Gaming

I am once again motivated to read Gee's book about videogames and literacy. I don't know, but I'm guessing that's the first piece that started people thinking about this. This also made me think about an article from Psycholinguistics (DeBeaugrande & Dressler) that discusses what is a text. As we've also discussed in here, we must shift away from our traditional ideas that a text is a set of words written or printed on paper or a screen.

The idea that text is so much more also reminds me of Discourses. I wonder if you could say that Discourses are texts that only certain people know how to read and even fewer are allowed to write.

I was also led to think about another interest of mine, which I also have very little background in--semiotics. As we discussed World of Warcraft and how even different symbols were text, it reminded me of how (like I said above) text is more than words. Anything that carries meaning is text, even pieces of oral language. I wonder how far we will go towards signs becoming more important than text. I still don't see that happening the way some (Kress) argue. The thought brings up other important ideas, such as subjectivity. Signs clearly denote something, but where they really pack in a punch are with what they connote, and that is all subjective. With more signs and fewer words, I wonder how our understandings of the same sign will differ, perhaps without us even knowing or discussing it. Not earth shattering, but still a shift, and I think an interesting one.

New Literacies (4/23)

The readings from this week (April 23) left me feeling mostly excited, with a little anxiety thrown in for good measure. I'm very interested in new literacies, both in and of themselves and in terms of how schools should and will respond. For this second reason, it was cool to see the Jenkins piece. It's the first thing I've seen which offers any sort of concrete suggestions for what schools should actually do, how they should change. It's especially interesting in light of Randy's comment in class that teachers can't wait on policy but instead must be a step ahead.

My final project for this class is a website for teachers to discuss and share about the ways they're implementing new literacies in their classrooms. I would think such a website would flop for many reasons, but perhaps chief among them being that so few teachers even know what new literacies are. I work with undergrads who will be new teachers in the fall. They've hit on none of this in their teacher preparation.

It was also cool reading about Web 2.0. I kept trying to place myself on the continuum from 1.0 to 2.0. I have a blog, but I never had a website--though I guess I will once it's published on Wednesday. I occasionally go to Wikipedia for information, but I would never write on it. I don't use Flckr or tag things, but I love all things Google! I'm still on a learning curve, or I guess a participation curve.

Multimodalities

Seigel's article is one of my favorites, although I'm still left wondering how this actually works in practice. I was especially taken with her point about social justice. I do believe, as we touched on in class, that many people are kept out of literacy just by virtue of its definition being so limited. This isn't that hard of a thing to grasp, but its implications are huge. "We" (whoever that is) need to think about what exactly are the goals of school. If we want it to be simply (ha, ha) that students learn to read and write, then there will always be students who are labeled and marginalized, and others who are labeled and held up. If the goals include developing a range of modalities and deep experiences then schools must redefine what constitutes a schooled literacy practice.

I don't think anyone is suggesting doing away with reading and writing, but even if one were to argue they need to remain priority, it still makes sense to encourage other modalities. As was discussed, anytime one transmediates, "you get smarter" (Randy). This is the depth of experience I referred to a moment ago. To touch on an idea in writing, in drama, in art, in song, etc., only deepens one's understanding; thoughts reconfigure and become more complex; things are viewed through a different lens.

If we want social justice, perhaps we must first reconsider our conception of literacy. Instead of straining to bring more people into a small room, maybe we should knock down the walls.

Hypertext, Children's Lit, & Writing Instruction

As I was reading Hammerberg's article, I found myself distracted by one of her main points: the comparison of sophisticated, postmodern children's literature and the writing instruction that young children, beginning readers, receive. I'm not sure that's a fair thing to do. The so-called postmodern children's books are one kind of book, and important ones at that. However, to suggest that because this type of writing exists and is popular that kids should be initially taught to write in that style doesn't really make sense to me.

There is a line of thinking that for art or writing that "breaks the rules" to be significant, the creator needs to know the rules he or she is breaking; otherwise, what statement are they making? By the same token, young children should initially be taught writing in a traditional format--they need some standard/default style with which to later compare and create other forms. When someone has never written before, I don't know if it helps them to begin at the cutting edge.

I do strongly agree that children should be read and read themselves all forms of literature. The form of the books should be discussed, especially in relation to the writing that the kids themselves are doing. Then after kids have some experience under their belt, I can see them producing postmodern hypertexts of their own. I guess to me, a more fair comparison would be these books and the writing instruction that older kids (maybe third grade and up, but definitely preteens and teenagers) are getting.

