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?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Living in the NEW information age
Today is November 16 and according to President-elect Obama's transition Web site, www.change.gov. there are 65 days until the inauguration. I would have to applaud Dr. K. for having us read the Selfe and Hawisher book, Literate Lives in the Information Age. This is a historic continuation of the development of technology
There was a small newspaper blip in today's paper entitled "Obama's weekly address to be posted on YouTube". (I could get the printed copy, but not the video from my home computer because I have not updated parts of my computer). But, I believe the written address will be preserved and remembered and challenged politically by many in the days to come. That is the way of democracy in the United States.
Then, we will live the transitions Selfe and Hawisher discuss. The transitions of our society will become evident when radio, television, and Internet as well as newspapers and magazines offer something for all levels of access and literacy.
Our "culture [will]play a critical role in shaping values regarding the literacy's of technology and that, at the same time, the literacy values and practices of people and groups [will]also shape cultures"(126). Those changes will start at the Oval Office. It is my hope that the campaign commitment to access, education, and information will transcend the gender,socio-economic, and geography factors discussed on page 129. Furthermore, I hope that there will be a bi-partisan attempt to do away with the excluding divides with the money, educators, and equipment required to promote inclusion in this new wave of technology.
Having a voice also means knowing what is going on in your world. The choice remains personal how each of us will obtain, retain, interpret, and evaluate the information into our own lives.
I would like to make mention of the discussion on page 130 regarding Melissa and hooks as activism might go beyond the Black woman voice and into a new language. The authors give narratives of a new language and place for "a vital public voice for women" on the Internet and with other technologies gives evidence to Helene Cixous Feminist theory of voice and new language. I believe what will have to be developed is a way of teaching the criticism portion of the communication devices specifically that addresses the new technology and the recurrant problems of truth, lies, and consumerism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the Internet not only allows people to interact over distances-but, the illusion of face-to-face conversations on You Tube is exactly that-an illusion of the personal. Reading, interpretation, and criticism will be more important than ever to prevent the inequalities, oppression, and manipulation of the powerful.
Before I close, I would like to make an observation about Chapter One, Cultural Ecologies and the Literacies of Technology. I am concerned that in the class on Literacy, the make-up of the class is White, Middle-class woman and one White, Middle-class male (hooray, Ray! a pleasure as always!). I am curious if other schools with similar classes on literacy and programs with a concentration of literacy education classes see a similar make-up in their classes. If education is to be truly inclusive, where is the exclusion coming from? It is political or personal? Why is this class not seeing more of the diversity from our campus, community, and schools?
Reading reading and composition theory continues to have value. Teaching a diverse student population continues to offer challenges. How can we address diversity of educators within the public school system? Who owns the problems of illiteracy and the solutions to reach literacy?
Will we be repeating the unfulfilled promises of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush in the next administration. I have my hopes for a political resolve that goes beyond testing into real world application of the technology in this Age of Information. And yes... because of my place in my culture built on age, gender, and education, I still do not like explaining my limitations with technology to someone I can not understand the speech of, who took a job from a friend of mine that was employed in the USA, and who does not appear to have respect or patience for me. And no, I do not like the tax breaks many technology companies receive for outsourcing. Just some thoughts I have been pondering relating to the new Information Age.
There was a small newspaper blip in today's paper entitled "Obama's weekly address to be posted on YouTube". (I could get the printed copy, but not the video from my home computer because I have not updated parts of my computer). But, I believe the written address will be preserved and remembered and challenged politically by many in the days to come. That is the way of democracy in the United States.
Then, we will live the transitions Selfe and Hawisher discuss. The transitions of our society will become evident when radio, television, and Internet as well as newspapers and magazines offer something for all levels of access and literacy.
Our "culture [will]play a critical role in shaping values regarding the literacy's of technology and that, at the same time, the literacy values and practices of people and groups [will]also shape cultures"(126). Those changes will start at the Oval Office. It is my hope that the campaign commitment to access, education, and information will transcend the gender,socio-economic, and geography factors discussed on page 129. Furthermore, I hope that there will be a bi-partisan attempt to do away with the excluding divides with the money, educators, and equipment required to promote inclusion in this new wave of technology.
Having a voice also means knowing what is going on in your world. The choice remains personal how each of us will obtain, retain, interpret, and evaluate the information into our own lives.
I would like to make mention of the discussion on page 130 regarding Melissa and hooks as activism might go beyond the Black woman voice and into a new language. The authors give narratives of a new language and place for "a vital public voice for women" on the Internet and with other technologies gives evidence to Helene Cixous Feminist theory of voice and new language. I believe what will have to be developed is a way of teaching the criticism portion of the communication devices specifically that addresses the new technology and the recurrant problems of truth, lies, and consumerism. Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the Internet not only allows people to interact over distances-but, the illusion of face-to-face conversations on You Tube is exactly that-an illusion of the personal. Reading, interpretation, and criticism will be more important than ever to prevent the inequalities, oppression, and manipulation of the powerful.
Before I close, I would like to make an observation about Chapter One, Cultural Ecologies and the Literacies of Technology. I am concerned that in the class on Literacy, the make-up of the class is White, Middle-class woman and one White, Middle-class male (hooray, Ray! a pleasure as always!). I am curious if other schools with similar classes on literacy and programs with a concentration of literacy education classes see a similar make-up in their classes. If education is to be truly inclusive, where is the exclusion coming from? It is political or personal? Why is this class not seeing more of the diversity from our campus, community, and schools?
Reading reading and composition theory continues to have value. Teaching a diverse student population continues to offer challenges. How can we address diversity of educators within the public school system? Who owns the problems of illiteracy and the solutions to reach literacy?
Will we be repeating the unfulfilled promises of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush in the next administration. I have my hopes for a political resolve that goes beyond testing into real world application of the technology in this Age of Information. And yes... because of my place in my culture built on age, gender, and education, I still do not like explaining my limitations with technology to someone I can not understand the speech of, who took a job from a friend of mine that was employed in the USA, and who does not appear to have respect or patience for me. And no, I do not like the tax breaks many technology companies receive for outsourcing. Just some thoughts I have been pondering relating to the new Information Age.
My apology for the mix up
Regarding my blog last week:
The image I mentioned of all the people on the cover with the over sized glasses looking on way should have been attributed to the cover of Guy Debord's book Society of the Spectacle NOT John Berger's Ways of Seeing. On page 85 of Berger's book he has a delightful oil painting of oil paintings, page 23 has a repetition image of Leonardo's Virgin and Child,and many Marilyn by Andy Warhol can be found onpage147. One book discusses the images through images while the other discusses the image as commodity through society's consumption with overlappings of theory throughout both.
Just a short correction.
The image I mentioned of all the people on the cover with the over sized glasses looking on way should have been attributed to the cover of Guy Debord's book Society of the Spectacle NOT John Berger's Ways of Seeing. On page 85 of Berger's book he has a delightful oil painting of oil paintings, page 23 has a repetition image of Leonardo's Virgin and Child,and many Marilyn by Andy Warhol can be found onpage147. One book discusses the images through images while the other discusses the image as commodity through society's consumption with overlappings of theory throughout both.
Just a short correction.
Stratification (not)
This is in no way my full post for the week, but I couldn't help thinking about how in 1999 I gave my old MAC SE to a drinking buddy. Trey was just this lady that my girlfriend and I met at dive bars occasionally. She was cool to the extreme, single with three kids, and definitely low income. One night she was talking about how badly she wanted a computer, any computer, for her kids to do their homework on but couldn't afford one. I mentioned my SE, and said I'd give it to her. I didn't have or need another computer at the time, and she did. When I offered it to her, she refused.
We got another pitcher, and a round of Hennessy. As tongues loosened, Trey admitted she'd love the computer, but didn't want charity. I let the matter drop. I did, however, make sure to find out where Trey would be next Friday night; when I got home, I put the MAC, cables, and printer in the trunk of my car. Next Friday came around, and Suzanne and I went to the Wayne to hang out. At the end of the night (we had deliberately made sure Trey was pretty tipsy), we all walked out together. When I popped the trunk and handed the bag to Trey she tried to refuse, but all I said was, "Fine. I'm just gonna leave it here on the curb. Someone gets a free computer tonight. C'mon Trey, you buy the shots next week."
I will never see the effects of my action to help with the access problem, but this just made me think how you don't need to be a Gates or a Buffet to contribute.
We got another pitcher, and a round of Hennessy. As tongues loosened, Trey admitted she'd love the computer, but didn't want charity. I let the matter drop. I did, however, make sure to find out where Trey would be next Friday night; when I got home, I put the MAC, cables, and printer in the trunk of my car. Next Friday came around, and Suzanne and I went to the Wayne to hang out. At the end of the night (we had deliberately made sure Trey was pretty tipsy), we all walked out together. When I popped the trunk and handed the bag to Trey she tried to refuse, but all I said was, "Fine. I'm just gonna leave it here on the curb. Someone gets a free computer tonight. C'mon Trey, you buy the shots next week."
I will never see the effects of my action to help with the access problem, but this just made me think how you don't need to be a Gates or a Buffet to contribute.
I'm a trailblazer!
The first computer I personally touched was an Apple IIE sometime during the late 1980's. I think I bought it from a classified ad in the newspaper and paid about $100. Like Sally and Jill in Literate Lives in the Information Age, we played some really primitive games (like Pong) and word processed on our Apple IIE. The green screen was an eyesore and DID make my eyes sore! The printer was a dot-matrix one. Primitive, primitive, primitive!
