An interesting question in The Technology Question was whether technology, writing or computers, is humanizing or dehumanizing, democratizing or totalizing. Technology in my view contributes to both ends of both of these continuums. Writing and computers are humanizing because they increase the connections between people. They spread messages and ideas farther. This means that people are more likely to find ideas that they can connect to, and feel a connection to people. They also allow groups of people to come together more easily for a common idea and cause. This in turn can increase democracy because more people have access to information and means of communicating ideas to the populace. Both technologies increase the voice of a person. These technologies are dehumanizing because they remove the person from the text or the message. The reader must provide a context and often provide much of the meaning to the text. It separates people from their communication. The technologies are totalitarian in that not everyone has access to these technologies or the knowledge of how to use them. This can emphasize the have and have nots creating a sub class in society that lose their voice and means of communicating their ideas and needs. The text also posits that through writing alienating us from the natural world it heightens our humanity. This is an interesting idea that writing makes us even more different and separate from nature and so we are more human because we are less like the rest of nature and farther from it. We become more unique and separate from the natural world.
The Technology Question also puts forth the assertion that writing makes possible literature, history, law, government, philosophy and bureaucracy. I do not agree with all of these assertions. Writing may change how we think about and go about practicing these things but it does not make them possible. Many of these things are viable and present without writing in a culture. I agree that writing can foster forgetfulness. It makes memory less important and one does not feel the need to find means to remember large amounts of information. Writing does foster contemplation, analysis and critique. It makes it possible to study an idea more in depth, to reread the idea and formulate a response. It also spreads the idea to a large audience that may respond to it. This holds writers to a higher accountability in what they write.
Another important ides is that culture and cognition, or culture and technology mutually create each other. They both influence the evolution of the other. How technology advances or changes depends on the needs and goals of the culture it is part of. The use of the technology will also depend on the culture it is being used in. Culture is also influenced by changes in technologies. It changes how people live and think about their daily lives. It changes how people think about and share ideas. It can affect the social structure of the culture because of who has access and knowledge of the new technologies. Technologies also influence the individual cognitively. Writing has a value system that comes with it but it is also a product of human motive and serves human purposes.
People prefer their technologies transparent. However, especially with new technologies this is not possible. When I ask my students to use the computer in different ways I wish that the technology was transparent but I am often confronted with how it is not. Students have problems using a sometimes unfamiliar technology. I get products I am not expecting because the student is influenced by the technology and it changes how they write and their writing style. Students’ feelings about computers and how comfortable they are with them effect how they use them. It also affects the choices they make when using the technology. All of this is evident in the webpage examples I linked last week. One student used the technology to link to other students pages. I did not ask her to do this but how she thought and interacted with the technology made her think that she should do this. I also need to think more about how asking my students to use the curriculum can also be affecting their thinking and how they think about the content they are working with.
The Bomer article made me think about what value system I bring to my classroom in connection to the tools I have my students use in my classroom. The biggest tool I have taught my students to use this year was the foldable. This is a three dimensional graphic organizer that incorporate both writing and illustration. An alternative affordance that I did not think of when communicating the use of this tool at first was as a study tool for a test. I learned of this when my students asked if they could have the ones I was assessing back before their test. I am curious what alternative meanings my students may have assigned to the tool of a foldable.
Students and I disagree most on the use of the tool of paper. I hold the value of use of paper for taking notes, interacting with content and communicating knowledge of content. My students hold the value of paper as a means of communicating silently with their peers. They also use it for artistic expression and means of play. My students interpret the tools and use them for according to their own motives and needs. They bring their own applications from their culture and contexts outside of the classroom. The use of the tool and the meaning of the tool is constructed in the classroom not just by me beliefs and understanding of how the tool should be used by but my classroom community as a whole. The meaning of the tool is social constructed by my classroom, our goals, needs and uses of it.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Student made websites
These are some websites my students have made on threatened and endangered animals. My students are 7th graders and many of them had no experience with making a website before this project. They range in quality.
