Gormley, K. & McDermott, P. (2014). “We Don’t Go on the Computers Anymore”: How Urban
Children Lose in Learning Digital Literacies. The Educational Forum, 78, 248-262.
Key Concepts
- The Achievement Gap (249)
The achievement gap accounts in this article for the space in mastery with regards to digital literacy tasks between urban and suburban youth. The authors attribute this gap to a variety of factors, including the pressure placed on schools to help their students achieve high marks on standardized tests which involves an imbalanced focus on traditional approaches to curriculum content. The achievement gap in literacy between urban and suburban youth is explored as a pattern of neglect, where students in urban school settings are not being taught what they need to learn and are thus not achieving the success seen in suburban schools both within the context of this study and elsewhere. This extends to the mastery of digital literacy tasks described within the study, where teachers have no time to teach digital literacy skills directly or the resources necessary to do so. For example, students in suburban schools are taught digital literacy skills directly by specialists and also see technology use modelled at home by family members. Time spent on things such as the use of a keyboard directly impacts the widening of the achievement gap, as it is noted within the study that many urban students type with one finger on each hand while suburban students have been taught directly how to type properly and efficiently (i.e. knowledge of the home keys).
- New Literacies (249)
New literacies are methods of communication and interaction directly linked to digital learning. Traditional approaches to teaching and learning such as paper and pencil tasks do not embody the types of skills promoted through new literacy practices which require an understanding of complex modes of communication and texts. Among other things, new literacies require students be able to effectively use technology to support collaboration in reading and writing comprehension. New literacies (such as web research) must be taught alongside conventional forms of reading and writing so students can actively participate in digital citizenship, be critical of the content they are viewing online and elsewhere, and adapt to new technological modes of communicating and interpreting meaning. To neglect new literacy strategies is to greatly hinder students’ ability to be successful in an age where digital media and technologies play an integral role in daily life.
- Digital Literacy Tasks (250)
Gormley and McDermott define digital literacy tasks as key new literacy skills that must be mastered in order to effectively participate in digital society in school contexts. This includes the ability to type, use a word processor, navigate the internet, and be able to present found information and knowledge using digital formats. It is in these digital literacy tasks that the achievement gap is made apparent, as proficiency in these digital literacy tasks impacts the kind of information and quality of information students can access and their ability to communicate such knowledge. For example, one student in a suburban school had been taught how to access online encyclopedias through their school website, allowing them to find information on topics of interest easily and efficiently. In contrast, an urban student researching a topic of interest might know Wikipedia is not a credible source for information but might not know where else to go. If these research practices lead to final projects which were then marked, these students’ grades (and the achievement gap between them) would be impacted by their understanding of digital literacy and ability to execute digital literacy tasks.
Key Quotation
Inadequate financial resources and the pressures of statewide testing are having tremendous effects on what children are taught in urban schools. We believe there is a larger issue affecting the kinds of knowledge disparities discovered in this study; our public school systems suffer from a lack of social justice for the kind of education that is being offered all our children. The suburban and urban children in this study were the same ages and grade levels. The schools they attended were financed by public tax dollars, and their districts followed the state curricula. Yet at a time when digital literacies have become pervasive in our daily lives, the results of our study suggest that urban children had far less access to these new literacies than suburban children, and they were not learning them. (Gormley & McDermott, 2014, 259)
The authors’ findings suggest that students in urban and suburban settings are both supported financially through public taxes and should have the same opportunities and resources to explore digital literacy and new literacy practices, but the pressure of standardized testing is heavily impacting the availability of these opportunities in schools. While the importance of digital literacy has been noted at length and the need for digital literacy is clearly evident in the daily lived experience of students, testing and time allocated to prepare for statewide tests heavily impact teachers’ ability to teach students these skills. The authors suggest this is a social justice issue, where whole populations of students are not learning valuable skills necessary to meaningfully contribute to digital society because of the pressure on schools to perform without any attention paid to the individual contexts of the communities in which these schools reside.
Questioning the Text
Gormley and McDermott suggest new literacies and digital literacy tasks should be included in statewide testing because “what is assessed is what is taught” (Gormley & McDermott, 2014). However, the authors do not acknowledge the ways standardized tests might be outdated and incompatible with the communication of mastered digital literacies when making this suggestion. For example, how could standardized tests covering new and digital literacies accommodate a skill such as collaboration which resides at the core of digital citizenship?
