plan: following a traditional structure

1)    Illustrative quote: introduction


Establish context for this area of work i) austerity: literacy crisis has become a financial crisis:  the un/hinging of skills policy ii) SfL as history: continuity and change


2)    Theoretical framework


As it relates to literacy: competing conceptualisations and metaphors – but primarily more than, other than skills : literacy as a policy construction nature of the relationship


As it relates to teacher education: is there is specific ‘pedagogic content knowledge’ as distinct from other ways of knowing this content and what are the implications


3)    Lit Review


Professionalism that centres on a deep seated polarity: economy of performance vs. the ecology or practice – with regards to the construction of literacy – ‘as implementers of government policy’.  Kell – literacy as shell / Wilson – literacy as 3^rd space / Scotland: the wheel / Ivanic: literacies for learning – less detailed explorations into teachers attitudes, the beliefs, dispositions, experiences they bring to the encounter  (Ellis & LfLin FE video).


4)    Methods – research participants and sites; data sources & procedures (interview protocol); researchers positions; data analysis


naturally occurring data – in process – discourse / documentary / situational analysis, approximation of grounded theory: had the advantage of materials that I was implicated in a close to. Written statements, recorded tutorials, lesson observation & reflections, audio-visual diary; the blog; personal language history. No strict protocol as such – apart form questioning. Other activities still ongoing. Reflexivity is key here: this is what emphasis is placed upon situational analysis. Acknowledges my presence in the field. Not action research – improving on practice; not evaluation: these statements not included.


5)    Research findings:
A) i. ii. B )i. ii. C) etc


Too soon to say so tentative:  a) awareness of limitations and contradictions of targets for their practice  b) they have their own construction of literacy / language that connected to place and space c) their own uses of literacy as literacy subjects – explicit, pedagogic and experiential epistemologies


6)    Discussion and implications
a) b) & c)


Too soon to say so tentative:  a) recognition of constraints and limitations but with a resigned acceptance that this is the condition we work within  -  literacies remain un/reconciled b) acceptance closely related to teaching context and what it allowed c) one literacy map collected as part of class exercise

Lost in text: the importance of organising ideas

LEWIS, C. & FABOS, B. 2005. Instant messaging, literacies & social identities. 

Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 470-501

There are so many strands of thought to pursue and writing ‘papers’ with a view to publication is quite different to writing a thesis with a view to understanding a particular terrain. The papers feel like smaller chunks of information and so I think there is a sense in which have an overall project would help. Finance is good but potentially another source of distraction, yet – if I am successful in securing funds, then this would be an incredible source of focus and in depth development.


In this paper the writers interview only 7 participants but seem to have generated a great deal of analysis on the basis of only a few informants. They do not speak in general terms and when they seek to make generalised statements about use of technology – they then reference wider studies. In this context 40 is not representations but begins to lean in that direction which a study of 7 cannot do.

The organisation of the text is worthy of note and something that of some papers I will drawn inspiration from:

i             Start with an illustrative quote that sets the framework and focus for the piece. That allows you a way into talking about the themes you want to explore.

ii              Theoretical Framework

iii             More direct exposition of these explored: lit review        a) b) & c)

iv             Methods – research participants and sites; data sources & procedures (interview protocol); researchers positions; data analysis

v              Research findings:                                A)            i.              ii.             B)            i.              ii.             C) etc

vi             Discussion and implications                a) b) & c)

This style is quite alien to me but I think it will help shape my ideas and offer focus. To be fair this is a standard structure for writing up a research project. Much of what I write has not directly centred around research in this way. 

Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities – comments & dis/connections

Note that she suggest that fear of literacy practices of young people akin to fears that older generation have in relation to the young – decline, disintegration, standards, ‘risk’, multiculturalism, nostalgic hankering for world that was  – a contemporary trope

Luke and Luke (2004):

The perception of crisis [over perceived loss of print literacy] is an artefact of a particular generational anxiety over new forms of adolescent and childhood identity and life pathways: fundamental ontological and teleological changes in childhood traceable to global economies, cultures, and technologies. (p. 105 )

Anxieties that lead to valorisation and reification of print literature. This in terms of defining literacy is not unlike the shifts that Gee points to in his account of Plato reaction to text. That it made people stupid; that it meant those who were not worthy might have access to ideas that they were not naturally equipped to manage.

Interesting that she notes a connection between IM & off-line identities that they merge and compliment rather than exist in tension. The virtual and embodies are part of a singly defined self; to be someone is to be online.

