The New Information Environment: What's Missing From the Curriculum?

• In Event: The Question of Curriculum in (and for) a World of Disinformation

Abstract

Objectives
This paper considers the implications of the new information environment (Author 2021a; 2021b) for literacies curriculum. A further objective is to add to the literature between multiliteracies and curriculum, as well as to propose a non-instrumental curricular response that takes seriously the literacies relationship between online life, youth identity, and affect.

Theoretical Perspectives
This research is informed by the new information environment and multiliteracies. I use the term “new information environment” to characterize high levels of youth online engagement in an era of technological and information manipulation, including the prevalence of mis- and disinformation. Additionally, this paper is informed by multiliteracies scholarship (New London Group, 1996). This conception of literacy suggests that meaning-making is a complex, ongoing process that is influenced by our social practices (Cope et al., 2000; Lankshear & Knobel, 2008; Author, 2019; Author 2020).

Methods
This paper applies a gap analysis to current curriculum documents in Ontario, Canada. It is contextualized within a larger empirical study of student and teacher experiences with the new information environment (Author 2021a). First, I examine what multiliteracies and critical literacies literature recommends in response to the changing nature of youth online life. I then conduct a word-level and thematic analysis on curriculum documents to determine what gaps exist. Finally, I posit curricular avenues that both address lacunae and avoid instrumental or techno-rationalist “solutions” to literacies concerns.

Data
This paper is based on a review of multiliteracies literature, especially as it relates to criticality, online life, and identity. I examine the K-12 Language documents for Ontario, Canada (Ontario Ministry of Education [OME], 2006; 2007a; 2007b; 2022). I run searches for key words (e.g., “bias,” “perspective,” “critical,” and “power”) that emerge from multiliteracies literature to determine, both through explicit “curriculum expectations” and thematically, how these are or are not addressed.

Findings
The curriculum analysis offered two findings: first, that there is a notable gap in focus on criticality, identity, and affect. Document analysis revealed that despite a nod to the value of critical literacy in front matter, there was a paucity of learning expectations focused on developing these practices. It was also evident that criticality seemed to be framed as appropriate for students in high school, with less emphasis on criticality in the early or middle years. Second, in reading for themes, I noted an accent on neoliberal framing, with “critical thinking” and “digital literacy” being positioned as a set of “Transferable Skills”—not woven into the curriculum expectations—that prepare students for “the world of work” (OME, 2022)

Significance for Practice and Policy
The analysis suggests that curriculum renewals are needed. These renewals ought to be rooted in multiliteracies that increase engagement with criticality (Burnett & Merchant, 2011; Cannon et al., 2020; Holloway, 2021), online life (Hong & Hua, 2020; Mirra et al., 2018) and affect (Author, 2021b; Boler & Davis, 2018). They must be careful to avoid instrumentalist solutions that superficially attend to “information” or “digital” literacies and that are im/explicitly tied to neoliberal emphasis on the economy.

Author

• Lana Parker, University of Windsor
  Presenting Author