Grim reading isn’t it? Of course the framework has been renewed and offers a much more pluralist approach to literacy education. However, some schools do still use the original strategy AND remain loyal to it’s deeply conservative ideology. We really are at a fixed point in how literacy is defined and taught in schools. More soon.

I have always criticised the current government for the introduction of the National Literacy Strategy in Primary Schools and it’s narrow conception of literacy in society. I have always felt (and I’m not alone) that it reflected a certain ‘tradition’ of literacy and failed to adapt towards changing times. In 2006 I was pleased that the framework was renewed with a greater emphasis on speaking, listening and multimodality. Even aspects of film began to creep in – it was a step in the right direction.

The National Literacy Strategy was designed in the 1990s and subsequently renewed and adapted. Considerations were made and consultations led to a more appropriate framework to take into account the complexity and diversity of literacy in society. In contrast, the statutory National Curriculum which primary schools use, is now nearly twenty years out of date. It fails to reflect the global communication environment that we live in and has not been radically changed. I was therefore exceptionally pleased that the current Labour government were listening [again] and decided to review the entire primary curriculum led by Sir Jim Rose.

Sir Jim Rose actually did a good job of reviewing the curriculum and listened to a range of bodies, professionals and experts. I also worked with UKLA to write an evidence response for the primary review which highlighted the importance of digital technologies and new literacies in the curriculum which was considered and evident in the final report. The published areas for learning were appropriate and the guidance reflected a curriculum for the modern world. It was a big step in the right direction.

However, now that a general election has been called I have just discovered a rather alarming piece of information on the DCSF website regarding amendments that have been make to a recent bill of parliament. The following part of the bill has been blocked by opposition parties:

Reform of the primary curriculum – the reforms to the primary curriculum, following Sir Jim Rose’s extensive expert review, provide greater flexibility for schools to tailor teaching to the needs and interests of their children while also focusing on the basics of literacy, numeracy and ICT. [Source]

This therefore means that the new primary curriculum, a curriculum that reflects the changing communicative landscape of our society, has now been put on hold. After further investigation, mainly through outraged educationalists on Twitter, I have discovered that it is actually the Conservative party who have blocked the bill. They feel that their actions have blocked more bureaucracy for teachers. Could this be the same party who recently went on record to say:

“Most parents would rather their children had a traditional education, with children sitting in rows, learning the kings and queens of England, the great works of literature, proper mental arithmetic, algebra by the age of 11, modern foreign languages. That’s the best training of the mind and that’s how children will be able to compete” [Michael Grove, Shadow Children's Secretary - Source]

Sitting in rows immediately screams out ‘individuality’ and lack of collaboration – something which was a huge problem with the first National Literacy Strategy. The same party also want to ‘tell’ teachers what to teach via so-called experts who have never been in a classroom and have no idea about how children learn. They also stated:

“Academies which are not bound by the national curriculum and have freedom from bureaucratic intervention in running their schools have raised standards in some of the most deprived areas in the country” [Source]

This is all terribly contradictory and highlights how distanced politicians can be from the classroom. One the one hand the party are saying that they want to ask experts to decide on what teachers should teach and how they should do it. On the other hand they suggest that a more effective model would be to not use the national curriculum at all.

I am actually more concerned about the ‘traditionalist’ method of schooling the Conservatives want to introduce with children sitting in rows to ‘learn’ (probably by rote) poems and facts [Source]. Myself and other colleagues from the organisations such as the United Kingdom Literacy Association have worked tirelessly to promote the need to take account of new literacy practices in the classroom. We maintain that traditional aspects of literacy are still relevant and, indeed, important but by no means sufficient to provide children with the skills they need to participate in today’s society.

I have always looked at the changing horizons of literacy education in a positive light but this news suggests that a devastating storm is brewing.

One of my main areas of interest/despair is the way in which the National Literacy Strategy has led to a narrow conception of what literacy actually is and how it should be taught in schools. I regularly talk about the way the strategy has focused on the acquisition of print-based decoding skills, completely ignoring multimodal analysis/production skills (even speaking and listening), which has in turn led teachers to believe that the idea of ’schooled-literacy’ is the correct one. Of course we know that children bring different ways of looking at the world into the classroom through their experience of home, school, friendships, technologies and understanding of the world and the domains in which they move. In their cultures they experience a multiplicity of meaning making systems through, for example, social networking systems, text messaging, blogging and online gaming – most of which are ignored in the school curriculum. The renewed framework for teaching literacy (2006) did try to fix some of this but I fear that lasting damage has already been done.

