Multiple literacies, CMC, and language and culture learning. (Language Teaching & Learning).

Abstract

This contribution explores ideas of multiple, culturally patterned communicative practices that draw jointly on speech and writing, using a research and theory-based approach to Iiteracies in second and foreign languages. The data samples are from learners' CMC written conversations in ESL and German (translated). Issues of power are examined that relate specifically to the silencing of certain aspects of the students' learning lives, as well as learners' willingness to let their voices interact with each other, shaping meaning and interpretation, without the constant aid or urging of the "voice of authority" in the teacher. The culture of learners' CMC conversations is observed to show how the relationships of power become complex and multiple in a CMC classroom. Viewing literacy as a collaborative effort in which oral and written language overlap also suggests the importance of the possibilities of CMC.

*********

In her essay on constructing curricula for foreign language learners and learning, Heidi Byrnes (1998) makes an eloquent call for linking foreign or second language studies "... to the larger intellectual enterprise of literacy .... "(p. 278) Byrnes goes on in her discussion to define, with Reder (1994), the research and theory-based approaches to literacy which view it as a "set of social cultural practices and its participants as a community of practice [where] ... many culturally patterned communicative practices draw jointly on speech and writing in their routine accomplishment." (Byrnes, 1998, (p. 279), quoting Reder, 1994). It is exactly these ideas of multiple, culturally patterned communicative practices that draw jointly on speech and writing that we will explore in more depth here. Our general contexts are computer mediated communication (CMC) in interdependent and collaborative language and culture learning environments.

Multiplicity and Dialogue

This paper is concerned with things "multiple," so our first task is to explore more closely the concepts of multiplicity and the related ideas surrounding dialogue. True dialogue implies an equality among participants, where there is not a goal of one party or group prevailing over the other. In dialogue of this kind, attentive listening to the other and a purposeful avoidance of privileging one's own ideas or contributions over the other's are salient. In dialogue, then, the goal is not necessarily to reach a conclusion; rather, it is to foster an environment where a multiplicity of views or opinion is valued and where communication remains possible.

Krippendorff (1997) takes the combined ideas of dialogue and multiplicity one step further by coining the term multilogue. "Multilogue describes the multiple social realities needed for ... polyphonic dialogue to not only take place but also enable theft participants to move out of burdensome if not oppressive relational practices" (Krippendorff, 1997, p. 61).

The emphasis here is on multiple voices, none of which are more or less privileged, be they academic, personal, subjective, anecdotal, empirical or something else. The tensions created by these multiple voices may not be resolved into any kind of consensus. While judgments can certainly be made about best fit for a particular purpose, or best harmony among a few of the several voices, no master voice or narrative is chosen. The acceptance of the idea that tension among the multiple voices in `multilogue' be maintained is also an important aspect of literacy for the learning space in a classroom as well as the research space of this discussion.

Palmer (1998) lists six paradoxes, or creative tensions, which hold opposites or multiple facets of a situation together to keep the charge and energy vital. Three of those paradoxes which most directly apply to the orientation we are adopting for both the learning and the research spaces of this project are: the space should invite the voice of the individual and the voice of the group; the space should honor the `little' stories of individuals and the `big' stories of the disciplines and tradition; the space should welcome both silence and speech (Palmer, 1998, p. 74). Holding these tensions and honoring the multiple voicings of self and other, as well as the "multilogues" in which these voices engage, are primary objectives of this investigation of multiple literacies in the learning environment.

Literacies and Power

Literacies are the human capacities, individually and contextually varied, to individually and co!laboratively negotiate, process, and contribute elements of consciously interactive communication. The position I am taking here favors the sociocultural and sociolinguistic aspects of literacies rather than the view of literacies as made up of particular skill components. Literacies are not individual phenomena, but they require the contributions of individuals, and each person involved in any particular instance of social constructions of literacies changes the initial conditions and the processes of that particular sociocultural development.

