Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
3
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Teachers’ & Students’
Literacy Performance in &
Engagement with New
Literacies Strategies in
Underperforming Middle
Schools
Margaret C. Hagood
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
Mary C. Provost
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
Emily N. Skinner
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
Paula E. Egelson
College of Charleston
Charleston, South Carolina
ABSTRACT
This paper reports on Year 1 of a two-year study of implementing
new literacies strategies into social studies and English/language arts
content areas in two low-performing middle schools (grades 6-8).
Situated within a New Literacies Studies framework, the study
addressed three overarching questions: (1) What are teachers’ and
students’ understandings and uses of new literacies in in-school
contexts? (2) What new literacies strategies do teachers implement
during the year? And (3) what are the curricular and instructional
outcomes at the end of Year 1? Findings revealed that teachers and
students, although exposed to new literacies in content areas, viewed
literacy in a traditional manner. Although teachers were excited about
learning new literacies strategies, they had difficulty implementing
them in instruction and often used them as schema activation or as
culminating activities for units of study. Furthermore, an ingrained
traditional school culture that focused on year-end state assessments
often hindered teachers’ and students’ uses of and explorations with
new literacies.
57
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to report Year 1 results of a two-year
study on the effects of the implementation of new literacies strategies
on middle school teachers’ and students’ performance on academic
measures in low-performing middle schools located in an urban
Southeast region of the United States. Several overarching questions
were addressed in Year 1:
(1) What are teachers’ and students’ understandings and uses of
new literacies in in-school contexts?
(2) What new literacies strategies do teachers implement during
the year?
(3) What are the curricular and instructional outcomes of Year 1?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Research on young adolescents’ self-chosen literacy practices
consistently shows propensities towards new literacies. Adolescents
spend approximately 6 hours a day using media, including television,
Internet, movies, music, magazines, and video games as forms of
literacy (Rideout, Roberts, & Foehr, 2005) and spend significant
amounts of free time coupling writing with time online (Lenhart,
Sousan, Smith, & Macgill, 2008). These patterns of out-of-school
multiteracies practices have remained consistent over the past near
decade (Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie, 1999), and many of these
literacies are characterized as new literacies.
Multiliteracies include both a multiplicity of multimodal forms of
communications, media, and texts and the diverse cultural and
linguistic ways that learners use these literacies to live and work in
communities (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; Kress, 2003). New literacies, a
strand of multiliteracies, have been conceptualized in several different
ways (cf., Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Knobel & Lankshear,
2007; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006; Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack,
2004; Luke, 2003; Richardson, 2006) and are inclusive of popular
culture, digital technologies, ICTs, and Internet uses, to name a few.
For the purpose of this study, we conceptualized new literacies using
Lankshear and Knobel’s (2003) definition of new literacies based on
two overarching categories: (1) post-typographic new literacies
associated with digital literacies and (2) “literacies that are
comparatively new in chronological terms and/or that are (or will be)
new to being recognized as literacies” (p. 25). The second category of
literacies may or may not have anything to do with digital technologies
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2000). Thus, new literacies encapsulate
multiliteracies and the multimodal, intertextual, and interpersonal
aspects of text.
58
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
From a new literacies perspective, literacy is much more than the
ability to decode and to comprehend print in a linear fashion. Actually,
it is more accurate to state that due to the multiplicity of texts available,
many people use texts “that are new to being recognized as literacies”
(Lankshear & Knobel, 2003, p. 17). New literacies, therefore, include
various ways that people engage with all sorts of texts (print, audio,
visual, Internet, video, etc.) and use those texts to make sense of the
world around them (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000; Kress & van
Leeuwen, 2001). Relatedly, the definition of text has opened up to
acknowledge the changes in literacies. No longer a singular term
related solely to print, text includes all aspects of consuming and
producing communication based upon various literacies, including
alphabetic, semiotic, and digital systems. In this study we focus on
teachers’ and students’ shifts in their understandings and uses of texts
as a result of changing views of literacies and texts. Specifically, we’re
interested in teachers’ and adolescents’ understandings and uses of new
literacies in school settings. This study builds upon out-of-school
competencies in all literacies—reading, writing, listening, speaking,
and viewing—and connects them to in-school performance in academic
literacies.
This study is situated within a sociocultural and historical
framework that values teachers’ and students’ understandings of and
approaches to in-school literacies. This framework acknowledges (1)
disconnects between teachers and adolescents related to the spectrum
and roles of learning to read verses reading to learn (Phelps, 2005) and
(2) disconnects between teachers and adolescents related to literacy
interests and motivation (Ivey & Broaddus, 2001; Morrell, 2002).
These disconnects are often related to issues of sociocultural identity
(e.g., race, class, gender, or ethnicity) and to the mismatch between
literacies used outside of school and those that are taught and valued in
school (Gee, 1996; Lamont & Vasudevan, 2007; Mahiri, 2004). A new
literacies perspective recognizes that identities are closely tied to outof-school and personal literacies (Gee, 2000), which readers and writers
use to build relationships with others and to demonstrate their literacy
competencies among peers (Alvermann & Heron, 2001; Black, 2005;
Chandler-Olcott & Mahar, 2001; Dimitriadis, 2001; Hagood, 2001;
2003). Thus, literacy is also a social practice where users continually
engage texts in efforts to connect with others (Street, 2005).
RELATED RESEARCH
Middle school teachers’ work in low-performing schools is
difficult work indeed. Teachers often feel overwhelmed with pressure
to increase students’ academic performance through covering content
in prepackaged ways, which limits the amount of time they perceive to
have to form meaningful relationships with students. In addition,
59
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
teachers can feel overtaxed by the number of initiatives they are
expected to implement for the purpose of improving their school’s
status. And, they often base their understanding of adolescents on the
negative assumptions and hormonal stereotypes that are typically
related to the category of adolescence (Hagood, Stevens, & Reinking,
2004; Lewis & Finders, 2004). For these reasons, teachers also often
assume that their students’ out-of-school activities do not reflect valid
and relevant school-based literacy practices. As such, they rarely
connect their students’ interests in and uses of new literacies, including
media and popular culture texts, to their in-school reading and writing
abilities (Vasquez, 2003; Xu, 2004). Because middle school teachers
often do not realize the sophisticated literacy competencies that their
students exhibit in out-of-school contexts, they miss valuable
opportunities to tap into the out-of-school literacy practices students
have at their disposal. Moreover, middle school teachers often overlook
important literacy competencies from students’ personal lives that
could assist in developing their students’ in-school literacy
development. Within the past decade research has shown that many
teachers are unaware of best practices that couple academic learning
strategies with students’ socio-cultural literate identities in order to
improve literacy performance for the demands of the 21st century
(Finders, 2000; Marsh & Millard, 2001, 2006; Xu, 2004).
Consequently, students’ vast out-of-school literacies remain untapped
and unexplored in classrooms.
The field of new literacies is beginning to address students’
literacy competencies between contexts (Chandler-Olcott & Mahar,
2003; Hagood, 2003; Mahar, 2003; Moje, Young, Readence, & Moore,
2000). Some research suggests when teachers understand and respect
students’ cultural backgrounds and draw upon their out-of-school
literacies they can build upon students’ cultural resources to improve
their academic performance and higher order thinking skills (Lankshear
& Knobel, 2003, 2006; Lee, 1992; Moll & Arnot-Hopffer, 2005; Mraz,
Heron, & Wood, 2003). For example, Brown (2003) documented how
urban teachers designed culturally responsive styles that coupled
nurturing and care for students with authoritative stances and inclusion
of students’ cultural backgrounds in communication patterns to
improve classroom contexts and student engagement.
Indeed, when teachers draw upon out-of-school literacies to
connect to content area learning then students’ in-school reading and
writing interests, proficiencies, and motivation improve (Hull &
Schultz, 2002; Kist, 2004; Morrell, 2004; Skinner, 2007a). For
example, Morrell (2002) drew upon urban students’ cultural
backgrounds and interests to improve their comprehension of poetry by
relating the genre to their competencies with understanding hip-hop
culture. And Chandler-Olcott and Mahar (2001) drew upon
adolescents’ interests in writing fanfiction to teach them how to write
60
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
particular academic texts. Others’ research in new literacies has
addressed how using adolescents’ out-of-school media and popular
culture interests improve their engagement with and uses of in-school
learning tasks (e.g., Alvermann, Moon, & Hagood, 1999; Guzzetti &
Gamboa, 2004; O’Brien, 2001; Skinner, 2007b).
METHODS
Contexts & Participants
Two low-performing middle schools (grades 6-8) located in a
southeastern, midsize city were selected by the local school district to
participate in the two-year study. Because both were deemed “failing
schools” based upon their year-end statewide test scores, the school
district sought opportunities and initiatives to implement in these
schools to improve their academic performance. At the time of the
study, both schools served urban populations. Demographically the
schools were similar, and they shared similarities when compared to
other middle schools in the district. There were slightly fewer sixthgraders and slightly more eighth-graders in the project schools
compared to the rest of the district. The African-American population
was greater at these schools (74%) than in the district (43%), and there
were also a slightly higher percentage of Hispanics (5% to 3%) in both
schools when compared to the district. Students at the two research
schools qualified for free lunch at a much greater rate than students
across the district (65% to 44% respectively). Similarly, students
outside of the two schools qualified at a higher rate for reduced-price
lunches (49% to 26%).
All English language arts and social studies teachers, as well as
special education teachers and media specialists, in the two schools
were mandated by school administration to participate in the study. All
students who had these teachers for English language arts and/or social
studies were included in the classroom observations of the study.
However, due to students’ and researchers’ varying schedules, a
convenience sample (Best & Kahn, 1998) of focal students who were
representative of the student population from the two schools was
chosen.
