In "Finding Space and Time for the Visual in K-12 Literary Instruction," Hasset and Schieble state:
One implication is that we need to understand and teach how images and printed text work together in multiple ways. Following Carolyn Handa, who states that 'finding space for the visual in the curriculum is possible without sacrificing the course goals of developing careful thinkers and thoughtful writers" (9), we suggest ways to find space for the visual within existing methods of literacy instruction so that new literacies and new texts can be used in the classroom without sacrificing curricular goals. Specifically, we look at accepted reading strategies for the purpose of updating them with visual texts and new literacies in mind. (62)
If it is true that the integration of images and text communicate meaning(s) in ways that traditional print-based based methods of decoding are insufficient for, why are educators so fixated on integrating, revising, and otherwise using current "accepted reading strategies" during the instruction of new literacies? If new literacies require a different means of decoding to derive meaning, shouldn't we be figuring out for ourselves and teaching these new decoding strategies vs. relying on current strategies that are "meant" for print? What if the current/accepted reading strategies are "not enough" / cannot be adjusted to decode the complex meanings created by the integration of images and text in new literacies? Would focusing time and energy on researching, understanding, and teaching decoding strategies for new literacies really be considered "sacrificing curricular goals"? Given the changing nature of communication and influx of new literacies, why do individuals insist on fitting new literacy instruction into current curricular paradigms vs. revising current curricular paradigms to reflect new literacies?
2 comments:
In response (I think) to your final question—I was thinking that the Hassett piece would've been that much more profound had it included a video of examples...or a differentiated approach to published articles. Being that it reads just like any other theoretical article—why don't the authors practice what they preach?
Hi Rick,
You have so many great questions! I sympathize with your frustration in regards to Hasset's intention to interweave old and new literacies. Particularly, it seems odd that the authors believe they can simply add new literacies without changing curricular goals. I think changing forms also changes content, don't you agree?
For instance, if a teacher assigns students to write their responses in an inter-active blog (rather than a journal), the curricular goal will extend to include communication skills, the concept of a larger audience, and the concept of rhetoric. Here, the goals change.
Post a Comment