EVOL VING NOTIONS OF LITERACY AND THE TEACHING OFENGLISH:

A document analysis of the Secondary English Language Arts Program for Secondary Cycle Two in Quebec.

A thesis submitted to Mc Gill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts

Paul Kettner

Department of Integrated Studies in Education

F aculty of Education

McGill University, Montreal

May 15,2007

© Paul Kettner, 2007

1+1 Libraryand Archives Canada

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada

Published Heritage Branch

Direction du Patrimoine de l'édition

395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada

395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada

NOTICE: The author has granted a non­exclusive license allowing Library and Archives Canada to reproduce, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, communicate to the public by telecommunication or on the Internet, loan, distribute and sell theses worldwide, for commercial or non­commercial purposes, in microform, paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright ownership and moral rights in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

ln compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting forms may have been removed from this thesis.

While these forms may be included in the document page count, their removal does not represent any loss of content from the thesis.

• •• Canada

AVIS:

Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-38456-5 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-38456-5

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, sur support microforme, papier, électronique et/ou autres formats.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Conformément à la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée, quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de cette thèse.

Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.

11

Table of Contents

Contents ...................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgements ......................................................................... v

Abstract ..................................................................................... vi

Résumé ..................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

1.1. Context ................................................................................. 1

1.2. Defining Literacy ..................................................................... 4

1.3. Personal Stance ....................................................................... 8

1.4. The Quebec Education Pro gram .................................................. 10

1.5. Defining the Research Proj ect .................................................... 12

1.6. Methodology ......................................................................... 13

1.7. Potential Problems .................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Introduction ......................................................................... 16

2.2. Literacy as an Evolving Concept ................................................ 17

2.3. The Cognitive Benefits of Literacy ............................................... 19

2.4. Social Theory ....................................................................... 24

2.5. Critical Social Theory and Critical Pedagogy .................................. 28

2.6. New Literacy Theory .............................................................. 31

2.7. New Technology ................................................................... 36

2.8. Computers and Democracy ....................................................... 37

2.9. Conclusion ........................................................................... 41

111

CHAPTER 3. What Would a NLT Curriculum Look Like?

3.1 Finding Common Ground ........................................................ .42

3.2 Social Justice ........................................................................ 43

3.2.1 Criticality .................................................................... 43

3.2.2 Equality of Discourses .................................................... .43

3.3 From Literacy to Literacies ....................................................... .45

3.3.1 Out ofSchool Literacies .................................................. .45

3.3.2 Multiliteracies ............................................................. .46

3.3.3 Multimodal Literacies .................................................... .46

3.4 Depedagogization of Learning .................................................. .47

3.4.1 Anti-positivist view of Knowledge ..................................... .48

3.4.2 Shifting Away from the Canon of Literature .......................... .48

3.5 A Word about the Old Curriculum ............................................... 50

CHAPTER 4. Reading the SELA2 Program

4.1. Introduction .......................................................................... 54

4.2. Levels of Analysis .................................................................. 55

4.3 Central Principles of the QEP ...................................................... 56

4.4 Pro gram Characteristics ............................................................ 56

4.5 Defining Elements of Teaching .................................................... 61

4.6 Literacy ................................................................................ 61

4.7 Texts ................................................................................... 63

IV

4.8 Knowledge ............................................................................ 68

4.9 The Role ofTeachers and Students ................................................ 71

4.10 Evaluation ........................................................................... 73

4.11 Criticality and the Social Tum .................................................... 75

CHAPTER 5. Questions for Further Consideration

5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................... 78

5.2 Questions for Further Consideration ............................................. 81

5.3 Is this a Curriculum? ...................................... , ........................ 83

5.4 What Understandings do Teachers and Parents Give to Literacy? ........... 83

5.5 Expectations ofStudents ........................................................... 84

5.6 Logistics .............................................................................. 85

5.7 Objectives and Outcomes .......................................................... 86

REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 89

v

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my advisor, Anthony Paré, with whom

it has been a privilege to work: for his knowledge, his insight, his precise editing, and his

good humour. I would also like to acknowledge Prof essor Teresa Strong-Wilson,

Professor Kevin McDonough, Prof essor Steve Jordan, and Prof essor Bronwen Low, for

combining interesting, scholarly teaching with a clear commitment to their students. I

have greatly appreciated the discussions, both in and out of classes, as weIl as the

valuable feedback they have provided.

A special thank-you goes to the DISE program coordinator, Dina Bakopanos, for

being so helpful and pleasant, and for having great patience with those of us who have an

aversion to forms, red tape, and procedure.

I also want to thank my partner, Anna, for her continuaI support and encouragement

of my pursuit of graduate studies. And, lastly, I would like to thank my children, Jacob

and Tyya, whose wonderful, curious approach to life makes me want to go further in

everything I do.

VI

Abstract

This study examines how changing notions of literacy are translating to curricula

in the teaching of English. Two tasks are undertaken: the first is to survey the literature

that has infonned the ongoing evolution of the concept literacy with the specifie goal of

highlighting recurring themes in an effort to detennine what a New Literacy curriculum

would look like in practice. The second part ofthis study is a document analysis of the

Secondary English Language Arts (SELA2) Pro gram for Cycle Two students. The

analysis attempts to determine the degree to which the SELA2 document has been

infonned by new theories ofliteracy stemming from social theory, critical theory, and

New Literacy Theory. Special attention is given to the ways in which the document

politicizes the teaching of English, shifting the leaming of literacy from an individual

skill to a social endeavor that has as one of its tenets a societal move toward greater

democracy.

VIl

Resumé

Avec cette étude, nous examinons comment les notions changeantes de la littératie

se retrouvent dans le curriculum de l'enseignement de l'anglais. Deux tâches sont

enterprises: la première est un sondage des écrits qui influencent l'évolution constante du

concept de littératie, ceci ayant pour but précis de souligner les thèmes récurrents afin de

déterminer ce dont aurait l'air en pratique un curriculum basé sur la « New Literacy

Theory ». La seconde partie de l'étude est une analyse des documents du programme

Secondary English Language Arts (SELA2) des élèves du deuxième cycle. Cette analyse

tente de déterminer à quel point les nouvelles théories de littératie ayant comme base la

théorie sociale, la théorie critique et la « New Literacy Theory » ont influencé le

document SELA2. Une attention particulière est attribuée aux façons dont le document

met sur le plan politique l'enseignement de l'anglais en transformant l'apprentissage

d'une habileté individuelle à une enterprise sociale dont l'une des valeurs principales est

un changement de société menant vers une plus démocratisation croissante.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Context

The purpose of this study is to explore the manner in which new theories of

literacy are affecting the teaching of English. 1 am concemed with the process of creating

an educational system that addresses the leaming process and writing habits of young

people, and, equally, about the meanings that we as a society give to the concept of

literacy. But literacy as a subject of study is a slippery target; it has different meanings

and different functions within various discourse groups. That is to say its meaning, or

meanings, have been and continue to evolve. The definitions of literacy that 1 concem

myself with here are, as Harvey Graff (2001) has suggested, the product of an historical

progression of concems that have worked both independently and collectively to define

literacy in ways that are vastly unlike what 1 frequently refer to as more traditional

understandings of the term. By traditional-variously described as alphabetic, technical,

or functionalliteracy-I mean the belief that literacy is essentially a skill, a technical

ability that is seen as a non-biased starting point for the future success of any adult.

While there is a significant body of work that challenges this traditional notion, part of

the difficulty in formulating a new, unified meaning for the concept is that many of the

various facets that make up the general CUITent of opposition are varied or fractured;

those contributing to the discussion are not in agreement as to what ought to be done in

the way of changing it. A great deal has been written in the last several decades thatcalls

into question the traditional, technical version ofliteracy; however, much ofthis

literature is built upon a rejection of the old, and we are only now beginning to see how

the se non-traditional ideas can come together to inform the creation of a new type of

literacy curriculum.

My interest in the area ofliteracy is a product of more than ten years experience

teaching English at the high school level. Over this time, during which l instructed aIl

levels and abilities, l became aware of the diversity of challenges that exist in teaching

English to teenagers. First among these challenges is the difficulty many students have

expressing themselves in writing, both upon entering and in sorne cases exiting high

school. But the other pressing issue that faces teachers is one of engagement; l hear

teachers complain that students are becoming less interested, less involved in their own

leaming and even, sorne teachers feel, in their own futures. No doubt such complaints are

not unique to this particular point in time, but the issue is a serious one. The reality for

many teachers is that much of their energy is consumed in efforts to engage kids and

keep them engaged-to find ways of teaching that are meaningful for students. In many

instances, teachers 1 have worked with express the belief that the problem is not one of

ability at aIl, but one of interest. Students are not finding the work that they are given has

any relation to the worlds in which they live.

These issues are complicated because they involve, on one hand, the teaching of

measurable te~hnical skills, and on the other, a complex set of social and cultural realities

that affect the ways in which different students engage with school. The question of how

schools can best fulfill their mandates-and l acknowledge that there is no small amount

of disagreement about what the mandate of public schools is, or ought to be-often

addresses one or the other of these issues. The more traditional perspective, commonly

associated today with a neo-liberal or conservative stance, is to address the issue of

2

content, to ensure student are given the right material and are adequately tested on it.

Another perspective that has gained momentum in many are as addresses the socio­

political side of the issue by challenging the traditional belief that a standardized,

content-driven curriculum serves aIl students equally. This division is the demarcation

line (a line with varying degrees of clarity) between two opposing fields ofthought about

how schools can be better places of learning. On the one hand there is the belief that the

primary function of schools is to transfer skills and knowledge to students. In opposition

to this stands a collection of theories arguing that schools will only become effective

places of learning that offer aIl students real opportunity when they recognize and

attempt to undermine the role of education as a political institution that has functioned to

select a portion of students for probable success, and, conversely, to also select out those

students who are not able to thrive in the academic environment.

This division, broadly speaking, is the subject ofthis thesis. My purpose is to

examine the attempt in Quebec to make an ideological shift from what I have roughly

described as a content-driven curriculum to a more ideological, socially-inspired mode!.

Specifically, I will be looking at the English Language section for Cycle Two secondary

students (SELA2) of the Quebec Education Plan (QEP) to investigate the manner in

which the document both defines and proposes to teach literacy. Specifically, I seek to

determine how far the authors of the document have gone in adopting the various

elements that comprise new theories ofliteracy, and in applying an ideology that shifts

the teaching of English from a largely individual activity to a politicized curriculum with

a social agenda. 1 will c1arify in advance that it is my contention that the QEP goes quite

far in this regard, and lays out what is arguably a sea change in the educational system of

3

the province, and, moreover, provides us with an early opportunity to examine how such

a project will affect the teaching and leaming ofwriting.

1.2 Defining Literacy

If the change in the English curriculum and pedagogical methods Inherent in the

reform are major, it is because the traditional concept ofliteracy itselfhasundergone a

period of significant evolution. From an educational perspective, this shift is not just

away from the canon, but from the presupposition of what literacy means, both in the

c1assroom and at the socio-culturallevel. The term now means different things to

different people (Kelder, 1996). It is in understanding these changes that the philosophy

underpinning the curriculum reform becomes c1ear. What follows is a brief overview of

sorne of the prevailing ideas and concepts behind this newer understanding of the

concept literacy that 1 hope will serve to clarify the various ways in which the term is

conceived of and used.

Literacy, in its simplest sense, has traditionally been seen as the ability to read and

make sense of a text, and to write effectively in certain forms, "a carefully restricted

project-restricted to formalized, mono-cultural, and rule-govemed forms of language"

(The New London Group, 1996). This view, however, carries with it a great deal of

historical baggage. James Gee (1990) argues that this form of literacy has been used

historically as the basis of "a great divide" between cultures. He explains that societies

that have traditions of oral culture, for example, were seen to be less civilized; in contrast

to this, "literate cultures" were viewed, in the West at any rate, as of a higher order,

"modem, sophisticated, complex" (Gee, 1990). Gee and others (H. Graff, 1987) argue

4

that this notion has finnly embedded itself in the way many people think about literacy,

so much so that it seems, for sorne, common sense. Here, then, is the root of what is

argued to be much more than a cultural divide: it is about control, about relations of

power between cultures and between classes within societies. This traditional concept of

literacy, the child ofWestem European culture, fonned the basis of the education system

which many critics believe continues to allow the replication of these unequal

relationships. Gee refers to the work of Robert Brock in his explanation of this:

The most striking continuity in the history of literacy is the way in which literacy has been used, in age after age, to solidi:fy the social hierarchy, empower elites and ensure that people lower on the hierarchy accept the values, norms and beliefs of the elites, even when it is not in their self­interest (or 'or class interest') to do so. (Gee, 1990, p. 40)

Criticism of this "traditional" understanding of literacy identifies it as a central factor in

the maintenance of social inequity. And, indeed, the literature, both in education and in

social theory, is rife with arguments that stress the power that traditional curricula exert

in maintaining social reproduction. The mechanisms through which this works have been

eXplained by many of the leading figures of social and educational theory. Although it is

not my goal to go into these arguments in detail here, 1 will mention a few of the

influential figures and where they place their concept of literacy in relation to traditional

curricula.

Foucault (1980) describes the existence of subjugated knowledges which "have

been disqualified as inadequate to their task or insufficiently elaborated; naïve

knowledges low down on the hierarchy" (p. 82). Michael Apple (2004), in examining

similar issues through a criticallens, focuses on the concept ofhegemony, which he

suggests functions through the "conscious manipulation" of social structures, education

5

foremost among them. Several key figures speak to the issue of competing ideologies, in

which certain forms of discourse have been, and continue to be, privileged over others

(Foucault, 1980; Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1995; Street & Street, 1991). These are a few of

many figures who have been central in creating a new study ofliteracy. They inc1ude

thinkers who speak to issues at the micro level, such as student disengagement and

unequal performance across cultural, racial and gender lines, and, at the macro level,

inc1uding issues as gr~at as social inequity, and life opportunities.

New concepts of literacy attempt to deal with these issues; they seek not only to

rework the way literacy is conceived of and taught in schools, but, perhaps more

importantly, to endorse a model for social change. James Gee introduced a new vision of

literacy which seeks to undermine the problems 1 have outlined above-problems he sees

as symptomatic of the traditional meaning ofliteracy, what he caUs the "master myth"

(Gee, 1990). He promotes, instead, a view of literacy which will no longer be a selective

pas sport to "the job market," the "market economy," in essence, to success. Gee's

definition "leads us away from reading and writing (literacy as traditionaUy construed),

and even away from language, and towards social relationships and social practices"

(Gee, 1990, p. 49) This view promotes literacies (plural), not literacy, and suggests that

we recognize that school-based learning is one of many secondary discourses in people's

lives: secondary discourses referring to those uses of language that come after the initial

(primary) exposure to language that takes places in the home with family. Central to the

theory is that we learn to see,·appreciate, and utilize the plurality ofprimary discourses,

and to recognize that there are many other secondary discourses which are powerful and

necessary tools of expression without being exclusive.

6

In 1996, Gee joined nine other academics and educational specialists, and drew

up what they refer to as a manifesto, in which they argue for a new methodology for

education. In it they introduce the term multiliteracies, which takes into account cultural

and linguistic diversity and "which focuses on modes of representation much broader

than language alone" (The New London Group, 1996, p. 64). The authors ofthis paper

suggest that reworking curriculum around the idea of multiliteracies would answer many

problems: for example, it will address the need for "new languages" resulting from

technological change; it will provide the opportunity for aIl students to succeed in school

and in life; and it will recognize and give voice to the plurality of cultures and

backgrounds in classrooms, resulting in increased student engagement-admirable goals

indeed. However, the authors ofthis study admit that the greatest challenge will be

creating a curriculum born ofthis methodological framework.

At the theoreticallevel, authors have provided frameworks for pedagogy only.

That is to say, they outline what sorne of the philosophical principles gui ding the creation

of a new pedagogy should be, while acknowledging the challenges of turning it into

actual curricula. Examples ofthese guiding principals are expressed through sorne of the

language 1 have used here. "English" education should no longer be just that; it should be

an education of discourses in which students are able to experience, practice and be

critical ofboth their secondary and primary discourses; it should undermine the traditions

of social control brought about by the narrow view of texts within the canon; it would

allow for dynamic conceptions of literacy in which the meaning of literacy can change

from one context to an6ther; perhaps most importantly, it would function in an

environment ofplurality, where differences of background, knowledge, and discourses

7

are celebrated instead of discouraged (Gee, 1990; Lemke, 1995; Street, 2003; The New

London Group, 1996).

