THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 45(4), 378386

Gina Cervetti James Damico P. David Pearson

Multiple Literacies, New Literacies, and Teacher Education

The authors consider the role that multiple literacies and new literacies might play in shaping preservice education. They review existing literature on multiple and new literacies in preservice education and examine in-school and out-ofschool enactments of new and multiple literacies to answer the question, What can we do in preservice teacher education to take these understandings about literacy and guide future teachers to enact them in projects, practices, and pedagogies in their classrooms? The article concludes with a set of 5 recommendations for shaping teacher education programs that, taken together, provide a blueprint for ensuring that new teachers enter the classroom prepared to take advantage of the multiple literacies that students will bring to
Gina Cervetti is a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Lawrence Hall of Science, Seeds and Roots at the University of California, Berkeley. James Damico is an Assistant Professor of Language Education at Indiana University. P. David Pearson is Dean of the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. Correspondence should be addressed to Gina Cervetti, Lawrence Hall of Science, Seeds and Roots, 1 Centennial Drive #5200, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail: cervetti@uclink.berkeley.edu

the classroom and to guide students in developing even richer portfolios of multiple literacy tools and understandings.

O DATE, THERE IS NO clear consensus about the role of multiple literacies and new literacies in K12 classrooms. In the view of some in the multiple literacies community, the existing structures and policies of K12 education make schools problematic sites for enacting multiple and new literacies in any meaningful way (Lankshear & Knobel, 2000). Their argument rests on the premise that these multiple literacies represent a fundamental paradigm shift in the ways we understand and enact literacy and learning. Despite these unresolved issues and given our task of considering the role of preservice education in advancing multiple literacies, we start with the assumption that schools as we know them and teacher education as it exists are potential sites for the enactment of multiple literaciesthat multiple literacies can exist authentically and productively in school settings and that teacher education can play a role in transforming school practice.

378

Cervetti, Damico, and Pearson

Multiple Literacies, New Literacies, and Teacher Education

Thus, in this article we have taken two approaches, one focused on teacher education and one focused on classroom and community practice, to answer the question: What are the implications of multiple literacies for preservice teacher education? We first combed the literature on multiple literacies looking for explicit discussions of teacher education practices and perspectives. We then looked at in-school and out-of-school enactments of multiple literacies education and tried to imagine what teachers would need to know or be able to do to bring these enactments to life. The terms new literacies and multiple literacies are used to signify a wide range of perspectives on literacy and literacy education. What is generally common to both is that they involve an expansion of the boundaries of what counts as literacy and literate competency. In addition, both reflect an understanding of literacies as social and cultural practices continually in flux. Most of all, new literacies and multiple literacies are both attempts to reframe literacy in relation to modern ways of life. Discussions of new literacies tend to involve new technologies, while discussions of multiple literacies tend to involve many literacies and modalities beyond print literacy and a heightened awareness of culture. We find that references to the term multiple literacies are equally divided among activities that involve some form of technology (multimedia, Web-based technologies, synchronous or asynchronous communication networkslistserves, discussion groups, or blogs) and those that emphasize other multiplicities (print, talk, image, gesture, art, or even multiple readings of texts of various sorts). In this article, we focus on areas of intersection and use the term multiple literacies to include new, technological literacies.

that might prepare future teachers for multiple literacies. We begin our discussion of preservice education for multiple literacies with a discussion of the themes that emerge from the limited extant literature. As we combed this literature, represented primarily as advice about how we should reshape teacher education programs, we found three dominant themes, each expressed as an assertion with supporting arguments that preservice programs should (a) engage teachers in learning about and analyzing technology and media, (b) help teachers develop a broader understanding of literacy, and (c) help teachers understand their own and their students multiple literacies. We discuss each theme in turn. Technology and Media Teacher education should engage teachers in learning about and analyzing technology and media, particularly those used by their students. In an important sense, multiple literacies is a response to modern life, particularly related to the technological revolution, which has changed the way we live, work, and communicate (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000). Multiple literacies responds to these changes, in part, by expanding the definition of literacy to include multiple modes and technologies (Antsey, 2002). Antsey (2002) suggests that literacy education must foster the attitudes and abilities needed to master and use the evolving languages and technologies of the future (p. 446). This revisioning of literacy practice to include new technologies requires that teachers become skillful with a variety of informational technologies, engage in critical analysis of media and technology, and learn to integrate technology and information literacy into instruction (Luke, 2000; National Council for Accreditation of Teachers, 2000). Garton (1997) calls for a focus on information technology in literacy teacher education. Hagood (2000) suggests that preservice teachers be provided with university and practicum experiences working with various media so they can become well versed in technological multiple literacies students use and develop ways to incorporate these literacies

