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.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Sunday, April 1, 2007
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*
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*
Monday, March 26, 2007
TV good?
"The 'average' American will spend in excess of seven years watching television"
Geez. . .I love my TV, but it's a wonder what I could accomplish if I didn't have one. Most of my TV watching is sports releated. Occassionaly, I will watch a program on the History Channel or Discovery, but as far as network television goes I rarely watch. I used to watch much more network television when I was younger. This was the case because I lived in an area that did not have cable. We were able to receive three channels, and two of those where the same network from different cities! During my high school and college years my TV watching centered around Thursday nights on NBC. I watched The Cosby Show, Cheers, and Seinfeld. Seinfeld was the last show I watched religiously. Now, as I channel surf, I will occasionally watch an rerun of Scrubs or get sucked into an episode of "Flava of Love" (good grief), but mostly I'm watching some sporting event. Typically, if the Cowboys or the Aggies are on, I'm going to be watching.
I'm not sure if I can agree with Johnson premise that TV is making us better cognitive thinkers. I can agree that perhaps our visual spatial skills have improved, but I cannot condone more TV watching for the sake of TV watching. I understand his arguments that TV shows have gotten more complex. The plots are now multi layered; there is less "flashing arrows." But, my main bone of contention is that he parallels his premise on the supposed benefits of reading. So we find us smack dab in the middle of the literacy myth once again.
Watching television maybe intellectually stimulating if you are watching television critically. More to come.
Geez. . .I love my TV, but it's a wonder what I could accomplish if I didn't have one. Most of my TV watching is sports releated. Occassionaly, I will watch a program on the History Channel or Discovery, but as far as network television goes I rarely watch. I used to watch much more network television when I was younger. This was the case because I lived in an area that did not have cable. We were able to receive three channels, and two of those where the same network from different cities! During my high school and college years my TV watching centered around Thursday nights on NBC. I watched The Cosby Show, Cheers, and Seinfeld. Seinfeld was the last show I watched religiously. Now, as I channel surf, I will occasionally watch an rerun of Scrubs or get sucked into an episode of "Flava of Love" (good grief), but mostly I'm watching some sporting event. Typically, if the Cowboys or the Aggies are on, I'm going to be watching.
I'm not sure if I can agree with Johnson premise that TV is making us better cognitive thinkers. I can agree that perhaps our visual spatial skills have improved, but I cannot condone more TV watching for the sake of TV watching. I understand his arguments that TV shows have gotten more complex. The plots are now multi layered; there is less "flashing arrows." But, my main bone of contention is that he parallels his premise on the supposed benefits of reading. So we find us smack dab in the middle of the literacy myth once again.
Watching television maybe intellectually stimulating if you are watching television critically. More to come.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Property
This weeks readings have been fascinating to say the least.
Lessig's chapter on intellectual property and ownership rights is very interesting. This is a topic I haven't really given much attention although after reading this chapter, I now realize how dangerous limiting access to creative property can be to our society.
On the surface the statement appears to be a "no-brainer" : intellectual property should be protected the same as actual property. What's interesting about this viewpoint is how fundamentally basic it sounds, but how damaging absolute authorial control of intellectual property can be. Controlling access to creative property to a select few, creates a vacuum for new ideas. Lessig argues that the establishment dictates how intellectual property will be distributed, and the establishment will do whatever in its power to maintain their power.
I also found it extremely interesting that as technology (namely the Internet) has developed the apparent need to protect one's creative work has increased. Lessig's four modalities highlight the balance that is needed to control user access, and throughout our history copyright laws, technological advances, society values, and marketing schemes have been used to control the access to creative property. The White Paper in 1995 illustrates this point as the "warriors" pushed for tighter regulation of intellectual property through changes in all four regulatory modalities. What's the problem with industry wanting to protect it's way of doing business? Lessig argues, "It is the duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they
create, in response to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation" (128). The danger is that the changes to intellectual property rights will circumvent the checks and balances in place and stifle new ideas and thus prevent progress.
Lessig's chapter on intellectual property and ownership rights is very interesting. This is a topic I haven't really given much attention although after reading this chapter, I now realize how dangerous limiting access to creative property can be to our society.
