Wysocki & Johnson Eilola present a fairly good case for the possible overuse of the term Literacy, but I think that the issue truly lies at the essence of what we expect people to be able to do, use, manipulate and construct. Literacy, which once, as I understand it, meant 'the ability to read' is certainly thrown around a great deal. In my school, I have heard it used for reading fiction, reading non-fiction, being able to read signage and directions, computer literacy, smart-phone literacy, technologically literate, etc... Additionally, it has been used in reference to one's ability to write.
I think that Literacy is just a term that we are using to speak of one's ability to solve problems. The problems may appear in the tasks of decoding symbols to make words, decoding words, sentences and paragraphs to create meaning, inscribing symbols to paper (writing), deciphering mathematical computations to create solutions, etc... It is the identification of a task which needs to be accomplished and then using the tools, whether they be intrinsic tools within our minds and rationales, or extrinsic tools such as pencils, keyboards, computers, electronic files and so many more.
We need to address the ability of the learner (students and teachers alike) to evaluate the situation and then use whatever medium and tools are available to receive information, transmit information or create some product for a consumer which could come in the form of an evaluator, production manager, customer, or any variety of person in the social and economic chain.
Does it hurt to use Literacy as this word? I don't think so. Is it minimizing those who struggle with literacy of the written word? I don't think so, but it also is a convenient tool to identify skills that we may need to use in order to function n our societies.
I have always viewed Literacy as just that: the ability to function in a given social circumstance, whether that circumstance is created by physical proximity to people, hypertext, audio transmission, print on paper, music, or even sounds generated by tools such as whistles and commands. In each instance, the participants are more successful when they 'read' the situation correctly and interpret what the appropriate response should be and then act on it. That seems to be Literacy to me.
Re: "Does it hurt to use Literacy as this word? I don't think so."
ReplyDeleteI agree. And I think Wysocki and Johnson-Eilola would agree up to a point. That is, they seem to me to be cautioning against overuse of the term. Too many references to literacy risk draining the word of its significance. Also, there may be some danger in overdetermining new media composing practices by referring to them as a "literacy" that summons up direct correspondence with "alphabetic literacy." Maybe?
I have a hard time thinking of literacy in the singular. For me it is Multiliteracies that are different for each human being.
ReplyDeleteI envision literacy as an interlaced phenomenon, like an old-fashioned laced doily with threads of image, gaze, gesture, movement, speech, music, and sound-effect woven in language, and influenced by culture, time, and place to communicate meaning (Heath, Jewitt and Kress, Street). This woven complex doily of literacies will be a different shape, size, and color for every human being.
To help me illustrate this definition (I originally created for 515), I created my own literacy doily. ( you can view it here. https://sites.google.com/site/pams596portfolio/home ). I think it is the "communicate meaning" that gets linked to all those different literacies (i.e. computer literacy,functional literacy, critical literacy, etc.). It seems as though the word is not only over used but maybe over thought. I don't know maybe I'm way off base.