Also note that the panic of IM and literacy standards is misplaced here – this would seem to connect to Crystal, that correct spelling was valued and played with: abbreviations seen as childish.

Also note that resistance to seeing this as a high value /status  literacy: what I value is boo reading and reflection. Intense, dense chunks of text with words that require pages of clarification.

i)                     An exploration of social media use amongst adult professionals  ie twitter

Over the course of the next 2 years, could I explore how my trainees engage with social media – not as an action research project – but as an exploration of their literacy? Trainees are significant only that they represent a group of adults I have a connection to and rapport with: an easy target group & captive audience

I am smiling here: how we are compelled to write about something, how we are compelled to seek funds has the capacity to change how we then think and feel about what we do.

ii)                   Literacies of trainee literacy and language teachers

There is a suggestion here that I could use the blog as a data source and analyse all contributions. I still don’t have a title for my UnDip Lit project, but Module 3 involves some meta analysis: the trainees talking through their writing process; my concern is that they will not explore things in the way I want. My instructions may have been coo complex – but I am aware of several opportunities to gather data. But this might include some indication of their writing process and engagement with multimodal literacies. 

it's the environment

Notes on interview with MS

I ask him about his approach to teaching his group. The question perhaps reflects my desire to get him talking about literacy in general terms, or at least his literacy pedagogy. To articulate his ideas about what he doing –as a teacher. We take a few tries to get to what I want to explore with him.

At first he turns to the assignment. But I want him to talk in general terms first and then relate his ideas about teaching to the task.

He then turns to the composition of the group. He describes his teaching as ‘fluid’. By this he means he has students who come in and out because of all sorts of problem. Despite the closed coercive environment he teaches in. This is an enclosed community.

Something strikes me listening to this teacher. He is an experienced teacher who has taught for 10 years. He has worked in a difficult situation – a harsh environment for all of that time. He expresses a degree of disappointment and anxiety about aging. He is in his late 40s early 50s. He refers to his clock ticking. At his age I feel younger. I am at the start of a career and feel that this was the right time (in terms of my personal biography) to make the shift.

He feels otherwise.

There is no sense of what drives him. I do not ask the question and he does not hint at any commitment to equity and social justice as his motivation for teaching. He started teaching with skills for life. And I am interested in the extent to which he is able to critique the associated pedagogic approach.

I listen to my interview style. It is not really an interview. Part tutorial in which I question him.

So, in analysing his overall approach to his teaching – he describes:

Unfortunately the main theme is getting them through the exams. That’s the focus that they’re putting on us.  It doesn’t sound right, but teaching them to pass the exams almost like a sausage factory. And that’s the, eh – that’s ....not that I like it, that’s the environment .... cos the funding is gonna ... I think what they’re doing, the funding is gonna change ... they’ll only get funding for good passes.  So the main focus is on trying to get them to exam level as soon as possible. And focussing on only what they don’t know. It’s not right. And it’s not what good teaching is necessarily about.

He then starts to talk about the assignment – mainly his critique of assessment tools.

Two things strike me.

The first was the fear expressed by some that once the SfL as policy infrastructure has taken hold, newer teachers who had not experienced alternative pedagogic paradigms would not have the resources to draw upon to critique the regime and would accept it as normal and legitimate. While MS has no radical agenda, he is able to identify the short comings of the regime he adheres to and the implications for his teaching.

The other thing that strikes me, is the change in his speech as we move towards some form of critique.

When he starts to talk about the environment he works in – by his he means the demands placed upon him by his employers to get students through the exam -  he falters. He pauses. Thinks about what he has to say, repeats himself and stops and starts different sentences with some thoughts remaining unfinished. This is noticeably different to his style of speech so far. .

I ask MS about how his approach squares with the discussions we have had in training sessions.  My questions are long, rambling and complicated.

It doesn’t always fit in. It’s great theory and it’s good. You know, we’ve talked about how to contextualise it and the wheel, all of that.  It was very refreshing. But my mentor, all she’s interested in is, oh, he failed, can we get him back in. Not, ‘Can we develop this individual?’ Can we get him back in? What do you think he failed on? And that’s the environment we’re in. And with the contracts coming up for renewal.

AS methodology – I am struck by my presence in the encounter. Struck by the how much – as tutorial and interviewer – I fill in gaps in his speech, we overlap and I complete partial thoughts.  At times I want to suggest I should be quiet and let him speak more. That actually eh would find his focus and his ideas would be more fully expressed if I allowed the conversation to role.

I think I need to explore the nature of this data more carefully. I am comfortable in accepting that it is what it is.