Though I relish coherent working definitions, I agree with Doug Belshaw’s recognition that sometimes a pragmatic approach is necessary to move forward. Time for an application question:

Given the different ways that this discussion has progressed, i.e. from twitter to web meetings, to blogs, should a person who is “21st century literate” be able to gather up, make sense of, and concisely synthesize this discussion, and then move towards informed action?

The web has upset the produce/consumer hierarchy of knowledge and information, and has multiplied our students’ (and our own) access to knowledge, information, opinion, etc. I am beginning to think that (1) there are indeed new literacies required to collaboratively manage and act on this influx, and (2) as a teacher, I do not feel that I have the theoretical framework or tools to understand and teach around this problem. I look forward to reading (the abstract) of your thesis!

I would prefer a broader definition based on how people make sense of and communicate in the world in the 21st century – not one necessarily specific to technology. So I do agree with your comment, “I think it is imperative that we all work together to help better the learning experience for students. If we’re all calling and advocating for different things using the same terms, the result will be to dilute the power of what is most effective.” Hopefully, this discussion will lead to some “collective” understanding of the meaning of literacy in the 21st century.

Kelly-
Yes, this discussion has been extremely challenging for me as well. I was a fifth grade teacher for five years, so I know how very important this is to the elementary level. I’m hoping to reach a point soon where the more the discussion takes place, the more clarity will be established. I think perhaps in the near future, it’s likely more questions will arise than answers, but I’m hopeful that these questions will lead us to answers and a position where we can work as a united team to further the cause of literacy.

ehelfant-
I read your post and it’s as sophisticated and thorough as anything that we have going here, so share that link with pride. I do disagree with you a bit that the notion of literacy is changing as dramatically as many people want us to believe. I think starting at the core of what it takes to communicate effectively (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) will serve as a springboard for students to engage the emerging skills that are developing due to the rapid change technology is facilitating in our society. If we can work from a common foundation, I believe we can be much more effective in getting teachers, students, administrators, and every other constituent group on board to begin to foster true change in our educational system.

Dan-
You knew I was going to disagree with you. I’ll try not to disappoint. I believe this is where it begins, not winds down. If we can formulate this foundation, we can build effectively upward. The definition of literacy is absolutely evolving. Very early in the history of mankind, we communicated through stories and actions. At that point meaning was drawn from communication through speaking and listening. If you could do both well, you were very successful and quite literate. The advent of printed word then forced the evolution of literacy to include reading and writing. Now ideas can be communicated by speaking and writing, and meaning can be drawn by the recipient by listening and reading. Will there be a new form of communication that adds another layer to literacy? Likely, but it will be macro evolution like we saw with printed text. The concept will still remain within it’s given framework (relating entirely to the communication of ideas) that causes us to call it literacy in the first place. Literacy can’t evolve into meaning general proficiency any more than a dog can evolve into a cat. It will most certainly go forward in an entirely organic state of evolution, but again, that evolution will still have to remain within the specified parameters of what makes literacy what it is, or else we will have to establish an entirely new nomenclature for this new concept.

Scott-
Outstanding comment. Some absolute astounding observations and support. Let me ask you this question. Could it be that the way we change how we teach the four main tenets of literacy be the defining focus that changes education rather than trying to change that which makes up literacy itself? What I see in your response is an opportunity for students to engage in the process of learning to be literate in new, dynamic ways. Using VoiceThread, blogging, exploring interrelationships and intercontextuality and the like could potentially vault our students into an entirely deeper ability to engage literacy than we had the opportunity to do when we were students. Imagine if we made that the focus instead of constantly trying to redefine terms that serve to cause confusion for those who are trying to teach our students how to engage. Both of your main points could be the means by which we engage this deeper level of literacy instruction to be sure.

While I’m heartened to see our familiar friends The 4 Pillars (read, write, speak, listen) out front, loud and proud, and I agree that they’re fundamental, it feels like something’s missing. You deserve kudos for critically raising the possibility that the 21st century skills/literacies moniker is slapping a new label on an old concept, and for worrying about the consequences re credibility. But I think there IS something new going on here that goes beyond the Big 4, or at least beyond our traditional understanding of them as the cardinal literacy compass points, and it’s worth our attention.

Some really-really half-baked attempts to extend what I mean:

SYNTHESES & INTERSTICES: Our traditional sense of reading/writing/speaking/listening (at least, of teaching them) tends to isolate them, focusing on each as if it’s a monolithic, stand-alone competency. You read. Tomorrow you write. Next month, during the speech unit, you speak. Might 21st c. literacy be about how they interact and combine and synthesize? About what happens in the spaces between the monoliths, or in the student whose engagement shifts quickly between them, and whose role (reader/writer/speaker/listener) shifts as quickly? I agree with the basic premises of your VT example—it’s useless without core literacy, and it’ll give way to something new before we know it. But I think it’s a good, current example of a “new literacy” experience in the way that it juxtaposes the Big 4, and allows (demands, almost) engagement with all four at once. And, more to the point, it demands attention to their interrelationships and intercontextuality. How, for instance, my thinking about a VT artifact organically changes from first viewing to second as a result of listening to a comment, or how my understanding of a comment changes as a result of composing my own comment. Is it enough to be just readers or writers in isolation? We need to be readers-who-are-also-writers, writers-who-are-also-viewers, and so on. Roles morph and morph again in a recursive process, you can never quite pin down whether you’re a particle or a wave, and suddenly we’re not in Kansas anymore. Writing a blog post may involve all the traditional competencies of writing an essay, but the simple act of linking out to another blog weaves together the reader and writer roles so intimately that we have to treat it as something different.

CONTEXT AND COLLABORATION: That said, I think the changes even go beyond role. Clay mentioned identity management and social reading as possible aspects of 21st c literacy. Instead of the simple person-to-text (text being broadly defined here) relationship I grew up with, where we often raised that silly question about “author’s intent,” students are now faced with a more complex, multimodal scenario. They may be relating to the text, but a link or two later and they very well might find themselves in a relationship with the author, too, not to mention a whole rotating cast of other readers and writers also interested in the same conversation. Communication and expression are no longer a one-off deal, but merge into a larger, possibly-permanent cloud. Mediating and managing your online identity become part of being able to effectively communicate. Being aware of your surroundings and context and audience become very important. It’s a variant of the tree-falls-and-no-one-is-there-to-hear question: If a tree wants to be heard, how and where should it fall to be sure it makes a glorious cacophony? Or if it doesn’t want to make a sound, can it find a place to fall where no one will be listening?

Thanks again for starting some constructive unpacking of the buzz. Hope I haven’t tossed too many loose items back into the suitcase. Looking forward to reading more.

What do you have to say to the idea that the term is just…evolving? And why not let it evolve? I see this debate, and particularly your point of view, as an attempt to pull back the reigns. I say, let it go forward. Which it will, anyway.

The question we might as now is: Do we risk disenfranchising our kids by assuming they will have these basic tenets of literacy? That’s where I see this argument going.

DR