Advice About Teacher Education for Multiple Literacies While it is often suggested that preservice teacher education should be reconceived in response to the demands of multiple literacies and the new informational age (e.g., Kellner, n.d.; Luke, 2000), little has been written about the program

379

Literacies Of and For a Diverse Society

into classroom practices (p. 324). Johnson (2005) points out that, while many preservice programs require an introductory course in technology, most emphasize the mechanics of computer use more than preparing teachers to integrate technology into the curriculum. Johnson suggests that technology be integrated into all methods courses, and that preservice teachers be engaged in using and critically evaluating technology resources. Broader Understanding Teacher education programs should help teachers develop a broader understanding of literacy that moves beyond a singular, psychological, fixed, skill-focused view to a view of literacy as inherently situated in personal, historical, cultural, and social contexts, and learn to nurture in their students a similarly situated stance toward literacy. Multiple literacies involves a recognition that there are many forms of literacy that vary across time and communitiesthat literacy is a social practice, rather than a set of reading and writing skills to be acquired. Street (2003) writes that the recognition of multiple literacies involves a view of literacy that focuses not so much on acquisition of skills, as in dominant approaches, but rather on what it means to think of literacy as a social practice (p. 77) involving relations of power. In this view, literacies are conceived of as plural; as social practices; as situated in specific social institutions and ideologically charged; and as inextricably linked to social, cultural, and historical factors (Hagood, 2000). In the view of many in the multiple literacies community, preservice teacher education has traditionally supported a one-dimensional, fixed, psychological view of students where literacy is a part of a core curriculum taught to students and not a social process inclusive of cultural diversity (Hagood, 2000, p. 321). Literacy is viewed as an individual endeavor with text, learning how to teach reading correctly (p. 321). In order for teachers to embrace a view of literacy that recognizes its social dimensions, teacher education programs should help students scrutinize traditional views of literacy (e.g., Beck, Brown, Cockburn, & McClure, 2005; Hagood, 2000). Future teachers

should be encouraged to critique the autonomous model of literacy and consider the ways that literacy is bound to personal, historical, cultural, and social considerations. A multiple literacies perspective asks teachers to question traditional views of competence as they question traditional views of literacy. If students are viewed from the perspective of multiple literacies, capability would not be judged solely on the basis of printbased literacy (OBrien, 2001). This more expansive view of literacy also demands that teachers continually redefine what it means to be literate, for example as new technologies and social practices are introduced. Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, and Cammack (2004) suggest that literacy be thought of as a moving target, continually changing its meaning depending on what society expects literate individuals to do (p. 1,584). According to Leu (2001),
the central question for each of us is not How do we teach children to be literate? Instead, the central question is How do we teach children to continuously become literate? That is, How do we help children learn to learn the new literacies that will continuously emerge? (p. 568).

Teachers must realize how literacy is changing and being redefined and how youth are using literacies in differential ways and to understand the post-literate culture in which we live (Hagood, 2000, p. 318). Multiple Literacies Teacher education programs should help teachers understand students multiple literacies and link literacy instruction with students lives in meaningful ways. The recognition of literacy as social practice is often bound in multiple literacies to a demand that literacy instruction inside school be linked to students literacy practices outside school. Multiple literacies involves a view of children and youth as operating with communicational webs that are often unfamiliar to teachers (Kress, 2000). Teachers lack of familiarity with youth literacy practices breeds a persistent incongruence between students experiences with liter-