Bazalgette, C. & Buckingham, D. (2013). Literacy, media and multimodality: A Critical
Response. Literacy, UKLA, 47, 2, 95-102.
Key Concepts
- Multimodality (multimodality theory) (95)
Multimodality theory involves acknowledging the interactions various components of a text have with one another and how this ultimately contributes to a deeper understanding of meaning. The authors argue that multimodality is oversimplified and in common practice involves categorizing texts as either multimodal or not, and also places limitations of what is deemed a ‘text’ at all. However, many multimodality theorists reject this and argue that all texts are multimodal and can thus be viewed in different ways which might expand upon meaning and understanding in increasingly complex ways. To draw from an example provided in the text, a book is multimodal even though it is a ‘traditional’ print text not only because of font choice and cover art, but also because of decisions such as size and shape, page thickness, the crease in the spine of a well-used book, or the size of the margins on each page. All of these elements impact the experience, and thus the understanding, of a book which in a simplified understanding of multimodality might be categorized as not multimodal. Multimodality theory involves not the categorization of texts (multimodal or not), but rather embodies a way of interacting with a text (which can be anything). See Multimodal Analysis
- Moving Image Media (95)
The label ‘Moving Image Media’ refers to, but is not limited to, films, television and video games. Through the distinction made between multimodal and non-multimodal texts via the oversimplification of multimodality theory, moving image media is relegated to a lower position in the text hierarchy in English education where these texts are seen as additions to curriculum and not a primary focus. This is in spite of the fact that moving image media (such as TV) are the texts many students interact with most in their daily lives. While media studies as a discipline explores the significance of moving image media across social, cultural and political lines and has for decades, multimodality theory in its simplified form acknowledges moving image media merely as a way to improve students’ grades or increase engagement, but without intrinsic value when compared to written texts (even though writing is a component of moving image media). Because moving image media includes the texts students are interacting with most frequently, it is crucial these texts are taken seriously in classroom contexts to promote critical thinking regarding media consumption. For example, analyzing a commercial which contains both written text and moving images can help students identify production choices and begin to understand how advertisers use many different visual and written tactics to manipulate the viewer.
- Multimodal Analysis (vs. Multimodal Texts)
Multimodal Analysis is the process that characterizes multimodality theory when it is not oversimplified through the emphasis on categorizing texts. Multimodal analysis involves considering how various parts (features, elements, components) of a text interact with each other to produce and communicate meaning that is more complex than any single element studied individually. Multimodal analysis in this way becomes the vehicle for uncovering meaning through mode instead of merely content, where how something is communicated is just as important as what is being communicated. For example, students can use multimodal analysis to explore production choices in a film, and consider how these choices support the explicit storyline. Alternatively, students could consider the interaction between text and image in advertisements, or create their own ads supported by their understanding that different parts of a text act together to communicate deeper meaning than a mere focus on content.
Key Quotation
Changes in the balance and combination of modes, it is argued, are all it takes to erode boundaries, unsettle existing practices and forge new connections. Yet in the process, multimodality theorists barely address the actual content of English teaching and the social and political contexts in which teaching and learning take place. (Bazalgette & Buckingham, 2013, 98)
While mode is significant in understanding how meaning is communicated in increasingly complex texts, Bazalgette and Buckingham argue that multimodality theorists who offer simplified and categorizing understandings of multimodality ignore the importance of content. Changing the ways in which content is communicated is not enough to consider educational approaches progressive – both content and the way students are taught must be changed in order to mirror the lived experiences of our students. This means drawing from the modes of communication which students interact with in their everyday lives, and drawing from the social and political experiences of our students to ensure content is relevant and responsive.
Questioning the Text
Bazalgette and Buckingham emphasize the importance of acknowledging the everyday experiences students have with multimodal texts (essentially all texts), and describe childrens’ TV watching and critical capacity to understand how meaning is communicated through moving image media at earlier ages than commonly acknowledged. In spite of the importance of social, political and contextual understandings of multimodality in daily life however, the authors provide no concrete examples or tools with which teachers could encourage critical reflection or in-context analysis. For example, what benefits would there be to having students interpret TV shows in the contexts they usually watch them, reflecting on how context shapes their understanding? If everyday use of multimodality is of significance to educators, should more learning take place in spaces that resonate with students more so than the classroom? How would this occur?
