My TV is Freakin' Awesome! (and other ramblings)

Do you remember when TVs had knobs? I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I thought the only reason I was here was to serve as channel switcher for my father. We used to have an old Zenith. . .the knob had broken off, so my father in his infinite wisdom attached a pair of vise grips on the exposed turn screw. Problem solved. We thought nothing of it. Oh, have things changed.

I just bought a 50" HDTV. Needless to say, it's a far cry from the old boxes I have previously owned. Okay. Okay. What does this have to do with Literacy and Orality class and our readings? Besides it being a major distraction from my classwork this week? (Have you seen Planet Earth in HD?) The evolution of television technology is one of the many remarkable transformations we have witnessed in this decade. Take the cell phone for instance. Have you watched any movies from the late 80's early 90's. The phones are absolutely gargantuan. In June, the I-Phone hits stores. I'm not sure it will be as popular as the I-Pod, but this device is simply amazing as well as ingeniously multimodal (there's a class connection somewhere). I am in awe of these new technologies and how these technologies shape our lives.

Siegel's article last week and the New London Group's article for this week highlight how technology has influenced our communities and created a need for changes in how we educate our young people. Siegel contends that although current governmental educational ideology has a "narrow and regressive vision of literacy learning", schools must recognize the nature of young people's lives. School literacy (textual focused) is only one of many ways young people are engaged with semiotic systems. Outside of school, young people are bombarded with multiple messages through various mediums. Young people may be able to negotiate through this rich environment, but do they have the resources to view these multiple messages critically? How do these messages influence our young people? Because technology has made multiple forms of literacy available to our young people, how do our students use various semiotic systems to communicate?

The New London Group challenges current school ideology which progresses the "formalised, monolingual, monocultural" standard of the dominant group. Because the globalization via technology of our society has made ideas easily accessible to the masses, the needs of our children are rapidly changing. The authors contend that technology has influenced changes in working lives, public lives, and personal lives, and these changes necessitate new forms of pedagogy. One major point the authors progress is the notion that schools were at times sites of cultural subtraction and assimilation into the dominate group ideology. Now, because "local diversity and global connectedness" has seemingly fragmented the notions of standards, the authors contend that there is a need for "civic pluralism" instead.

This week's themes

Catherine Adams' critique of PowerPoint made me have to stop and think. I always believed this presentation tool to be neutral. An important point she makes is that once a tool is accepted into mainstream consciousness "we invite it to enhance or more dramatically, transform what we do and how we perceive the world" (390). This is a very powerful contention. Although I was skeptical in the beginning, after reading the article, I understand her point of view. Her argument that PowerPoint "invites" teachers to present information in one of two ways: blank or template. Many teachers new to the program choose to use the default settings. This being the case, teachers present information in a straightforward, linear way. Teachers must choose what is important, what should be bulleted, and what should be left out. What does it really matter though? Why shouldn't teachers use PowerPoint? What harm can it do? I believe Adam's main point is that PowerPoint confines teachers to a particular pattern of delivery. The classroom is not antiseptic, structured environment (or it shouldn't be). Learning is often times messy.

PowerPoint's design lends itself to a straightforward simplicity which does not promote improvisation and spontenity. In my classroom, I have a plan, but I live within the moment and let my students guide the direction of the lesson. In my classroom, sometimes I think I am MacGyver using whatever I have to solve the problem. When I use PowerPoint, instead of pouring forth information, I use the tool to engage my students in discussion. Adams makes a wonderful point distiguishing between two pedagogical ideologies: teaching as dialogue and teaching as delivery. This is the most damaging criticism of this tool. If we strive to engage our learners, we cannot see students as "vessels" to be filled with our knowledge. PowerPoint favors structure over substance, product or process, and efficiency over effectiveness. As Adams states, "True dialectic occurs in process, and thus can never be wholly anticipated in advance" (403). In defense of PowerPoint, however, I contend that even though it may be inherently flawed as a teaching aid, it is still just a tool. As educators, the onus is still on us to promote quality instruction using the tools at our disposal.

In the Lewis and Fabos article, I have always contended that IMing is a meaningful and often times complex practice. The section which resonated most with me was the implications of IM literacy on teaching. Sorry but I will post more later. . .

BASS: BRB

*BASS is currently offline and driving back to Austin from Houston*