380

Cervetti, Damico, and Pearson

Multiple Literacies, New Literacies, and Teacher Education

acy inside school and outside (e.g., Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). In order to bridge this gap between in-school and out-of-school literacy practices, preservice programs should support teachers ability to understand and respond to the webs in which their students operate. Preservice teacher education should engage future teachers in studying students multiple literacies through observations and interviews and developing ways to incorporate those multiple literacies in school discourses and academic literacies (Hagood, 2000, p. 321). Teachers should come to see how students make their own meaning, based on their life situation, interests, and needs and consider ways to capitalize on the literacy experiences and expertise that students bring with them to school (Beck et al., 2005, p. 89). Hagood (2000) suggests that these understandings are borne of teachers analysis of their own literacy practices, as well as those of their future students. With a broad conception of literacy practices (e.g., dental surgery, lottery, graffiti, tattoos, sports, darts, changing ones name, court trial, post office, playing music), Barton (2000) discusses ways prospective and practicing teachers can research literacy practices in different contexts, and identifies components of doing this work, including identifying and documenting literacy events, analyzing practices around texts, and interviewing people about their literacy practices.

4. Learn to bring multiple literacies to in-school instruction and to create bridges to students out-of-school literacies.

Examining Multiple Literacies in Situ Our second source of insight about multiple literacies and teacher education involves a cursory examination of instances of multiple and new literacies in both nonschool and school settings and a careful analysis of what these suggest about the role of preservice teacher education. Multiple Literacies in the Real World In attempts to better understand the complex lives and literacies of youth, many researchers in the multiple literacies tradition have focused on documenting literacy practices in everyday lives (Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic, 2000; Hull & Schultz, 2002; Knobel, 1999), employing qualitative methods and ethnographic tools to provide rich portraits of literacy practices in the settings of homes, community-based programs, and afterschool contexts. This has led to many examples of multiple literacies being situated outside the boundaries of the school and traditional school day. Mahiri (2005) frames these literacies as voluntary practices where youth are invested in the use, creation, production, and distribution of a range of literacy texts outside of school. One way to map the landscape of these examples is the extent to which new information and communications technologies are driving the literacy practices (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003). Some examples, grounded in an understanding of literacy as a socially situated practice, have little to do with new technologies. This includes the work, for example, of Skilton-Sylvester (2002) who considers the home literacy practices of a young refugee girl from Cambodia; Guerra and Farr (2002) who employ a community-wide frame to document the writing practices of two Mexican college students; Cowan (2005) who considers the ways Latinos read lowrider culture; Eva Lam (2005) who studies how a Hong Kong immigrant reads American, Japanese, and Chinese comic books; Mirabelli

Summary The existing literature about multiple literacies and preservice education suggests that preservice teachers should have opportunities to: 1. Examine the personal, social, cultural, and historical dimensions of language and literacy; 2. Study literacy where it happensin their own lives and the lives of their studentsthrough observation, interviews, and participation; 3. Learn about new technologies through instruction and practicum experiences;

381

Literacies Of and For a Diverse Society

(2005) who considers literacy practices of food service workers; and Lankshear and Knobel (2003) who discuss scenario planning and zines. Other examples involve new technologies, whether it is studying the practices of video game users and the learning affordances of first-person shooter games (Gee, 2003), documenting the digital storytelling practices of adolescents (Hull, 2003), or investigating Internet-based practices, such as instant messaging (Jacobs, 2004; Lewis & Fabos, 2005). Lankshear and Knobel (2003), for example, show how four 14-year-old boys who were labeled troubled in some way worked with a small team of researchers to create a magazine and Web page about motorbikes. Lewis and Fabos (2005), in their study of instant messaging as a digital literacy practice, focus on the functions of instant messaging within a group of youths and show how the youth varied subject matter choices and communication approaches to match their needs, worked to bolster social relationships, shared different texts with each other, and assumed different identities as instant messagers. With an emphasis on digital storytelling, a multimedia composing form where video clips, images, and text blend with voice-over narratives and music, Hull and Nelson (2005) demonstrate the affordances of multimodal communication through a close analysis of a digital text created by a young artist, Randy Young. Part of the Digital Underground Storytelling for Youth (DUSTY) project, Randy created Lyfe-N-Rhyme, a digital story that blended an original poem as a voice-over, a thumping bass line, a Miles Davis melody, and 79 different still images, including images of iconic historical and contemporary figures in politics (e.g., Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey, George Bush) and popular culture (e.g., Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls) and images from the local neighborhood. With a fine-grained analysis, Hull and Nelson argue that Randys dynamic interplay of words, music, and images not only increases meaning-making potential, but as a singular digital multimedia story it also serves to create a different system of signification, one that transcends the collective contribution of its constituent parts (p. 225). Hull and Nelson conclude with calls to broaden our conceptions and definitions of writing to include multimodal