http://www.freewebs.com/savethestellers/
http://www.freewebs.com/blackfootedferrets/
http://www.freewebs.com/rachelj11
http://www.freewebs.com/bighornsheeps/
http://blackrhinoceros.wetpaint.com/
http://mountaingazelles.piczo.com/?cr=5&rfm=y
http://giantpandasaredabomb.piczo.com/?cr=6&rfm=y
http://www.freewebs.com/agar11/
http://grayreefsharks.wetpaint.com/
http://graywolf.wetpaint.com/
http://www.freewebs.com/bbstar24/
http://pic7.piczo.com/go/albumeditor
http://www.freewebs.com/savethestellers/
http://www.freewebs.com/blackfootedferrets/
http://www.freewebs.com/rachelj11
http://www.freewebs.com/bighornsheeps/
http://blackrhinoceros.wetpaint.com/
http://mountaingazelles.piczo.com/?cr=5&rfm=y
http://giantpandasaredabomb.piczo.com/?cr=6&rfm=y
http://www.freewebs.com/agar11/
http://grayreefsharks.wetpaint.com/
http://graywolf.wetpaint.com/
http://www.freewebs.com/bbstar24/
http://pic7.piczo.com/go/albumeditor
Monday, February 12, 2007
Literacy Elitism
Last class we heard about the ImpaCT 2 findings in England that linked the amount of time students spend using network technologies with their attainment in different content areas. I couldn’t help but wonder if some of their findings were a correlation rather than a causal relationship. I do believe that networked technologies can affect students attainment but only if they are used in the correct way. I think this is why he found that in some schools and some subject areas technology did not have an affect on attainment. I see teachers using technology just to use it or to say that they use it. They do not use it effectively and it has no effect on the students learning. Sometimes it even encumbers learning. Technology should be used in the classroom only when it helps to meet learning goals.
He also brought up an important point that parents need to be more aware of what their children are doing on the internet. They need to know what they are learning and exactly how they are spending their leisure time. What are their children being exposed to? Who are they interacting with? Something as harmless looking as an online video game with cartoon looking characters can expose children to adults that are unconcerned about the content of their discussions and who is a part of them. The conversation posted in the blog below is tame compared to some of the conversations I have heard my guild members have in vent. This would be fine if we were all adults but we do have a couple of miners who talk on vent. The youngest of which is 15. Their parents should be aware of this. If they were aware of it I believe they would not approve.
Our class discussion also centered on textualization. I had never thought about how telling a story was so different from conversation and more like text. When I told my husband about the books he should read we had to entextualize the story. First I had to set up a space for myself to talk by asking him to let me tell him about the books I had read. He had to agree to let me talk and tell my story. I then told him a story that was told so that it could have been lifted out of the context and retold. Though there were still contextual clues in the story and it was dependent on the context it was told in.
If my husband decided to he wanted to tell someone else about the books I had read. He would also first need to make a space of time for him to speak. He would then decontextualize my story or take it out of the context it was told in. In his mind he may revise some of what I said in order to lift it out of the context. He would need to fill in any gaps left because of taking the story out of the context it was told in.
My husband would then need to recontextualize the story to fit it to the context he was telling it in. He might stress different aspects of the story depending on his audience. He might make reference to common experiences with his audience or to the setting of the story telling.
Olsen writes about text and its relationship to humans and society. He throws out a lot of the beliefs and cliques that western culture has created about text. He debunks the mythology of text. He discusses 6 deeply held beliefs society has about text that he says current scholarship has cast doubt on.
These beliefs and doubts are:
1. Writing is the transcription of speech – only certain properties of what is said is captured.
2. The superiority of writing to speech – writing is dependent on and secondary to speech, oral language is the main tool of the mind
3. The superiority of the alphabetic writing system – an aspect of our mythology and is limited in use, especially with homophones, other cultures been just as or more successful with different writing systems
4. Literacy is the organ of social progress – it is a mean of enslavement, domination and social control
5. Literacy is an instrument of cultural and scientific development – many great nations developed though dialectic or oral cultures, Greece was primarily oral not textual
6. Literacy is an instrument of cognitive development – you can’t connect means of communication to the knowledge communicated, reading ability depends on content, functional literacy depends on ones life
Until reading this book I held these same beliefs. This writing made me examine my beliefs about literacy. I never realized that my beliefs about literacy could be part of a western superiority complex and elitism. I realized that I am more ethnocentric than I believed. I question what this means for teaching literacy in schools and the importance society places on literacy as a tool students must learn while in school. What are we losing by emphasizing literacy?
