30 Responses to “Debating Literacy: pulling some threads together”

1. Jaye Richards
   October 7th, 2008 @ 5:24 pm

   Sorry to be the spectre at the feast here, but I think much of this llearned discourse is overcomplicating the issue somewhat. For me it all comes back to expression, or at least the ability to express one’s self. Whilst UNESCO defined literacy back in the
   1950’s in terms of writing and reading, my own interpretation of this is one of being able to express yourself in ways which can create meaning for others. This is where visual and digital forms of literacy for me overtake the more traditional paradigm. I wrote about this in TESS four or five years ago (its on my blog as well – link below).

   http://mimanifesto.wordpress.com/express-yourself-and-be-truly-literate/

   Whilst Joe is positing the view that everything comes back to the written word (I think) I’m not sure that this is the case. Perhaps literacy is a much more dynamic and fluid concept of style than these narrow definitions of substance can explain…

2. Doug Belshaw
   October 7th, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

   Great post, John! Thanks for attempting to synthesize some of the conversation – much appreciated.

3. Joe Nutt
   October 7th, 2008 @ 8:42 pm

   Jaye,
   Your are quite right to suggest I think the written (or spoken) word is the only intelligible measure of literacy. But having read your piece about this issue on your blog, I thought your own conclusion about the value of self expression, was absolutely what children deserve from their teachers. And that is where I start to find myself feeling uncomfortable. I taught English for many years and I noticed some time ago that some of the most often quoted writers on educational technology, frequently expressed themselves in ways I would have corrected if I”d seen it in the prose of a sixteen year old. Is it really asking too much, to expect that people who put themselves forwards as thought leaders, or innovative thinkers in this field, should express themselves, at the very least, as well as a competent GCSE candidate? I don”t think so. In fact I think it’ actually scandalous that so few publishers or commentators have either noticed this or care. So when these same figures start advocating digital or visual literacy for children, I”m afraid my patience tends, not so much to run, as to flood out!

   Yet having said that, I still believe it’ every English teacher’ responsibility to engage very thoughtfully with all visual media, especially film, television and now the internet because if they don”t, the children they teach end up victims, not critics of the media steeped world around them.

   Yet even the most sophisticated feature film is a terribly crude means of communication compared to the principal literary forms. I”ve always liked Louis Althusser’ (I think it’ his) definition of a film as “A dream, dreamed by many people at the same time” but even that lovely metaphor intimates how ephemeral an art form it is. And of course the visual media most teenagers see most of the time is MTV etc and certainly not Eric Rohmer or Wim Wenders. In her recent blog about this, Tania quoted James Paul Gee, a writer who in one of the most influential books on computer games recommends teenagers practice their digital literacy not on Wenders, the Coen brothers or even, bless him, Spielberg but, I kid you not on… Zelda the Wind Maker!

4. Jaye Richards
   October 7th, 2008 @ 9:53 pm

   …or maybe Joe, it’s ‘youtube’ they watch the most and more than that, interact with, posting their own creations. Is not this the ultimate in expression and by extension, literacy building on the earlier UNESCO definition?

5. Tania Sheko
   October 7th, 2008 @ 10:26 pm

   Joe,
   Having taught languages and literature, I’m always tempted to correct incorrect use of grammar, and lament the recent use of the apostrophe in the formation of plural nouns, as well as the reflexive pronoun ‘myself’ as a subject (eg. ‘my colleague and myself have decided…’), but that’s not the point of the digital literacies argument. If contemporary reading and writing have expanded to include digital media, then it would be negligent for educators to insist on a focus on traditional literacy at the expense of others. This is not to say that we abandon traditional literacy for computer games – no.

   Teachers are realising that young people are engaged with digital media. Engagement of students between the ages of 12 and 16 has long been problematic. When students are engaged, then teachers can slip in the grammatical lessons, but if they’re not, the lessons will fall on deaf ears.

6. Joe Wilson
   October 8th, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

   We all want learners to be the next Shakespeare, Burns or next Picasso and to tear up the rule books.
   If we admit it we know that all of these artists knew what they were doing as they tore up the rule book. Great film makers do this too they subvert and invent over existing superstructure .

   They play with the rules – it is not accidental spontaneous creativity The danger that we mislead learners badly if we don’t give them at least some of the scaffolding.

   The nice thing is that like film in 1900 some of this medium is new – so there are no rules..

   I still bear scars of Trainspotting Irvine Welsh was promoted as junkie writes book – it brought back a lot of folk to adult learning.

   Not so much news in Edinburgh MBA , Housing Official writes book . But closer to reality.

7. Alan Coady
   October 9th, 2008 @ 6:26 pm

   I”d very much like to expand this debate although I imagine that the following content, on the perceived nature of musical literacy, may have as much relevance and singleness of purpose as a biscuit-tin full of lit fire-crackers attempting to accompany a Chopin Nocturne. Nevertheless, here goes.

