Because of COVID-19, many students take hybrid online and in-person classes, which caused me to reconsider the value of “multiliteracy” (New London Group, 1996). Students have to take online courses on the computer while finishing their assignments on electronic devices. In some societies, multiliteracy is like being pushed into the moment. In 1996, the New London Group (NLG) coined the term "multiliteracy" based on their evaluation of how new technologies affect society. The NLG developed the multiliteracies method in response to these changes: the impact of technological advancements and globalization on education. During COVID time, educators need to reweave multiliteracy, which is always open to reweaving depending on different communities, societies, and cultures. Multiliteracies, emphasizing the importance of diverse social backgrounds, cultural environments, and digital literacy, highlight my understanding of literacy.

                                                             

Social Turn in the Study of Literacy

            As a diverse cultural student, I lived in China for 24 years and studied in the U.S. for two years. How can I become acquainted with the term "literacy" after receiving an education in two distinct societies? When I first looked up "literacy" in a Chinese-English dictionary, I discovered that it implies "扫盲," which means the elimination of adult illiteracy. Literacy's definition is so limited in Chinese society. Literacy, in its broadest definition, describes "certain ways of thinking about and performing reading and writing" (Baynham, 2002) to comprehend or express thoughts or ideas in written form within a particular context of use (Pahl & Rowsell, 2020). During my research in the Reading/Writing/Literacy program at the University of Pennsylvania, I learned that exploring the definition of literacy is shifting and transforming with globalization and technological development, and it is open to shifting anytime. Canagarajah (2020) mentioned the contact between language groups and the constant diversification of communities. Literacy is rooted in social change. International students, migrants, and refugees learn local literacy and, at the same time, change local literacy.                         

                                                             

Linguistic Turn in the Study of Literacy

             The linguistic turn in social science and philosophy begins with recognizing that the social world is essentially represented and organized through language (Bloome & Green, 2023). Multimodality refers to various semiotic resources or modes that can be used to convey messages (Kress, 2010). For example, when Professor Amy gave us an assignment last year, everyone developed a short movie describing literacy from their own perspective, with no restrictions. I used my voice as background during the creative process, gathered relevant images, and then made subtitles for the movie. I felt that I was a filmmaker at the time and believed this procedure was so exciting and powerful, which made me feel deeply engaged. Participating in this interactive classroom allows me to discover more about my potential, delve into my identity, and utilize digital literacy to deeply understand the intrinsic essence of literacy. According to Jenkins et al. (2009), schools have a role in fostering such participatory cultures, which prepare youth to become media creators who not only have access to technological tools but also can articulate their understandings of how media shapes perceptions and develop ethical practices surrounding media consumption and creation.

              In a bilingual learning environment, the significance of multimodal literacy, which is grounded in linguistic exchanges, cannot be overstated. Studies have shown that employing digital multimodal compositions aids in expressing identity for young bilingual learners (Smith et al., 2021). Students leverage their projects to connect with their international identities, represent themselves, and communicate in empowering ways by taking advantage of the multimodalities available for idea exchange (Smith et al., 2021). Furthermore, incorporating digital multimodal projects can transform classrooms by questioning language assumptions, turning the classroom into a space for social justice, and broadening temporal and spatial boundaries as students create content for diverse audiences. Additionally, emerging bilinguals evolve as creators and employ the distinct semiotic resources of various modes during the writing process (Smith et al., 2021). Consequently, multimodal compositions offer learners opportunities to expand their linguistic repertoires (Smith et al., 2021).

               Multimodal literacy expands the “available means of signification” (Hull & Nelson, 2005, p. 226) in literacy education and creates space for cultural practices historically marginalized in schools (Nichols & Johnston, 2020). Multimodal literacy helps youth who are labeled as “at-risk”  engage in their school. Participatory cultures occur predominantly in out-of-school settings. In these settings, adolescents engage in a range of multimodal literacies in exciting ways that disprove the "common picture of alienated, disengaged youth" (Vasudevan & Campano, 2009). In summary, multimodality shaped my understanding of literacy not only to focus on students' reading and writing skills but also on their identities, cultural background, experience, and use of digital literacy.

                                                                                      

The End

                 In China, I grew up in a small city and finished university in the province of Sichuan, surrounded by numerous poor mountain villages. Now, I am studying at a top university with the best professors and advanced educational technology. Literacy is defined so differently in various communities.  I hope that everything I have learned about literacy, which is so vast and limitless, can be learned and implemented in certain societies.

 

                                                                                         Reference

Baynham, M. (2002) “Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives, by Brian V. Street (ed.); pp. 228, London: Routledge, 2001, ISBN 0-415-23451-4,” Linguistics and Education, 13(4), pp. 573–576. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-5898(03)00013-5.

Bloome, D. and Green, J. (2015) The social and linguistic turns in studying language and literacy, Routledge Handbooks Online. Available at: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315717647.ch1 (Accessed: February 8, 2023).

Ezquerra, J.E. (2016) “Kress, Gunther R. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication,” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Discurso, 12(1), p. 124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35956/v.12.n1.2012.p.124-130.

Haddix, M. and Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2012) “Cultivating digital and. popular literacies as empowering and emancipatory acts among Urban Youth,” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(3), pp. 189–192. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.00126.

Jenkins, H. (2009) “Confronting the challenges of participatory culture.” Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8435.001.0001.

Nichols, T.P. and Johnston, K. (2020) “Rethinking availability in multimodal composing: Frictions in Digital Design,” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 64(3), pp. 259–270. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1107.

Pahl, K. and Rowsell, J. (2020) “Living literacies.” Available at: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11375.001.0001.

Smith, B.E., Pacheco, M.B. and Khorosheva, M. (2020) “Emergent bilingual students and digital multimodal composition: A systematic review of research in secondary classrooms,” Reading Research Quarterly, 56(1), pp. 33–52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.298.

Prain, V. (2021) “Review of Cope & Kalantzis (2000): Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the design of Social Futures,” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, pp. 101–106. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24.1.10pra.

The New London Group (1996) “A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures,” Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), pp. 60–93. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u.

The Routledge Handbook of Literacy Studies (Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics) (1970) AbeBooks. Routledge. Available at: https://www.abebooks.com/9780367501723/Routledge-Handbook-Literacy-Studies-Handbooks-0367501724/plp (Accessed: January 31, 2023)

Vasudevan, L. and Campano, G. (2009) “The social production of adolescent risk and the promise of adolescent literacies,” Review of Research in Education, 33(1), pp. 310–353. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x08330003.

Weaving the text: Changing literacy practices and Orientations (no date). Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26823961 (Accessed: February 6, 2023).