McKay (1996, pp. 438-39) discusses how communities support and collaboratively develop particular definitions of and approaches to texts, to their organization, and to their messages. These approaches to texts are related to issues of power in the way that texts and their production help to define the positionalities of individuals and groups in terms of what they choose to say or not to say about a particular issue or topic. Power, shared or not, is also reflected in terms of who is given opportunity to express their choices of what to say or not to say. For example, in two sets of data, the interplay between voicing and silence are thematized spontaneously by different students as follows:

   a) "In the class discussions, I usually can't speak up, because they go so
   fast. But when I'm responding on the computer, I have enough time, and I
   can contribute, too." JO F00

   b) "I think I have opened up a lot in this class through my papers and my
   postings. I  have discussed my life and my experiences in the little time I
   had. It felt good to actually write about some important issues in my life
   that I had not realized that affected me until I had to write about them."
   AJ S99

In each of these passages, the contributor is voicing her positioning in a particular learning situation. The issues of power here relate specifically to the silencing of certain aspects of the students' learning lives. In excerpt a), the student, a non-native speaker (NNS) of English, is silenced by the pace of classroom interaction until a different mode of contribution, namely CMC, allows her to find a way to have her voice and ideas heard. In excerpt b), the learner, a different NNS of English, has found a voice first within herself, a way to reflect on her own experiences, and then given public voice to those experiences by being asked to write, to engage in literacy events in a CMC setting. The classroom communities where these learners found themselves able to engage in `multilogues' were communities where they were encouraged and supported to collaboratively develop particular definitions of and approaches to texts, to their organization, and to their messages. The opportunity to write, to "post" in a public CMC forum, and to contribute in a written mode rather than only orally, resulted in a different distribution of classroom power for these two learners.

Texts--written, spoken, or visual--can be used to change that social order. As McKay (1996) and Byrnes (1998) have suggested, then, language classrooms can be the sites where a collaborative approach to literacies can thrive, and where students can be encouraged to be involved with texts on all levels of engagement-technological, functional, and social. Classrooms, as our short excerpts illustrate, can become communities in which students share the knowledge they have about texts both in determining the meaning of what they read and how they think about texts, including the texts of their own lives. Classrooms can become places where learners effectively write their own texts in the second or foreign language. The brief data samples above illustrate that as students share their insights about texts, and about producing texts, the line between oral and written language will mix and blur as literate behavior permeates both. Our data underline this viewpoint very clearly, namely that viewing literacy as a collaborative effort in which oral and written language overlap also suggests the importance of the possibilities of CMC. For those who come to the language classroom with oral and literacy skills in their first or another language, CMC and a social constructivist approach to classroom interaction may be a very productive strategy that can help learners to discuss and produce their own texts in the second/foreign language.

As we think about multiple literacies and a social constructivist approach to classroom interaction, relationships of power can be reframed to be seen through lenses of multiplicity. Foucault, without whom no discussion of power could be complete, defines power as "... the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization" (Foucault, 1980, p. 92, quoted in McCarthy, 1996, p. 44). Rather than a social order with a center of power (for example, a teacher as the center of power in the classroom), the vision is of a "... multiple network of diverse elements ... a strategic distribution of elements of different natures and levels ..." (Focault, 1977, pp. 307-308 quoted in McCarthy, 1996, p. 45). In other words, the relationships of power become complex and multiple in a CMC classroom where all levels of engagement-technological, functional, and socialcontribute to the sociocultural construction of the classroom or the community of practice within and around which the language and culture classroom and its participants define themselves.

Complexity

Larsen-Freeman (1997) has begun the work necessary to apply the ideas from chaos/complexity theory to second language acquisition and thus to the related fields of multiple literacies. These ideas are an important paradigm for research in CMC and for pragmatic aspects of multilogue in the CMC context. They require a thorough rethinking of our research and pedagogical paradigms and ideologies. Here we will be content to acknowledge these systems and complexity as a research ideology with a place in our web of cognitive relationships. Briefly, complexity is not, as Cilliers (1998) points out, the same as something that is complicated. Multiple literacies and CMC pedagogy cannot be fully understood without acknowledging that these are interrelated complex systems. Cilliers (1998, pp. ix-x) summarizes that in a complex system, the interaction among parts of the system, and the interaction between the system and its environment, are such that the system as a whole cannot be fully understood by analyzing its components. Also, the relationships are not fixed, but reconfigure as a result of self-organization, which results in new aspects of the system, referred to as emergent properties. Cilliers emphasizes that natural language and social systems are complex in this technical meaning of `complex' as related to non-linear dynamic complex systems. Since our focus here on multiple literacies in CMC environments is intimately connected to natural language and social systems, CMC interactions are certainly also complex dynamic systems. This will remain as an underlying but important aspect of the research ideology of this contribution and of the positionality expressed in this discussion. To complete the connections set forth here among literacies and complexity, Abraham, quoted in Ebert (1999, p. 62), calls the research ideology and practice relating to non-linear dynamics and complexity theories "dynamical literacy."

