The second part of Selfe and Hawisher's book continued to get more interesting. On a random side note, I have to point out that Danielle from the case study and I share the same birthday--August 8th!
I thought the stories of Danielle, Joseph, Brittney and Charles fit especially well together. The first thing that I noticed is here are different genders, ethnicity from different places in the country and different socio economical levels, and the only thing really binding them together is their involvement in technology literacy, something they all excel at. For me, this exemplified the power technology has because it does not have prejudice against any of the above categories, making it almost a unifying source. While "traditional" literacy, reading, seemed to be valued in all of their lives, not all of them excelled at it, like Joseph. Not all of them started with a computer in the home like Danielle, but it was something they could catch onto at a later point.
What was really fascinating to me was the connection between the level of comfort with the technology literacy and how it increased the level of comfort of "real world" reading and writing. I felt like every story I read had some component of this, even if they excelled in reading, the literacy of technology exposed them to some really different nuances from writing. In Danielle's story, " The exchange in games and chat rooms, for instance, were especially instructive to her growing sense of rhetorical awareness because they so often resulted in social consequences that she felt keenly" (185). In Brittney's case, she may not have struggled with reading (at least I couldn't tell by her story) but in her journey with technology literacy, it helped her increase her vocabulary and her love of reading through a program called Accelerated Reader (193).
One thing I think Selfe and Hawisher really drive home is the point that all these students, even at different ages, accelerated with technology literacy far past what instruction their teacher could supply. As I enter into the world of teaching in less than a year, I am becoming more and more aware of the tenuous nature of this situation. Even though I am supposed to be of the "technological kids age" I still feel so far behind in many of technology's components. For me a perfect example of this is Facebook. It must have been during the year and a half I didn't have home access to a computer that Facebook came out, so I missed the wave there. My friends finally convinced me to start one, and reluctantly, I obliged. I definitely struggle with all the little facets of facebook, updating different areas, uploading pictures, heck even figuring out how to change a picture. I can only fear what my students will be able to do that I cant do...well, maybe fear is a terribly negative word, but anticipation that I will somehow be inadequate with technology in the classroom. At a recent colloquium here on campus, I was even surprised to learn that many librarians and teachers are starting Facebooks with the purpose that students can ask Librarians research questions though facebook. That amazed me, it really did. Even though I am young (subjectively, of course) there are times in this literacy world that I feel really, really old...
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Thoughts and Questions on S&H
I worry about my students' apparent lack of imagination. I'll suggest we make up a scenario to parallel something that's going on in Hamlet and they look at me like I come from Mars. After reading this week's selection, I'm wondering if this problem could be solved by computer gamers. In the case study of Danielle, she "...became adept at reading and interpreting imaginary scenarios and composing the exchanges between characters of various types and abilities" (185). Danielle is creating characters and writing dialogue. It may be in a different venue, but she's still using her imagination to create a new world. This is promising! She may not have been able to put a name to it, but S&H see clearly that "The exchanges in games and chatrooms...were especially instructive to her growing sense of rhetorical awareness because they so often in resulted in social consequences that she felt keenly..." (185).
It would be a great loss in English classrooms today to ignore this knowledge. Instead, we can embrace it and use what the kids are already doing to enhance some of our prime functions. I see limitless possibilities with ideas like Joseph's "intertextual application of new-media literacies" (189). When I read the analysis of his work on the bottom of page 191 I was struck by the quality and depth of his metaphorical text.
So imagination is alive and well. Are computer games and computer scenarios to our children what building blocks and Lincoln logs were to us?
I also found fascinating the idea that kids had to expend some effort in their diction in these chatrooms. Charles said that "You need to learn to read between the lines. You need to know the right things to say to people and how to communicate with them" (200). He goes on to say "I learned to be considerate of people to make sure that I get the respect that I get as well as being respectful of others" (201). Charles knows two things. He will be judged by the words he uses, so it's clear that he chooses his words wisely and he values the feelings of others, so he tries not to judge other "voices" too harshly. So the lessons of rhetoric and diction are implicit in this literacy.
I was interested in the line from Margaret Mead's Culture and Commitment that children find most advantageous educational efforts based on the changes happening around them. I thought about feminist readings of Shakespeare...how new philosophies can enlighten and refresh works that we've been reading for hundreds of years. I teach Hamlet in my 12th grade classes and use writing assignments as a way to explore where these almost fully baked kids are in their lives. What's important to them, who's important to them, etc. Using multiple literacies, i.e. alphabetical and computer would be a great place to explore these ideas.
S&H discuss the way Sheila, Nichole, and Yolanda perceived their computers as "literacy machines because they offered new environments for reading, writing, and communicating. All three women, for instance, mentioned that computers offered spaces within which they could continue to practice reading and writing skills that they already valued" (230-1). I kept thinking about the word value and how many times it was used in this book. How much do we value computer literacy? Could we use the value that students see in computers to change the way kids value reading and writing? I think it's funny (odd, not ha ha) that there is this major urgency to get kids up to snuff with computer literacy when they often can't string words together to make a sentence. I'm just wondering if one literacy can aid the improvement of another.
It would be a great loss in English classrooms today to ignore this knowledge. Instead, we can embrace it and use what the kids are already doing to enhance some of our prime functions. I see limitless possibilities with ideas like Joseph's "intertextual application of new-media literacies" (189). When I read the analysis of his work on the bottom of page 191 I was struck by the quality and depth of his metaphorical text.
So imagination is alive and well. Are computer games and computer scenarios to our children what building blocks and Lincoln logs were to us?