composing. Moreover, in making explicit the sophisticated literacy practices Randy engaged in to create Lyfe-N-Rhyme, Hull and Nelson help educators strengthen the rationale to incorporate practices like digital media storytelling in schools.

Multiple Literacies in the Classroom Although we have less well-developed understandings of what new and multiple literacies look like inside classrooms, some recent examples are helping chart this territory. With a focus on pioneer teachers and educators who have transformed their curriculum and instruction to broaden their students literacy, Kist (2005) describes how new literacies are being enacted in classrooms and schools and offers practical guidance, including lessons, assignments, and assessments in Grades 612. Kist (2005) points to a range of possible iterations of new literacies classroomsthose that are and are not technology driven; those guided by the arts or aesthetic goals, some with foci on film and television, some with arts and music; those that are interdisciplinary or inquiry-based; and those that use new media such as rap and hip-hop, or popular culture in general (p. 8). Kist, for example, shows how a librarian transformed the library from a place for finding information to a place for creating and communicating information through different media. He also describes how a teacher in Quebec redesigned the curriculum to better address the needs of struggling students, moving from a print-dominated curriculum to one with visual texts and a pedagogical emphasis on analyzing movies (e.g., the shower scene in Psycho, the crop-dusting scene in North by Northwest). In another setting, Kist chronicles a teachers journey to create a technology lab for students to create videos. Leu, Leu, and Coiro (2004) have a similar agenda in mind, but with an explicit focus on pedagogical strategies for using the Internet in K12 classrooms. They first lay out a framework of five functions they claim define the new literacies that students need to be successful: identifying important questions, navigating complex information networks to locate appropriate information, criti-

382

Cervetti, Damico, and Pearson

Multiple Literacies, New Literacies, and Teacher Education

cally evaluating the information, synthesizing information to address those questions, and communicating answers to others (p. 1). Then they offer teachers timesaving techniques about how to use the Internet thoughtfully, how to conduct timesaving search and navigation strategies, locate content-specific resources, and use instructional strategies (e.g., Internet Workshop, Internet Project, Internet Inquiry, and WebQuest). As a practical guide for practitioners, Leu, Leu, and Coiro describe classroom scenarios, using e-mail from classroom teachers who describe pedagogical goals, share lesson plans, and offer insights into the Internet activities that worked with their students. Summary These out-of-school and in-school examples of new and multiple literacies highlight the ways children and youth are immersed in a broad range of literacy experiences, including many driven by new technologies. These practices embody an understanding of literacy as sets of personal, social, and cultural practices, where there is a broader conception of what counts as writing (Hull & Nelson, 2005), and where meaning making, in general, moves beyond the verbal and beyond work with just print-based texts. In this sense, these examples explicitly challenge the reign of print literacy as the sole basis of judgment of literacy capability. These examples move us forward with images of practice and some pedagogical strategies, and these examples also point to the technical, the practical, and the imaginative challenges for new educators who have goals of enacting new and multiple literacies with children and youth. This leads us to ask: What can we do in preservice teacher education to take these understandings about literacy and guide future teachers to enact them in projects, practices, and pedagogies in their classrooms? Recommendations for Teacher Education Given these three journeys (advice about teacher education and accounts of multiple literacies practices in and out of school), what can we rec-