Thoughts on "The Sleeper Curve"

I read this commentary with great interest, because I remember making a similar argument in one of my classes last semester. It has to do with defining literacy; this is the address for this blog and it's something I'm very interested in. I think literacy is a way of thinking; as Johnson puts it, "Think of the cognitive benefits conventionally assigned to reading: attention, patience, retention, the parsing of narrative threads." "Good" television shows demand viewers to possess these abilities, and watching good shows furthers them.

Last semester I argued that teachers and schools come at literacy from a culturally biased perspective--schools value books and writing and that's how literacy is defined in those institutions. But as I said about my favorite show, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, television can be just as much brain food as books. Buffy is layered, metaphoric, witty, and develops a new mythology. The motivation and ability to follow complex programs like Buffy is the same needed to read complex books.

Now, having said that, I'm not sure I would argue, as Johnson does, that good t.v. is making our culture smarter. The programs that he refers to are not ratings winners; they have a cult audience, but they are not in the top 10 or 20 shows per week. So, not everyone, or even most people, are watching them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think everyone has to want to watch challenging shows--or read challenging books. And that's part of why I don't think our culture is being made smarter; it's still the same percentage or subset of people who are seeking these kinds of shows as who sought out "high" literature before. And that's not the majority. It's not that we're smarter; it's that the form, the medium, that the content is presented in, has changed. I take a bit if an issue with Johnson's assertion that audiences from 20 or 50 years ago couldn't have understood shows like The Sopranos. The medium of television had not developed enough to have shows written like that on it yet, but it's not like people then were morons. If for no one else, people that chose to read and enjoy complex texts could have followed right along--because, as Johnson himself says, it's the same cognitive abilities at work.

I'm not implying that our culture isn't smart. It is. But it's also dumb. It's always been that way and it always will. This is for two reasons: one, people are not all the same, with the same interests and motivations; and two, culture is not monolithic.

Thoughts on Shannon

I want to start this off by saying I'm no philosopher, so I need to qualify the following thoughts and remarks with that understanding.

As I read Shannon, I was struck by a disagreement with him--not in his underlying thesis about what's become of reading instruction and how it's been hijacked by businesses, transforming students into commodities and teachers into unskilled factory workers. What I dispute is his pinning that on capitalism. Okay, bear with me.

I appreciated that he increasing identified rationality as the issue (although in continued to tie this to capitalism). When we look at Western (and Eastern for that matter) countries, even those who have espoused Marxism value rationality, efficiency, above creativity and individuality. Neither system intends for people to lose their individuality, but whenever rationality is highly prized, this will happen to some extent because thoughts and behaviors that deviate from the rational are dichotomized as then irrational. There becomes no middle ground. Shannon writes, "The material fate of the masses becomes increasingly dependent upon the continuous and correct functioning of the increasingly bureaucratic order of private capitalistic organization." Well, this statement could just as easily apply the masses in the old Soviet Union, Cuba, or even modern Russia controlled by the mafia. You just replace "private capitalistic organization" with the name of whoever is in control.

However, I think the problem goes deeper than any economic or social philosophy. Capitalism is no more inherently dehumanizing than Marxism, yet in practice both of them can suck. Marxism in practice has certainly not embraced the individual or free thinking. The deeper issue is the nature of man. I don't think that all people are doomed to selfishness in a Hobbesian/Lockean, but I do believe that men are corrupted by power--in whatever framework they get that power (government, business, etc.). Reading Shannon's arguments, I couldn't help but wonder (I feel like Carrie Bradshaw typing that phrase) how a capitalist reading of education in China or Cuba would look. It would probably talk about how capitalism relies on individuality and original ideas as the foundation for business and economy. Man is corrupt and those in power will always try to control those who aren't in power; the social or economic system in place has little to do with it.

All that said, I do agree with Shannon's thoughts. I hate what has become/is becoming of teaching and learning in this country--but really, it's happening everywhere. The world is small and only a few people own it.

Literacy: Tools of the Trade

I really have not given much thought before to the materials of literacy (other than the printing press in general terms). Thus, I found this week's readings and discussion significant for allowing me to think about an aspect of literacy that I hadn't before.

Haas writes, "...materiality is the central fact of literacy because writing gains its power--as a cognitive process, as a cultural practice,and even as a metaphor--by linking these two powerful systems" (p. 3). After reading this and thinking about it, I felt foolish for not having thought before about the materials of literacy because the material IS literacy; it is thought written down. So without materials, obviously, there would be no literacy. Or would there? Haas seems to be using the terms literacy and writing interchangeably. I would argue that writing is one form of literacy, and it does indeed require materiality.

Marx and Engels: Who knew? I was surprised to read and begin thinking about the influence their writing had on Vygotsky, thus shaping much of our understandings on thought, language, and social contexts. I would like to learn more about how their writings influenced Vygotsky, etc.