Westview Middle School (all names are pseudonyms) participants
included 15 teachers and 4 focal students. Teachers included 2 males
and 13 females, of which 2 were African-Americans and 13 were
Caucasians. Educational levels ranged from Bachelor of Arts (9) to
Master of Education (3) to Master’s degree plus additional course hours
(3). The reported number of years taught ranged from less than one
year to over 26 years, with a mean of 3.3 years. The number of years
taught at Westview ranged from less than one year to four years, with a
mean of 1.7 years. Adolescent focal participants at Westview Middle
School included 4 sixth grade students: 2 girls (one African-American,
61
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
one Caucasian American) and 2 boys (one Hispanic, one AfricanAmerican).
Northside Middle School participants included 13 teachers and 5
focal students. The teacher demographic included 4 males and 9
females, 4 African-Americans and 9 Caucasians. Educational levels
ranged from Bachelor of Arts (9) to Master of Education (1) to
Master’s degree plus additional course hours (2) to Doctor of Education
(1). The reported number of years taught ranged from less than one
year to over 26 years, with a mean of 10.8 years. The reported number
of years taught at Northside Middle School ranged from less than one
year to five years, with a mean of 1.8 years. Adolescent focal
participants at Northside Middle School included 5 seventh-grade
students: 4 females (3 African-Americans and one Caucasian
American) and one African-American male.
Standardized test scores from the previous academic year showed
that students at the two schools had lower achievement levels on
English/language arts and social studies content in comparison to
students’ content area scores in the rest of the school district at all three
grade levels. Interestingly, across all three grades, African-American
students in the two schools had similar achievement levels and gain
scores compared to those African-American students in other district
schools. In contrast, Caucasian students at these two schools scored
lower on standardized tests than other Caucasian students in the district
for all three grades. Overall, across both schools, achievement patterns
for quarterly benchmark reading test results were similar to those from
the English/Language Arts component of the state-administered yearend tests for 2005 and 2006.
Implementation
Year 1 of this study included several components (see Appendix A
for overview). First, English/language arts, social studies, special
education teachers, and media specialists from Westview and Northside
middle schools were mandated by the school district and the schools’
administrations to participate in the professional development of
implementing new literacies at their respective schools. Participation
included attendance at fall and spring, two-day professional
development institutes, bimonthly grade level meetings related to new
literacies strategies and implementation, several classroom
observations, and interviews.
During the Fall Institute, which was held in August before the start
of school, teachers were introduced to new literacies. They learned
theories for reflecting upon new literacies in their own lives and
pedagogies for studying their students’ new literacies. They were also
introduced to the model of teaching and learning in collective study
groups. At the Spring Institute, held in January during a Friday teacher
62
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
workday and the following Saturday, teachers holistically reflected on
their first semester’s work in schools, which included classroom
implementation of new literacies strategies and bimonthly collective
study group grade-level meetings about new literacies. Several teachers
presented examples of their classroom work with new literacies for the
group. And teachers learned about and designed new literacies teaching
strategies that they planned to further explore in collective study groups
and implement in their classrooms throughout the second semester.
Second, throughout the school year, teachers participated in
bimonthly collective study groups and met with a trained facilitator at
their schools to discuss and explore new literacies readings and
teaching strategies. Representative teachers from each school attended
a two-day training session in the fall for convening and running
effective collective study groups. The training built upon adult learning
theories that hold that teachers learn more effectively when their
learning is directed at resolving targeted, job-related problems (Snyder,
1993) and upon the importance of studying shared interests of group
members to build a professional culture of collaboration within the
school (Collins & Collins, 2005). The training also taught teachers how
to facilitate meetings to assist participants in identifying areas of
interest to the group and then in making recommendations for
classroom implementation.
Teachers at each school participated in new literacies collective
study groups that met by grade level during the school day
approximately every two weeks. Meetings lasted approximately 45
minutes and followed the same format: the facilitator presented and
demonstrated new literacies research and strategies (through readings
and discussions), teachers shared areas of students’ struggles with
foundational and academic literacies (such as decoding, vocabulary,
comprehension, writing process, reading/writing connections,
understanding text genre and format, grammar, and fluency), and the
group discussed how to infuse new literacies strategies in content areas
to improve students’ area of literacy difficulties and to connect to state
standards. In addition, the group formed a plan of action across the
grade level for classroom implementation to improve students’
engagement and performance, coupling new literacies strategies with
academic literacies that addressed students’ areas of difficulties. At
subsequent meetings, teachers shared results of the successes and
challenges of their implementation of new literacies strategies using
student-produced artifacts and notes. They also discussed
understandings of the instructional strategies, and collectively decided
on a follow-up course of action to apply new literacies strategies to
content.
Third, observational and interview data were gathered throughout
the year. These data were collected from scheduled classroom
observations of new literacies instruction, grade-level collective study
63
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
group meetings, and individual teacher and focal student interviews
that occurred throughout the year.
Data Sources
Data included several sources for examination of teachers’ and
students’ understandings and uses of new literacies, teachers’ strategy
implementation, and the instructional outcomes over the course of the
academic year. Pre- and post-study survey and evaluation data,
observational data, interview data, and artifacts were collected. Each of
these sources is described below.
Several sources were used to document teachers’ and students’
growth with new literacies over the course of the academic year. These
included three tools: the Teacher and Student Survey on Definitions
and Uses of Texts and New Literacies (Appendix B), the Teacher
Confidence Scale (Appendix C), and the Professional Development
Institute Evaluation (Appendix D). The Teacher and Student Survey on
Definitions and Uses of Texts and New Literacies was administered to
teachers upon their arrival at the Fall Institute before they received any
professional development about new literacies. Likewise, focal students
were given the survey during fall interviews before they received any
instruction that included new literacies. Both of these groups were
again surveyed at the year’s end in May: teachers completed it during
the final collective study group meeting and focal students completed it
during final interviews. We used this survey to ascertain teachers’ and
students’ initial ideas and conceptions of reading, writing, text, and
literacy/cies to document changes in their understanding and uses over
the course of the year. We used these terms strategically based upon
research that has shown that although some in academia have embraced
a broadened notion of text and of new literacies, classroom teachers
and students hold fast to a traditional view of reading and writing as
solely relevant to print-based media (Hagood, 2007; Hagood, et al.,
2006). Our professional development and bimonthly meetings with
teachers were focused on opening up the categories of reading, writing,
and literacy to include new definitions of texts inclusive of new
literacies, and we wanted to observe shifts and changes over the year.
The Teacher Confidence Scale was administered as a pre- and
post-study tool. This scale was developed using the Four Resources
Model (Freebody & Luke, 1990; Luke & Freebody, 1999). The
Confidence Scale was organized according to the four resources or
practices. These practices include four categories: code breaker, text
participant, text user, and text analyst. Each resource was further
broken into descriptive subcomponent statements relevant to the kinds
of literacies necessary for acting from these various practices. The
format of this scale was originally created in 2004 at SERVE, the U.S.
federally funded educational laboratory serving the Southeast. It was
64
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
reviewed by a panel of four literacy and evaluation experts at SERVE.
And each item was examined for content and structure of the statement.
The panel came to an agreement on all of the statements.
On the Teacher Confidence Scale, teachers were to rate their
confidence in their perceived abilities to teach the subcomponent
statement and in their actual classroom practice of teaching the
subcomponent statement. Teachers completed the scale at the end of
the Fall Institute, after having learned about the Four Resources Model
during the two days, and then again at the final collective study group
meeting in May.
The Professional Development Institute Evaluation was
administered at the end of each institute. Findings from these
evaluations influenced both the planning of the following institutes and
the topics to be explored in collective study group meetings during the
following semesters.
Observational data and artifacts were gathered during collective
study group meetings and classroom observations during the year to
document teachers’ understandings and uses of new literacies in
planning and instruction. Data were collected through handwritten
anecdotal notes taken in researchers’ notebooks and/or through audio
taping. Data were then transcribed and shared among the researchers on
a shared, closed computer network. Student artifacts from classroom
lessons were scanned, referenced, and analyzed in relation to teachers’
classroom instruction and also shared on the network.
Interview data were collected from focal students at least twice
throughout the year. These individual, semi-structured interviews lasted
approximately 20 minutes, were audio taped, and transcribed. Openended questions for students related to their definitions and changing
understandings and uses of reading, writing, text, and literacy/cies, and
their perceptions of classroom instruction that were infused with new
literacies strategies.
Data Analysis
The Four Resources model was used in this study to analyze how
teachers understood new literacies and implemented new literacies
strategies and texts to teach middle school student literacy skills and
strategies. The Four Resources Model was developed by Freebody and
Luke (1990) to assist literacy educators in analyzing their pedagogy in
efforts to shift the instructional focus from a single, neutral, and
autonomous approach to teaching literacy as transmission of printbased text to a broader focus on the multiliteracies that form a range of
textual practices in balanced literacy programs so that learners can
become effective literacy users. The model represents the shift from a
singular view of literacy into the multiliteracies that form the New
Literacies Studies and is the vision for creating successful and
65
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
competent literacy users, not just literate recipients, in the 21st century
(see Anstey & Bull, 2006; Cope & Kalantzis, 2000; New London
Group, 1996). As forms of multiliteracies, Lankshear and Knobel
(2007) noted that new literacies involve “different kinds of values,
emphases, priorities, perspectives, orientations, and sensibilities from
those that typify conventional literacy practices” (p. 9). So, for
example, new literacies must include the production—not just the
consumption—of texts. Thus, it is important to study not only the texts
deemed new literacies, but also the uses of these texts and the resources
called upon to engage texts to determine if and how texts can be
deemed as new literacies. Anstey and Bull (2006) explained that
analyses of texts using the Four Resources Model can help to
demonstrate how texts are understood and used.
