From Jewitt's reading on the abovementioned, I feel that people are generally familiar with the multimodalness of traditional forms of reading and writing (text and images) on print. Most would be considered literate these days based on just that notion. However, with the advancement in technology, a new configuration of reading is required. Today, we understand that one can only be deemed truly literate should he or she be able to interpret and reproduce an integrated display of text, image, sound and movement on screen. Despite the shift in the definition of one's literate-ness, we can never escape the inherent irony that is engraved in our curriculum's policies and assessments which underscore the linear view of reading yet linguistic view of literacy. There is therefore a mismatch between what the world demands of students and the offer made by the officials.
With regard to the article's focus, while it appears that writing is gradually decentred and reliance of image/visual and other modes over words is increased, the prevalence of it in relation to other modes seem to be a pressing concern when one 'reads' the screen. I found what Jewitt mentioned about the relation of writing to tension and critique rather intriguing and interesting. In my opinion, such design of information gives an opportunity for it to be a stimulus for a fruitful and critical discussion. Additionally, it is especially useful for critical literacy classes that require students to uncover contradictions or underlying agenda perpetuated in such design.
In view of such benefit that the evolvement of reading and literacy offer, the call to rethink about them should be embraced as it prepares our children for the future world. Hence, if I had my way, I would really urge for the reform of assessment methods so that students do realise too, the value of being critical of the writings or generally designs of information they see surrounding them.
No comments:
Post a Comment