What has also concerned me is that the original National Literacy strategy led to the creation of packaged schemes of work or ’strategies for immediate impact’ on attainment to meet national standards through the teaching of specific ‘parts’ of writing. Such approaches conceptualise literacy as a set of discrete skills that can be taught in isolation, regardless of context. These dominant frameworks originate from the discipline of educational psychology and translate into reductionist pedagogical frames which promote teacher-centred transmission models of literacy curriculua (Larson and Marsh, 2005). A far cry from the literacy that children experience in their everyday life.

I have been reading, with great interest, the theory of New Literacy Studies which conceptualises literacy as a social practice rather than a progression of technical skills. New Literacy Studies recognises multiple literacies, varying across time and space (Street, 1984; 1997; 2003). Street has used the term ‘autonomous literacy’ which he suggests sees literacy in a reductionist manner in which it can be taught in similar ways across varying contexts in a value-free form, despite the very different needs and experiences of learners (Larson and Marsh, 2005). While the dominant models of literacy are not completely context-free I believe that such models or ‘quick-fix’ strategies towards ‘improving’ writing attainment compartmentalise writing into discrete skills and represent an autonomous view of literacy. Furthermore such strategies, or indeed packaged curricula, can realign the teacher as a ‘deliverer’ in the classroom and significantly alter their conception of literacy (see Crawford, 2004).

Street contrasts autonomous literacy with the notion of ‘ideological literacy’ which recognises multiple literacies rather than one standard literacy and that use of these literacies creates engagement with the real world and wider networks (Hall, 1998). In this sense literacy is not a single, essential thing with predictable consequences. It requires students to be able to discuss the basic choices being made in the kind of literacy they are learning (Street, 1997). Within this paradigm the role of digital technologies is therefore not on technical skills or adding technology as a ‘bolt-on’ but rather the cultural and critical ramifications of technology in society (Pahl and Rowsell, 2005). As a result the notion of embedding technology into the literacy curriculum becomes central to NLS. Digital technologies bring with them new text types that are, like many other texts of popular culture, multilayered and multifaceted. Therefore their place in the literacy curriculum becomes central.

This all seems so obvious. However, New Literacy Studies has failed to move significantly away from theory. It still seems distanced from the classroom, perhaps even misguided. Can literacy be truly ideological? Researchers of NLS use the concept of literacy events and practices to look at what people do with literacy and how they can inform educational practice. Literacy events were established by Heath as an occasion where written text and talk around that text constructs interpretations, extensions and meanings (Health, 1983). Street then expanded this idea to suggest that all literacy events have literacy practices embedded within them. He defines literacy practices as cultural practices in which the use of reading and/or writing are associated with given contexts (Street, 1997). There is a call for literacy events in schools to be meaningful and linked to real-world contexts – but how meaningful can they be if they were constructed and designed by a class teacher? That surely removes an element of authenticity?

In my next blog post I will talk about how New Literacy Studies can be applied to the classroom and build on work I will present at the ESRC Seminar Series on Virtual Worlds in May.

A few people have asked me to post some information about the Doctor Who work my class completed last week. It was planned with the aim of beginning to engage some of the learners who had negative attitudes towards literacy. I’ve always found using the children’s own popular culture in the curriculum to be an effective way to make them realise that literacy is relevant to their own lives. This isn’t a new idea of course – you just have to read some of the work of Anne Haas Dyson, Elaine Millard and Jackie Marsh (among others) to understand the importance of popular culture in the curriculum.

I chose Doctor Who because I knew a large proportion of my class were immersed in the world of the Doctor and his travels in the TARDIS. I wanted the children to see how they can be part of imaginative worlds and that their stories can extend beyond going to the cinema, supermarket and to their friend’s house for tea. I therefore decided to edit the Doctor Who main titles to include the names of the Year 2 classes (see above). The video features the Doctor and Martha Jones as they set off on a new adventure – I designed it so the children think about what happens next. It was an instant hit after the initial surprise of actually seeing Doctor Who appear on our interactive whiteboard. The video hooked them in and we were ready to move onto the next activity – drama. I set the scene by explaining that imagination is important when creating new stories (even with familiar characters). The children then had to imagine that our data projector (suspended from the ceiling) was actually an alien spacecraft – the results were fantastic. Children’s worlds of popular culture from home, the playground and school were fused together to create a stimulating activity.

The next stage involved the children creating character profiles and their own versions of the stories. We had much more imaginative ideas that usual with most children choosing to incorporate other characters and settings that we did not discuss in any of our lessons. I embrace this – letting children control writing as a craft to communicate their own ideas is something that I believe should be valued and cherished.

Every so often you come across something new. It opens your eyes to a culture or world that you have little experience or understanding of. At the same time  it can fit with issues you have been thinking about and open your mind to new possibilities. Sounds very dramatic… I will explain.