   Most people stopped in the street and asked to describe a musically literate person would imagine someone who could:

   Play a tune off the page
   Write down a tune they”d composed
   Write down a tune they”d heard i.e. take down musical dictation

   This would rule out Lionel Bart, the composer of some of the most unusual, inventive and memorable songs we all know from the musical, Oliver; The Beatles; folk musicians from most cultures many rock musicians – and, for all we know, the guitar hero in the embedded video. Exceptions to this rule would be Big Band members – soloists among whom would be expected to not only to read but also to improvise (and occasionally to arrange for the band).

   The above features of traditional musical literacy, when missing, constitute in the minds of many some kind of deficit. However, the reverse seems to bother people less. The world’ finest symphony orchestras contain many players who probably cannot readily play by ear (certainly where instantly providing harmony along with the melody is required). Strangely this was a given in the kind of bands who used to play in “working men’ clubs” – particularly when backing a visiting cabaret artist – not all of whom would bring band parts. Many classical players, and music teachers, have a dread of improvisation – particularly in a variety of keys. Increasingly, the modern musician is expected to be skilled in all areas and, thankfully, the world’ academies are now addressing previous biases.

   Let’ play about with the idea of traditional musical literacy a little further and the advantages conferred:

   I could write, say, a guitar quartet, summon reliable colleagues and, if the piece were relatively straightforward, we could give a performance of it – sight unseen – in front of an audience. The members could come from four distant countries, shake hands on stage, without discussing a single aspect of the impending performance – it’ all on the page and in the interpretation.
   If the members were less skilled sight readers, I could send the music to them – thereby reducing rehearsal time thanks to personal home practice.
   I could also employ digital literacy and email play-along midi files against which they could practise – taking the strain off their traditional literacy.
   For those not at so much home with computers but owning, say, an iPod (and possibly having helpful children at home) I could convert the midi file to mp3s – this heightened digital literacy taking the strain of both their own digital and traditional literacy.
   A pianist with good score-reading skills, could play the entire quartet as a solo – sight-reading all 4 staves simultaneously
   A gifted, non-reading pianist could play the piece by ear – and thereafter by memory.
   Mozart, were he “tardised” to any of the above performances, blind-folded, could write down the piece several hours (perhaps days, months or years) later at home – while simultaneously composing something of his own.

   I”m not sure what the above whimsy adds to the current debate. I view it merely as a multi-coloured beach towel, thrown down on the sands of discussion.

   p.s. I have always loathed the term classically trained on account on some of the inferences:

   That natural talent was perhaps not already present before the training began
   That auto-didacticism and curiosity has played no part in the musician’ development
   That without the training the person would not be a musician

8. Joe Nutt
   October 10th, 2008 @ 12:19 pm

   Alan,
   Really enjoyed this, especially because it made me reflect on some of my own musical experiences. Forced to learn the violin aged nine, from a wizened crone with strangely translucent fingers, who I”m sure had her heart in the right place but seemed to think music was something you could only produce after decades of placing your fingers precisely in the right places, in the right order, and at precisely the right moment, I abandoned it to play rugby aged eleven. But as a sixth former decided to teach myself the classical guitar (for reasons which still elude me to this day) and I taught myself successfully enough to even perform live, once! Yet I am absolutely sure that I could never have succeeded without the translucent crone’ musical literacy teaching.

   The really interesting thing I take from your contribution is that I suspect, like me, you care not so much about the process that was used to produce the beautiful thing at the end, the live performance, but you do care that the thing at the end was beautiful. And I think that is exactly where I had got to following this discussion which John so thoughtfully précised. My digital literacy anxiety is all about that thing at the end, and I know, and have worked with teachers who show little, even no interest at all in it, and invest everything in the process. How many times have I seen a teacher compliment a child, especially a young child, on the quality of their creative work in such a shallow, insincere way that you can actually see the child’ face change in a split second from delight to dismay. I hate that moment. One of the most difficult but vital skills a good teacher needs is the ability to evaluate that work sincerely, honestly and set against the entire cultural landscape of which it inevitably forms a tiny part.

   Contrast that need with this quotation from a keen advocate of digital literacy.

   “Technology allows the blending together of different elements of communication that may include image, text, sound and video. This use of multimedia requires higher capabilities of multi-modal operation by both the practitioner and the observer/researcher.”

   Substitute TV for “Technology” because, of course, that is precisely what TV does, and ask yourself what kinds of “higher capabilities of multi-modal operation” will really be required by the tens of thousands of UK teenagers who, this very night, will sit and stare at a TV screen for several hours.

9. John Connell
   October 10th, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

   Alan,

   Like Joe, I enjoyed your contribution to the debate.

   As someone who paid my way through university playing working men’s clubs – in truth, playing for anyone willing to pay me! – I can confirm your assessment of the skills required in that environment. I should really admit though to not being a proper musician, since I played the drums I do play guitar too though, well enough I hope to qualify as (almost) a real musician.

   A couple of misty memories come to me that long ago helped put ‘classically-trained’ – the term that Alan loathes – into perspective for me. One was a live performance in the ’70s (which I could only watch on TV, unfortunately) of Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells in which Steve Hillage played the main guitar parts alongside the London Symphony Orchestra. I may not have the detail quite right, but my recollection is that, after an early rehearsal, the whole of the orchestra stood up and applauded Hillage’s playing, such was the quality of musicianship from this ‘by ear’ player. I was no great fan either of Tubular Bells or of Hillage’s brand of spaced-out Prog Rock but I was at one with the orchestral musicians in being awestruck by the man’s ability with the guitar.