In 1990, I was a New Jersey mother trying to do the right thing by staying home with my two little girls. I found out about an internet-based class and hoped this course would offer me some much-craved intellectual stimulation. I went to one on-site class (held about 50 miles away from my home) and received instructions for how to attach a modem to my computer, plug the telephone cable into my existing telephone outlet, and log onto my computer to access the website for this class. I'm almost motivated to find those course materials which I am quite certain I still have as they would be really fun to revisit. It was nothing to wait 10 minutes for the computer to connect to another one via telephone lines. I remember logging on, leaving the computer to go do laundry or give my kids a bath, and then come back once it connected. It's a good perspective to remember when our students whine about their 30 second connectivity gaps.
Back in the day, everyone I knew who was using computers was in the "learn-by-doing" mode. I found it easier to troubleshoot my own hardware and software problems than to maneuver through the not-so-user-friendly layers of telephone support (which always were toll calls and took inordinate amounts of time). In the class I took, we (including the proctor) relied on each other to find solutions to problems we encountered. I suspected that this class would give me an advantage when I wanted to return to the classroom. And I was right!
One of the reasons I was hired as a school librarian for a wealthy private school was my "technology" background and one of my first tasks was to research and purchase a computerized card catalog. I remember Bill Clinton's technology initiative (Selfe and Hawisher, 56); and because of it, I was involved in the Technology Task Force where we developed plans for integrating computers into classroom learning. I learned as much about the physical demands of computing - hubs, networking, "blowing" video, and ethernet cables- as I did about the educational benefits that computers could bring to a classroom. My title even changed from librarian to media specialist. Then I moved to Pennsylvania andI got to repeat this process in another private school setting. But at that point, I really was an expert and had substantial background knowledge going into it.
When I moved on to alternative education in a public school setting, the socio-economic differences between schools hit me like a brick. This school was lightyears behind the two private schools where I'd worked. I could not assign homework that involved computers because so few families had them. There were small advances though. For example, all teachers were given laptops and encouraged (but not required) to use them to teach effectively by integrating websites into lessons. However,there seemed to be little initiative at the alternative level to move technology to the forefront for the students personally and there wasn't even a "computer class" for them to attend or a "lab" for us to use as a class.
Now I work in a school where all juniors and seniors have their own laptops. Sometimes though, because they have this technology at their disposal, teachers incorrectly assume that they have the pre-existing skill to use this technology effectively. This is often not the case due to the environments where these students lived and were taught prior to attending our school. They are much more adept at accessing games and "playing" than they are at manipulating data on a spreadsheet, using Word shortcuts effectively, or evaluating a website.
When Damon talked about computers not being central to his life and that many of the standards were "of limited relevance to his life" (54), I nodded in agreement. I see cell phones and i-pods as much more relevant in my students' lives. This is changing though as many students now do have daily access to computers and enjoy the social side of that technology in form of emails, "I-m's," My Space, and Facebook.
Our next challenge is to teach appropriate technology code-switching skills and funnel our student's knowledge of technology into appropriate uses in the school setting. I believe there is a use for the social side of technology within a school setting by using blogging, discussion groups, and other interactive formats that allow for instant communication. 'I-m' ing, My Space and Facebook are fabulous ways to stay in touch personally; and, although they may hold value in academic settings, at this point there are more effective, less distracting tools to do the job.
There's much more to say but, as usual, I've probably said too much already.
In 1990, I was a New Jersey mother trying to do the right thing by staying home with my two little girls. I found out about an internet-based class and hoped this course would offer me some much-craved intellectual stimulation. I went to one on-site class (held about 50 miles away from my home) and received instructions for how to attach a modem to my computer, plug the telephone cable into my existing telephone outlet, and log onto my computer to access the website for this class. I'm almost motivated to find those course materials which I am quite certain I still have as they would be really fun to revisit. It was nothing to wait 10 minutes for the computer to connect to another one via telephone lines. I remember logging on, leaving the computer to go do laundry or give my kids a bath, and then come back once it connected. It's a good perspective to remember when our students whine about their 30 second connectivity gaps.
Back in the day, everyone I knew who was using computers was in the "learn-by-doing" mode. I found it easier to troubleshoot my own hardware and software problems than to maneuver through the not-so-user-friendly layers of telephone support (which always were toll calls and took inordinate amounts of time). In the class I took, we (including the proctor) relied on each other to find solutions to problems we encountered. I suspected that this class would give me an advantage when I wanted to return to the classroom. And I was right!
One of the reasons I was hired as a school librarian for a wealthy private school was my "technology" background and one of my first tasks was to research and purchase a computerized card catalog. I remember Bill Clinton's technology initiative (Selfe and Hawisher, 56); and because of it, I was involved in the Technology Task Force where we developed plans for integrating computers into classroom learning. I learned as much about the physical demands of computing - hubs, networking, "blowing" video, and ethernet cables- as I did about the educational benefits that computers could bring to a classroom. My title even changed from librarian to media specialist. Then I moved to Pennsylvania andI got to repeat this process in another private school setting. But at that point, I really was an expert and had substantial background knowledge going into it.
When I moved on to alternative education in a public school setting, the socio-economic differences between schools hit me like a brick. This school was lightyears behind the two private schools where I'd worked. I could not assign homework that involved computers because so few families had them. There were small advances though. For example, all teachers were given laptops and encouraged (but not required) to use them to teach effectively by integrating websites into lessons. However,there seemed to be little initiative at the alternative level to move technology to the forefront for the students personally and there wasn't even a "computer class" for them to attend or a "lab" for us to use as a class.
Now I work in a school where all juniors and seniors have their own laptops. Sometimes though, because they have this technology at their disposal, teachers incorrectly assume that they have the pre-existing skill to use this technology effectively. This is often not the case due to the environments where these students lived and were taught prior to attending our school. They are much more adept at accessing games and "playing" than they are at manipulating data on a spreadsheet, using Word shortcuts effectively, or evaluating a website.
When Damon talked about computers not being central to his life and that many of the standards were "of limited relevance to his life" (54), I nodded in agreement. I see cell phones and i-pods as much more relevant in my students' lives. This is changing though as many students now do have daily access to computers and enjoy the social side of that technology in form of emails, "I-m's," My Space, and Facebook.
Our next challenge is to teach appropriate technology code-switching skills and funnel our student's knowledge of technology into appropriate uses in the school setting. I believe there is a use for the social side of technology within a school setting by using blogging, discussion groups, and other interactive formats that allow for instant communication. 'I-m' ing, My Space and Facebook are fabulous ways to stay in touch personally; and, although they may hold value in academic settings, at this point there are more effective, less distracting tools to do the job.
There's much more to say but, as usual, I've probably said too much already.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
This week I am going to over simplify to the point of causing illness in any reader. There is a palpable progression in the second half of Scholes in an attempt to do what? Find the reader’s position in correlation to text? language in correlation to reality? reality in correlation to text? to language? reality in correlation to author in correlation to text? theory’s correlation to education? educator’s interpretation of text in correlation to student’s? I’m leaving a few out. But, at the end I understood that that there is no certainty in theory, interpretation, language, or reality. Each deals with the other in a sort of overdetermined system where theory may question the foundation of language in reality or in perception of reality, or the basis of a text in historical reality, or the position of a reader within a text, based on his or her personal perception of reality. Where we go is full circle to the first half of the book, to the idea that power lies in the ability to interpret and analyze text. And interpretation is based on almost limitless perceptive angles: language and its codes, infinite ideologies based on history, economy, polity, society, the author’s and the interpreter’s position within these, the question of the text itself. It’s endless and brilliant and fun!
Catching the Fish...or did I?
I found the second half of Textual Power as interesting as the first. That doesn't mean I didn't struggle with many of the things Scholes talked about, but still fascinating. The chapter on rhetoric and textual power (or are they the same?) was especially insightful. Said's commentary on textuality as something "mystical and disinfected...in which the literary text is perceived as forever cut off from reality by its literariness" (Scholes 74). From the tone that Said wrote in, in addition to what Scholes said, I think they both think this is a bad thing. In fact, Scholes argues that so much can come from textuality, and that "textual power makes the opening for criticism" (75). This makes sense to me. Not only is criticism the third part of Scholes "teaching of reading" theory, but Theory--and literature are both meant to be criticized and questioned, not taken at the author--or the reader's interpretation as the only meaningful interpretation. Rather, textuality and theory are tools to unlock all different types of texts, and as Eagleton supposed, "literary theory can handle Bob Dylan just as well as John Milton" (76).
Side note: I have been immersed in a lot of theory this semester, from feminist to literacy to deconstruction--you get the picture. I am noticing that Milton seems to always be the prototypical example in literature. I find this really fascinating, since opinions on Milton seem to be very polar--people either love him or hate him, find him a misogynist, or supporter of women. Its just really, really interesting. Any ideas why?
Okay, but back to the Bob Dylan/John Milton thing for a minute here, I really like Eagleton's ideas on this and it seems supported in many of the ideas through Scholes book, especially in his views and awareness of the constantly changing world and how media has effected it. de Man's ideas on rhetoric also seemed supportive at first: "a text is rhetorical, and rhetoric itself is a text" (77) but then he goes on to say that "textual power is a function of the text's resistance to reading...what makes a text a text is the impossibility of connecting it to the world" (79). I think I understand what de Man is saying here on a comprehension point of view, but what does he really mean? How can a result of a text being just that--a text, the inability to connect it to the world. Don't we all, on some level, connect texts to the world. Maybe he meant text here in terms of literary text, but I'm not quite sure. Or perhaps it is some aspects of hermetics (also known as deconstruction---something else new I learned here!) that I am just not grasping.