I also found fascinating the idea that kids had to expend some effort in their diction in these chatrooms. Charles said that "You need to learn to read between the lines. You need to know the right things to say to people and how to communicate with them" (200). He goes on to say "I learned to be considerate of people to make sure that I get the respect that I get as well as being respectful of others" (201). Charles knows two things. He will be judged by the words he uses, so it's clear that he chooses his words wisely and he values the feelings of others, so he tries not to judge other "voices" too harshly. So the lessons of rhetoric and diction are implicit in this literacy.
I was interested in the line from Margaret Mead's Culture and Commitment that children find most advantageous educational efforts based on the changes happening around them. I thought about feminist readings of Shakespeare...how new philosophies can enlighten and refresh works that we've been reading for hundreds of years. I teach Hamlet in my 12th grade classes and use writing assignments as a way to explore where these almost fully baked kids are in their lives. What's important to them, who's important to them, etc. Using multiple literacies, i.e. alphabetical and computer would be a great place to explore these ideas.
S&H discuss the way Sheila, Nichole, and Yolanda perceived their computers as "literacy machines because they offered new environments for reading, writing, and communicating. All three women, for instance, mentioned that computers offered spaces within which they could continue to practice reading and writing skills that they already valued" (230-1). I kept thinking about the word value and how many times it was used in this book. How much do we value computer literacy? Could we use the value that students see in computers to change the way kids value reading and writing? I think it's funny (odd, not ha ha) that there is this major urgency to get kids up to snuff with computer literacy when they often can't string words together to make a sentence. I'm just wondering if one literacy can aid the improvement of another.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
I'm out of catchy titles
Considering the fact that this book was published in 2004, I realize that many of the "new" things going on in media literacy only a few years ago are old hat now. They should probably write another book if they want to be literate in the information age. I'm sure this book was great for about a year, but when people are media literate, material such as this book become as obsolete as computers made in the same year.
However, for those educators who do not want to integrate technology into their room, there is (p.188) just reason to do so in connection to writing. There's a lot of research out there, including my own classroom inquiry through blogs, that definitely backs the idea that using technology to allow students to build a positive relationship with writing and their own thoughts. Obvious to me, not so obvious to the unnamed teacher in my school that wears her skirts entirely too close to her collarbone. I suppose, at the very least, the repetitive case studies provide sound reason for educators to incorporate technology and they can see how it affects students who embrace it.
Page 195 refers to an essay one of the kids had written "to please her teachers" and then goes on to say that this same student ended up designing a website for her school because she did not feel challenged by the critique she wrote about Schindler's List. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but her critique shows comprehension and impressive writing skills. How is designing a web page in any way comparable to this assignment, not only in the visual sense, but in the comprehension sense? I understand that this student saw the building of a web page as more important to her future in technology, but it takes comprehension skills to understand exactly how to do that, and the author's fail to recognize that in writing. At one time, watching a movie WAS media literacy...being able to discuss or write about the theme, plot, characterization...how is that not challenging? When did becoming media literate mean moving away from comprehension and writing skills? In a technology-supported environment, there's room for all of it to be incorporated...not just learning how to write in HTML (which there are programs for now) and build webpages and learn photoshop (which there are better programs out there now).
However, for those educators who do not want to integrate technology into their room, there is (p.188) just reason to do so in connection to writing. There's a lot of research out there, including my own classroom inquiry through blogs, that definitely backs the idea that using technology to allow students to build a positive relationship with writing and their own thoughts. Obvious to me, not so obvious to the unnamed teacher in my school that wears her skirts entirely too close to her collarbone. I suppose, at the very least, the repetitive case studies provide sound reason for educators to incorporate technology and they can see how it affects students who embrace it.
Page 195 refers to an essay one of the kids had written "to please her teachers" and then goes on to say that this same student ended up designing a website for her school because she did not feel challenged by the critique she wrote about Schindler's List. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but her critique shows comprehension and impressive writing skills. How is designing a web page in any way comparable to this assignment, not only in the visual sense, but in the comprehension sense? I understand that this student saw the building of a web page as more important to her future in technology, but it takes comprehension skills to understand exactly how to do that, and the author's fail to recognize that in writing. At one time, watching a movie WAS media literacy...being able to discuss or write about the theme, plot, characterization...how is that not challenging? When did becoming media literate mean moving away from comprehension and writing skills? In a technology-supported environment, there's room for all of it to be incorporated...not just learning how to write in HTML (which there are programs for now) and build webpages and learn photoshop (which there are better programs out there now).
Max Thompson, please meet Selfe and Hawisher
So, let's see, teachers have a set number of professional development days throughout the school year and, lately many of us have spent this time in one phase or another of LFS training or working on something LFS related, i.e. curriculum maps, graphic organizers, word walls. Districts have spent thousands of dollars bringing Max and/or his cohorts into our schools so that we can bask in his brilliance. After all, before him, schools were obviously not learning-focused. Now that we are all focusing on the learning taking place in our schools, what have we actually gained? Mmmm. I'm not an expert (my disclaimer), but it seems to me we could do our students a big favor by adding some professional development in the digital literacy department. This would certainly not be the cure-all, but as we have seen from some of the case studies, students who would otherwise not be interested in alphabetic literacy could realize an interest or passion in digital literacy. Unfortunately the problem now becomes those who have versus those who have not. Race, ethnicity, class and gender issues still pervade, allowing those with the present power to gain even more by securing their position in our digital world. But what is the answer? Unfortunately throwing more money at it is not as we have witnessed with schools getting huge grants for technology or even the technology itself and no one or very few who know what to do with it. I, for one, want to learn how to use the SmartBoard in my room, but so far the training has been held at inconvenient times for me. Far more of us SmartBoard "illiterates" could better spend our time during our professional development days learning how to use and incorporate this technology as well as some valuable programs to entice our students to learn. Maybe the learning won't happen at school, but we can at least plant the seed for individual learning as many in the case studies have proven can be done when the hunger gnaws.
