The two articles proved to be very insightful. I haven’t delved much into the theories behind literacy, and really appreciate being given the opportunity to do so. Both the articles brought up points that I found worth chewing on for a while.
In regards to the first text—Christenbury, Bomer, Smagronsky—I was most drawn to the controversy surrounding the testing of literacy – especially when assessing comprehension and analytical skills. Never have I found myself to be a wizard when it comes to multiple choice tests, which perhaps colors my opinion a touch, but I fully agree with the author in regards to the shortcomings of using multiple choice formats to assess comprehension skills. If, as a society, we do in fact feel that literacy encompasses both comprehension and analysis, then it’s hard to create narrow enough texts which allow us to measure one’s literacy skills, yet be inclusive of all the world-views and experiences readers would use as tools to analyze a passage. In my 7th grade class I teach the importance of readers taping into and accessing their prior knowledge. Is it really possible to predict and determine what prior knowledge should have been acquired so that one can analyze and comprehend a passage? Like the author states, wouldn’t their personal experiences alter their interpretation, and subsequently their comprehension? With that said, I still find that in most regards standard assessments, at the level of my students, are adequate in assessing a tad more than simply the literal meaning of the text. They seem to require limited, if any real interpretation via the lens of personal experience. At least little more than knowing that rain is wet, and everybody smiles when they’re happy. Lastly, I wished to thank the authors opening up the question as to whether literacy is ideological. The assertion that because it, “represents a stance in relation to the world,” is compelling and opens up a whole slew in regards to the ethics of its testing.
After reading the Leu et al passage I found myself in full agreement with the authors in regards to the need to reassess literacy in the current digital age. The authors harbor a more utopian view of the internet—“the new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs provide individuals with opportunities to make their personal lives more productive and fulfilling,”(p.5) and “the new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs permit greater civic engagement in democratic institutions,”(p.5)—than I share, yet the idea that we as educators must include new, digital, literacies in our instruction is indeed true. Perhaps the most compelling component of this new literacy, or at least one that I’ve not seen folded into the notion of being “computer literate,” is the need for speed (p.19). Speed does count in regards navigation of the web. Naturally, the demands of reading comprehension have expanded. Yet, once one is adept at comprehending the validity of hyperlinks, using a search engine, and generating text via word processors, all of these new literacies will need to be applied quickly while still maintaining that analytical touch.
In regards to the first text—Christenbury, Bomer, Smagronsky—I was most drawn to the controversy surrounding the testing of literacy – especially when assessing comprehension and analytical skills. Never have I found myself to be a wizard when it comes to multiple choice tests, which perhaps colors my opinion a touch, but I fully agree with the author in regards to the shortcomings of using multiple choice formats to assess comprehension skills. If, as a society, we do in fact feel that literacy encompasses both comprehension and analysis, then it’s hard to create narrow enough texts which allow us to measure one’s literacy skills, yet be inclusive of all the world-views and experiences readers would use as tools to analyze a passage. In my 7th grade class I teach the importance of readers taping into and accessing their prior knowledge. Is it really possible to predict and determine what prior knowledge should have been acquired so that one can analyze and comprehend a passage? Like the author states, wouldn’t their personal experiences alter their interpretation, and subsequently their comprehension? With that said, I still find that in most regards standard assessments, at the level of my students, are adequate in assessing a tad more than simply the literal meaning of the text. They seem to require limited, if any real interpretation via the lens of personal experience. At least little more than knowing that rain is wet, and everybody smiles when they’re happy. Lastly, I wished to thank the authors opening up the question as to whether literacy is ideological. The assertion that because it, “represents a stance in relation to the world,” is compelling and opens up a whole slew in regards to the ethics of its testing.
After reading the Leu et al passage I found myself in full agreement with the authors in regards to the need to reassess literacy in the current digital age. The authors harbor a more utopian view of the internet—“the new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs provide individuals with opportunities to make their personal lives more productive and fulfilling,”(p.5) and “the new literacies of the Internet and other ICTs permit greater civic engagement in democratic institutions,”(p.5)—than I share, yet the idea that we as educators must include new, digital, literacies in our instruction is indeed true. Perhaps the most compelling component of this new literacy, or at least one that I’ve not seen folded into the notion of being “computer literate,” is the need for speed (p.19). Speed does count in regards navigation of the web. Naturally, the demands of reading comprehension have expanded. Yet, once one is adept at comprehending the validity of hyperlinks, using a search engine, and generating text via word processors, all of these new literacies will need to be applied quickly while still maintaining that analytical touch.