ommend regarding preservice teacher education that stands even a modest chance of preparing teachers to understand and enact practices that promote multiple literacies among their students? The diversity among practices and recommendations notwithstanding, some common themes emerge from our three journeys: 1. We should begin a candidates study of student learning within the life space of students themselves by making sure that at least some internship experiences occur in community or after-school settings, places where multiple literacies are likely to present themselves as a matter of course. 2. School-based internships should occur in multiple settings, and at least some of those settings ought to promote multiple literacies. Ideally, students should experience both multiple and singular approaches to literacy so that they can see the contrast in constraints and opportunities between the two. 3. Future teachers need to be involved in programs that allow them to embrace the complexities and even the contradictions inherent in teaching and learning ecologies. Teacher educators should resist the temptation to be drawn into narrow views of learning and literacy even when those views appear to be supported by current policies levers, such as standards and assessments. 4. With respect to technology, future teachers should learn about, through, and with technology-based media. Learning about entails awareness of what is available to them as teachers to use in their classrooms. Learning through involves engagement in technology-based programs designed to enhance their knowledge and skill as teachers. Learning with means that they embrace technologically based environmentssuch as Web sites, discussion groups, blogs, and othersas sites for their own development as teachers and learners. Some of these goals could be achieved through a specific course about technology. However, many of them require all teacher educators to use technology-based tools in classes with other foci.

383

Literacies Of and For a Diverse Society

5. Deficit views of development and learning (the notion that some individuals and groups need an extra measure of fixing) have no place in any view of learning and literacy, but the principle goes double for multiple literacies. The very notion of multiplicity implies that not every learner will be at the same point of development in every literacy he or she uses to make sense of the world. Students bring whatever it is that they bring to the classroom, and our job as teachers is to examine their portfolios to find strengths that will propel their own learning, as well as the learning of others.

Uncertain Role of Multiple Literacies in Teacher Education We close with a cautionary tale about how much can reasonably be expected from teacher education. Historically, teacher education has followed rather than led developments in school curriculum and classroom pedagogy. As such, teacher education has played a conservative role, not in the political sense of being antiliberal but in the sense of conserving or perpetuating the practices of the past. From time to time, such as in the heyday of whole language and other constructivist movements, reformers have proposed, and to a certain degree enacted, a more transformative role for teacher education. The transformative argument suggests that if we could get new teachers to adopt different stances, philosophical dispositions and/or instructional practices, we could accelerate the enactment of reform models of curriculum, teaching, and learning. As with any reform agenda, multiple literacies confront a dual challenge in preservice education: it must prepare teachers for schools as they are at the same time as it must prepare them for schools as they might become. Transformative initiatives in teacher education will falter in this effort unless two conditions are in place. First, new teachers armed with these new dispositions must have a plan for dealing with the realities of existingand often firmly established, even entrenchedcurricular and pedagog-

ical policies and practices. They can either confront the conventional wisdom (by replacing existing practices with those from a multiple literacies perspective) or they can infiltrate it (by carefully infusing selected multiple literacies activities into the official curriculum). Second, new teachers must have access to existence proofsmodel classrooms or schools in which multiple literacies are enacted on a daily basisto sustain their vision and motivation in the face of official resistance. Politically, it is even better if those model classrooms or schools also demonstrate that multiple literacies can be enacted at no cost to performance on conventional indexes of accountability and with a clear advantage on measures that privilege a multiple literacies perspective. As the other articles in this issue demonstrate, the theoretical and conceptual terrain of multiple literacies is rich and complex, and the movement from theory (or theories) to practices is well underway. However, the difficult work of translating the ideas and practices of multiple literacies into a teacher education curriculum is just beginning. There is much work to do on every fronthelping future teachers understand their own multiple literacies, increasing their awareness of the multiple literacies used regularly and fluently by todays students, finding classrooms and schools in which future teachers can apprentice in enacting a multiple literacies curriculum, and finally, helping them learn to cope with the forces they will encounter in todays highly politicized and highly contentious curricular struggles.

