LABELING AND DEFINING LITERACY IN 2020

As I reflect on the nature of literacy today, I find myself thinking about the armchair that my husband and I recently carried up three flights of stairs to our small home office. Both are, as it turns out, deceptively large and hard to get your arms around. Culturally, I think we tend towards an oversimplified conception of literacy; we get stuck in an understanding of literacy as the ability to read and write print text and imagine that to be fairly straightforward. In reality, both reading and writing involve complex cognitive and social practices, surrounding an ever-growing variety of texts. And, from a sociocultural perspective, literacy itself is flexible and plural, changing across contexts, among individuals, and even over time (Hammerberg 2004, Lankshear and Knobel 2008). 

This large and ‘multi’ nature of literacy is reflected in the many terms we have to discuss and define it. In ideas like information literacy, media literacy, visual literacy, or digital literacy, I think we see an impulse to apply literacy to a particular context. In a sense, these differing takes on literacy ask: what are the literacy practices necessary for interpreting and creating information, media, visual, or digital kinds of texts? To extend Coiro’s (2003) point, these are fundamentally reading and writing questions. And while each of these literacies offers nuance and specificity to our understanding of literacy, I think that they are too often siloed from each other and from literacy studies as a whole. As a librarian who initially came to literacy conversations through an information focus, I am continuing to learn so much from other perspectives. 

The move towards a pluralized terminology for literacy—new literacies, digital literacies, multiliteracies—has the potential to unite some of these differing takes on literacy. In these pluralized terms, I think we see a sociocultural understanding of literacy itself as multilayered and changing (Hammerberg 2004, Lankshear and Knobel 2008). While a part of me does wonder if each of these terms still functions to carve out its own literacy territory, I do think that a plural understanding is helpful and potentially unifying. In this vein, I appreciate the framing of “new literacies of online research and comprehension,” which I take as a way to articulate online research comprehension within new literacies, rather than it’s own distinct thing (Castek et al., 2015). 

New, digital, and multi-literacies reflect an evolution in how we think about literacy. Lankshear and Knobel (2006) discuss this newness in terms of both technology and ethos. Technology has ushered in “new and changing ways of producing, distributing, exchanging and receiving texts by electronic means” as well as new social practices around those options (Lankshear and Knobel 2006, p. 25). And meanwhile, the ethos of our culture has shifted, reflecting social values towards participation, collaboration, and distribution (Lankshear and Knobel 2006, p. 25). While not all aspects of new literacies are digital (e.g. the rise of participatory fan culture, fanfiction, and zines), they are certainly intertwined with the values we associate with digital culture. 

For me, digital literacy/ies have been a gateway to a more interdisciplinary understanding of literacy. It is in pursuit of understanding digital literacy/ies that I have learned from reading specialists, media professionals, social studies teachers, school librarians, instructional designers, and so many more. And it is in pursuit of partnering with other educators to teach digital literacies that I have continued to make new connections in my own context. For those collaborative and interdisciplinary reasons, digital literacy/ies are my favorite flavor of literacy (I do align with the plural, digital literacies, though I sometimes find it harder to implement grammatically). That said, I have also really enjoyed what I’ve read from new literacies or multiliteracies lenses and I think these both offer a useful step back from technology, which may be overemphasized in digital literacies. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

As important as I believe that digital literacies are for today’s learners, I do not think that they can replace offline reading comprehension. Instead, we can understand online and offline reading comprehension practices as symbiotic and I generally think they should be given equal weight across education. First, online reading comprehension does involve some aspects of traditional reading comprehension skills; Coiro has found that offline reading comprehension skills account for 35% of online reading comprehension (Castek et al. 2015, Coiro 2013). And second, thinking more broadly about the role of lifelong literacies, I think that the more focused, immersive reading that we tend to associate with offline reading is a useful balance point against the quicker, more networked nature of online reading. Both together offer us opportunities to engage with new ideas in different ways, for the whole of our lives. 

All of that said, I want to be careful not to conflate the distinction between online and offline reading comprehension with the relationship between traditional print literacy and new literacies. Because digital technology is at least a piece of what is ‘new’ about literacies today, it’s easy to align online reading comprehension, digital literacies, and new literacies. However, I think that a new literacies view, particularly its sociocultural and critical aspects, can and should influence how we teach offline reading as well. I tend to take a ‘both and’ view: both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives bring useful understandings and practices to literacy education, both online and offline. 

With all of this informing how I currently understand digital literacies, here are some of the key questions for my teaching:

• How can I continue to resist “deficit-oriented and protectionist views” and embrace “critical models of analysis and production” for digital literacy? (Mirra et al. 2018)
• Where do I make assumptions about progress that students should make before moving forward in their literacy learning? (Hammerberg 2004)
• How can I balance strategy-modeling with discussions about the power dynamics and equity issues at play in texts and systems? (Lankshear and Knobel 2008)
• What opportunities do I have to bring other kinds of texts into the classroom, beyond scholarly research articles? How can I more effectively invite multiple interpretations of these texts? (Hammerberg 2004)

Like my new office armchair, literacy is a place where I am happy to sit and reflect. 

References

Castek, Coiro, Henry, Leu, & Hartman (2015). Research on Instruction and Assessment in the New Literacies of Online Research and Comprehension.

Coiro (2003). Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies.