I just wanted to add a few works on the Le Guin chapter. I found it really interesting, perhaps because I have read both this book and The Dispossed for a Gender and Utopia class at Millersville. ( I also highly recommend "The Ones that Walk From Omelas"-- its a great short story that also tackles some of the linguistic and philosophical elements of her larger novels). I thought the passage on pronouns and sexuality was really insightful, and rather dead on because, "in short, the categorical opposition male/female is built into our language, and therefore into our thought, at the very deepest level, the level of pronominal reference" (Scholes 114). Perhaps it is just the work that I have been doing for my thesis, but I cant help but to also see a Marxist influence here, as language is just another way that those in power (perhaps a patriarchal society) keep women down--even through what we may view as simplistic pronouns.
Side note: I have been immersed in a lot of theory this semester, from feminist to literacy to deconstruction--you get the picture. I am noticing that Milton seems to always be the prototypical example in literature. I find this really fascinating, since opinions on Milton seem to be very polar--people either love him or hate him, find him a misogynist, or supporter of women. Its just really, really interesting. Any ideas why?
Okay, but back to the Bob Dylan/John Milton thing for a minute here, I really like Eagleton's ideas on this and it seems supported in many of the ideas through Scholes book, especially in his views and awareness of the constantly changing world and how media has effected it. de Man's ideas on rhetoric also seemed supportive at first: "a text is rhetorical, and rhetoric itself is a text" (77) but then he goes on to say that "textual power is a function of the text's resistance to reading...what makes a text a text is the impossibility of connecting it to the world" (79). I think I understand what de Man is saying here on a comprehension point of view, but what does he really mean? How can a result of a text being just that--a text, the inability to connect it to the world. Don't we all, on some level, connect texts to the world. Maybe he meant text here in terms of literary text, but I'm not quite sure. Or perhaps it is some aspects of hermetics (also known as deconstruction---something else new I learned here!) that I am just not grasping.
I just wanted to add a few works on the Le Guin chapter. I found it really interesting, perhaps because I have read both this book and The Dispossed for a Gender and Utopia class at Millersville. ( I also highly recommend "The Ones that Walk From Omelas"-- its a great short story that also tackles some of the linguistic and philosophical elements of her larger novels). I thought the passage on pronouns and sexuality was really insightful, and rather dead on because, "in short, the categorical opposition male/female is built into our language, and therefore into our thought, at the very deepest level, the level of pronominal reference" (Scholes 114). Perhaps it is just the work that I have been doing for my thesis, but I cant help but to also see a Marxist influence here, as language is just another way that those in power (perhaps a patriarchal society) keep women down--even through what we may view as simplistic pronouns.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Scholes's Textual Prowess?
I learned a great deal from reading Textual Power these past two weeks, yet I must admit I often became a prisoner in Schole’s “Prison House of Language,” and likely not the model prisoner as was Fredric Jameson due to my English teacher imposter status. The frustration began when I started to read Chapter 5; I was feeling disoriented and figured I needed to go back and reread the previous chapters. Silly me, that was not the answer. So I dug in again and plowed through. Some of it I understood and some of it . . . well, let’s just say I am beginning to tire of having to keep my Oxford English Dictionary by my side when I read. Did anyone else feel this way? I suppose you could call me the world’s biggest griper, and at this moment, you would be correct. Ray, could I borrow your brain for just a little while. I’ll take real good care of it. . . . I promise.
So with my own brain ready to explode, I have my usual questions with a few comments sprinkled throughout just for fun. First, will someone please explain in language that even I can understand the notions of Terry Eagleton and Paul de Man with respect to rhetoric? And maybe a few words about Derrida and Saussure? I mean, I thought I understood deconstruction theory, but now I’m not so sure. Now for a bit of commentary. I thoroughly enjoyed (perhaps not completely understood, but let’s just not go there now) Scholes’s discussion on Ursula LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Some of the interpretation and critical strategies could be applied to Marge Piercy’s futuristic He, She and It, wherein a woman falls in love with—and yes, has sex with—a cyborg. Those dang preconceptions can be so hard to shake. Enlightening to say the least, but again I felt so out of touch, so ignorant of all that there is to understand.
I don’t know if I actually found a fish in the text, but I did spot some “Macrorieisms,” specifically on page 131 where Scholes discusses Agassizese’s technique for instruction as told by Ezra Pound: “He [the student] can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants….The student seems to be learning about the subject, but what he is really learning is to give the teacher what he wants.” So, let’s see, is Scholes saying that we should not allow ourselves to be fettered by what others tell us about fish we encounter? That we need to examine the fish for ourselves using whatever means we have available to discover as much as we can about the fish? And that if someone hands us a cow and asks us to interpret it as a fish, we should be able to discern the difference? What if that same fish happens to be lying in the pasture next to the cows? Can we examine it as a fish, or must it be in its own context, in its own habitat?
If the Detext was to serve as a debriefing, I failed miserably.
So with my own brain ready to explode, I have my usual questions with a few comments sprinkled throughout just for fun. First, will someone please explain in language that even I can understand the notions of Terry Eagleton and Paul de Man with respect to rhetoric? And maybe a few words about Derrida and Saussure? I mean, I thought I understood deconstruction theory, but now I’m not so sure. Now for a bit of commentary. I thoroughly enjoyed (perhaps not completely understood, but let’s just not go there now) Scholes’s discussion on Ursula LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness. Some of the interpretation and critical strategies could be applied to Marge Piercy’s futuristic He, She and It, wherein a woman falls in love with—and yes, has sex with—a cyborg. Those dang preconceptions can be so hard to shake. Enlightening to say the least, but again I felt so out of touch, so ignorant of all that there is to understand.
I don’t know if I actually found a fish in the text, but I did spot some “Macrorieisms,” specifically on page 131 where Scholes discusses Agassizese’s technique for instruction as told by Ezra Pound: “He [the student] can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants….The student seems to be learning about the subject, but what he is really learning is to give the teacher what he wants.” So, let’s see, is Scholes saying that we should not allow ourselves to be fettered by what others tell us about fish we encounter? That we need to examine the fish for ourselves using whatever means we have available to discover as much as we can about the fish? And that if someone hands us a cow and asks us to interpret it as a fish, we should be able to discern the difference? What if that same fish happens to be lying in the pasture next to the cows? Can we examine it as a fish, or must it be in its own context, in its own habitat?
If the Detext was to serve as a debriefing, I failed miserably.
the 3 Rs: Writing, reading, and interpreting
I knew it! I knew it! The free float bull dada dead author wide open interpretation was a set up. "open the window, ray" she says.
The chapter on LeGuinn was a beautiful example that doing the work and writing of criticism does not only get presented as dry theory. Straight shot, no frills, academic artillery style theory is not the most widely appealing genre. Many people prefer not to read it, opting for something more entertaining, or more illustrative, less "convoluted." Enter LeGuinn. Left Hand of Darkness is criticism on language and societal gender definition, etc. The Dispossessed does the same thing regarding so-called "freedom" and anarchism/communism.
Time to hook the Fish.
First, the fish in the text. On page 144, Scholes states, "To write the fish in many modes is finally to see that one will never catch the fish in any one discourse." Like the blind men and the elephant, the truth-fish does not appear fully to any one literacy, any one discursive practice. Leaving aside the metaphysical/epistemic volumes that could be gone into on what "truth" is or isn't like, I can at least say this one thing--"If you are only a single blind man examining the elephant, the chances are much higher it will simply walk over and crush you." Multiple discursive literacy give better chances at understanding, application, interpretation, and criticism. This is why the Nietszche reference from four pages earlier is worthwhile: a claim to absolute truth is dangerous and is more likely an indicator of blind faith than wisdom or enlightenment.
Now, the Text from Fish. "If you play cards with Stanley Fish, don't let him bring his own deck." (157) Yes, the Name-list-poem example is a stacked deck. Brilliant, innovative, persuasive--until you get critical. For another counter example of being able to interpret any text entirely from what your interpretive community has instilled within you, see my previous blog entry for this week. The middle ground solution proposed by Scholes on page 165 is exactly what I was trying to express last week, and grants power to all three participants in a text, though not simultaneously. "A written text is a record of a transaction between a writer and the language in which the text is composed." Corollary by Bergeron: "A read text is a transaction between the language of the text and the reader/interpreter." Neither writer nor reader is unconstrained, but the notion that either is entirely determined begs the question of why read or write?
And because of the intermediary of the text, there is no certainty in the meaning intended and the meaning gleaned, but a good writer and a good reader can get "roughly the same referent, roughly the same concept" (96) across the spacetime between two minds.
The chapter on LeGuinn was a beautiful example that doing the work and writing of criticism does not only get presented as dry theory. Straight shot, no frills, academic artillery style theory is not the most widely appealing genre. Many people prefer not to read it, opting for something more entertaining, or more illustrative, less "convoluted." Enter LeGuinn. Left Hand of Darkness is criticism on language and societal gender definition, etc. The Dispossessed does the same thing regarding so-called "freedom" and anarchism/communism.
Time to hook the Fish.