   Another memory, equally indistinct now, is of watching the great jazz violinist, Stéphane Grappelli, play a lengthy televised session with his classical counterpart, Yehudi Menuhin. With massive subjectivity on my part, I can clearly remember being much more impressed by Grappelli than by Menuhin: the latter was superb, the former mind-blowing.

   Up to a point, I agree with Joe’s thoughts on the beauty of the product as opposed to the process that leads to the product. Like Joe, I cannot stand the kind of insincerity that so many teachers deploy with children when responding to a piece of work. The lack of empathy in those teachers who are unable (or have lost the capacity to) treat the child as an equal, and who therefore end up patronizing them, is perturbing. It was Picasso, remember, who said: “It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”

   However, we do need to keep in mind the distinction between being a teacher and being a mere critic. The critic’s primary objective is to evaluate and assess the final product, although they often, and should, take an interest in how that product was created too. The teacher, on the other hand, has to be able to consider, deeply and with rigour, the process by which the child created the product; the assessment of process in learning is critical, surely, to any appraisal of the quality of learning that has taken place, as well as to any consideration of the teaching and learning that ought to come next. This can be achieved, I am sure, without losing, as Joe puts it, “…the ability to evaluate that work sincerely, honestly and set against the entire cultural landscape of which it inevitably forms a tiny part.” What is education if it is not about process?

   Music and art are spheres of creativity that, I believe, stretch any notions that language is the fundamental ‘literacy’ that defines us as human beings. Music and art must be at least as old as language, and possibly older. I agree that language is the very essence of thought, and therefore of philosophy, of human cultural and scientific achievement throughout our history, but I simply cannot imagine what it means to be human without reference to music and art. And by art, I mean not just the fine arts, but also the whole spectrum of artistic creativity, including dance, drama, film and so on.

   That is why I find myself disagreeing with what I take to be the point behind an earlier comment from Joe. He wrote: “….even the most sophisticated feature film is a terribly crude means of communication compared to the principal literary forms.” While this may be arguable at a theoretical level, that the most impressive writing is somehow of greater import than, for example, the greatest piece of film, the reality is, nonetheless, that there are very many films that are infinitely richer and vastly more insightful than many texts. Examples abound, for instance, where bad writing has been turned into good film or television (of course, language is there at the centre of the end product too, but the visual and dramatic creativity involved cannot be dismissed or even relegated to a lowlier status than the text).

   I therefore find it unhelpful to place the various modes of expression within some kind of hierarchy of creative significance. If someone chooses to express themselves in video (or in painting, or in song, or in dance…) who are we to tell them that they have chosen to be creative in a medium that is somehow a lesser form? And, even were that so – even if we agree that language is the essence of human achievement – what does it matter? People will always choose to be creative in infinitely wondrous ways, through myriad media, and the education system should recognize, nurture and indeed, celebrate that diversity.

   Finally – while ‘…tens of thousands of UK teenagers will undoubtedly sit and stare at a TV screen for several hours’ tonight, we should note that fewer and fewer 16-24 year olds are choosing to do this with each year that passes. In that, at least, we can give young people credit for choosing not to follow the passive habits of their parents and elders.

10. John Nutt
    October 12th, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

    Whilst there are some very acute observations on this discussion thread there seems to be a lack of contributions from visual arts educators. As a former art educator I would like to contribute the following.

    There is no concensus as to the definition of visual literacy. It’s a very loose term predicated upon the false notion that the arts are language systems. They are not. They have no language or syntax and, as John has pointed out, they are pre-literal (cave paintings came before cuniform, just as rhetoric came before dialectic). The arts are discursive modes that are pre-literate. When I’m painting, I frequently stop and ask myself why I made a particular aesthetic decision, just as I did with students when I was teaching, and I usually find that there is no way of explaining to myself the content of an aesthetic decision in a literary form. Art teaching is largely translation. The word “intuition” seems to cover a huge range of ways of knowing that have no actual language form.

    That said, I am struck by how much literature (appreciation, evaluation, discussion, explanation) has been forced into art education by government decree over the past twenty years. There is some evidence that there is now a return to skills-based learning, e.g. art schools, led by the The Prince’s Drawing School, have started to teach life-drawing again. This is no bad thing. Visual literacy for an artist is a whole range of skills underpinned by drawing. Whilst the National Curriculum actually states this, some schools erroneously
    assume that Photoshop skills are a justifiable substitute.
    Whatever visual literacy skills pupils will need in the 21st century, we sell them short if we don’t teach them drawing. To survive in the visual arts you have to be able to draw, which is the artist’s form of literacy. I note that YBA Michael Landy (to whom I taught art) is now making very tight, academic drawings of members of the art world. To become visually literate in any medium you have to be able to discuss, negotiate and evaluate your own use of visual skills. This demands literary skills whether you use ICT or not.
    Finally, one observation of particular relevance because of the confusion it causes, unlike information technology there is no progress in the visual arts. There are only different technologies for making the same statements. Everything has already been said.