Data Excerpts and Analysis

The data come from learner voices, in various states of self-reflection, written in response to class assignments. The classes involved were language and culture classes at the intermediate level. Learners were asked to see and construct themselves as learning and knowing subjects. As such they bring their own attitudes and perspectives on self and other into their own focus and consciousness.

The participants in the courses were very active in their social co-construction of knowledge, once they were convinced that such a goal was possible and even necessary in the kind of classroom environments in which they were encouraged to participate. Data from one intermediate level language class presents some good examples for this point. These are examples of CMC data, using conferencing software where all messages were asynchronously produced. There was no additional face-to-face interaction at the time of the messages.

Some brief quantitative data is revealing about this forum for second language (L2) communication. The assignment was simply to contribute at least one message to the conference per week, in German (the L2, translations provided by the author). As in any undergraduate context, not all students were willing to fulfill this requirement. However, all students (20) did contribute to the forum many times. Most important for this look at co-construction of knowledge as a pragmatic aspect of L2 and CMC, though, are these statistics: of the 18 topics of the semester's conference, 15 were initiated by students. Of the total of 223 messages on the conference, 100% of which were in German (of varying quality), the teacher's contributions were a meager 16 messages. This in itself is an indication that students are very willing and able, using their L2, to engage in a process that is `multilogic,' to let their polyphonic voices interact with each other, shaping meaning and interpretation, without the constant aid or urging of the "voice of authority" in the teacher. In other words, this aspect of the pedagogical approach was collaborative and interdependent, without any attempt to misguide the learners into thinking that the whole course was outside of the constraints of the institutional power arrangements.

One particularly interesting exchange took place concerning learners' plans for the future, their studies, and their learning. Due to the asynchronous nature of the exchanges, it is surprising that the written conversation shows evidence of cohesion, coherence and development of topic as a socially constructed accomplishment by the group, marked by intersubjectivity and contingency. The discussion begins as follows:

LS: I wonder when all of you are going to be finished with school? I want to get my BA in English and German in May 98. And what do you all want to do with the degree? Naturally I will always learn German and one day I want to live in Germany. Also I'd like to learn Spanish and Russian. Then I will be a linguist. J Hopefully!!!!

OJ: ... I have to stay in school until 1999 and only then I can get my diploma, my degree. After this semester I have to have many more language courses (German, Portuguese and Spanish). I like school but some classes are very difficult. And sometimes ... very boring. Chao [sic].

HC: I want to be finished with school in August 98 and then I'd like to live in Germany or South America. There I can improve my German or Spanish. Hopefully some day my Spanish will be as good as my German. Hopefully both will be as good as my English ....

NC: My majors are English and German. I like reading books. I find many books interesting. Books make me think. I think that I learn something new every day. I love languages. I was born in Germany and lived there. English and German are my majors for this reason. I'd like to learn another language.

SS: My majors are always languages. I like to learn very much, especially German and French. I love to speak other languages ... S97 Ger300

The culture of this CMC conversation was one where a topic or theme was further developed, either by means of repetition (e.g. Contributor #1 likes these languages, #2 likes those, # 3 likes those and others) or by adding new but related themes that do not depart too far from the topic (e.g. # 4 likes fewer languages, but loves to read and learn and has good reasons for liking the two languages she does. She'd also like to 'keep up with the Joneses' by learning yet another language). Contributor #5 seems to be using the others' ideas and words in summary for her own contribution-she loves both languages and learning. These were common profiles for the coherence and cohesion in the culture of written CMC conversation established by this group. The theme of knowing as developed by the participants in this excerpt, even on a surface level, shows good evidence of pragmatic co-construction. The students mutually engage in a construction of what is of interest, what is achievable, and what is admirable in their socially constructed culture of written conversation in the second language in this extended CMC classroom. Their discourse patterns show overlapping by means of repetition and add-ons, as just illustrated, as a means of constructing their culture of written conversation. The learners implicitly accept what their colleague in the previous turn has suggested by repeating parts of the previous turn, sometimes verbatim. Interestingly, the discourse pattern of this intersubjective written conversation is very similar to one found in an entirely different, though also pedagogical, context by Benwell (1999). In British university tutorials, Benwell found that "... the relationship between issues is ... one of overlapping knowledge: knowledge progresses by a collaborative pooling of opinion, and one opinion attempts to 'improve' upon a previous one by accepting its value.... "(p. 556). Thus, this sample chain of contributions shows several aspects of the ideas outlined in the theoretical portion of this paper: learning as an inherently interdependent sociolinguistic process; negotiation both of knowledge and of the procedures for engaging that knowledge; and polyphonic voices shaping meaning and interpretation as an example of complex multilogue and multiple CMC literacies in action.