My Sky+HD box has a service called Sky Anytime which automatically records what it describes as unmissable TV to watch anytime that I desire. While browsing the selection I came across a film called The Full Monteverdi which uses Renaissance vocal music to create a contemporary drama.  The film is sung throughout and the only other audio that can be heard is background noise from the setting (a restaurant). It’s an exceptionally powerful piece of film which is very moving to watch. I found a short segment of the production on YouTube and have included it at the top of this post. I didn’t have the privilege of subtitles when watching but I really don’t think they are needed as the the meaning is fundamentally created through the modes of gesture and sound (not necessarily language). It’s a really interesting text and I would really love to use it (or something similar) with upper KS2 when considering the  affordancesof different modes within a meaning making system.

This film opened my eyes to a whole new world of music and film… it makes me wonder what else is out there and what I am missing out on.

Thank you to everybody who sent really great feedback about the Brer Rabbit critical literacy project I really appreciate it. I’ve also heard that it was being talked about at the Decatur Book Festival after The Wren’s Nest (the birth place museum of Joel Chandler Harris in the USA) picked up on the project. All of this really helps raise the awareness of critical literacy with real-world texts.

As soon as the Brer Rabbit project was over I started to think about other big projects that I could build into our curriculum.  This blog post brings together some of my threads of thought for the new project.

I’ve been a huge fan of Studio Ghibli after using My Neighbour Totoro last year and seeing it completely change my class’s attitude towards literacy and learning. I’ve therefore followed the release of the new Studio Ghibli production Ponyo: On a Cliff by the Sea with great interest:

I had every intention of using the film in class but knew that an extended project with real world application would give the project greater depth and be much more beneficial to the children. I immediately began searching for a real-life Cliff by the Sea and by complete coincidence had a conversation with Kate Pahl about museum outreach work and a contact she has at Robin Hood’s Bay. Robin Hood’s Bay is a charming fishing village – on a cliff by the sea and is a perfect setting for inspiring the children and imagining new stories (just look at the picture at the top of this post). It’s perfect for a local study, so for the first time I am able to bring geography skills into one of our critical literacy projects. I also want to bring non-fiction digital literacy skills into the project too but I am currently developing the area further. It will all lead to the creation of a film both in virtual locations created by the children and in the real-world such as Robin Hood’s Bay.

I’ll post more about this project as the planning progresses… bon voyage!

I’ve always loved the way that media can be edited, remixed and reinvented with the use of digital technologies. I started doing it myself at a young age (see previous blog post). I noticed how Angela has recently blogged about remixing as a means of transformative story-telling (here). She uses the term hacking popular culture, which I think is a brilliant way to describe the process.

I’m going to try and dig out some of the texts I’ve hacked over the years but until then you can enjoy two other examples I’ve used at training event. Above is a hacked version of Mary Poppins and below a remixed version of The Shining… enjoy!

A few months ago I wrote about using texts of popular culture as a means of exploring issues of racial prejudice within a critical literacy framework. I then said I would reveal more about a project I was planning based around the issue. With a hectic workload and conferences to attend, I completely forgot… so now that the project is actually over I am able to give more detailed account.

I really enjoy reading Jackie’s blog and remembered when she wrote about Disney’s track record of racial insensitivity and in particular a website she referenced which listed the most racist Disney characters. According to the site the second most racist character is Uncle Remus from the Song of the South. The film includes animated segments of stories of Brer Rabbit and friends as well as featuring aspects of life on a Southern USA plantation. Disney have never released the film on home video or DVD in the US in its entirety because they fear its portrayal of slavery, and some of its content, may be misconstrued. The character of Uncle Remus is a fictional storyteller created by Joel Chandler Harris who collected and published the stories after hearing them from slaves he met on his travels. The movie does clearly portray, maybe unintentionally, the racial segregation after the American Civil War. Does this make it racist? Is the portrayal of Uncle Remus racist? Does this prevent us from watching it or even talking about it (something Disney is currently doing)? Should space be created to talk about such issues, especially in the classroom?

Independent of the fact as to whether you do find the above clip racially insensitive or not -is the issue of racism too taboo for a Disney film? Are we to forget that it actually happened (and still does)? Are those who want the film banned essentially trying to delete or hide something that is actually a huge part of America’s history? All these questions got me thinking.

During my first year of teaching I ran an animation project. Although it incorporated aspects of storytelling and development of social skills, the focus was very much on text production using a discrete set of animation skills. The children enjoyed it but I felt it could be so much more. The focus on text analysis was fragmented and mainly looked at texts from an ‘end product’ point of view with little analysis of the underlying meanings and values within a text. I’ve also been reading the work of Barbara Comber who suggests that using texts with a critical perspective can open up discussion of issues such as racial prejudice in an open and contextually driven manner. I therefore decided to use the Uncle Remus stories and Song of the South film as the basis for a project that incorporates animation as a critical practice.

