This posting contains part of a comment to this week's initial posting (by Lucien). Since mine is the last comment to Lucien’s posting (so far), now two pages back, I think it might not get read. In addition, as I have read more texts, I have continued to think about this topic and have expanded quite a bit on my original comment, so that I think it can be its own posting. In fact, I believe my concern touches upon one of the questions Ellie posed for this week's topics: What are critical areas of consideration for a teacher concerned about students' web-focused information literacy and what would you add to the conversation created by the readings?
Lucien (as I think all of us do) praises the internet as a research medium for its convenience, “when approached critically.” That phrase toward the end stuck with me because I think the critical reading is the most difficult aspect of teaching all reading, and that it takes on additional challenges in the teaching of hypertext literacy. As much as, and perhaps more than, with the technical aspects (how to find things and the quality of what we find), I am concerned with how to teach critical reading once we have done all the necessary prep and filter work of making sure the sites and information are reputable and accurate.
Kinzer and Leander cite research (Bolter, 1991) which “claims that the inherent ‘linked’ nature of hypertext leads to critical engagement.” (552) This position, therefore, concludes that “hypermedia must be strongly articulated with critical pedagogy.” (552) Of course, in the sense that "must" can mean "should" this is indisputable. However, Bolter's claim seems also to convey the belief that “reading” hypermedia IS necessarily reading critically, that "[it] leads to critical engagement." I strongly disagree. Although Kinzer and Leander don’t seem to critique this claim in the same section where it is quoted, the entire purpose of their chapter is to make the case for an expansion of the definition of literacy and for the explicit inclusion and provision for hypermedia literacy in English curricula (which I take them to mean critical reading, not just critical research). By “reading critically,” I refer to the ability to read “dialogically”—to identify different ideas and positions within a text (either stated or omitted), compare them, make them dialogue with each other, come up with one’s own thoughts and try these out by entering into dialogue with the text. I am sure that my own ability to do so in a hypertext is limited, although I have some clues because of training with print text...what about the students we teach?
Once we have applied a lot of the research and site evaluation techniques Kajder recommends in Chapter 5 (and I believe these, or their equivalent, to be essential to teaching students an expanded literacy), and we've come up with "reliable" sites/sources, how do we teach students to read these critically? Let me explain why I insist on this: when we do research for a paper in grad school, we tend to use sources such as peer-review journals and books. Nevertheless, good writing goes beyond our choice of sources—it has to do with the dialogical nature of our reading and the resulting dialectical text we put together (that's what sets it apart from a "report"). Thus, the reputable, accurate sources (in this case the sites) are only the beginning of critical literacy: this applies to hypertext as much as traditional print. However, as all the authors we are reading this week indicate, that critical reading takes on added dimension in hypertext. This critical literacy does not come with the dialectical nature of the text. If it did, putting students in contact with good sources would do the job. But, in contrast with the implications of Bolter's statement, "exposure [to an intrinsically dialectical hypertext] does not necessarily result in depth of thought...It also does not guarantee the mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning." (Grabe and Grabe 214-215)
After quoting Bolter, K & L go on to discuss issues of authorship, credibility, power-relations within one site/text, and understanding “a site’s positioning with respect to other sites.” (558) The way in which all of these elements present (or hide) themselves in hypertext is different from how they can be represented in print text. The skills with which to interpret, unfold, and consider the positions in hypertext in relation to one another--the "depth of thought" and "mental activity necessary to construct personal meaning" Grabe and Grabe speak of--are essential to students’ ability to read (and write) critically and they, contrary to Bolter’s claim, do not come hand-in-hand with the hypermedia text; on the contrary, the issues K & L discuss need to be made explicit, brought to the forefront, and analyzed.
I think Kajder’s point at the beginning of Chapter 5 that teachers can make NO assumptions about students’ knowledge of the internet is worth reiterating: "Just because our students are able to cruise the Internet with speed and what looks like skill doesn't mean they know what they are doing." (49) Although all of this might seem self-evident, I can't help but be concerned that the "dialectical nature" of hypertexts (the fact that they appear to have the "dialogue" built into their format--through links, different types of image and text, etc.) might lead readers (and I am willing to take the blame for grouping teachers in with the students here) to believe, as Bolter affirms, that the linked nature of hypertexts "leads" to dialectical, critical, reading. This is an issue that I believe needs to be included in the new curricula we are discussing as well.