First, the fish in the text. On page 144, Scholes states, "To write the fish in many modes is finally to see that one will never catch the fish in any one discourse." Like the blind men and the elephant, the truth-fish does not appear fully to any one literacy, any one discursive practice. Leaving aside the metaphysical/epistemic volumes that could be gone into on what "truth" is or isn't like, I can at least say this one thing--"If you are only a single blind man examining the elephant, the chances are much higher it will simply walk over and crush you." Multiple discursive literacy give better chances at understanding, application, interpretation, and criticism. This is why the Nietszche reference from four pages earlier is worthwhile: a claim to absolute truth is dangerous and is more likely an indicator of blind faith than wisdom or enlightenment.
Now, the Text from Fish. "If you play cards with Stanley Fish, don't let him bring his own deck." (157) Yes, the Name-list-poem example is a stacked deck. Brilliant, innovative, persuasive--until you get critical. For another counter example of being able to interpret any text entirely from what your interpretive community has instilled within you, see my previous blog entry for this week. The middle ground solution proposed by Scholes on page 165 is exactly what I was trying to express last week, and grants power to all three participants in a text, though not simultaneously. "A written text is a record of a transaction between a writer and the language in which the text is composed." Corollary by Bergeron: "A read text is a transaction between the language of the text and the reader/interpreter." Neither writer nor reader is unconstrained, but the notion that either is entirely determined begs the question of why read or write?
And because of the intermediary of the text, there is no certainty in the meaning intended and the meaning gleaned, but a good writer and a good reader can get "roughly the same referent, roughly the same concept" (96) across the spacetime between two minds.
No getting around it-IT IS ABOUT US!
Bottom Line: Literacy is about being active. Illiteracy could be said to be passive. The basic theory going from illiteracy to literacy gives a voice to the silent and the verbal through knowledge, interpretation, and criticism. That should be the theory to place individuals in the place they want to be (not just the place they are forced to be for whatever reason).
Illiteracy may be what makes us The Other, literacy is about allowing us in and out of groups at our own discretion and desire.
Who better than to address "The Other" then Edward Said:
"Where there is knowledge, and discourse, there must criticism also be, to reveal the exact places-and displacements-of the text, thereby to see the text as a process signifying an effective historical will to be present, an effective desire to be a text to be a position taken" (75).
The purpose of theory is not the theory but the application of the theory. I think Scholes gets a too into the theory of too many theories.
Then there is his reference to John Berger's Ways of Seeing with the hilarious cover of many people all looking toward the same place with the glasses. The reading, the interpretation, and the criticism of this text could be grounded in many ideologies. "Once again, language is personified and allowed to have a free choice in selection signifier. But the selection is from a 'spectrum of conceptual possibilities,'...(105)I would have to agree with Saussure when he "tells us that words 'that have something in common are associated in the memory" (103)The role of education might be the exposure of the student to the stories in memories outside the student's present place and time by providing access to the information and the tools to evaluate. I think that words as language becomes needs for the individual to function in all the worlds of personal choice.
I did get tired of how the examples did not offer a consistent connected thread. Even attempting to follow his theories require an intimate knowledge of many theorists at the expense of finding Scholes's theory. The whole chapter on the Left Hand of Difference seemed irrelevant.
First, for the unheard to become heard they have to answer Foucault's question "First of all who is speaking" (132). Then they have to evaluate and interpret the rest of that quote on page 132. But in order to interpret and personalize the text, the student needs skills, techniques, and confidence. The student needs to evaluate and critic recurrent themes and techniques by the speaker that give truths the illusions of truthfulness that Nietzsche discusses on page 140 when talking about truth and lies. This goes back to my comment in another blog regarding Brecht's essay: The Five Truths. I would even go further to say that education is about showing what is important to know about the text and what is "the chatter" of the text and the purpose of that chatter. So the importance of the text and language and education seems to be grounded in the theory (UGH! theory) that "We [should] care about texts for many reasons, not the least of which is that they bring us news that alters our way of interpreting things" (165).
Illiteracy may be what makes us The Other, literacy is about allowing us in and out of groups at our own discretion and desire.
Who better than to address "The Other" then Edward Said:
"Where there is knowledge, and discourse, there must criticism also be, to reveal the exact places-and displacements-of the text, thereby to see the text as a process signifying an effective historical will to be present, an effective desire to be a text to be a position taken" (75).
The purpose of theory is not the theory but the application of the theory. I think Scholes gets a too into the theory of too many theories.
Then there is his reference to John Berger's Ways of Seeing with the hilarious cover of many people all looking toward the same place with the glasses. The reading, the interpretation, and the criticism of this text could be grounded in many ideologies. "Once again, language is personified and allowed to have a free choice in selection signifier. But the selection is from a 'spectrum of conceptual possibilities,'...(105)I would have to agree with Saussure when he "tells us that words 'that have something in common are associated in the memory" (103)The role of education might be the exposure of the student to the stories in memories outside the student's present place and time by providing access to the information and the tools to evaluate. I think that words as language becomes needs for the individual to function in all the worlds of personal choice.
I did get tired of how the examples did not offer a consistent connected thread. Even attempting to follow his theories require an intimate knowledge of many theorists at the expense of finding Scholes's theory. The whole chapter on the Left Hand of Difference seemed irrelevant.
First, for the unheard to become heard they have to answer Foucault's question "First of all who is speaking" (132). Then they have to evaluate and interpret the rest of that quote on page 132. But in order to interpret and personalize the text, the student needs skills, techniques, and confidence. The student needs to evaluate and critic recurrent themes and techniques by the speaker that give truths the illusions of truthfulness that Nietzsche discusses on page 140 when talking about truth and lies. This goes back to my comment in another blog regarding Brecht's essay: The Five Truths. I would even go further to say that education is about showing what is important to know about the text and what is "the chatter" of the text and the purpose of that chatter. So the importance of the text and language and education seems to be grounded in the theory (UGH! theory) that "We [should] care about texts for many reasons, not the least of which is that they bring us news that alters our way of interpreting things" (165).
Scholes
So really…anything we say can be philosophically picked apart. Don’t get me wrong—I have no desire to do that. But every expression, every article before a noun…it can all be picked apart and argued and made into a philosophical discussion. Page 78 talks a little about Archie Bunker and his “what’s the difference” comment. When I read the final sentence in that excerpt, “…the literal meaning asks for the concept whose existence is denied by the figurative meaning.” I stayed on that sentence for 10 minutes. So true. How often do my children ask me what something means…not the dictionary definition of a wor, but a phrase that is an idiom or more often a sarcastic remark made by me or that they hear on Seinfeld. I would simply answer…it’s meant to be sarcastic. But really it’s so much more. The very sarcasm that is meant to be the answer to a question or comment disguises or dismisses what was supposed to be the actual answer. The sarcasm IS the answer. That’s why it’s so hard for people to learn English…not that this is some profound revelation…but I usually take the reading perspective and the gh’s and ph’s ad f’s and how they all sound the same…but that’s how the English language was written and we just have to see it enough for it to register as that sound. Scholes is right…teaching is a theoretical activity. On so many levels. It is not just literary, but it also verbal and cultural…just like literacy.
One thing that bothers me about these books, and right now I am specifically referring to page 88, is that theorists write a lot of their opinions based on how wrong someone else’s thoughts or theoretical achievements are/were.
Moving on… I am picking up the habit of writing as I read…
I find it interesting how both Vygotsy and Scholes discuss the change of language and its
evolution. Vygotsky had a deep effect on the way linguistic theorists think and analyze, and the idea that thought s dependent upon language (101) This, for me, leads into this whole discussion he has about verbal and non-verbal signs and whether or not they are linguistic. More often than not, the non-verbal expresses more than the verbal. As I read, I am not sure that Scholes has an opinion about this as much as he seems to insert excerpts from various theoretical works, then proceeds to pick apart the semantics, wherein I can’t see that he agrees or disagrees with the actual passage, but he’s more passionate about how the passage was worded or that the theorist is stealing other’s ideas without giving credit. He spends the entire last chapter picking apart Stanley Fish…but reading it makes me wonder why he thinks he’s right and Fish is wrong on certain points. I was disappointed that in all his attacks, I’m having trouble deciphering what exactly Scholes’ theory is…it appears based on the attacks he’s made on others’ theories (maybe that’s the point of this book?), which is not, to me, a theory at all.
Anyone else notice that Scholes was awarded the Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize?
One thing that bothers me about these books, and right now I am specifically referring to page 88, is that theorists write a lot of their opinions based on how wrong someone else’s thoughts or theoretical achievements are/were.
Moving on… I am picking up the habit of writing as I read…
I find it interesting how both Vygotsy and Scholes discuss the change of language and its
evolution. Vygotsky had a deep effect on the way linguistic theorists think and analyze, and the idea that thought s dependent upon language (101) This, for me, leads into this whole discussion he has about verbal and non-verbal signs and whether or not they are linguistic. More often than not, the non-verbal expresses more than the verbal. As I read, I am not sure that Scholes has an opinion about this as much as he seems to insert excerpts from various theoretical works, then proceeds to pick apart the semantics, wherein I can’t see that he agrees or disagrees with the actual passage, but he’s more passionate about how the passage was worded or that the theorist is stealing other’s ideas without giving credit. He spends the entire last chapter picking apart Stanley Fish…but reading it makes me wonder why he thinks he’s right and Fish is wrong on certain points. I was disappointed that in all his attacks, I’m having trouble deciphering what exactly Scholes’ theory is…it appears based on the attacks he’s made on others’ theories (maybe that’s the point of this book?), which is not, to me, a theory at all.
