Wow. I have not come back to this blog since I finished my class in 2007. It reminded me how what you publish on the internet can stay there forever. It was nice to see I had a few comments but I felt bad that I was unable to answer the questions of some of the commenters. I didn't realize people would actually find my blog or want to read it. It is interesting that my blog pops up as the second listing when you search multimodal literacy. I am not an expert on the topic and I hope people have not quoted me as one. I wonder if any students have used my blog in their projects. Don't do it! My favorite posting has to be the middle school student who wanted to share the website he created for school along with the websites my students created. That is awesome!
So why am I back? I think that writing about what I am reading really helps me to think through, process and reflect on what I am reading. It also motivates me to make connections. I am hoping that sharing through this blog will motivate me to do more writing and help me on my quest to finish my dissertation. I am not an expert; just a person trying to think deeply. Hey, and maybe someone will read this and be interested in a topic I discuss or even make a comment!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Monday, April 16, 2007
Multimodal Literacy
Literacy is multimodal. People communicate through symbols other than writing. Students may be more familiar and comfortable with other types of symbol creation. Students understanding of all types of symbol making can be used to enrich their understanding of literacy both traditional and multimodal. Students will be asked to be literate in more than just reading in their future jobs and lives. Language arts in schools should better reflect the use of literacy in the lives of students.
Students will not encounter literacy that is as verbal or text centered as it is in the classroom. We are doing them a disservice by making this so. At risk students may also have more opportunity to be successful if literacy in the classroom is open to a more multimodal approach. Children's first experiences of literacy is connected to images. There is not a good reason to remove images as students get older. Many students that have difficulty reading can not create images in their heads of what they are reading. They can not visualize what they are reading. Bringing images back to text may help these students begin to visualize.
Texts are material and should not be transparent. Changing texts from a material paper to the internet does not lesson their materiality. However, this change in form should not be ignored. The change in technology changes writing and literacy. It changes how literacy is used, how it looks and how it is interpreted.
Connecting pictures to text is not new. There is a long history in the use of pictures with text. New technologies have made images free and easier to obtain. It has "destroyed the authority of art." (Selzer and Crowley, 1999) Advertising uses images and text. They use cultural associations to communicate with the audience through images. Images on the internet can have material consequences.
Students will not encounter literacy that is as verbal or text centered as it is in the classroom. We are doing them a disservice by making this so. At risk students may also have more opportunity to be successful if literacy in the classroom is open to a more multimodal approach. Children's first experiences of literacy is connected to images. There is not a good reason to remove images as students get older. Many students that have difficulty reading can not create images in their heads of what they are reading. They can not visualize what they are reading. Bringing images back to text may help these students begin to visualize.
Texts are material and should not be transparent. Changing texts from a material paper to the internet does not lesson their materiality. However, this change in form should not be ignored. The change in technology changes writing and literacy. It changes how literacy is used, how it looks and how it is interpreted.
Connecting pictures to text is not new. There is a long history in the use of pictures with text. New technologies have made images free and easier to obtain. It has "destroyed the authority of art." (Selzer and Crowley, 1999) Advertising uses images and text. They use cultural associations to communicate with the audience through images. Images on the internet can have material consequences.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Networked Media
Log of my Networked Media Usage:
-Visited websites for information
-Visited community websites to communicate with friends
-Visited and posted on forums
-Posted creative and intellectual works on blogs
-Used online simulations with students
-Used United Streaming videos with students
-File sharing within my school and department
-Received and wrote emails for work, social, and organizational reasons
-Entertainment - World of Warcraft, massively multiplayer online role playing game (playing and communicating with friends) ; YouTube ; On-Demand cable
-Ventrillo - communicate with multiple friends around the country at one time through oral communication
-Phone - my telephone is connected through the cable modem
I found the Hypertext Garden's article very disorienting. I was concerned that I would miss something because of all the twists and turns the links provided. I was not comfortable with the non-linear fashion of the text. This does not mean that the non-linear organization is a bad thing. It definitely helped to get the idea of the article across. After I was finished reading the article I felt as though I had accomplished something and I also better understood the author's points. The rigid navigational tools websites have can limit creativity and hide important facets of the website. The website demonstrated how the shortest path may not always be the best. The ideas of this piece are completely opposite from what we teach our students. How do we incorporate this new type of literacy, that students will experience more and more, in the classroom. If we do not conform to rigid structure how do we make sure that readers do not get lost in the creative work. Clear boundaries and sign posts are important but if they are not used well readers may get more than a little disoriented.
