Chapters 11 & 12 HALR

So, ack.  I had plans for integrating all of the reading for this week and picking out a few things that were connected and discussing them properly.  You know, actually blogging in a coherent way.  Then, stomach flu.  That’s all I’m saying about that.  Now I’m in catch-up mode. Next week will be different!

Chapter 11: Digital Literacies in the Classroom

Joan A. Rhodes

Valerie J. Robnolt

“This chapter provides instructional approaches and research that address the increasing need for students to read critically, access information efficiently, and overcome the negative impact of the digital divide.” This sentence is from the summary/abstract at the start of the chapter and I am already interested in a description of this “digital divide”.

Okay, so the digital divide refers to the data showing that those students living in poverty or in homes where parents don’t have any higher education are less likely to use the internet outside of school. It’s an accessibility divide, but perhaps also a cultural divide…where what is not needed is not valued? Something to consider, especially when some of these areas are urban, where one would assume access is freer due to public transportation and public libraries.

 The more I learn about this idea of digital literacy, the more I am seeing the recent shift to digital media for the paradigm change it really is. I never thought of it in terms of how revolutionary the printing press was, perhaps because I grew up during the shift, so it is both more present, and more gradual for me. I’ve maintained the idea in my head that “traditional text” is somehow superior to anything that exists digitally, perhaps due to so many cautionary tales of being careful with the sources you find on the web, and because of phenomena like Wikipedia not being taken seriously–I point to the fact that many in academia do not deem it an acceptable source to quote from. That aside, one cannot help but notice the myriad of changes going on in our world due to the emergence of digital communication. From personal contact, to how news gets delivered, to the structuring of revolutions, digital media have advanced our zeitgeist farther and faster than the technologies that carry them. As this chapter states, researchers have to deal with “technology applications that become obsolete before the research results are even published”. This brings up even more questions about the location of academic research. Can’t they just publish online? How does that work with copyrighted materials? How do all of these changes affect the discourses?

 It’s intriguing to consider how the upswing in speed and the visuals available with images and video are changing the very nature of our communication…in some ways bringing it full circle to a more orally-oriented framework of communication. More dynamic than that is the interactive nature of the communication.

 “Digital equity should be considered, first, in terms of student access to technology and, second, in terms of student use of technology for educational purposes.”

 Literacy is defined (155) as the ability to read and write and a mindset about the use of reading and writing in daily life. Hmm. “Currently, the term literacy implies that individual competence interacts with the social demands of the culture.” <–A view much increased in flexibility from that of the former. This new way of examining literacy, along with the act of examining it, open up the door to almost anything having a level of skill/knowledge where one could be considered “literate”. What does that mean? All literacies are not created equal, I am thinking. I am quite literate in sippy cups, for instance, but I don’t list that on my resume. On the other hand, it’s a highly useful bit of information for new parents in my line of work, and specialized knowledge of that sort has been incredibly helpful to many of my clients throughout the years.

 Obviously one of the challenges in defining multiple digital literacies, is the veritable speed at which technology and the tools for using it are changing and advancing. I am a bit curious as to why all the focus on the link-clicking while reading text online…is this really a huge deal for some reason, outside the usual complaint of it being distracting (but possibly beneficial for stumbling across gems)?

 “Multiliteracy implies that meaning making occurs in multimodal settings where written information is part of spatial, audio, and visual patterns of meaning.”

 The New London Group’s assertion about what students’ two literacy learning goals are is…something: “creating access to the evolving language of work, power, and community, and fostering the critical engagement necessary for them to design their social futures and achieve success through fulfilling employment”. In other words, they’ve done their job when you are a good little sheep with a proper job making money that can be extorted by political means you can be convinced into accepting through your newfound literacies. That’s just one interpretation, of course.

 This definition of media literacy (from 1992..?) that states it is “the ability of a citizen to access, analyze, and produce information for specific outcomes” [emphasis mine] is, well, odd. It suggests that media literacy is related to knowledge in journalism and also…public relations. I mean, we are always “producing information for specific outcomes”. My daughter tells me she’s brushed her teeth when it’s time for bed so I won’t be irritated, but as soon as she wants something to eat, is just as quick to say, “I haven’t brushed my teeth yet, so I can!”. I call this manipulation and I don’t appreciate it any more than the general public likes being lied to about war. I get the access and analyze part, I suppose it was the whole “produce information” thing that got me thinking. Really, I suppose it does boil down to knowing how the system works, so you can be the most critical consumer of that produced information.

 digital literacy – “21st century literacy is the set of abilities and skills where aural, visual, and digital literacy overlap. These include the ability to understand the power of images and sounds, to recognize and use that power, to manipulate and transform digital media, to distribute them pervasively, and to easily adapt them to new forms”

 “Literacy for this century implies that students are able to create and interpret meaning within multimodal, digital environments.” They throw those together, create and interpret. I stopped here to think about that. To interpret is one thing, and getting students to do that is going to eat up a chunk of time, to say the least. But to create? I would imagine this gets easier as both teachers and students become more tech-savvy. I see a clearer digital divide in some ways between the technologically-savvy and the less technologically proficient that is of more consequence. It is assumed, at least at the level of the college or university, that students have some knowledge of technology. This is reasonable, but to what extent? There are a range of background experiences that comprise any student body, and it’s not really fair or reasonable to expect a standard of all of them without more in the way of preliminary instruction. Many of these tools are hard! Only one class in computers is required to graduate from EMU.

 “Advances in computer technology and the rise in the outsourcing of jobs that use basic computing skills will require American students to be able to think across disciplines and creatively solve problems in order to maintain economic viability.” (160)

 “Educators and students alike ‘must abandon conceptual systems founded upon ideas of center, margin, hierarchy, and linearity and replace them with ones of multilinearity, nodes, links,and networks.'” (161)

 The above two quotes strike me negatively in the sense that I object to the idea that we have to force skills on an unwilling and perhaps even incapable populace because we refuse to value labor enough for it to provide a basic living. Surely we can do all sorts of tasks in our own country. Including those that mostly rely on the left side of the brain.

 The last part of the chapter dealt with how if you are reading/researching on the computer, the most productive thing to do is to use it to write. Also talks about the importance of connecting out-of-school literacy activities to in-school literacies.

 Research notes: -how the changing nature of information technology has altered the way our brains process information (if such a thing occurs). -how the changing nature of news delivery actually has more youth that are informed and engaged with current events through their use of new technologies?

What the heck do they mean by hypertext/hypermedia…must look this up.

Usual word list:

deictic – a word specifying identity or spatial or temporal location from the perspective of a speaker or hearer in the context in which the communication occurs

digital natives – the youth who have grown up in a digital era

Chapter 12: The Secondary English Curriculum and Adolescent Literacy

Robert Burroughs

Peter Smagorinsky

texts- composed artifacts of symbolic systems or configurations of signs

 The notion of curriculum being what is learned is explored, with the curriculum being planned, enacted, and received (these being three separate events).

the hidden curriculum – refers to the social agenda that motivates the explicit instruction in a school.

“A hidden curriculum may contribute to social stratification by shepherding students towards futures based on their parents’ occupations and income by the ways in which the curriculum structures their experiences in school.”

the null curriculum – the content and means of engagement that are not taught in school. It is where the big ideas and the means of discussing them lie, because the explicit curriculum has reduced ideas to their component parts.

What’s interesting about this section is the example they use. They talk about the history of Western progress as an oversimplification, an understatement to be sure, but hardly an example of “atomistic particles” knowledge. It would seem that taking multiple portrayals of specific events in conjunction with larger themes and attitudes could be conducive to a productive level of discussion.

 substantive structure – the conceptual structure of a discipline (including organization, concepts, propositions, principles, axioms, and the relations among them).

syntactic structure – ways of knowing that are afforded by a discipline (methods of discovery, criteria for data measurement, the path of data through interpretation to conclusion). It’s methodology.

 paradigms – the entire constellation of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by a given community.
“The ultimate outlook that motivates these decisions is situated in some paradigmatic way of thinking about the discipline: as the embodiment of Western heritage, as a vehicle for inquiring into development of a more just society, as a means for students’ personal growth, as a structure for taking on the perspectives of multiple cultures, or as one of many other lenses available to teachers.” (174)

 “Genres take specific forms–but the form is an embodiment of a way of thinking and being in the world, rather than an end in itself.” “genres persist and develop because they provide responses to recurring social exigencies”

 “members of scholarly disciplines must understand and be fluent with the paradigmatic practices necessary for being taken seriously by their peers, particularly those practices associated with the expectations for discourse.” (<–this right here is why it’s so hard to break conventions)

 Applebee notes that curriculum becomes, “specialized content, ignoring the discourse conventions that govern participation” when texts are selected and presented in chronological order with no examination of the connections between them or reasoning for why they were chosen. (177)

 “the null curriculum removes from students’ school experiences any attention to the issues that face them most dramatically in their own lives” (178)

“A curricula…suggests to students a worldview that is implied or explicitly taught through the texts, activities, sequences, and other dimensions of learning that are included (and excluded).” I think that last part is perhaps the most critical, considering how the canon hasn’t much changed, and it is difficult for teachers to stray from the status quo of methods or materials.

Clark & Ivanic

Chapter 4: Writing Processes and Practices

The Politics of Writing

Romy Clark & Roz Ivanic

“The plural ‘practices‘ implies that there is no one right or appropriate way of behaving or communicating, but multiple competing ways of being. These competing ways of being are not equally valued or accepted, hence the struggle for hegemony.”

I like that phrase, “multiple competing ways of being”. We are all unique. However, I could do without the competitive aspect. This is why I find it sort of counter-productive to do peer review on drafts. We all get to the same place by a different route, so having someone look at an unfinished phase in the process just has never made sense to me. That may be because I am not much in the habit of actually writing a draft, and I do have to grudgingly admit it is nice to have the work mostly complete well before the actual due date. That said, my quality is often lower with an early draft than when I am pushing a deadline. I really am one of those people that works well under pressure. I do a lot of pre-write thinking, and researching, and then I just do the writing all at once. It’s my way of being. Haha.

 

“These differences in practices seem to us to be of enormous significance and often interact with the cognitive processes involved in writing. For example, the choice of writing technology will have an effect on the cognitive work that the writer does: using a word-processor is likely to lead to a greater willingness to revise and redraft.” This is a double-edged sword scenario, at least for me. I might be more willing to redraft something written on a computer, but I am less careful about things like organization and wording in my first draft, knowing I can go back and change it so easily. I also do not stop to reflect and take notes on other things of interest that come up when I am typing an assignment. I don’t often type, at least for the first draft, for this and other reasons. I like the reflective time brought out with writing on paper, and then the organization and revising happens in a big way when I transfer that written draft onto the computer. The choice of tool really affects my creativity and flow.

 

I find the idea, where they reference Widdowson, that it is the lack of immediate feedback that hinders writers to be sort of…well, astonishing. That’s exactly what I don’t want. “The lack of immediate feedback from reader(s) means that writers have to manage the dialogic aspect of writing by trying to anticipate their reader’s reactions to and disagreements with what they write.” What? Isn’t that what a rubric is for…and don’t you have an idea of this before you sit down to write anyway?

“Our representation attempts to capture the dynamic interplay both between all of the elements of the writing process and between the psycholinguistic and social features, and also to convey the message that there are no prescribed routes through the process.” I am new to the concept of writing as a process that seems to permeate the discourse of writing conventions these days. I think I missed it as I never took a composition class in either high school or as an undergraduate. I am starting to think this has given me a sort of freedom to ignore parts of these practices and processes they outline here. I do like the emphasis paid to the other things that are structuring a writer’s writing outside the writer’s knowledge of the topic and forms to be followed. The writing environment, inclusive of both physical environment and social and emotional states are just as important and sometimes more so.

 

Fun words (tongue is in cheek):

hegemony – the dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others

Week 1 Resources (MOOC)

MOOC Week 1 Resources

Some initial reactions to the films.

Film 1: Bendito Machine III

I am not an expert on films. In this story, it is easy enough to characterize all but one of the people as sheep in that they blindly follow whatever is set on the stump. Apparently bored with the current technology (radio?), the “main” character (by appearances) sets out to find something different, on what appears to be a somewhat difficult and dangerous journey. He takes the television thrown at him and brings it down to the rest, whereupon they immediately discard the bull (radio?). The television has many traits, it holds their attention, taking them dangerous places as they are caught up in the fascination the moving images provide. They not only follow, but emulate the images on the screen, and its fall, precipitated by the advent of the computer, causes death to some. Their trash heap grows. It’s interesting that the computer appears to have a machine gun strapped to the back of it, and I am not sure what is up with all the little things that fall out of the television. The main thing I found interesting about this film is that there is only one person actively participating in these technological advances, albeit to a limited degree. He, too, is limited to what appears from the gods, acting only to hurry the process of new developments. Never do they speak a word or ask for anything, or even comment on that which currently exists. The non-sheep guy leaves the entrancement of the television to the others on his quest for the computer, thereby evincing the only independent thought amongst the people. Certainly it is difficult to see what advantages the technologies provide outside entertainment, and they are definitely causing the amount of trash to grow, and wildlife to perish by the thoughtless disposal of outdated forms. Overall, I see this as a critique of our thoughtless acceptance of technology and a call to consider its effects on us and the world around us.

Film 2: Inbox

I would characterize this account as having a combination of utopian and dystopian elements. Certainly both characters are disenchanted with current methods of communication. It’s an interesting study of gender that the male appears to suffer from a lack of contact while the female with a surfeit. At any rate, they’re both unhappy. What cures this unhappiness is a magical return to earlier forms of technology, note passing. An accidental mix-up in real life leads to this communication, and in this way the film’s plot is much like that of any romantic comedy. Definitely the fact that they have a real-life connection makes their subsequent exchanges more meaningful. This is the dystopian aspect, where I see the film criticizing the impersonal aspect of many of today’s technological communications. However, the film is also pointing out that we don’t pay close attention to what is going on, as portrayed by the mixed-up bags. This shows that we are not lacking opportunities for meaningful engagement, but perhaps the skills for being aware of them have become dulled through misuse. It is also pointing out that people intimidated by face-to-face interactions are now capable of having those interactions in a less intimidating atmosphere. Granted we don’t have magical object-transferring bags, but we do have the internet.

Film 3: Thursday

Well, this is an interesting little take on how we compartmentalize ourselves, and the natural world. Certainly the mother bird isn’t having an easy time of feeding her chicks, but this is not only shown for the pathos of the mother unable to feed her babies, but for the nuisance it causes the humans when the bird is forced to seek nourishment, to the detriment of their technological world. I see the wires resembling worms as a study in how we don’t (can’t) really get away from natural forms, even in the design of unnatural products. The humans had differing reactions to the bird causing the power loss. Three were shown, one reacted very little, the next seemed to be on the verge of nervous breakdown, and the last was the lady, perfectly content to otherwise amuse herself (though still through a piece of technology). Notably, she doesn’t even take time to enjoy nature at the park, but plays with her phone. Does this stop her from noticing the bird’s plight? The man doesn’t seem to have a natural reaction to the baby bird hitting his window, either. Does the window even open? One is left to wonder as even the screens are remote-operated. While they are up in space, the humans split into pairs, and follow the directions of the space needle (?) operator explicitly. Not that they have a choice. The humans never say a word, though the man and woman are happy to see one another on the subway platform. Interestingly, they show the history of communication with the motion of the bird carrying a letter from one face to the other for text messages on the man’s phone. Where does this leave the birds? Seems they are outside looking in at their own destruction, to me.

Film 4: New Media

Wow. So, the similarity to the Bendito film lies in the characterization of humans as passive to the effects technology has on the natural world. This film being so short, it’s hard to make a whole lot of it. Certainly, there’s only one human alive, that is watching television and has some sort of device attached to his ear. One can assume he is being controlled, but that’s a stretch. Definitely the world outside this room with the man in it is suffering from an advanced case of neglect. That isn’t a bad thing for the plants taking over, they’re even growing on cars. But the floating bomb-like projectiles and the hovering space-alien type “creatures” are another story. The difference from Bendito in this is that while technology seems to advanced without human assistance, the lone human is still prey to earlier technology. Also, there are no gods outside the hovering tentacled things.

I think I need to watch all of these another time or two, but in the interests of catching up and saving time, today is not that day.

Shirky and Bady

I’ve just finished reading Shirky’s blog post about online education, and wanted to note down a few thoughts before turning to Bady’s response.

-I am having a hard time making the direct parallel assessment Shirky does between music and Napster with education and free online courses.  Firstly, educators are not business executives (though administrators are…still), and I just don’t see them pulling the ostrich move.  Not all of them, at any rate.  If Harvard and Stanford can see the positive advertising effects, other colleges will as well.  Secondly, it isn’t as though this is a game-changer that means the death of campus anymore than mp3s meant the death of the CD. Sales changed. They didn’t disappear.  And if the music industry had been more willing to be flexible and set up a site that worked properly for selling individual songs, they wouldn’t be having these problems.  Colleges already offer online courses, and therefore they are already ahead of the music industry. Lastly, people don’t expect to get something for nothing.  Hell, they’re suspicious when they do.  That’s how we measure worth in capitalism, after all, yes?

-The benefits of campus education are obvious, just as the benefits of online education are becoming rapidly apparent.  However, a person cannot perform a chemistry experiment over the computer.  Student teaching can’t be done online (unless for an online job…? Eh, nevermind).  My point is that the value of education isn’t going to change, anymore than it already is changing, because of online courses.  And it is; we are struggling to keep jobs that graduates qualify for, all the while altering the system in such a way that education is a business that aims to provide a product (the degree) to the consumer (the student), with no appreciable nod to the greater good, or acknowledgement of the fact that college cannot (and should not) be one-size-fits-all.  But we know all that. Still, it doesn’t change the fact that having an educated populace is good for everybody.

-As John Green notes: “Let me explain why I like to pay taxes for schools even though I don’t personally have a kid in school: I don’t like living in a country with a bunch of stupid people.” I think the notion of something for nothing offends a lot of people that don’t see the bigger picture, where the more educated the population is, the more everyone benefits, including and especially business owners. A worker that has a broader range of knowledge is going to come up with a better solution, period.  They are also going to have more interests, and hence probably spend more of their hard-earned money on products.  I don’t particularly like couching it this way, as education has other more intrinsic benefits, but as the model for higher education has changed to a business-oriented enterprise, I figure the argument for changing it should include some of the same. Why shouldn’t people learn about what interests or benefits them?  Outside the valid argument for a liberal arts education, we all do need a bit of many subjects so we can see the interconnectedness, there’s no reason why people who aren’t cut out for the rigors of a four-year degree shouldn’t explore interests and gain knowledge at a university level, thereby becoming specialists of a sort.

One point that Shirky makes is certainly valid, how often are you hearing the best lecture on a topic…in the world?   That said, we learn a lot from bad teachers.  Seriously, a bad teacher can be as good as a great one for showing you how things ought to work. We also learn a lot from teachers that are available for consultation; we have academic professionals for weeding out the bad from the good so that they are presenting their best work possible, and giving you an accurate portrait of what they’re conveying.  It doesn’t have to be the best in the world.  That’s not the point. This is what Bady is getting at about MOOCs with his arguments about open vs. closed.  Shirky really shouldn’t have couched it in such dichotomous terms.  Universities are already a lot more open than the music industry was to change, certainly they are aware of it. And both ways have their pros and cons.  Both campus and online courses have aspects that earn them both labels.  They are simultaneously open and closed.

Bady makes the excellent point that the desire for a good education (really, there’s no reason an online degree should be any worse than from a mediocre institution, in reality) is there, and the opportunity is not.  He’s striking at the root of the problem, instead of conjecturing about the surface.  It isn’t that students aren’t willing to pay for it, it’s that college is cost-prohibitive for most people.  Even for those actually attending it.  There are larger problems here that have more to do with economics than an imaginary inflexibility of higher ed institutions to integrate the phenomena of MOOCs, should such become necessary.  As Bady pointed out, academics, unlike venture capitalists, are delighted to teach to as many curious young minds that want to learn.  It’s working out the practical aspects and taking a good hard look at how we do things that’s actually difficult.  Change is often uncomfortable, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.