Anyone else notice that Scholes was awarded the Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize?
Monday, November 10, 2008
Scholes might want to stick to sandals
Sometimes, I think, authors bite off a bit more than they can chew. This might have been the case for Robert Scholes in chapters 5-9. Although I could follow his chronological train of thought, he tried to cover too much territory. The leap from deMan and Eagleton [with the discussion of the world being text and the battle between structuralists and post-structuralists] to Stanley Fish and his presumption that the text only becomes important when interpreted by the reader was just too much of a stretch. My head seriously did spin by the time I finished this book.
The Agassiz anecdote got me thinking. It reminded me of an expensive online writing program (My Access) that some students use as preparation for standardized test writing (no joke). Students respond to a prompt, submit it for scoring by the computer and receive immediate feedback. What I've noticed, though, is that the computer can only give limited explanations of writing problems it finds. For example, feedback to an ELL student about "clause errors" was vaguely explained in a way that made any sense to this student. He'd take a stab at a revision, submit it, and cringe when his score became even lower than his first one. It occurred to me that this student was learning to guess what the computer wanted which is Scholes's precise point when he says "He can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants" (131). Why not just play "Guess what I'm thinking" and make a game of it?
I was fascinated by the discussion of the words boeuf and ochs. This was my first exposure to Saussure and I definitely got his point. "Language exists in order for us to talk about such things, among things." Yep. We develop words for things that exist in our world. Both the French and the Germans needed a way to identify that critter in their world.
Scholes lost me in his discussion of the theory of time on page 93. How can we never be in the present? I get the arrow example but, frankly, that's when I think theorists need to get out of their cubbies and interact with some real people. It's a little too heady for me I suppose.
The naming function of language and the numb eel story intrigued me. It seems completely logical that Aphra Behn did, indeed, discover the electric eel -and what a cool attempt at a name! Although I've never been stung by an electric eel, I imagine it would be numbing. I wonder if Plato considered language when he coined the phrase, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Behn had the necessity to name that eel, she just didn't invent a term that appealed to the general population.
"Nowhere is language more absolute than in its treatment of sexuality" (114). Scholes's conversation of Aristotle's list of oppositions was seducing. The books that I've read of Ursula K. LeGuin's are children's books (the Wizard of Earthsea series) and didn't broach this subject (at least I don't think they did!) Through his detailed conversation of The Left Hand of Darkness, I feel like I really want to read it. I want to see firsthand how she intertwines so many of those opposing forces into that book in such a seemingly effortless way.
"...to a very real extent, one's beliefs will color what one reads" (151). Yep.
The Agassiz anecdote got me thinking. It reminded me of an expensive online writing program (My Access) that some students use as preparation for standardized test writing (no joke). Students respond to a prompt, submit it for scoring by the computer and receive immediate feedback. What I've noticed, though, is that the computer can only give limited explanations of writing problems it finds. For example, feedback to an ELL student about "clause errors" was vaguely explained in a way that made any sense to this student. He'd take a stab at a revision, submit it, and cringe when his score became even lower than his first one. It occurred to me that this student was learning to guess what the computer wanted which is Scholes's precise point when he says "He can, however, now speak and write Agassizese, for this is what he has really learned: to produce the sort of writing his teacher wants" (131). Why not just play "Guess what I'm thinking" and make a game of it?
I was fascinated by the discussion of the words boeuf and ochs. This was my first exposure to Saussure and I definitely got his point. "Language exists in order for us to talk about such things, among things." Yep. We develop words for things that exist in our world. Both the French and the Germans needed a way to identify that critter in their world.
Scholes lost me in his discussion of the theory of time on page 93. How can we never be in the present? I get the arrow example but, frankly, that's when I think theorists need to get out of their cubbies and interact with some real people. It's a little too heady for me I suppose.
The naming function of language and the numb eel story intrigued me. It seems completely logical that Aphra Behn did, indeed, discover the electric eel -and what a cool attempt at a name! Although I've never been stung by an electric eel, I imagine it would be numbing. I wonder if Plato considered language when he coined the phrase, "Necessity is the mother of invention." Behn had the necessity to name that eel, she just didn't invent a term that appealed to the general population.
"Nowhere is language more absolute than in its treatment of sexuality" (114). Scholes's conversation of Aristotle's list of oppositions was seducing. The books that I've read of Ursula K. LeGuin's are children's books (the Wizard of Earthsea series) and didn't broach this subject (at least I don't think they did!) Through his detailed conversation of The Left Hand of Darkness, I feel like I really want to read it. I want to see firsthand how she intertwines so many of those opposing forces into that book in such a seemingly effortless way.
"...to a very real extent, one's beliefs will color what one reads" (151). Yep.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Scholes' provocative "Textual Power"
Why am I just now reading Textual Power by Robert Scholes? Why is this not required before actually stepping foot in an English classroom? Now I’m back to feeling like I only play an English teacher on television, an imposter. I’m feeling a bit shortchanged at the moment. I mean, I know I had a lousy high school education, but now I’m wondering how I missed so much as I worked on my undergrad. What would Vygotsky say? You can’t teach an old dog new tricks? My brain was past the perfect point of maximum learning and retention and I missed the boat? I’ll admit I had to do some preliminary reading, as well as in-between reading for clarification, to fully understand Scholes and his arguments on literary theory and teaching literature. I never truly understood what real reading was until recently; I must have always subconsciously pseudo-performed it to some degree, but according to Scholes I was mostly merely comprehending, rather than reading as he defines it. His definition of reading mostly parallels my definition of interpretation, for if we can rewrite an ending or write a text from a different point of view (as he suggests with the particular works of Hemingway), we must be interpreting it somehow. As far as criticism goes, this has been a particularly rough road for me—must be the lack of concreteness that gets in my way. Anyway, I know this is a weakness for me, something I must always work to overcome. Come to think of it, a number of us English teachers had lamented this very problem during a discussion one day. We had never even heard of literary criticism when we were in high school, and we vowed we would not shortchange our students, especially those who are college-bound. Did we all miss the boat?
Again, I’m feeling like there’s so much to learn and too little time to learn it, to make it a part of me. Funny that Scholes mentions Dante, but then admonishes himself for allowing the English teacher in him to go that route. Dante has been on my “to-do” list for quite some time (no smartass comments from you, Ray); it seemed like every time I turned around, something I read had a reference to Dante. I decided about a year and a half-ago that I needed to read Dante so I could fully appreciate so many pieces of “great” literature. But after reading Scholes, do I? Is all that “great” literature really so great? Or have I been convinced it is? So now I’m thinking I still need to finish the Dante I started and add some Hemingway, just to make sure.
But I digress. When it comes to interpretation, it is true that many English teachers (or teachers of literature) are guilty of teaching “the right reading of a text.” When I finally made it into classes where I was encouraged to interpret for myself with no danger of a wrong answer, I felt scared, but liberated. It was so exciting to finally read and have my interpretations taken seriously! But then when I was student teaching, my co-op did that very thing to her students. SHE had the correct reading and all the students had to read the text HER WAY or their answers were wrong. I wanted so badly so speak up, not only to my co-op but to the students who frustratingly tried to interpret the texts through their own lenses, their own cultural codes. Many sort of gave up and just regurgitated what they knew or guessed she wanted to hear or read. Of course, I guess it can be easier this way because then we don’t have to try to understand our students’ thoughts, only control them. Text has so much power, more than I ever imagined before reading Scholes, but can we break from the old school of abuse or misuse? And, again, we face the problem of getting our students to not only think, but to think critically. Where did education go wrong?
Again, I’m feeling like there’s so much to learn and too little time to learn it, to make it a part of me. Funny that Scholes mentions Dante, but then admonishes himself for allowing the English teacher in him to go that route. Dante has been on my “to-do” list for quite some time (no smartass comments from you, Ray); it seemed like every time I turned around, something I read had a reference to Dante. I decided about a year and a half-ago that I needed to read Dante so I could fully appreciate so many pieces of “great” literature. But after reading Scholes, do I? Is all that “great” literature really so great? Or have I been convinced it is? So now I’m thinking I still need to finish the Dante I started and add some Hemingway, just to make sure.
But I digress. When it comes to interpretation, it is true that many English teachers (or teachers of literature) are guilty of teaching “the right reading of a text.” When I finally made it into classes where I was encouraged to interpret for myself with no danger of a wrong answer, I felt scared, but liberated. It was so exciting to finally read and have my interpretations taken seriously! But then when I was student teaching, my co-op did that very thing to her students. SHE had the correct reading and all the students had to read the text HER WAY or their answers were wrong. I wanted so badly so speak up, not only to my co-op but to the students who frustratingly tried to interpret the texts through their own lenses, their own cultural codes. Many sort of gave up and just regurgitated what they knew or guessed she wanted to hear or read. Of course, I guess it can be easier this way because then we don’t have to try to understand our students’ thoughts, only control them. Text has so much power, more than I ever imagined before reading Scholes, but can we break from the old school of abuse or misuse? And, again, we face the problem of getting our students to not only think, but to think critically. Where did education go wrong?
I just sat through the most infuriating English Department meeting, where I was told that all English instructors teaching the same grade and curriculum level courses have to write and administer identical midterms and finals. Despite the fact that I teach the same grade and level as three other teachers, I do not teach the works dictated by district curriculum in the same order as the others. In fact, I go in the complete opposite order for carefully considered and practiced reasons.