Drawing upon the connections between new literacies texts and
strategies and the reasons people choose to use texts for various
purposes, we utilized the Four Resources Model as both a teaching and
analysis tool to engage teachers in the study of new literacies. We used
the Four Resources Model in the professional development institutes
and in collective study group meetings to frame new literacies
strategies discussed, and we implemented the Four Resources Model as
a tool to analyze how teachers understood new literacies and used new
literacies strategies to engage students with various resources in content
area learning.
The Four Resources Model includes four interrelated and
interdependent resources (also called practices, Anstey & Bull, 2006,
and roles, Freebody & Luke, 2003). These include code breaking
resources, text participating resources, text using resources, and text
analyzing resources. Those who have used this model have found that
all four resources need to be explicitly taught and integrated throughout
the curriculum in order to build knowledgeable learners capable of
navigating the literacies of the 21st century (Anstey & Bull, 2006;
Freebody, 1992; Freebody & Luke, 1990; Luke, 1995; Luke &
Freebody, 1999). The four resources are described below.
Code breaking resources or practices include the ability to identify,
make sense of, and use semiotic systems appropriate to a particular
text. They include print-based graphophonic decoding of letters and
sounds and attention to the visual aspects of deciphering meaning and
uses from images.
Text participant resources or practices (also known as meaning
making practices, Anstey & Bull, 2006) are defined as “understanding
and composing meaningful written, visual and spoken texts from within
the meaning systems of particular cultures, institutions, families,
communities, nation-states and so forth” (Freebody & Luke, 1990, p.
10). These practices involve making literal and inferential meaning of
texts. They draw on the user’s literacy identities and emphasize how
66
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
different groups make different meanings of texts based upon their
social and cultural backgrounds (Anstey & Bull, 2006).
Text user resources entail negotiations of social relations of texts
and “knowing about and acting on the different cultural and social
functions that various texts perform both inside and outside school and
knowing that these functions shape the way texts are structured, their
tone, their degree of formality and their sequence of components”
(Freebody & Luke, 1990, p. 10). They also involve the uses of texts in
real-life situations, and are based on knowing the purposes, the
structure, and the uses of the text at hand. Anstey and Bull (2006) noted
that text user practices are some of the most important because this
resource deals with the pragmatics of getting things done.
Finally, text analyst practices involve critical analyses of texts to
determine how to behave and react in relation to a text. Text analyst
practices attend to “understanding and acting on the knowledge that
texts are not neutral, that they represent particular views and silence
other points of view, influence people's ideas; and that their designs and
discourses can be critiqued and redesigned, in novel and hybrid ways”
(Freebody & Luke, 1990, p. 13).
The data were coded according to these four resources and
analyzed within and across categories using matrix analysis (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). Within the matrix, we looked for patterns across data
sources that identified participants’ definitions, understandings, and
uses of texts, discussion and incorporation of new literacies strategies
in instruction, and curricular and instructional outcomes. Patterns
identified in Year 1 include the following and will be discussed in the
Findings section:
(1) teachers’ and students’ understandings and uses of new
literacies both in- and out-of-school,
(2) teacher instructional practices to connect new literacies
strategies to traditional areas of literacy (e.g., reading
comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, decoding, writing
process, reading/writing connections, grammar, understanding
text format and genre) and to state standards; and
(3) outcomes of teaching with new literacies.
FINDINGS
Findings from an observational pilot study of English/language arts
teachers’ instruction in seven low-performing middle schools (grades
6-8) in the school district where this research took place revealed that
middle school teachers implemented few, if any, new literacies
strategies in their classrooms (Hagood, et al., 2006). These teachers
also held traditional views of literacy as the ability to read, write, and
understand print-based text and interpreted state English standards in
conventional ways consistent with a transmission/autonomous model of
67
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
reading (Street, 1993). Standards that addressed new literacies inclusive
of visual, digital, and other non-print texts were seen as appropriate for
instruction in extracurricular classes, such as art and music. Indeed,
findings from a current study confirm as much. Analysis of the data
from Year 1 revealed that
(1) teachers and students at both schools viewed literacy, text,
reading, and writing in school in a traditional and conventional
manner, namely as print-based meant to be received and
understood in social studies and English language arts classes,
and although they acknowledged definitions and uses of new
literacies presented, they did not necessarily espouse them as
relevant for academic contexts;
(2) teachers and students engaged a variety of new literacies both
in- and out-of-school, but did not view text uses equally in
terms of their literacy knowledge or usefulness in their
academic lives, valuing print text as the necessary medium for
success in school;
(3) most of the teachers were interested in strategies utilizing new
literacies to teach content, but their strategy implementation
most often attended to the text participant resource of the Four
Resources model; and
(4) teachers’ uses of students’ new literacies interests from outside
of school often pushed them outside their comfort levels,
causing them to backtrack and to refocus their instruction on
traditional, autonomous print-based reading skills.
Understanding & Uses of New Literacies
Findings across data sources confirmed that teachers and students
initially had little background and exposure to current definitions of
text and new literacies and embraced traditional and autonomous
definitions of what counts as text, literacy, writing and reading.
Teachers broadened their understandings of what counts as text over
the academic year, included new kinds of texts in their instruction, and
began to see new literacies as a bridge between out-of-school and inschool literacy development. However, by year’s end, their efforts to
improve academic performance were based upon traditional definitions
and uses of text and literacy.
On the initial Teacher and Student Survey (see Appendix B) and
on initial interviews, 36 teachers and 9 focal students at both schools
consistently defined reading using the terms “decoding,”
understanding,” “comprehension,” and “meaning.” They defined
writing using terms “thoughts,” “ideas,” “in print” and “conveying
meaning.” They overarchingly agreed and defined text using the terms
“words,” “write/written,” and “read.” Teachers consistently described
literacy with terms like “ability,” “read and write,” and “understand.”
68
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Students across both contexts had difficulty finding words to
define literacy. Only one of nine students attempted an answer,
describing literacy as “talking, telling and working,” “getting all As,”
and “being smart.” One student contrasted literacy with illiteracy as
“getting Fs” and doing “stupid things” even when a person is smart.
Thus, at the study’s inception, teachers and students viewed these terms
in traditional ways: print being the mode of communication that held
together reading, writing, text, and literacy. Both teachers and students
alike stated that they received information from reading, writing text,
and literacy as consumers more than they produced information using
these terms.
Data also revealed that teachers and students shared similar inschool literacies. The majority of teachers and students commented that
their literacies at school entailed consuming texts: reading books and
taking and/or reading notes (lecture notes and notes written by
colleagues and friends). Teachers also consistently listed e-mails and
students’ work as other texts they read, while students listed computers,
written notes among friends, and their agenda/schedule as texts most
often read.
In out-of-school contexts, teachers and students’ reading choices
looked somewhat different. The three most used out-of-school reading
categories listed by teachers included books (fiction, nonfiction,
religious), e-mails, and magazines/newsletters. Reading materials
mentioned by a small number of respondents included
television/movies/ads/subtitles, recipes, directions/instructions, signs,
menus, Internet, research/books/periodicals, and student work.
Students’ top responses for reading outside of school included books,
magazines, schoolwork/homework, and computer use. Other areas
mentioned by 4 of the 9 students included directions, comic books,
notes, e-mails, and television.
As for writing in-school, teachers’ top three areas included lesson
plans, e-mails, and notes/letters/memos. Items that were mentioned by
fewer than half but more than one-third of the respondents were
overheads/boards, agenda items, assignments/instructions, and
grades/feedback/editing. Items mentioned by a small number of
respondents included student referrals/Individualized Education
Programs (IEP), discipline/attendance reports, Internet/ computer,
student passes, focus question, “to-do” lists, tests, standards, and
objectives.
Students’ writing in-school consisted of two forms: writing for
school purposes (to complete a teacher-given task or to take notes) and
writing for personal reasons (to connect with peers). The second form
of writing, as part of an unsanctioned and unofficial literacy practice
(Finders, 1997; Hubbard,1988), was consistently described as taboo by
the students.
69
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Writing outside of school looked very different from teachers’ and
students’ in-school writing. The only written item that was identified
by over half of the teachers was e-mail. Items that were mentioned by
fewer than half but more than one-fourth of the respondents were
bills/checks, memos/notes, letters, “to-do” lists, and schoolwork. Items
mentioned by a small number of respondents included grocery lists,
journal entries, cards, and personal writing. Conversely, most of the
students’ responses included personal writing (e.g., journals for self on
myspace.com, on paper, and the computer, and e-mails) and utilitarian
writing: notes to parents/caregivers, and homework.
Fall data analysis revealed that teachers and students defined text
traditionally, in terms of what it included and how they used it. No one
mentioned a new literacies view of text—that broadened notion of text
that includes not only print, but also visual, oral/aural/nonverbal. They
conceived of text as existing only in print, whether on paper or on a
screen.
In the spring, 32 teachers and 9 students were queried again using
the Teacher and Student Survey. Teachers’ views of literacy and of
new literacies had changed substantially. Teachers explained that new
literacies “are familiar forms of media,” “popular culture and
technology that kids use to understand their everyday lives” and
“different from traditional print.” They also thought that new literacies
was a mindset that included “being literate without being able to
actually read and write” and that new literacies “are non-traditional
literacies.” They gave examples such as computer use, television and
movies, e-mail, myspace.com, instant messaging, and text messaging.
They described new literacies strategies in school as a means for
making connections between students, standards, and content. For
example, many teachers stated that “new literacies strategies help
children learn better” because “new literacies strategies are ways to
attempt to reach students by connecting to what they’re already
interested in.” Teachers also made connections between out-of-school
and in-school literacies, stating that “new literacies strategies take
different aspects of popular culture and connect with them traditional
classroom strategies to encourage reading comprehension.” They
described strategies as “means other than the written form…used to
convey meaning through multiple venues.” Teachers also believed that
new literacies strategies help students “connect information,” “develop
vocabulary,” and “help students who have difficulties in reading
comprehension to understand the meaning of the message through
visual, kinesthetic, and auditory learning styles.”
