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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
