Visual & Technological Shifts in Education

We, as educators, have certainly witnessed continual changes over time.  We have watched how new legislators at the national and state level and new superintendents at the local level have affected and implemented change.  We live in an ever-changing world and as educators; it is becoming increasingly important that we better prepare our students for lives in the global world.  Like Brandt (2012), I see sponsors of literacy as agents, who enable, support, teach and yet can withhold literacy and nevertheless, gain advantage of it in some way.  The sponsors of literacy are continually changing and many have agendas by which we are supposed to adhere to.  The new Common Core Standards call for students to be prepared for career and college readiness.  In order for that to happen, our students need to achieve several critical literacies. 

Holum & Gahala (2001) defined critical literacy as the ability to look at the meaning and purpose of written texts, visual applications, and spoken words to question the attitudes, values, and beliefs behind them.  Additionally, they acknowledged the goal is to discern meaning from an array of multimedia, visual imagery, and virtual environments, as well written text.  Given this definition, we see once again that critical literacy is much more than one’s ability to read and write.  There are many components that are intertwined within literacy and we see these shifts change rather quickly over time. 

I find visual imagery of particular importance because I see an influx of this within the newly adopted reading curriculum, Springboard, in Lee County.  In fact, the curriculum contains several components including movie clips, oral readings, visual imagery, and written texts.  The premise behind this variety of texts is that a student’s understanding will deepen when exposed to various forms of literacies.  Youngs (2012) found that responses originating from visual images allowed for readers to interpret meaning and construct more sophisticated responses.  Additionally, she found that student interpretations were deeper when they analyzed the visual images. 

Personally, I believe visual images can often help provide additional background knowledge, especially for students that lack previous experiences.  Furthermore, I have found that visual images stimulate better conversation, as students respond in a more meaningful manner.  Our students today are digitally plugged in, with information at their fingertips, and are constantly in communication with others.  Wouldn’t we be better served if we could “plug in” to them and be willing to change so that we make the shift together?  Perhaps incorporating more technologically connected lessons, including visual imagery, movie clips, and written and picture texts, educators could begin to bridge the gap between those economically disadvantaged students that O’Brien & Bauer often refer to and enhance the learning of all students. 

Finally, students and educators would be better served if both could feel less pressure to perform on standardized tests and actually focus on the journey of learning.  Learning could be more cooperative and more visually and technologically enhanced, which would help students deepen their understanding and significantly improve their learning.  Given these facts, I believe we would also see the achievement gains, which are so heavily sought nationwide.

References:

Brandt, D.  (2009).  Literacy and Learning:  Reflection on Writing, Reading, and Society.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

              Holum, A., & Gahala, J. (2001).  Critical issue:  Using technology to enhance literacy instruction.  North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Editorial Offices: NCREL, 1120 E. Diehl Rd., #200, Naperville, IL 60563.

              O’Brien, D. G., & Bauer, E. B. (2005).  New literacies and the institution of old

 learning.  Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 120 – 131.

               Youngs, S. (2012).  Understanding history through the visual images in

historical fiction.   Language Arts, 89(6), 379-395.