However, teachers consistently gave caveats to their
understandings of new literacies and new literacies strategies, making
statements like, “Listening to music, playing on the computer, textmessaging, and playing video games does not mean you are literate.”
They explained that new literacies strategies should connect to
70
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
standards, making statements like new literacies strategies “should be
used in a way to present reading standards” and “use techniques other
than reading a textbook to understand standards.”
Teachers described new literacies as texts students like that are
influenced by popular culture, media, and technologies and as teaching
tools to get students interested in school-based literacy practices
involving comprehension. Despite the research and articles shared in
the institutes and by facilitators in collective study groups that
adolescents’ uses of visual texts were forms of literacies and
comprehension, teachers did not believe that students’ knowledge about
and use of popular culture, media, and technology constituted “being
literate.” Indeed, teachers often used new literacies texts and strategies
strictly as a hook or schema activation activity to get students into
print-based texts, as they felt comfortable linking print-based texts to
state-mandated standards, but had difficulty finding relevancy between
new literacies and state standards.
Students’ understandings of text, literacy, and new literacies
changed very little over the course of the year. Their answers continued
to reveal traditional views of what counts as text, stating that texts are
“things you read, like a book or a list or the computer.” They also were
stumped when considering literacy and new literacies. Several students
said they didn’t know the answers. And one boy said, “Well, literacy,
I’ve heard that word, but I don’t remember what it means. New
literacies means lots of them.”
Although the students participated in many new literacies activities
in their classes and described how they spent their time out of school by
listing new literacies texts (computer use, text messaging, listening to
music, and watching television and movies), they were unable to make
the connections between these activities as forms of text, reading,
literacy, and new literacies. Furthermore, the students saw their text
uses as forms of entertainment, even the new literacies strategies used
at school. When pushed to recall new literacies strategies used in their
social studies and English classes, they stated things like, “Oh yeah, I
remember when we made those comics. That was fun.” They analyzed
the words of the comic to be forms of reading and writing, but the
visual components were just fun.
Analysis based upon the Four Resources model showed that all of
the text definitions and text uses given by teachers and students related
to the resources needed as a code breaker (decoding), text participant
(understanding authorial intent), and text user (understanding the
purposes and uses of texts). None of the examples given by teachers or
students in- or out-of-school literacies gave insight into participants
being text analysts of the texts they read, where they critically
analyzed, transformed, and acted upon texts.
71
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Teacher Instructional Practices
Three data sources were analyzed to determine teachers’ views of
instructional practices infused with new literacies. These areas included
the Teacher New Literacies Confidence Scale (see Appendix C), Fall
and Spring Professional Development Institute evaluations (see
Appendix D), and collective study group and classroom observations.
Data from the Teacher New Literacies Confidence Scale were
obtained to determine teachers’ perceptions of their abilities and their
self-reporting of classroom instruction of new literacies according to
the four resources. The scale we designed was broken down into
categories that mirrored the practices of the Four Resources Model
(Freebody & Luke, 1990). The statements were aligned and grouped
according to each of the four resources. Teachers used a three-part
Likert scale (Agree, Unsure, Disagree) to answer the statements. They
first reflected on their confidence in their ability to teach these
resources to middle school students and then on their actual classroom
practices that included instruction in these areas. Once they completed
the evaluations of the statements according to ability to teach and actual
classroom instruction, they estimated the percentage of instructional
time spent explicitly teaching each of the resources, with the total for
all four resources equaling 100%. For example, teachers were asked to
rate their confidence in their personal abilities to teach students “the
spelling of high frequency words for reading and writing,” to use this
resource in their instruction, and then to consider how much time they
spent teaching the overall resource of code breaking in their classroom
practices.
The scale was administered to 16 Westview Middle School staff
members and to 19 Northside Middle School staff members in August
at the end of the Fall Institute after teachers had learned about new
literacies and about the Four Resources Model. The scale was readministered to 13 staff members from Westview and to 18 staff
members from Northside in May at the final collective study group
meeting to examine changes in teachers’ confidence and instruction.
Aggregate data are summarized below in Table 1.
Items related to Code Breaker included statements about the ability
to decode text, such as use of spelling patterns, sentence structures,
literal meaning, and high frequency words. Almost all Westview and
Northside respondents (92% and 93% respectively) stated that they
possessed the ability to teach these skills in August. Teachers reported
incorporating this resource in their teaching, but they spent less than
20% of their time explicitly teaching this resource throughout the year.
This estimate changed very little (18% and 19%, respectively) from
August to May.
72
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Table 1
Teacher New Literacies Confidence Scale (Fall 2006 & Spring 2007)
Ability to Teach
School
Time of Year
Code Breaker
Text Participant
Text User
Text Analyst
Westview
F
Sp
92
93
95
94
97
92
81
86
Northside
F
Sp
81
89
100
93
95
94
85
89
Actual Classroom Practice
of Explicit Instruction
Westview
Northside
F
Sp
F
Sp
75
56
68
72
85
96
83
87
85
81
87
90
67
60
59
76
Percentage of Curricular
Time
Westview
Northside
F
Sp
F
Sp
17
18
18
19
28
35
25
33
32
25
23
27
11
20
24
20
Note. All numbers are given in percentages.
F= Fall 2006 Sp=Spring 2007
A text participant participates in the meaning of the text. Actions
related to text participant include “understanding and composing
meaningful written, visual and spoken texts from within the meaning
systems of particular cultures, institutions, families, communities,
nation-states and so forth” (Freebody & Luke, 1990, p.10). From a new
literacies standpoint, this means that users are able to use their
identities to understand how different meaning is made by different
groups. As Anstey and Bull (2006) explained, this resource is also
called “meaning-making practices” which are used to make literal and
inferential meaning based upon identities drawn upon by the user (p.
45). An example of a statement on the Confidence Scale of this
resource stated, “I feel confident in my ability to teach middle school
students to use comprehension strategies such as questioning, making
corrections, and determining importance to construct meaning about
text.” Of the four resources, teachers across both schools felt the most
confident both in their ability to teach this resource and in their
classroom instruction of it. Across the year teachers’ reports in both
schools of instructional time spent explicitly teaching the resource of
text participant increased the most substantially, rising from 28% to
35% at Westview and from 25% to 33% at Northside.
The text user resource asks “What do I do with this text?” and
attends to ways to use texts functionally. According to Luke and
Freebody (1999) the text user ably traverses the social relations around
texts, knows about and acts on the different cultural and social
functions that various texts perform both inside and outside of school,
and recognizes that these functions shape the way texts are structured,
their tone, their degree of formality and their sequence of components.
An example of a statement from this resource in the Confidence Scale
is “I feel confident in my ability to teach middle school students to use
different spoken language patterns depending on the situation and
participants.” Across the year, teachers seemed confident (over 90% at
both schools) in their abilities to teach this resource related to thinking
about audience when reading, writing, speaking, viewing or listening to
a text; composing a text to fit a particular context (e.g., e-mail to a
friend vs. a potential employer); planning and constructing a project
with a particular purpose in mind (e.g., to convince people to recycle);
73
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
and using different spoken language patterns depending on the situation
and the participants (e.g., talking with friends while playing sports vs.
talking to media specialist about a research project). However, over the
course of the year, Westview teachers reported a decline in
instructional time (from 32% to 25%) while Northside respondents
estimates increased slightly across the year (23% to 27%) on this
resource.
Text analysts deconstruct how texts position them and act
consciously in relation to their analyses. The text analyst critically
analyzes the text, asking, “What does this text do to me?” and works
with texts in an effort to make some transformations of the text
dependent upon the analysts’ purposes, producing degrees of
transformed texts (Freebody & Luke, 2003). Luke and Freebody (1999)
note that text analysts understand and act on the knowledge that texts
are not neutral, that they represent particular views and silence other
points of view, that they influence people's ideas and that their designs
and discourses can be critiqued and redesigned, in novel and hybrid
ways. On the Confidence Scale, text analyst skills included the ability
to figure out the beliefs and ideologies of the authors of a particular text
through considering what and how ideas are presented in the text; to
compare and contrast different perspectives across texts that address the
same issue and to think about how one’s beliefs intersect with or
deviate from these perspectives; to consider whose beliefs are
represented and underrepresented in a particular text (e.g., newspaper
photograph); and to rewrite a text to present an alternative idea about
government, race, and/or class.
Teachers in both schools viewed the text analyst resource
significantly differently than the other resources. In both schools,
teachers felt less confident about their ability to teach this resource in
comparison to the other resources. Only 81% of teachers from
Westview and 86% of teachers from Northside recognized this resource
to be part of their own repertoires, and fewer still incorporated this
resource into their teaching. Only 67% and 59% of teachers at
Westview and Northside, respectively, reported inclusion of text
analyst skills into their teaching in August, and only 11% of teachers at
Westview and 24% of teachers of Northside spent instructional time
explicitly teaching text analyst skills. Although Westview teachers
reported an increase in perceived ability to teach text analyst practices
(from 81% to 86%) in May, they reported a decrease in their actual
practice (from 67% to 60%). Interestingly, they significantly increased
the percentage of time spent on this resource (from 11% to 20%).
Northside teachers noted greatly increased confidence in their actual
classroom practice of teaching text analyst resources (from 59% to
76%), but across the four resources they reported a decrease in the
percentage of time overall (from 24% to 20%) spent on this resource in
relation to the other resources.
74
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
At the end of the fall and spring two-day professional development
institutes, teacher participants evaluated the institute content and their
perceptions of their knowledge of new literacies strategies. The sixpoint scale consisted of choices ranging from “Strongly Agree” (6) to
“Strongly Disagree” (1). Comparison of data from the Fall Institute and
Spring Institute yielded positive results showing teachers’ interest in
the subject of new literacies and their desire to try out new literacies
strategies in their classrooms. A comparison of teacher responses is
illustrated in Table 2 below.
