The Limits of Literacy?
In considering the literacy practices that surround mobile technologies I have found myself struggling with a contemporary 'hydra' of educational theory. Just what is 'literacy'? Just what is literacy concerned with?
Circumscribing the boundaries of a theory of literacy has become a risky task. In recent years, understandings of what we mean by this term have been both expanded and compressed; it has been an issue of continuous and unending debate amongst researchers and theoreticians. The major catalyst for this has been the rapid emergence and dissemination of modern ICTs, throughout the everyday lives of many people in 'developed economies'. This is a particularly important point for my discussion, relating to mobile technologies, which (if we consider mobile phones as an example) have surpassed almost all previous technologies (with the exception of the television perhaps) with the speed of their uptake by the general public. Educators have become aware of this through the increasing number of these devices that end up in our schools and classrooms, and then, due to current institutional approaches, at times confiscated by the teacher.
So if we are to use the literacy potential of mobile technologies, if we are to develop a productive manner in which to use them for educational purposes, then it becomes ever more important to understand just what we mean by the term 'literacy'. Whilst the New London Group ("A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies." 1996) and Kress seek to limit the focus of literacy to written, linguistic language, there are yet others that seek to unshackle literacy from the bonds of written language. Victoria Carrington for example: "Like Gee...and many others, I am arguing that 'literacy' must be understood to extend beyond the ability to encode and decode print. Much of the meaning of contemporary text is embedded in the graphics, symbols, images and sounds that surround print...." ("Txting: the end of civilization (again)?", 2005, 172). Limiting literacy to a focus on the skills of reading and writing, is what the New London Group terms 'mere literacy'(1996, p.64). With regard to mobile technologies, which are so intimately entwined throughout our everyday lives and social practices, a focus on 'mere literacy' is far to narrow and restricts the field of our observations and understandings in an unproductive manner.
So if we are to extend the concept of literacy to cover other modes of human representation for meaning-making, how far is this 'extension' to go? Amongst educational and communication researchers concepts of 'visual literacy' (Anstey & Bull, Reading the Visual, 2000), 'cultural literacy' (Schirato & Yell, Communication and Cultural Literacy, 2000), 'hypertext literacy' (Snyder, Hypertext, 1996) and 'games literacy' (Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, 2003) have all been developed by a number of researchers (I have only indicated more influential publications in these areas - there are many others). However, none of these frameworks fully accounts for the multitude of modes that are deployed in mobile communication or information processing.
Multiliteracies frameworks, as first formulated by the New London Group (1996) offers the strongest way into understanding the literacy practices that surround mobile technologies. I do not intend to use this approach as a strict guideline, but rather as a heuristic strategy for understanding new and evolving literacy behaviours. It is particularly important to leave the scope regarding 'what is literacy?' or 'what is language?' somewhat open, as we do not yet understand all the textual configurations that mobile technologies might produces.
As Agar (2005) and Levinson (2004) both point out, SMS was a peripheral feature of mobile phone development, never intended for wide-spread use. However, in this case it was the mobile phone users who determined a future direction for this technology through their unprecedented uptake and use of SMS-messenging (txting). This has not only had an effect on mobile phone service providers (providing sms-packages in billing structures) and manufacturers (designing phone keypads for easier 'txting' navigation), but has permeated throughout 'consumer-media culture' (as we saw with the example of the 'Fone' biscuits) (Kenway & Bullen, Consuming Children, 2001). The most recent phenomenon over the past few years has been the development of interactive television and mobile phone 'sms clubs'. Both of these developments normalize sms communication as a legitimate form of social communication and consumer behaviour, whilst also making a LOT of money out of them (Costs as high as $4.50 per message sent AND received are not uncommon). However, I do think that a discussion of this issue might wait to another time - it is an extensive issue with a large number of implications for education, culture and young people.
Back to the concept of literacy and how far to extend it. As I have demonstrated, sms-communication has quickly become legitimized, if not by educational authorities (certainly not in most cases), then certainly within consumer-media culture. But 'txting' is still written, linguistic language which in some ways abides by traditional rules of grammar (though these are stretched and breached frequently), thus still able to fall under the mantle of literacy as a discipline. But this is not the case with all modes of communication around mobile technologies.
Considering that mobile technologies are very much a part of the multimodal, everyday lives of individuals, then we are faced with a problem: what modes of representation deployed in semiotic practice can we discuss in terms of literacy? Can we talk of 'gestural literacy' (people often gesture when talking on the phone, despite the fact that they can't be seen by other other person)? What about a 'grammar of body language' (How do we know when someone is involved with their real, virtual or projective identity? Gee, 2003)? How do we talk about 'synchronic literacy' (Eshet-Alkalai, "Digital Literacy", Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), p.93, 2004) - sound, text and motion presented simultaneously - when someone is both watching a music video on their iPod whilst chatting with friends at a cafe? Where are their attentions deployed and why? How far does a concept of literacy extend to cover interpersonal interactions, especially when they are mediated by technology so frequently? In essence, the blurry line where theories concerning literacy bump up against other approaches is for me, continuing to become ever more indistinct.
When we think about mobile literacies, what modes are we concerned with? All of them? Some of them? On what basis do we decide that something is or isn't literacy? Sure, Kress' limitation of literacy to the written/linguistic, is in some respects restrictive, but it also allows him to clearly delineate the boundaries of his theory. Mine just seems much fuzzier, with a lot of sharp edges poking out that could tear a hole in my research and theory.
Where literacy ends and human living beings is a distinction that for me, is continuing to be attacked by the floods of mobile technologies that now wash over us in our everyday lives. One thing is for sure though: we need to rethink concepts of what literacy is if we are to adequately account for the impact that these new, ubiquitous ICTs, are having on our experience as humans beings: social animals.
