Page 72 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 8(2) (2020)
P. 72
dies conducted in recent years, all literaciesstudia universitatis hereditati, letnik 8 (2020), številka 2 72Palalas 2011; Gaudreau et al. 2013; Kurniawati et
are built on the four traditional literacy skills of al. 2018), Rajeswaran (2019) investigated the use
reading, writing, speaking and listening (Mey-hereditati of mobile phones in academic English teaching,
ers et al. 2013). However, when it comes to lan- to find whether or not teachers are competent
guage education, a much broader definition of and comfortable enough to handle digital devic-
literacy is required nowadays, one that takes said es. The research revealed that many teachers are
changes into account to re-examine how learn- not able to deal with technological challenges
ers, texts, culture and language learning are tra- without proper training. Even where technolog-
ditionally described. In response to the rapidly ical devices are accessible, though, most schools
changing learning contexts, Leu, Kinzer, Coiro are not yet structured in such a way as to make
and Cammack (2004) suggested that the new technology an integral part of the learning pro-
literacies for the 21st century need to include the cess, so that most of the teaching takes place
necessary skills and strategies to successfully through traditional supports, thus underutiliz-
adapt to the ever evolving information and com- ing or ignoring altogether the potential of such
munication technologies, which influence all ar- diverse means. Kress, who is an advocate for mul-
eas of our lives. However, this is not the case yet, timodality, argues that teaching literacy only as
as classroom literacies are still extremely flat and a stable set of linguistic conventions is no longer
usually reduced to print-based resources: Loth- sufficient, in the face of the multiple modalities
erington first describes two-dimensional litera- and communication platforms society offers.
cies as “the static, linear, paper-based reading and
writing agendas of school language and literacy Also, much research focuses on isolated case
curricula and assessment” (Lotherington 2010). studies which experiment with different tools
They undermine the authenticity of the learning and devices and introduce different approaches,
experience and do not stimulate the students’ regardless of the fact that the school system faces
motivation and different learning styles. a very different reality: the ultimate example of
multimodal literacies in the language classroom
Oz, Demirezen and Pourfeiz’ study (2015), still consists of the dual modalities of text and
for example, explored the relationship between image (if the school resorts to the language lab-
language learners’ attitudes toward foreign lan- oratory, it might widen enough to include audio
guage learning and the use of technology in resources) thus excluding the multiple different
their learning environment. They confirmed the modalities that construct meaning, learning and
existence of a positive connection between the understanding in this globalized, digital age. In
two and found that mobile phones and laptops, 2004, Valdés stated that
owned by a significant majority of the partici-
pants (roughly nine out of ten), are usually their the view that there are multiple literacies
preferred tools for foreign language learning. rather than a single literacy, and that these
Similar results were obtained by Öz (2015). Also, literacies depend on the context of the situ-
learners guided by digitally fluent teachers seem ation, the activity itself, the interactions be-
to improve their conceptual skills, achieve bet- tween participants, and the knowledge and
ter results in verbal and non-verbal communica- experiences that these various participants
tion, and increase their problem-solving abilities bring to these interactions, is distant from
(Keengwe & Onchwari 2009). Teachers are of- the view held by most L2 educators who still
ten accused of not implementing ICT and thus embrace a technocratic notion of literacy
failing to acknowledge and engage these new di- and emphasize the development of decon-
mensions of literacy, either because of their age textualized skills (Valdés 2004, 79).
(Raman & Yamat 2014) or lack of training. In-
ternalising previous research (Simjanoska 2017; In the specific learning objectives indicated
by the Italian Ministry of Education (ministeri-
are built on the four traditional literacy skills of al. 2018), Rajeswaran (2019) investigated the use
reading, writing, speaking and listening (Mey-hereditati of mobile phones in academic English teaching,
ers et al. 2013). However, when it comes to lan- to find whether or not teachers are competent
guage education, a much broader definition of and comfortable enough to handle digital devic-
literacy is required nowadays, one that takes said es. The research revealed that many teachers are
changes into account to re-examine how learn- not able to deal with technological challenges
ers, texts, culture and language learning are tra- without proper training. Even where technolog-
ditionally described. In response to the rapidly ical devices are accessible, though, most schools
changing learning contexts, Leu, Kinzer, Coiro are not yet structured in such a way as to make
and Cammack (2004) suggested that the new technology an integral part of the learning pro-
literacies for the 21st century need to include the cess, so that most of the teaching takes place
necessary skills and strategies to successfully through traditional supports, thus underutiliz-
adapt to the ever evolving information and com- ing or ignoring altogether the potential of such
munication technologies, which influence all ar- diverse means. Kress, who is an advocate for mul-
eas of our lives. However, this is not the case yet, timodality, argues that teaching literacy only as
as classroom literacies are still extremely flat and a stable set of linguistic conventions is no longer
usually reduced to print-based resources: Loth- sufficient, in the face of the multiple modalities
erington first describes two-dimensional litera- and communication platforms society offers.
cies as “the static, linear, paper-based reading and
writing agendas of school language and literacy Also, much research focuses on isolated case
curricula and assessment” (Lotherington 2010). studies which experiment with different tools
They undermine the authenticity of the learning and devices and introduce different approaches,
experience and do not stimulate the students’ regardless of the fact that the school system faces
motivation and different learning styles. a very different reality: the ultimate example of
multimodal literacies in the language classroom
Oz, Demirezen and Pourfeiz’ study (2015), still consists of the dual modalities of text and
for example, explored the relationship between image (if the school resorts to the language lab-
language learners’ attitudes toward foreign lan- oratory, it might widen enough to include audio
guage learning and the use of technology in resources) thus excluding the multiple different
their learning environment. They confirmed the modalities that construct meaning, learning and
existence of a positive connection between the understanding in this globalized, digital age. In
two and found that mobile phones and laptops, 2004, Valdés stated that
owned by a significant majority of the partici-
pants (roughly nine out of ten), are usually their the view that there are multiple literacies
preferred tools for foreign language learning. rather than a single literacy, and that these
Similar results were obtained by Öz (2015). Also, literacies depend on the context of the situ-
learners guided by digitally fluent teachers seem ation, the activity itself, the interactions be-
to improve their conceptual skills, achieve bet- tween participants, and the knowledge and
ter results in verbal and non-verbal communica- experiences that these various participants
tion, and increase their problem-solving abilities bring to these interactions, is distant from
(Keengwe & Onchwari 2009). Teachers are of- the view held by most L2 educators who still
ten accused of not implementing ICT and thus embrace a technocratic notion of literacy
failing to acknowledge and engage these new di- and emphasize the development of decon-
mensions of literacy, either because of their age textualized skills (Valdés 2004, 79).
(Raman & Yamat 2014) or lack of training. In-
ternalising previous research (Simjanoska 2017; In the specific learning objectives indicated
by the Italian Ministry of Education (ministeri-