Table 2
Participants’ Mean Agreement & Mean Difference With Evaluation
Statements Of The Fall And Spring Institutes
Fall
Mean
Statements
1. The New Literacies Fall Institute was well organized, and
5.42
facilitators were prepared.
2. Facilitators were knowledgeable about new literacies
5.67
theories, research, and pedagogy.
3. Facilitators were effective in presenting new literacies
4.92
material in relevant, meaningful, and understandable
ways.
4. Facilitators were engaging and enthusiastic.
5.0
5. There was a balance between new literacies theoretical and
5.0
practical material.*
6. Pacing of presentations, activities, and discussions were
4.75
engaging and effective.
7. Balance between large, medium, and small group structures
5.0
were engaging and effective.
8. Presentation of new literacies material encouraged critical
thinking about the teaching and learning of adolescent
5.0
students.
9. Materials, handouts, and readings aided my understanding
of new literacies theory and methods and will help me in 5.0
implementing new literacies pedagogy.
10. I look forward to working with my colleagues in
collective study groups to learn more about new
4.75
literacies pedagogy.
11. I am excited to integrate new literacies research and
5.17
strategies into my teaching.
Note. *This statement was not included in the spring evaluation.
Spring
Mean
Mean
Difference
5.62
+.20
5.76
+.09
5.55
+.62
5.66
+.66
NA
NA
5.39
+.64
5.42
+.42
5.66
+.66
5.63
+.63
5.60
+.85
5.53
+.70
Participants rated the Fall Institute highly, indicating that they felt
quite positively about what was presented, with their highest level of
agreement occurring with the facilitators’ knowledge concerning new
literacies theory, research, and pedagogy. Areas receiving the lowest
scores included the pacing of presentations, activities, and discussions
and participants’ views concerning working with their colleagues in
collective study groups to learn more about new literacies pedagogy.
Spring Institute evaluations likewise showed the highest level of
agreement occurring with the facilitators’ knowledge concerning new
literacies theory, research, and pedagogy while the lowest level of
75
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
agreement occurred with the pacing of presentations, activities, and
discussions. Spring data yielded a more positive response to “I look
forward to working with my colleagues in collective study groups to
learn more about new literacies pedagogy,” with a mean of 4.75 in fall
compared to a mean of 5.60 in spring.
In spring, teachers showed more interest in the area of new
literacies across all indicators. From the written feedback, fall
participants wanted to know more instructional strategies and they
questioned the relevance of the collective study group meetings within
their subject areas. Many asked for more emphasis on classroom
practice. Written feedback from spring participants denoted interest in
learning more about specific strategies discussed in the institute, such
as using the software MovieMaker for digital storytelling, and still
emphasized learning more strategies, especially those promoting
comprehension and “real- life” examples relevant for their instructional
implementation in the classroom.
Fourteen new literacies strategies were presented at the two
institutes over the year. These strategies were built around three areas:
(1) learning about students’ out-of-school new literacies and placing
value on their related sociocultural identities, (2) connecting students’
out-of-school literacy interests and competencies to content area
standards and subject matter, and (3) connecting adolescents’ new
literacies to teachers’ development of students’ academic literacies,
which were deemed “lacking” by teachers (including vocabulary,
comprehension, fluency, genre and text structure study, reading/writing
connections, grammar, decoding, and process writing). At the Fall and
Spring Institutes and during collective study group meetings,
facilitators reiterated that teachers needed to embed the new literacies
texts and strategies into units of study within the social studies and
English/language arts content. The incorporation of new literacies
strategies was to happen within the content areas, not as a separate,
stand-alone component in the curriculum.
In the fall, teachers were introduced to eight new literacies
strategies. Four of these strategies, including popular culture surveys
(Hagood, 2007), literacy practices ethnographies (Skinner, 2007b),
graffiti activity (Skinner, 2007b), and text bag analyses (Skinner,
2007b), were presented to assist teachers in learning about students’
new literacies lives outside of school so as to inform teachers’
instructional practices in school. Teachers were to use these strategies
in classroom activities to determine students’ out-of-school new
literacies, to analyze how students used these literacies as code
breakers, text participants, text users, and text analysts, and then to
incorporate students’ new literacies into their development of content
area instruction.
The other four strategies taught at the Fall Institute addressed the
connections between students’ new literacies and the development of
76
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
academic literacies. These strategies included the following: (1) an
adapted Think Aloud Protocol (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007) built upon
visual texts (movies, television shows), that showed teachers how to
help students view for comprehension, analyze their comprehension
strategy (e.g. making connections, questioning) use, and transfer it to
content area texts, (2) the use of Karaoke and repeated readings to
improve comprehension and fluency (Ash & Hagood, 2000), (3)
blended narratives that coupled students’ out-of-school literacies and
schema with comprehension of content area topics (Harris, 2007), and
(4) uses of iPods for exploring content area and new literacies.
During the fall semester, teachers were to discuss these strategies
further and to develop uses for them to connect to content area
instruction during their collective study group meetings. Of the eight
new literacies strategies taught, teachers incorporated only 2 of them:
literacy practices ethnographies and blended narratives. Interestingly,
teachers spent more time in collective study group meetings bringing in
their own ideas as new literacies strategies, rather than trying ones they
learned. For example, teachers at Northside learned about a packaged
curriculum called Flocabulary: The Hip-Hop Approach to SAT-Level
Vocabulary Building (Harrison & Rappaport, 2006). They liked the
efficiency of this program in its layout and design, which included
printed song lyrics, a CD of the music, and a step guide for lessons
including listening for content, listening for vocabulary words,
memorization, flashcard drills, and multiple-choice worksheet tests.
Many of the teachers incorporated these lessons into their social studies
units, explaining that they were new literacies activities because they
validated students’ out-of-school interests in hip-hop and brought these
identities into school and that it was an adaptation of the Karaoke
strategy learned about at the Fall Institute. Teachers liked it so much
that they shared it at the Spring Institute, and Westview teachers
incorporated it into their curriculum.
Six new literacies strategies were introduced at the Spring Institute.
These included using text messaging, writing and designing projects
with movie trailers and MovieMaker software, exploring popular
culture with critical media literacy questions (Alvermann, Moon, &
Hagood, 1999), studying genre with comics (Bitz, 2007), and
developing content knowledge through visual texts, such as graphic
novels (Cromer & Clark, 2007). We introduced the teachers to these
texts that are used often as out-of-school literacies but not often deemed
relevant to school instruction, and showed them how to use these texts
to engage students and to make connections to content with them. Of
the strategies taught, four were included in collective study group
discussions and classroom implementation (text messaging, movie
trailer design, comics, and graphic novels).
In collective study groups across the two schools, teachers
identified the following literacy areas as ones of concern for their
77
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
students: decoding, fluency, vocabulary, text comprehension of author
intent, writing a cohesive paragraph, and overall student motivation.
Teachers then coupled new literacies strategies in stand-alone lessons
predominantly focused on text comprehension of author intent,
especially as year-end statewide assessments neared. Teachers seemed
most confident in their self-report data in their abilities to teach
strategies to assist in students’ development of being code breakers,
text participants, and text users. But data from collective study group
meetings showed that teachers spent most of their time teaching
students to be text participants and some time on code breaking. There
were mixed results from inclusion of instructional time spent on text
user and text analyst skills.
Outcomes
Although teachers’ excitement about incorporation of new
literacies shared in the institutes was apparent in collective study group
meetings, they often wanted to use these strategies to develop
traditional and conventional school-based literacy practices to assist
students’ competencies as code breakers and text participants of
foundational literacies, which was directly associated with performance
on year-end, statewide assessments. Yet they had difficulty transferring
their readings and discussions of new literacies into strategies they
developed that addressed students’ areas of foundational literacy
weakness. Teachers also noticed that the readings of new literacies
shared by facilitators of collective study groups often depicted students
of middle class backgrounds and were hypothetically based. They
expressed some frustration with the lack of attention in new literacies
publications to students of working class/low SES backgrounds and
actual classroom implementations from which to draw.
Furthermore, some of the new literacies texts presented at the
institutes pushed teachers outside their comfort zones as classroom
teachers. When this happened, many teachers vacillated between
embracing students’ out-of-school literacies and ignoring them all
together. For example, following the Spring Institute, teachers were
each given $75 to spend on new literacies resources for their
classrooms. Several teachers pooled their monies and purchased
graphic novels after learning about and studying their uses in the Spring
Institute. However, after realizing that some of the texts showed
content perhaps deemed inappropriate at school (e.g., character in
underwear), one group of teachers became disenchanted wholly with
graphic novels, and decided to use the remainder of their monies to buy
“award winning picture books,” which “model[ed] for students what
good literature is all about.”
At the year’s end, although teachers were beginning to understand
and to articulate what new literacies included for themselves and
78
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
students and had begun to use new literacies texts and strategies in their
classrooms, their overall inclusion of explicit instructional practices
continued to focus on traditional comprehension skills of decoding and
text participation. Teachers’ uses of new literacies teaching strategies
were consistently implemented as means to introduce content or as endof-unit projects in efforts to engage students in predominantly text
participation resources. New literacies strategies were usually
implemented for a single lesson, rather than embedded within a unit of
study that took place over several days or weeks.