1.3 Personal Stance:

The question of what literacy is, and how best to teach it is, for me, a significant

one. Like any teacher of English working in a school with a diverse population, 1 faced,

on a micro-Ievel, the same problems 1 am now examining at a larger level: simply, how

to teach students to communicate effectively in ways that will best serve them in life. 1

should also disc10se that within our department the understanding of the concept of

literacy, until very recently, has been a very traditional one: we were focused primarily

on teaching students to read and write. We have done this in much the same way it was

done when 1 was in high school, and, most likely, when my parents were in school,

namely, through studying the meanings and ideas found within a selection ofplays and

novels and speaking and writing about them. That is not to say that we have not inc1uded

many other approaches such as music, media literacy, public speaking, and debates, just

to name a few; however, the fact remains that these things have been extras, attached to

the skeletal framework of studying "literature" and writing. As Department Head of

English over the past three years, it has been my job to address the concems about

writing. Our answer to this, which 1 supported at the time, was to introduce changes to

the pro gram in order to allocate more time to basic skills-grammar in particular. It is

also worth noting that the teachers in our department have witnessed sorne improvement

in the basic abilities of our students, although other issues such as apathy and

disengagement continue to be a significant problem.

8

Another avenue that we explored in our atternpts to bring structure and content to

our curriculum was to introduce the Advanced Placement English literature and

composition course at the senior level to those students that were excelling. The

argument in favor of doing this was that we believed introducing a challenging, high­

level course to the pro gram would act as a seed in creating a culture in the school in

which doing well became prestigious, that just working toward a future AP course would

be something students would think about and find motivating. 1 am still not able to say if

this has been the case. Most likely, it has been for sorne students, and has worked to the

opposite effect for others. Our responses to the problems that we were experiencing in

terms of student writing and motivation were c1early very traditional. Literature remained

the core element of our English pro gram with various other elements such as media

literacy, dramatic productions, and personal writing orbiting around it.

1 understand that my experience, as it is briefly outlined here, gives the

impression that 1 am firmly rooted in a conservative and traditional curriculum. This is

not entirely true. 1 acknowledge that 1 like much of the canon of literature very much; 1

find that as a window into the human condition there is a great deal to work with, and 1

feel that abandoning these texts is something that should be examined carefully before it

is undertaken. That said, my interest in exploring how a much more radical solution

might be designed is genuine. 1 value the power of "new literacy studies," both in terms

of its agenda, and as a tool for shaping our understanding of what is happening in

schools. 1 accept that education in its traditional form can act as a powerful tool of social

reproduction, favoring students who arrive with the right social capital. Moreover, 1

9

recognize that students are growing up in a very different world, and the reality of their

experiences is making school, for many young people, more and more meaningless.

From a pedagogical perspective, however, 1 am undecided. 1 don't pretend to

know what methodology of approach will best work to solve the many problems students

are facing. There is, 1 believe, a significant challenge ahead in attempting to apply new

literacy theories to curriculum. What meanings will teachers who implement the new

curriculum give to the concept of literacy? Will a shift to new visions of what literacy

means come with costs in other areas? Are the classrooms in Quebec set up in ways that

will allow the implementation of these new pedagogies? The Quebec education reform

address these issues from a very progressive stance, and, now that we are seeing the first

group of "reform" kids reaching high school, it is the ideal time to look c10sely at how

this new curriculum and pedagogical philosophy are working.

1 will give a short overview here of both the theoretical foundation upon which

the reform is based, and an idea of what sorne of the principal tenets of the reform are. 1

will then outline my research question, methodology and highlight what 1 see as sorne

possible problems that need to be addressed in designing the study.

1.4 The Quebec Education Program

As 1 have c1arified above, it is my belief that English language curriculum in

Quebec attempts to create a pro gram that is principally informed by new concepts of

literacy. Indeed, in the introduction to the Secondary English Language Arts Program

(Quebec, 2006), the authors state that "[SELA2] is first and foremost a literacy pro gram

that has an important role to play in teaching the humanistic values and beliefs of our

10

culture (Quebec, 2004). In their introduction, the authors de scribe literacy in both

functional and political terms using the writings of Paulo Freire: "This pro gram is

centred in the connection between the learner' s world and the social purposes that are

served by language, discourse and texts .... and [it is] a medium that makes active

participation in democratic life and a pluralistic culture possible." There is a c1ear

departure from the traditional concept of literacy and language instruction here. The

reform instead lays out a program "grounded in language, discourse and texts." "Texts"

no longer refers, as it did in the traditional sense, to a selection of canonical books;

rather, it states that a text is "the product of a process of production and interpretation of

meaning(s) expressed in spoken and/or written and/or media discourse" (Quebec, 2004,

p. 84). Fundamental to the working ofthis new pedagogy-I use the term pedagogy here

because it is a curriculum grounded in practice, not content-is the central place of the

student. Within the new English language c1assroom, students should be active in

"negotiating the curriculum" with the teacher, they should be able to access "texts" that

"cultivate and support herlhis interests, passions and literacy development." The

recognition of personal histories, cultures and discourses is central to this reformation of

the c1assroom.

This methodology replaces standardized course content and testing with

"competencies" that are interdependent "non-hierarchical and non-chronological"

(Quebec, 2006, p. 10). These competencies inc1ude: using language/talk to communicate

and leam; representing literacy in different media; reading and listening to written,

spoken and media texts; writing a variety of genres for personal and social purposes.

Focusing on competencies instead of a formaI content syllabus seeks to build flexibility

11

into the curriculum, to allow students to develop according to their own leaming styles,

at their own rate. At a broader level, the cross-curricular competencies are part of a plan

that works toward general goals, framed within five "Broad Areas of Leaming": these are

health and well being, personal and career planning, environmental awareness and

consumer rights and responsibilities, media literacy, and citizenship and community life

(Quebec, 2004, p. 21). Ideally, these areas ofleaming, along with the competencies,

become the responsibility of all members of the school community. The objectives in

making this shift are to make leaming more meaningful, to connect it to issues the

students experience in their lives, but also to acknowledge that leaming is important on

both an individual and sociallevel.

1.5 Definition of the projectlresearch question:

It is my intent here to focus on one central issue: In what ways have new

theories of literacy informed the writing of the new English curriculum in Quebec?

To this end, the purpose ofthis thesis is to undertake a close reading of the English

Language Arts portion of the Quebec Education Plan to ascertain how New Literacy

Theory, as well as the social theory that is part ofits history, has become formalized in a

curriculum designed for a large and diverse population.

Related questions will include:

• How does the document define literacy?

• How is this definition manifest in the SELA2 document?

• How might this affect the use of print materials for reading and writing?

• How are power relationships in classrooms envisioned in this document?

12

• How does this curriculum propose to affect the central elements of an English

c1assroom: use of texts, study of literature, role of teachers and students,

approach to knowledge, evaluation?

1.6 Methodology and Methods

l have two sources of research that will inform this study: the first is the body of

literature that has contributed to evolving notions of literacy; the second is the Quebec

Education Plan, and, specificaIly, the SELA2 document. My goal is to examine the

curriculum under the light of a theoretical reading in order to see how c10sely it attempts

to follow the tenets of New Literacy Theory. One difficulty in this respect, however, is

that there is not a great deal of specificity in the literature describing the common ground

among theorists. This, then, represents the first half of my task: l attempt, in reviewing

the literature around the topic of literacy, to isolate what appear to be the most significant

areas of agreement between the various voices that have contributed to the dialogue. In

doing this l identify several commonalities between social theory, critical theory, and

New Literacy Theory, aIl ofwhich speak to what a new literacy curriculum should look

like.

My second task is to apply the criteria that l have identified to the SELA2

segment of the Quebec Education Plan in the hope of determining the degree to which it

is informed by new, politicized ideas ofliteracy. To do this, l isolate several central

elements of teaching-how knowledge is viewed, the role of teachers and students, the

place oftexts and writing, the overall objectives, and evaluation-and examine the

13

language in the reform to determine how closely linked these elements are to the

centrally agreed upon areas in the literature.

In my first reading of the document l attempt to isolate the central, recurring

themes, to recognize common key words, and to clarify the general direction of the

reform. In my next reading, l consider more specifically how these themes are being

translated into classroom activity. l highlight those sections of the document that speak

specifically to practice with a view to understanding how the general ideology is

intended to affect student activity. In my third reading l categorize these directives into

the set of categories l am using as examples, what l have termed elements of teaching, in

order to shed sorne light on how the document is intended to affect specific teaching

practices in the classroom.

1. 7 Potential Problems and Validity

There are two issues around validity that concem me. The first is that my reading

of the reform is a personal interpretation. l am looking for links between theory and the

manner in which that theory is being used. l will, by necessity, need to select specific

sections in support of my argument. This means, too, that l will not be selecting the

majority ofthe text, which may, by varying degrees, qualify the force of the passages that

l do select. A corollary to this is that the authors of the document have naturally

imagined the necessity of creating a balance between what a strict theoretical

interpretation might be like, and the need to recognize what teachers are doing in classes

on a day-to-day basis. The language of the document, then, will naturally be tempered

with a degree offamiliarity to those who are readingit. For example, a complete

abandonment of traditional, canonical texts would be a massive step for both teachers

14

and parents to accept outright, and so the authors may need to temper their discussion in

certain areas. My task in this regard is to look for generalities in the type of language that

is used, to identify trends and concepts that are pervasive throughout the document rather

than focus on isolated statements.

Another risk in the reading of the curriculum is to make the assumption that

because it is an official curriculum, and because teachers are being told to adopt the

practices it outlines, that it is or will be done. This is a faulty assumption on several

levels: first, it implies teachers understand and accept the tenets of the reform, and that

they feel capable of enacting them. Second, it suggests that the people charged with

making sure the reform is transferred effectively to schools have the resources to enact

the changes that the authors envisioned. Many of the changes the document describes

involve a significant degree of resources in terms of, for example, teacher ability, time,

space, and technology.

In order to address this 1 divide my reading of the reform from the

implementation of it. In my document description and analysis, 1 am not in any way

critical; 1 only seek to understand what it is the curriculum is trying to do. In the fifth

chapter, in which 1 present my conclusions, 1 also highlight sorne of the questions that

arise in this regard and suggest the are as that 1 feel will pose the greatest challenges to

implementation.

15

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

ln this chapter, the literature pertaining specifically to new theories of literacy and

to those writings that have led up to and influenced these theories is examined. My focus

throughout remains the politicization of English-those visions of the subject English

that seek to merge the teaching of language with a social project aimed at democratizing

education. New theories of literacy have developed over time; they are the product of a

progression that draws from a wide range of social science disciplines: elements of

cognitive psychology and anthropology, as well as social, political, and educational

theory have contributed to this new understanding. It is worth noting, too, that the

increasing visibility and experimentation with new ways of teaching literacy is also a

product oftechnological change: new technologies, with their vast potential to alter

communication, coupled perhaps with a general readiness in sorne spheres to challenge

tradition, have provided a moment in time where many people feel change is possible.

An inquiry into the influences and intent of the Quebec Education Plan, then, needs to

move beyond the scope of New Literacy theory alone, and examine as well the writings

that have preceded and influenced these new notions.

As 1 am particularly interested, in this chapter, in the work that has informed

changes to the notion of literacy; the literature 1 have selected for review is a cross­

section of work that has played a role in the on-going evolution of a redefined literacy,

one that has shifted away from a traditional notion. To avoid any confusion, 1 want to

clarify what 1 mean when 1 speak of literacy in various ways. As 1 clarified in my

introduction, 1 will refer throughout to those views of literacy that are associated with

16

more eonservative views of curriculum, for example, those that focus on reading, writing,

. and literature, or the beliefthat there is a direct, unbiased, measurable benefit, cognitive

or social, in teaching the skills ofreading and writing, as the traditional view ofliteracy.

l also refer frequently to literacies, multiliteracies, or new visions of literacy: the use of

these terms refers to what l describe as new notions ofliteracy.

In order to clarify the development of ideas in these areas, l include several

sections in my literature review that help to, clarify the CUITent variations in the meanings

of literacy, or that correspond generally with fields that have informed the ongoing

dialogue around this topie: these include 1.Literacy as an evolving topic; 2. Literacy and

Cognition 2; Social and Critical Theory; 3. New Literacy Theory; 4. Literacy and new

Technology.

2.2 Literacy as an evolving concept

The politicization of English is the result of many challenges to notions that are

still prevalent today: namely, the beliefthat literacy is largely apolitical, and that it is

something that can and should be taught to everyone. When we speak of literacy, we

need to make explicit that it is an evolving term; it means different things to different

people (Kelder, 1996, p. 63). Common usage of the term, largely finding its roots prior to

1970 (C. a. M. K. Lankshear, 2003), came to represent a set of basic skills-reading and

writing at a functionallevel-that could be taught to anyone, and without which a

pers on, or entire groups of people, would be marginalized in many ways. Simply put,

they would have little chance of social or economic success. In this sense, what l am now

referring to as a more traditional view of literacy came to be seen, somewhat

17

benevolently perhaps, as emancipatory, a ticket of sorts out of poverty or social exclusion

that can be given by one group to another (Street, 1992). Although literacy in this sense

is believed to have the power to liberate, it has not been viewed as economically or

socially biased; the argument is that anyone can do it (Hull & Schultz, 2001). This view,

or sorne version of it, continues to be prevalent for rnany people (Street & Street, 1991).

It is cornrnon, then, that in the education community, particularly among non­

acadernics-teachers, parents, politicians-that when we speak ofliteracy, the cornrnon

usage continues to refer to the ability to read and write. Not surprisingly, when teachers

have thought about teaching literacy for the past several decades, their tirst concem has

been to rnake students literate, not according to newer concepts of the terrn, but sirnply

able to read and write in the appropriate and traditional genres. Sorne even suggested that

this perceived division-seen as a gulf between those who are literate and those who are

not-is as old as print itself. We are accustorned to our tripartite division of the world,

one that separates all history, generally, into three categories divided tirst by the use of

language, and then by writing (J. Goody & Watt, 1968); or, that with the invention of the

printing press and the proliferation of books, the division between the world of adults and

the world of children was established by the ability to read (Postrnan, 1982). Postrnan

argues that as long as there has been print, there has been the notion of the "literate man":

"From print onward, adulthood had to be eamed" (p. 36). Although Postrnan was

discussing childhood here, not literacy, his point is useful. The notion that one is not

even fully adult without the ability to read, to write weIl, to speak with a particular

vocabulary, to appreciate works oftiction, are identifying traits connected to intelligence

and worth.

18

The movement away from these traditional, and in many ways normative, notions

is the result of a network of associated research that has approached the issue from a

variety of perspectives over a period of decades: it is at once a cognitive question, a

socio-political issue, and a topic for educational theory and practice.

2.3 Literacy and Cognition

A central, underlying question in the debate around literacy, in both the

traditional and newer senses, asks what the benefits of literacy are in life beyond the

classroom. That is to say, on the simplest oflevels, for example, do es leaming how to

read and write result in a qualitative transformation in the way people think or how they

live their life. Does literacy affect cognition--does it make us smarter? Challenges to this

claim go as far back as Plato (J. Goody & Watt, 1968); yet, it is worth pointing out that

the discussion in this area might often be a confusion between the way in which leaming

how to write affects individuals, and the effect upon society as a whole as literacy

becomes widespread. That is to say, as Postman (1982) points out, once literacy was

widely accessible, to not be literate became an individual failure: society had adjusted to

the new technology and now it was up to the individual to adjust. There are studies that

suggest a cognitive shift among those that leam how to write (J. Goody, 1977; Ong,

1986), but these changes are most easily measured in terms of using lists or other signs to

memorize, or seen in terms of separation between a thought and the representation of that

thought, the knower from the known (Ong, 1986). That a change in ability exists is clear;

what is less clear, and what is, in part, at the root of my current concem, is that our

evaluation of this change is one which favors certain social constructions. That is, in

suggesting that writing has advanced cognitive processes to a higher level, we are

19

necessarily accepting that the kind of cultures that value the processes this develops are a

higher, more valuable kind of culture. This issue is not easily reconciled: there can be no

doubt that, with the spread ofliteracy, society underwent a massive shift (J. Goody,

1968a; J. Goody & Watt, 1968; Havelock, 1982); however, it is worth noting that even

Goody and Watt recognized the complexity in assuming a value judgment.

Nevertheless, although we must reject any dichotomy based upon the assumption of radical difference between the mental attributes of literate and non-literate people s, and accept the view that previous formulations of the distinction were based on faulty premises and inadequate evidence, there may still exist a general difference between literate and non-literate societies. (J. Goody & Watt, 1968, p. 44)

Goody's collection (1968b) of essays centered on the ways writing affected cultures that had

relatively little exposure to literacy, and found the effect was profound. But, what is also

interesting, given that the collection was publish in 1968 when literacy in general was

viewed as a technical skill, is that in several places, the collection notes the disjuncture

between oral and written cultures, between those groups whose traditions were more at odds

with literate cultures and those groups whose traditions were a better fit.

We may welllay a major part of the blame on the gap between the public literate tradition of the school and the very different and indeed often directly contradictory private oral traditions of the pupil's family and peer group. The high degree of differentiation in exposure to the literate tradition sets up a basic division which cannot exist in non-literate society: the division between the various shades of literacy and illiteracy (p. 59).

While their concem was with regard to how literacy affected culture, other

researchers have posed slightly different questions. L.S. Vygotsky (1978) undertook

an extended study in central Asia to examine, in part, this issue, combined with the

beliefthat cognitive change is connected to cultural change. Vygotsky's writing is of

particular interest because it can be used both as a support for the longstanding belief

that there is a direct cognitive relationship between writing and thought, and also,

20

somewhat ironicaUy, for more recent work undermining the preeminence of school­

based literacy. That is to say that his work informs both the traditional view of

literacy and aU it implies in terms of curriculum, and newer notions of learning and

literacy that are at odds with traditional views.

Vygotsky argued that writing is one among several sign systems that people use

to structure ideas. He concluded that psychological processes would change as a result of

a change in culture; thinking would be altered by changes in lifestyle and education. He

studied this theory in the 1930s with Alexander Luria (1976) in central Asia, an area that

was undergoing widespread cultural reforms

In effect, the belief created by associating literacy with cognition is that a person

is viewed as incomplete or childish without the ability to read and write; it creates a clear

hierarchy which places those who can read and write above those who cannot. This view,

however, presupposes that leaming how to read and write is a technical skill, something

that can be taught apart from culture, ethnicity, or class. This is a significant assumption.

If we accept that reading and writing are a technical, cognitive task, equally accessible to

everyone, then other conclusions are possible: one is that the problem can be ameliorated

by giving-teaching-literacy to those people who don't have it; another conclusion

might be to place the blame for not being able to read and write on an individual or group

rather than on institutions or societies. It is worth pointing out, too, that in the West,

where these skills are ostensibly taught on a universallevel, that to be "literate" has the

added tequirement of possessing knowledge of the canon of literature. And, while the

concept of literacy has been evolving in many respects, it has by no means supplanted

this view in aIl areas. One interesting perspective in this ongoing debate, which now has

21

a considerable following in the United States, is based around the concept of "cultural

literacy" (Hirsch, 1987), proposing that the problem of po or reading and writing skills

exists because the education system no longer focuses on basic, necessary knowledge.

Much of what Hirsch is arguing is based upon what he suggests is a general decline in

the levels of written and spoken literacy amongst Americans. But he believes this is not

because students entering school have a great deal of difficulty learning how to read the

words on a page; it is because they don't have enough background knowledge to make

sense of or understand what they read: the words only take on real meaning when the

reader has sorne of the same common knowledge as the author of the text.

The challenge, to both these traditional conceptions of literacy and to the

perceived benefits offered it offers, has been an on-going, collective dialogue, a sort of

web of critique from various camps. 1 will mention here only a few names that were

paramount in challenging these traditional views and in laying the groundwork for new

ways ofunderstanding the place and effects ofliteracy. Much ofthis early work was

done in the area of cognitive psychology, anthropology, and social theory.

The ethnographic work of Scribner and Cole (1981) with the Vai people of

Liberia represents a notable turning point in the dialogue linking literacy to cognitive

ability. This prolonged study, which was the first of its kind (Hull & Schultz, 2001;

Marks Greenfield, 1983), was able to take advantage of the unique opportunity offered

by the Vai people. This group was distinct in that they had developed there own writing

system, a unique literacy that was further distinguished by the fact that it was learned

outside the school system. Sorne Vai children also learned English in government-run

schools, and others attended early-moming Arabie classes in their communities. This

22

made it possible for the researchers to do what other studies had not been able to achieve:

to compare literate and non-literate groups of equal age in a society that did not attribute

notable status to school-based learning, and by doing so to isolate the cognitive benefits

of literacy without the weight of any stigma in a culture where it was common either to

attend or not attend school. This meant that Scribner and Cole could isolate and test for

the effects ofliteracy on specific cognitive skills such as memory, logic, and, in

particular, the ability to think abstractly. The most significant result ofthis study, in stark

contrast to earlier work, and to expectations, was finding that there was no significant

difference in cognitive abilities between the literate and illiterate groups. While there was

sorne improvement attached to literacy in the area of verbal explanations and in the

ability to provide details when giving instructions, these skills had a higher correlation to

schooling than they did to literacy. The significance ofthis to the notion ofliteracy as a

dividing line in the intellectual capacities of people was massive: it questioned the

fundamental, widely-accepted belief that literacy improves cognition. It suggested

instead that researchers were conflating cognitive ability and socialization through

education.

Shirley Brice Heath's (1981) prolonged, comparative study ofthree small

communities in the South-Eastern United States revealed the powerful connection

between a person's socialization through class, community, and culture and the

relationship they develop with various forms and uses of language. Her study

meticulously documented all aspects of the social community within a working-class,

white community; a working-class, black community; and a racially-mixed, middle-class

community, all in close proximity to each other. The findings revealed the vastly

23

different ways in which each group used both written and spoken language in their lives.

The working-class black group, for example, while having sorne aspects of print

incorporated into their lives, largely within non-academic, social settings such as during

church services, did not tend to read to their children or to collect reading material in the

home. The working-class white community, which seemed to place more outward

importance on print, through activities such as reading to children and acquiring sorne

reading materials in the home, tended to use written language in functional ways such as

keeping in touch with distant family members or sending notes to teachers. The adults

did not tend to read for pleasure. It was within the middle-class neighborhood that

written communication was most entwined in aH aspects of life from a very early age.

Not surprisingly, it was only the children of middle-class families that achieved any real

success in schools, which, Heath argued, used language in ways similar to that

community. The great significance ofthis study was to demonstrate the degree to which

schools and teachers were using (and expecting their students to use) very particular

forms of spoken and written language, a forms that to varying degrees was far less

meaningful to students who were socialized to use language in other ways.

2.4 Social Theory

In this section 1 identify a few figures that have been central in defining the content

and direction of the debate around the role of education as a tool for maintaining, or

undermining, the power relationships between different classes and cultures in society.

Paulo Freire outlines, in The Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), what is, in many

ways, a blueprint for the tenor of the attack launched by critical social theory on the

institution of education. His argument centers on the belief that there is an unequal power

24

relation inherent in educational institutions that mirrors inequality within the greater

society. The relationship is one of "oppression" in which the oppressed are domesticated,

they are subjects of-and unwitting actors in maintaining-their own oppression. The

tragedy of this, he argues, is that both the oppressed and the oppressors are dehumanized

in the process as students adopt the beliefs and accept the hierarchical separation they

experience as normal: the oppressed "find in their oppressors their model of manhood"

(Freire, 1970, p. 31). In this "banking style of education," in which students are merely

receptacles who "know nothing," and are given knowledge as a gift, the oppressors, too,

are unwitting players:

Well intentioned professionals (those who use "invasion" not as deliberate ideology but as the expression oftheir own upbringing) eventually discover that certain of their educational failures must be ascribed, not to the intrinsic inferiority of the "simple men ofthe people," but to the violence oftheir own act of invasion. (p. 154)

Liberation, Freire argues, cornes from reflection, praxis and action: to be successful, the

oppressed cannot be told what to do-they must be involved in the process, they must

become active players in their own education and emancipation (p.120). Freire's

contribution to the discussion around literacy and the teaching of English is one that

speaks to many aspects of the issue: to the structure and organization of classrooms; to

challenging the hierarchical social status of teachers, prof essors, and students; in essence,

to a system that uncritically accepts the value of a particular set of truths, and in doing so,

denies the experiences and voice of those who are oppressed: Those who have been

denied their "primordial right to speak their word must first reclaim this right and prevent

the continuation of this dehumanizing aggression" (p. 77).

25

Similarly, the work of Pierre Bourdieu (e.g.,Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) introduces

several concepts that have influenced current debate around the function of education in

maintaining inequality and social injustice. Like Freire, Bourdieu argues that the institution

of education plays a central role in cultural reproduction, and that teachers are the "unwitting

office holders" in the process ofreplication. Teachers are separated in the hierarchy both

culturally, as actors in a system of elitism, and in the logistical set-up within classrooms

where they are separated through physical space and through pedagogical practices that

elevate the importance of their opinions. He adds to this the concept of cultural capital,

which refers to a combination of person's social status, accumulated education and cultural

knowledge, all ofwhich grant social advantage and opportunity. Bourdieu used this concept

to explain educational "survival rates" of university students in France, but it applies equally

well to almost any educational or social setting from preschool to career-life where cultural

knowledge and education allow one to survive an ongoing filtering process. They argues

that, although it is not possible to predict success according to any one characteristic of a

person, "It follows logically that the educational mortality rate can only increase as one

moves towards the classes most distant from scholarly language" (p. 72). There is, then,

reciprocity between those who transmit information and those who are deemed worthy to

receive it.

The mere fact of transmitting a message within a relation of pedagogie communication implies and imposes a social definition (and the more institutionalized the relation, the more explicit and codified the definition) ofwhat merits transmission, the code in which the message is to be transmitted, the persons entitled to transmit it or, better, impose its reception, the persons worthy of receiving it and consequently obliged to receive it and, finally, the mode of imposition· and inculcation of the message which conf ers on the information transmitted its legitimacy and thereby its full meaning. (p. 109)

26

The argument paints an ironical portrait of the function of education in which, while

schooling purports to teach students to think critically, it in fact does the opposite.

Moreover, it justifies its own practices by selecting those students who are advanced in

the selective knowledge being taught; that is, education is a systemthat specifically tests

those kinds ofknowledge that reaffirm its own selective process; it is "confirmed

because it produces what confirms it" (p. 132).

Bourdieu's writings have enormous impact on the discussion of the various

meanings ofliteracy, and on the social significance ofwhat we choose to teach. Our

relationship to language, and the way we use language, is a powerful indicator of social

c1ass and education. Logically, ifwe offer a curriculum that elevates the status of certain

uses of language, then it follows we are choosing to favor a particular group of students.

Michel Foucault (1980) ties together the concepts of knowledge and power in

explaining how institutions like education are agents of subjugation. Foucault argues that

the decisions as to what constitutes knowledge have been largely arbitrary, that there

exists "a whole set ofknowledges that have been disqualified as inadequate to their task

or insufficiently elaborated: naive knowledges, located low down on the hierarchy,

beneath the required level of cognition or scientificity" (p. 82). Inc1uded in this are those

local, popular, less scientific bodies ofknowledge, often inc1uding historical knowledge,

"which were present but disguised within the body of functionalist and systematizing

theory" (p. 82). For Foucault, power functions through a network of organizations that

function to pro duce an "on-going subjugation" in which we become so immersed that our

thoughts, gestures, and behaviours, are affected. Power, he argues, is expressed through

specifie discourses, that are produced by, and produce, truth. And it is truth that govems

27

discourse, law, and partially determines power. "In the end, we are judged, condemned,

classified, determined in our undertakings, destined to a certain mode of living or dying,

as a function of the true discourses which are the bearers of the specific effects of power"

(p. 94).

Foucault's contribution to the direction of educational research has been to

challenge the notion that individuals are free to determine their own "form" (Olsen,

1999); we are, instead, subject to the "dominant modes of culture." The central challenge

here, for Foucault, along with Freire and Bourdieu, is to suggest the falsehood of

education as an institution that can, as its primary function, foster the growth of

individuals. Individual subjects are no longer seen as just that: schooling becomes a

conditioning process, a central player in maintaining an unequal relationship of power, in

the replication of the social order that produced it.

2.5 Critical Social Theory and Critical Pedagogy

Critical theory and its offshoot critical pedagogy are central strands of social

theory in terms oftheir influence on New Literacy Theory and pedagogy. Indeed, that

part ofNLT that is directed specifically at social equality and challenging the

institutional framework of education borrows much of its rhetoric from critical theory

directly. However, where NLT concems itselfwith all aspects ofliteracy and leaming­

meanings of literacy, situated literacies, mutltiliteracies, multimodalities, new

technologies--critical theory is specifically concemed with the struggle between social

classes and in explaining the mechanisms through which this struggle, this inequity, is

supported. Of equal importance, however, is that criticalliteracy, and critical pedagogy

28

in particular, propose ways in which those who are marginalized can become active

participants in the discourse of literacy and in altering the nature of the social fabric that

reinforces inequity (Freebody, Muspratt, & Dwyer, 2001).

The work of Paulo Freire (1970; 1973), already referred to above, has been

central in mol ding critical theory into critical pedagogy. Freire is worth referring to a

second time for two reasons: the tirst is that he has been central in forming the link

between theory and pedagogy. Several ideas that have become the currency of the

"cultural current" (Graff, 2001), ofwhich criticalliteracy is a part, spring from Freire's

work in Brazil. Freire argues that overly-simplitied methods of teaching literacy are a

factor in creating a skewed world view, one that ties reading to self-respect, prestige,

work. He argues that, in reality, these conclusions "cannot be born out" (1973, p. 618).

He then begins to outline in sorne detail how an adult, second language literacy program

can be created that takes into account the life experience, the knowledge, the histories of

the people being taught. It is, he argues, about working towards democracy.

The other reason that 1 mention this more recent work of Freire is that he

highlights something that is central to the implementation of any new curriculum,

including the one in Quebec. In his discussion of his work in Brazil, Freire points out that

the challenge is not in prescribing what it is that teachers should do; rather, he says the

problem lies in changing attitudes. That is to say that it may be far easier to create a

democratically-minded, politicized English curriculum than to alter the long-standing,

traditional notions held by the various players. This is important in understanding

Freire's influence in formulating change, and in understanding his cautionary tone

regarding the challenges of making it work.

29

Where Freire's work highlights the existence ofinequality, the mechanisms

through which this inequality is maintained is elaborated upon by others as weIl. Antonio

Gramsci's used the concept of hegemony (Mayo, 1999) to describe a condition in which

aH aspects of society are dominated by one particular class. Mayo explains Gramsci' s

notion ofhegemony, arguing that Gramsci saw power residing in "aU aspects of social

reality" (p.35) including religious institutions, law, media, education. The concept of

social hegemony is extremely powerful insofar as it provides a plausible explanation for

the acceptance of inequality, for "the winning of consent." In other words, according to

Gramsci, no institution is neutral; instead "they serve to cement the existing hegemony,

and are therefore tied to the interests of the most powerful social groups, especially the

bourgeoisie" (Mayo, 1999, p. 36). But, equally important to note, is that Gramsci did not

think hegemony was fixed or unchangeable. Mayo suggests instead that he saw it as a

dynamic, changing reality. As such, there are moments when it undergoes a crisis, and it

is at these moments that there is room for counter-hegemonic actions.

The concept of hegemony is also taken up by Michael Apple (2004), who

effectively ties together many ofthe ideas of social and critical theory. Apple's work

underlines the subtlety and complexity that function to normalize a specifie social order.

This theoretical view suggests that the structural formation of society, and the ways in

which this formation is reproduced, occurs in part by "conscious manipulation" of

structures (Apple, 2004): in the case of education, the choice of content, the style of

pedagogy, the process oftesting are all examples ofhow structures can be consciously

manipulated to achieve a specifie goal, and aB ofthese are worth examining. Apple's

suggestion, however, is that the essential process is far more subtle and complex:

30

Thus, the cultural sphere is not a "mere reflection" of economic practices. Instead, the influence, the "reflection" or detennination, is highly mediated by forms ofhuman action. It is mediated by the specifie activities, contradictions, and relationships among real men and women like ourselves-as they go about their day-to-day lives in the institutions which organize these lives. (Apple, 2004, p. 4)

What makes this a powerful tool of critical analysis is the recognition that it takes more

than a conservative agenda to create a prolonged, sustainable hierarchy in society. From

the critical perspective, coercion and force are not needed for the cultural reproduction

that allows a hegemonic division of society: once the structures are in place it becomes

self-regulating. Apple borrows from Gramsci, explaining that our acceptance of social

order is rendered through making it "common sense" to us. Undennining, then, takes

thought.

2.6 New Literacy Theory

New Literacy Theory might be seen as the amalgamation ofmuch of the work that

has been done in the areas of anthropology, cognitive theory, and critical social theory

that has focused on learning in general, and on the place ofliteracy specifically. New

Literacy Theory has taken the traditional view, one that is essentially a psychological

view about cognitive abilities, and reframed it in social and political tenns (C. a. M. K.

Lankshear, 2003). James Gee (1990), a central figure in New Literacy Studies, attacks

the traditional view in describing what he calls the "Literacy Myth." This concept,

building upon the work of several important figures in social theory (Foucault, Freire,

Bourdieu), as weU as that of Graff (1987; 2001), who has explored in-depth what he caUs

literacy myths, turns a decades-old vision ofliteracy on its head, arguing that education's

central focus on literacy, and the pedagogy through which this was achieved, has not

31

worked to liberate; it has worked instead to the opposite effect. New Literacy theorists

would argue that it is hard for those of us who have grown up immersed in a traditional

system to see it for what it is: a structure that elevates the importance of the written word

to the highest level, in which "a narrow image of culturally learned skills is rewarded"

(Gee, 1990, p. 29). It is a program, Gee suggests, that molds people to fit a specific social

group. Of course, people who are from this social group to begin with will thrive in such

a system; those who are not are far less likely to be rewarded.

Gee frames his argument in terms of "discourses" rather than in the notion of

literacy, arguing that discourses are "ways ofbehaving, interacting, valuing ... theyare

always and everywhere social" (Gee, 1990, p. xix) We are witnessing what he suggests is

a "crisis of social justice" in which certain discourses are privileged within the goveming

ideology, both in terms of our socio-economic hierarchy, and by institutions such as

schools, in which a "narrow range" of skills is rewarded. Gee's writing poses several

challenges, and has been central in framing the language and direction of New Literacy

Theory. His questions are both worrying in their portrait of the society we have built, and

positive in their challenge for change: "It cornes down in the end to what view of human

beings we want to adopt ... and what visions we want to adopt of possible future social

realities" (Gee, 1990, p. 10). An important corollary of the literacy myth is that ifwe

accept the notion that literacy (in the traditional sense here) is both good and teachable,

then we must also accept its inversion. Allan Luke (1988) argues that we must also, then,

accept that a failure ofliteracy will result in more social problems, and, significantly, the

blame wi11likely be aimed at the institutions that failed in their task. The result of low

levels ofreading and writing ability would be to blame schools, and, not surprisingly,

32

increase pressure to shift back to basics such as "technical approaches to instruction," or

"increased standardized testing and firmer school discipline."

Other New Literacy theorists have added to the evolving concept ofliteracy. Brian

Street (1992; 2003) introduced the idea ofliteracy "practices" that are clearly separate

and different from any set of technical skills that might be taught with equal ease to any

group regardless of their cultural or social makeup. The skills of reading and writing,

then, are not used in this context to mean literacy. Like Gee, Street identifies the

difference between an autonomous model of literacy that can improve the life chances of

someone, and an ideological model of literacy that is culturally sensitive-in which

literacy is not a neutral skill, but a social practice. David Barton (Barton & Hamilton,

2000) suggests in asimilar vein that we need to examine how texts fit into people's lives.

He speaks of literacy events, and of the hierarchy of literacies within the institutionalized

world:

Socially powerful institutions, such as education, tend to support dominant literacy practices. These dominant practices can be seen as part of a whole discourse formation, institutionalized configurations of power and knowledge which are embodied in social relationships. (p. 12)

In politicizing literacy, that is, in examining it from a socio-political perspective,

the challenge for schools expands, forcing educators to include as well the broader uses

and meanings of literacy that exist beyond the simple set of skills envisioned by the

dominant ideology (Street & Street, 1991). Street and Street' s argument in this regard is

that society and schools work together in a "pedagogization ofliteracy" (p. 144) in North

America, in which language is distanced from subjects. Through the objectification of

language presented within the tightly structured modes of schooling-which informs the

33

approach to language outside schools as well-students are disconnected from real and

personallanguage use; they are viewed as passive recipients: "While apparently giving

instruction about a text, for instance, teachers and parents are also embedding relations of

hierarchy, authority, and control" (p. 151).

Street and Street's small study (1991) demonstrates ways in which this works on a

day-to-day basis. But what it also does effectively is highlight the ways in which social

problems are reframed as issues ofliteracy. This argument, presented by others as weIl

(Hull, 1993), points out that accountability for social problems is shifted away from

policy-makers and government, to become instead the responsibility of individuals or

groups that under-perform in the key arena of literacy learning.

Other authors (Kress et al., 2005; C. a. M. K. Lankshear, 2003; Pruyn & Fischman,

2001; Street & Street, 1991) have elaborated at length on ways in which classroom

practices, notwithstanding the good intentions of teachers, can foster both power

relationships and the distancing of language. Kress et al. (2005), for example, focus on

the notion of "multimodality," and examine in detail how the various practices of

teachers can function to communicate much more than the lesson at hand, even in cases

where it is the teacher's intention to do otherwise. In observing classroom practices in

England, they examined how the subtleties of pedagogical style-including classroom

layout, teacher "gaze", gesture, movement, voice, and use oftime-all contribute to the

meanings students make of language, of power, of content. They cite, for example, one

teacher who created groupings of desks, ostensibly as a way to empower students

through a discussion and dialogue, and remove the power of the central figure at the front

of the room. In this case, however, the students were given mixed messages as the

34

teacher tended to teach while pacing back and forth at the front of the room, controlling

the space near the exit and the blackboard, and, ironically, putting himselfin a position

that required the students to twist their bodies around in order to see him. "Through his

movement the teacher 'divides' the classroom space into two kinds of space: the space of

the teacher and the space of the students" (p. 50).

Several issues begin to surface from these arguments: the first is that there is a

serious disjuncture between the simplified, traditional view of what literacy is and what

New Literacy Theory suggests it is: the gap is at once both pedagogical and political, and

defines, in many ways, the goals of New Literacy Theory. That is to say that "reading"

(and writing) can no longer define what it means to be literate, nor can literacy be

something that is experienced and taught in schools alone, it must be a socially

meaningful activity. Colin Lankshear and Michelle knobel (2003) clarify this view:

Literacy bits do not exist apart from the social practices in which they are embedded and within which they are acquired. If, in sorne trivial sense they can be said to exist (e.g. as code) they do not mean anything. Hence, they cannot meaningfully be taught and leamed as separate from the rest of the practice. (C. a. M. K. Lankshear, 2003, p.8)

The essence of this is the belief that we can teach literacy as we have, through the

reading of traditionalliterature, has been called into question. From this perspective,

what teachers have been doing for so long in the belief that they have been helping

students develop the skills they most need, has in fact been perpetuating a system that

allows only some students passage to higher 1evels of education and success.

In an effort to galvanize these new ideas, many of the notable thinkers in the field

carne together in 1996, using the terrn "multiliteracies" (The New London Group, 1996)

to attempt to bring about more awareness and address the issue of what this might look

35

like in tenus of curriculum. The aim of the group was ta cement their diverse visions of a

culturally pluralistic pedagogy that would lead ta a new design for practice--one that

would not limit access to opportunity to specific groups. Among other things, the group

decided that, "The main element of this change was that there was not a singular

canonical English that could or should be taught anymore" (The New London Group,

1996, p. 63).

As soon as our sights are set on the objective of creating the learning conditions for full social participation, the issue of differences becomes critically important. How do we ensure that differences of culture, language, and gender are not barriers to educational success? (The New London Group, 1996,p.61)

The challenges posed by The New London Group are not recent; in many respects they

echo the demands of critical theory, and result from work that has been occurring over

the last half century. There are, doubtless, a multitude of changes that might be made to

address the concerns and issues raised by New Literacy Theory, but it has been only very

recently, since the widespread use of computers and the internet in schools, that the

potential for massive change has occurred.

2.7 New Technology

The potential power of the computer and of the internet in particular to facilitate

changes in education rests largely in their ability to undermine several aspects of the

traditional classroom. lndeed, it is hard to imagine how the criticisms of traditional

teaching of English might have tlourished prior to the internet (Landow, 1992). New

communication technologies provide the means to challenge several aspects of traditional

methodology at once: the primacy ofprint as the main focus ofstudy, the position of the

teacher as a holder ofknowledge and power, une quaI access to distribution ofwritten

36

material, the act ofwriting as an isolated activity, the solitary authority ofprinted

material as a source of knowledge, to name a few. Many authors believe technology

promises (we may have to wait to see if it delivers) a me ans of escaping the kind of

cultural favoritism and inequality that a singular view of literacy have perpetuated (Gee,

2003; Landow, 1992; C. Lankshear & Knobel, 1998; 2003; Murray, 1997). It is worth

noting, however, that while new technology is viewed in sorne circles as a panacea, there

are a number of authors who warn us about the dangers oftechnology and media

(Gordon & Alexander, 2005; Katch, 2001; Postman, 1982). The degree to which print-

the study of literature in particular-can be replaced by the kinds of reading and writing

that is done on-line is a point of contention, and marks one of the dividing lines between

the teaching methodology of classrooms that embrace new ideas of literacy and those

that remain grounded in more traditional ideas. l will, then, also mention briefly the

nature of the arguments that oppose the shift from paper to screen.

2.8 Computers and democracy

The use of computers in classrooms offers a seductive appeal for educators

hoping to engage students, but the shift is, for others, more than a pedagogical decision

that seeks to take advantage of something new; it is the rejection of something else. It is a

social and political decision to move away from traditional notions of English and an the

traditions that they are buiIt upon (C. a. M. K. Lankshear, 2003). Lankshear and Knobel

(2003), in explaining the democratic potential of internet technology, observe that,

In cyberspace, "spaces" for full and rewarding participation are virtually infinite, and they beg inclusion. To a large extent, the kinds of criteria used in schoolliteracy to define relevance (and thereby serve to label,

37

exclude, and to privilege and marginalize) do not apply to the social practices of cyberspace. (p.75)

They go so far as to say that the "intense digitization of daily life" makes the very

manner in which schools have approached knowledge outdated, "obsolete" (p. 155). The

reasons for this are two-fold. The first, already noted, argues that our fixation on print

presupposes certain skills and knowledge both in terms of gaining access to and making

sense oftext. The other argument, also common to the area of New Literacy Studies,

suggests that in order for schools to be relevant, that is, to connect leaming and meaning

to real-life experiences, we need to acknowledge the way young people are living today;

we need to recognize what has meaning for them.

Other authors (Kress, 2003; Landow, 1992) argue the shift to new

technologies is part, albeit a very significant part, of the general shift away from our

preoccupation with canonicalliterature toward the more complex multi-modal

communication that is part of our new world. Kress highlights the importance of

revisiting the common, narrowly-defined schoolliteracy in favor of a literacy linked with

real-world needs. While acknowledging that writing and reading are still essential, he

suggests that we are undergoing a semiotic shift toward the visual (Kress, 2003; Kress &

Van Leeuwen, 1996) which makes obsolete our conventional focus on reading and

writing words.

In his research into video games and leaming, James Gee (2003) makes a related

argument. Gee claims that video games do much more than offer us a way to engage

young people in an activity they enjoy, more thanjust another way to leam; they can, he

says, help us better understand how people leam as a way of bringing better leaming to

schools. Moreover, he points out that one of the central goals ofliteracy, in the new

38

sense, is to connect learning to real-world experiences, and video games succeed in this

regard:

The theory of video games fits better with the modem, high-tech, global world today's children and teenagers live in that do the theories (and practices) of leaming they see in school (p. 7).

He explains how in this domain leaming happens in a new way, where "mistakes are not

errors, but opportunities for reflection and leaming" (p. 45).

Gee's concept ofallowing young people to become members ofsemiotic domains of

their own choosing, where they practice literacy in contexts that encourages success on

their own terms is convincing and exciting, but it exists in conjunction with, and

opposition to, the general societal notion that video games are harmful. Neil Postman

(1982), in looking at the effects oftechnology, argues that when television first became

widely available it, too, was seen as the new wonder that had the potential to bring so

much information so quickly that it would change education forever. But, as Postman

hardly needs to point out, our uses of television have fallen far short of that dream.

Television's has at best been reduced to little more than entertainment; at worst, ifwe

accept Postman's point, it has brought information and images to children that rightfully

belong in the adult world-it has undermined the security and safety of childhood. 1

acknowledge that we are speaking about a world of childhood that is largely a modem

construct, an idealized and nostalgic vision of what we suppose childhood ought to be

(Buckingham, 2000); however, Postman's argument strikes a chord, and is, 1 think,

applicable to the world of cyberspace. Even supporters of new technologies wam us

about the kind of unfiltered information, images, points of view that the internet brings to

children (Landow, 1992), and the difficulty and sophistication required to negotiate the

39

world of cyberspace. Moreover, we should keep in mind that the world ofhypertext is

still very young. Janet Murray, who paints a fascinating, positive portrait envisioning

what narrative might become in the world of cyberspace equates our current moment in

cyberspace to the infancy ofprint (Murray, 1997). She admits, when others seem

reluctant to do so, that in video games the narrative content is "thin," and suggests that

"The garish video games and tangled web sites of the current digital environment are a

part of a similar period of innovation" (p. 28).

The argument about the possible benefits of computers versus the threat that they

pose is one that tends toward exaggeration on both sides (Buckingham, 2000).

Computers are altemately described as potential saviors, a panacea that offers to

undermine the hegemonic control traditional schooling has allowed, and a brainwashing,

violence-inducing pastime that puts entire generations at risk. This is worth keeping in

mind insofar as any broad curriculum would necessarily need to find a balance in this

area that was both true to new theories ofliteracy, and cognizant of the fears around the

Issue.

Not surprisingly, the role technology has to play in education is a field of study in

itself. But, what is important to note here is that it has become central to the vision of

how a new literacy curriculum might be applied. Aiso to note here, however, is that the

relationship people-both in the sphere of education and outside of it-have with

computers is one ofboth attraction and fear. Teachers and parents alike argue that

technology must be central in schools if we are to help kids prepare for the future; but

this feeling coexists with a degree of distrust and fear-we still need to be wary of how

computers are being used, and how they are affecting children. The obvious challenge

40

this poses for anyone authoring a new curriculum it to manage to include what is new in

a way that is acceptable, a way that is saleable to the various stakeholders. l point this out

because l think that a certain lip service to certain traditions and practices will, by

necessity, be included in any new curriculum.

2.9 Conclusion

My objective in reviewing the literature has been to include examples ofwork that

have been central in framing what has become The New Literacy Studies. l have sought

to look back on the historical progression ofvoices that have contributed to the ongoing

conversation that is asking us to rethink how we teach English-to reconsider the way

we affect individuals and society through our understanding of the concept literacy. But,

additionally, l have attempted to examine this survey of the literature around the topic of

literacy with the objective offinding sorne common ground. Ifwe are to know what a

curriculum based on changing ideas of literacy should look like, we need to explore the

most evident areas of overlap among those voices that are most influential in framing the

dialogue on this topie.

41

Chapter 3: What Would a NLT Curriculum Look Like?

3.1 Finding common ground

Prior to analyzing the curriculum itself 1 want to bring together sorne of the

common themes from the various authors 1 examine in my literature review. The

challenge here -and 1 acknowledge in advance that this is interpretive-is to find those

areas that are most commonly agreed upon by the influential figures who have played a

role in framing and defining New Literacy Theory. To do this 1 will highlight seven

concepts that 1 categorize under three headings. The three main are as represent what 1

believe to be the most central and powerfullinks between what the literature tells us, and

what it will mean for curriculum in practice. This is, then, a sort of summation of my

literature review, in which 1 attempt to bring various voices together. In considering

those elements that would be present in a NL T curriculum, 1 have imagined a few of the

most notable authors in the field sitting around a table together, having the chance to

identify those elements they would most like to inc1ude. 1 have organized these under the

main categories of Social Justice, Literacies, and De-Pedagogization of leaming. Under

each 1 refer to several, frequently-overlapping concepts that have arisen in the ongoing

dialogue around the politicization of English. And for each, 1 very briefly explain the

importance of the concept and mention those authors that were most influential in

introducing the idea to the ongoing discussion.

42

3.2 SOCIAL JUSTICE:

Social justice is of one of several cornmon threads linking the various facets of

the work leading to new notions of literacy. Education as a social project requires that

curriculum be used to undennine social divisions and economic inequity.

