students with a visual interface or structure for a process cannot be described as scaffolding unless the hints and prompts are contingent on an ongoing diagnosis of student learning," (p. 8) and, in fact, the entirety of the Tabak article on differentiated scaffolding, that feature cannot be overlooked. Scaffolding is built for individuals for specific reasons. There is no one-size-fits-all model. All scaffolding, by definition, has to be differentiated. It would be absurd to think that a construction company could build the required scaffolding off-site and then apply it to several different buildings. It has to be constructed on-site to the specifications of that one building. On-line tools, learning environments, and peer tutoring can all be used as scaffolding, but each must be crafted carefully to include feedback and malleability.
On the other side of my enjoyment coin was the article on "The New Literacies of Online Reading Comprehension . . ." I disagreed with just about everything in that article. I actually poked my head into one classroom and said "Literacy is now deictic? Really?" I am sorry, but literacy is not changing. What it means to be literate is not changing. The definitions of literacy are still the ability to read and write, and competency in a specified area. The only thing that is really changing is where the information is coming from. The "New Literacies" article makes the point that, with the increasing importance of the internet as a source of information, those who can recognize the important problems and find the best information and evaluate it effectively to develop the best solutions will succeed in the challenging times ahead of us. That has been true since we were cavemen and cavewomen (when I was in high school.) The article also quotes other authors who say that "A critical component of successful Internet reading is the ability to read and locate information that meets one's needs." (p. 7) That was true 35 years ago when I went to the library to do my research for school. Back then I even had to be careful to evaluate a source's validity and be aware of the author's bias. None of that has changed.
And these people call themselves experts!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBryan, good post as always. You make a very good point about the Leu et al. article. They are very confident in declaring the "new literacies" and that literacy is diectic. But at the end of the day, literacy is literacy. It's not quite like their metaphor of "here becoming there" and "today becoming yesterday" (p.6) . Whether it's reading a book, or tagging a wall with graffiti, sending a text message, or navigating the web while doing research - it all comes down, at its essence, to the ability to read and write. Although I don't dislike the authors' view, I definitely see where you are coming from.
ReplyDeleteLiteracy is based on understanding, interpretation, decoding. Always has. What really changes is the type of understanding, interpreting and decoding that needs to happen. So instead of just knowing how to read a book and decode its theme and message, we now need to also know how to read a text message and decode short-form vernacular such as LOL and OMG. But at the root of it, the ability to comprehend and bridge the gap to competency falls under the category of literacy.
I am on-board with giving literacies certain labels for the sake of reference - such as digital literacy - but like you said, at the root, it's all literacy, and that itself is not what's changing.
I agree with you on both the heads and tails of your argument. The student experiences the results of the scaffolding as it effects their learning not as a way to skip steps. The on-going process is the teacher interaction. It is critical that the teacher be involved as an integral part of any scaffolding or the individual adjustments cannot be made. Technology expands a teachers ability to do so but does not replace it.
ReplyDeleteI also very much agree that we need to be careful about the terminology that we use when talking about literacy.Perhaps it is semantics but I am cautious to say that technology id causing fundamental changes in literacy when it is the means by which literacy is expressed that are changing. These changes are sure to have resounding, profound effects on how we communicate but we should take the time to categorize the elements of literacy that are core and unchanging and those that are transient.
So first, I should out myself as the neighborly recipient of your "Literacy is diectic?!" outbursts. I was ready to disagree whole heartedly with Leu et al, but at the end of the day, they won me over! Here's why.
ReplyDeleteReading comprehension is an incredibly complex process that involves the mind attending to multiple concepts and processes at once (which is why our students struggle... and never in the same way). You have to know how to decode the words, understand word meanings (both denotations and connotations, nuances, pragmatics), decipher the structure of the words (sentence types, stylistic choices, emphasis, syntax and semantics), you have to apply schematic knowledge about genres (a magazine article offers information in a different way than a scientific report or a novel), you need to filter your new information through past background knowledge, and you must attend to multiple meanings, infer, predict, synthesize, and analyze.
And that's when they have ONE page of text in front of them. A static page. Sitting on a desk. So yeah, if you compare that one page of book text with that one page of web page text, the literacy is the same. But that's not how we read on the internet.
Take the above process and add to it self-generated reading lists that must be generated correctly (attending to search parameters) then speedily evaluated and prioritized (choosing your webpage). Once on the webpage, a reader has to hone in on necessary and relevant information. What are ads and what is solid information? What hyperlinks are worth pressing to delve deeper into the topic? If you do decide to pause your webpage reading to expand your tangential knowledge via a hyperlink, how will you navigate back to the article while keeping your new found knowledge in your working memory long enough to synthesize it with the article you have to finish? What if you then head back to your google search to curate more information? How is this prioritized? Do you keep windows open? How do you attend to the various texts in front of you?
Active reading just got a whole lot more active. All of the questions I asked just don't have a parallel in the paper/pencil world of literacy. So I'm a convert-- I totally buy into the existence of emerging (and ever changing) literacies.
But I'll agree that using the word "deictic" was a little ambitious. :)
Alli....I really enjoyed reading your take on the issue of new literacies! Thank you for that! I completely agree with you that active reading just got a whole lot more active. Also add to your list the sheer volume of information that is accessible at your fingertips. When students to this day research the Pacific Northwest tree octopus, and write reports on it (in classrooms where teachers try to teach critical internet skills) without actually figuring out the hoax behind it... it reminds us that literacy is indeed changing in the 21st century.
DeleteBryan, I wonder if it is like the changing definition of intelligence. Intelligence is basically the ability to learn new things, right? (Right.) That definition worked for a long time. But in the late 20th century people began to talk about the changing face of intelligence and how the old definitions didn't fit the whole picture. Now, most people will at least recognize a distinction between emotional intelligence and other types, even if you don't support the full scope of Multiple Intelligence theory. As we learn more about learning, our definitions have to be adjusted.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, "literacy" is still basically the same - being able to make sense out of words and numbers, right? (Right.) But as the understanding of literacy changes, we have to adjust what it means to be literate. At one point, literacy was considered the ability to sign your name. Sometimes it's considered the ability to carry out daily tasks - which does not include reading books.
What I mean is - I disagree with you, reversing my earlier position. The idea of literacy is changing with the times.
Thompson's assertions about new literacies rang very true for me. I guess I thought that literacy wasn't just about being able to read and write but also being able to communicate (send and receive) with written word. Is literacy changing? I think I'm include to agree with Jesse. I'm happy to see that quantitative aspects of literacy are being considered part of what it means to be literate. Maybe it's easier to think about the definition of literacy as expanding to include more aspects. Evolving as we understand more about who to communicate in the digital era.
ReplyDelete