Much of the teachers’ understandings and instructional practices of
new literacies were based on school culture of high stakes testing in
low-performing schools. Teachers felt pressure from administration for
students to perform on statewide end-of-year tests, and became
consistently more focused on traditional texts and teaching strategies as
the statewide test date neared. By mid spring, many teachers appeared
to lose momentum for implementing new literacies practices at all. In
early March, each teacher was given a “50 days to end-of-year test”
curriculum by the district for their content area, which included a
binder filled with daily lesson plans focusing on content specific
identification of vocabulary and application activities of recall of gradelevel content standards. In collective study group meetings, teachers
complained about these curricula, and facilitators gave suggestions for
tweaking lessons to include new literacies texts and strategies. Teachers
consistently resisted these suggestions, stating that they must follow the
curriculum, which lessened their opportunities for incorporating new
literacies strategies and texts in their classrooms. Teachers’
conversations in collective study groups involved ways to teach drill
and practice exercises for students to practice decoding text and
discerning authorial intent. Thus, teachers’ time was predominantly
spent on text participation resources that matched the focus of the
state’s year-end testing that they thought would boost students’ end-ofyear test scores.
Teachers also struggled with collective study group
implementation and participation over the year. Of the seven collective
study groups within the two schools, no group assumed leadership roles
of facilitation within the collective study group. Teachers from both
schools were trained as facilitators, and knew they were to take over
roles as facilitators within the fall semester. This role included setting
the agenda, ensuring participation among all, and designating others for
roles as time keeper and secretary. However, teachers never assumed
the leadership roles in these groups, and the university facilitators
continued to serve in that regard throughout the year. Teachers cited
that they (a) had too much work to do to run meetings, (b) were
accountable for other responsibilities as part of their jobs, which did not
include new literacies, and (c) didn’t sign up to be a part of this grant,
but were to required to participate by administration.
79
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
DISCUSSION
Literacy as a social act (Barton, 1994; Barton & Hamilton, 2000;
Street, 1995) draws on the repertoire of surrounding resources to
construct and reconstruct understandings and uses of texts. As such,
people use their social, cultural, and cognitive practices to determine
when and how texts get used. Year 1 of the study’s implementation
revealed that utilizing new literacies strategies in low-performing
schools often goes against ingrained school culture when considering
literacy as a social act. Because of their status as “underperforming,”
these schools were constantly riddled and felt pressured by concerns for
student end-of-year assessment performance. Thus, the social act of
literacy among the teachers and students and in these schools was
conflicted between the study and implementation of new literacies texts
and strategies and end-of-year tests. This conflict affected identities and
views and uses of texts in in-school contexts.
Literacy as a social act definitely affected teachers’ views,
understandings, and uses of new literacies texts and strategies. While at
the institutes and in their evaluations, teachers were quite open to
learning about new literacies strategies to use in their classrooms. They
were engaged, they brainstormed ideas, and they developed ways to
incorporate new literacies into their instructional practices that would
assist students’ foundational literacies, especially those related to text
participant resources of vocabulary development and comprehension of
authorial intent. Their evaluations of institutes reiterated their interest
in the study and incorporation of new literacies in their classrooms. The
teachers’ engagement of these texts and strategies is not surprising
when literacy is considered as a social act. In these institutes, teachers
were free to develop ideas outside the confines of their school cultures
that stressed end-of-year assessment. Also, administrators, although
invited to these institutes, did not attend. So teachers did not feel
pressured by administrators in their thinking and development of new
literacies ideas.
The social act of literacy shifted once teachers were back in their
respective schools. In collective study group meetings, it became
apparent that the pressures of differing views of literacy affected the
groups’ understandings, and consequently teachers both accepted and
resisted new literacies strategies and texts based upon school culture.
Traditional understandings of literacy were solidified when teachers
had negative views and experiences of new literacies texts and
strategies. Although teachers embraced new literacies strategies in
some ways, their uses of new literacies strategies in instruction became
conflicted in relation to other demands for teachers’ time and as
preparation for the year-end standardized test neared.
In both schools teachers faced obstacles related to technologies
available at the schools. Teachers continuously found it difficult to
80
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
include students’ out-of-school literacies lives because of district-wide
filters on computers designed to protect students from accessing
“undesirable” sources on the Internet. School district filters not only
blocked student access to web-based information, but teacher access as
well. Many teachers found it challenging to access information at their
respective schools that would incorporate students’ out-of-school
literacy practices with school-based content. In an effort to address
these issues, grant monies were used to purchase iPods for teachers use
and to provide professional development on utilizing them for new
literacy practices. Unfortunately, this was not the only technologyrelated issue encountered by teachers at the participating schools. Many
of the classroom teachers had limited access to current computer
hardware (minimal number of functional computers in classrooms
and/or access to notebook computers), software (running Windows
1995 operating systems), and related technology (projection LCD or
televisions) that would have made incorporating new literacy strategies
easier in their classrooms. These issues hindered teachers’ abilities to
implement many of the strategies and techniques taught in the institutes
and led to much frustration on their part.
The culture of test preparation, which began in early March, also
greatly impacted teachers’ understandings of literacies and their
instructional practices. Much of the teachers’ movement toward
inclusion of new literacies strategies in instruction and assessment
became compromised, resulting in teachers’ increased use of text
participant resources above all others. Assessment practices influenced
all aspects of instruction and teaching practices. And rather than see
new literacies strategies as means to improve connections, engagement,
and comprehension of text as text users and text analysts, many
teachers chose to focus mostly on text participant resources of
receiving authorial intent, which matched most closely the tasks on the
year-end assessment, or to ignore new literacies strategies all together.
Thus, a student-centered pedagogy of engagement, motivation, and
connection building was compromised for teacher-centered
environment of print-based traditional literacies in an effort to boost
test scores.
Certainly, teachers’ views of new literacies changed over the
course of the year to include new literacies definitions of a broadened
understanding of reading, text, and literacy. Yet because of conditions
that affected school culture, many teachers remained skeptical that new
literacies were productive. In fact, many believed that new literacies
subverted traditional notions of being literate.
Finally, although adolescents engage with new literacies through
reading and writing with an array of media across school and out-ofschool contexts, the work they did with new literacies in-school that
differed from traditional literacies of reading and writing in
conventional ways, was often viewed as “fun” and “engaging,” but not
81
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
as educational or academically relevant for success in school. Much
like the teens polled in the Pew Internet study (Lenhart, Sousan, Smith,
& Macgill, 2008), students in this study often felt a disconnect between
teaching with new literacies as strategies for engagement and actual
learning subject area content. Teachers did not discuss the difference
between literacy and new literacies with students, nor did they
explicitly teach about expanded notions of text or of various visual,
aural, and oral texts being part of reading. Consequently, when teachers
included new literacies text and strategies into their instruction,
students only viewed the print-based components to be relevant to their
learning and literacy development. Despite teachers’ inclusion of new
literacies texts and strategies, the social act of literacy in school for
students remained bound by traditional definitions of what counts as
literacy and as text. This traditional view of the social act of literacy is
prevalent based upon deep rooted histories in the separation of print
and visual text and the separation between academic culture and
popular culture (Felini, 2008).
LIMITATIONS
Limitations of this research relate to school populations chosen for
the study, focal student selection, and use of self-report data. The
schools were chosen by school district administration rather than
school-based personnel based upon their failing status. The
administrators at Westview and Northside Middle Schools were both
new to administration and new to their positions at these two schools,
and their schools were mandated to participate. In turn, the teachers at
the selected schools were “required” to participate in the research,
although individual consent to participate in the research was
voluntary. Furthermore, the teachers at the schools were different
demographically. The teachers from Westview Middle School had a
mean of 3.3 years of teaching experience as compared to a mean of
10.8 years of teaching experience from Northside Middle School.
However, the difference in means between the teaching experiences
specifically conducted at the selected schools was minimal (1.7 years
from Westview to 1.8 years from Northside).
The selection of focal students is a second limitation of this
research. Students were selected based on their teachers’ inclusion in
the study, on teacher recommendations, and on matched scheduling
based upon the researchers’ availability. Based on these criteria, only
sixth-grade students at Westview and seventh-grade students at
Northside were included.
A final limitation of this research concerns the use of self-report
data from the surveys, confidence scales, and focus interviews.
Teachers may have experienced limited comprehension of the
components included on the Confidence Scale and as such answered
82
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
accordingly. Furthermore, the teachers interviewed may have perceived
expectations for particular responses by the interviewers and framed
their responses with these expectations in mind (Best & Kahn, 1998).
Finally, the students who were interviewed may not have been clear on
the questions asked and the purpose of the interviews.
EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
In the introduction to Adolescents and Literacies in a Digital
World (2002), Alvermann underscores the importance of teaching with
new literacies, stating that contemporary discussions of literacy must
take into account “the performative, visual, aural, and semiotic
understandings necessary for constructing and reconstructing print- and
non-print texts” (p. viii). Similarly, other scholars situated within the
New Literacy Studies have posited that literacy involves more than the
ability to understand print texts or to use words to convey meanings
(Gee, 2003; Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). Rather, literacy
practices involve multiple modes of meaning making (e.g., constructing
meaning from an image). Literacy organizations such as the National
Council for the Teaching of English and the International Reading
Association also highlight the importance of students’ various literacies
and text inclusion from outside school. These organizations explicitly
call for the teaching of standards across the curriculum that “makes
productive use of the emerging literacy abilities that children bring to
school” (http://www.ncte.org/about/over/standards/110846.htm).
Dalton and Proctor (2008) noted that:
We are faced with an urgent need to expand our understanding of
printed text, which is linear, static, temporally and physically
bounded, often with clear purpose, authorship and authority, to
reflect on the characteristics of digital text, which is nonlinear,
multimodal with a heavy visual orientation, interactive, unbounded
in time and space, with murky conveyance of authorship and
authority. (p. 297)
If we are to take these ideas seriously, a shift in pedagogy towards
teachers becoming designers of information with new literacies and
sharing that designer identity with students is necessary. Lewis (2007)
summed up this shift in literacy through drawing upon Gee’s big
D/little d/“Discourse” distinction, labeling the new mindsets and
practices inherent in new literacies as “Big L literacies,” and stating,
“Big L literacies are connected with identities, patterns and ways of
being in the world rather than solely with the acts of reading and
writing” (p. 230). Lewis (2007) goes on to describe Literacies as
composed of three dimensions: agency, performativity, and circulation.