The centrality of social justice springs largely from the work of social theorists

such as Foucault (1980), Bourdieu (1977), Freire (1970; 1973) or Apple (2004), and

continues as a common theme among the pillars ofNL T (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Gee,

1990; Street) who have worked to create a dialogue around the power of institutions such

as education to replicate social patterns. A curriculum that begins with social justice

demands a reworking of the mechanisms that these authors argue privilege certain groups

at the expense of others.

3.2.1 Criticality

Critical Theory, and criticality as a practice, has been central in framing the way

the dialogue around new curriculum is framed. Hence, critical theory evolves into praxis,

critical pedagogy (Freire, 1973; Macedo, 2006; Pruyn & Fischman, 2001) in which we

are asked to reevaluate how educational materials and power relationships are conceived

of. The transference of knowledge from teachers to student is not, from this perspective,

viewed as a positive or enriching process; rather, it is central to the process of

subjugation and de-skilling learners.

3.2.2 Equality of Discourses

This element represents an important facet of social justice, and is strongly tied to

out-of-schoolliteracies but warrants mentioning separately because it draws attention to

43

a particular aspect of these elements: the issue of cultural difference. The recognition that

we have privileged a particular kind of literacy and a specifie body of knowledge and

skills fails to highlight that these practices have favored certain cultural groups in

addition to certain classes or educational strata. It is the recognition that ways of using

language are culturally and socially specifie (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977; Foucault,

1980; Gee, 1990; Heath, 1981). There is enormous significance to this: it challenges us to

open up the methodology of teaching to include other ways of using language to

communicate, to give a voice to the stories of other cultures, to including other histories

in the narratives that we teach.

James Gee (1990) described how schools tend to ignore primary discourses, often

making schoolless accessible and less meaningful for many students. Foucault (1980),

too, argued that sorne discourses-he called them "subjugated"-were generally

discounted as less valuable. Bourdieu's notion of "cultural capital" (Bourdieu &

Passeron, 1977) is a powerful concept to help explain how schools can work to favor

members of a group that provides the right social background, education, language. The

great challenge in this regard is to write plurality into the curriculum. If generalized

syllabi are authored by teachers, or any non-student for that matter, then they willlikely

leave out certain groups within the student body. The challenge here is enormous: it

means developing a curriculum without a set syllabus-a curriculum of practice and

praxis and not one of content.

44

3.3 FROM LITERACY TO LITERACIES

The teaching of literacy as a technical skill-teaching students to read and

write-along with the teaching of literature, has been a mainstay of the traditional

English classroom. The belief that this has been both misguided in term of its efficacy

and unjust in its treatment of diverse populations forms another central tenet of the New

Literacy Studies (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; C. a. M. K. Lankshear, 2003; The New

London Group, 1996).

3.3.10ut of School (situated) literacies

The concept of situated literacies is a defining element of New Literacy Studies

in particular; however, much like many of the features that are central to this area, its

roots can be traced back through work spanning many disciplines. The argument that the

traditional understanding of literacy is a particularly narrow conception that often ignores

the experiences students have with language outside of a school setting is hardly new.

Literature supporting this extends back several decades and includes the work of

psychologists and anthropologists that even today breathe life into the attacks on what

Graff (1987) or Gee (1990) described as the literacy myth. The work, for example, of

Vygotsky (1978), Scribner and Cole (1973; 1981), or Heath (1981) in undermining the

beliefs (still present in many circles today) that literacy is directly tied to cognition, or

that equate literacy and reading as a technical skill that is equally leamable and usable

across cultures, leads us to question many of the assumptions upon which English

programs have been designed.

Reframing the argument in terms of situated literacies has been carried on by

several key figures of the New Literacy Theory including Gee (2000; 2001), Street

45

(2005; 1991), and Barton (Barton & Hamilton, 2000) who describe the idea variously as

out-of-schoolliteracy, literacy practices, or literacy events. The inclusion of out-of­

schoolliteracy practices in school poses a challenge: namely, how are teachers to address

the variability of the se practices in a cohesive way within a diverse classroom

population?

3.3.2 Multiliteracies

1 group the notion of multiliteracies with situated literacies because there is a

significant degree of overlap in what these concepts mean for education (Carmody

Hagood, 2000). The idea ofmultiliteracies (The New London Group, 1996) recognizes

that written language is only one of many equally valuable modes of communicating.

This concept, which has particular resonance in the last fifteen or so years as new

technologies have become ubiquitous in both the home and school, further challenges

normative assumptions about the preeminence of the written word in general, and in

particular of the dominance of the written word in educational settings. Much like

situated literacies, this speaks to the necessity of recognizing how students are using

language to communicate in their lives in ways that differ from school-based writing

practices (The New London Group, 1996). We would expect to see, then, a new focus on

media, images, spoken language, collective processes that will put pressure on traditional

classroom practices.

3.3.3 Multimodalliteracies

The concept of multimodality further asks us to question traditional practice

although it is, again, another facet of an expanded notion of what we mean when we

speak of literacy and communication. The work, for example of Kress (2003; Kress et al.,

46

2005; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 1996), seeks to create a new semiotics of language, one

that examines in-depth communication modes other than writing. For the purposes of

linking expanding definitions ofliteracy to English curricula, Kress's work speaks to two

areas in particular. The first is the importance of altering and elevating the way media

studies are viewed; what was once considered a tangential area of study--one that may

have been included as something we need to prote ct students against-has become a

central focus of study in its own right. Secondly, in working to expand our thinking

around semiotics and the process ofmeaning-making, Kress's examination of

multimodality leads us to examine in detail how classrooms are constructed, and how

communication occurs between a teacher/classroom space and students. Kress challenges

us to undermine the power balance that has always resided in the teacher and in the

space. We are asked, instead, to consider the wider range of messages that are being

transmitted with the intent of giving power back to students as a natural part of our

greater awareness of the subtlety of communication.

3.4 DEPEDAGOGIZATION OF LEARNING

l am borrowing this expression from Brian Street (Street & Street, 1991) who,

among others, has explained how school-based literacy practices have come to dominate

other forms ofliteracy. What is useful in using the idea of depadagogization is that it can

speak to rethinking what it is we are doing in school at a broader level, to include, for

example, what materials we give students and why, what we ask them to do with those

materials, and, importantly, what view ofknowledge we adopt in designing curricula. It

47

means broadening both what is taught and how it is taught; it means, again, accepting

differences in history, thinking, communication style, and interests.

3.4.1 Anti-positivist view of knowledge

Much like Kress, Street and Street examine the manner in which messages are

given in school, how we disseminate and test knowledge and how this process affects

what, and how, students leam~ Challenges to our normative views ofknowledge are

hardly new, however. The work of social theory is important here, too, in reframing our

approach to the stuff of education. Foucault (1980) has made the link between knowledge

and power in the process of attacking the foundation of what it is that schools daim to

do. Paulo Freire's (1970) notion of the banking model of education, in which students are

viewed as empty receptacles into which teachers deposit knowledge, is a powerful

addition to this that helps to define a curriculum that reevaluates how knowledge is

viewed.

This poses, perhaps, one of the most difficult challenges to the creation of a NL T

curriculum: namely, a shift away from what has ostensibly been the stuff of school:

knowledge or content. A curriculum that seeks to undermine this tradition would need to

re-define what we mean by, or how we speak of, knowledge in a way that avoids the

banking model of leaming described by Freire.

3.4.2 Shifting away from the canon ofliterature

Print literature as a topic of study symbolizes, in many ways, several aspects of

what NL T is trying to change. It is worth pointing out that there is less general agreement

when we are speaking of print in general than when the discussion is about the canon of

48

literature specifically. That is to say that sorne authors (for example, Yagelski, 1994)

argue that we may not need to abandon literature; rather, we need to reevaluate what it is

we are doing with it. Still the consensus is strong that a shift away from literature in

general, and from the canon more specifically, is a central tenet of the ongoing dialogue.

From an anthropological perspective, a social perspective, a critical perspective,

or a NL T perspective, the traditional merger of English with the study of literature

represents all that is at once a myopie privileging of certain groups, vastly ethnocentric,

and a complete distancing ofhow language is used in school from how it is used in life.

This aspect of the discussion has been an important element across a broad range

ofliterature. From the work of Shirley Brice Heath (1981), demonstrating how language

use differs between cultures, to Bourdieu's (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) notion of

cultural capitallinking school based leaming and family background to academic and

financial success, to the New London Group's (1996) "manifesto" on multiliteracies and

social change, or Lankshear and Knobel's (1998; 2003) discussion ofhow new

technology can be used to undermine the inherent flaws in a subject grounded in reading

and writing print-based texts, it is clear that literature is a main target of criticism.

This is no small matter. It means that a new literacy curriculum must, if it is to

live up to its theoretical base, recreate the subject in part through an elimination or

reduction ofthat element that has for so long been the backbone of the curriculum. Print­

based material, along with the traditional novels of study must be reconsidered and either

greatly reduced, or eliminated altogether.

49

3.5 A word about the old curriculum

My starting point for considering Quebec's current curriculum reform as a

significant tuming point was originally based on my own experiences about what has

been happening in English classrooms. It is interesting to note, however, thatthe English

curriculum guides for Quebec produced in the early eighties, while still a considerable

distance from the position of the new document, are certainly a far cry from the largely

traditional pedagogy that has been going on in the upper levels of secondary schools.

That is to say that the language in the old curriculum was quite forward thinking, too.

Anyone reading the introduction to Quebec's old English curriculum (Quebec, 1983)

might be surprised to find that the language describing the central tenets of the pro gram

has sorne similarities in tenor to what we see at the beginning ofthe new QEP. In the

1983 pro gram Rationale the authors state that

English is not a subject in the sense that there is a body of information to be taught ... such knowledge is not given to us; it is built up by our drawing from our vast experience with language. We live in and through language; we build our world through language; and it is in this living and doing in and with language that contributes to our 'tacitly held' knowledge oflanguage. (Quebec, 1983, p. 1)

This introductory section goes on to identify several program objectives that, if framed in

slightly different language, would certainly not conform with what 1 have earlier

described as a "traditional" view of teaching English. The authors highlight the

importance of such things as "helping students explore their knowledge of language

(italics mine); to encourage students to "trust their intuitions" about language; to help

students "develop a greater awareness of the ways language is used and functions around

them; to explore the origins and development of language; to "recognize, appreciate and

respect differences in language and dialect; "to help students gain greater control over

50

language through an increased awareness of and sensitivity to the ways language is used

and functions around them" (p. 2). Of course these guidelines in and of themselves do

not imply that the goals of New Literacy Theory are somehow redundant, or that it has

aH been done before, far from it. What it does point out is that the kind of rhetoric we are

seeing in sorne of the literature on literacy is not new, nor is it the first time it has

influenced the writing of a curriculum. This raises interesting questions. Foremost among

these questions is, to what degree has the rhetoric and theory used in the writing of any

curriculum translated into classroom practice? That is to say that in examining the old

and the new, and in comparing them, we need to establish the specificity of day-to-day

curricular organization and activities to determine if the theoretical principles are being

implemented. Simply put, to what degree is a curriculum specific about what should be

happening in class, and how has it affected teacher practice?

It is my beliefthat in the case of the curriculum released in 1983, the language

that was used in the introduction was not translated into curricular activity in the

documents, or to teacher practices in the classroom. There are several reasons for this,

but 1 will highlight two possibilities. The first is that the activities outlined in the guide,

notwithstanding the forward-thinking intent of the authors, are still grounded in a

traditional concept of knowledge, and a traditional vision of the classroom practices,

including a respect for the traditional relationship between students and teachers. The

second reason 1 feel classroom practices have remained largely unchanged-and l'm

speaking as a classroom teacher now-is that the theoretical underpinnings of the

document were not communicated convincingly to teachers. Teachers-certainly most of

the teachers 1 have worked with-continued for the most part to be guided by the

51

methods with which we grew up and which have been only slightly modified over time.

This raises, again, the inevitable issue ofteachers' understandings of a document, and

highlights the need to investigate what meanings teachers are taking out of the new

curriculum.

To clarify what l mean by suggesting the rhetoric in the pro gram guidelines did

not, in the 1980s, translate into curricula, l will use a few examples, which is an easy

thing to do since this curriculum is based largely in syllabi designed to give teachers

les son plans that they would then use in class.

The first unit, entitled "History of English," is geared to give students an idea of

how English has changed to become what it is, and why it continues to evolve. There are

several things about this unit that mark it as very different from what is being asked of

teachers today. The first is that it is assumed that there is a body ofknowledge that, when

revealed to students, will enrich both their understanding of language, and their

appreciation of it. While students are asked to collect specific examples of words and

written texts, for example, the result is understood from the beginning. The knowledge

was there aU along, and it was the teachers' job to help guide students to it. Even the

choice oftopic is one that would conflict with the current curriculum. Studying the

history and richness of the English language might itself be seen as far too controlled and

narrow an activity. The second main unit studies the "sound system" (studying how

meaning is conveyed through sound); and the third is "the written system" (Quebec,

1983, p. 36). In each of these three units, students were supposed to work individually

and in teams toward specific understandings; but in each case, those understandings were

specific knowledge sets that teachers possessed to begin with.

52

While there were many forward-thinking aspects ofthis older curriculum,

including a section on media literacy, and another on radio, none of the central factors

marking the QEP and SELA2·as vastly different were present in this section of the

curriculum produced in the early 1980s. In these documents the main focus was on

language, with a great deal of the weight on print text. Importantly, too, the relationship

between teachers and students is a far more traditional one. Teachers guide students

through activity and instruction toward a set syllabus of information. That knowledge

may be discovered by students, but it is certainly not created by them, or negotiable.

Evaluation is given very little time, but it is clearly not something that is designed in

consultation with students. The old English curriculum did give students more time

doing, thinking, and discovering, but it remained a traditional curriculum grounded

largely in the study of language itself. It should hardly be surprising that the forward

thinking language used in its introduction did not mark a revolution in English curricula.

53

Chapter 4: Reading the SELA2 Program

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to answer the research questions l posed at the

outset. l began this undertaking with the belief that the English Language Arts section of

the Quebec Education Plan is a forward-thinking document, rising out of current research

in the field ofliteracy. But l have also remained aware that many of the changes that are

central to a politicized version of literacy are controversial: they run counter to the

methods that are regular practice for many teachers, and to notions of literacy that are

deeply entrenched in popular conceptions of studying English. What l am attempting to

do is determine how far the writers of the new reform in Quebec have gone in

incorporating the theory l have discussed in my literature review. Where have they

abandoned traditional methodologies and practices and where have they tempered their

curriculum to find an acceptable compromise between the old and the new. l pay special

attention to New Literacy Theory, but l also remain cognizant that New Literacy Theory

represents one facet of a broader social movement, what Janet Maybin (2000) has

described as the shift from the "individual psychological" model, to "social and cultural

aspects of language use" (p. 198). My goal, then, in analyzing the document is to remain

aware of the influential voices of social and critical theory that are central to the

politicization ofpedagogy and the formation of New Literacy Theory, and to determine

how and in what ways these have been implemented in the QEP.

54

It is important to keep in mind that my ultimate goal is to examine the ways in

which we might expect the teaching of writing to evolve in Quebec. In doing so, 1

attempt, throughout, to avoid reading the reform with either a positive or negative

preconception. There are aspects of New Literacy Theory and of the new curriculum

itself that 1 tind are altruistic in their outlook, even noble; there are other sections with

which 1 take issue, or which 1 think may be difficult to implement without greater

support or changes to infrastructure. My purpose here is to examine the document for

meaning alone, explicit or otherwise. 1 fully understand that this is a preliminary step to

framing a related set of questions about how this reform is being implemented, about the

meanings teachers are taking from it, and about how it is affecting the process of

teaching students to write. 1 will, following my analysis of the curriculum, discuss what 1

think are the most pressing questions to explore, but for now 1 am trying to understand

the message. My reasoning here is that the text of the Quebec Education Plan, along with

a certain number of workshops given by people interpreting the text, is aIl that teachers

will receive; it is the outline to which administrators, teachers, and other professionals

will tum for guidance. In short, the authority behind the changes that are occurring in the

province's schools resides in the text of the document itself.