He also brought up an important point that parents need to be more aware of what their children are doing on the internet. They need to know what they are learning and exactly how they are spending their leisure time. What are their children being exposed to? Who are they interacting with? Something as harmless looking as an online video game with cartoon looking characters can expose children to adults that are unconcerned about the content of their discussions and who is a part of them. The conversation posted in the blog below is tame compared to some of the conversations I have heard my guild members have in vent. This would be fine if we were all adults but we do have a couple of miners who talk on vent. The youngest of which is 15. Their parents should be aware of this. If they were aware of it I believe they would not approve.
Our class discussion also centered on textualization. I had never thought about how telling a story was so different from conversation and more like text. When I told my husband about the books he should read we had to entextualize the story. First I had to set up a space for myself to talk by asking him to let me tell him about the books I had read. He had to agree to let me talk and tell my story. I then told him a story that was told so that it could have been lifted out of the context and retold. Though there were still contextual clues in the story and it was dependent on the context it was told in.
If my husband decided to he wanted to tell someone else about the books I had read. He would also first need to make a space of time for him to speak. He would then decontextualize my story or take it out of the context it was told in. In his mind he may revise some of what I said in order to lift it out of the context. He would need to fill in any gaps left because of taking the story out of the context it was told in.
My husband would then need to recontextualize the story to fit it to the context he was telling it in. He might stress different aspects of the story depending on his audience. He might make reference to common experiences with his audience or to the setting of the story telling.
Olsen writes about text and its relationship to humans and society. He throws out a lot of the beliefs and cliques that western culture has created about text. He debunks the mythology of text. He discusses 6 deeply held beliefs society has about text that he says current scholarship has cast doubt on.
These beliefs and doubts are:
1. Writing is the transcription of speech – only certain properties of what is said is captured.
2. The superiority of writing to speech – writing is dependent on and secondary to speech, oral language is the main tool of the mind
3. The superiority of the alphabetic writing system – an aspect of our mythology and is limited in use, especially with homophones, other cultures been just as or more successful with different writing systems
4. Literacy is the organ of social progress – it is a mean of enslavement, domination and social control
5. Literacy is an instrument of cultural and scientific development – many great nations developed though dialectic or oral cultures, Greece was primarily oral not textual
6. Literacy is an instrument of cognitive development – you can’t connect means of communication to the knowledge communicated, reading ability depends on content, functional literacy depends on ones life
Until reading this book I held these same beliefs. This writing made me examine my beliefs about literacy. I never realized that my beliefs about literacy could be part of a western superiority complex and elitism. I realized that I am more ethnocentric than I believed. I question what this means for teaching literacy in schools and the importance society places on literacy as a tool students must learn while in school. What are we losing by emphasizing literacy?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Recorded Performance Reflections
I recorded a story I told my husband. He recently gave me a book to read that he really liked. I did not think it was as good as a series I had read and told him about the books I had read.
The context of the story I told effects how I told the story. I was speaking to my husband at home and not to a colleague or students. In that case my language would have been more formal. I also highlighted different aspects of the story than if I had been talking about it in a different setting. The fact that I was speaking to my husband effected what I said. This is an example of audience participation in the story. For example I downplayed the love story aspect of the book because I knew he would not be interested in it. I spoke at more length about the action and political intrigue in the book because I knew he would be more interested in those aspects. I also referred to other stories and books that I knew he was aware of. If I had a different audience I may not have been able to do that.
Another aspect of context is who I am. The speaker affects how the story is told. My point of view, my beliefs, my past experiences shape how I tell the story and what I think is important about the story to tell. Even my beliefs about my audience shape how I tell the story. My past and personality also shape the words I use to tell the story, my inflection and tone.
My husband also participated in the story by nodding and making facial expressions. I changed the direction I was going in while explaining the story because of a look on his face. I also explained a part more in depth than I would have if he had not looked confused. The head nods encouraged me to continue. I was monitoring my story and the effect it was having on him the entire time. He shared in the creation of my performance and it would have been very different if the context or audience had been different.
I noticed that there was music in the way I told the story. My inflection changed depending on what I was saying and the meaning I wanted to get across to my husband that was not in the content of my performance. I also made gestures with my hands and head. How I did this may be important for my relationship with my husband. “Basso and Seeger argue that musical dimensions of performance can shape linguistic patterning and social relations.”(Bauman and Briggs, 1990)
Telling my story was an action. I was trying to convince my husband to read the book. There was purpose to my speaking and it was the action of persuasion. The illocutionary force of my story was: This is a good story. You should read it. I think the perlocutionary force was: This was a story Amy liked and wants me to share. It did not convince him to read the book.
The language in the story was different than a conversation in many ways. My utterance was much longer and not interrupted by another person. The performance also included stalling words like “um” that were not present in the conversation. My sentences were longer and I took longer pauses while speaking. I had the floor and was not afraid of losing it until I was done. I also spoke slower than I do in a conversation.
My performance was more than just an action of persuasion. It is also an action because it is part of the creation of reality and the structure of my marriage. I was also communicating that I love my husband and want him to share good experiences with me. I was communicating this message as well as trying to convince him to read the book, as well as communicating the content of the performance, the plot of the books. Performance plays a part in the social construction of reality. This is an example of my husband and me constructing our reality. This performance is also tied to past performances. We have shared books in the past and the book I am currently reading is one my husband convinced me to read. We have learned to trust each others opinions through past experiences.
The context of the story I told effects how I told the story. I was speaking to my husband at home and not to a colleague or students. In that case my language would have been more formal. I also highlighted different aspects of the story than if I had been talking about it in a different setting. The fact that I was speaking to my husband effected what I said. This is an example of audience participation in the story. For example I downplayed the love story aspect of the book because I knew he would not be interested in it. I spoke at more length about the action and political intrigue in the book because I knew he would be more interested in those aspects. I also referred to other stories and books that I knew he was aware of. If I had a different audience I may not have been able to do that.
Another aspect of context is who I am. The speaker affects how the story is told. My point of view, my beliefs, my past experiences shape how I tell the story and what I think is important about the story to tell. Even my beliefs about my audience shape how I tell the story. My past and personality also shape the words I use to tell the story, my inflection and tone.
My husband also participated in the story by nodding and making facial expressions. I changed the direction I was going in while explaining the story because of a look on his face. I also explained a part more in depth than I would have if he had not looked confused. The head nods encouraged me to continue. I was monitoring my story and the effect it was having on him the entire time. He shared in the creation of my performance and it would have been very different if the context or audience had been different.
I noticed that there was music in the way I told the story. My inflection changed depending on what I was saying and the meaning I wanted to get across to my husband that was not in the content of my performance. I also made gestures with my hands and head. How I did this may be important for my relationship with my husband. “Basso and Seeger argue that musical dimensions of performance can shape linguistic patterning and social relations.”(Bauman and Briggs, 1990)
Telling my story was an action. I was trying to convince my husband to read the book. There was purpose to my speaking and it was the action of persuasion. The illocutionary force of my story was: This is a good story. You should read it. I think the perlocutionary force was: This was a story Amy liked and wants me to share. It did not convince him to read the book.
The language in the story was different than a conversation in many ways. My utterance was much longer and not interrupted by another person. The performance also included stalling words like “um” that were not present in the conversation. My sentences were longer and I took longer pauses while speaking. I had the floor and was not afraid of losing it until I was done. I also spoke slower than I do in a conversation.
My performance was more than just an action of persuasion. It is also an action because it is part of the creation of reality and the structure of my marriage. I was also communicating that I love my husband and want him to share good experiences with me. I was communicating this message as well as trying to convince him to read the book, as well as communicating the content of the performance, the plot of the books. Performance plays a part in the social construction of reality. This is an example of my husband and me constructing our reality. This performance is also tied to past performances. We have shared books in the past and the book I am currently reading is one my husband convinced me to read. We have learned to trust each others opinions through past experiences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)