11. Alan Coady
    October 12th, 2008 @ 6:38 pm

    Joe/John

    Thanks for your responses to my comment. It surely counts as some validation of the blogging/debating process that, thanks to your thoughts, I’m now a little clearer on what I hoped to articulate. It was originally, after all, a mere maxim-gun burst of random observations.

    With relation to the process/product question I can confirm that, from the point of view of an audience member, I don’t much care how the result has been achieved – although it’s often pretty obvious. From the point of view of a teacher or a rehearsing ensemble musician, I’m in no doubt that literacy does ease communication. This is not quite the “no s**t Sherlock” moment it might seem as, by literacy, I include understanding the name, content and purpose of the various concepts involved. I take great pains to highlight the concepts which appear in pieces being studied. This is partly to reinforce the work of my classroom colleagues preparing pupils for Standard Grade/Int/Higher/Adv Higher Music exams, but mostly because I believe that all subjects have an attendant vocabulary and that a poor grasp of that vocabulary can make anything other than solo work more difficult than necessary. Putting this across to pupils, in whose faces I occasionally see fatigue and puzzlement at this wordy, theoretical intrusion into an essentially hands-on, practical lesson, I ask them to imagine the following unlikely dialogue in a chemistry lab:

    “Could you pass me that glass thing please?”
    “This beaker?”
    “No – the thinner thing”
    “This test tube?”
    “No – the more solid thing”
    “This stirring rod?”
    “No – the thing with the moving silvery stuff inside”
    “This thermometer?”
    “Finally!”

    The wittier ones usually say, “I didn’t take Chemistry.” How we laugh! But I persist because, when the Listening Paper comes along, I believe that a pupil is more likely to identify a concept which they have “held in their hands” than one which someone else has put in – or near – their ears.

    With regard to the unnecessary hierarchy in the arts, which John mentions, another thought crossed my mind. I wondered if random members of the public, stopped in the street and asked to name, without too much deliberation, five of their favourite actors, would include any comedy actors. I have my doubts. Perhaps those who have led crossover careers (Judi Dench, Geoffrey Palmer, Julie Walters might make it) but would many people even think of the immensely talented acting of Ronnie Barker, Catherine Tate, Simon Pegg, Mark Heap, Rebecca Front, Steve Coogan, Sally Philips or our very own “Still Game” team? Perhaps people think it’s somehow all magically included in the script. Could this be related the reality that, despite the fact that we all claim to like a good laugh, many people’s favourite song is either anthemic or ballad-like and not, say, Alexi Sayle’s “Hello John, Got A New Motor?”

    Joe – congratulations on self-taught classical guitar – that’s a tough gig. Also – when we were boys – the transition from violin to rugby seemed one of Maggelanesque proportions – in a world of jocks and jessies. Now it’s common to see pupils loaded with school bag, instrument case and boot bag. That’s surely progress. I don’t recall girls displaying our previous necessity of choice.

    John – like you, I feel sure that art and music paralleled, if not predated, language. Also – you’ve probably already seen this, but your final thought about teenagers disengaging from TV is echoed, and extrapolated upon here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/11/internet.socialnetworking

    p.s. as we are concerned with literacy, should that have been Magellanian?

12. Kevin Lindorff
    October 13th, 2008 @ 12:27 pm

    A few disparate thoughts if I may:
    I’m not convinced that the arguments that frame the debate in terms what can be validly classed as legitimate forms of literacy is all that useful. I would have thought that framing the debate in terms of the power, potential and limitations of different forms of communication might be more illuminating.

    As I read the comments on this thread, I remembered the gist of a quote (I wondered whether it was apocrypal) by a dancer in response to a question about what one of her dances meant – that if she could explain what it meant, she wouldn’t have to dance it.
    I did a quick Google search and found out that the quote is attributed to Isadora Duncan.
    The site that confirmed my vague memory of the quote ( http://fotios.org/node/1826) also proffered this:
    “it is often the case that in our literature and document ruled world of propositional knowledge, a sweeping underlying assumption is made; namely that all things are or should be somehow best explained or represented using language.”

    Isadora’s insight about dance no doubt has parallels in other performing arts such as Music, in Visual Arts and, dare I say it, in digital multi-media creations.

    As any savvy advertising guru knows, we communicate not just by the words we speak or write. Some of the most powerful forms of communication are powerful precisely because of their abiity to evoke emotions. If we want to use any of these forms of communication effectively we need to understand them. If we are not to be readily manipulated by masters of these forms of communication, we need to understand their power, and be alert to the techniques used to persuade us of the ‘truth’ of a particular message.

    Parenthetically, in relation to discussions on the messages or meanings of movies, visual ads, and various other forms of communication, the use of the term ’subtext’ is, in itself, telling. It implies that there are techniques other than the use of words that can effectively, unequivocally and powerfully make a point, deliver a message, stir our emotions and influence our beliefs.

13. Alan Coady
    October 13th, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

    In response to John Nutt

    Very thought provoking, John. Where we differ is that I believe music to have orthography, syntax and grammar. Perhaps this is more true than in the case of the visual arts because working in isolation is less common. Many examples could be cited but I’ll try to be as clear as possible. I should first of all stress that I am referring to music which is written down for others to read and interpret. For all I know, you may be a fluent reader of music but, for the sake of any others who may read this, I shall explain as though to the non-reader.

