I am starting this post with a bit of a disagreement with Dan’s complaint about the datedness of the Kinzer and Leander chapter. (Dan, it just helps me get started to consider a text in regards to another’s thoughts.) I take the point that some of the data K & L site translates into widely known concepts—like the fact that true and usable accessibility to the internet is subject to the same inequities that exist in the socio-economic tiers in our society. I also agree that the case study of Tara seems a bit oversimplified (and, yet, I could not easily follow the search steps narrated in the scenario). Nevertheless, there is an important point to the K & L chapter, which I really do think is quite relevant today: the call for renovated, updated, expanded, revolutionized (?) literacy curricula (to go with a new definition of literacy)—curricula which include the hypertext literacy.
In my limited experience working in a public high school where I have repeatedly been told what is included in the English curricula (I have not used it myself) and having attended undergraduate and graduate studies focusing on English and literacy for the past seven years, I have not seen any significant incorporation of hypermedia literacy—neither how to read/interpret sites/texts, nor how to teach their interpretation. Rather, my understanding of the elements outside of the main, explicit “text” on a website—the obscurity of authorship and sponsorship, the overt and covert interests represented on a web page, the possible added meanings revealed in the choice of links, and others—all of my own understanding stems from my studies of traditional printed text. As a graduate student of English, I should hope that I can transfer some of my knowledge to a “different” type of text. However, whether the teachers themselves are capable of this or not, the curricula certainly does not seem to include it—and at least four years have passed since the publication of this chapter. Furthermore, there are many things which Kinzer and Leander mention, for which I, personally, have no training, nor any idea what to do with: “What does page color, image color, and font color signify, and when does it signify?” (557)
I think another important point raised by K & L is the need to think of the goals teachers have for their students’ use of hypermedia: “educators’ goals may well include the ‘mining’ and ‘retention’ of resources, but they also want children to share, manipulate, play with, imitate, critique, oppose, and become increasingly curious about resources that they encounter.” (557) Given that there is no way out of including hypertext literacy, it will have to be taught (because I really don’t think it is yet) in schools, how do we make sure that it doesn’t just become a source for research, in the sense of information scouring? How do we ensure that such a readily available overload of information does not take the place of students learning to “ develop their own categories, relationships, and understandings?” (557)
Again, I understand that K & L’s text is necessarily dated because of the nature of the unbelievably fast growth and change of the internet. I am also aware of the fact that students (and many teachers) are very comfortable and quick with hypermedia. However, that does not translate into informed and critical use. I really have not seen around me evidence that Kinzer and Leander’s call for a redefinition of literacy and English curricula is any less relevant now than it was four our five years ago.
Course homepage
Course homepage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ana, I agree with BOTH you and Dan to the extent that K&L seems a bit outdated but also parts of their text can still be seen as relevant today. In fact, between the two of you I am having a hard time adding further comments.(And I don't think I can just keep writing, "I agree..") The only thing I'd like to add to the subject of hypermedia/hypertext literacy is the "Guide to Internet Research: Being Smart About Websites" by Baird and Bobel. Although this guide was short and simple, I nevertheless found it valuable because of its simplicity and direct approach to judging the legitimacy of websites. By considering the credibility, motive and objectivity, currency, and site quality of specific websites, the reader is able to make a judgement call on whether the source is "legitimate, accurate, and worthy of use", according to Baird and Bobel. And it was written in the Fall 2005 (now that Dan has me looking at all the dates of the texts we are reading), so it is more current than some of the other sources we've been reading on the subject. I think, as we go through all the assigned readings this week, we all know there needs to be some sort of curricula created to help students and teachers learn to operate and evaluate search engines, websites-all hypermedia. The question being addressed but not always answered is "HOW?" Both Kajder and K%L prove the necessity of such knowledge and curricula without fully solving the issue because of the "sheer size, rapid growth, and unstable nature of the internet"(p556,K&L)
I liked Baird and Bobel because they wrote an outline for readers to utilize when researching on the web, empowering us to judge whether or not each site is legitimate and accurate. By simply following their steps; look for specific information and ask questions about each website, the reader is "being smart about websites."
If you think Kinzer and Leander is outdated try Grabe and Grabe’s article Integrating Technology for Meaningful learning. I felt a bit cheated by the time I had read it and wanted a refund for the ink that I used up printing it. I mean a lot of the stuff was so obvious that I had to laugh. It certainly showed how far we have come since 1998. It did though make some good points about internet citations, but since it was the first reading I read for this week I felt like I wasted a large chunk of time on it. Definitely very disapointing.
I would like to second Ana’s support for K&L as a foundational reading for a serious discussion on teaching English with technology. In my short English M.A. experience, I have read articles that on some level sound old fashioned but are still on target in their approach to a literary perspective. K & L also add an element to the discussion that needs to be talked about: The relevancy of imagery in print and multi-media, and its use in persuasion, narration, and information. As long as you use a RGB display to present, and you connect to an audience through the technology, then an ability to critically read imagery is important, especially if the images are changeable, interactive, and free. We have to talk about visual design, its vocabulary, and the way imagery has a special power for expression of a high order, and a strong impact on viewers. I would also like to add to this discussion that the class, and Kajder is looking at English in two ways. One way is on the disciplinary level, what is or should not be included in the study of English as a discipline, and second English as a core subject in school curriculums. The feeling I have from reading Kajder is she feels all of these tech activities fall into her domain as an English teacher; they expand her repertoire of lesson plans that engage her students. However as I, and it sounds like you Ana, think, The discipline of English Studies has defined borders, and before a new field of research and study is accepted within those borders, there has to be a respectable amount of work done in that area before it is included. Composition is one are of research that has reached that level of legitimacy. So, if we are to include the use of electronic media as a field, what are its boundaries? How do you teach it? It is a composition area? I am reluctant to automatically accept it as a feature of English studies. I am fine with teaching it as a form of multi-media expression, like film-making, or installation or sound-art, but have concerns about disciplinary boundaries.
Interesting reflections on the impact of new media on how we define English studies. At the College Composition and Communication Conference,and the CCC journal, there's enough work being presented in this area to suggest that the boundaries of the field have already expanded, and they are being pushed constantly by the work being done by the folks who are also active in the Computers and Writing conference and publications. I haven't been to MLA for a while, so I'm not sure about the impact there--an interesting question.
Post a Comment