One’s View Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
One of the greatest differences between every individual in life is how they view the world. No two people view their reality in the same exact way. Likewise, no two people will interpret a set of information with absolutely identical ideas or matching opinions. Sure, they might be very similar, but our individual thought processes lead us down hundreds of different avenues and tunnels when trying to grasp and comprehend material. These variations in essence make you, you. As Nick Sousanis says in his novel Unflattening (2015), “There is no single, objective view. From a multitude of views, we constantly create perception. It’s an inherently visual process, this action of seeing in relation, of differentiating and drawing connections (pg. 81). By this Sousanis is reminding us that our vantage point can be just as important as what we are actually seeing. Similarly, the medium over which our views are formed can construct our final perception. It is here where we must stop and take into account the ways in which schools influence the literacy of adolescents.
We are now in the age of fast-acting technology and ever-evolving informational processing. This might not be seen more true that with our youth. Don’t believe me? Next time you go to the movies take notice of how many kids are on their phones before the previews start. According to Elizabeth Lewis in Twenty-First Century Perspectives on Adolescent Literacy and Instruction (2016), “The ways adolescents use digital tools (e.g., smartphones, computers) are examples of how more multimodal, out-of-school literacies differ from the more dominant, academic literacies that students use in school. Moreover, the variety of multimedia sources (the technological forms that deliver information or entertainment such as film, video, and music) that many students engage with outside of school may have significant effects on how and what they learn while in school.” (pg. 3). This right here shows us that there could potentially be a wide discrepancy between the instruction and learning being provided in our school systems compared to how students learn on the outside of the classroom.
So what’s the solution? How do we incorporate in-school teaching methods to reach students on a deeper level? One possibility might be to rid the apathetic atmosphere that can form during class. “School texts and practices are typically static and even demotivating; thus, youth do not exert any effort to make sense of them, even when the texts are not terribly challenging.” (pg. 340). This quote from KM Leander’s, Literacy Networks (2006) lends us the idea that, again, our strategies taken towards teaching students can be of the utmost importance. Suzanne Plaut seems to agree. She states in The Right to Literacy in Secondary School (2009) that, “Without effective strategies for literacy instruction, content-area teachers can find that their best efforts fail to ignite students’ curiosity and understanding. The needed “spark” is best-practice literacy strategies.” (pg. 89).
Now obviously schools will never fade away from using some form of standard text books, but if applied correctly they might not need to. Elizabeth Lewis goes on to say “A hard-bound textbook, a more traditional form of printed text, may be multimodal if it contains visuals such as photographs, drawings, or other forms of illustrations. This same textbook may likely have been printed to meet certain standards of page layout, adding to the visual quality of the text. Thus, even a textbook can demonstrate the significance of multimodality as it pertains to communicating information.” (pg. 5).
So don’t fret teachers who love to stick to the way things have “always been done”. If we put the emphasis on how students learn best and from what viewpoints, we don’t necessarily have to turn the entire system up on its’ head. Nick Sousanis grants us one last, great nugget of thought for us to ponder, saying, “Each new engagement generates another vantage point from which to continue the process anew.” (pg. 150).
References:
Leander KM, Loworn JF. (2006). Literacy networks: Following the circulation of texts, bodies, and objects in the schooling and online gaming of one youth. Cognition & Instruction.
Lewis, Elizabeth C. (2016). Twenty-First Century Perspectives on Adolescent Literacies and Instruction. Dickinson College. http://scholar.dickinson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1475&context=faculty_publications
Plaut, S. (2009). The right to literacy in secondary schools: Creating a culture of thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sousanis, N. (2015). Unflattening. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
