Multimodality

It is so completely true that children learn in a multimodal fashion. Not only do they want to write stories at school, but illustrate them and perform them for classmates. This multimodality is especially true when it comes to technology. Students increasingly want to create presentations on the computer using text, images, sounds, transitions, even movies. Students often come to school knowing more about technology than their teachers. They've already been online and have most likely been playing multimodal computer games for years. As educators, we must recognize the value of this kind of pre-existing literacy and analyze how it can help that particular student become literate in other areas. Faigly's article was written in 1999 and he mentioned that not every household is connected to the Internet. I think that is still true, but not nearly as much now as it was then. I've worked at "underprivileged" schools and upper middle class schools and both populations had a wealth of prior knowledge of technology and the Internet from use at home, at friend's houses, at the library, and at school. I really liked the example of the Zapatista and how they used the available technology to their advantage to further their message. This is what we should be teaching in school: authentic ways to use literacy to solve problems.

IM, Hypertext, PowerPoint, Etc.

Contemporary education is living in the past. We are not taking advantage of all the new literacies that so engage our students in their daily lives. Lewis' and Fabos' study of IM helps to prove this. I was astounded at the complex ways these teens were using language to IM each other. Children today are truly digital natives and we must adjust our teaching practices to fit this. As I read this article, I often thought back to when I was teaching third grade a couple of years ago and how I taught writing. I remembered my struggle to teach such vague concepts as audience and voice. Although I'm not sure many of my third graders were actively involved in IM'ing each other, I wish I had thought to use more their social literacy to teach those concepts. Another point this article brought up for me was internet filters. They abound in today's schools and I'm not entirely sure they should be there at all, especially at middle and high school. The article mentioned reading and creating blogs as a way to teach writing concepts in the classroom. Here I am in graduate level courses keeping blogs and making wikis, and these have been wonderful, engaging learning experiences for me. But, in a public school, filters often get in the way of doing these types of things. I really think that if teachers actively teach kids how to use and navigate the internet and what to do if they do come across an inappropriate site, that filters aren't needed. I think they hinder more than they help.

I really enjoyed the Power Point article as well. In fact, I just attended a training on using Power Point more effectively. The trainer said more than once that we must return the focus to the presenter and not the ppt, and I totally agree. I have a class this semester that relies heavily on ppt and it's, frankly, boring. As a teacher, I didn't use it much to teach, especially since I taught elementary school and 8 year olds don't do well with lectures. But, my kids used it all the time and I certainly think it has a place in the classroom if it is used well. The author mentioned several times that ppt constricts information to a linear, organized nature. However, through the use of action buttons, links, hypertext, video, and pictures, one can create a ppt much like the hypertext article we had to read for this week, or the modern children's literature that Hammerberg cites: a non-linear composition where the reader can decide where to go, what pathways to take. Teachers using ppt for lectures can certainly do this, too. As with anything, I think that teachers should use ppt in moderation to deliver lessons. No teaching method I've encountered advocates doing the same thing for every single situation and every single lesson. It should all depend on the students and the content. If the students are creating their own ppt (or other type of presentation) for a specific audience using their own creativity about what they have discovered through exploration in the classroom, they are certainly engaged in a powerful learning opportunity.

TV

It seems like every new technology that comes along gets the blame for that particular generation of children's laziness/unmotivation/shortcomings. This was true when TV first arrived on the American scene and it still resonates today. I very much believe that there are some children who watch too much TV and that it sometimes takes the place of reading, playing outside, spending time with family, and pursuing hobbies and interests. However, Johnson's article really made me think about TV in a different way. I had never thought to compare the shows of 20 years ago with the programming available today. There really some very complex, difficult to follow TV shows on the air. Take "Lost," for example. If you miss one episode, you're literally lost! I like how Johnson compared watching some of these shows to reading a book in the way we have to follow complicated plots and characters, and make inferences and connections. I was, however, really surprised that he suggested that people play the video game Grand Theft Auto, which is arguably the most gratuitously violent game out there. I think that there are plenty more video games that can engage the player in those same "reading" skills that are not nearly as violent and sexual as Grand Theft Auto.

In addition to more quality programming, there are also so many quality stations such as the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, the Biography Channel, the Science Channel, National Geographic, Animal Planet, and many more. The quality of the TV we watch now certainly does seem to be much higher than that of yesteryear. However, there are still completely mindless, inappropriate shows for children to watch, and I think that just because Johnson is saying that TV might not necessarily make you stupid, he's not saying that parents should just let their children watch anything they want all the time.

I thought Storey's article was also interesting in the way that it explores the emotional connections between viewers and programs. It said that TV wasn't just an escape but an outlet for people's emotions and a way for them to connect emotionally to something in a safe way. I don't enjoy soap operas much myself, but I can see this explanation for why people like them so much.

Thoughts on Lessig

It's a scary thought that only a few mega-companies run most of this country's media. But media is not the only sector that this is happening. Sure, there are still small independently owned businesses scattered around, but the majority of the places we frequent, the materials we buy, the food and entertainment we consume are owned by just a few massive companies. I'm not sure that's how it was envisioned when Jefferson and the rest wrote the constitution. I think this same "take-over" is beginning to happen on the Internet. I hate to see such a wonderful free forum for speech be taken over by corporations, controlled, made to be the same all the way across. I think copyright has much to do with this merging, this "take-over." Perhaps these CEO's, or whomever, sit in their offices and think, "Oh no, look at all this wonderful, free, creative material being shared! Look how it's making people connect and think and come up with new ideas! We must control it and standardize it and make sure that no one uses it without permission!" What a load. This really makes me angry. There shouldn't be any restrictions on use for public domain, such as Alice in Wonderland, even if you buy an e-book version. I liked Lessig's view of copyright. He wasn't saying it was wrong or right, just that we need to revamp it to fit our current circumstances.

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.

Olson 6-12

Once again, after reading these chapters I feel that I have been taking literacy for granted. I had no idea that reading and writing has had such an enormous effect on human history. It has literally shaped the way we think about things. A common theme that I found running throughout the book was metacognition, the act of thinking about thinking, or reflecting. It was a major shift in human consciousness when we began to think about what was actually going on in our heads, instead of attributing everything to an outside force. This concept of essentially blaming everything on gods or forces of nature or something is hard for me to grasp. I just can't imagine believing that the decisions I make in everyday life don't come from my own brain or will, but from "voices" or gods. How could one not know that they were thinking?

I found the history covered in the book to be fascinating, but I'm still not quite convinced that literacy, reading, or writing singularly caused all of those major shifts in thinking. Maybe that's not what he is implying, but I got the impression sometimes that he was saying that developments in literacy were the cause for great shifts in thinking, such as the Reformation. Surely there were other factors involved. Any thoughts on this?

I liked chapter 12 best out of all of the chapters this week because he finally provided a nice concise summary of all that he had been discussing in the previous 11 chapters. As far as all this relates to literacy education, Olson didn't come right out and say, but I think he was trying to say that children should be thinking about the text and its intentions from an earlier age. He said several times that only late in school do students seem to grasp some intentions of text. Perhaps this is becuase we don't pay enough attention to that aspect of literacy at an earlier age. Perhaps when students begin reading we should be guiding them to think about what the text is saying rather than just how to read the words. Personally, I believe phonetic instruction and comprehension should be taught together. In fact, discussion of texts should really begin before a child enters school with parents and bedtime stories. I'm not saying that early childhood teachers never discuss texts with their students, I just don't think it is done enough. I don't think enough attention is being paid to teaching students to think. Of course, this should be done on a developmentally appropriate level as well. We certainly can't expect all first graders to understand irony. But, I think that an overemphasis on the act of reading the words, rather than thinking about what a text is saying is hindering our students.

Olson Ch 1-5

I think I have taken reading and writing, literacy, for granted. I've never before in my life given so much thought to the acts of speaking, reading, and writing and how they have affected me and society in general. Olson certainly made some outrageous claims (to me at least) right off the bat in chapter 1 when he questions our enthusiasm for literacy in the first place. I guess it's just been ingrained in me through the years that reading and writing is of the utmost importance in order to succeed in life. Proficiency in speaking seems to be seen as secondary, although still important. I was shocked to read that this proliferation of literacy seems to be contributing to the economic gap in this country, and indeed throughout the world in history, and that some people even think that we shouldn't be pushing literacy as hard as we should and that literacy isn't for everyone. In fact, on page 11, Olson says, "Literacy is functional, indeed advantageous, in certain managerial, administrative and an increasing number of social roles. But the number of such positions which call for that level or kind of literacy in limited." Is he saying that we shouldn't strive to make sure all American citizens are literate? That somebody has to flip the burgers, as it were? Isn't that a little extreme? Do not all children deserve the chance to become literate? Do not all children deserve the best education possible? I really enjoyed chapter one, I think the best of all 5 chapters we read this week, simply because it made me think about literacy and orality in a ways I never had before.

Chapter 5 was my second favorite chapter out of these, however, I want to discuss something he brings up in chapter 4 before talking about chapter 5. On page 89, Olson asks, "Does 'read' mean to lexicalize or 'decode' a text or does 'read' mean to construct a meaning? Is it decoding or interpretation?" Having taught reading to third graders for several years, I would argue that reading is most certainly both of those things. Normally children begin learning to read by simply decoding: learning the sounds associated with letters and how to put those sounds together into words. When they are able to decode pretty much independently, then they begin to associate meaning with the words they read. I personally feel that decoding and interpreting should go hand in hand and both should be taught from the beginning through discussion about the text. For this reason, I feel that some of our basal readers for children are ineffective because of their simplicity of subject. What is there to talk about when all you're reading is "See Jane run"? I was surprised at his question about decoding and interpreting because I don't believe someone is reading unless they are doing both. You can't read if you can't decode, and even if you can decode, what good are the words you're reading if you can't give them any meaning? Granted, different people can interpret the same text in different ways according to prior experience, mood, personality, knowledge of the subject, and many other variables. Was anyone else surprised at this question?

Back to chapter 5. The biggest revelation for me in this chapter was the purpose of punctuation. I had only thought of punctuation as a way to end a sentence, really, a way to understand when the next set of thoughts begins. Well, I suppose that's not entirely true because I did teach my third graders how inflection changes when an exclamation point or a question mark is used. I had just never thought about it in this much of a grand scheme, as part of our attempts at capturing every aspect of speech. I wonder if we will ever come up with an alphabet or other system that will caputer every aspect of speech; all the body language, intonation, volume, pitch, etc that goes with speaking face to face. Perhaps in the future a much more sophistacted (and complicated) system for writing will be used with all sorts of symbols to capture those unspoken parts of language. Or has this already been started? When we read the article about the Thanksgiving dinner, she used a lot of symbols to indicate pauses and such. Perhaps someday those kinds of notations will be commonly used to aid the reader in interpreting the text.