What makes a good teacher of multiliteracies?

I have been asked the question ‘What makes a good teacher of multiliteracies’ several times recently. My response is that a good teacher of multilitieracies is a teacher who continues to learn, and engages regularly as a ‘reader’ and ‘writer’ of multiple forms of text.

Let me explain. When I began teaching (nearly 30 years ago) I had the least amount of seniority in the system for a number of years, and was subsequently declared ‘surplus’ and ‘redundant’, resulting in annual moves to a new classroom, grade or school. Though difficult at the time, I gained a perspective from meeting teachers across my district and quickly learned that the most effective teachers of reading, were themselves actively reading for both information and pleasure and sharing those experiences with their students. Their classrooms were filled with books that they knew and loved intimately and could discuss with their students. As they came to know their students interests and reading ability, these teachers were able to guide students to great books that would connect to their students in personal ways as well as remaining mindful of selecting texts that would scaffold their reading ability.

Similarly, I noticed that teachers who were regularly engaged in writing (of all forms) were better able to relate to their students as writers. ‘Writer-to-writer’, they were able to discuss strategies for approaching writing, considering their audience, developing and learning new vocabulary etc. Teachers who were writers also tended to me more reflective, and therefore more likely to question assumptions about prescribed processes and procedures.

Several years ago I noticed an increase in the ways in which books were being organized, sorted and ‘leveled’ for students. On the surface, this appears to be a positive move. Texts that are too challenging for students can quickly lead to frustration and books that are not sufficiently challenging can contribute to boredom. Publishers responded with guide books generating lists of texts neatly categorized and ‘leveled’ according to ‘readability’ scales that reduced selection of appropriate texts to skills. While these lists may serve a limited purpose, they create conditions in which teachers defer their professional judgment in favour of a list generated often by and with publishing companies (who of course, list the books that they publish). To strengthen their use, they are frequently tied to commercial reading assessments which align with the ‘appropriate level’ of text for students to use, effectively removing the decision-making process from the teacher altogether. Situated in an era of accountability, teachers become increasingly concerned with students’ achievement on standardized tests, and less concerned about whether we are engaging and motivating a generation of readers who will continue to read for pleasure or for information once they leave school.

Similar shifts have occurred in the teaching of writing. In my work, I see an increased focus on reducing writing to specific skills and prescriptive formats that simply do not reflect the reality of ‘what real writers do’. Explicit teaching can be very effective when offered as needed, in context. I love to read the ‘acknowledgments’ pages of my favourite books, and I take comfort in knowing that most authors offer thanks to a multitude of people who they claim have offered feedback, advice, suggestions and copy editing as their words moved from ideas, through multiple drafts and on to some sort of published format. Why would we want to reduce the teaching of reading and writing to simple, measurable, prescriptive formats at a time when our understanding of literacy and the multiple ways we can approach the teaching of literacy has continued to expand?

So what does this suggest for multiliteracies? For me, it means that teachers need to continue to be learners engaged in the ‘reading and writing’ of multiple forms of text. The multiple ways in which we are able to engage with texts is both exciting and overwhelming. I take comfort in the participatory nature of the expanded literacy opportunities, as they come with a wealth of ongoing support.

Participating in a variety of professional learning networks has taught me that when we are learning about how to engage with texts that we may have less experience with, there is a community of ‘teachers’ available to us who are ongoing ‘readers and writers’ of that text that can help us along the way. I learn as much about new literacies as I do from the ways teachers approach their ‘multiliteracies-in-use’ in their own contexts, and in their approach to teaching me what they have learned. For example, I am now studying art taught by one of my graduate students. In addition to learning how to draw (for starters) I have learned a new vocabulary for discussing images, and new ways to ‘look’ and ‘see’ what is before me. As a result, I have carried this new learning into my teaching and my research.

As multiliteracies pedagogies continue to grow in our classrooms, we continue to refine the assessment and reporting of our students’ engagement with these literacies in ways that first satisfy our students’ learning needs, and second, satisfy accountability concerns of the institutions in which we practice. My hope is that the two are not mutually exclusive.