References
Antsey, M. (2002). Its not all black and white: Postmodern picture books and new literacies: Unexpected formats and text structure, multiple meanings, and opportunities for critical analysis are challenging features of these books. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45, 444457. Barton, D. (2000). Researching literacy practices: Learning from activities with teachers and students. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton, & R. Ivanic (Eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 167179). London: Routledge.

384

Cervetti, Damico, and Pearson Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. (Eds.). (2000). Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge. Beck, C., Brown, R., Cockburn, C., & McClure, A. (2005, May). The preservice preparation of literacy teachers: Faculty views and practices. Paper presented at the Teacher Education for the Schools We Need International Conference, Toronto, Canada. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Multiple literacies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London: Routledge. Cowan, P. (2005). Devils or angels: Literacy and discourse in lowrider culture. In J. Mahiri (Ed.), What they dont learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth (pp. 4774). New York: Peter Lang. Eva Lam, W. S. (2005). Border discourses and identities in transnational youth culture. In J. Mahiri (Ed.), What they dont learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth (pp. 7998). New York: Peter Lang. Garton, J. (1997). New genres and new literacies: The challenge of the virtual curriculum. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 20, 209221. Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Guerra, J. C., & Farr, M. (2002). Writing on the margins: The spiritual and autobiographical discourse of two Mexicanas in Chicago. In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.), Schools out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice (pp. 96123). New York: Teachers College Press. Hagood, M. C. (2000). New times, new millennium, new literacies. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 311328. Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (Eds.). (2002). Schools out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Hull, G. A. (2003). Youth culture and digital media: New literacies for new times. Research in the Teaching of English, 38, 229233. Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224261. Jacobs, G. E. (2004). Complicating contexts: Issues of methodology in researching the language and literacies of instant messaging. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 394406. Johnson, D. (2005). Miss Rumphius as a role model for preservice teachers. In R. S. Karchmer, M. H. Mallette, J. Kara-Soteriou, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Innovative approaches to literacy education (pp.

Multiple Literacies, New Literacies, and Teacher Education 182198). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Kellner, D. (n.d.). Technological transformation, multiple literacies, and the re-visioning of education. Downloaded from www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/ essays/technologicaltransformation.pdf. Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple media. New York: Teachers College Press. Knobel, M. (1999). Everyday literacies: Students, discourse, and social practice. New York: Peter Lang. Kress, G. (2000). A curriculum for the future. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30, 133145. Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (2000). Mapping postmodern literacies: A preliminary chart. In M. YlKotola, J. Suoranta, & M. Kangas (Eds.), The integrated media machine, Vol. 2 (pp. 1538). Hmeenlinna: Edita. Downloaded from http://www. literacyandtechnology.org/v1n1/lk.htm. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroom learning. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Leu, D. J. (2001). Internet project: Preparing students for new literacies in a global village. The Reading Teacher, 54, 568572. Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. W. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 15701613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., Jr., Leu, D., & Coiro, J. (2004). Teaching with the Internet K12: New literacies for new times (4th ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 470501. Luke, C. (2000). New literacies in teacher education. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 424435. Mahiri, J. (Ed.). (2005). What they dont learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth. New York: Peter Lang. Mirabelli, T. (2005). Learning to serve: The language and literacy of food service workers. In J. Mahiri (Ed.), What they dont learn in school: Literacy in the lives of urban youth (pp. 143162). New York: Peter Lang. National Council for Accreditation of Teachers. (2000). Unit standards. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from http://www.ncate.org/public/standards.asp

385

Literacies Of and For a Diverse Society OBrien, D. (2001). At-risk adolescents: Redefining competence through the multiple literacies of intermediality, visual arts, and representation. Reading Online, 4(11). Retrieved October 15, 2006, from http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/obrien Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2002). Literate at home but not at school: A Cambodian girls journey from playwright to struggling writer. In G. Hull & K. Schultz (Eds.), Schools out! Bridging out-of-school literacies with classroom practice (pp. 6190). New York: Teachers College Press. Street, B. (2003). Whats new in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/obrien, 7791.

386