On the surface the statement appears to be a "no-brainer" : intellectual property should be protected the same as actual property. What's interesting about this viewpoint is how fundamentally basic it sounds, but how damaging absolute authorial control of intellectual property can be. Controlling access to creative property to a select few, creates a vacuum for new ideas. Lessig argues that the establishment dictates how intellectual property will be distributed, and the establishment will do whatever in its power to maintain their power.
I also found it extremely interesting that as technology (namely the Internet) has developed the apparent need to protect one's creative work has increased. Lessig's four modalities highlight the balance that is needed to control user access, and throughout our history copyright laws, technological advances, society values, and marketing schemes have been used to control the access to creative property. The White Paper in 1995 illustrates this point as the "warriors" pushed for tighter regulation of intellectual property through changes in all four regulatory modalities. What's the problem with industry wanting to protect it's way of doing business? Lessig argues, "It is the duty of policy makers, in other words, to assure that the changes they
create, in response to the request of those hurt by changing technology, are changes that preserve the incentives and opportunities for innovation" (128). The danger is that the changes to intellectual property rights will circumvent the checks and balances in place and stifle new ideas and thus prevent progress.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Fixing the Text: Controlling the Chaos of Interpretations
"New ways of reading gave ways to new ways of writing texts and both gave rise to new ways of thinking about the world and about the mind" (143).
As I attempt to wrap my feeble brain around the concepts Olson provides for us, I am fascinated by the historical journey literacy has played in our development. As Olson contends, Western society evolved through the development of new ways of reading text. I now understand that in the course of human history writing like any technology was developed in order to solve a problem which in turn created new problems which necessitated new solutions.
The main problem writing creates is its inability to answer the question "What do you mean?" Because the body is removed from the utterance, the lexical system inadequately represents the "illocutionary force" intended by the writer. Thus, although writing solves a myriad of practical problems, it creates a multitude of new problems. The notion of how to control the chaos of numerous interpretations or as Olson refers to as "fixing the text" arises from the limitations of the writing system. The need for "experts" to dictate to the masses the "true" meaning of specific written utterances allowed for new ways of thinking, reading, and writing. In addition, I contend that those who controlled the interpretations controlled the masses.
I knew religion would find its way into the discussion sooner or later. God forbid we have people misinterpreting the Bible (note: intended irony, just in case you were unsure). Olson contends that our (Western Civilization's) reading history is really the history of reading the Bible. I liked how Olson explains the progression of interpreting the Bible and how it mirrors changes in societal ideology. Now in our post-modernistic understanding we recognize unlike Luther that to get at "what was meant" from "what was said" we have to ground our interpretations within a historical and cultural context. As Olson states, at different periods of history, people thought, spoke, and meant differently. It is oversimplification to assume that people viewed the world exactly the same way over time. Because writing created a need to read the world differently, new ways of thinking about the world developed. As Olson argues, "we no longer assume that the ancient writers used categories like our own" (155). Unfortunately, if I may add my "two cents" (this is MY Blog, right?), I doubt that when Olson uses "we", he means everybody. I would argue to the contrary that many still interpret the Bible much in the same way Luther did. . .but perhaps that is off the subject and needs to be the topic of a later discussion.
As I attempt to wrap my feeble brain around the concepts Olson provides for us, I am fascinated by the historical journey literacy has played in our development. As Olson contends, Western society evolved through the development of new ways of reading text. I now understand that in the course of human history writing like any technology was developed in order to solve a problem which in turn created new problems which necessitated new solutions.
The main problem writing creates is its inability to answer the question "What do you mean?" Because the body is removed from the utterance, the lexical system inadequately represents the "illocutionary force" intended by the writer. Thus, although writing solves a myriad of practical problems, it creates a multitude of new problems. The notion of how to control the chaos of numerous interpretations or as Olson refers to as "fixing the text" arises from the limitations of the writing system. The need for "experts" to dictate to the masses the "true" meaning of specific written utterances allowed for new ways of thinking, reading, and writing. In addition, I contend that those who controlled the interpretations controlled the masses.
