As a visual arts teacher I see the words as having individual meanings. I believe I am teaching my students to be literate beings by teaching them a series of related but individual skills. Then I remind them of their responsibility to be literate and productive members of their communities by using these skills to respond to things around them. It appears to me that this is what my coworkers are doing also. Younger kids are learning individual pieces of information and being taught how to apply those pieces in a larger picture. Middle and upper elementary kids are learning bigger pieces of information and being taught how to apply those pieces in the an even larger picture. The process seems to continue to higher levels of intensity as the kids move further along in their formal education experience.
However, I feel like we aren't always using parallel definitions of the two words when we have group discussions in our CC leadership team. It seems like we're competing for who's teaching the single most important part of a child's education, because the discussion occasionally seems to narrow down to the specific skills that take place in each of our classrooms. Although, the skills being taught are all very important, maybe if all teachers remember to focus on "why" those skills are needed and "how" those skills could be used, we'd have even more unity and literacy within the educational system. With that idea, I would say my definition of the word "literacy" is the ability to communicate, comprehend, and understand information by use of a person's senses, skills, and knowledge. "Skills" are some of the specific tools needed in order to gain literacy.
One of the skills I teach is color theory and mood association. With this skill students will be more literate in both sending and receiving messages about the feelings or moods associated with things around them: a room, commercial, food, artwork, outfit, menu, building, textbook, etc. With this literacy students are able to make choices that allow them not only to send specific, planned messages but also to receive them. It's communication; universal communication.
For color theory and mood association to remain a universal literacy, however, students need to know the skill of color / mood association not only from their home country but also from other countries. An example is the use of the color white. In the USA white is associated with purity such as at a wedding or baptism. In Asia, however, white is a color of mourning. If that student should become the editor of a magazine, he should know this literacy before creating the cover of an Asian magazine with a picture of people wearing crisp white clothes and huge smiles on their faces. If this student were to become a car salesman, he could use this literacy to understand why some people are so choosy about what color car they buy. If he were to manage the designing, packaging, advertising, or sales of product, he would need to apply this literacy also. While I can't know the future of my students, I can teach them to be prepared for universal things.
As long as we understand that preparing students for the future doesn't mean we're expected to know what the future holds, we'll be able to take cues from today, compare them to the past, and predict the general direction of the future. It might look like a tough task for a teacher who focuses too much on the little things - things that are not helping students to be more literate, productive beings. If we're staying focused on things that are truly the big ideas of life, our jobs are all the more interesting, enjoyable, and rewarding.
No comments:
Post a Comment