First of all, I should avoid the comparison between a traditional and new literacies. I guess there’s no “before and after” division, but a continuum. The way the authors of Literacies put it is like they are discovering the new world. I completely disagree with that because they just paraphrase what has always been done. The situation is that they are using new terminology to refer to the training of senses as it was done before and musical training and art appreciation as well. In my language classes we do a game in which the decode secret languages, they learn some sign language ways of expressing basic needs. It would be useful to learn some braille recognition. We do kitchen exercise to recognize smells and music appreciation. As with multiple intelligences, we all have the same chance to develop them all but there’s one that uprises. Now Multiple intelligences have changed name, but they are just measurement of attitudes. The same as Literacies, nor they are encased in the term Multimodal, but they have always been there. This is the reason why I do not agree with comparing traditional and new.

When training teachers I have used them all these representations of language in games. Games are powerful resources to develop these modes of literacy, for example racing games where they have to go through stages by solving, decoding, tasting, explaining, etc. That is reading the world. The multiple literacies are daily life issues.