Reading Scholes was like an academic dream in an education fantasy land, where teachers choose pedagogy based on theoretical merit according to the needs of students. It was an orgy of ideas centered on my favorite premise on the purpose of reading, that literature helps us to become critical thinkers of our world, and therefore less susceptible to our world’s attempts at making us victims. Not only am I facing a crisis where my classroom has to look the same as the rest, my materials have to be the same, now my tests have to be the same along with the order in which I teach the material. Where is the adaptation to the needs of the students, their pace, the gaps in their knowledge, and the use of their personal knowledge to enrich the learning process? Where is my orgy of critical thought and mental light bulbs exploding into luminescence, where there was not even a previous awareness of the existence of a light bulb?
As I mopped up the pool of my own saliva after reading of Scholes’ utopian English classroom, where the writer’s and teacher’s perspective were relevant, but secondary to that of the student’s, whose educational experience is designed to enrich their ability to read, interpret, and think critically, on both a literary and cultural scale, I realized that this world was not mine and most likely will never be, at least as long as I cling to the hope of public education. Here, in Scholes’ tiny book, is a potential solution to the seemingly infinite debate on the legitimacy of “the canon’s” academic dominance. It is not the text, but the reader that is the center of literary experience. Applause, Applause, Applause! Though post-secondary education may be ready for such revelations (which is questionable), primary and secondary education is not. As long as we have hegemony and dominant ideologies, culture will always preference the cultural production of the dominant ideology. Though it makes a great deal of sense to have a reader engaged in a text with similar cultural codes as the reader in order to teach the skills needed to further understand the codes of others, dominance was never about bringing the dominated up to the level of those who dominate. Sense has nothing to do with this type of behavior. How are academics and the ‘literate’ world at large to feel superior if everyone can yield power equally?
Therefore, in public education, every test, from now on, will be the same, as the classes will be taught the same, and the classrooms will look the same, the materials used will be the same, and every question must be posed in standard PSSA format. Scholes does not need to fear that individual thinking will become a standard with which students regard text. Educators are working hard to make sure that does not happen.
Reading Scholes was like an academic dream in an education fantasy land, where teachers choose pedagogy based on theoretical merit according to the needs of students. It was an orgy of ideas centered on my favorite premise on the purpose of reading, that literature helps us to become critical thinkers of our world, and therefore less susceptible to our world’s attempts at making us victims. Not only am I facing a crisis where my classroom has to look the same as the rest, my materials have to be the same, now my tests have to be the same along with the order in which I teach the material. Where is the adaptation to the needs of the students, their pace, the gaps in their knowledge, and the use of their personal knowledge to enrich the learning process? Where is my orgy of critical thought and mental light bulbs exploding into luminescence, where there was not even a previous awareness of the existence of a light bulb?
As I mopped up the pool of my own saliva after reading of Scholes’ utopian English classroom, where the writer’s and teacher’s perspective were relevant, but secondary to that of the student’s, whose educational experience is designed to enrich their ability to read, interpret, and think critically, on both a literary and cultural scale, I realized that this world was not mine and most likely will never be, at least as long as I cling to the hope of public education. Here, in Scholes’ tiny book, is a potential solution to the seemingly infinite debate on the legitimacy of “the canon’s” academic dominance. It is not the text, but the reader that is the center of literary experience. Applause, Applause, Applause! Though post-secondary education may be ready for such revelations (which is questionable), primary and secondary education is not. As long as we have hegemony and dominant ideologies, culture will always preference the cultural production of the dominant ideology. Though it makes a great deal of sense to have a reader engaged in a text with similar cultural codes as the reader in order to teach the skills needed to further understand the codes of others, dominance was never about bringing the dominated up to the level of those who dominate. Sense has nothing to do with this type of behavior. How are academics and the ‘literate’ world at large to feel superior if everyone can yield power equally?
Therefore, in public education, every test, from now on, will be the same, as the classes will be taught the same, and the classrooms will look the same, the materials used will be the same, and every question must be posed in standard PSSA format. Scholes does not need to fear that individual thinking will become a standard with which students regard text. Educators are working hard to make sure that does not happen.
Scholes: Intersting and Accessible!
I realized as I read this first chapter that my classroom is often filled with interpretation and far too seldom, criticism. I ask that my students draw meaning from a text, but rarely do I ask them to then stand outside the text and criticize it. Scholes says that, "The way out of our dilemma here is first to perceive reading not simply as consumption but as a productive activity, the making of meaning, in which one is guided by the text one reads, of course, but not simply manipulated by it; and, second, to perceive writing as an activity that is also guided and sustained by prior texts" (8). So, here he says that they can't just be manipulated by it...there can be more. I think this is where criticism comes in, and he gives some good examples of this in Chapter 4. I am constantly asking my students to define the author's purpose, but I rarely go beyond that QUESTION the author's purpose. This would take them one step further in finding their own power in a text.
I enjoyed the section where Scholes questions our roles as literature teachers. He writes, "And they [lit teachers] usually march happily, without questioning their situation as marchers. To step outside the line of march, to scrutinize the device and see it as strange for the fist time--defamiliarized, as the formalists put it--is to become, perforce, a theoretician. This scrutiny may lead to such questions as Where is the march heading? Why? For whose benefit? And what does that device mean, anyway? (11). I couldn't help but think back to Rose and I asked myself if we are just herding our students into that same collegiate hierarchy. Or by asking students not to just interpret, but to criticize, are we creating a kind of literacy that includes questioning another time, place, or moral code....or their own time, place, or moral code, or even this very literacy?
I think Scholes is right about language and manipulation. He says on page 16 that, "In an age of manipulation, when our students are in dire need of critical strength to resist the continuing assaults of all the media, the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts". I kept thinking about the barrage of newspaper and television ads centering on the presidential campaign. I want the people who inherit this world to understand the denotative and connotative nature of words and to be able to navigate a complicated world filled with words that can be, and sometimes are MEANT to manipulate. This means that texts have to be deconstructed as Scholes does in the six Hemingway stories.
On page 29 Scholes writes that, "A certain amount of interpretation may be necessary to provide the cultural codes implicated in any story". Doesn't this imply a type of literacy that must be shared before a story can be understood?
I liked what Scholes said about interpretation, "The first things to look for are repetitions and oppositions that emerge at the obvious or manifest levels of the text". These indeed can be "implied or repressed". Students often look for pieces of a text that fit together and this often leads to a generalization or oversimplified reading. What if we encourage students to look for what Scholes calls the "binary oppositions"?
For students, especially 17-18 year olds, who are, in my opinion, almost fully cooked, what Scholes says on page 70 is the most important idea in the first four chapters, "The critical project we are embarked upon here consists of finding a stance sufficiently antagonistic to Hemingway's to bring his "untold" presuppositions to light. The act of freeing ourselves from the power of the text depends upon our finding a position outside the assumptions upon which the text is based. Since the text is clearly based upon a pervasive aestheticizing of its world, our antagonistic position must challenge the position of literary art itself". This implies that the student make judgements coming from her own conscience. She must be able to define what lies inside her conscience, i.e. her stand on war, love, courage, or failure, not only to free herself from the text, but also to gain power over it.
I enjoyed the section where Scholes questions our roles as literature teachers. He writes, "And they [lit teachers] usually march happily, without questioning their situation as marchers. To step outside the line of march, to scrutinize the device and see it as strange for the fist time--defamiliarized, as the formalists put it--is to become, perforce, a theoretician. This scrutiny may lead to such questions as Where is the march heading? Why? For whose benefit? And what does that device mean, anyway? (11). I couldn't help but think back to Rose and I asked myself if we are just herding our students into that same collegiate hierarchy. Or by asking students not to just interpret, but to criticize, are we creating a kind of literacy that includes questioning another time, place, or moral code....or their own time, place, or moral code, or even this very literacy?
I think Scholes is right about language and manipulation. He says on page 16 that, "In an age of manipulation, when our students are in dire need of critical strength to resist the continuing assaults of all the media, the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts". I kept thinking about the barrage of newspaper and television ads centering on the presidential campaign. I want the people who inherit this world to understand the denotative and connotative nature of words and to be able to navigate a complicated world filled with words that can be, and sometimes are MEANT to manipulate. This means that texts have to be deconstructed as Scholes does in the six Hemingway stories.
On page 29 Scholes writes that, "A certain amount of interpretation may be necessary to provide the cultural codes implicated in any story". Doesn't this imply a type of literacy that must be shared before a story can be understood?
I liked what Scholes said about interpretation, "The first things to look for are repetitions and oppositions that emerge at the obvious or manifest levels of the text". These indeed can be "implied or repressed". Students often look for pieces of a text that fit together and this often leads to a generalization or oversimplified reading. What if we encourage students to look for what Scholes calls the "binary oppositions"?
For students, especially 17-18 year olds, who are, in my opinion, almost fully cooked, what Scholes says on page 70 is the most important idea in the first four chapters, "The critical project we are embarked upon here consists of finding a stance sufficiently antagonistic to Hemingway's to bring his "untold" presuppositions to light. The act of freeing ourselves from the power of the text depends upon our finding a position outside the assumptions upon which the text is based. Since the text is clearly based upon a pervasive aestheticizing of its world, our antagonistic position must challenge the position of literary art itself". This implies that the student make judgements coming from her own conscience. She must be able to define what lies inside her conscience, i.e. her stand on war, love, courage, or failure, not only to free herself from the text, but also to gain power over it.