Coiro (2013). Video of online reading comprehension challenges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsWDEr2fKxA

Hammerberg, D. (2004). Comprehension instruction for sociocultural diverse classrooms: A review of what we know.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2008). From ‘reading’ to ‘new literacy studies.

Mirra N, Morrell, E. & Filipiak, D. (2018). Digital Consumption to Digital Invention: Toward a New Critical Theory and Practice of Multiliteracies, Theory Into Practice, 57:1, 12-19,

During the past two weeks, I have been reminded that my teaching as a librarian involves reading comprehension in many more ways than I often consider. As Duke & Pearson have noted, many struggle to see that “comprehension is more than just listening to the words you decode to see if they make sense” (2002, p. 214). Unchecked, this misconception has sometimes led me to think about reading comprehension as something that the undergraduate students I teach have already mastered, rather than a key part of the work that I continue to do with them. Our exploration of reading comprehension in EDC 532 has already started to inform my teaching this semester and I want to reflect on those shifts.

STRATEGIC AND ENGAGED READERS

In order to actively engage with a text and construct meaning, readers need a combination of cognitive capacities, motivation, and knowledge (RAND, 2002). Educators can help students to leverage this combination through both explicit instruction in reading strategies and facilitation of hands-on practice (Buehl, 2014; RAND, 2002; Duke & Pearson, 2002). In terms of supporting reader engagement and strategy development, there are three principles that have stood out to me and influenced my lesson planning over the last two weeks.

Clarify purpose and goals for reading activities. Strategic, engaged readers have a clear purpose or goal in mind for their reading (Buehl, 2014; RAND 2002; Duke & Pearson, 2002). Whether that purpose is internally or externally defined, it influences reading comprehension (Buehl, 2014; RAND 2002; Duke & Pearson, 2002). For readers who may not be naturally interested in the text at hand, focusing on a specific purpose and connecting that purpose to personal experiences can foster their motivation to read (Springer et al., 2017).

Select texts with interests and prior knowledge in mind. Strategic, engaged readers also make connections to their prior knowledge, personal interests, and experiences; they integrate their reading and make adjustments to their understanding to reflect these new connections (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Buehl, 2014; Springer et al., 2017). By selecting texts with student interests and prior knowledge in mind, teachers can help to foster student motivation to read, while also making sure that overly-difficult texts won’t distract from their learning (Springer et al., 2017; Duke & Pearson, 2002). 

Engage with motivation and sociocultural context. Although the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) currently only assesses cognitive dimensions of reading, we know that sociocultural context and motivation have a huge influence on reading comprehension. Attitudes about reading in classroom and home contexts influence how students approach reading (Buehl, 2014). Individual student motivation and interest in reading has been shown to improve comprehension, as has being part of a learning community that cultivates interest and engagement (Springer et al. 2017; Duke & Pearson, 2002). 

CONNECTIONS

These three takeaways connect across many of our readings in EDC 532 thus far, and directly influence my teaching practice. 

Clarifying purpose: While I have often tried to be transparent with students about my goals for classroom activities, the integral nature of reading and purpose sheds new light for me. Later this week, I will be asking students to read a short section of a research article. The primary purpose of this activity is to analyze how researchers integrate outside sources into their writing, providing students with a model for their own citation practices. I want to be really clear about this purpose because it directly influences how the students will engage with the text; rather than seeking domain knowledge, I want students to engage with genre conventions. In other words, clarifying our purpose will help students to “read selectively” (Buehl, 2014; Duke & Pearson, 2002, p. 205-206).

Selecting texts: Sometimes I spend a lot of time selecting example texts to use in class and I am feeling newly validated in spending this time. When I selected texts to use during a workshop on evaluating information earlier this semester, I tried to find texts that would strike the right balance of features: connected to topics related to student interests and knowledge, not too technically challenging, not politically charged to the point of distraction, while also including claims that require some outside research. With an evaluative purpose in mind, I didn’t want to select texts that made other, unnecessary demands on comprehension (Duke & Pearson, 2002). Selecting texts is also one of the major ways in which I engage with reader motivation and sociocultural context. In this particular course, I was looking to balance student motivation to debunk faulty claims with any other contextual experiences they may bring to that process. 

IMPLICATIONS/QUESTIONS/CRITIQUES

I’m wondering if it makes sense to think about reading comprehension itself as an inquiry process. I often think about reading as feeding into or supporting student inquiry. But proficient readers ask many different kinds of questions while reading and through these questions, they may identify gaps in their own knowledge, seek definitions for unfamiliar ideas, question the purpose and effectiveness of the author, make connections to their own interests, or reevaluate their goals for reading (Duke & Pearson, 2002; Buehl, 2014; Springer et al. 2017). This process of wondering and asking is embedded within reading, not just an outside frame for why the reading is happening. 

Thinking about the relationship between reading and inquiry, I’m also wondering how cognitive biases like confirmation bias intersect with what we know about reading comprehension. Duke and Pearson (2002) note that making predictions while reading an expository text can look different if the reader’s existing knowledge “is riddled with misconceptions” or “prejudices” (p. 214). I’m imagining that this means that if a text contradicts a strongly held belief, a reader may start to discount the text when their predictions prove to be inaccurate. And similarly, a reader may be less likely to critically evaluate a text that confirms their existing beliefs. Can our understanding of prediction-making in reading comprehension inform the way we address misinformation and disinformation? I’m especially looking forward to exploring critical takes on literacy that may overlap with this line of questioning.