Alternative Approaches to Literacy Education: Sociocultural Perspectives and Multiliteracies Pedagogy

Year 2025, Volume: 13 Issue: 4 , 859 - 882 , 29.10.2025

Fatih Destebaşı

https://doi.org/10.16916/aded.1716304

https://izlik.org/JA93KM57SG

Abstract

This study primarily evaluates the multiliteracies approach proposed by the New London Group (2000) to understand today’s digital and multimodal text world and to reconsider literacy education. In conducting this evaluation, the concepts of literacy and literacy practices are first defined and discussed from a broad perspective within the framework of sociocultural theory. In this context, the dynamic relationship between culture and these concepts is also examined in a separate section. These concepts and their interrelations are clarified through academic studies and concrete examples. Subsequently, the key components of multiliteracies pedagogy—design of meaning, multimodal texts, and its four theoretical elements—are explained with relevant examples. Furthermore, the study focuses on how major developments and changes in information and communication technologies along with shifts in language, culture, and social practices have transformed and influenced these core concepts. In the final section, based on the sociocultural dimension of literacy, relevant literature, and the principles of multiliteracies pedagogy, the study presents a set of recommendations and sample practices for researchers, curriculum developers, and teachers. In line with all these, this study aims to bring a sociocultural perspective to literacy education and to contribute theoretically to the limited body of Turkish literature on the place of multiliteracies pedagogy in education

Keywords

Literacy , multiliteracies , literacy practices , new literacies , literacy education

Okuryazarlık Eğitimine Alternatif Yaklaşımlar: Sosyokültürel Perspektifler ve Çoklu Okuryazarlıklar Pedagojisi

https://izlik.org/JA93KM57SG

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, ağırlıklı olarak çağdaş dijital ve çok modlu metin dünyasını anlamak ve okuryazarlık eğitimini yeniden değerlendirmek için New London Group’un (2000) ortaya koyduğu çoklu okuryazarlıklar yaklaşımı değerlendirilmiştir. Bu değerlendirme yapılırken öncelikle okuryazarlık ve okuryazarlık pratikleri kavramları tanımlanmış ve bu kavramlar, sosyokültürel kuramın bakış açısıyla tartışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, ayrı başlık altında kültürün bu kavramlarla olan dinamik ilişkisi üzerine değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Yapılan akademik çalışmalarla ve somut örneklerle bu kavramların kültürle olan ilişkisi açıklanmaya çalışılmıştır. Daha sonra çoklu okuryazarlıklar pedagojisinin unsurları olan anlamın tasarımı, çok modlu metin ve bu pedagojinin dört kuramsal bileşeni yine örneklerle birlikte açıklanmıştır. Ayrıca bilgi ve iletişim teknolojilerindeki gelişme ve değişimler başta olmak üzere dil, kültür ve sosyal uygulamaların bu ana kavramları nasıl dönüştürdüğü ve etkilediği konusu üzerinde durulmuştur. Çalışmanın son bölümünde okuryazarlığın sosyokültürel boyutu, alan yazındaki ilgili çalışmalar ve çoklu okuryazarlıklar pedagojisi temel alınarak araştırmacılara, öğretim programı geliştiricilerine ve öğretmenlere bir dizi öneriler ve uygulama örnekleri sunulmuştur. Tüm bunlarla birlikte, bu çalışma, okuryazarlık eğitimine sosyokültürel bir bakış kazandırmayı ve çoklu okuryazarlıklar pedagojisinin eğitimdeki yeri üzerine Türkçe literatürdeki sınırlı çalışmalara kuramsal bir katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Okuryazarlık , çoklu okuryazarlıklar , okuryazarlık pratikleri , yeni okuryazarlıklar , okuryazarlık eğitimi