Building on Brecht
First I would like to address Scholes's style as very modern and up-to-date, reader friendly after other academics we have read. His dedication to his aunts and mother addresses the differences in the needs of individuals as they place themselves in their world as they define it (literacy?). Reading Vygosky and Freire seem so difficult and almost alien that one could make the assumption of the importance of their work based solely on the writing style (the whole high culture, low culture issue). Yet, Scholes (and Rose another example) engages and invites peons like myself into the discussion. Next, it is important to understand that being placed in the discussion is important when addressing the literacy needs that allow every member of our society to function and contribute in society. The skills that we need to be included in the conversation as "we" not "them" seems to be at the heart of Scholes's work. He could have written differently, but the fluidity of words in time and place takes on an understandable meaning placed in our NOW. While many of the messages in all our readings repeat the hopes all educators have for education Scholes repeats the concepts in terms for our times. Finally, I agree with Scholes that it is vital to remember Fredric Jameson's battle cry, "Always historicize!"(16).
With everything we read, interpret, and criticize, we chose what to make part of "us". That is the excitement of the positive and the negative of reading critically. Even when we read for pleasure we are interpreting and criticizing. Will we read the book again? Would we recommend it to others? Would we watch a movie based on the book or vice versa, would we read a book based on a movie? What did others think about the book? I qualify the readings as books only because of the manipulation of other texts. Perhaps looking at concrete books will allow students to advance into the reading, interpretation, and criticism of other texts.
Education should be where we are taught, learn, experiment, and share.
Everything we read is about connections for our personal, private, public, and political lives.
Some personal examples of connections I made:
Writing, reading, interpreting, and criticism from Scholes's work rewords Bertolt Brecht essay, Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties. I will paraphrase, reader and writer must have the courage to write(and read) the truth no matter what anyone tries to pawn off on you (reading skill is vital). There must be personal keenness and thinking skills to recognize the truth below the superficial structure of the sentence and recognize the skill some people have with manipulation of the word (interpretation). Most importantly, there must be personal judgement(criticism) to realize who is writing and why and if the writing has value to you and your world.
Another connection that has me pondering is the green dead Christian Christ of Mantegna and the green dead Jewish Jesus of Chagall. Of course there is the choice of Hemingway himself-how do we include and separate the Man from the Writer for ourselves-do we have to every time we read Hemingway?
This returns me to the original concept of reading, interpretation, and criticism that allows us to accept or reject what we want. The textual power that Scholes addresses causes personal reflection for where I place myself in my world. This is where "every meaningful action-...is meaningful only to the extent that it is a sign in some interpretive code (1). Human beings {through interpretation and criticism]make choices to reject, resent, or embrace the action of the word in their world throughpersonal , private, or political influences in the world (I refer once again to Brecht). To paraphrase Scholes, I believe part of the responsibility of those who teach must help students transcend this most manipulative culture and provide historical knowledge that will enable students to interpret and criticize what they are exposed to, being aware that as educators we always make a decision about what is read. That reading can be manipulated itself with methods that encourage research, reflection, and sharing.
I liked his suggestion that a collection of works by the same author are examined rather than anthologies and the use of writers of different genres, genders, and time or place.
One thing I had done with Girl Scouts years ago was after reading The Diary of Anna Frank-They choose 5 quotes from the book and wrote a one paragraph response. Everyone took turns reading one quote to the rest. While we were reading the book we incorporated using disposable cameras to find images that connected or disconnected to what we had read when the story was placed in our present world. We did not have to agree with each other, just explain our "Why?'. Respecting the other view point was always enforced as the girls agreed and disagreed. I tried promoting listening to others as a skill that places value to other points of views.
In the end the decision is personal as the reader accepts or rejects through reading, interpretation, and criticism. After all, each of US and each of THEM have to live in a world where "explicit" and "implicit" words mark the codes of power in our codes of everyday life. As always, I believe education should promote the possibilities and the imagination of students of all ages. We never know who will come into our lives personally, publically, and politically. The least expected person might, through education and the reading, the interpretaion, and the citicism, inspire society to great heights. Ane I like, Jameson believe in order to know where we are and where we are going we must know where we have been!
With everything we read, interpret, and criticize, we chose what to make part of "us". That is the excitement of the positive and the negative of reading critically. Even when we read for pleasure we are interpreting and criticizing. Will we read the book again? Would we recommend it to others? Would we watch a movie based on the book or vice versa, would we read a book based on a movie? What did others think about the book? I qualify the readings as books only because of the manipulation of other texts. Perhaps looking at concrete books will allow students to advance into the reading, interpretation, and criticism of other texts.
Education should be where we are taught, learn, experiment, and share.
Everything we read is about connections for our personal, private, public, and political lives.
Some personal examples of connections I made:
Writing, reading, interpreting, and criticism from Scholes's work rewords Bertolt Brecht essay, Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties. I will paraphrase, reader and writer must have the courage to write(and read) the truth no matter what anyone tries to pawn off on you (reading skill is vital). There must be personal keenness and thinking skills to recognize the truth below the superficial structure of the sentence and recognize the skill some people have with manipulation of the word (interpretation). Most importantly, there must be personal judgement(criticism) to realize who is writing and why and if the writing has value to you and your world.
Another connection that has me pondering is the green dead Christian Christ of Mantegna and the green dead Jewish Jesus of Chagall. Of course there is the choice of Hemingway himself-how do we include and separate the Man from the Writer for ourselves-do we have to every time we read Hemingway?
This returns me to the original concept of reading, interpretation, and criticism that allows us to accept or reject what we want. The textual power that Scholes addresses causes personal reflection for where I place myself in my world. This is where "every meaningful action-...is meaningful only to the extent that it is a sign in some interpretive code (1). Human beings {through interpretation and criticism]make choices to reject, resent, or embrace the action of the word in their world throughpersonal , private, or political influences in the world (I refer once again to Brecht). To paraphrase Scholes, I believe part of the responsibility of those who teach must help students transcend this most manipulative culture and provide historical knowledge that will enable students to interpret and criticize what they are exposed to, being aware that as educators we always make a decision about what is read. That reading can be manipulated itself with methods that encourage research, reflection, and sharing.
I liked his suggestion that a collection of works by the same author are examined rather than anthologies and the use of writers of different genres, genders, and time or place.
One thing I had done with Girl Scouts years ago was after reading The Diary of Anna Frank-They choose 5 quotes from the book and wrote a one paragraph response. Everyone took turns reading one quote to the rest. While we were reading the book we incorporated using disposable cameras to find images that connected or disconnected to what we had read when the story was placed in our present world. We did not have to agree with each other, just explain our "Why?'. Respecting the other view point was always enforced as the girls agreed and disagreed. I tried promoting listening to others as a skill that places value to other points of views.
In the end the decision is personal as the reader accepts or rejects through reading, interpretation, and criticism. After all, each of US and each of THEM have to live in a world where "explicit" and "implicit" words mark the codes of power in our codes of everyday life. As always, I believe education should promote the possibilities and the imagination of students of all ages. We never know who will come into our lives personally, publically, and politically. The least expected person might, through education and the reading, the interpretaion, and the citicism, inspire society to great heights. Ane I like, Jameson believe in order to know where we are and where we are going we must know where we have been!
Textual Power in the Classroom
After toughing it out with Vygotsky for two weeks, I felt like Scholes was a breath of fresh air. I felt he did articulate his points very well and only went over my head a few times.
For some reason, this is the first time that I thought of English Composition in terms of binary oppositions, and in "The English Apparatus," Scholes deconstructs them (although I guess that was the whole point of the book... applying literary theory to English) I felt he was honest in his critique of why things in English departments shouldn't be so polarized and that "the literature/composition opposition must not only be deconstructed in critical writing, it must be broken down in our institutional practice as well" (7). Maybe its just the theme of unity running through my head today due to current events, but to me, this made sense. So often the English office is polarized between those that teach composition and rhetoric, and those that teach literature.
Scholes asks the question "What does it mean to teach literature?" from a historical point of view, and how revered the WORD literature has been in our culture and what that means: "When we say "teach literature," instead of saying that we teach reading, interpretation or criticism, we are saying that we expound the wisdom and truth of our texts, and we are in priests and priestesses in the service of a secular scripture: "the best that has been thought and said" (12). What Scholes wants to do is break down the "sermon like quality" of teaching English, bringing in notions of Freire's banking method, and instead make teaching literature a completely participatory activity. He does not want the teacher's sole function to "guide the student toward the correct interpretation of a text, so that the truth might stand revealed" (13). Instead, I think a big point that Scholes makes throughout these chapters is although literature speaks to certain human truths, the way people interpret them may be affected by their own background and culture. Therefore, a teacher teaching Hemingway only one way (with their prefixed backgrounds) is not going to speak to everyone in the class, as they might be viewing it a different way.
Scholes also makes the argument for the "text" movement, as our culture since the 60s, has had become a more mass media world. Therefore, "the students who come to us now exist in the most manipulative culture human beings have ever experienced. They are bombarded with signs, with rhetoric, from their daily awakenings until their troubled sleep, especially with signs transmitted by the audio-visual media" (15). So we can learn from a variety of different mediums, and teachers perhaps should fine tune their syllabi to address some of these new technologies.