Selfe and Hawisher didn't provide any new information, they just put it out there for all of us to drink in and ponder our place in our ever-changing world. Although I appreciate most things about our newly forming world with its emerging need for digital literacy among others, I still like the feel of a book in my hands. . . .
Selfe and Hawisher didn't provide any new information, they just put it out there for all of us to drink in and ponder our place in our ever-changing world. Although I appreciate most things about our newly forming world with its emerging need for digital literacy among others, I still like the feel of a book in my hands. . . .
Monday, December 1, 2008
Going in Circles: Literarcy by any other name is still literacy needed for living
Access, family, teachers, and the promotion of the perennial "yearning for learning" all become old news in another form with new technology. But these important education factors connect or do not connect the student with the technology in all the case studies presented in the book.
With open minded teachers willing to learn from students and students willing to see value in education, we are back where we started in the beginning of this class.
Who has the money? How will access be provided if not in schools, homes, and even libraries? Do funding cuts limit the purpose and success of any educational reform? Will the playing field be level, so we do not miss the potentials and possibilities in the students who might succeed with access to technological literacy? When all the new programs for educators spin easy band aides that get old and fall off, when will the basics of technology be promoted? Who has the power? Will we recognize that money spent on education is money spent on an investment of our country's future? Who has the time and inclination to continually fight the small battles between student and teacher, teacher and teacher, teacher and administration, student and parent, parent and teacher, or student to student?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, in technological literacy as in any literacy; how will we pull the students into the importance of life-long learning?
In all of the case studies, the students adapted to the literacy they needed in the world they lived. And maybe, just maybe...technological literacy will be genuinely promoted through education and leisure time in the United States.
On second thought, maybe those little green computers donated to the poor in other countries might need a counterpart here.
Saying that, I would still like to promote reading,writing, interpretation, and critical thinking through whatever medium involves the students(as well as the teachers, parents, and government officials).
I am reminded of an old Women's International League for Peace and Freedom saying,
"it will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber".
With open minded teachers willing to learn from students and students willing to see value in education, we are back where we started in the beginning of this class.
Who has the money? How will access be provided if not in schools, homes, and even libraries? Do funding cuts limit the purpose and success of any educational reform? Will the playing field be level, so we do not miss the potentials and possibilities in the students who might succeed with access to technological literacy? When all the new programs for educators spin easy band aides that get old and fall off, when will the basics of technology be promoted? Who has the power? Will we recognize that money spent on education is money spent on an investment of our country's future? Who has the time and inclination to continually fight the small battles between student and teacher, teacher and teacher, teacher and administration, student and parent, parent and teacher, or student to student?
MOST IMPORTANTLY, in technological literacy as in any literacy; how will we pull the students into the importance of life-long learning?
In all of the case studies, the students adapted to the literacy they needed in the world they lived. And maybe, just maybe...technological literacy will be genuinely promoted through education and leisure time in the United States.
On second thought, maybe those little green computers donated to the poor in other countries might need a counterpart here.
Saying that, I would still like to promote reading,writing, interpretation, and critical thinking through whatever medium involves the students(as well as the teachers, parents, and government officials).
I am reminded of an old Women's International League for Peace and Freedom saying,
"it will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber".
Literacies and Lies in the Information Age
Race, ethnicity, class, and gender can be factors with powerful influence over a person's access to, and acquisition of digital/non-alphabetic literacies (216, 219). No kidding?
This is in know wise meant to denigrate the smoothness and articulation which with Selfe and Hawisher present their case studies. Nor is it meant to belittle the correlations they found. I must ask two questions though:
Are we really surprised? Power maintains itself. The best mechanism for keeping a firm grip on privilege is "divide and conquer." It is accomplished by turning differences into classifications which can keep groups and individuals isolated. Nearly any common descriptor can be (and is/has been) used to do this. "Black" or "blue collar" or "female," these categories have become institutionalized. Just as they are used to allow different gradients of access to financial or judicial possibility, they are now factors affecting technological literacy-related opportunity.
What can we do about it? From the case studies presented, it seems that there is some sort of bare minimum of access necessary. I'm not a senator, or a wealthy philantropist (see my last blog here). Beyond that, as an instructor, can we assume any base level of non-print literacy of our students? If not, and when handed "Developmental Requirements" or the like, coupled with a limited amount of time in which to meet them (nevermind that they may be requirements in forms many students will never use again) how do we shoehorn in the time to teach more than compare, summarize, pop out 5 paragraphs?
It seems to me (that's bet-hedging philosopher jargon) that the subjects of the studies in Selfe & Hawisher were more self-taught than class taught, by a good margin. What good can we do then? Cheerleaders are great, but I don't want to be one if the stadium stays locked.
This is in know wise meant to denigrate the smoothness and articulation which with Selfe and Hawisher present their case studies. Nor is it meant to belittle the correlations they found. I must ask two questions though:
Are we really surprised? Power maintains itself. The best mechanism for keeping a firm grip on privilege is "divide and conquer." It is accomplished by turning differences into classifications which can keep groups and individuals isolated. Nearly any common descriptor can be (and is/has been) used to do this. "Black" or "blue collar" or "female," these categories have become institutionalized. Just as they are used to allow different gradients of access to financial or judicial possibility, they are now factors affecting technological literacy-related opportunity.
What can we do about it? From the case studies presented, it seems that there is some sort of bare minimum of access necessary. I'm not a senator, or a wealthy philantropist (see my last blog here). Beyond that, as an instructor, can we assume any base level of non-print literacy of our students? If not, and when handed "Developmental Requirements" or the like, coupled with a limited amount of time in which to meet them (nevermind that they may be requirements in forms many students will never use again) how do we shoehorn in the time to teach more than compare, summarize, pop out 5 paragraphs?