4.2 Levels of analysis

1 approach the text of the curriculum in three progressive stages. The tirst is to

ask what the goals of a new literacy curriculum would be. What would it look like? This

has been, to a great degree, answered in my literature review; however, much of the

the ory and writing on the topic is given in generalities, or in opposition to something

55

else; that is, the focus has been more on what the goals of such a curriculum would be,

not specifically on how it would be accomplished. My second task is to examine the

document in order to identify the principle objectives it lays out. 1 want to identify what

the objectives are in the broadest ofterms as a way ofidentifying the general philosophie

foundation upon which the document is built. Thirdly, 1 will examine how the plan

focuses on specifie examples of pedagogy that 1 have identified as crucial to

implementing a new literacy curriculum: how are key terms defined? How are the daily

tasks described?

4.3 Central principles of the QEP

My first goal in reading the text of the reform is to establish what the direction of

the plan is: What priorities are laid out? How are key terms defined? What is the

document asking, or telling, teachers to do? 1 will also examine how the text is written.

By this 1 mean that we need to recognize that texts hold authority; they take on a voice of

their own that is created by, but separate from, the voice of the author or authors-they

take what is political and frame it in terms that are non-political. With this in mind, it is

important to be aware of how that voice is constructed, to be cognizant of the ways in

which the authors use language to establish authority, or to create consensus among

participants. My goal here is to understand both what sorts of literaI messages teachers

will take from the document, and what connotations are present as weIl.

4.4 Program Characteristics

There can be no doubt that the QEP is a document that is significantly guided by

many of the tenets of new visions of literacy: the document is steeped in the language of

56

NLT, as weIl as social and critical pedagogy, and c1early attempts to address the

curricular changes 1 have highlighted above. At a meta-Ievel, there are several defining

elements that stand out in the introduction to the reform: the centrality of education as

part of a greater social project; empowerment of individuals and recognition of diversity

and student choice; and a clear shift away from detailed curricular content to generalized,

transferable abilities are aH central to the QEP and the SELA2 pro gram.

My findings, outlined in advance, are that the reform represents a significant

change in both pedagogical style and in the theoretical base upon which curriculum is

built. Aiso evident in the text is a core assumption that there has been, prior to the

implementation ofthe QEP, an underlying inequity in the educational experience of

students in Quebec, and, moreover, that it is the responsibility of the education system to

play a role in correcting this inequity. The authors of the reform make this clear at the

outset: "What is necessary now is to expand our goal from democratization of education

to the democratization of learning" (p. 2). Put simply, giving aH students access to

education is inadequate; we must also provide equal access to opportunity, to the benefits

that education has to offer. The reform also makes explicit at the outset the politicization

of schooling by framing the role of schools as part of a social project; what was once

viewed largely as individual endeavor has shifted to a social project. The document

reiterates the importance of this several times in the introduction, stating that "Schools

have a mandate to prepare students to contribute to the development of a more

democratic and just society" (p.2). Indeed, in outlining the "threefold mission" for

schools, the authors point out the connection between individualleaming and community

well-being in several places, highlighting that "schools must act as agents of social

57

cohesion by helping students learn how to live together and by fostering a feeling of

belonging to the community" (Quebec, 2004, p. 5). Similarly, in discussing the

importance of culture, the document states:

Schools must opt for the development of an open-minded attitude toward culture in general. In the framework of this pro gram, teaching from a cultural perspective consists essentiaUy in using cultural references to help students understand the world and discover that each subject is meaningful by virtue of both its history and the questions it raises. (Quebec, 2004, p. 7)

The notion of social equity is a theme that resonates throughout the reform. 1 found

myself wondering if teachers who are reading the document for the first time, likely

without any background in the considerable research that underlies the language used in

it, would embrace the nobility and progressiveness that are its guiding principles as a

new element of education, or read it as politicaUy correct rhetoric.

Closely related to the focus on equity is the empowerment and support of

individual differences among students within the reform. While the notion of student-

centered leaming has been used frequently in the past, this new program highlights the

importance of each student as an individual---clearly a central current that informs aU

aspects of the document. The introduction points out that "the school's responsibility

towards aH students, whatever their aptitudes, talents and interests, is to provide

educational options adapted to their needs" (Quebec, 2004, p. 3). The point is further

developed in the same section: "leamings have to be differentiated in order to meet the

individual educational requirements. Particular attention must be paid to each student; the

approach must build on his or her personal resources and take into account prior leaming

and interests" (p. 4). Doubtless, it is the intention ofmost teachers to help individual

students succeed; the language is not new. What is new, and what 1 am arguing is a major

58

shift in policy and pedagogy, is that individual students' needs and interests will now

play a central role in the detennination of content, of process, of marking, indeed, in all

aspects of learning.

Another notable shift is the move from a content-based to a competency-based

curriculum. The Quebec Education Plan structures all its learning activities around a set

of cross-curricular competencies-nine competencies are identified under the headings

of intellectual, methodological, personal and social, and communication-related

competencies-life skills that all subject areas should work to develop. The inclusion of

the competencies is a response to the conviction that the previous system was not serving

aIl students equally: "A pedagogy based on the transmission ofknowledge is not the best

way to foster the empowennent of students, and even less an empowennent that takes

into account their individual differences" (Quebec, 2004, p. 9). The writers of the refonn

point out that this shift is a move away from content: "The focus on competencies entails

establishing a different relationship to knowledge and refocusing on training students to

think" (p. 5), and that it "requires a different approach to teaching and learning" (p. 9).

The document makes a rare reference here to theory, suggesting that the change is a shift

from a behaviorist school of thought to a constructivist school, one that sees learning as a

process.

Following closely in the same vein, the refonn outlines five broad are as of

learning, including health and well-being, personal and career planning, environmental

awareness and consumer rights and responsibilities, media literacy, and citizenship and

community life. The inclusion of these, in conjunction with the cross-curricular

competencies, is designed to "provide a frame of reference that gives coherence and

59

complementarity to educational activities" (p. 21). The five broad areas of leaming are,

in many ways, a new emphasis on something schools have always done: provide students

with the knowledge and skills in order to make healthy choices, develop self-esteem, in

short, to graduate students who are ready to participate actively and positively in society.

But in the case of the QEP, the focus on this goes further. What used to be a viewed as a

positive byproduct of the core curriculum is now becoming central to aIl subject areas:

personal growth is the curriculum. Teaching these abilities has become the content. It is

worth noting, too, that in this section there seems to be a more political stance. That is, in

many ways the document is asking in vague, and sometimes not so vague, terms both

what kinds of people and what kind of society· it is that we want to create.

These aspects of the reform--equity, the primacy of the individual, competency­

based instruction, and the broad are as of learning-are not necessarily things that were

absent from classrooms before now. What is fundamentally different is that these

features of the curriculum comprise the framework upon which aIl el se will rest; it is to

these concepts that aIl content design will have to answer. Prior to this, these goals were

sorne of the things that students might have worked towards or achieved in sorne oftheir

classes. Now, by contrast, the plan is to prioritize such learning by couching subject­

specifie content within the umbrella of these general skills. The approach itself has

become the primary content. My expectation, in examining the document, is that many

teachers will suggest that this is what they have been doing all along, and this may be

true; however, identifying overarching, general skills and developmental areas, and

making educators accountable to evaluate student development in terms of them and not

60

to a specifie body of learned material represents a watershed in educational policy-

making.

4.5 Defining elements of teaching

ln order to move to a c10ser examination of the curriculum, 1 will look next at

specific elements of teaching. By this 1 am referring to those things that make up the stuff

of daily c1assroom practice. There are, of course, a multitude of possibilities here;

however, for my purposes 1 have decided to isolate five elements in particular that 1 feel

are so central to how education is conducted that they can speak to the system as a who le.

These elements are:

a) How knowledge is defined; b) The role of teachers and of students within the

c1assroom; c) What material (texts) are selected; d) How teaching objectives are defined;

e) The purpose and method of evaluation. 1 examine SELA 2 in order to examine the

ways in which each ofthese elements is defined and developed.

4.6 Literacy

Because it lies at the heart of so many of these issues, the meaning ofliteracy is

the hub around which much of this conversation revolves. The SELA2 pro gram makes

c1ear at the outset that it is "first and foremost a literacy pro gram, " and c1aims the

goal of any literacy pro gram must be to provide opportunities for students to experience language as a way of making sense of their experiences and ofbreaking down barri ers that separate individuals. (Quebec, 2006, p. 4)

As a guiding principle, this is enormously significant. It begins with a premise that is

presented as a truism. Literacy is not viewed as a technical skill in this document, nor is

61

it suggested that it is something that exclusively serves the needs of an individual. The

definition used in this case highlights the social function of literacy and challenges the

common view that literacy is a tool that primarily serves the needs of the literate person.

While there are definitely competing notions of what is meant by the term literacy within

the educational community, the authors ofthe QEP clarify their stance at the outset in

establishing that two of the central goals of literacy are to relate leaming to the lived

experiences of students, and, importantly, to connect literacy to "breaking down barriers

that separate people." This point is underscored by the reference in the introduction-the

only reference to any author in the document-to Paulo Freire. There are several places

in the SELA2 document, including the opening paragraph, that refer to Freire's

politicized definition of literacy as "knowing how to read the world and the word"

(Quebec, 2006, p. 4). As is made clear in my literature review, Freire's work with

literacy has been directed specifically at undermining relations of power and empowering

the "oppressed" (Freire, 1970, p. 60) by acknowledging their experiences, voices, and

knowledge in the process of giving them a new sense of agency. This element of the

document, perhaps more than any other, represents a sea-change in the direction of

English. It is in this politicization that the subject is fundamentally altered. What was

once a skill or set ofskills is now a development ofthose knowledges that students bring

with them; what was once a containable body of knowledge transferred within schools is

now openly political; what was once individual is now social. It is worth mentioning that

sorne of the language used around literacy is not new: for example, the 1983 Secondary

School Curriculum Guide for English (Quebec, 1983) makes clear that leaming

language is best done when it is connected to real-life experiences, and that students

62

possess a "tacit" knowledge of language when they arrive at school. What has changed in

the new curriculum, which 1 attempt to c1arify in the sections below, is that both the

individual empowerment of students and the overt politicization have been entrenched as

the backbone of the document itself. This is not a document that is govemed by day-to­

day activities; it is guided entirely by ideology, by the principles that seek to give agency

to students of English.

4.7 Texts

One of the most profound changes to curriculum in the QEP is the redefining of

the term "text." Indeed, in the subject English, where textual study has for decades

been a central element of study, any change to what is meant by text will have a

profound effect. The traditional practice of teaching English clearly gives preeminence

to the written word. Even the name of the program-English language arts-is a

departure from a more traditional English literature. Clearly the more conservative

title, English literature, is the study of just that, a selection of texts written in English,

and, to a significant degree, written in England. Although the body of work that

comprises the canon has evolved over time, it remains a conservative collection­

viewed by many as too white, too male, too ethnocentric. The QEP defines "text" in far

broader strokes: students are expected to read from written, spoken, and visual texts

(Quebec, 2006, p. 45). The act of communication in its various forms has replaced

written language in defining what texts are. It is evident here that the definition of

reading has also been changed. The authors specify that "in this document, 'reading' is

understood to also inc1ude 'listening to' and 'viewing' texts" (Quebec, 2006, p. 45).

63

The departure from the written canon is further underlined in the section on required

written texts: "Literary texts are understood to be children's literature with an equal

representation of male and female authors and characters, and of diverse cultural

groups" (Quebec, 2006, p. 54). The connotation here is that there has been a previous

inequity in the selection oftexts that needs to be corrected. Moreover, to any teacher of

English literature, it reads as an instruction to find books other than those of the canon,

or, at least, to avoid giving preference to canonical writings.

In this document, then, the meanings associated with reading and writing have

been fundamentally altered; they have shifted away from our traditional focus on

written language to refer instead to a wide array of language modes. While the term

multiliteracy is not used explicitly, it is understood:

The presence ofnew technologies has resulted in an explosion ofboth multimodal texts that incorporate different representational systems, such as word and image, and multigenre texts that integrate the structures and features of genres that were once considered distinct. For these reasons it is essential that our students develop the fluency and strategies to enable them not only to understand what they read, but also to recognize the many ways that meanings and messages are designed to influence readers. (p. 45)

This revised notion of text also demonstrates the political turn in the document. When

text referred-and continues to refer in many circles--exclusively to a work in print,

there is a tacit understanding that the text embodies knowledge, wisdom about the human

condition that can be uncovered through study. SELA2, on the other hand, approaches

texts as social constructs that need to be examined in terms of their intent and effect. In a

"literature class," students understand that texts within the canon are considered timeless,

containing truths about human nature that might apply at any moment in history. In the

SELA 2 program, by comparison, students are asked to challenge the text, to consider

64

who created it and for what purpose: "since texts are deliberate social constructs, it is

important to stress the connection between the social function and the structure and

features of specific genres" (p. 45).

Redefining text to include a wide variety of non-written material can be

interpreted in various ways. It might be, as is argued in the program, a way to

create a connection between what students do in school and what they are, or will

be, doing in life outside school. As the authors state in the introduction,

The SELA2 pro gram is grounded in the language, discourse and texts that our students will encounter in the world ... The goal of any literacy pro gram must be to provide opportunities for the learner to experience the power of language as a way ofmaking sense ofher/his experience and ofbreaking down the barri ers that separate individuals. (p. 4)

Put into other terms, the attempt to connect literacy to the real world is a way of

recognizing what Street or Barton or Gee meant when they wrote of out-of-school

literacy practices; it breaks with our tendency to narrow the definition of literacy

within the school setting to one that emphases only one kind literacy.

But this shift away from writing is also, as mentioned above, an

ideological shift away from a hierarchical history that has favored a narrowly

defined set ofworks: narrowly defined in terms of subject matter, culture, and

modality. That is, the shift away from print is necessarily also social and political.

This, too, is acknowledged in the quotation above. The goal ofbreaking down

barri ers that separate individuals is a far cry from our more traditional belief that

literacy is a skill given to individuals to improve their life chances. Present, too, is

the need for criticality in the reading of texts.

The student follows a process to construct an interpretation of a text that interrelates her/his own world view and the world view of the text in

65

explicit ways. The student is able to interrelate how the constructed nature of the text-i.e. its structures, features, codes and conventions­are used to achieve a recognized social purpose and their impact on herlhim as a reader. (Quebec, 2006, p. 53)

The language used in this section outlines a need for a critical awareness in which

students question both the deliberate intentions behind the construction of a text, and,

importantly, how tha!construction affects the students themselves. Language such as

this, referring to students' development of a critical sense and ofhow the world around

them affects their own world view, permeates the SELA2 text. While terminology such

as praxis or critical pedagogy is not referred to directly, there is an implicit criticality in

the approach that connects literacy to students' self image and world view. This

connection demonstrates the influence of writers such as Freire who asked that students

learn to read the world before the word.

A further aspect of the change in the definition of text that warrants a closer look

is the degree to which popular culture and media are inc1uded in the new curriculum.

The concept of media literacy is by no means new;however, its inclusion in English

classrooms has traditionally been as an option for students and teachers. But, more

importantly, it has until now been taught with a view to decoding texts for the purpose

of understanding how media works to affect viewers. In other words, teaching media

literacy has been a way of giving students an awareness of the techniques and

mechanisms of media and what messages it communicates as a way of protecting them

from the ubiquitous onslaught of images and advertisements to which they are exposed.

Notwithstanding optional programs that have begun to appear in recent years, which

view the language and content of video and television in a positive light, many teachers

66

view media as something that is largely harrnful to young people. The reform does

stipulate that students need to study texts as social and cultural products, but they

should, it says, examine how such texts define issues and the world (p.96). It is clear

that the inclusion of media in SELA2 goes far beyond what it was in previous curricula

in terms of the value given to media. In this new vision, media are not viewed in a

negative manner, and are instead viewed as offering a new array of expressive modes

worthy of study in their own right as both textual productions and communication

choices. "Through aH three cycles of elementary school, it is anticipated that the

teacher will act as a guide and support to help the student build on her/his previous

experience with the media and extend it" (p. 91). What was once something to be wary

of has become something to explore in greater depth as an optional mode of

communication:

This is true for the secondary English pro gram as weIl. The authors stipulate that

an understanding of "how, why, and by whom media texts are constructed" (SELA, p.

101) in order to understand how they work on audiences; however, a notable shi ft has

occurred. In the SELA program students are expected to express their own literacy

through media (and other) texts. In essence, media has made the jump from a subject of

cautionary study, to a legitimate language-one of several that are a necessary

component ofbeing a literate person. In essence, the school-based hierarchy of

communication modes has been eroded, elevating non-written forms of communication

to equallevels of status with written communication:

It is because of the multimodal and multigenre nature of texts today that the Writing and Media competencies from EELA and SELA have merged into a single competency, Production, in Cycle Two. Unless otherwise indicated, the term 'producing' subsumes that of 'writing.' (Quebec, 2006)

67

Written texts, then, still represent a valid choice for study and communication, but have

been consciously removed from its position of status within the English classroom.