I wanted the project to not only include aspects of multiliteracies but also aspects of critical literacy towards text analysis and production. Unlike multiliteracies there are several versions of critical literacy pedagogy , all of which involve an active, challenging approach to reading and textual practices. Barbara Comber describes a number of core principals of critical literacy including subverting taken-for-granted texts, focusing on cultural texts and examining how power is exercised and by whom (Comber, 2001). I wanted the children to experience the Brer Rabbit stories in a range of ways through oral, written and multimodal texts so that they could further understand that literacy embodies a vast array of modes and textual practices. I then wanted them to ‘dig deeper’ into the texts so that they could understand the underlying meanings and themes. I wanted them to understand what it was like for a slave working on the plantations and why oral stories were such a huge part of their life. The project allowed us to open up discussion of the area of slavery and prejudice in an open and contextually driven manner so that they could consider texts meaning in the world (Comber, 2001). I could tell that the children were thinking critically about the issues after asking them why slaves would tell stories orally and being told that it was because slaves didn’t have any money, so couldn’t go to school and therefore couldn’t learn to read (paraphrased). I’d never said that in a lesson before.

After exploring existing Brer Rabbit stories I wanted the children to reinvent the texts for a modern day audience using animation techniques and the iCanAnimate software. The children subsequently designed their own narrative and created backgrounds and characters while working with a local artist.

The children’s animation skills were exceptionally impressive and they were able to animate scenes without any adult support (remember these are 6/7 year olds). This was entirely down to the fact that the children were able to play with and explore the software and hardware a week before we started animating. The project was managed by having a roundabout of activities available to the children so every child had the opportunity to animate, create characters, paint backgrounds and complete critical literacy activities.

Technology was not the basis of the project but rather the development of critical literacy skills achieved through the embedded and meaningful use of technology. I really think this is a better strategy than doing basic ‘ICT projects’ as the children (and adults) develop an applied knowledge and understanding of how digital technologies and texts work within the world.

Notes:
Special thanks must go to Elaine Keeley my amazing teaching assistant for  helping to implement this project and Jackie Marsh for feedback on the project design.

Huge thanks also to my brother, Michael Waller, for helping to recreate and remimagine the Brer Rabbit characters.

A few months ago I recieved an email asking if I would be interested in visiting Futurelab to discuss the use of digital literacies in the primary classroom.  For those of you who haven’t heard of Futurelab (you should have!) it’s an independent non-for-profit organisation interested in transforming how people learn through innovative practices mostly with digital technologies. They’ve developed a range of projects including the recent Beyond Current Horizons and Enquiring Minds projects – both of which are well worth a read.

Futurelab is a really cool place to be (that’s the best word to describe it I think). I was invited to discuss the Digital Pariticaption project with Cassie Hague and Sarah Payton. I had a brilliant day talking with Cassie and Sarah about digital literacies, critical literacies, then moving onto multiliteracies and its importance for the current educational context. It was great to speak with two likeminded people about issues that are really important to me. They were also excellent hosts and really made me feel welcome, especially with an amazing lunch. I’m really looking forward to hearing more about this project when data is collected and keeping in touch with Cassie and Sarah via Twitter.

If you haven’t read any of Futurelab’s work, you should…

http://www.futurelab.org.uk

“I never thought fish swimming in a glass bowl could be so emotional”

The title of this post and the above quote come from the video sharing website YouTube in response to the high definition video above that appeared on the site and has become ‘viral’ over the past week. My guess is that the video has become so popular because it really demonstrates the potential of HD broadcasting. Today BSkyB announced that subscribers to their HD service have doubled over the past year and that the service has moved ‘centre-stage’ to their business plan. It shows that HD is becoming more widespread and popular, especially since YouTube now allows uploads in HD – just like the video above.

As well as the sheer wonder of the sea-life in the video I also find the way the people in front of the tank behave and interact. Not least the toddler playing with the rope barrier and then noticing the diver in the aquarium. It’s great how video can capture such moments and the HD quality makes it feel like you are standing there too (you must make the video fullscreen when you’re watching).

The soundtrack really adds an extra depth (no pun intended) and stirs an emotional response. Therefore users of YouTube have responded to the video through the comment feature below the video. The comments range from appreciation of the video production to serious debates about conservation and saving the oceans. It’s brilliant how Web 2.0 can be used as a platform to explore issues such as this and really make the issues in themselves ‘viral’ and open up discussion in a shared and open manner to a mass audience. At the time of writing this there have been over 2000 comments written in response to the upload and it has been viewed over a million times…

Save the oceans.