    Orthography

    The names of notes sometimes change to suit circumstances*. This is known as an enharmonic change. The notes of the triad (most basic form of chord) of C# are C# E# G#. They can also be called Db F Ab when they form the triad of Db. Nomenclature depends mostly on the key we are in. In the key of F# it is likely that the music might pass through the related key of C# in which case C# E# G# would be foundational notes of that key/chord. It is highly unlikely that a piece in the key of, say, Ab would pass through the remote key of C# but may well visit the related key of Db in which case the spelling Db F Ab would obtain. American jazz educators often refer to this area as “scale spelling.” I like this term as it reinforces the reality that scales train the mind so that they can be expressed in the hands.

    Syntax

    Harmony in the west is often referred to as “tonal functional harmony.” The tonality derives from the colour of the key which forms the centre and foundation of the piece. Notes, some more than others, have a function in pulling the music towards or away from certain chords and keys. As a result of this, certain sequences of chords are thought to help music feel as though it has a sense of inevitability of direction as opposed to being aimless**. The most common distance in musical travel is that of a 4th e.g. A to D (counting is always inclusive).

    In the key of C, for example a very common sequence could be:

    Bm7b5, Em, Am, Dm, G7, C.***

    This is often notated as:

    vii, iii, vi, ii, V7, I

    (lower case denoting minor & upper case major) so that the sound can quickly be recreated in other keys. Were this order to be changed to, say,

    iii, I, vii, v, ii, vi

    this would be the western harmonic equivalent of the sentence:

    cat mat the the on sat

    Grammar

    Traditional grammar insists on adjectival agreement in number, gender and, depending on the language, case. Correct conjugation is also necessary to avoid ambiguity and worse. Similar rules of agreement apply in the notation of melody, rhythm and harmony.

    Perhaps the simplest parallel of the noun being the boss of the adjective exists in rhythm – and particularly in rhythmic groupings. The most common pulse in Western music is 4 beats per bar, frequently sub-divided into 8. However, different groupings can affect the placing of the strong and weak beats – dramatically affecting the meaning (feeling). Here are some of the most common – in some kind or order of normality: [bracket denotes strong beat]

    [1] 2 [3] 4 [5] 6 [7] 8
    [1] 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8
    [1] 2 3 [4] 5 6 [7] 8
    [1] 2 [3] 4 5 [6] 7 8
    [1] [2] 3 [4] [5] 6 [7] 8

    Something very akin to conjugation happens in the world of scales/modes in that a basic stem of 5 notes remains, offering relative stability of “meaning” whilst nuance is modulated by the 6th and 7th notes. [bracket denotes stem]

    [ABCDE] F G A natural minor
    [ABCDE] F G# A harmonic minor
    [ABCDE] F# G# A melodic minor (ascending only)
    [ABCDE] F# G A dorian minor

    Where I feel music scores over language (if one can use such terms of rivalry) is in the immediacy of mood setting. In under two seconds, volume, timbre, instrumentation, harmony, density can establish the essence of a mood – be it eerie, joyous, angry, serene, comical. Perhaps the still image is yet more immediate as, although one can increasingly come to know a work, taking it in “in a oner” is difficult to avoid.

    * many pupils are perplexed by this until you point out that most people have many names – usage being dictated by circumstance, protocol etc. For example, the head teacher of a school could go by many names e.g. Mr Connell; John Connell; John; Dad; Grandad and perhaps also a nickname from old school days.

    ** by the time of The Impressionists composers were increasingly keen to avoid the dictates of this functionality and inevitability of direction – Debussy in particular insisting upon the right to chose a note for its own sake and colour as opposed to it’s job and his obligation to go along with it

    *** there are many variations possible to each chord along the way which would add colour without threatening the sense of direction e.g. Bm7, E11, Am9, D13, G7+9, C maj 7. The fact that some quite strident chromaticisms lack the transformational power (to change key) of other less noticeable ones can be a stumbling block to many in their grasp of Western harmony