Hypertextuality in children's literature is another example of how our students use and come into contact with media that is very different from the type of literacy we teach in the classroom. Teachers often may emphasize form over content. The options students have in which to express their creativity are very limited. Students need to have experience with creating texts in which their creativity is allowed to take them outside of form. They also need to have experience creating texts that are more like the ones they will come into contact with in their lives. This is not to say that students shouldn't learn how to read and write in more traditional literary ways. There is still a place and a need for students to have these skills. However, this should not be the only type of literacy students are asked to engage in at school. Students need to be able to write non-linear, multi-modal, multi-perspective narratives. They should experiment with textual form, imagery and graphics. Limiting expression to fit literary rules and norms may now be an outdated form of literacy.
I am currently reading "Nothing But the Truth" to my students. This book uses hypertextuality. It has multiple perspectives and voices. It also uses visual aspects that I have difficulty reading aloud to the students. My students have never been as engaged or interested in a book I have read aloud before.
The instant messaging study also supports the idea that students need a new type of literacy that incorporates the new technologies that have become a part of life. It also recommends that teachers use the literacy skills students are developing through their use of IM in their classrooms to engage students in more traditional forms of literacy. Students may be more engaged if the literary learning in the classroom has a greater connection to social mediation of identities, is multi-modal, more imaginative, collaborative and innovative. Students, over IM, build their own multi-threaded social narrative. Teachers need to be more flexible in their reading practices.
The complex ways in which students chose to use literacy over IM was encouraging. Some of these literary exercises could be used in a literary classroom. Over IM there was a complex use of language by students which included narrative strategies, metaphors, and nonlinguistic and visual elements. Students were spelling and punctuation conscious. They were also aware of tone and voice in writing. They were conscious of word choice and audience. They designed a hybrid spoken/written literacy. Students also valued context and self-monitored.
I have used PowerPoint in my class before. I never thought about what negative consequences it may have had for my students. It had become a transparent tool to me. I did not use PowerPoint in the ways that the article listed. I have never used the default because I have my own ideas of what I want to present to my students and how. I often include pictures, demonstrations, actual objects, class discussion and narrative along with the slides. I have never used the bullets. I have however said, "That will be addressed later in the presentation." Yikes!
I recently learned about action buttons in PowerPoint slides. These buttons can help relieve the linear nature of PowerPoint slides. They allow the presenter to go to any slide at any time with a click. It makes the PowerPoint presentation more like a website.
I am the most concerned about the idea that PowerPoint presentations leave the students passive. Students should never be passive in their own learning; they need to be actively constructing their own knowledge. They should decide what is important and what is not. We should not over-simplify the content and we need to make sure to still include multiple ways of knowing in our classrooms. Breaking content down into bite sized pieces may not be what is best for our students minds. When will their critical and analytical thinking skills be exercised?
Has PowerPoint changed my view of my content area? I have not used it enough for this to happen. When I do use it I use in in my own creative way. I do need to be aware of the effects the way I use PowerPoint may have on my students. I should also take a look at other technologies I often use in the classroom that may have become transparent to me. What "bad" habits have I fallen into? What invitations have I accepted?
-Visited websites for information
-Visited community websites to communicate with friends
-Visited and posted on forums
-Posted creative and intellectual works on blogs
-Used online simulations with students
-Used United Streaming videos with students
-File sharing within my school and department
-Received and wrote emails for work, social, and organizational reasons
-Entertainment - World of Warcraft, massively multiplayer online role playing game (playing and communicating with friends) ; YouTube ; On-Demand cable
-Ventrillo - communicate with multiple friends around the country at one time through oral communication
-Phone - my telephone is connected through the cable modem
I found the Hypertext Garden's article very disorienting. I was concerned that I would miss something because of all the twists and turns the links provided. I was not comfortable with the non-linear fashion of the text. This does not mean that the non-linear organization is a bad thing. It definitely helped to get the idea of the article across. After I was finished reading the article I felt as though I had accomplished something and I also better understood the author's points. The rigid navigational tools websites have can limit creativity and hide important facets of the website. The website demonstrated how the shortest path may not always be the best. The ideas of this piece are completely opposite from what we teach our students. How do we incorporate this new type of literacy, that students will experience more and more, in the classroom. If we do not conform to rigid structure how do we make sure that readers do not get lost in the creative work. Clear boundaries and sign posts are important but if they are not used well readers may get more than a little disoriented.
Hypertextuality in children's literature is another example of how our students use and come into contact with media that is very different from the type of literacy we teach in the classroom. Teachers often may emphasize form over content. The options students have in which to express their creativity are very limited. Students need to have experience with creating texts in which their creativity is allowed to take them outside of form. They also need to have experience creating texts that are more like the ones they will come into contact with in their lives. This is not to say that students shouldn't learn how to read and write in more traditional literary ways. There is still a place and a need for students to have these skills. However, this should not be the only type of literacy students are asked to engage in at school. Students need to be able to write non-linear, multi-modal, multi-perspective narratives. They should experiment with textual form, imagery and graphics. Limiting expression to fit literary rules and norms may now be an outdated form of literacy.
I am currently reading "Nothing But the Truth" to my students. This book uses hypertextuality. It has multiple perspectives and voices. It also uses visual aspects that I have difficulty reading aloud to the students. My students have never been as engaged or interested in a book I have read aloud before.
The instant messaging study also supports the idea that students need a new type of literacy that incorporates the new technologies that have become a part of life. It also recommends that teachers use the literacy skills students are developing through their use of IM in their classrooms to engage students in more traditional forms of literacy. Students may be more engaged if the literary learning in the classroom has a greater connection to social mediation of identities, is multi-modal, more imaginative, collaborative and innovative. Students, over IM, build their own multi-threaded social narrative. Teachers need to be more flexible in their reading practices.
The complex ways in which students chose to use literacy over IM was encouraging. Some of these literary exercises could be used in a literary classroom. Over IM there was a complex use of language by students which included narrative strategies, metaphors, and nonlinguistic and visual elements. Students were spelling and punctuation conscious. They were also aware of tone and voice in writing. They were conscious of word choice and audience. They designed a hybrid spoken/written literacy. Students also valued context and self-monitored.
I have used PowerPoint in my class before. I never thought about what negative consequences it may have had for my students. It had become a transparent tool to me. I did not use PowerPoint in the ways that the article listed. I have never used the default because I have my own ideas of what I want to present to my students and how. I often include pictures, demonstrations, actual objects, class discussion and narrative along with the slides. I have never used the bullets. I have however said, "That will be addressed later in the presentation." Yikes!
I recently learned about action buttons in PowerPoint slides. These buttons can help relieve the linear nature of PowerPoint slides. They allow the presenter to go to any slide at any time with a click. It makes the PowerPoint presentation more like a website.
I am the most concerned about the idea that PowerPoint presentations leave the students passive. Students should never be passive in their own learning; they need to be actively constructing their own knowledge. They should decide what is important and what is not. We should not over-simplify the content and we need to make sure to still include multiple ways of knowing in our classrooms. Breaking content down into bite sized pieces may not be what is best for our students minds. When will their critical and analytical thinking skills be exercised?
Has PowerPoint changed my view of my content area? I have not used it enough for this to happen. When I do use it I use in in my own creative way. I do need to be aware of the effects the way I use PowerPoint may have on my students. I should also take a look at other technologies I often use in the classroom that may have become transparent to me. What "bad" habits have I fallen into? What invitations have I accepted?
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Medium of Television
One of the readings gave the definition of media literacy as able to access, analyze, evaluate and produce print and electronic media. Students are not being taught to or asked to practice all of these aspects of media literacy in most classrooms. All teachers would not be described as media literate under this definition as well. But the definition has key aspects that people who live in a democratic and capitalist country need to be able to do well in order to be critical citizens.
Many of the lesson ideas for incorporating media in the classroom were inquiry based and included critical and evaluative thinking. The lessons that included hip hop also emphasized critical thinking as a tool for empowerment. I would love to include hip hop in my lesson plans. Many of my students would be more motivated and interested in the lesson.
I do not spend a lot of time watching TV. However, I know that many Americans, especially my students, do spend a lot of time in front of the TV. I am glad to see that if students are taught to be critical thinkers they may not be turned into mindless enculturated robots by corporate television giants. The producers may get to decide what messages they want to send but they are not in control of who their audience is and how their messages are decoded by that audience. I hope that through education we can get students to use negotiated code at least. I want my students to question what they watch on TV. I want them to think about it and have a knowledge and understanding of the world to decide for themselves.
Oppositional code is not always wrong it may even be correct the majority of the time. If the message that the media is trying to get across is wrong then my students need to be able to operate out of an oppositional code. The reading states that decoding is not just social class but ones discourse position. This means that if someone does not have the language and understanding to negotiate or be oppositional they will not, even if the message is against their interests. Teachers need to give students the language and knowledge so that they can think for themselves and use negotiable and oppositional code when it is called for.
Last week we read about how big corporations are going to control the "development" of culture in the US if current trends continue. These corporations operate within the financial economy. This week we are given hope through the idea of the cultural economy. The cultural economy is concerned with meanings, pleasure and social identities. This is where the power of the audience can help to control the development of culture. The audience can take the control out of corporate hands. If they do not watch a new TV show it will not be successful, it will not sell commercials, and the corporation will need to find a different show. The audience can affect the financial economy the corporations care so much about.
TV is not making us more stupid. TV is getting smarter. It is exercising thinking skills more today than it ever has in the past. Audiences want more cognitively demanding shows. TV shows today require the audience to make inferences, follow multiple interweaving story threads at one time, fill in or question present information gaps, evaluate difficult social issues, and understand and predict complex social networks. While reading this article I thought of an example of a show that leaves information out that its audience may or may not know. The show "Gilmore Girls" includes a complex narrative structure as well as complex social issues. It has a very quick dialogue that includes frequent quotes and phrases that many people in the audience may not get. The dialogue references current events, pop culture, classical literature, etc. These references occur so often that the DVDs of the show actually come with a study guide in which people can look up references they do not understand.
I read the script of a movie and then watched the movie. It was difficult to find a script of a movie I owned but I finally got lucky with the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" by Joss Whedon. I was very surprised at how different the script and the movie were. The entire original opening scene was cut from the movie. Much of the dialogue was changed as well. For instance, the script in one place has the line, "It's so '91," instead the actress said "It's so 5 minutes ago." Additional dialogue was also included. Once the literature is turned into dialogue changes must be made in order to maintain a sense of realism. The interpretation of the writing by the actors was also visible. There are a lot of people involved in the making of a movie. All of these people interpret the script (a piece of writing) differently.
An interesting note is the after this movie was produced the writer of the script went on to produce and direct his own show with the same main character and a different set of actors. The Buffy in the TV series more closely resembles to Buffy written into the script of the movie. Many of the snappy smart lines in the script were missing from the movie. These type of lines were included in the TV show.
There is a lot of information missing about the emotions and blocking of the actors during each scene in the script. This information must be interpreted into the performance by the actors and the director. There is a lot going on in a scene that can't be described by a script. Each person must decide how they are going to stand, how they are going to speak the line, and what facial expressions they will have throughout the scene. Much of communication is nonverbal and this is left out of most of the script. The nonverbal communication by the actors will greatly affect how the audience decodes the message. Humans tend to pay attention to body language more than verbal language. If the two are in opposition to each other the message the body language is communicating is the one most likely to be decoded.
Many of the lesson ideas for incorporating media in the classroom were inquiry based and included critical and evaluative thinking. The lessons that included hip hop also emphasized critical thinking as a tool for empowerment. I would love to include hip hop in my lesson plans. Many of my students would be more motivated and interested in the lesson.
I do not spend a lot of time watching TV. However, I know that many Americans, especially my students, do spend a lot of time in front of the TV. I am glad to see that if students are taught to be critical thinkers they may not be turned into mindless enculturated robots by corporate television giants. The producers may get to decide what messages they want to send but they are not in control of who their audience is and how their messages are decoded by that audience. I hope that through education we can get students to use negotiated code at least. I want my students to question what they watch on TV. I want them to think about it and have a knowledge and understanding of the world to decide for themselves.
Oppositional code is not always wrong it may even be correct the majority of the time. If the message that the media is trying to get across is wrong then my students need to be able to operate out of an oppositional code. The reading states that decoding is not just social class but ones discourse position. This means that if someone does not have the language and understanding to negotiate or be oppositional they will not, even if the message is against their interests. Teachers need to give students the language and knowledge so that they can think for themselves and use negotiable and oppositional code when it is called for.
Last week we read about how big corporations are going to control the "development" of culture in the US if current trends continue. These corporations operate within the financial economy. This week we are given hope through the idea of the cultural economy. The cultural economy is concerned with meanings, pleasure and social identities. This is where the power of the audience can help to control the development of culture. The audience can take the control out of corporate hands. If they do not watch a new TV show it will not be successful, it will not sell commercials, and the corporation will need to find a different show. The audience can affect the financial economy the corporations care so much about.
TV is not making us more stupid. TV is getting smarter. It is exercising thinking skills more today than it ever has in the past. Audiences want more cognitively demanding shows. TV shows today require the audience to make inferences, follow multiple interweaving story threads at one time, fill in or question present information gaps, evaluate difficult social issues, and understand and predict complex social networks. While reading this article I thought of an example of a show that leaves information out that its audience may or may not know. The show "Gilmore Girls" includes a complex narrative structure as well as complex social issues. It has a very quick dialogue that includes frequent quotes and phrases that many people in the audience may not get. The dialogue references current events, pop culture, classical literature, etc. These references occur so often that the DVDs of the show actually come with a study guide in which people can look up references they do not understand.
I read the script of a movie and then watched the movie. It was difficult to find a script of a movie I owned but I finally got lucky with the movie "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" by Joss Whedon. I was very surprised at how different the script and the movie were. The entire original opening scene was cut from the movie. Much of the dialogue was changed as well. For instance, the script in one place has the line, "It's so '91," instead the actress said "It's so 5 minutes ago." Additional dialogue was also included. Once the literature is turned into dialogue changes must be made in order to maintain a sense of realism. The interpretation of the writing by the actors was also visible. There are a lot of people involved in the making of a movie. All of these people interpret the script (a piece of writing) differently.
An interesting note is the after this movie was produced the writer of the script went on to produce and direct his own show with the same main character and a different set of actors. The Buffy in the TV series more closely resembles to Buffy written into the script of the movie. Many of the snappy smart lines in the script were missing from the movie. These type of lines were included in the TV show.
There is a lot of information missing about the emotions and blocking of the actors during each scene in the script. This information must be interpreted into the performance by the actors and the director. There is a lot going on in a scene that can't be described by a script. Each person must decide how they are going to stand, how they are going to speak the line, and what facial expressions they will have throughout the scene. Much of communication is nonverbal and this is left out of most of the script. The nonverbal communication by the actors will greatly affect how the audience decodes the message. Humans tend to pay attention to body language more than verbal language. If the two are in opposition to each other the message the body language is communicating is the one most likely to be decoded.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Wow
Today I heard my husband reply to someone..."Well, the guy who owns the rights to Shakespeare would sue." This made me see how ingrained the idea of ownership of creative works is. We believe that all works are owned and we do not have the right to creatively derive anything legally. I wonder how far this belief, and in some cases misunderstanding of the law, has gone to stifle creativity. Do we even believe in the public domain any more? Corporations have done a good job enculturating us to believe that every creative idea is owned by someone. The fact that they are also getting the law to back them up makes me even more fearful for the future of free speech and creativity.
Corporate Control of Creativity
The readings discussed the sense of ownership people have for their creative works. The readings discussed the history of this very American idea and belief as well as whether ownership of creative works is good. What effect does ownership versus a socially or community created view point have on the future of our culture and new creative ideas and works?
Ownership should be protected and people should have the right to earn a living from their creative works. Society needs to be careful that our regulations do not stifle creativity and free speech. If only a few people have control over the messages that can become public than our culture will become stagnant and our free speech right has been taken from us. Our culture should be able to develop freely. A few companies should not control the development of our societies culture. Homogeneity is not good. Americans have always taken pride in our perceived individuality. This is being threatened by the changes in technology, regulation and the market. We need to make sure that "fair use" is protected.
This has implications for my students. If this does not change and continues along the same trends they will enter a culture that is not interested in their new ideas and creative works. They may not even be able to find a venue in which to share their work if it does not fit into the controlling companies idea of what should be media. The fact that these companies will not allow controversial adds is concerning to me. Controversial issues has been the life blood of this country. This trend will lead to a less and less democratic nation. Democracy can not flourish in a culture that is controlled in this way.
There should definitely be restrictions on copying of creative works. But not to the extent at which it stifles creativity and puts the control of the "development" of culture in the hands of the few.