It seems to me (that's bet-hedging philosopher jargon) that the subjects of the studies in Selfe & Hawisher were more self-taught than class taught, by a good margin. What good can we do then? Cheerleaders are great, but I don't want to be one if the stadium stays locked.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Literacies have life spans
"...New forms of literacy don't simply accumulate. ...They emerge; they overlap and compete...;they accumulate,...they also eventually fade away" (Selfe and Hawisher, 212).
So where does that leave cursive writing? I'd say that cursive writing is in the accumulating phase but moving quickly towards fading away. Last year I required my students to write a journal entry in cursive. I did that for two reasons. One, I saw very few students writing in cursive and I was curious whether they knew how. The second reason was that I wondered if, like riding a bike, that skill could easily be reactivated. The results of my very unscientific study showed that most students had learned cursive but it wasn't so easy to revive. Even with cursive writing charts as guides, students really struggled to use that literacy IF it wasn't something they'd been using regularly. So they accumulated that literacy at some point (probably in third grade?) but, since there is no real purpose for continuing it, it's fading away. So at some point (I wonder) will we just not ever learn it? And then, if we stop teaching and learning cursive writing, will the cursive fonts on computers fade away?
Cursive writing is a literacy that can be learned without assistance. Of course it's much easier to learn with someone instructing you when to make the loop and when to go below the line. The same can be said for learning technology applications as is illustrated in the case studies we read this week. Learning technology applications independently may not be easy or quick - but, by trial and error, or practice, or use and misuse, a savvy person can figure it out. Much of it boils down to time. If you have the time or are willing to devote the time to learning, you can do it. Of course it's much easier if someone teaches you the ropes but it's not necessary.
The case studies all suggest students whose skills completely outstripped their teachers. This is not a bad thing. I've learned many things from my students and I've found that it empowers them to want to learn more. It seemed like the students in those case studies did much of their learning outside of class time or at least not when they were supposed to be working on a class assignment. The lure of understanding technology becomes a problem in school when students use class computer time to figure out how to make screeching noises pop up or design some cool graphic for their desktop instead of using that time to complete an assignment. I understand that (almost always) "play" is learning; but, it's another example of code switching - knowing when to use the computer for work and when to use it for "play." I also can see how many assignments that use technology may not be nearly as fulfilling as they might be. As the book suggests, projects that allow students to develop, use, and showcase those skills allows for the complete integration of visual, kinesthetic, and auditory skills. On the flip side, those projects take a great deal of time to complete and many, many teachers can't afford to give students that luxury of time. Sad, isn't it?
On page 200, Charles discusses how his ability to make inferences was sharpened through "the complex situations that games depicted." He goes on to discuss how games have a certain grammar and that even gaming chat rooms require that users follow an established etiquette. He presents a solid case for the learning that can happen through computer games and it makes me want to incorporate them into my curriculum. I'm thinking about how to do that...
The problem that Margaret Mead's prefigurative culture (205) presents is that many adults - especially teachers- are not at all comfortable when they cannot provide a model or guidance for their students. That goes against the way we were taught and frankly, it doesn't meet the expectations of many of our students. But it's a teachable moment isn't it? It sends a huge message to our students that we don't have to be experts on everything - that education really can be a give and take. Teachers can learn from their students and students can learn well beyond what their teachers know. Not 'knowing it all' doesn't make me less of a teacher. Maybe technology can be the vehicle to "force" Feire's vision for teacher-students with students-teachers...that education can be a process where everyone can grow (210). WOW! For people who love learning, school could be a gold mine!
So where does that leave cursive writing? I'd say that cursive writing is in the accumulating phase but moving quickly towards fading away. Last year I required my students to write a journal entry in cursive. I did that for two reasons. One, I saw very few students writing in cursive and I was curious whether they knew how. The second reason was that I wondered if, like riding a bike, that skill could easily be reactivated. The results of my very unscientific study showed that most students had learned cursive but it wasn't so easy to revive. Even with cursive writing charts as guides, students really struggled to use that literacy IF it wasn't something they'd been using regularly. So they accumulated that literacy at some point (probably in third grade?) but, since there is no real purpose for continuing it, it's fading away. So at some point (I wonder) will we just not ever learn it? And then, if we stop teaching and learning cursive writing, will the cursive fonts on computers fade away?
Cursive writing is a literacy that can be learned without assistance. Of course it's much easier to learn with someone instructing you when to make the loop and when to go below the line. The same can be said for learning technology applications as is illustrated in the case studies we read this week. Learning technology applications independently may not be easy or quick - but, by trial and error, or practice, or use and misuse, a savvy person can figure it out. Much of it boils down to time. If you have the time or are willing to devote the time to learning, you can do it. Of course it's much easier if someone teaches you the ropes but it's not necessary.
The case studies all suggest students whose skills completely outstripped their teachers. This is not a bad thing. I've learned many things from my students and I've found that it empowers them to want to learn more. It seemed like the students in those case studies did much of their learning outside of class time or at least not when they were supposed to be working on a class assignment. The lure of understanding technology becomes a problem in school when students use class computer time to figure out how to make screeching noises pop up or design some cool graphic for their desktop instead of using that time to complete an assignment. I understand that (almost always) "play" is learning; but, it's another example of code switching - knowing when to use the computer for work and when to use it for "play." I also can see how many assignments that use technology may not be nearly as fulfilling as they might be. As the book suggests, projects that allow students to develop, use, and showcase those skills allows for the complete integration of visual, kinesthetic, and auditory skills. On the flip side, those projects take a great deal of time to complete and many, many teachers can't afford to give students that luxury of time. Sad, isn't it?
On page 200, Charles discusses how his ability to make inferences was sharpened through "the complex situations that games depicted." He goes on to discuss how games have a certain grammar and that even gaming chat rooms require that users follow an established etiquette. He presents a solid case for the learning that can happen through computer games and it makes me want to incorporate them into my curriculum. I'm thinking about how to do that...
