Like this:

I am reading Newkirk’s book about six literacy principles worth fighting for. Of the three principles that I have read about thus far, I find the one on popular culture as a literacy tool most striking and interesting. The author opens the chapter by pointing out that despite the contribution of popular culture in helping students develop literacy skills, and in this case writing, there is resistance in some sectors. According to Newkirk, this resistance comes, especially from some proponents of the traditional workshop approach. These proponents argue that allowing students to use popular culture lowers the standards of writing. Students do not learn to develop characters, plot, and other established traditional literary devices. The author argues that when students use popular culture they are not just reproducing these texts in a meaningless way; rather, they are appropriating them. As a matter of fact, appropriation occurs all the time in learning contexts even when students are following the traditional linear approach to writing, they are still appropriating some devices. As one author once said, the only person who never appropriated or imitated anyone is Adam. Given this point, I wonder why some people would reject popular in the classroom. My point of view about this topic is that when teachers refuse students to write about popular culture – the culture they are exposed to everyday as part of their lives – students are deprived of making meaning of their lived experiences. They are denied to bring their sociocultural experiences into the classroom. This denial runs contrary to the conception that literacy is a sociocultural practice.
As a matter of fact, who decides what is authentic experience and what is not authentic experience? I am raising this question because the author explains that one reason some teachers do no want their students to write about popular culture is that they do not consider it authentic. This is ridiculous because fictional books which the very same teachers recommend to students are not real facts; they are fictional, and in that sense, they are not authentic. In fact, censoring students in terms of what they can or cannot write about amounts to authoritative power. Having said this, I must point out that I do not suggest that teachers should allow students to write about offensive and other demeaning topics. However, I maintain that as long as students write about topics that are not offensive and immoral in a given context, there is no need to censor.
As the author points out, not only does popular culture gives students a chance to write about topics and things that matter to them, but it also encourages them to experiment with multimodal composition. Given that we are living in the era of the new technologies where multimodal composition is becoming a norm than an exception, I maintain that creating opportunities that will allow students to develop these skills is one of the tasks that today’s teachers are expected to perform. In this, regard teacher can no longer claim that when they allow students to represent their writing through different semiotic tools, they are doing them a favor; they are doing precisely what they are expected to do. In this sense, when a student composes a text using words and drawings, drawings are not used to support the words; rather, they are a writing in their own right. Words, sounds, and images are all synchronized together to convey the whole story; one is not more important than the other. They all have an equally important effect on the writing. Evidently, this requires teachers to rethink their teaching of writing. It is a challenging task that we teachers are facing, but a challenge, I believe, we can take head on and do what is best for students.

Advertisement