I really liked Haas' second chapter because I felt it offered a reasonable balance in terms of the impact and role of technology. As with many discussions in this field, arguments and points of view always seem to be dichotomized; it must be one way or the other, all or nothing. Technology has no impact or it is totally revolutionary. Is it not fathomable that it will have an impact, but perhaps in ways that are relatively subtle? And always tied to other factors--social, cultural, historical, etc.? I appreciated Haas' stance on this.

The point I most appreciated from Eisenstein was the idea that while the printing press did give more people than ever access to texts, it also increased communication among those already in possession of scribes and books. In this way, the divide between the literate and the non-literate, I think, actually got bigger. Those with the power now had more; the gulf widened. The one percent at the top now had access to each others' ideas, along with visuals such as maps, and this allowed them to shape thought--a small group of people influencing thought for hundreds of years to come.

Thoughts on Olson Chs. 6-12

I am interested in how the "history" of literacy isn't really history and the implications of that for any sort of argument that literacy causes cognitive change. As Olson wrote and we touched on briefly in class tonight, there seems to be a line of theories for interpreting written texts, beginning with the text being a "boundless resource from which one could take an inexhaustible supply of meanings" to one in which "the meaning of a text is austerely anchored in the textual evidence" (p. 144). As religious texts were first written down, someone had to do the work of "fixing the text," and this occurred in the context of a oral culture in which meaning was derived from the words, but also from the illocutionary force provided by the speaker. Oral "texts" were layered with meaning, so how to convey that in written text?

I found it interesting as Olson traced these ideas of interpretation from the time of Charlemange when scholars would read texts as having much meaning beneath the words through to Luther's idea of text being an "autonomous representation of meaning" (p. 154) to the idea that readers must try to read texts thinking about how the original audience would have. My point is that these ways of interpreting don't seem to be a linear progression. Today, in 2007, we have people who read texts the way scholars in Charlemange's day did; we have those who read texts literally; and we have those who try to place texts within their historical and sociocultural context. We also have a million theories beside and within those. We still have our own ideas, whether cultural or individual, as to how texts should be received or interpreted.

Reflections on Olson (Ch. 1-5)

I found these chapters quite interesting, although some of it was over my head. Chapter 1 addressed six assumptions that I think many of us implicitly and perhaps unconsciously have about literacy. I wonder how much of these beliefs are culturally bound. For example, one of the ones Olson discussed is the belief that writing is superior to speech. Olson later says that speech is the primary tool of our mind, and writing is secondary. I think I get what he is saying, but I prefer to think of speech and writing as perhaps serving different purposes. Later Olson discusses how early civilizations used/viewed writing as a mnemonic device, and some of our writing does serve this purpose (such as notes for a speech or a to do list). But I think that other forms of writing, such as research papers and even this type of reflection, force a type of analysis that speech in and of itself does not. I am thinking more deeply and truly seeing what I understand from Olson as I write this. And the writing holds me more accountable than in a discussion where I could choose not to participate or hedge my comments. BUT, back to my comment about these beliefs being culturally bound--in our culture, academic writing is held up as a certain standard, so I think my thoughts about what writing enables me to do are tied up in the cultural value placed on it.


The second chapter addressed the possible relationship between literacy and cognition. I think this is another assumption we make because we are a "literate" society (literate as we define it) and look at all we've come up with. Again, this comes back to a culturally defined concept of literacy and what kinds of thinking are valued. Cultures that are primarily oral are still rational and logical and develop their own formal discourse (such as the maktab literacy Street studied--certain ways of setting up arguments).

I had a harder time with the thoughts on the parallel timing of literacy and classical Greek and Renaissance European revolutions. I do think that rising literacy changed or influenced thought. I believe that what we read does influence our thinking, even today. Some people are even more susceptible to this and believe anything and everything they read. Why would that not have been true hundreds of years ago? I don't think those writing/printing texts necessarily meant for that to happen, although some may have. Also, only a person with some form of power could get text written/printed, thus beginning the transmission of the culture's elite as "the" culture. What do you think?

Storytelling Assignment

I recorded a story told by my boyfriend about an old friend of his that he's trying to find. Dr. Bomer mentioned that storytelling is different from conversations, almost more of a monologue, so I was looking for a cue that would signal the story as being set apart from the conversation we were having. Much like "hook" to grap a reader's attention at the beginning of a piece of writing, Ruben set apart his story with a question. "So, do you remember me talking about my friend Wayne?" I answered that I did, but that was the end of my oral participation until the end of the story. I also noticed that this particular question served to activate my prior knowledge about Wayne--that he used to work with Ruben (at a place Ruben no longer works) but he was no longer there and no one seemed to know what had happened to him. This was troubling to Ruben because Wayne had been going through several personal hardships around the time he was let go. My knowledge of these things would be important to the subsequent storytelling, and Ruben's question allowed him to gauge what he needed to repeat.

