Morris (2011) suggests that critical literacy fosters a global approach toward meeting equipping learners towards a greater understanding of literacies to include not only “linguistic, visual, aural, spatial, emotive, and gesture forms but to also recognize literacy as it is applied in a historical and cultural context” (p. 293). Ensuring that all literacies associated toward becoming a global citizen require us to consider how we facilitate future-ready instructional outcomes that are not a standardized process, but instead encourage creativity in not only the learner but also as an instructional designer or artistic teacher. Critical literacy requires an understanding toward facilitating a community that applies social justice. Nicolini (2008) suggests that such approaches “demand discussions regarding ethics and government” (p. 77). Dialogue facilitates an understanding of injustices, clairity, and empathy, which builds knowledge towards environmental, economic, pedagogical, political, social, and cultural transformations, or critical literacy (Morris, 2011). Why is this important?
Blotz, Henriksen, & Mishra (2015) show that empathy is in decline and is an important characteristic of creative thinkers. We often talk about this as a skill set that is in decline and needed. However, strategies that encourage empathy and creativity are rarely provided in professional development trainings. Perhaps it is due to a lack of understanding of pedagogy and anthology to center on what critical literacy is, how it is important, and what we could do to facilitate learning in this area. Perhaps Morris (2011) said it best, “critical literacy attempts to make clear how education, under the guise of accountability schemes, is presently being reduced to domesticating factories of high-stakes testing linking standardized assessment and curriculum that undermines the possibilities for a democratic culture in numerous ways by deskilling teachers an eliminating creative processes and projects” (p. 298). This minimizes our ability to rely on the importance on cultural influences and historical approaches which produces new knowledge.
Boltz, L., Henriksen, D., & Mishra, P. (2015). Rethinking Technology & Creativity in the 21st Century: Empathy through Gaming – Perspective Taking in a Complex World. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 59(6), 3-8.
Morris, D. (2011). Critical literacy: crisis and choices in the current arrangement. In J.B. Cobb, & M. K. Kallus (Eds.), Historical, Theoretical, and Sociological Foundations of Reading in the United States (pp. 13-66). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Nicolini, M. (2008). Chatting with Letters: Developing Empathy and Critical Literacy through Writing Communities. The English Journal, 97(5), 76-80.
Social constructionism “relies on the centrality of language to mediate what people come to understand about their lived experiences” (Avermann, 2011, p. 205). Constructionist environments support “active learning” approaches in which learners are engaged in building their own public objects or artifacts. Active learning emphasizes cognitive processes occurring during the actual construction of the object. The public nature of the final object or artifact is also understood to be important (Beynon & Roe, 2004). The “maker movement emphasizes learning through direct experiences, hands-on projects, inventions, and is based on a constructionist learning theory even if members and advocates of the movement are unaware of the theory” (Stager, 2013). Papert (2000) advocates that Piaget’s belief of all learning takes place in discovery is accurate. However, Papert extends this idea to suggest that setting learners “to the task of re-empowering the ideas of being learned is also a step toward re-empowering the idea of learning by discovery” (p. 723). Papert (1999) underscores the importance of Piaget’s theory of constructivism and the nature of knowledge. Challengers of Piaget’s constructivism often refer to experiments demonstrating knowledge acquired by infants. However, Papert stresses “Piaget as a giant in the field of cognitive theory, the difference between what a baby brings and what the adult has is so immense that the new discoveries do not significantly reduce the gap but only increase the mystery” (Papert, 1999, p. 105). Papert’s Knowledge Machine” introduced the world to a new theory of learning, constructionism, which “synthesized revised insights into human development, systems theory (cybernetics) and how we think about learning (epistemology)” (Maser, 2013). Technology based modeling and methods of teaching with technologies deliver alternative methods to teaching, providing learners with choices that engage the learner in an improved learning experience (Burbaite, Stuikys, & Damasevicius, 2013). While at MIT, Papert developed Logo, designed to introduce children to programing and robotics as early as 4th grade. Children received instant feedback from a real and physical response to their creation using technology. Papert envisioned robotics as being extremely influential to children at a young age. Learners perform higher when engaged in an activity that is meaningful to them, and robotics along with programing languages encourages curiosity and experimentation beyond the actual syntax (Pierce, 2013). Papert led many research projects to study the effects of constructionist theories with at risk populations and in high-risk environments. These projects attempted to build an alternative approach to the learning environment. Despite obstacles, students proved to be successful. Experiences from Papert’s work towards building a community of learning centered on constructionism continues to guide the future design of learning environments (Stager, 2013).
Dr. Jennifer Miller-Ray 