I knew religion would find its way into the discussion sooner or later. God forbid we have people misinterpreting the Bible (note: intended irony, just in case you were unsure). Olson contends that our (Western Civilization's) reading history is really the history of reading the Bible. I liked how Olson explains the progression of interpreting the Bible and how it mirrors changes in societal ideology. Now in our post-modernistic understanding we recognize unlike Luther that to get at "what was meant" from "what was said" we have to ground our interpretations within a historical and cultural context. As Olson states, at different periods of history, people thought, spoke, and meant differently. It is oversimplification to assume that people viewed the world exactly the same way over time. Because writing created a need to read the world differently, new ways of thinking about the world developed. As Olson argues, "we no longer assume that the ancient writers used categories like our own" (155). Unfortunately, if I may add my "two cents" (this is MY Blog, right?), I doubt that when Olson uses "we", he means everybody. I would argue to the contrary that many still interpret the Bible much in the same way Luther did. . .but perhaps that is off the subject and needs to be the topic of a later discussion.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Deja Vu? Ahhh. . .the Literacy Myth (revisted)
I first encountered the notion of the "literacy myth" last semester. I have to be honest; I found it hard to accept that literacy does not increase cognitive ability. Isn't it obvious that those who read and write are move intellectually advanced then those who are not? Seemed fairly straightforward to me. Yet, although difficult as it was, I have rejected my prior notions on the superiority of literacy. As Olson suggests, I have lost my "naive belief in the transformative powers of simply learning to read and write" (3). Indeed, writing is a tool which in our modern society is clearly a functional necessity, but literacy does not make us a more intelligent society. I think by seeing literacy as a tool and not as something magical, I have been able to rethink my views on literacy.
As I reconstruct my literacy ideology, I am still perplexed by questions: So what? Why should literacy be removed from its pedestal? The answer, as Olson contends, is that our society (Western Ideology) needs to be aware of our arrogance because our beliefs are "a selective way of viewing the facts that not only justifies the advantages of the literate but also assigns the failings of society. . .to the illiterate" (2). How does our concept of literacy give us reason to condemn societies which are less literate. How do our ideologies continue to maintain the current hegemony?
In end this response with my first encounter with the literacy myth.
"Literacy, it is felt, freed some of humanity from a primitive state. . .literacy, it seems, is what makes us civilized" (Gee 26).
"Literacy, leads to logical, analytical, critical, and rational thinking, general and abstract uses of language. . ." (Gee 26).
I must admit I believe or still want to believe these statements to be true. I suppose, as Gee states, my own "literacy myth" is "foundational to how [I] make sense of reality." This reality leads me to believe that what I teach is important. Language Arts is, I have been known to say, facilitates and supports all other disciplines. I usually express to my young people "A Rationale for Learning to Read and Write" and "Why You Need to Learn To Speak Good" (that was intentional), very early in the school year. I have always believed that the more you read and write the better you read and write; I also promote active reading and process writing. I value this "essay-text literacy" because I guess I'm a "cog in the machine" perpetuating the values of the middle-class. After reading references to Scribner and Cole's research with the Vai (Gee 55), I believe I have to rethink my viewpoints (however difficult) on the role reading and writing play in the cognitive development of my students. I am interested in analyzing the influence (or the lack thereof) that schooling has on creative and critical thinking. I am concerned with this conclusion by Scribner and Cole: "School skills, beyond talk, are transitory, unless they are repeatedly practiced in people's daily lives (34). This compels me to question and revisit the skills I teach and activities I have my students do. Are my activities appropriate and useful? Do the skills I teach have a purpose beyond the classroom and a value by all of my students? The latter question is the tricky one. I fear I will always focus on promoting "success" within the dominate Discourse. Am I too indoctrinated to recognize where and when this may be "harmful" to my charges?
As I reconstruct my literacy ideology, I am still perplexed by questions: So what? Why should literacy be removed from its pedestal? The answer, as Olson contends, is that our society (Western Ideology) needs to be aware of our arrogance because our beliefs are "a selective way of viewing the facts that not only justifies the advantages of the literate but also assigns the failings of society. . .to the illiterate" (2). How does our concept of literacy give us reason to condemn societies which are less literate. How do our ideologies continue to maintain the current hegemony?