Ruben's story consisted of him relaying to me that another former coworker had called him back with a few more details about how/why Wayne lost his job. Ruben continued to hold the floor with pauses, some unintentional as he searched for seemingly important details (such as specific dates) which often he would decide weren't important enough to keep the listener waiting and would just continue with the story. The story ended with a conclusion-type statement of, "I'm sorry that story was kind of a downer." Ruben "held the floor" for a solid 10 minutes. During that time, I participated by nodding, but I did not speak, even to ask a question or give a cursory affirmative response.

Besides the way he told the story, I thought it was significant that he chose to tell me this story at all, and the setting in which he did. The story, although about Wayne, inherently relates to some very serious and personal parts of Ruben's past. I felt that he shared this with me was a way of furthering a developing bond. Although we had just eaten dinner in an intimate restaurant, he waited to share the story until we were alone in the car on the way home. Again, I felt this suggested that to Ruben, this story was both serious and personal.

Have you been to Seoul?

Not South Korea, but rather a sushi place on South Congress. That was the setting of the conversation I transcribed for this assignment.

It was bit ridiculous to record and attempt my first transcription a dinner party with 8 people at the table. Deborah Tannen I am not. It would have actually been okay, but some people just were not heard on the recording, so there are some missing comments and questions (not many, though).

The most frustrating thing for me was not being able to transcribe the expression with which people said things. Surprise, sarcasm, honest questioning, boredom--these things are heard, but difficult to put into the transcription. Or at least, for me at this point, they are. I also was frustrated that I could not record (or at times even recall) the nonverbal parts of the conversation. However, without a video, I don't know how much anyone could accurately recall these things.

One interesting thing I found was that, even after listening to the same part several times, I would type what I thought the person said (kind of like predicting the next word in reading), but when I would listen again, while I had recorded the gist of what they said, I had not recorded their actual words. After doing that a couple of times, I quit trying to type all but two or three seconds before stopping the tape, typing, and then continuing. I think this is interesting as far as its implications for how we remember conversations. We probably do usually remember the gist, but if we get the wording wrong, then at times we must remember not what the person even meant.

Conversation Transcript

R: Here we go. I think E wants some more. I can see by the look in her eye.

E: I'm good. It was good.

S: Thanks.

R: (laughs) Carrie, are you appreciating my appetite?

C: Yeah!

(simultaneously)with C M: Did you like that movie?

A: Um, yeah. I mean it wasn't like--

M: The reaction (points to R, meaning, the same reaction he had to it)

A: Yeah, but it was- Honestly, I didn't have high expectations for it, so I wasn't disappointed, you know. It was different. I hate-it's kinda like what you were saying-I hate

R: (to someone else) Why don't you try- literally, it's vegetables.

A: That kind of graphic, you know, violence, or just-I don't know.

R: (to someone else) It's just literally tempura and vegetables.

S: What movie did you see?

M: Pan's Labyrinth. It's like-

R: You saw that? [Sarcasm; he saw it with M.]

M: But he, he was totally engrossed. Amy and I-

R: What?!

S: Is it a horror movie or-

A: No. It's actually not. And there's not that many scenes that are graphic, but the ones that are
are just like very-

M: I closed my eyes. (To the group) Have y'all seen Pan's Labyrinth?

R: I have. Oh, wait. You know that, though.

M: It's in Spanish. It's a very Mexican film director.

R: Spanish.

M: No, I looked it up. It's Mexican. But the other guy, the Pedro Almavoder, that's-

R: Volver. I saw that today.

M: Is Volver good?

R: Volver is a great movie. I-I-I-I'm not kidding. You should-you should see it with your mother if you get a chance. Like it's one of those movies that, I-I-I actually would love to see it with my mothers and my sisters. I'd probably invite my dad, though.

T: What movie?

R: Uh, Volver. It's a Penelope Cruz. It's a Spanish movie.

M: Is that why you liked that movie?

R: It didn't hurt.

E: What movie?

R: Volver. It's a Pedro Almovadar movie. It's, it's a very good movie. Kinda revolves around the
relationships between mothers and daughters. But it's a great storyline around it. It's really good.

M: Um, did you enjoy it more than Pan's? Or it's just different?

R: It's different. I actually might've enjoyed it more than Pan's.

E: Is it, um, subtitles?

M: The good thing about foreign films in the U.S. is that we don't dub them.

R: (responding to E) It is subtitled. That, both of them are, the Pan's Labyrinth and- I actually understood Volver a lot easier than I did Pan's Labyrinth.

M: Really?!

R: Yeah.