The problem that Margaret Mead's prefigurative culture (205) presents is that many adults - especially teachers- are not at all comfortable when they cannot provide a model or guidance for their students. That goes against the way we were taught and frankly, it doesn't meet the expectations of many of our students. But it's a teachable moment isn't it? It sends a huge message to our students that we don't have to be experts on everything - that education really can be a give and take. Teachers can learn from their students and students can learn well beyond what their teachers know. Not 'knowing it all' doesn't make me less of a teacher. Maybe technology can be the vehicle to "force" Feire's vision for teacher-students with students-teachers...that education can be a process where everyone can grow (210). WOW! For people who love learning, school could be a gold mine!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
What are the implications of the public education system’s curriculum being driven by domestic economy concerns and those of the military-industrial complex? (37)
The literacy background given of the two girls is interesting in connection with class distinctions made and the encouragement they receive to read early in life. “The economic situation of these two families – middle class for Jill and upper middle class for Sally – meant that both households could afford to purchase books, newspapers, magazines, pens, pencils, paper, and, later, computers.”(43) These facts, coupled with the economic freedom of both mothers in the home, are significant to literacy development in general. When absent, they are often seen as the reason for the struggles experienced by other youths in education. It was interesting to see Damon’s case study as a member of a lower economic group, living in a one parent household, with that parent being largely hands-off with his academics. Yet, he picked up the entertainment value of reading, if not the educational value from his mother and sister’s avid reading habits. Thus, his environment did have an impact on his literacy development.
Considering the Technological Literacy Challenge of 1996, I wonder if the focus on technology being used for reading and writing has had a similar effect on students not inherently interested in reading, as the lure of technology seemed to have for Damon. “According to its sponsors, this project was to provide all people equal access to an education rich in opportunities to use and learn about technology…graduates would gain the qualifications needed for high tech, high-paying jobs, and thus, the means of achieving upward social mobility and economic prosperity within the increasingly technological culture.” This is interesting considering the anecdote of Damon’s plight when dealing with the conservative ideologies at his university that maintained the supremacy of “conventional standards of grammatical correctness and spelling, and the logical argumentation strategies he could bring to bear on the essays he wrote…more traditional form of written communication.” (54) Coupled with the conventional standards which continue to be emphasized through the areas which are tested for proficiency by the country’s standardized testing systems, which judge the literacy of students in the public education system, technology would not seem to be the focus of any public education program. The proficiency exams focus on math, reading, and, until just this year, science. Ironically, the tests are still administered by paper and pencil instead of via computer. If the goal of the 1996 technology literacy program was to have all children capable of reading and writing with the use of computers, this definitely underscores a change in what is considered the conventional means of communication and its important elements. Spelling would definitely become a “faded” literacy, as computer programs are capable of fixing the majority of errors, with the exception of usage. I would like to have heard if this break with conventions occurred with the two girls, or if Damon’s ethnicity may have been a factor in emphasizing his need to obtain the conventional literacies as well as the new technological literacy. Especially since his socio-economic position was a factor in the pace of his exposure to and acquisition of the technology.
“in U.S. schools and in the cultural ecology in which these schools existed, computers continued to be distributed differentially along the related axes of race and socioeconomic status. Moreover, this distribution continued to contribute to intergenerational patterns of racism, poverty, and illiteracy.” (57)
The literacy background given of the two girls is interesting in connection with class distinctions made and the encouragement they receive to read early in life. “The economic situation of these two families – middle class for Jill and upper middle class for Sally – meant that both households could afford to purchase books, newspapers, magazines, pens, pencils, paper, and, later, computers.”(43) These facts, coupled with the economic freedom of both mothers in the home, are significant to literacy development in general. When absent, they are often seen as the reason for the struggles experienced by other youths in education. It was interesting to see Damon’s case study as a member of a lower economic group, living in a one parent household, with that parent being largely hands-off with his academics. Yet, he picked up the entertainment value of reading, if not the educational value from his mother and sister’s avid reading habits. Thus, his environment did have an impact on his literacy development.
Considering the Technological Literacy Challenge of 1996, I wonder if the focus on technology being used for reading and writing has had a similar effect on students not inherently interested in reading, as the lure of technology seemed to have for Damon. “According to its sponsors, this project was to provide all people equal access to an education rich in opportunities to use and learn about technology…graduates would gain the qualifications needed for high tech, high-paying jobs, and thus, the means of achieving upward social mobility and economic prosperity within the increasingly technological culture.” This is interesting considering the anecdote of Damon’s plight when dealing with the conservative ideologies at his university that maintained the supremacy of “conventional standards of grammatical correctness and spelling, and the logical argumentation strategies he could bring to bear on the essays he wrote…more traditional form of written communication.” (54) Coupled with the conventional standards which continue to be emphasized through the areas which are tested for proficiency by the country’s standardized testing systems, which judge the literacy of students in the public education system, technology would not seem to be the focus of any public education program. The proficiency exams focus on math, reading, and, until just this year, science. Ironically, the tests are still administered by paper and pencil instead of via computer. If the goal of the 1996 technology literacy program was to have all children capable of reading and writing with the use of computers, this definitely underscores a change in what is considered the conventional means of communication and its important elements. Spelling would definitely become a “faded” literacy, as computer programs are capable of fixing the majority of errors, with the exception of usage. I would like to have heard if this break with conventions occurred with the two girls, or if Damon’s ethnicity may have been a factor in emphasizing his need to obtain the conventional literacies as well as the new technological literacy. Especially since his socio-economic position was a factor in the pace of his exposure to and acquisition of the technology.
“in U.S. schools and in the cultural ecology in which these schools existed, computers continued to be distributed differentially along the related axes of race and socioeconomic status. Moreover, this distribution continued to contribute to intergenerational patterns of racism, poverty, and illiteracy.” (57)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Selfe & Hawisher's No Brainer Guide to Technological Literacy
Selfe and Hawisher provided some interesting insight to computer literacy, generating my own recollections of becoming computer literate as I read about Tom and Melissa who were born in 1964, only one year later than me. I was compelled to compare these individuals with my own journey to become technologically literate in a “world” that almost demands this literacy in order to survive and succeed. Unfortunately, I don’t have quite the detailed memory that Tom and Melissa have. A few specific memories I have of technology in the 70s include Pong (no Ray, this has nothing to do with beer), which I didn’t have much interest in (I have to agree with Tom on it being boring) and my dad buying an electronic calculator for me at Sears. This calculator—an amazing machine at the time—only performed the basic functions and cost around $37.00, a nice chunk of change back in 1974 or 75. The next contact with technological advancement that I can remember came during my senior year of high school. I had no intention or a passing thought of becoming an English teacher, and I knew I had to be able to support myself once I graduated; therefore, I chose to take classes that would help me to be employable in an office setting. I went the route of Vo-Tech, specifically taking a two-period class called “Office Occupations” during my senior year and working 20 hours a week in the office of the local YMCA as a receptionist. In this class, I learned to use an electric adding machine and a memory typewriter, among other office-related skills. A memory typewriter? Gee, what will they think of next? We couldn’t believe the technology we had available to us! Later in the year, we gained ONE TRS-80, a Radio Shack computer. I was fascinated with it, but, of course, we all had to take turns playing with it. I worked at various law firms during the 80s, some equipped with word processors (the ones that read cards) which I never really learned how to use. I think it was during this decade, though, that I first used a computer and floppy disks. This is where it all gets sort of foggy for me. I don’t really remember when I first learned how to use a computer or even the internet, sort of like trying to remember when I first learned how to read or tie my shoes. I can’t even remember exactly when we got our first home computer, but it was in the mid 90s, and no internet until at least 98. At this point, I begin comparing my kids with Jill, Sally, and Damon, although they came about three to five years before my kids. My daughter and I have discussed this topic on occasion, and, interestingly, she really doesn’t even remember not knowing how to use a computer—it’s always been a part of her life.
Reading about the culture ecology of California in the 60s and 70s felt so strange. I mean, I was there, but I don’t really remember much of that sort of stuff. And I never thought about the Latinos (we just used the term Mexicans and Chicanos back then) being a minority and getting the short end of the stick. In my Catholic grade school, I was actually the minority, but it never occurred to me. Almost all of my friends were Mexican (there were only three other Anglo-Saxon girls in my class of 43), and I never considered that my situation was any different than anyone else’s. I played with African American girls who lived down the street from me. Again, I never considered the cultural differences. I never appreciated the fact that racism could provide an obstacle to their literacy, learning, and success. Honestly, sometimes I wish I could go back to those naïve and simple times. . . . It would be so much easier than dealing with all the ignorance and prejudice in my world today. I suppose I’m digressing, but in light of recent news about a lot of ugly white trash, I can’t seem to help myself.
One more thing, the more things change, the more they remain the same. A cliché, but the first chapter describing the cultural ecology of the early 80s just confirmed it.
Reading about the culture ecology of California in the 60s and 70s felt so strange. I mean, I was there, but I don’t really remember much of that sort of stuff. And I never thought about the Latinos (we just used the term Mexicans and Chicanos back then) being a minority and getting the short end of the stick. In my Catholic grade school, I was actually the minority, but it never occurred to me. Almost all of my friends were Mexican (there were only three other Anglo-Saxon girls in my class of 43), and I never considered that my situation was any different than anyone else’s. I played with African American girls who lived down the street from me. Again, I never considered the cultural differences. I never appreciated the fact that racism could provide an obstacle to their literacy, learning, and success. Honestly, sometimes I wish I could go back to those naïve and simple times. . . . It would be so much easier than dealing with all the ignorance and prejudice in my world today. I suppose I’m digressing, but in light of recent news about a lot of ugly white trash, I can’t seem to help myself.
One more thing, the more things change, the more they remain the same. A cliché, but the first chapter describing the cultural ecology of the early 80s just confirmed it.
The Literacy of Technology
In the first chapter of Selfe and Hawisher, I was immediately drawn in by the idea of technological literacy and its effect on the traditional idea of literacy as reading and writing. I couldn't help thinking about my own ability (or lack thereof) with new technologies that have seemingly appeared overnight in my classroom. S & H write on page 31, "From 1978 to 2000, literacy and computer technology became so inextricably linked in minds of most people that, by the end of the century, many considered students no longer fully literate unless they could communicate within electronic environments". I am not the student, but the teacher, and at this point in my career, I don't feel fully literate. I am now one of the "older teachers" at my school and it's really hard for me to adapt to using technology in my classroom. Sometimes I feel like Tom who just liked having something in his hand rather than using the computer. I've seen over the years, a loss in student patience...they want it and they want it now. Computers give students this instant gratification. Sometimes I feel like putting on the brakes and just ditching technology in favor of the old pen and paper, but then I realize that this isn't going to help my students. So I find myself, I think, very much like one of the Latinos in Mike Rose's book....in a world where I don't understand the literacy. So, if I want to keep my job and keep the students from losing all interest in my class, I have to learn how to incorporate technology in some way. Our school was awarded a CFF grant this year and I just got a polyvision board (smartboard) in my classroom last week. I've had one day of training, enough to do a few things on the board and I have to say, I was AMAZED at their attention to this thing.
As I have been in each of the previous readings for this class, I continue to be captivated by the role of an individual in the lives of learners. S & H write that "Despite his ongoing family troubles, however, Damon enjoyed school and often found himself motivated best by individual teachers whom he remembered as upholding high standards" (50). And even though Damon's mother had a drug habit, he recalls her reading all the time. There were books all over the house and his mother could read for hours on end. Later in the book, Melissa recalls the impact of seeing Barbara Jordan speak at a July 4th celebration on the Washington Mall. She wanted to emulate her and was determined to acquire the "appropriate literary technologies if she was ever going to be anything like this amazing woman" (120). The crowning of Vanessa Williams had a similar effect on her. Maybe this is about inspiration. Melissa was really inspired as a young black woman to make her mark and do whatever it took to be successful. I'm just wondering... can you get inspiration from a computer?
Back to Damon for a bit...someone else already wrote about this, but this struck me too. On page 54 S & H discuss Damon's lack of "conventional print literacy". I wrote in the margin of my book, "did he really need this?" I can't help thinking that money and power are important elements here. There are certainly good paying jobs out there for people with well developed technology literacies. Many of these jobs would not require traditional academic literacy as well. But a leadership position often does require the traditional literacy and the more "high powered" jobs also require this. So I think that as Damon's world or his literacies started to overlap with others, he saw that in order to gain more power or more money, he was going to have to learn that traditional literacy as well.
My favorite paragraph came at the end of Chapter 4. There is a discussion about Tom's resistance to using computers although he can handle the basic requirements....word processing, email, etc but "The question then becomes whether his own technological literacy practices will allow him to shape a satisfying life, personally, professionally, socially, within a larger public sphere that increasingly values communicative exchanges online" (130). Tom's personal commitment to stay or move up the social hierarchy will determine what literacies he must acquire.
As I have been in each of the previous readings for this class, I continue to be captivated by the role of an individual in the lives of learners. S & H write that "Despite his ongoing family troubles, however, Damon enjoyed school and often found himself motivated best by individual teachers whom he remembered as upholding high standards" (50). And even though Damon's mother had a drug habit, he recalls her reading all the time. There were books all over the house and his mother could read for hours on end. Later in the book, Melissa recalls the impact of seeing Barbara Jordan speak at a July 4th celebration on the Washington Mall. She wanted to emulate her and was determined to acquire the "appropriate literary technologies if she was ever going to be anything like this amazing woman" (120). The crowning of Vanessa Williams had a similar effect on her. Maybe this is about inspiration. Melissa was really inspired as a young black woman to make her mark and do whatever it took to be successful. I'm just wondering... can you get inspiration from a computer?
Back to Damon for a bit...someone else already wrote about this, but this struck me too. On page 54 S & H discuss Damon's lack of "conventional print literacy". I wrote in the margin of my book, "did he really need this?" I can't help thinking that money and power are important elements here. There are certainly good paying jobs out there for people with well developed technology literacies. Many of these jobs would not require traditional academic literacy as well. But a leadership position often does require the traditional literacy and the more "high powered" jobs also require this. So I think that as Damon's world or his literacies started to overlap with others, he saw that in order to gain more power or more money, he was going to have to learn that traditional literacy as well.
My favorite paragraph came at the end of Chapter 4. There is a discussion about Tom's resistance to using computers although he can handle the basic requirements....word processing, email, etc but "The question then becomes whether his own technological literacy practices will allow him to shape a satisfying life, personally, professionally, socially, within a larger public sphere that increasingly values communicative exchanges online" (130). Tom's personal commitment to stay or move up the social hierarchy will determine what literacies he must acquire.
Only one more blog to go!
No mention of ColecoVision or Atari? Remember Dodge 'Em?
So, on to the three students...the two girls grew up in a technologically literate and culturally literate climate. They became successful and had an easier time with writing than Damon, who ultimately still succeeded in life; he found a familiar discourse in college that helped him identify with peers, but because he did not have a literate background growing up, he caught the attention of professors who thought he was lacking in writing. But was he? Discourse...he didn't need writing growing up, and really, did he need it at that point in college? Yes, it would have been nice, but he didn't need it to be successful. He knew a lot about the field he was getting into and he was good at it. Maybe at some point in his adult life he may feel the pangs of not being able to write a business letter that looks like it was put together by the educated man he has become. But the fact of the matter is, he *is* literate...he is literate in the area he has chosen to earn a living. He created an identity for himself in his adult life that does not require him to be literate in the same sense that the two girls need or choose to be literate in their adult lives. Aside from that, the three students-turned-adults can still identify with the discourse they are familiar with--the one they grew up with. It's comfortable to have something left of your younger days that you can identify with. Although it's possible Damon is the only member of his family to have gone to college, the fact that he doesn't write well maintains the discourse he grew up in--he just happens to have a degree now.
My background is so similar to Melissa's in terms of culture playing a role. For me, it wasn't so much the racial side, but the basic background of her parents and growing up just outside of the age where kids were using computers in junior high and high school. I remember my brother-who is and was always very smart-getting the first "real" computer that I knew of...but he would write all the programs... those DOS programs...and he would ask me to sit for hours upon hours reading these codes to him...and after all those hours, the program would do something stupid, like have a bee fly really fast across the screen or play one line of Bach's Overture. Now I look back and think...what a waste of time...but at the time, it shaped my view of what it meant to know how to use a computer. Much in the same way as Melissa...and I credit being exposed to computers in junior high and high school to my brother, not to school itself...I always seemed to sort of fall into the category of being known as the one who knew how to use computers. I now wonder if it was by default...default that I had the brother I had...but then this whole farce felt like it was building up, and now I HAD to learn how to work this thing. I wasn't afraid of it either, which helped shape my digital literacy. Even today...all the different technologies...I don't use them if I don't have to, but if I do, I'll pick up on it pretty quickly. I have to use technology to relate to my students, and to teach them a thing or two...blogging, wiki's... but on the other hand, like Tom, I still have to print every last document that needs to be read for post grad work...it just doesn't feel the same having to look at it on a screen. I like to highlight. I like to turn the pages. Sounds like I'm doing work. (I am) And how annoying if I accidentally close one of the 20 windows I have open that each contain a document I need to read. I think people who were in that crossover in the 80's...for a lot of us...it's not about resistance (I refuse to use those new "books" that look like they are paper but they are digital, whatever they are called) but it's about creating that balance between technology and tradition. I'm comfortable there. And I'm still digitally literate.