The strongest part of Scholes book is the fact that he provided concrete applications of how to bring textual power to the classroom through reading, interpretation, and criticism. Using Hemingway as an example, although enjoyable, was that that--an example. I think you could probably use any text in a classroom, but I appreciated the nuances of his argument, showing passages and telling us how we can engage our students in the text, finding the "generic and cultural codes" without becoming too "preachy." (22). I do believe reading is important in composition, and it is certainly a huge part of English 101 classes, as we show students how to read and think critically and not only to encode through their writing, but how to get the most out of their decoding. Thats why I liked this simple yet powerful quote Scholes says "Reading and Writing are complementary acts that remain unfinished until completed by their reciprocals" (20).
For some reason, this is the first time that I thought of English Composition in terms of binary oppositions, and in "The English Apparatus," Scholes deconstructs them (although I guess that was the whole point of the book... applying literary theory to English) I felt he was honest in his critique of why things in English departments shouldn't be so polarized and that "the literature/composition opposition must not only be deconstructed in critical writing, it must be broken down in our institutional practice as well" (7). Maybe its just the theme of unity running through my head today due to current events, but to me, this made sense. So often the English office is polarized between those that teach composition and rhetoric, and those that teach literature.
Scholes asks the question "What does it mean to teach literature?" from a historical point of view, and how revered the WORD literature has been in our culture and what that means: "When we say "teach literature," instead of saying that we teach reading, interpretation or criticism, we are saying that we expound the wisdom and truth of our texts, and we are in priests and priestesses in the service of a secular scripture: "the best that has been thought and said" (12). What Scholes wants to do is break down the "sermon like quality" of teaching English, bringing in notions of Freire's banking method, and instead make teaching literature a completely participatory activity. He does not want the teacher's sole function to "guide the student toward the correct interpretation of a text, so that the truth might stand revealed" (13). Instead, I think a big point that Scholes makes throughout these chapters is although literature speaks to certain human truths, the way people interpret them may be affected by their own background and culture. Therefore, a teacher teaching Hemingway only one way (with their prefixed backgrounds) is not going to speak to everyone in the class, as they might be viewing it a different way.
Scholes also makes the argument for the "text" movement, as our culture since the 60s, has had become a more mass media world. Therefore, "the students who come to us now exist in the most manipulative culture human beings have ever experienced. They are bombarded with signs, with rhetoric, from their daily awakenings until their troubled sleep, especially with signs transmitted by the audio-visual media" (15). So we can learn from a variety of different mediums, and teachers perhaps should fine tune their syllabi to address some of these new technologies.
The strongest part of Scholes book is the fact that he provided concrete applications of how to bring textual power to the classroom through reading, interpretation, and criticism. Using Hemingway as an example, although enjoyable, was that that--an example. I think you could probably use any text in a classroom, but I appreciated the nuances of his argument, showing passages and telling us how we can engage our students in the text, finding the "generic and cultural codes" without becoming too "preachy." (22). I do believe reading is important in composition, and it is certainly a huge part of English 101 classes, as we show students how to read and think critically and not only to encode through their writing, but how to get the most out of their decoding. Thats why I liked this simple yet powerful quote Scholes says "Reading and Writing are complementary acts that remain unfinished until completed by their reciprocals" (20).
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
No Holy Crap
I like the breakdown of chapter 3...reading, interpreting, criticizing. I don't know that teaching Hemingway and the likes of Hemingway is necessary in order to teach students how to interpret and criticize. But the overall idea that teaching kids how to think, how to take literature apart in order to understand it (and find the intended humor in it) and try to make sense of what they don't know or words they don't know, and not just see the letters on the page that happen to form words...that's important. So is making that very connection through writing. I don't know that Hemingway needs to be part of a curriculum (elementary? p. 58) in order to accomplish this...like all good works, they become part of history--they become classics, but we should make way for the new and just as good. I wonder what the fixation on Hemingway is with Scholes, anyway.
P. 62...talks about how teachers must ask students not if they "got" it...but what do they think of it...do they accept it. I like that because it requires the student to respond with more than a yes or a no. It teaches them how to criticize and stand behind their thoughts and to analyze the text and their thoughts together. I know, like Vickie, that some students know how to think. They're born with the skill. Others need to be walked through the process of looking beyond the black and white text and taking it for what it is, or worse, not getting it at all.
This blog is short and sweet...I get it.
P. 62...talks about how teachers must ask students not if they "got" it...but what do they think of it...do they accept it. I like that because it requires the student to respond with more than a yes or a no. It teaches them how to criticize and stand behind their thoughts and to analyze the text and their thoughts together. I know, like Vickie, that some students know how to think. They're born with the skill. Others need to be walked through the process of looking beyond the black and white text and taking it for what it is, or worse, not getting it at all.
This blog is short and sweet...I get it.
I'm a fan
Somehow I got through my entire high school and college career without ever reading (let alone studying) Shakespeare. And look at me, I've managed to hold down jobs, raise kids, stay married, and be a productive member of society (well, in my mind anyway). In his book, Textual Power, Robert Scholes is completely accurate when he states "...the worst thing we can do is to foster in them an attitude of reverence before texts." Do I think Shakespeare was worth reading? Sure! Did I feel like I missed out by not reading him in high school or college? Well, I never lost sleep over it. Do I think Dickens, Hawthorne, and even Steinbeck are worth reading? Absolutely! It seems to me though, that since English is the closest thing to a reading course for many students, it's much more important to instruct students how to acquire the "judicious attitude" that Scholes discusses on page 16. He talks about an attitude that is "...scrupulous to understand, alert to probe for blind spots and hidden agendas, and, finally, critical, questioning, skeptical." Maybe if we taught in this way, we'd have less high school students believing that the man on http://www.malepregnancy.com/ is really pregnant. (Check it out!)
New topic...I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's (according to the source I used, adding an 's' to Scholes is the form that the United States Government Printing Office and Oxford University Press would use, so if it's good enough for them...) Let me start that again -I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's thoughts on the endless web and interconnectedness of reading and writing. Yep, it's true. To this end (and unbeknownst to the powers that be at my school) I informally studied this in my own classroom. I compared a year of no writing reflection after reading to a year with writing reflection after reading. I found that students became much more active readers once writing became part of the regiment. They now understand that, even though a reader may close the book, that doesn't mean that an active reader's brain stops working. I believe that reflective writing helped students make this very important connection.
It's also through this writing that students can learn to interpret, then criticize. I've mentioned before that this is not a natural skill for all readers. They need explicit instruction in how to interpret (which most English teachers are real good at when it pertains to literature). But, in the big picture, once students leave formal education, how often are they going to need to interpret literature? I realize that this process teaches many higher order thinking skills. I get it. I get it. Equally important (or, in my opinion, even more important) is the skill of interpreting non-fiction. Can students discriminate between the most important details and details of less importance? What strategies are they being taught to learn that critical skill? Good readers can often just pick that up. Poor readers need strategies! And Scholes alludes to that all over this book.
Next topic..."Wah, wah, wah, our students cannot think for themselves. They want everything spoon fed to them. They want us to tell them how to think and what to write." I cannot count how many times I've heard this ongoing rant about students from certain teachers. Duh! We set them up! I felt validated by Scholes's definition of the function of criticism on page 73. "It is a way of discovering how to choose, how to take some measure of responsibility for ourselves and for our world" (73), Perhaps this might be the key to stop that rant. We need to provide risk-free opportunities for our students so they can develop that skill. Sometimes there's much truth to the adage that there's nothing new in education. It just keeps circling back in some new form. To wit, Scholes wrote this in 1985 and we still argue this point today. Yeow, the wheels of educational progress turn slowly!
New topic...I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's (according to the source I used, adding an 's' to Scholes is the form that the United States Government Printing Office and Oxford University Press would use, so if it's good enough for them...) Let me start that again -I found myself nodding in agreement while reading Scholes's thoughts on the endless web and interconnectedness of reading and writing. Yep, it's true. To this end (and unbeknownst to the powers that be at my school) I informally studied this in my own classroom. I compared a year of no writing reflection after reading to a year with writing reflection after reading. I found that students became much more active readers once writing became part of the regiment. They now understand that, even though a reader may close the book, that doesn't mean that an active reader's brain stops working. I believe that reflective writing helped students make this very important connection.
It's also through this writing that students can learn to interpret, then criticize. I've mentioned before that this is not a natural skill for all readers. They need explicit instruction in how to interpret (which most English teachers are real good at when it pertains to literature). But, in the big picture, once students leave formal education, how often are they going to need to interpret literature? I realize that this process teaches many higher order thinking skills. I get it. I get it. Equally important (or, in my opinion, even more important) is the skill of interpreting non-fiction. Can students discriminate between the most important details and details of less importance? What strategies are they being taught to learn that critical skill? Good readers can often just pick that up. Poor readers need strategies! And Scholes alludes to that all over this book.
Next topic..."Wah, wah, wah, our students cannot think for themselves. They want everything spoon fed to them. They want us to tell them how to think and what to write." I cannot count how many times I've heard this ongoing rant about students from certain teachers. Duh! We set them up! I felt validated by Scholes's definition of the function of criticism on page 73. "It is a way of discovering how to choose, how to take some measure of responsibility for ourselves and for our world" (73), Perhaps this might be the key to stop that rant. We need to provide risk-free opportunities for our students so they can develop that skill. Sometimes there's much truth to the adage that there's nothing new in education. It just keeps circling back in some new form. To wit, Scholes wrote this in 1985 and we still argue this point today. Yeow, the wheels of educational progress turn slowly!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