References

• Ballard, B. and Clanchy, J. (1988). Literacy in the university: An ‘anthropological’ approach. In G. Taylor, B. Ballard, V. Beasley, H. Bock, J. Clanchy ve P. Nightingale (eds.), Literacy by degrees (pp. 7-23). Philadelphia, PA: SRHE and Open University Press.
• Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (2000). Literacy practices. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton and R. Ivanic (eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180-196). London, UK: Routledge.
• Brown, L. D. (2014). Literate identities in the 21st century: Examining the new literacy skills and new literacy practices of 6th graders (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma). Retrieved from https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/13873/Delgado.Brown.Dissertation_COPY%20EDITED_FINAL.pdf?sequence=4
• Buck, A. (2012). Examining digital literacy practices on social network sites. Research in the Teaching of English, 47(1), 9-38.
• Cazden, C. B. (2000). Taking cultural differences into account. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 249-266). London, UK: Routledge.
• Chandler-Olcott, K. and Mahar, D. (2003a). “Tech-savviness” meets multiliteracies: Exploring adolescent girls’ technology-related literacy practices. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 356-385.
• Chandler-Olcott, K. and Mahar, D. (2003b). Adolescents' anime-inspired" fan-fictions": An exploration of multiliteracies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(7), 556-566.
• Cole, D. R. and Pullen, D. L. (2010). Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge.
• Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (2000). Introduction: Multiliteracies, the beginnings of an idea. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 3-8). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203979402-5
• Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (2009). New media, new learning. In D. R. Cole and D. L. Pullen (eds.), Multiliteracies in motion: Current theory and practice (pp. 87-103). London, UK: Routledge.
• Destebaşı, F. (2016). Yeni okuryazarlıklar: Tanımı, kapsamı ve teorik ilkeleri / New literacies: Definition, scope, and theoretical underpinnings. Turkish Studies - International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 11(3), 895-910. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9398
• Doğan, Y. (2014). Yabancılara Türkçe kelime öğretiminde market broşürlerinden yararlanma. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(1), 89-98.
• Gee, J. P. (1991). Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12, 31-48.
• Gee, J. P. (2000a). New people in new worlds: Networks, the new capitalism and schools. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 43-68). London, UK: Routledge.
• Gee, J. P. (2000b). The new literacy studies: From "socially situated" to the work of the social. In D. Barton, M. Hamilton and R. Ivanic (eds.), Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context (pp. 180-196). London, UK: Routledge.
• Gee, J. P. (2010). A situated-sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker (ed.), New literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165-193). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
• Gee, J. P. (2011a). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
• Gee, J. P. (2011b). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. London, UK: Routledge.
• Gee, J. P. (2014). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY: Macmillan.
• Hamzadayı, E. ve Batmaz, Ö. (2022). Okuduğunu anlamayı etkileyen etmenlere yönelik bir inceleme. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 23(2), 190-209. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.1105439
• Hirvela, A. (2005). Computer-based reading and writing across the curriculum: Two case studies of L2 writers. Computers and Composition, 22(3), 337-356.
• Hughes, J. M., King, A., Perkins, P. and Fuke, V. (2011). Adolescents and “autographics”: Reading and writing coming‐of‐age graphic novels. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(8), 601-612.
• Iyer, R. and Luke, C. (2010). Multimodal, multiliteracies: Texts and literacies for the 21st century. In Multiliteracies and technology enhanced education: Social practice and the global classroom (pp. 18-34). Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
• Jackson, L. (2013). Literacy, standardization, and the digital age: Exploring the digital literacy practices of students who failed the Ontario Secondary School Literacy Test (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/42627/5/Jackson_Lotoya__201311_MEd_thesis.pdf
• Kalantzis, M. and Cope, B. (2008). Introduction: Initial development of the ‘multiliteracies’ concept. In S. Mary and N. H. Hornberger (eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Volume 1: Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 195-211). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
• Kaplan, M. (2023). Kültür ve dil. (40. Baskı). İstanbul: Dergah Yayınları.
• Karatay, H. (2018). Okuma eğitimi: Kuram ve uygulama (3. baskı). Ankara, Türkiye: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication (1st ed.). Miltonpark, England: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203970034
• Langer, J. (1987). A sociocognitive perspective on literacy. In J. Langer (ed.), Language, literacy and culture: Issues of society and schooling (pp. 1-20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. and Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication technologies. In R. B. Ruddell and N. J. Unrau (eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. https://doi.org/10.1598/0872075028.54
• Luke, A. (1991). Literacies as social practices. English Education, 23(2), 131-147.
• Luke, A. and Elkins, J. (1998). Editorial: Reinventing literacy in "new times". Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 4(1), 4-7.
• Marsh, J. (2004). The techno-literacy practices of young children. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2(1), 51-66. https://do.org/10.1177/1476718X0421003
• Ma'ayan, H. D. (2010). Erika's stories: Literacy solutions for a failing middle school student. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(8), 646-654.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2025, Nisan). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli okuryazarlık becerileri. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/beceriler/okuryazarlik-becerileri
• McKay, S. (1996). Literacy and literacies. In S. McKay and N. Hornberger (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 421-446). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Moje, E. B. and Luke, A. (2009). Literacy and identity: Examining the metaphors in history and contemporary research. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(4), 415-437.
• New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope and M. Kalantzis (eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). London, UK: Routledge.
• OECD (2025). Empowering learners for the age of AI: An AI literacy framework for primary and secondary education (Review draft). OECD. Paris. https://ailiteracyframework.org
• Perry, K. H. (2007). Sharing stories, linking lives: Literacy practices among Sudanese refugees. In V. Purcell-Gates (ed.), Cultural practices of literacy: Case studies of language, literacy, social practice, and power (pp. 57-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Perry, K. H. (2008). From storytelling to writing: Transforming literacy practices among Sudanese refugees. Journal of Literacy Research, 40(3), 317-358.
• Perry, K. (2009). Genres, contexts, and literacy practices: Literacy brokering among Sudanese refugee families. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 256-276.
• Perry, K. H. (2012). What is literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 8(1), 50-71.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently?. On the horizon, 9(6), 1-6.
• Rubinstein‐Ávila, E. B. (2007). From the Dominican Republic to drew high: What counts as literacy for Yanira Lara?. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 568-589.
• Street, B. V. (1993). Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (Vol. 23). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Street, B. (2003). What’s “new” in New Literacy Studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 77-91.
• Thomas, R. (2009). The origins of western literacy: Literacy in ancient Greece and Rome.” In D. R. Olsen and N.G. Torrence (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 346-361). Cambridge, UK: CUP.
• Uluslararası Okuryazarlık Derneği. (2025, Nisan). Literacy Glossary. https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/literacy-glossary
• UNESCO. (2004). The plurality of literacy and its implication of policies and programmes. UNESCO Education Sector Position Paper. Paris, UNESCO.
• Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). Literacy and social process: A community in transition. In B. Street (ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to literacy (pp. 272-293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Wong, S. S. H. (2015). Mobile digital devices and preschoolers’ home multiliteracy practices. Language and Literacy, 17(2), 75-90.