Conclusions

This contribution has shown how posing questions about the underlying social constructs of learners and teachers can help both to understand more about this complex dynamic system. Paraphrasing Benwell (1999, p. 557) and McKay (1996), these data reflect multiple literacies of knowledge development in a setting where learners show engagement in technological (in the contexts offered by CMC), functional, social aspects of questioning the status quo of traditional classrooms, to replace it with the complexities of interdependent and collaborative learning. The work presented here are, then, acts of an analysis of the process of reinventing power (Zuss, 1994).

Pragmatics as a research endeavor and ideology is here expanded to help understand the way learners and teachers use language with technological, functional, and social engagement to create meaning in intersubjective ways. These data were used as a vehicle to expand an understanding of classroom based research on multiple literacies and the complexities of their development. Observing the culture of learners' CMC conversations shows how the relationships of power become complex and multiple in a CMC classroom. The view of literacy as a collaborative effort where oral and written language overlap suggests the richness of CMC contexts as they offer all participants in multilogue rich opportunities to hold creative tensions among the multiple facets of an emergent dynamic system, to keep the charge and energy vital for the continued reinvention of literacies in a language classroom, and of the power they grant.

References

Benwell, B. (1999). The organisation of knowledge in British university tutorial discourse: Issues, pedagogic discourse strategies and disciplinary identity. Pragmatics: International Pragmatics Association, 9(4), 535-565.

Byrnes, H. (1998). Constructing curricula in collegiate foreign language departments. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 262-295). New York: Modern Language Association.

Ebert, John. (1999), Twilight of the clockwork god: Conversations on science & spirituality at the end of an age. Tulsa, OK: Council Oak Books.

Focault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish (Sheridan, A., Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York: Pantheon.

Krippendorff, K. (1997). Seeing oneself through others' eyes in social inquiry. In M. Huspek & G. Radford (Eds.), Transgressing discourses: Communication and the voice of other (pp. 47-72). New York: State University of New York Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.

Magnan, S. (I 996). In search of a research voice. The quantitative/qualitative dilemma in L2 pedagogical inquiry (Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Tucson, AZ)

McCarthy, E. D. (1996). Knowledge as culture: The new sociology of knowledge. New York:: Routledge.

McKay, S. L. (1996). Literacy and literacies. In S. L. H. McKay, N.H. (Ed.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 421-445). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of teacher's life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Reder, S. (1994). Practice-engagement theory: A sociocultural approach to literacy across languages and cultures. In B. Ferdman, R.-M. Weber, & A. Ramirez (Eds.), Literacy across languages and cultures (pp. 33-74). Albany:: State U of New York Publishing.

van Lier, L. (1998). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and symmetry. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 157-182). New York: modern Language Association.

Wildner-Bassett, M. E. (n.d.). Beyond chaos: Multiple literacies in learning environments. Explorations in the pragmatics of written conversation, non-linear dynamic systems, and computer-mediated communication. Manuscript in preparation.

Wildner-Bassett, M. E., & Meerholz-Haerle, B. (1999). Positional pedagogies and understanding the other: Epistemological research, subjective thoeries, narratives, and the language program director in a `web of relationships'. In L. K. Heilenman (Ed.), Research issues and langauge program direction (Vol. 9, pp. 203-243). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Zuss, M. (1994). Value and subjectivity in literacy practice. In B. Ferdman, R.-M. Weber, & A. Ramprez (Eds.), Literacy across languages and cultures (pp. 239-272). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Mary, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of German Studies and faculty member in the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching.