Haas, Eisenstein, Bomer

WARNING: This blog entry is long. Sorry, I had a lot to say about the Haas article and for that reason, I’ve only commented on it and not Eisentstein or Bomer. :)

Haas

I found the Haas chapters fascinating. Olson touched on the fact that the various technologies of literacy are intricately tied to literacy itself, but Haas really brought that out clearly for me. I especially liked that Haas so clearly articulated the purpose of her text and she gave guidelines as to how to proceed with further research. The notion that people from many disciplines need to collaborate to do research seems like a “well, duh” moment, but the separation of content areas is so ingrained in us from preschool onward that it’s no wonder this is only beginning to happen. Integration is key to understanding the world, for no one theory acts completely alone and in isolation from historical, political, and many other contexts. However, as Haas discusses what needs to be done to research the materiality of writing, the task seems overwhelmingly huge and complicated. I wonder if it could ever be carried out effectively.

Haas talks a lot about the two myths of technology: technology as transparent and technology as all-powerful. On page 22, she says “Viewing technology as transparent encourages a belief that writers can use computer technology without being shaped by it.” I actually mentioned in our small group discussions in class last Monday that my boyfriend (a high school teacher) mentioned that his students talk like how they text message – informal, clipped speech. How is that for technology shaping the user? Certainly instant messaging, texting, blogging and other technologies shape our literacy. In fact, I just read an article in the Austin American Statesman (reprinted from the New York Times) about how many people across the country use blogs as a way to share their financial difficulties anonymously. They don’t want their families or friends to know, but they want to get it off their chests. The blog lets them do that, as well as being a sort of motivating force to stay on track with their budgets – they know their readers are watching them. Click here to see this article.



Of the second myth, that of technology being all-powerful, Haas says on page 33, “when technology is seen instrumentally, it is possible to believe that technology is the province only of technologists, experts from another domain, whose job it is to ‘do’ technology.” As a technology facilitator, it is my job to help teachers integrate technology into their curriculum in authentic, meaningful ways that support the TEKS. But, I am often approached in the way Haas is talking about. Teachers say, “can you come do the technology part of this unit?” They know the technology is important (or, at the very least, they know it is required by the state), but they view it as the technology person’s job to do it all. When in reality it is much more powerful for the teacher to do it and make it seemless and authentic (though not transparent!). I’m there for support and to help them plan and find resources and occassionally teach a lesson. I know I’m kind of on a soap box here, but it’s a frustration I deal with daily in my job and one that Haas hit right on the head. Another aspect of the technology as all powerful myth that Haas discusses is on page 35 when she talks about “far-reaching and profound – but essentially one-way – effects.” I see this a lot in my job as well. New programs and software will come out and teachers view them as if they will fix all their problems. I call it “fix-it syndrome.” I know it doesn’t just apply to technology either, but to new theories and practices in education. People think that the newest and latest will be the answer to all of their problems in the classroom, and when it's not, they move on to the next big thing and view it as the answer. It happens over and over and over and it’s frustrating. As educators, we must get over this “all-powerful” view of new technologies and ideas and look at them for what they are – another tool to help one teach. Again, I know I’m on a soap box (but, hey, it’s my blog, right?) and I know that this isn’t exactly what Haas was talking about, but these are the connections I made, for what they’re worth.

I found chapter 2 to be especially interesting. Haas talks about the shift in writing with pencil and paper, to writing on the computer. I’ve typed my final drafts on the computer since high school, but at about my junior year in college (six or seven years ago) I started to compose papers almost entirely on the computer. This has radically changed the way I write scholarly papers. With pencil and paper, I would write a draft, use a different color to revise and edit it, then write another draft. On the computer, I often revise and edit as I go and end up with a near final draft. However, I still always print that out and read through it once again with editing pen in hand. Also, even though most of my composition of papers now takes place on the computer, I still make notes in texts I research and I usually make some kind of outline on paper before I sit down at the computer. So, at this point, for me at least, word processing has not eclipsed pen and paper, I’ve simply meshed the two together and created my own system of using both, so that if one were to be taken away, I would again have to radically change my process of writing. The computer, for me, has become just as important as pen and paper to writing, and vice versa. I couldn’t use just one.

The last topic I want to discuss regarding Haas deals with what she discusses on page 46. She says, “ For Connerton, activities as diverse as appropriate table manners and jazz piano playing are strongly based in bodily movements and feelings; embodies ‘habit-memory’.” I took piano lessons for 8 years as a child and teenager. I was also almost always involved in some sort of dance, mostly colorguard which I did for 7 years (yes, I’m a total band dork. Holla Emily!) (here’s a Wikipedia link if you don’t know what colorguard is – be warned, the picture is crap, there are way better looking colorguards than the one they posted. Here is a link to the Winter Guard International website, too, if you’re interested). As a teacher, I tried to incorporate movement and use of the body into my classroom everyday. We did brain gym, we acted out stories, we did some dramatic theater. I think the body is extremely important to how we think. Just remember a time when you were sitting in a lecture in a frigid room. Could you concentrate? No, because your body wasn’t comfortable. I found the “habit-memory” statement particularly interesting because I have long relied on what I call muscle-memory. When I played the piano and I had to memorize a piece, I didn’t really memorize the notes, I memorized how my hands and fingers felt as I played the piece and where they were in relation to the keyboard – muscle memory. In colorguard and dance, learning a show required not so much that I remembered the names of the movements I was making, but that I remembered what my body was supposed to do, and what muscles I was supposed to use to carry out the movement. And once learned, my muscles did it for me and I could focus on performing. In fact, this whole muscle-memory thing can be carried out to almost everything we do: typing, writing, driving a car, changing channels on the TV, brushing our teeth, setting the table, cooking well-known recipes, tying our shoes, making the bed, and many more. How many of these activities do we actually think about? Not many; our bodies do it for us because the actions to carry them out are so ingrained. So, I think Haas is right to bring writing back to the technology of the body and to make the connection with the way we think and function in everyday life with the body. I really don’t think you can separate mind and body at all.