Circumscribing the boundaries of a theory of literacy has become a risky task. In recent years, understandings of what we mean by this term have been both expanded and compressed; it has been an issue of continuous and unending debate amongst researchers and theoreticians. The major catalyst for this has been the rapid emergence and dissemination of modern ICTs, throughout the everyday lives of many people in 'developed economies'. This is a particularly important point for my discussion, relating to mobile technologies, which (if we consider mobile phones as an example) have surpassed almost all previous technologies (with the exception of the television perhaps) with the speed of their uptake by the general public. Educators have become aware of this through the increasing number of these devices that end up in our schools and classrooms, and then, due to current institutional approaches, at times confiscated by the teacher.
So if we are to use the literacy potential of mobile technologies, if we are to develop a productive manner in which to use them for educational purposes, then it becomes ever more important to understand just what we mean by the term 'literacy'. Whilst the New London Group ("A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies." 1996) and Kress seek to limit the focus of literacy to written, linguistic language, there are yet others that seek to unshackle literacy from the bonds of written language. Victoria Carrington for example: "Like Gee...and many others, I am arguing that 'literacy' must be understood to extend beyond the ability to encode and decode print. Much of the meaning of contemporary text is embedded in the graphics, symbols, images and sounds that surround print...." ("Txting: the end of civilization (again)?", 2005, 172). Limiting literacy to a focus on the skills of reading and writing, is what the New London Group terms 'mere literacy'(1996, p.64). With regard to mobile technologies, which are so intimately entwined throughout our everyday lives and social practices, a focus on 'mere literacy' is far to narrow and restricts the field of our observations and understandings in an unproductive manner.
So if we are to extend the concept of literacy to cover other modes of human representation for meaning-making, how far is this 'extension' to go? Amongst educational and communication researchers concepts of 'visual literacy' (Anstey & Bull, Reading the Visual, 2000), 'cultural literacy' (Schirato & Yell, Communication and Cultural Literacy, 2000), 'hypertext literacy' (Snyder, Hypertext, 1996) and 'games literacy' (Gee, What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy, 2003) have all been developed by a number of researchers (I have only indicated more influential publications in these areas - there are many others). However, none of these frameworks fully accounts for the multitude of modes that are deployed in mobile communication or information processing.
Multiliteracies frameworks, as first formulated by the New London Group (1996) offers the strongest way into understanding the literacy practices that surround mobile technologies. I do not intend to use this approach as a strict guideline, but rather as a heuristic strategy for understanding new and evolving literacy behaviours. It is particularly important to leave the scope regarding 'what is literacy?' or 'what is language?' somewhat open, as we do not yet understand all the textual configurations that mobile technologies might produces.
As Agar (2005) and Levinson (2004) both point out, SMS was a peripheral feature of mobile phone development, never intended for wide-spread use. However, in this case it was the mobile phone users who determined a future direction for this technology through their unprecedented uptake and use of SMS-messenging (txting). This has not only had an effect on mobile phone service providers (providing sms-packages in billing structures) and manufacturers (designing phone keypads for easier 'txting' navigation), but has permeated throughout 'consumer-media culture' (as we saw with the example of the 'Fone' biscuits) (Kenway & Bullen, Consuming Children, 2001). The most recent phenomenon over the past few years has been the development of interactive television and mobile phone 'sms clubs'. Both of these developments normalize sms communication as a legitimate form of social communication and consumer behaviour, whilst also making a LOT of money out of them (Costs as high as $4.50 per message sent AND received are not uncommon). However, I do think that a discussion of this issue might wait to another time - it is an extensive issue with a large number of implications for education, culture and young people.
Back to the concept of literacy and how far to extend it. As I have demonstrated, sms-communication has quickly become legitimized, if not by educational authorities (certainly not in most cases), then certainly within consumer-media culture. But 'txting' is still written, linguistic language which in some ways abides by traditional rules of grammar (though these are stretched and breached frequently), thus still able to fall under the mantle of literacy as a discipline. But this is not the case with all modes of communication around mobile technologies.
Considering that mobile technologies are very much a part of the multimodal, everyday lives of individuals, then we are faced with a problem: what modes of representation deployed in semiotic practice can we discuss in terms of literacy? Can we talk of 'gestural literacy' (people often gesture when talking on the phone, despite the fact that they can't be seen by other other person)? What about a 'grammar of body language' (How do we know when someone is involved with their real, virtual or projective identity? Gee, 2003)? How do we talk about 'synchronic literacy' (Eshet-Alkalai, "Digital Literacy", Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), p.93, 2004) - sound, text and motion presented simultaneously - when someone is both watching a music video on their iPod whilst chatting with friends at a cafe? Where are their attentions deployed and why? How far does a concept of literacy extend to cover interpersonal interactions, especially when they are mediated by technology so frequently? In essence, the blurry line where theories concerning literacy bump up against other approaches is for me, continuing to become ever more indistinct.
When we think about mobile literacies, what modes are we concerned with? All of them? Some of them? On what basis do we decide that something is or isn't literacy? Sure, Kress' limitation of literacy to the written/linguistic, is in some respects restrictive, but it also allows him to clearly delineate the boundaries of his theory. Mine just seems much fuzzier, with a lot of sharp edges poking out that could tear a hole in my research and theory.
Where literacy ends and human living beings is a distinction that for me, is continuing to be attacked by the floods of mobile technologies that now wash over us in our everyday lives. One thing is for sure though: we need to rethink concepts of what literacy is if we are to adequately account for the impact that these new, ubiquitous ICTs, are having on our experience as humans beings: social animals.
Labels: Education, Literacy, Mobile Technologies, New Literacies
posted by Calvin Taylor at 10:29 am
0 comments
