Assignment for Monday, December 1

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 09:12 — Professor Rose

W 11/26 Thanksgiving Vacation—no class

F 11/28 Thanksgiving Vacation—no class

 

M 12/1 Literacy Theories and Composition: New London Group

Cazden, Courtney, Bill Cope, Norma Fairclough, Jim Gee, et al. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Future.” Harvard Educational Review 66.1 (Spring 1996): 60-92.

 

Post a discussion question as a "comment" on this  blog entry by 11:59 Sunday, November 30.

Comments

Mon, 11/24/2008 - 12:28 — esproat

Toward a Post-Discipline Education

Inasmuch as all disciplines ought to seek to "ensure that differences of culture, language, and gender are not barriers to educational success," how much does the difference of discipline still construct a barrier to educational success? For those of us interested in conveying rhetorical methods, concerns, and practices to our students, how does the inclusion of multiliteracies affect the ways we think about the role of first-year writing courses as distinct from introduction to speech courses? Are the roles for both writing and speech courses melding? Are they accomplishing different ends? If these roles and aims are different (or the same), should they be different (or the same)?

Wed, 11/26/2008 - 00:30 — clemenje

Comparing Cazden et. al. and O'Dair

Writing in 1996, the New London Group paints a rather bleak portrait of the then present state of the world and its communicative practices: “Indeed, this is the only hope for averting the _catastrophic_ conflicts about identities and spaces that now seem _ever ready to flare up_” (69 emphasis added). Yet, they seem hopeful about their solution, a solution that privileges a metalanguage that is a neutral and egalitarian accounting of socio-cultural/linguistic differences rather than “one cultural and linguistic standard” (88, 69). They claim that “We cannot remake the world through schooling, but we can instantiate a vision through pedagogy that creates in microcosm a transformed set of relationships and possibilities for social futures, a vision that is lived in schools” (72).

Writing in 2003, O’Dair seems to believe that the New London Group’s vision has yet to be realized; one cultural and linguistic standard exists, and O’Dair believes working-class students have a right to be initiated into that discourse: “…they will feel cheated when they recall that their composition instructor purposefully decided not to initiate them into academic discourse but instead to value the language and knowledge they already knew” (598).

Consider the larger context in which the New London Group and in which O’Dair were writing. How had that context changed from 1996 to 2003 and how has it changed from 2003 to 2008 (if you believe it has changed at all)? Was it “catastrophic” in 1996? Did a linguistic standard exist in 1996, in 2003 and does it still exist in 2008? And, which approach, then, is most beneficial to students? The New London Group, after all, claims that their approach is “authentically democratic” (67) and is not just a better method to “‘service’…‘minorities’” (69). Ultimately, how might _we_ begin to define pedagogical benefit in 2008 (similarly or differently than these two texts)?

Perhaps the question I am really trying to get at is how successful would you rate the New London Group's initiative and why?

Sat, 11/29/2008 - 11:45 — Liz

"Diverse" Authorship

The authors of the New London Group provide their readers with brief background information for each author at the beginning of the article. They write that their intention was to "pull together ideas from a numbers of different domains and a number of different English-speaking countries" in order to bring "a great variety of national, life, and professional experience" to their discussion (62). As a reader, I wondered why they "limited" their authorship to English-speaking countries, especially because one of their main concerns is, "How do we ensure that differences of culture, language, and gender are not barriers to educational success?" (61) Would the article change in any way if there were multilingual speaking authors for whom English is not a first language but a second, third, or fourth? Or do the authors purposely limit their authorship to English-speaking countries because of their discussions of the workplace and class? Would their definition of "multiliteracies" change in any way if they had English-speaking authors originally from non-English speaking countries? Or would adding these authors take their article in a direction it should not (or should) go?

Sun, 11/30/2008 - 13:24 — Caitlan

Work, Citizenship, Lifeworlds: an accurate portrayal?

This question is somewhat related to Jess's question, in that it asks us to consider the context of the article.