So, on to the three students...the two girls grew up in a technologically literate and culturally literate climate. They became successful and had an easier time with writing than Damon, who ultimately still succeeded in life; he found a familiar discourse in college that helped him identify with peers, but because he did not have a literate background growing up, he caught the attention of professors who thought he was lacking in writing. But was he? Discourse...he didn't need writing growing up, and really, did he need it at that point in college? Yes, it would have been nice, but he didn't need it to be successful. He knew a lot about the field he was getting into and he was good at it. Maybe at some point in his adult life he may feel the pangs of not being able to write a business letter that looks like it was put together by the educated man he has become. But the fact of the matter is, he *is* literate...he is literate in the area he has chosen to earn a living. He created an identity for himself in his adult life that does not require him to be literate in the same sense that the two girls need or choose to be literate in their adult lives. Aside from that, the three students-turned-adults can still identify with the discourse they are familiar with--the one they grew up with. It's comfortable to have something left of your younger days that you can identify with. Although it's possible Damon is the only member of his family to have gone to college, the fact that he doesn't write well maintains the discourse he grew up in--he just happens to have a degree now.
My background is so similar to Melissa's in terms of culture playing a role. For me, it wasn't so much the racial side, but the basic background of her parents and growing up just outside of the age where kids were using computers in junior high and high school. I remember my brother-who is and was always very smart-getting the first "real" computer that I knew of...but he would write all the programs... those DOS programs...and he would ask me to sit for hours upon hours reading these codes to him...and after all those hours, the program would do something stupid, like have a bee fly really fast across the screen or play one line of Bach's Overture. Now I look back and think...what a waste of time...but at the time, it shaped my view of what it meant to know how to use a computer. Much in the same way as Melissa...and I credit being exposed to computers in junior high and high school to my brother, not to school itself...I always seemed to sort of fall into the category of being known as the one who knew how to use computers. I now wonder if it was by default...default that I had the brother I had...but then this whole farce felt like it was building up, and now I HAD to learn how to work this thing. I wasn't afraid of it either, which helped shape my digital literacy. Even today...all the different technologies...I don't use them if I don't have to, but if I do, I'll pick up on it pretty quickly. I have to use technology to relate to my students, and to teach them a thing or two...blogging, wiki's... but on the other hand, like Tom, I still have to print every last document that needs to be read for post grad work...it just doesn't feel the same having to look at it on a screen. I like to highlight. I like to turn the pages. Sounds like I'm doing work. (I am) And how annoying if I accidentally close one of the 20 windows I have open that each contain a document I need to read. I think people who were in that crossover in the 80's...for a lot of us...it's not about resistance (I refuse to use those new "books" that look like they are paper but they are digital, whatever they are called) but it's about creating that balance between technology and tradition. I'm comfortable there. And I'm still digitally literate.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The web
It's not just a matter of print versus electronic literacies. Last week's discussion was the precursor to this issue. In the case of Damon, the description on page 54 is telling--"[Damon's teachers] were concerned that Damon might fail to complete the requirements of his bachelor's degree program in technical communication because he did not devote enough attention to the more traditional forms of written communication." And why would he, really? After all web design work, music production and non-print media were giving him tangible rewards of an immediate nature, whereas a B.A. was a potential, intangible future benefit. The aura of respect that is given to little pieces of paper with degrees on them is a practice of the upper classes, emulated by the middle classes, and ignored by the poor. So with his background, Damon was making the best choices he knew how to.
In opposition to this, the two middle class girls already had the privilege associated with the combination of their class and skin color. Adding a degree to these would be the standard method for cementing their career paths. But for someone raised low-income, black, and male (the stereotypical scapegoat for anything the white middle and upper classes decree) a degree would be nowhere near the top of the priority list when things like self-sufficient finances are already starting to appear. the old print literacies and associated institutions did not get Damon here. It was his self-taught electronic literacies gained by "using tactics...teachers might associate with plagiarism." (53)
The discussion in both chapters of how people have varying levels of technological/digital literacy in their lives brings up the interesting question (which I doubt has a definitive answer): How much mastery of a given literacy and its practices does a person need? How can you tell? For instance, I can't write code, but I search and surf well. It seems enough for me, at present. How will I know when I need more digital literacy? Perhaps more worrying, how will I react if someone prescribes a certain level as necessary and I feel it's not?
In opposition to this, the two middle class girls already had the privilege associated with the combination of their class and skin color. Adding a degree to these would be the standard method for cementing their career paths. But for someone raised low-income, black, and male (the stereotypical scapegoat for anything the white middle and upper classes decree) a degree would be nowhere near the top of the priority list when things like self-sufficient finances are already starting to appear. the old print literacies and associated institutions did not get Damon here. It was his self-taught electronic literacies gained by "using tactics...teachers might associate with plagiarism." (53)
The discussion in both chapters of how people have varying levels of technological/digital literacy in their lives brings up the interesting question (which I doubt has a definitive answer): How much mastery of a given literacy and its practices does a person need? How can you tell? For instance, I can't write code, but I search and surf well. It seems enough for me, at present. How will I know when I need more digital literacy? Perhaps more worrying, how will I react if someone prescribes a certain level as necessary and I feel it's not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