In highlighting these three dimensions, Lewis recognizes that the most
relevant and powerful literacy pedagogy in schools must connect to and
reflect current literacy enactments outside of school. Moreover, these
83
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
literacy practices are driven by adolescents’ and others’ sense of
agency to insert and perform their identities, expertise, and initiatives
upon the larger community that exists beyond school walls,
neighborhood borders and two-dimensional confinements.
Recent theorizing and research in the field of new literacies
recognizes that teaching and learning with new literacies demands a
paradigmatic shift to conceptualizing literacy as composed of new
technologies as well as new mindsets and practices. Specifically,
Knobel and Lankshear (2007) describe new literacies as characterized
by a change to literacy communities that are more participatory and
collaborative in nature, what they describe as composed of different
“ethos,” than more conventional literacies. This “ethos” can be seen
most clearly in the shift from Web 1.0, where the majority of Internet
users approached the Web in search of information that was published
by individual users or organizations, to developments in Web 2.0 where
Internet users currently participate in communities such as Wikipedia
where content is collaboratively constructed and constantly revised.
And Beach and O’Brien (2008) state that “we must challenge views
that engaging with popular-culture texts undermines students’ academic
achievement” (p. 780).
There is a need for teaching traditional reading comprehension of
print-based texts, but we must make the leap to the ethos of new
literacies and incorporate new literacies texts and strategies so as to
prepare students for the literacies of contemporary life where students
must be literate in how to contribute to and negotiate with the diversity
of collaborative communities of readers, writers, speakers, viewers,
listeners and ultimately designers of information and ideas available
both in their physical and online communities. Of course, students will
continue to consume information and ideas constructed by others, but if
we, as their teachers, aim for their voices to be heard, their ideas to be
realized, and ultimately, their cultural identities to be valued, we will
also need to teach them to create and produce texts in the company of
others, both local and global.
The work of implementing new literacies in schools requires not
only a shift in thinking about texts for both teachers and students, but it
also requires a change in instruction and school culture that explicitly
values the development of expanded definitions and uses of text and
literacies and the consumption and production of text, through
resources that include code breaking, text participant, text user, and text
analyst. In an era where standardized tests results determine school
status, little, if anything will change. Until assessment practices and the
ensuing instructional practices change to incorporate how students
produce text uses and include new literacies, education will continue to
produce students from urban schools and working class backgrounds to
think that school involves two forms of literacy: deciphering the printed
code and receiving the author’s intent. Teachers are at the mercy of
84
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
district mandates that hold them bound to these lower level resources,
and some teachers are uninterested in questioning and pushing against
these instructional practices. With that structure in place, we will
continue to separate the kinds of literacies that are important for being
productive in a 21st century world and those that are taught in schools.
REFERENCES
Alvermann, D. E. (2002). Preface. In D. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents
and literacies in a digital world (pp. vii-xi). New York: Peter
Lang.
Alvermann, D. E., & Heron, A. H. (2001). Literacy identity
work: Playing to learn with popular media. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 118-122.
Alvermann, D. E., Moon, J.S., & Hagood, M. C. (1999). Popular
culture in the classroom: Teaching and researching critical media
literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association/National
Reading Conference.
Anstey, M., & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning
multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies.
Kensington Gardens, SA, Australia: International Reading
Association and the Australian Literacy Educators’
Association.
Ash, G. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000, May). Using Karaoke in middle
school classrooms to improve reading fluency, meaning making,
and motivation. Session presented at the International Reading
Association Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written
language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton,
M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and
writing in context (pp. 7-14). New York: Routledge.
Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.) (2000). Situated
literacies: Reading and writing in context. New York: Routledge.
Beach, R., & O’Brien, D. (2008). Teaching popular-culture texts in the
classroom. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.),
Handbook of research in new literacies (pp. 775-804). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Best, J. W. & Kahn, J. V. (1998). Research in education (8th ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bitz, M. (2007). The comic book project: Literacy outside and inside
the box. In J. Flood, S. Brice-Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook
of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and
visual arts (Vol. II), pp. 229-237. New York: Routlege.
Black, R.W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and
composition practices of English-language learners in an online
85
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
49(2), 118-128.
Brown, D. (2003). Urban teachers’ use of culturally responsive
management strategies, Theory into Practice, 42(4), 277–282.
Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2001). A framework for choosing
topics for, with, and by adolescent writers. Voices From the
Middle, 9(1), 40–47.
Chandler-Olcott, K., & Mahar, D. (2003). Adolescents' anime-inspired
“fanfictions”: An exploration of multiliteracies. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 556–566.
Collins, D., & Collins, A. (2005). Advancing reading achievement in
middle schools. Tallahassee, FL: SERVE.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning
and the design of social futures. London: Routledge.
Cromer, M., & Clark, P. (2007). Getting graphic with the past: Graphic
novels and the teaching of history. Theory and Research in Social
Education,35(4), 574-591.
Dalton, B., & Proctor, C. P. (2008). The changing landscape of text and
comprehension in the age of new literacies. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel,
C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research in new
literacies (pp. 297-324). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dimitriadis, G. (2001). In the clique: Popular culture, constructions of
place, and the everyday lives of urban youth. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 32, 29-51.
Felini, D. (2008). Crossing the bridge: Literacy between school
education and contemporary culture. In J. Flood, S.B. Heath, & D.
Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through
the communicative and visual arts (Vol. II), pp. 19-26. New York:
Routlege.
Finders, M. (1997). Just girls. New York: Teachers College Press.
Finders, M. (2000). "Gotta be worse": Negotiating the pleasurable and
the popular. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 146149.
Freebody, P. (1992). A socio-cultural approach: Resourcing four roles
as a literacy learner. In A. Watson & A. Badenhop (Eds.),
Prevention of reading failure (pp. 48-60). Gosford: Ashton
Scholastic.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and
demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of
TESOL, 5 (7), 7-16.
Freebody, P., & Luke. A. (2003). Literacy as engaging with new forms
of life: The “four roles” model. In M. Anstey & G. Bull (Eds.), The
literacy lexicon (2nd ed.). (pp. 51-65). Sydney, NEW: Pearson
Education Australia.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in
discourse (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
86
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Gee, J. P. (2000). Teenagers in new times: A new literacy studies
perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 412–
420.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning
and literacy. Computers in Entertainment, 1, 1-20.
Guzzetti, B., & Gamboa, M. (2004). Zines for social justice:
Adolescent girls writing on their own. Reading Research
Quarterly, 39 (4), 408-436.
Hagood, M. C. (2001). Media literacies: Varied but distinguishable. In
J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, & B. Maloch
(Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook 50, 48-261.
Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Hagood, M.C. (2003). Media and online literacy studies: No age left
behind [New Directions in Research]. Reading Research
Quarterly, 38(3), 386-413.
Hagood, M.C. (2005). Bodily pleasures and/as the text. English
Teaching: Practice and Critique.
http://education.waikato.ac.nz/journal/english_journal/view.php?ar
ticle=true&id=78
Hagood, M. C. (2007). Linking popular culture to literacy learning and
teaching in the 21st century. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy for the
new millennium: Adolescent literacy (Vol. 3), (pp. 223-238).
Westport CT: Praeger.
Hagood, M. C., Alwahab, A., Bagalio, H., Buck, A.L., Hilton, J.,
Killian, E., et al. (2006). ELA teachers’ use of multiliteracies to
teach ELA standards. Final report submitted to the South Carolina
Professors of Middle Level Education. Available: www.mltei.org.
Hagood, M. C., Stevens, L. P. & Reinking, D. (2004). What do THEY
have to teach US? Talkin’ ‘cross generations! In D. Alvermann
(Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (2nd ed.).(pp.
68-83). New York: Peter Lang.
Harris, R. (2007). Blending narratives: A storytelling strategy for social
studies. Social Studies, 98(3), 111-116.
Harrison, B., & Rappaport, A. (2006). Flocabulary: The hip-hop
approach to SAT-level vocabulary building. Kennebunkport, ME:
Cider Milly Press.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching
comprehension to enhance understanding (2nd ed.). Portland, ME:
Stenhouse.
Hubbard, R. (1988). Unofficial literacy in a sixth-grade classroom.
Language Arts, 65, 126-134.
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (Eds.) (2002). School’s out: Bridging out-ofschool literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
87
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of
what makes students want to read in middle school. Reading
Research Quarterly, 36, 350–377.
Kist, W. (2004). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in
multiple media. New York: Teachers College Press.
Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2007). A new literacies sampler. New
York: Peter Lang.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. New York:
Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The
modes and media of contemporary communication. London:
Arnold.
LaMont, M., & Vasudevan, L. (2007). Media, learning, and sites of
possibility. New York: Peter Lang.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2000).Mapping postmodern literacies: A
preliminary chart. Journal of Literacy and Technology, 1.
Retrieved December 17, 2007, from
http://www.literacyandtechnology.org/volume1/lankshearknobel.p
df
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing
knowledge and classroom learning. London: Open University
Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday
practices and classroom learning. London: Open University Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling “the New” in new
literacies. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies
sampler (pp. 1-24). New York: Peter Lang.
Lee, C. D. (1992). Literacy, cultural diversity, and instruction.
Education and Urban Society, 24(2), 279–291.
Lenhart, A., Sousan, A., Smith, A., & Macgill, A. R. (2008). Writing,
technology, and teens. Pew Internet and American life project.
Retrieved May 21, 2008, from http://www.pewinternet.org/
Leu, D.J., Jr., Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D.W. (2004).
Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and
other information and communication technologies. In R.B.
