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.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, April 16, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, March 26, 2007
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.
Monday, March 19, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, February 26, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)