This post is a response to Clarence Fisher’s Literacy as Battleground. While I’m in sympathy with Clarence’s belief that teachers should rethink pedagogy in order to account for new information communication technologies, I do not agree that we have reached an all-or-nothing “tipping point.” My original statement was not a commentary on current educational usages of technology, but an observation about the consequences of a resistant stance toward technologically mediated discourses.

Clarence is a tireless promoter of new ideas, and I am impressed by his fearless commitment to progress. He appears to be impatient with the rate of technology diffusion, but I don’t see us reaching any kind of “dangerous edge.” Change is a condition of the new classroom, and that must be a fundamental understanding. There is no edge anymore. If there was an edge, we’ve gone over. There isn’t anything more to be done but learn to fly. This may appear to contradict my earlier statement that “…it’s an all-or-nothing choice, and either you adopt new literacies or you isolate yourself.” To be more precise I could have said, “…or you isolate yourself from that particular technologically mediated discourse,” but that would have taken the rhetorical punch out of the point I was trying to make.

Literacy is a battleground, I fully agree. The history of literacy as a term that means “the ability to read” is relatively new - much newer than reading or writing per se. As recently as 150 years ago anyone who could simply sign their name was considered literate. For decades, reading was synonymous with translating written symbols into speech, and comprehension was assumed. In our current era determinations about who is literate are made with standardized testing instruments that are the products of technical design processes, and are based on narrowly conceived definitions of literacy. Literacy is most definitely contested turf, and whose literacy is preferred is a matter of contention among diverse political discourses.

I’d like to touch on the idea of multiple literacies. Taking a cue from Donald Leu’s article about the New Literacy Studies, literacies are situated within technological contexts, and they include the ability to manipulate multiple media forms appropriate to particular needs. Literacies also include the understanding that all information is the artifact of specific social and cultural contexts. The new literacies are highly social, but they do not replace “previous literacies.” Understood though Gee’s sociocultural lens (para. 2), literacies are embedded in social practices that include ways of acting, thinking, and speaking, as well as the use of various nonlinguistic symbols and tools. Literacies in any case are the products of discourses, and they are closely integrated with each person’s identity. Rather than call for teachers to embrace new technologies, I would urge teachers to embrace the concept of multiple literacies and to become competent with the tools that are required to participate in them. They might be books, flutes, cameras, or even paper maché, as well as wikis. The tools will come and go as needed. Some will be old, some new and strange.

There was an interesting story on The World today. It was a report from BBC’s Daniel Griffiths about the craze to learn English in Chinese schools. 300 million people in China are believed to be studying English. As China becomes a member of the global economy, many people feel that having English as a second language is a good way to get ahead. The report said that China is determined to produce a whole generation of English speakers, and that one of the most successful textbooks for learning English sold over 100 million units, with sales still growing for junior and senior high. It isn’t a technological revolution, it’s an awareness of the need to gain competence in a discourse.

It’s not yet time for the general dispersion of read/write web technologies in school. We’re not at a critical point where we’re missing an opportunity. Clarence is correct that things will continue to change, but that shouldn’t be a problem. As Leu said,

Regular change is a defining characteristic of the new literacies. This simple observation has profound consequences for literacy and literacy education. The continuously changing technologies of literacy mean that we must help children learn how to learn new technologies of literacy. In fact, the ability to learn continuously changing technologies for literacy may be a more critical target than learning any particular technology of literacy itself.

Those of us who are using ICT’s now are still working out the details. It’s a frontier, and there won’t be widespread adoption in educational settings until there are demonstrable benefits and a critical mass of users who can promote the new literacies as normal and even necessary. That’s going to take time. The proper course now is to stay open and try to make sense of a chaotic environment. Share with your colleagues.

And it probably wouldn’t hurt to learn Chinese.