In end this response with my first encounter with the literacy myth.
"Literacy, it is felt, freed some of humanity from a primitive state. . .literacy, it seems, is what makes us civilized" (Gee 26).
"Literacy, leads to logical, analytical, critical, and rational thinking, general and abstract uses of language. . ." (Gee 26).
I must admit I believe or still want to believe these statements to be true. I suppose, as Gee states, my own "literacy myth" is "foundational to how [I] make sense of reality." This reality leads me to believe that what I teach is important. Language Arts is, I have been known to say, facilitates and supports all other disciplines. I usually express to my young people "A Rationale for Learning to Read and Write" and "Why You Need to Learn To Speak Good" (that was intentional), very early in the school year. I have always believed that the more you read and write the better you read and write; I also promote active reading and process writing. I value this "essay-text literacy" because I guess I'm a "cog in the machine" perpetuating the values of the middle-class. After reading references to Scribner and Cole's research with the Vai (Gee 55), I believe I have to rethink my viewpoints (however difficult) on the role reading and writing play in the cognitive development of my students. I am interested in analyzing the influence (or the lack thereof) that schooling has on creative and critical thinking. I am concerned with this conclusion by Scribner and Cole: "School skills, beyond talk, are transitory, unless they are repeatedly practiced in people's daily lives (34). This compels me to question and revisit the skills I teach and activities I have my students do. Are my activities appropriate and useful? Do the skills I teach have a purpose beyond the classroom and a value by all of my students? The latter question is the tricky one. I fear I will always focus on promoting "success" within the dominate Discourse. Am I too indoctrinated to recognize where and when this may be "harmful" to my charges?
Sunday, February 4, 2007
On Stage in the Classroom
I have taught for 11 years, and most of my experience in the classroom has been at the middle school level. I fully believe teaching is performance. I have often times equated my classroom instruction to being on stage. To keep my students actively engaged during my instruction, I utilize many acting skills: voice variations, dramatic pauses, wild-gesticulations, facial changes, quick thinking, improvisation techniques, movement. One especially useful skill is storytelling. I love to tell stories to my students. There is something magical to opening the space for a story. My children immediately engage when I signal that a story is forthcoming. Normally, I open the space for a story by saying "Ya know this reminds me of something that happened to me, but you guys don't really want to hear it, do you?" I usually receive a chrous of "yeses." I always bluff for a minute or two and then begin. I don't know if my students revert back to when they were young children, but I usually can keep the normally chaotic and habitually "antsy" 11 year-olds quiet and listening for a considerable length of time. I just have to make certain that my delievery is exciting. There is obviously power in the personal narrative. Why does a story compel us to block out the otherwise distracting impulses and relax and just listen?
To complete the story telling assignment this week, I told a story to my 6th period class. 6th period is my most challenging class. My students have already attended 5 other classes, one homeroom class, and lunch. When they finally come to me, their attention spans, already stunted due to a combination of hormones, PlayStation 3s , and high fructose corn syrup overdoses, are non-existent. Stories seem to calm them down. Last week, I told a story about a time I almost killed my sister (FYI: she's okay. . .no permanent damage . . .she even graduated from med school). For some reason, 6th graders are naturally drawn to stories about siblings and if violence is at all hinted in the plot, well that is an added bonus. I am always amazed at how a simple story can engage a group. When dealing with middle schoolers, content is important, but the delivery is essential. I believe that a bad story told well is much more effective than a good story told poorly.
To complete the story telling assignment this week, I told a story to my 6th period class. 6th period is my most challenging class. My students have already attended 5 other classes, one homeroom class, and lunch. When they finally come to me, their attention spans, already stunted due to a combination of hormones, PlayStation 3s , and high fructose corn syrup overdoses, are non-existent. Stories seem to calm them down. Last week, I told a story about a time I almost killed my sister (FYI: she's okay. . .no permanent damage . . .she even graduated from med school). For some reason, 6th graders are naturally drawn to stories about siblings and if violence is at all hinted in the plot, well that is an added bonus. I am always amazed at how a simple story can engage a group. When dealing with middle schoolers, content is important, but the delivery is essential. I believe that a bad story told well is much more effective than a good story told poorly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)