Near the beginning of the article (pages 65-71), the New London Group describes what they see as the current situation. They describe 3 areas: work, public lives, and private lives, and how those areas are changing. For example, they suggest that the work environment is becoming "postFordist" and relying more heavily on teamwork than hierarchical structures of command; they suggest that public lives are moving away from a national monoculture, and that many parts of private life are being made public. In a way, they're giving their worldview.

How accurate/fair is this portrait as a description of a) 1996, when the article was published, and b) now (2008)? How does the accuracy of the description affect the claims they make for pedagogy later in the article?

Sun, 11/30/2008 - 15:44 — Zack

Change from "old-Fordist" ?

It’s discussed by the New London Group that “with a new work life comes a new language” (66). Technology is looked at as the primary cause for that change and that the work place is becoming post-Fordist, yet what is the rhetorical implications of living and working within this supposed “old-Fordist” environment and is the New London Group inferring that the elimination of interpersonal discourse is necessarily the direct path to the future of change in communication and that language that accompanies? Should literacy pedagogy truly change abundantly in order to adhere to the “new demands” and changes of working life or should it still hold roots to the “old-Fordist” views so as to not become disoriented and eventually run astray from the “classics” of language?

Sun, 11/30/2008 - 20:32 — Laurie

Literacy and Knowledge


The authors of "A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies" espouse not only a "broader view of literacy" (60) but also a specific idea about "how the human mind works" (82).

After identifying this broader view of literacy, compare it to one of the other views of literacy we've discussed this semester. What are the similarities? Differences? How does each view contribute to a full discussion of the topic?

Additionally, compare the articulations of "how the human mind works" in both views. Are they the same? Are they both explicitly addressed by the authors? How do these views of the mind/knowledge seem to relate to the conclusions about literacy?

Sun, 11/30/2008 - 20:55 — Cristina Gonzalez

Anticipating counterclaims

Writing in 1996, the New London Group finds that traditional pedagogies fail to effectively address the problems arising in the late twentieth century, shifts in economic and political structures that require multimodal communication styles within heterogeneous communities. They begin with an attempt at a general description of the mission of education: “its fundamental purpose is to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life” (60). If theirs is a concern about full participation, what is the concern of those proposing other pedagogies, those whose “shrill claims and counterclaims about political correctness, the canon of great literature, grammar, and back-to-basics” can still be heard (61)? How might there be a conflict of mission or other assumptions? In other words, what are the counterclaims that the authors did not or could not address in 1996?

Sun, 11/30/2008 - 22:22 — apope

Response Question

The New London Group write that "[w]hen technologies of meaning are changing so rapidly, there cannot be one set of standards of skill that constitute the ends of literacy learning, however taught" (64). Does this, in effect, free composition programs from the need or desire to "standardize" technological instruction practices in the classroom? Or, do standards instead need to be stretched? What level of proficiency is desired? What is reasonable when multiple modes of composition are being taught in the same semester in the same course?
Adam

Mon, 12/01/2008 - 00:19 — Brian

New London Group Question

The pedagogical stages that the New London Group proposes, situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice, sound like a good idea, but seem difficult to put into practice. I could see situated practice occurring with internships, and overt instruction (which the New London Group point out as scaffolding rather than lecturing) given by experts during the internships. The students could then return from their internships and discuss what they did and learned, which could lead to critical framing, and perhaps transformed practice. I see how this could work with internships, but how would these pedagogical stages work in a pure classroom setting?

Mon, 12/01/2008 - 00:29 — ahidalgo

The Great Collaboration

I was especially interested in the fact that this essay was written by ten scholars from the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. Not only was the number of scholars massive but the geographical and cultural differences were also rather extensive. As I read, I imagined that they experienced their own multicultural, technologically-rich universe as they were communicating in the midst of the writing process. I wondered if they used some precursor of Google Docs as they came up with the essay's text, or if they divided sections of the text between a few of the scholars and then shared them with everyone. It seems like a great experiment in group work and I wish they'd addressed their own experience going through this process more directly in their writing. If we were to create our own international literacy project today, how would our experiences be different from theirs who did this almost 15 years ago? How has technology changed the way we relate to other scholars in this time? Has there been a significant increase in the world's multiculturalism and globalization?