Ruddell, & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (5th ed.). (pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Lewis, C. (2007). New literacies. In M. Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.),
A new literacies sampler (pp. 228-237). New York: Peter Lang.
Lewis, C., & Finders, M. (2004). Implied adolescents and implied
teachers: A generation gap for new times. In D. E. Alvermann
(Ed.), Adolescents and literacies in a digital world (2nd ed.). (pp.
101-113). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.
88
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Luke, A. (1995). When basic skills and information processing just
aren't enough: Rethinking reading in New Times. Teachers
College Record, 97, 95-115.
Luke, A. & Freebody, P. (1999). A Map of Possible Practices: Further
notes on the four resources model. Practically Primary, 4(2), 5-8.
Luke, C. (2003). New directions in ICT research: Pedagogy,
connectivity, multimodality, and interdisciplinarity. Reading
Research Quarterly. 38, 397-403.
Mahar, D. (2003). Bringing the outside in: One teacher’s ride on the
Animé highway. Language Arts, 110-117.
Mahiri, J. (Ed.). (2004). What they don't learn in school: Literacy in the
lives of urban youth. New York: Peter Lang.
Marsh, J., & Millard, E. (2001). Literacy and popular culture: Using
children's culture in the classroom. London: Paul Chapman.
Marsh, J., & Millard, E. (2006). Popular literacies, childhood and
schooling. New York: Routledge.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An
expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moje, E., Young, J. P., Readence, J., & Moore, D. (2000). Reinventing
adolescent literacy for new times: Perennial and millennial issues.
Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 400–411.
Moll, L., & Arnot-Hopffer, E. (2005). Sociocultural competence in
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 242-247.
Morrell, E. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth
through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91(6), 88–92.
Morrell, E. (2004). Linking literacy and popular culture: Finding
connections for lifelong learning. New York: Christopher-Gordon.
Mraz, M., Heron, A., & Wood, K. (2003). Media literacy, popular
culture, and the transfer of higher order thinking abilities. Middle
School Journal, 34, 51-56.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60–92.
O’Brien, D. (2001, June). “At-risk” adolescents: Redefining
competence through the multiliteracies of intermediality, visual
arts, and representation. Reading Online, 4(11). Retrieved January
7, 2008, from http://www.readingonline.org/new
literacies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/new literacies/obrien/index.html
Phelps, S. (2005). Ten years of research on adolescent literacy, 19942004: A review. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.
Richardson, W. (2006). Blogs, wikis, podcasts and other powerful web
tools for classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Rideout, V. J., Roberts, D. F., & Foehr, U. G. (2005). Generation M:
Media in the lives of 8–18 year-olds. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser
Family Foundation.
89
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., Rideout, V. J., & Brodie, M. (1999). Kids
& media @the new millennium. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family
Foundation.
Skinner, E. N. (2007a). “Teenage Addiction”: Adolescent girls drawing
upon popular culture texts as mentors for writing in an after-school
writing club. In E. Rowe, R. Jimenez, D. Compton, D. Dickinson,
Y. Kim, K. Leander, & V. Risco (Eds.), National Reading
Conference Yearbook, 55, 275-291. Chicago: National Reading
Conference.
Skinner, E. N. (2007b). “Teenage Addiction”: Writing workshop meets
critical media literacy. Voices From the Middle, 15, 30-39.
Snyder, K. J. (1993). Competency development: Linking restructuring
goals to training and coaching. In R. Anderson, & K. Snyder
(Eds.), Clinical supervision: Coaching for higher performance (pp.
77-95). Lancaster, PA: Technomics.
Street, B. V. (1993). Introduction: The new literacy studies. In B. Street
(Ed.), Cross cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 1-22). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy
in development, ethnography and education. London: Longman.
Street, B. V. (Ed.) (2005). Literacies across educational contexts:
Mediating learning and teaching. Philadelphia: Caslon Publishing.
Vasquez, V. (2003). What Pokémon can teach us about learning and
literacy. Language Arts, 81, 118–125.
Xu, S. (2004). Teachers’ reading of students’ popular culture texts: The
interplay of students’ interests, teacher knowledge, and literacy
curriculum. In D. Shallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch,
& J. V. Hoffman, (Eds.), Yearbook, 52, 417-431. Chicago:
National Reading Conference.
Note: We thank external evaluators, Drs. Susan Harman and Patrick Harman, for
their quantitative analyses.
This research was supported through grant funding from the South Carolina
Commission on Higher Education and the EIA Teacher Education Centers of Excellence
Grant Program.
90
The Group
The
Individual
91
Collective Study Group
Strategies Shared
New Literacies
Strategies
SHARED
Professional
Development Institute
(August & January)
Set Plan for NL
Strategies
Implementation &
Data Collection
Decide Which
Literacy
Component to
Focus On
Collective Study
Groups in Schools
Documentation of
Implementation
(e.g., Videotaping,
Artifacts, Outsider
Observation)
Implement NL
Plan in Classroom
Discuss Ways to
Change/Improve
Upon The
Strategy And
Revise Plan
Report in
Collective
Study Group
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Appendix A
New Literacies Implementation in Middle Schools
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Appendix B
Pre- and Post-Year 1 Teacher & Student Survey on Definitions
& Uses of Texts and New Literacies
Name: ____________________ School: ___________
Gender: M / F
Your birth month and birth date: _______
Grade(s): _____
Date: __________
How would you answer the following questions?
(There are NO wrong answers)
1. What is "reading"?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
2. What is “writing”?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
3. What is a “text”?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
4. What is “literacy”?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
5. List all the things you read and write at school throughout the day:
READ
WRITE
6. List all the things you read and write outside of school:
READ
WRITE
92
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
7. On Fridays when you’ve got to go to school, how much time do you spend reading and
writing a day, from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep? (circle your
answer)
READING
WRITING
Less than 30 minutes
Less than 30 minutes
30 minutes to 1 hour
30 minutes to 1 hour
1hour to 1½ hours
1hour to 1½ hours
1½ to 2 hours
1½ to 2 hours
2 to 2½ hours
2 to 2½ hours
More than 2½ hours
More than 2½ hours
8. What do your friends read and write?
READ
WRITE
9. How does what your friends read and write connect to what you read and write?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
10. How do you describe yourself as a reader and writer? (circle one)
READER
WRITER
great
great
good
good
not-so-good
not-so-good
poor
poor
93
School: ___________________ Subjects & Grade Levels Taught___________ Date: _________
Percentage
of Time
94
figure out the beliefs and ideologies of the authors of a particular text through
considering what and how ideas are presented in the text.
compare and contrast different perspectives across texts that address the same issue
and think about how one’s beliefs intersect with or deviate from these
perspectives.
consider whose beliefs are represented and underrepresented in a particular text
(e.g., newspaper photograph).
re-write a text to present an alternative idea about government, race, and/or class.
think about audience when reading, writing, speaking, viewing or listening to a text.
compose a text to fit a particular context (e.g., e-mail to a friend vs. a potential
employer).
plan and construct a project with a particular purpose in mind (e.g., convince people
to recycle).
use different spoken language patterns depending on the situation and participants
(e.g. talking with friends while playing sports vs. talking to a media specialist
about a research project).
retell a written, spoken or visual text considering plot, character, setting, movement
through time, and change.
compare the themes of different texts.
use comprehension strategies such as questioning, making corrections, and
determining importance to construct meaning about text.
learn about different cultures through thinking about how they are presented in texts.
recognize and know spelling patterns when reading and writing.
become familiar with conventional sentence structures in reading, writing and
speaking.
be able to figure out the literal meaning of various symbols and gestures.
know the spelling of high frequency words for reading and writing.
I feel confident in my ability to teach middle school students to…
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ability
Unsure
O
Agree
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Disagree
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Actual classroom practice
Agree
Unsure
Disagree
O
O
O
Instructions: Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement on the left by shading in the bubble on the right. There are no right or wrong answers. We are simply interested in
your opinion. Your answers will not be shared with others.
Teacher Name: ______________________
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Appendix C
Teacher New Literacies Confidence Scale
Teachers’ & Students’ Literacy Performance
MGRJ Vol. 3 (3)
Appendix D
Professional Development Institute Evaluation
Check one:
Language Arts Teacher
_______
Social Studies Teacher
_______
Literacy Coach
_______
Administrator
_______
Other
_______
Directions: Evaluate each of the following criteria regarding the New Literacies
August Institute on the following scale:
Please check which school you are from:
Northside Middle School _______
Westview Middle School _______
6- Strongly Agree
3- Somewhat Disagree
5- Agree
2- Disagree
Criteria
1. The New Literacies August Institute was well
organized and facilitators were prepared.
2. Facilitators were knowledgeable about New
Literacies theory, research and pedagogy.
3. Facilitators were effective in presenting New
Literacies material in relevant, meaningful, and
understandable ways.
4. Facilitators were engaging and enthusiastic.
5. Pacing of presentations, activities and discussions
was engaging and effective.
6. Balance between large, medium and small group
structures were engaging and effective.
7. Presentation of New Literacies material encouraged
critical thinking about the teaching and learning of
adolescent students.
8. Materials, handouts and readings aided my
understanding of New Literacies theory and methods
and will help me in implementing New Literacies
pedagogy.
9. I look forward to working with my colleagues in
collective study groups to learn more about New
Literacies pedagogy.
10. I am excited to integrate New Literacies research
and strategies into my teaching.
4- Somewhat Agree
1- Strongly Disagree
6
5
4
3
2
What issues/topics presented at the New Literacies January Institute would you like to
learn more about in collective study group meetings?
What additional issues/topics would you like to learn more about in collective study
group meetings?
What issues/topics would you like to see included in the 2nd New Literacies August
Institute?
What recommendations do you have for future New Literacies January Institutes?
Additional comments:
95
1
Copyright of Middle Grades Research Journal is the property of Missouri State University, Institute for School
Improvement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.