14. Gilbert
    October 13th, 2008 @ 7:05 pm

    When someone is talking to us and breaks eye contact to look over our shoulder (Usually principals when you talk Learning Technologies budget) our gaze follows theirs. Other primates exhibit this behavior. Why – because danger may be approaching! Our ancestors, who looked over their shoulder, saw the saber tooth tiger and ran; survived and passed that gene down to us.
    Visual literacy is our first literacy. It predates the evolution of language and became social the minute we could gesture or gaze in the direction of danger or opportunity.
    Much of this debate has revolved around the objectifying of visual and traditional literacy and neglected what they actually are – communication! It communication works or it doesn”t? It is a relevant message in an attractive form or it is just “white noise”. All text visual, digital or traditional has form, content, audience and purpose.
    Literacy curricula without explicate reference to these elements of construction and opportunity to actually produce these texts for an authentic (not teacher-in-role) audience has no relevance to contemporary learners.
    Is this really a debate about the preeminence of one literacy over another? Or is it about control?
    Writing/reading is time consuming, we”re not evolved to do it; literacy is extension of our genome. An outcome of having to record resources for, and communicate with groups larger than verbal communication could maintain. Reading and writing has to be taught and in fact disenfranchises a significant proportion of the population who suffer dyslexia.
    On the other hand if I can see I can film and actually unlike reading/writing I already am highly literate at seeing! I have been watching since I was born (My daughter identified the Golden Arches at 2yr 7m – she is just starting to learn to read now at 5). Perhaps I will imitate, but I will still communicate and the cost is near zero so I can just keep prototyping until I get lots of “views” on Youtube.
    With one form of literacy the students are dependant on teachers to instruct in the mystical arts of grammar and spelling. The later form students need only a mobile phone, Internet access and their innate ability to register interesting variation in patterns with their eyes.
    As effectively summerised by John in his posted above, this debate has lingered. I have perhaps debased it and certainly feted it with my own biases. But lets end this debate about “whose dad has got the biggest literacy” and proving our point with academic research and pontification.
    Lets ask our students which literacy has the greatest relevance and negotiate back from that point?
    As a final piece of provocation I would be interested to know how many of the poster above have made a dramatic or documentary short film and distributed it (Youtube counts), had their creative writing published, sold or given as a gift their own artwork or posses a games system and regularly play it?
    Deconstruction and reconstruction should be informed through theory – but ultimate I believe literacy/communication is a “do learn” not a “talk learn”.

15. Joe Nutt
    October 13th, 2008 @ 9:00 pm

    Gilbert,
    To answer your last question on this issue and speaking for myself only: yes to films, both as a teacher and for business; published (several unsolicited short stories, unheard of these days where magazines commission everything) an online novel , journalism, academic research, books (on my third commission for Macmillan) and have even had a full length play given a staged reading at a major London theatre. .Does that count?
    Joe

16. Don Ledingham
    October 13th, 2008 @ 9:39 pm

    I had a humbling experience last week when I spent a morning with our Throughcare and Aftercare Team. These colleagues from East Lothian Children’s Services are responsible for supporting looked after and accommodated children who at the age of 16 are moving from being in the care of the authority to independent living.

    I was explaining to them our focus on literacy and extended the definition beyond reading – in much the same way as some of the directions suggested in this post. I was stopped in my tracks when without exception my colleagues described how they have to support kids who can’t read an application form, fill in the form, or read instructions which to all intents and purposes render them unemployable.

    It was a salutory experience and I’m afraid it has strengthened my resolve to ensure that our focus on literacy remains – on what might be described – as the “basics”.

17. John Connell
    October 13th, 2008 @ 9:52 pm

    Some amazing contributions here. I’l respond to the last first – and come to others later.

    Don – understand your point – but should wider policy and practice be based upon the needs of one particular group of young people? Do we serve the interests of all young people by doing so?

18. Gilbert
    October 14th, 2008 @ 1:05 am

    @ Joe and other teacher/practitioners

    Do you think being an authentic producer of text changes your attitude towards this literacy debate?

    @ Don

    I absolutely agree with your point and before any grand ideas about multiple literacy come into play – we need to assure that students functional literacy is developed enough so that they are not disenfranchised from oppurtunities.

19. Hilery
    October 14th, 2008 @ 1:24 am

    It seems that this fascinating discussion has moved on from a discussion of the part education plays in enabling young people’s self-actualisation through creativity (some confessions here: http://hileryjane.wordpress.com/) to its role in preparing them for adult life.
    I agree with Gilbert that reading and writing are not natural activities as dancing, making music and creating art are. I also concur with his contention that the debate hinges on the (re-) distribution of power: the readers and writers are presently in control (or think we are) and are feeling threatened by the democratisation of learning by technology. However, an ability to use visual media does not necessarily result in original thought nor in development. Teachers are needed to mediate, to stretch and to nurture progress towards autonomy.
    And Don is absolutely right to be concerned about those who – for whatever reason – are not reading and writing at age 16. Despite all we know about the number and variety of occupations that today’s teenagers will have over their lifetimes, the fact is that, now, reading and writing is essential in the workplace. Without these skills these youngsters are severely disadvantaged.
    So of course ‘the basics’ have to be taught thoroughly. But if these are not learned by high school, then skills that enable access to information and empower young people to express themselves without the barrier of print are even more crucial. Focusing on those very areas at which they have spectacularly failed throughout primary school will not inspire love of learning nor a desire to take risks in other areas of endeavour.

20. Joe Nutt
    October 14th, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

    Keeping in mind what Hilery and Gilbert have argued, here’s my attempt to crystallise why this debate matters so much. In an “On the Ropes” interview on Radio 4 a few months ago, John Prescott told John Humphries that just because he couldn’t express himself very well or articulately, it didn’t mean that he didn’t have good ideas. The question I wanted John Humphries to ask him was, “Is it perhaps just possible Mr Prescott, that if you can neither write them down or put them into words that other people can understand, then at best your ideas are worthless, and at worst they simply don’t exist?”

