I found Motoko Rich’s
article “Literacy Debate: R U Really Reading?” provocative in more ways than
one. Among the various perspectives and anecdotes presented, I kept coming back
to the basic problem in this whole debate: the ambiguity surrounding what
constitutes “reading” as well as the ambiguity surrounding evaluation of new
literacies. According to Rich (2008), there has been a lot of handwringing
about the decline in literacy levels, as measured by national reading tests,
further exacerbated by findings that show a “slump in the proportion of
adolescents who [say] they read for fun.” However, following these dismal
statistics, the most important point – to me, at least – surfaced, almost as an
afterthought: “(It was unclear whether
they thought of what [students] did on the Internet as ‘reading.’) (Rich,
2008, emphasis mine) Well, if we’re not sure whether Internet-based activities
are even considered “reading,” and we don’t have any way to evaluate the
literacy skills of students who engage with Internet-based literacies, then can
we really take reading test results seriously? Can we really know how to gauge
literacy levels of our students?
The uncertainty about
the definition of reading and literacy that Rich (2008) exposes is complicated
by the fact that many authors and writers cling to the more traditional views
of this subject. Rich (2008) lists the many purposes for which people read,
ending with the comment that many people “read for entertainment, as well as
for intellectual or emotional rewards.” She goes on to add, “It is perhaps that
final purpose that book champions emphasize most. ‘Learning is not to be found
on a printout,’ David McCullough, the Pulitzer Prize-wining biographer, said in
a commencement address at Boston College in May. ‘It’s not on call or at the
touch of a finger. Learning is acquired mainly from books, and most readily
from great books.’”
There’s a lot to
unpack here. (What constitutes a “great book”? I wonder to myself, but that
could take us in a whole different direction about the usefulness and/or
exclusiveness of the traditional canon of literature.)
To the point of
defining literacy practices, I’m left wondering: how can we so universally
claim that “learning is acquired mainly from books,” not through apps “at the
touch of the finger,” and not on printouts? (I find this last mention somewhat
ironic as I sit here reading and learning from a printout of Rich’s New York Times article.) I learn from
plenty of non-print sources, even though I grew up in a home rich with
“traditional” literacy practices; my parents read to my siblings and me daily.
At times my mother would bring New York
Times articles to the dinner table to read and discuss with us. I still
have hundreds of books in my home (even though there is no space for them in my
NYC apartment…) because I love the aesthetic they add to my living environment,
and I love the physical feel and smell of books when I read – characteristics
that can’t be replicated on the Kindle or Nook or other tablets we use for reading.
Still, I gain all my news almost exclusively from daily news podcasts such as DemocracyNow! or articles I read online
on my iPhone.
More importantly, even
though I had relatively no difficulty navigating the literacy demands I met in
school, that does not mean that my experience can be viewed as universal. New
literacies are here to stay, and certainly benefit plenty of young readers. Our
students have found new ways to interact with and make meaning from texts, as
Rich (2008) reveals through the example of the teen that reads and adds to
stories through fanfiction.net. Rich (2008) further describes the experiences
of young people that “crave interaction with fellow readers on the Internet.”
She quotes a young man who astutely observes, “the Web is more about a
conversation” while “books are more one-way.” In addition, Rich (2008) conveys
that “experts on reading difficulties suggest that for struggling readers, the
Web may be a better way to glean information” because they can more efficiently
skim through sources and locate what they need in a more self-directed way.
While strong opposing
opinions continue to battle out definitions for reading and literacy, new
approaches and practices are gaining traction. So how to we clear up the
ambiguity about what constitutes reading? I believe we need to add to the
traditional understanding of reading; it’s not just the linear experience of
opening a book and reading it in a sustained way until it’s finished. Literacy
is reading books plus interacting
with texts and through Web-based programs, podcasts, social media posts, etc.
Learning can and does occur on all these platforms.
Ultimately, it is clear
to me that we have to expand our understanding of what young people need and
learn from when it comes to developing literacy skills. And, we need to develop authentic ways to assess and evaluate the
literacy skills that young people definitely are building as they navigate new
territories of digital literacies. As we better understand how our young people
learn in this new landscape, we can better meet their needs and keep them
engaged in beneficial and edifying literacy activities.
Reference:
Rich,
M. (2008). Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading? The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html
No comments:
Post a Comment