4.8 Knowledge

Determining what view of knowledge is adopted by the authors of a curriculum is

central to making sense ofhow the document should affect teaching and leaming.

Writing from personal experience, it is my beliefthat many, ifnot most, high school

teachers have maintained the belief that students come to school to receive skills and

knowledge. From this perspective, the job ofteachers is to teach, to give students the

information that we believe they will need to lead a happy or successfullife. Paulo

Freire's (1970; 1973) "banking model" of education, in which students are viewed as

arriving knowing very little and are then given knowledge in the form of information by

knowing adults, is an apt description of the way knowledge tends to be viewed in

schools. Admittedly, it may be faulty logic to de scribe the qualities of a system using the

words of someone critical ofthat system, but in this case experience supports Freire's

definition. Undermining this model would involve, as Foucault (1980) points out,

rethinking both whose knowledges we are prioritizing and the positivist belief that

knowledge exists in sorne concrete and uncontroversial form at aIl.

Any attempt to undermine the ways in which power has been associated with

education would necessarily need to undermine both the quiet, normative understanding

ofknowledge in our old system, and the ways in which this understanding is manifest in

classroom activities. It is clear that the new curriculum in Quebec seeks to do just this by

redefining what knowledge means and translating this into practice.

68

Throughout the SELA 2 document, the language used when discussing

knowledge is strongly anti-positivist. In this document knowledge is not something that

is possessed by someone, or hidden in sorne tome to be given or revealed to someone

else; rather, it is understood as something that is created by students in the process of

exploring a topic. It is meaning that develops as the result of a process, usually a social

process, through which the leamer builds understanding through an amalgamation of

personal experience and social interaction. In describing how collaboration is used to

learn, the document states:

Collaboration is presented as a knowledge-building process: students learn how meaning is constructed through collaborative talk, and how communal knowledge is deve10ped and presented in genres such as explanation, report, argument/debate, and persuasion. (Quebec, 2006, p. 21)

The SELA 2 pro gram is steeped in language that portrays knowledge as a personally or

socially constructed product. It is interesting to note, as well, that knowledge and

information are separate and distinct. Information is viewed as something that one

accesses and uses-knowledge is discussed and agreed upon; it is not a matter of

determining who is right, but a matter of formulating an acceptable, collective agreement

around a subject. Later in the same section on using talk, the document suggests that

through collaboration students negotiate meaning through talking with peers (p. 25). The

notion that meaning is negotiated is no small matter. Even in the 1983 curriculum, where

student-centered or discovery leaming is a key feature, there is an unspoken

understanding that students will be directed in one manner or another to come up with

the meaning of, say, a text that is being studied. In contrast, the SELA 2 pro gram views

meaning is negotiable, it is a social construct that exists, at least to sorne degree, apart

69

from the knowledge or ideas of the teacher or texts: "To a great extent, it is the reader's

stance that activates the reading strategies we use to build sense as we read, enabling us

to focus attention onthe meaning-making process" (Quebec, 2006, p. 47). The reader

stance, along with the voices of peers, is the source of meaning, the root of knowledge

that is created in the process of reading.

This view of knowledge and meaning as a construct is the result, in part, of the

genre approach adopted by the authors of the curriculum. From this perspective, students

will need to develop strategies to access many different kinds of texts, all of which are

constructed specifically to achieve a given purpose. In broadening the definition of what

a text is, there is now an increased need to become aware of the purpose of texts. In a

more traditional, literature-based classroom, texts were afforded a kind of sacred status­

they could not really be wrong; we just needed to delve deeply into them to discover the

meanings and knowledge that was there. The QEP, in contrast to this, asks students to

create knowledge by combining what they experience in texts with their own knowledge,

history, experiences. Hence, when discussing reading strategies, the student should be

able to "situate[ s] and store [ s] newly acquired information in relation to what s/he

already knows, compares author's/producers view of the world with own, etc" (p. 565).

The language in this respect meshes very closely with the kinds of language Gee

(1990) uses in discussing primary and secondary discourses. The effort to combine the

study of texts with the need to recognize the personal histories, cultures, and perspectives

of students is a tricky balancing act. The continued references in the QEP to knowledge

that is constructed out of a personal world view that both brings one's own out-of-school

70

experiences and acknowledges the views and experience of other students suggests there

is a real attempt to address this.

4.9 The role of teachers and students

A central criticism leveled by critical theorists, in particular, at traditional

pedagogy is directed at the role played by (often-unaware) teachers in maintaining

inequity. The analysis by Kress (Kress et al., 2005), for example, demonstrating the

often-contradictory messages teachers send in the day-to-day running of classrooms,

suggests a need to rethink this relationship. In this regard, there can be little doubt that

the authors of the QEP make notable efforts.

Put into the simplest of terms, the new curriculum shifts a significant degree of

power from the teacher to the student. In the introduction we read that students will

"expect their cycle two teachers to appreciate these prior experiences and to value

matters of personal choice with regard to reading material and the content of the texts

they produce" (Quebec, 2006, p. 7). There can be no doubt that good teachers have

always valued the opinions of their students. What is different here is that the

empowerment of students to choose much of what they read and produce in English has

been written into the document as a right.

The significance of this for the day-to-day running of an English class is

profound. A central component of a traditional English classroom was the group's

reading and discussion of a selection of texts chosen by the teacher that an students in the

classroom would read. In the section on "making sense oftexts," the SELA2 authors

write: "The texts students read reflect a balance between those that are selected on an

71

individual basis and those introduced by others, including the teacher" (Quebec, 2006, p.

54). The language here suggests that the input ofteachers in selecting texts is now

secondary to personal choice and is roughly equivalent to recommendations made by

other students and family members.

Indeed, even the revised notion of knowledge, previously discussed, represents an

enormous change to the teacherlstudent relationship. The understanding that there is not

a fixe d, universal knowledge that can be passed from teacher to student revises the very

basis ofthis relationship. Teachers are no longer viewed as having a body ofknowledge

that they should give to students: "inquiry-based learning moves the focus from the view

ofknowledge as ready-made and transmittable 'as is' from teacher to student or from text

to reader to an exploration and demonstration ofhow knowledge is really produced"

(Quebec, 2006, p. 20). The document does state that teachers are central to creating the

leaming environment, but the notion of the teacher as the central source of authority is

gone. Language that describes this revised relationship permeates the document, where

one of the most important roles of a teacher is "that of a trusted adult who models literate

behaviors and practices" (Quebec, 2006, p. 12), and where students' appreciation and

understanding of the texts they read is constructed through talk, interaction, and self­

reflection. It is no longer the function of teachers to reveal the meaning of a text to

students, or to instruct them on the stance that they should take in approaching a text.

This transformation, if it occurs, represents a true sea-change in the functioning of

English classrooms. Reading books and talking and writing about them has been the

primary activity of English. If students in a class are not required to read the same

books-even if they are required to do so on a greatly reduced scale-and if the role of

72

teachers is not to lead students to a particular understanding of the books they read, then

English classes will be very different from what they have been.

4.10 Evaluation

The challenge in creating an evaluation scheme within a New Literacy curriculum

is that it, much like defining the role of teachers, involves undermining the very things

that have been central to what has traditionally defined the subject. This is true for

several reasons. At its core, the act of assigning a number grade to students, as has been

the practice for so long, is a sorting process that ranks students by knowledge and ability

according to the perception of teachers. This practice has been attacked along several

lines. As already pointed out, it assumes that the material that is being taught, and on

which students are being tested, is equally important, meaningful, and accessible to aIl

students. New Literacy Theory proposes that this is not the case, arguing that

standardized benchmarks fail to recognize individual and cultural plurality within a

classroom. On a socio-politicallevel, critics argue that standardized benchmarks and

number grading inevitably favor the dominant cultural group, ensuring that students from

within this group have the best life-chances. This criticism calls into question the value

of the material being tested, the methodology of testing, and the validity of the outcome.

Reworking this, then, involves a radical change to both the process and

philosophy of how evaluation works and what it seeks to achieve. The manner in which

this is attempted in the SELA2 is, not surprisingly, similar in fashion to the other changes

already mentioned. As discussed already, this is implemented in part through the general

organization of the QEP in which students are evaluated on competencies that are "more

73

than simple recall, rote leaming or a cumulative set of information and skills" (Quebec,

2006, p. Il). Cross curricular competencies, described in the QEP (Quebec, 2004, p. 33)

as "important dimensions ofleaming that should be used and worked on in aIl the subject

areas" seek to evaluate individual development on a broader scale, to avoid comparing

relatively minute leaming as is done, say, in memorizing a small body of information for

a single test. Both cross-curricular and subject-specific competencies involve, ideally, an

evaluation process that speaks to a student's complex development, socially,

emotionaIly, cognitively. In English classes, this is done in several ways, aIl ofwhich

represent a significant change to past practices.

Not surprisingly, a significant degree of the evaluation process is, in theory,

supposed to be handed over to students. In part this is done through the integrated

profile, which is a student-maintained portfolio with samples of the student's work in aIl

areas of language use and production.

These conferences are not just an end-of-year/cycle event, but are ongoing throughout the cycle. In these conferences, the student negotiates criteria for choosing the content of the profile and for evaluating it. (Quebec, 2006, p. 40)

The work that is coIlected within the integrated profile is the product of teaching-

leaming-evaluation activities in which the lines between the teaching process, leaming

process, and evaluation process become blurred. Students are "to develop the essential

skill of monitoring their individual progress in the language arts over the three years of

Secondary Cycle Two. Opportunities to reflect on this development and to self evaluate

progress, with the teacher's guidance and support, are frequent" (Quebec, 2006, p. 14).

AdditionaIly, students are expected to conference on a regular basis with teachers to

discuss the integrated profile in on-going, student-teacher evaluation conferences. This

74

is, naturally, in conjunction with the increased student autonomy in terms oftextual

choice and knowledge creation.

If the language used to discuss evaluation is vague, or general, it is because the

evaluation scheme speaks to process and development, instead of concrete, measurable

ends. There are, of course, benchmarks that are highlighted in each section: for example,

in evaluating reading, students are supposed to "adjust reading strategies and stance to

build and sustain meaning"; or "make connections between reader, text and context to

justify interpretations" (Quebec, 2006, p. 49). These are, to say the least, difficult to

evaluate in any concrete way; they deal with qualitative rather than quantitative

measurement and require a significant degree of cooperation and involvement on the part

of students in order to make assessment meaningful and accurate. Such a system speaks

directly to the kinds of concems raised by social critics such as Bourdieu and Foucault,

and by New Literacy theorists like Gee and Street. The authors ofthe reform have sought

to remove, to sorne degree, the power of schools and teachers to dictate content to

students; they attempt to empower students through a formai recognition oftheir out-of­

schoollife experiences and belief systems; they eliminate the power of number grades as

a comparative benchmark, moving instead toward a system that values personal

development; and they have reworked the structures of power within classrooms in

which power rests entirely with teachers.

4.11 Criticality and the social turn

Much of the social theory that has led to the evolution of literacy as a concept

focuses closely on education as a social project, as a central means ofworking towards a

75

more just society and providing equal opportunity for all students. The authors of the

SELA2 pro gram clearly address this in part through their consistent references to

recognizing the personal interests and diversity of students. Indeed, they suggest in their

introduction that "the principles of differentiation lie at the heart of the QEP" (Quebec,

2006, p. 7). This, combined with a restructuring of the power relationships in classrooms,

and an anti-positivist notion ofknowledge, is a way ofaddressing this. But there remains

the issue of connecting what goes on in school with a greater social project. That is to say

that in order to satisfy the need for change at a societallevel, there needs to be a central

component of criticality formalized in the document.

There are several ways in which criticality is written into the SELA2 curriculum.

It has already been noted that it is Paulo Freire's definition ofliteracy that has been

adopted as the working definition ofliteracy. When Freire (1970; 1973) wrote ofreading

the world before reading the word, he asked for a present criticality in students that

would allow them to evaluate how the world around them is constructed and how that

construction comprises and affects the world of the reader themselves. In discussing

reading, the authors of SELA2 pay close attention to the kinds of language used in

describing how texts should be approached. Texts are to be interpreted, where

"interpretation is understood to mean subsequent readings that embody both the world of

the reader and the world ofthe text" (Quebec, 2006, p. 48). SELA2 defines critical

literacy in the wording of Freire: "since criticalliteracy in SELA2 has been defined as

reading the world and the word, each of its competencies focuses on the connections

between texts and the worlds of students" (Quebec, 2006, p. 9). While direct references

76

to Freire are rare in the document, continued references to the recognition of the

connection students make between their own worlds and knowledge and texts are not.

77

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Further Questions

5.1 Conclusion

The SELA2 curriculum is clearly a notable departure from traditional practices of

teaching English, and, more importantly for my purposes here, from the traditional

understanding ofwhat the concept ofliteracy means. It is my beliefthat given the

constraints inherent in producing a curriculum that attempts to balance what teachers will

accept as both doable and purposeful, the authors of the reform have produced a

document that is extremely forward thinking in the degree to which it is informed by

New Literacy Theory and a politicized vision of the subject English-the document is

driven by the theory that informs it.

In an effort to understand the degree to which the document seeks to undermine

the traditional power structures in the classroom, 1 find myself returning to my own

teaching experience. Asking teachers to relinquish authority-power-is massive. It is

massive both pedagogically, in terms how it challenges our normative ideas, such as the

belief that we have something beneficial and concrete to teach, and practically in

applying this type of pedagogy. Classrooms are easiest to control when one person (the

teacher) dominates the room. Much ofteaching has been about control, aboutjustifying

what it is we are doing in classrooms, about not wasting time. Asking teachers to alter

traditional power relations with students is an enormous, progressive step. It asks us to

trust that time will be spent usefully and that students will embrace the responsibility

theyare given. Notwithstanding these challenges, the SELA2 program does just this. It

78

instructs teachers to relinquish much of their authority in choosing material, in

presupposing they possess knowledge that should be given to kids, in evaluation.

At the curricular level the shi ft is profound. We see in the QEP a transition which

is more than an evolution in the type of content we think is important. It is a shift in the

curricular paradigm we choose to embrace. Where curriculum has traditionally been

thought of as syllabus-the material that should be covered-in the QEP it has evolved

into practice. What was content has become method; what was once oriented in

identifiable ends has become something built upon process. Students are to be given the

chance to choose many of the texts they read as long as they are exposed to a wide

variety of them. Students are also to participate in the process of deciding how they

should be evaluated. Even knowledge itself, what is still seen by many people as the very

substance of education, is no longer seen as fixed. Acquiring knowledge has shifted from

something we are given (taught) or led to (discover) to something that is created by

students. The knowledge possessed by adults is not necessarily given greater status or

value: knowledge is now personal, cultural, negotiable, social.

When applied to the subject English, these shifts represent a sea change away

from tradition. Studying English once meant studying literature, canonical texts in

particular, with a spattering of other things thrown in. The SELA2 pro gram pays tribute

to our traditional respect for literature, but little more. Canonical texts themselves have

almost no mention, and literature of any kind has been downgraded to one thing among

many that provides an opportunity to see how language is used. Even the notion of what

it means to read has lost its connection to books. Images and sounds are considered

equally important in our new media age. The technical idea of literacy that 1 introduced

79

early on has little meaning in the SELA2 program. Of course, students are expected to

read print as weIl, but it has lost its status as an entry point to knowledge, to opportunity,

to success. This point is nicely punctuated by the absence of any mention of print literacy

among the general areas ofleaming, and, moreover, through the inclusion of media

literacy on the same list. By removing the privileged status of print literature and writing,

students are invited to approach communication from a variety of modalities; literacy that

once meant simply reading and writing has shifted to literacies that involve a multitude

of strategies. The authors of the document have made clear their intention to adapt

education to the individual needs of aIl students, implying, of course, that it has not

always been that way.

Traditional curricula were created in a way that was written to be teachable and

testable, aIlowing teachers and schools to rank students in terms of their academic

standing. A system in which students are part ofboth creating an evaluation scheme, and

part of applying that scheme to evaluate their own progressions in generalized

competencies, changes aIl this. It undermines to sorne degree at least the role of schools

to filter kids, to select out children who cannot perform in an academic context. It is, very

clearly, an attempt to further democratize education-to use the institution of education

as a way of addressing longstanding social inequities.