21. Jaye Richards
    October 14th, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

    So is the thrust of this debate to say that literacy is a concept that has developed over the last 200 years or so – in the age of mass education. Were a majority of people therefore illiterate before this time? Joan of Arc was an incredible communicator, articulating a vision and inspiring a nation to free itself. Surely litteracy is all about being able to express yourself and communicate this to others. The ability to read and write can be only a part of this, and UNESCO posited this view back in the 1950’s. Would someone who is blind and deaf, and can only communicate through touch be classed as illiterate ? or with a learning disability like my own son, who although he can’t talk, read or write nevertheless, manages to communicate his thoughts and feelings very well usually through drawing and on his computer? Tom Cruise, in the following passage decribes how he overcame what he refers to as his own ‘functional illiteracy’ founded on his own, perhaps misunderstanding as to just what the term actually means..

    Cruise says he was diagnosed as dyslexic at seven, and tried to hide his learning disability from the other children at school. He has described his younger self as “a functional illiterate”, through high school and his first several films. Explaining how such a functionally illiterate man can possibly make a good impression at auditions, Cruise says, “I’d get the director and producer to talk about the characters and the film. I’d glean information from them and I’d use that… I got pretty good at ad-libbing”.

    I think that is a fantastic example of why the ability to read and write cannot, must not be the be all and end all of any society’s definition of literacy.
    The cross-cultural dimension must also come into play here as well. The tribes of west Africa passed down familly histories and tribal traditions via special individuals whose role it was to memorise and recite these oral traditions. Are we saying that the work of these Griots is worth any less than our own great western writers? If you doubt this, have a read, or watch, Alex Hailey’s ‘Roots’. I remember sitting in a hut in a village in the Gambia and listening to one of these Griots recounting his family history through many generations. This man would never be described as illiterate in his own society or by his own tribe.
    I guess the contribution that I want to make to this debate is that I think there is a very strong cultural element to the meaning of the term literacy – it’s subjective and will differ as you pass through time and locations. We forget or discount this at our peril

    I guess

22. Gilbert
    October 14th, 2008 @ 3:24 pm

    Articulation is the first step to actualization; Mr. Prescott’ point as Joe noted is mute. I seemed to remember he preferred the more kinesthetic medium of his fists to express himself?
    This debate is important because we are distilling exactly what it means to communicate in contemporary society and how we should best prepare our students. I would suggest that we stop talking about “literacy” as it implies too strongly a concept of traditional reading and writing. In the place of ‘literacy’ we start talking about communication and the various mediums through which we do that.
    Rather than learning a series of “classic works” students should be first tasked with the creation of text (a novel, a poem, a song, an artwork, a dramatic short film, a menu, a game, a livable space) for an authentic audience/client. Then investigate the “designated works of value” only in so much as they assist the creation of their own text.
    Jaye’ point goes to the heart of consumption theory (in the market) or constructivist theory (in the philosophy depts.), but it is not just across cultures that misunderstandings emerge s individuals engage with texts. Each “receiver” is inclined to mediate the “sender’” message – the degree by which that message might be corrupted from it origin is directly proportional the understanding of audience manifest in the form and content of the text.
    With a curriculum emphasising the process of communication rather then the analysis of text in isolation – students will come to appreciated the potential of misunderstanding between individuals better than thy currently do; because they will learn through their own failure.
    To communicate effectively you must empathise with your audience – empathy is the first step to respect. The Griots of The Gambia will have a far greater chance of being valued in a curriculum that understands that all communication has a social, cultural and historical context.
    The real question is where in a content driven curriculum, with written exams can we find space for this type of learning – other than for the less able who might follow a vocational training pathway? How equally in a society still dominated by written text (forms, reports, emails, blogs) can we justify any neglect of traditional literacy – when a lack of basic competency is a barrier to success?

23. Alan Coady
    October 14th, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

    This is truly a fascinating debate which, I suspect, may reach no feeling of resolution because there many facets to it and not simply two sides.

    @ Gilbert – I’m enjoying your contributions, have visited your impressive blog and added it to my feed-reader. Trying to distinguish between communication and literacy can, in music, sometimes be tricky. When our guitar ensembles (the inter-school one has around 40 members, the individual school ones in the low to mid 20s) play in concerts, they do so in an atmosphere of hushed attention – they are definitely communicating. One of the reasons they can perform polished pieces expressively, with very limited rehearsal time, is musical literacy. They can take the music home and work on it. True, some of them make great use of the play-along midi files located on my blog (generously provided by our local authority) but it would take someone with enormous aural skill to survive on that alone. However, when I play along with them, I never use music – never have in 26 years of teaching – and the reason is this: I like to set the example of differentiating between preparation and performance. This was put much better by a source I’m unable to identify: “get the music in your head and get your head out of the music.” Occasionally, the entire ensemble will play from memory, but it really has to be a certain, pattern-based, memorable piece for this to work. When they are reading, there are degrees of need – some reading every note, others glancing infrequently at what has become more of an aide memoir.

    Recently I took part in a staff/student band for an end of term fun event. The band comprised ear-playing drums, guitars, bass, keyboards (mainly male) and a reading horn section (entirely female). My role in this was decidedly not to be a teacher and I tried to stand back as much as I could. With the spare attention this afforded by this counter-intuitive stance, I was fascinated to note that the ear-players, some of whom I suspect might previously not have thought too highly of playing from written music, seemed impressed at how little attention the horn section required – mostly because they were able to start at any point in the song and were never uncertain about where they were. By the time the performance came along, they too were playing from memory.