The statement by Diane Ravitch that "teachers don't need creativity. Teachers need to use methods that have proved successful." is ludicrous. Methods that have been "proved" successful are often not successful for all groups. The success of the methods are dependent on the teacher and the students they were used with. It is difficult and often impossible to generalize research in education on teaching methods. When you remove the teachers input and creativity you remove and important aspect of the classroom. You may hinder the connection between the teacher and the students. The teacher can not meet individual student needs and learning styles that will help them to be more successful. The model of using basal readers and scripts for teachers goes against the beliefs of most good teachers that know that students will not learn best in this way. If you remove the creativity from the teacher you may also remove the creative opportunities for the students. Social efficiency is not the greatest good. When schooling is view in an economic way you ignore many important facets, purposes and potential valuable uses of schooling.
Should impersonal capitalist corporations have control of our education system? An education system that also imparts social norms and culture to its students?
The idea of praxis is also important. It is one thing to have ideas, to see the problems in society. But it does not good to understand without acting. Praxis is the important joining of understanding or ideas and action. All critical theory should include praxis. Unfortunately, I have seen little praxis in much of the theory I have read.
I have students work in cooperative groups quite a bit. I never thought about the issues they might have based on their sense of ownership of their work. The idea / expression dichotomy is an interesting concept. I have had students make a point of telling me what was their idea in the project. This may come from a sense that their ideas are not as protected or owned as their words (expression) are. They are uncomfortable with the publicness of their ideas and are afraid they will be "stolen." It would be beneficial for my students to think about these issues critically. They should examine their beliefs about ownership of expression and ideas.
I remember struggling with this concept myself as a student when my mother would edit my papers and I would feel as though they were no longer "my words." I would loose my sense of ownership. I could not feel comfortable with a more communal sense of creative production. I am sure my students struggle with this issue as well.
Ownership should be protected and people should have the right to earn a living from their creative works. Society needs to be careful that our regulations do not stifle creativity and free speech. If only a few people have control over the messages that can become public than our culture will become stagnant and our free speech right has been taken from us. Our culture should be able to develop freely. A few companies should not control the development of our societies culture. Homogeneity is not good. Americans have always taken pride in our perceived individuality. This is being threatened by the changes in technology, regulation and the market. We need to make sure that "fair use" is protected.
This has implications for my students. If this does not change and continues along the same trends they will enter a culture that is not interested in their new ideas and creative works. They may not even be able to find a venue in which to share their work if it does not fit into the controlling companies idea of what should be media. The fact that these companies will not allow controversial adds is concerning to me. Controversial issues has been the life blood of this country. This trend will lead to a less and less democratic nation. Democracy can not flourish in a culture that is controlled in this way.
There should definitely be restrictions on copying of creative works. But not to the extent at which it stifles creativity and puts the control of the "development" of culture in the hands of the few.
The statement by Diane Ravitch that "teachers don't need creativity. Teachers need to use methods that have proved successful." is ludicrous. Methods that have been "proved" successful are often not successful for all groups. The success of the methods are dependent on the teacher and the students they were used with. It is difficult and often impossible to generalize research in education on teaching methods. When you remove the teachers input and creativity you remove and important aspect of the classroom. You may hinder the connection between the teacher and the students. The teacher can not meet individual student needs and learning styles that will help them to be more successful. The model of using basal readers and scripts for teachers goes against the beliefs of most good teachers that know that students will not learn best in this way. If you remove the creativity from the teacher you may also remove the creative opportunities for the students. Social efficiency is not the greatest good. When schooling is view in an economic way you ignore many important facets, purposes and potential valuable uses of schooling.
Should impersonal capitalist corporations have control of our education system? An education system that also imparts social norms and culture to its students?
The idea of praxis is also important. It is one thing to have ideas, to see the problems in society. But it does not good to understand without acting. Praxis is the important joining of understanding or ideas and action. All critical theory should include praxis. Unfortunately, I have seen little praxis in much of the theory I have read.
I have students work in cooperative groups quite a bit. I never thought about the issues they might have based on their sense of ownership of their work. The idea / expression dichotomy is an interesting concept. I have had students make a point of telling me what was their idea in the project. This may come from a sense that their ideas are not as protected or owned as their words (expression) are. They are uncomfortable with the publicness of their ideas and are afraid they will be "stolen." It would be beneficial for my students to think about these issues critically. They should examine their beliefs about ownership of expression and ideas.
I remember struggling with this concept myself as a student when my mother would edit my papers and I would feel as though they were no longer "my words." I would loose my sense of ownership. I could not feel comfortable with a more communal sense of creative production. I am sure my students struggle with this issue as well.
Monday, February 26, 2007
The Technology Question and Tools
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)