The redefinition of the concepts of reading and writing to include a wide variety

of literacies and modalities; the clear attempt to connect leaming to the personal worlds

of student, both as a social project and as a way of depedagogizing the leaming process;

the vision of knowledge as a meaning fashioned through a personal and social process;

and the movement away from a focus on print and the canon of literature, aU represent

80

changes that find there roots in social theory, critical pedagogy, and New Literacy

Theory. Writing these changes into a province-wide curriculum is extremely significant

for several reasons. It is a revolutionary step away from tradition toward an attempt to

link theories of Iearning to c1assroom practices. This change aiso provides us with the

chance to investigate the degree to which teachers, students, and parents are willing to

shift their allegiances from traditional understandings to newer ones. It also gives us the

chance, to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the success of implementation, to

explore how such a pro gram will affect the teaching and learning of writing; and, perhaps

more importantIy, to gain an understanding ofhow a politicized curriculum will affect

students on a greater sociallevei. Can it work to affect social change?

5.2 Questions for further consideration

This thesis began as a precursor to a different question: namely, given the degree

of change the SELA2 pro gram represents for English, what understandings do teachers

have of literacy after working with the QEP for a number of years? This is a question that

speaks to many issues around curricular change in general, and of English in particular,

but 1 have come to realize that it is only one of a number of questions that need to be

answered. My purpose in this section is to highlight sorne of the questions that 1 feel are

most pertinent to understanding how the QEP will progress. 1 do this in order to further

define the present work as it was intended: as a stepping stone of sorts to larger questions

around the implementation ofnew concepts of Iiteracy. Additionally, 1 think the

questions posed in this section are necessary as a way of c1arifying or qualifying sorne of

what was said earlier. That is to say that any reading of the reform, ifit is to be useful,

81

must be contextualized. It is a document that is being applied to a context in which

people naturally have an established system ofbeliefs and methodologies. As a result,

many of the questions that arise in reading the reform deal with the challenges in

bridging the gap between theory and practice, between the writing of the curriculum and

the implementation of it. As 1 made clear at the outset, my intention in approaching the

reform was not to evaluate the likelihood of its success, or to comment as a teacher of

English on the vision of pedagogy it outlines; rather, my goal was simply to establish the

standpoint of the authors with respect to literacy, and how they seem to apply this

understanding to English. In this section 1 explore sorne of the questions that, as a

teacher, strike me as important for future work.

There are, then, many questions that arise out of this reading of the SELA2

document. The first set of questions that need to be considered address potential

stumbling blocks. That is, there remain several hurdles that need to be overcome if the

curriculum is to be implemented. By implemented 1 am only referring to teachers

adopting the type of practices and activities that are outlined in the program-I am not

even referring here to it functioning with regard to producing a new kind of literacy or as

a conduit for social change. These things involve the next set of questions.

It is the queries around literacy and democracy that represent the final and

most pressing questions. Simply, if a politicized curriculum is implemented successfully,

if it is communicated effectively to aIl the parties involved and supported logistically in

the necessary ways, can it work to empower students with a new, more meaningful kind

of literacy? Can it work as a catalyst for social change in which a new generation of

82

students achieve a greater equality of opportunity and, in effect, act as seeds to nurture a

social environment that is more democratic?

5.3Is this a curriculum?

It may sound somewhat facetious to suggest that the SELA2 pro gram may not be

a curriculum, but it is a worthwhile exercise. For many teachers and parents, curriculum

suggests that body of material that schools are mandated to teach, a syllabus of

knowledge for which teachers are accountable. But curriculum can be envisioned in other

ways: as a theoretical practice that works towards a set of cognitive ends, or as praxis

that has as its objective the development of criticality and emancipation. There can be

little doubt that the QEP is strongly grounded in both the notions of practice and praxis,

and does indeed envi sion a c1ear set of developmental ends to which teachers and

students should aspire. However, the implementation ofthis type of curriculum requires

that teachers understand and support the ideology that guides day-to-day activities. In a

curriculum based on process, there can be no success without the agreement and

enthusiasm of those people charged with implementing it. This question, then, has

several derivatives.

5.4 What understandings do teachers and parents give to literacy?

As 1 have c1arified earlier, an essential element of the SELA2 pro gram is its

definition ofliteracy. The beliefthat literacies exist in multiple genres, that they are

multimodal, that literacy is a social practice, are aIl relatively new ideas that stand in

opposition to more traditional notions of literacy as a technical skill. A curriculum that is

83

grounded in a new definition of literacy can only succeed in terms of its effect on

individual students or its greater social agenda if teachers understand and embrace this

newmeanmg.

A fundamental question, then, asks what meanings teachers (and parents) give to

the concept ofliteracy. Has the implementation of the reform adequately addressed the

process of communicating with those people charged with making the process work?

And,even supposing this communication has been thorough, we may need to explore the

degree to which older, more traditional ideas ofliteracy are entrenched in teachers' belief

systems. If teachers believe that literacy is still about reading and writing in print, as

many no doubt do, then a curriculum based in a daily practice that functions to

undermine this tradition will have little effect.

5.5 Expectations of students

We will also need to consider what it is this document is asking students to do.

The idea of empowering students by giving them far greater agency in terms of what it is

they choose to study and produce, and how they are evaluated on their development

presupposes that students are ready to undertake these responsibilities. The SELA2

document points out in several places that students will be at a specifie level of

preparedness when they begin Cycle Two; assuming the kinds of responsibilities laid out

in the document will be normal for them. It presupposes, too, that they have enough of an

interest in what it is they are being asked to do to approach it seriously. l understand that

this question sounds somewhat skeptical about the abilities of students-a level of ab il it y

that seems to be taken for granted in the SELA2 pro gram-and, moreover, that low

84

expectations may yield low results. Indeed, it is very likely that many or most students

will appreciate a greater degree ofagency; however, as the authors of the program point

out, public school classrooms are diverse settings. There may be a critical mass needed

within a classroom to make such a curriculum work, a percentage of students with the

interest and ability to assume an increased degree of responsibility. The risk, then, as l

see it, is that this curriculum may work best in classrooms that are more homogonous,

where there are fewer students with specifie leaming or behavioral special needs. The

problem is that a curriculum grounded in practice as opposed to content may require

more of teachers in terms of their ability to work with students, to engage and direct them

while at the same time granting them a great degree of agency.

5.6 Logistics

A closely related question to this involves the problem of logistics. In a province

with the largest classes in the country, we may need to investigate if what we are asking

teachers-of aIl grade levels in aIl schools-to do is doable. A curriculum that gives

students a greater degree of choice requires, for example, an excellent and accessible

library. The SELA2 program also has a strong media component, both in terms of

reading and producing media texts. This means that not only will teachers need to have

access to such texts, but that they will need to be prepared and knowledgeable enough to

guide their students in reading and producing them. Similarly, student autonomy-group

projects, student-to-student conferences, student-teacher conferences, for example-also

requires logistical support in terms oftime and space. Ifteachers have, as many do,

oversized classes crowded into small rooms with a large number of integrated special

85

needs children, this task quickly becomes very challenging to say the least. It will be

use fuI to consider where the reform seems to be working and the degree to which

logistics is playing a role in helping or hindering the kind of teaching teachers are being

asked to do. Ironically, it is conceivable that it will be the most fortunate students in the

best schools with the smallest classes that benefit from the working of such a curriculum,

while the teachers struggling with fewer resources to implement a curriculum that speaks

to social justice are frustrated by a lack ofresources.

Those who support curriculum as praxis may be critical of a reform that focuses

only on what happens in classrooms, and do es not reexamine the greater logistical setup

of schools in general. If one aspect of the reform seeks to empower students through a

reworking of power relationships, then we may need to consider the effect of the greater

organization of the institution as a whole. There are many aspects of school organization

outside the classroom that reinforce relationships of authority: class schedules, uniforms,

detentions, spatial organization, for example, that need to be reconsidered. If we agree

that traditional power relationships within schools work to the bene fit of sorne students

and not to others, then the manner in which these structures are set up may need to be

reworked, too.

5.7 Objectives and outcornes

Another question that needs to be asked is whether or not the desired outcomes

are being achieved through the implementation of the reform. This is true at both a micro

and macro level. By a micro level, 1 am referring specifically to the end-of-cycle

objectives, and asking if the outcomes that are specified are affecting students in the

86

ways that were intended. For example, one of the specified outcomes for the competency

of "using language to communicate and leam," stipulates that by the end of Cycle Two,

the student has "taken an active role in the classroom and community during the

secondary years ... and is confident in expressing opinions, raising questions, articulating

thoughts and making critical judgments" (Quebec, 2006, p. 30). At face value such

objectives are certainly weIl conceived; however, we may need to consider the possibility

that we are replacing a set of criteria that favors one group of students with criteria that

favors another. Even ifwe acknowledge that being able to confidently form and

articulate one' s thoughts is a significant asset, we need to realize that it does not speak

equally to the strengths of all students or equally to the communication styles common to

aIl cultures.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, we will need to ask the simplest of

questions: does it work? That is to say, we need to make clear that the the ory behind this

new curriculum-the historical, social, political, educational theory-upon which the se

changes are built will translate into activity that benefits students. Curriculum should

work to improve the life chances of students, and, in this case, work towards producing a

betler society, one in which marginalized groups have a greater chance of equal

participation and sense of worth. In other words, will changing the curriculum change the

way democracy works? Can increased agency in school change the way students

approach life outside school? Can it, at least to sorne degree, alter power relations and

create a more democratic society? This is a tall order, but it is one that speaks to the

many voices that form the skeletal history behind what the New Literacy Studies seeks to

do. We need, then, to first determine where this curriculum is being effectively

87

irnplernented, and then seek to determine how it is affecting student on severallevels.

Are students better equipped to face challenges after high school? Do they feel a greater

degree of power and opportunity because of the schooling they have received?

The collection of data that can speak to how the curricula and pedagogy outlined

in the QEP are affecting students on both an acadernic and sociallevel is vital to

understanding what we should be doing in schools. If the ambitious airns of a pro gram

such as the curriculum reform in Quebec are achievable then we rnay need to revisit

rnany of the conservative practices that continue to govem so rnany schools. If, on the

other hand, the curriculum fails to deliver on sorne level, or falters because of logistics or

a lack of acceptance by teachers or parents, then we need to know why, and reconsider

the project. The province-wide irnplernentation of a curriculum that is so c1early

informed by new theories of literacy provides us with the chance to see if such an

undertaking can succeed; it gives us new opportunities to examine how changes to

curricula affect students both in the school setting and in their lives outside of school.

88

References

Apple, M. (2004). ldeology and the curriculum. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R.

Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London, New

York: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture.

London, Beverly Hills: Sage productions.

Buckingham, D. (2000). After the Death ofChildhood: Growing Up in the Age of

Electronic Media. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Carmody Hagood, M. (2000). New Times, New Millennium, New Literacies. Reading

Research and lnstrction, 39(4),311-328.

Foucault, M. (1980). Powerlknowledge: selected interviews and other writings. New

York: Pantheon.

Freebody, P., Muspratt, S., & Dwyer, B. (2001). Preface. In P. Freebody, S. Muspratt &

B. Dwyer (Eds.), Difference, silence, and textual practice: Studies in critical

literacy. Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Freire, P. (1973). Educationfor Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.

Gee, J. (1990). Sociallinguistics and literacies: ldeology in discourses. New York: The

Falmer Press.

89

Gee, J. (2000). The new literacy studies: From 'socially situated' to the work ofthe

social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading

and writing in context. London, New York: Routledge.

Gee, J. (2001). Reading language abilities and semiotic resources: beyond limited

perspectives on reading. Inj. Larson (Ed.), Literacy as smake oil: Beyond the

quickjix. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Gee, J. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Goody, J. (1968a). Introduction. In J. Goody (Ed.), Literacy in traditional societies.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goody, J. (1977). What's in a list. In E. Cushman, E. Kintgen, B. Kroll & M. Rose (Eds.),

Literacy: A critical source book. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Goody, J. (Ed.). (1968b). Literacy intraditional societies. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Goody, J., & Watt, 1. (1968). The consequences ofliteracy. In J. Goody (Ed.), Literacy in

traditional societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gordon, D., & Alexander, G. A. D. (2005). The Education ofStory Lovers: Do

Computers Undermine Narrative Sensibility? Curriculum Inquiry, 35(2), 133-

160.

Graff, H. (1987). The legacies of literacy: Continuities and contradictions in western

culture and society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Graff, H. (2001). Literacy's myths and legacies: From lesson from the history ofliteracy,

to the question of criticalliteracy. In P. Freebody, S. Muspratt & B. Dwyer

90

(Eds.), Difference, silence, and textual practice: Critical studies in literacy.

Cresskill, New Jersey: Hampton Press.

Graff, H. J. (1987). The labyrinths of literacy : reflections on literacy past and present.

London; Philadelphia:: Falmer Press.

Havelock, E. (1982). The literate revolution in Greece and its cultural consequences.

Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1981). Ways with words: Language, life andwork in communities and

classrooms. London, New York: Cambridge university press.

Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Culturalliteracy: what every american needs to know. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Hull, G. (1993). Hearing other voices: A critical assessment ofpopular views on literacy

and work. Harvard Educational Review, 63(1),21-49.

Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out ofschool: a review oftheory

and research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4),575-611.

Katch, J. (2001). Under Deadman's Skin: Discovering the Meaning ofChildren's Violent

Play. Boston: Beacon Press.

Kelder, R. (1996). Rethinking Literacy Studies: From the Past to the Present.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, New York: Routledge.

Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Boume, J.,Franks, A., Hardcastle, J., Jones, K., et al. (2005).

English in urban classrooms: A multimodal perspective on teaching and learning.

London, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar ofvisual design

Routledge.

91

Landow, G. P. (1992). Hyper Text: The Convergence ofContemporary Critical Theory

and Technology. Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins Universtiy Press.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (1998). Critical Literacy and New Technologies.

Lankshear, C. a. M. K. (2003). New Literacies: Changing Knowledge and Classroom

Learning. xiii-223.

Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor and

Grancis Ltd.

Luke, A. (1988). Literacy, textbooks and ideology: Postwar literacy instruction and the

mythology of Dick and Jane. London: The Palmer Press.

Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and socialfoundations.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Macedo, D. (2006). Literacies ofpower: What Americans are not al/owed to know.

Boulder: Westview Press.

Marks Greenfield, P. (1983). Book Review: The psychology ofliteracy. Harvard

Educational Review, 53(2), 216-220.

Maybin, J. (2000). The new literacy studies: context, intertextuality and discourse. In D.

Barton, M. Hamilton & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing

in context. London, New York: Routledge.

Mayo, P. (1999). Antonio Gramsci and adult education. In Gramsci, Freire and adult

education: Possibilities for transformative action.

Murray, J. H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: Thefuture ofnarrative in cyberspace.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

92

Olsen, M. (1999). Michel Foucault: Materialism in education. Westport, Connecticut,

London: Bergin & Garvey.

Ong, W. (1986). Writing is a technology that restructures thought. In E. Cushman, E.

Kintgen, B. Kroll & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy: A critical sourcebook. Boston:

BedfordlSt.Martin's.

Postman, N. (1982). The Disappearance ofChildhood. New York: Delacorte Press.

Pruyn, M., & Fischman, G. (2001). "De nosotros sale nada": The construction ofpower

relations in one critically informed adult spanish literacy classroom. In S.

Steinberg (Ed.), Multi/intercultural conversations: A reader. New York: Peter

Lang.

Quebec, G. d. (1983). English language arts: Languages cycles one and two. Retrieved.

from.

Quebec, G. d. (2004). Quebec education program: Secondary school, cycle one.

Quebec, G. d. (2006). Secondary English language arts: Cycle two. Retrieved. from.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive Consequences of FormaI and InformaI

Education. Science, 182(4112),553-559.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, Massachusetts;

London, England.

Street, B. (1992). Literacy in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Implications for Policy and

Practice. United Kingdom; England.

Street, B. (2003). What's "new" in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to Iiteracy in

theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2).

93

Street, B. (2005). Recent applications of new literacy studies in educational contexts.

Research in the Teaching of English, 39(4),417-423.

Street, B., & Street, J. (1991). The schooling ofliteracy. In D. Barton & R. Ivanic (Eds.),

Writing in the community (Vol. 6). London: Newbury Park.

. The New London Group. (1996). A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social

Futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambride: MIT Press.

Yagelski, R. P. (1994). Literature and Literacy: Rethinking English as a School Subject.

English Journal, 83(3),30-36.

94