    For the record (in response to your first question), I have played live, on CD, on radio and published musical arrangements. I have also had a short story read on radio. I have yet to venture into YouTube but sense that this may not be far off – for the simple reason that there are things my pupils need to see which are not up there. In response to your second question – even if I could consider myself a producer of authentic text, it would not influence my position as much as simply believing that – in our culture – anyone who can be literate will benefit immeasurably by being so.

24. Gilbert
    October 15th, 2008 @ 3:24 am

    @ Alan

    Thank you for your good words

    I agree the distinction between communication and literacy can be difficult and would add that it should be. My reason for the change of language is an attempted to remind both teachers and students – what it is all about.

    In the performing, visual and design arts we have a communication/functionality imperative. In my experience most teachers of these subjects are process focused in some much as it results in a product/text/performance.

    My experience working with learning technologies and in curriculum reform across schools has made me realise that other teachers of other subjects do not naturally think that way. I would suggest that the demands of content driven curriculum leave teachers little option, but to plough through with stimulus/response pedagogy.

    If students work to communicate with a target audience, then their engagement with the form and content becomes active. Students are then forced to make judgments and conclusions based on the effectiveness of communication, not that they can regurgitate 5 reasons why Einstein or Eisenstein are good.

    Studying Brave New World in a content emphasized curriculum will glean an understanding of how Huxley used language, character, theme, etc to communicate. The quality of that communication will not be questioned because its superiority will be implicit in the fact that it is a listed text. We may get the “How successful do you feel Huxley is in conveying the themes of dystopia?” – But this is really a Trojan horse question that doesn”t want your opinion, it wants you to regurgitate the designated aspects of the text that have been taught.

    Think how much richer it would be to task students to write a dystrophic science fiction short story for a contemporary 14 – 21 readership. Then have teams interrogate selected work of Huxley, Shelly, Wells, Asimov and Dick to discover the authors process and effectiveness. Then have them share their research with the class as part of the development cycle.

    Analysis would include all the usually focus on language, character and theme – but also an understanding of the social, historical and cultural context of the audience the listed authors were writing for. Then students would also consider the type of writing targeted at their designated readership.

    Suddenly we move into an integrated curriculum – how better to understand the causes of WW 1 and 2 than to understand the thinking that was occurring at the time? Time Machine could easily be considered a manifesto for eugenics. What an amazing way to understand current cynicism towards governments than to see how the dystopia novels of Phillip K Dick have found greater popularity at the box office than film adaptations of the “utopian futures” suggested by Asimov’ work.

    Consideration of audience is consideration of the human condition through history.

    Focusing on communication moves teaching and learning to a question based curriculum as opposed to an answer based one. Learning is then richer, students are connected to the reason they are learning and given the skills to continue learning. Most importantly the division and demarcation of literacy becomes irrelevant and subsequently multimodal as it is in reality.

    Ahhhh utopia!

25. Jaye Richards
    October 15th, 2008 @ 9:37 pm

    Section 4 of this research paper (I’m in the middle of another lit review for some different research) makes an interesting contribution to this debate, particularly with regard to culture and community perceptions of literacy..

    http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/Images/Language%20Literacy_tcm4-252173.pdf

    Not that I’m endorsing the comments – just throwing them into the pot.

    Jaye

26. 21st Century Skills : John Connell: The Blog
    January 9th, 2009 @ 8:32 am

    [...] Literacy might be better contemplated in the plural – literacies – but there seems to be a lot of confusion in people’s minds about how we separate literacies from skills (perhaps they cannot be separated, but we do need to be able to differentiate one from the other at least in theoretical terms); [link] [link] [...]

27. 21st Century Skills: Postscript : John Connell: The Blog
    January 10th, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

    [...] – although there are, of course, a range of issues to be discussed and understood too around that set of ‘other’ literacies that do not necessarily have their roots in language – such as art, music, dance, and so [...]

28. What does learning and teaching look like for me in 2009? « Brave new world
    January 18th, 2009 @ 6:11 am

    [...] media, I’d like to think more visually and encourage students to do so. My teaching will expand the concept of literacy. I’m talking about focusing on visual literacy, learning to deconstruct images, creating [...]

29. Postliteracy: a view from Leiden : John Connell: The Blog
    September 18th, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

    [...] Janneke Adema, of Leiden University, is researching Open Access Academic Publishing for the OAPEN Project, and she has written a lengthy post about the concept of post-literacy. She summarizes a number of themes around the topic, and her post will interest all of those who joined in the spirited debate that took place across this blog and a number of others a year or so ago (you will find many of the relevant links brought together in my post Debating Literacy: pulling some threads together). [...]

30. » The Write Stuff Alan Coady’s Musical Blog
    December 23rd, 2009 @ 10:32 am

    [...] as I’ve been captivated to the point of a couple of thousand words of participation in a debate on literacy, in the widest sense, on John Connell’s excellent [...]

Leave a Reply