Look what I found in my kitchen:
Makes you want to get out the disinfectant doesn’t it?
It never ceases to make me wonder what there is in front of you, but which can only be revealed by sophisticated technology.
I have been very house and family oriented in the last few weeks - I have found it hard at least t think about work matters. Probably even resistant….
But it was BRILLIANT to see people discussing on my blog on the last post. Very exciting indeed to read contributions even from people who have not spoken to me before. (You NEVER know who reads and does not comment. Well that’s not true, sometimes people tell you and site meters tell you a bit. But it is always a surprise to ME.) The funny thing is, that on this global stage , the people who commented are all local. I know who they all are - even though I have not met them all. I am very struck by this; the idea of SEEING THE LOCAL ARENA ON THE GLOBAL STAGE. Local people talking together, in front of witnesses, in front of a potentially global audience. I am thinking a lot about this and am in the middle of writing THREE papers one of which will expand on this idea of LOCAL/GLOBAL identity performance.
(Sorry re caps. I am not shouting.)
Anyhoo.
Very wonderful to have Peter and Sheila commenting on my last post and how welcome to see that Michele and Colin are generously sharing the draft of their updated New Literacies text online.
Peter, in one of his comments quotes that in their draft of Chapter 3 they argue describe literacy as:
‘socially recognized ways of generating, communicating and negotiating meaningful content through the medium of encoded texts within contexts of participation in Discourses ….’
I do think still that the texts should be encoded inletters to be part of literacy; but would want to still insist that a text can be far more than just lettered encoding. Thus in order to understand some texts, one’s literacy skills needs to account for the role of other modes such as images, sound etc. But I think that an image and no written words does not need the skills of literacy in order to be interpreted in some way. I think that images ARE however, complex texts and that we learn to read them in different ways. Crucially, one picture can be read by people who speak a million different languages from each other. (I agree of course that the image may be read in many ways and that cultural conventions (etc.) may impact on readings) The same could not be said of a text that is only encoded in written words.
Sheila mentions that many librarians dislike the term literacy because the converse is ‘illiteracy’. I also really dislike deficit models and would not be inclined to use such a term. It is as if ‘literate’ is the default position and that to not be able to de-code lettered texts is some kind of personal deficiency. Anyway all fascinating stuff.
Tomorrow I will be blogging about urban renewal, urban re-development, gentrification and the like - with reference to New York; Sheffield and possibly …. BERLIN.
Hmmm - is that a baby fly on its left shoulder?? Hope your summer is going well - a surprise update is on my site right now
Comment by Chris Best — August 7, 2006 @ 4:10 am
I thought it was a baby fly too Chris but I was told by someone on Flickr that it is a thing that helps flies balance when they are flying around.
I’ll check out your blog!!
Comment by DrJoolz — August 7, 2006 @ 8:23 am
I have just wiped my desk after looking your fly photo – amazing! Maybe that extra set of wings is like a helicopter’s rear rotor? On reflection, I think that stops the helicopter spinning round-and-round.
I think I am beginning to understand the subtle differences in academics’ perceptions of literacy (by “subtle” I mean “not obvious” rather than “small”). Maybe, the differences in perspectives vary between being significant to just a matter of detail/emphasis? When primary school teachers talk about “literacy” I guess that their conception reflects the National Literacy Strategy. Whilst this could be seen as broad, I think it is mainly about “reading and writing” text (primarily from books). I am now trying to compare a broad interpretation of the National Literacy Strategy with your conception …
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 7, 2006 @ 9:20 am
I am just thinking – would the DrJoolz conception of literacy include hieroglyphics or are these on the border?
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 7, 2006 @ 9:32 am
I would definitely include hieroglyphics(and japanese/ Arabic/ chinese scripts ofcourse.) Chinese script and hieroglyphics are ineteresting - maybe this is why you think they may be an exception- as they do not represent phonemes or phonetics but concepts. Nevertheless they have the concept of individual words and specific articulations of the world ‘out there’ - they are codes with specific referents. Mmm. Interesting question.Maybe not as simple as it appears!!
The national Literacy Strategy has a highly useless definition of literacy; its introduction cmes upwith this:
Literacy unites the important skills of reading and writing. It also involves speaking and listening which, although they are not separately identified in the Framework, are an essential part of it. Good oral work enhances pupils’ understanding of language in both oral and written forms and of the way language can be used to communicate. It is also an important part of the process through which pupils read and compose texts.
see here.
Comment by DrJoolz — August 7, 2006 @ 10:26 am
I was thinking – my son (aged 16 months) has a book that has a cover containing a title and an author, then a series of images telling the story – as this contains no text, would DrJoolz consider these in her conception of literacy? I am not sure if Lankshear and Knobel would include this.
Thank you for the reference to the Primary Literacy Strategy. It is very interesting for its lack of breadth, although I think [hope] teachers, advisory teachers and the supporting literature interpret in a slightly broader way (although my pilot research study seemed to indicate that some teachers did not).
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 7, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Sorry DrJoolz - my last posting sounded a bit confrontational. It definitely was not meant to be!
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 7, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Would you also include in literacy understanding indigenous Australian depictions of dreaming/stories? e.g. http://www.aboriginalaustralia.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/65 - the “U shapes” for example mean gathered “women” in other indigenous art I have seen, not just in this.
Sorry, this is sounding like “Dept of Information Studies interviews Dr Joolz”!
Comment by Sheila Webber — August 7, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
Interestingly, New London Group (1996) cite the Aboriginal community where the visual mode of representation may be much more related to their ‘language’ than “’mere literacy’ would ever be able to allow”.
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 7, 2006 @ 3:51 pm
Not confrontational at all Peter!!
THis is all fascinating stuff I think … that Aboriginal material is all new to me. Have not seen it before. I think that the picture book introduces children to some of the tools they need for book reading - language and books; narrative; turning the pages in a particular sequence and direction. But each picture can be read in a rangeof ways using differnet words to describe them So in a picture of a man pulling up a turnip. The child could refer to the turnip in the picture as a vegetable, a turnip, even dinner. The child would not be wrong. But if it were a word ‘turnip’, then she would be wrong. there is a one to one correspondance between spoken word and written word. In a picture, the real world is denoted through the image and a range of words could be used to describe it. There are definite cultural ways in which the images could be read and colours may symbolise meanings. (E.g. red is often associated with the actual word ‘danger’) But these are associations (connotations?) ather then denotative. All this is stuff rom Barthes ofcourse; some of which Kress builds on, but not all. I would say that interpreting pictues in a book can teach and can entertain and can be ‘read’. However itis not the same as reading something with words which relate specifically to language. Regarding the Aboriginal thing - I am afraid I have no knowledge of that art form or of the language … Phew. Sorry to yak on. (Stream of Consciousness.)
Comment by DrJoolz — August 7, 2006 @ 9:17 pm
It sounds that I need to read Barthes and Kress to fully appreciate what you’re saying. I think it was Kress that said that graphical images were more important than text as a medium of communication. Thank you!
(puddle of unconsciousness)
Comment by Peter Stordy — August 8, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Indigenous Autralian “art” was a way they documented some of their “dreaming” stories. The artwork generally oozed with symbolism which could be “read” in a non-linear fashion. In the same way that hieroglyphics suggest meaning through symbolism, so too does much of Ingigenous Australian art.
Comment by Chris Best — August 11, 2006 @ 1:25 am