New Literacy Going Global in Old School Ways :)

Critical Literacy Across Continents

Janks and Comber reported on a very intriguing social action through literacy project with global intents. The alphabet books were a great way to unearth a level of the students’ perceptions of their respective cities, and how they wanted their cities represented. It seemed like Janks guided the students through questioning in South Africa more than the students were directed or swayed in Australia. However, the comment is made that Janks was constructing an environment where writing was going to be presented to an audience as opposed to being only graded or assessed by a teacher. The concerns and issues the students faced in each city were sobering. Janks and Comber astutely noted that while giving the students the tools to express the injustices around them is important, in order for social action to occur then change must follow the students’ work. This research project provides a rich example of how literacy in a global context can be an aide to social action.

Crossing the Margins: Literacy, Semiotics, and the Recontextualisation of Meanings

Kell followed and analyzed the plight of one woman, Noma, in using language to be heard. Kell delineated Noma’s experiences into four strips or steps. First, she used her words in a meeting to express the problems she was having with a poorly built home she had been given; problematically she was never really heard or valued at these points. Second, she wrote a ten page narrative explaining the injustices she was experiencing by the poor facilities. She read this story aloud to friends and neighbors. Thirdly, she was allowed to read her story at the meeting where she had previously tried to express her concern. From there she was allowed to represent herself at the national meeting. It seems as if through her story she received recognition and value. Kell suggested that because Noma was disabled, she had not been seen as having anything valid to say. With the power of written language in her hands, people listened. Lastly,the national organization responded by rebuilding her house.

Through the plight of one woman, Noma, who found written language to be a source of power and opportunity, Kell answers Brant and Clinton’s question “Can we not see the ways that literacy arises out of local, particular, situated human interactions while also seeing how it regularly arrives from other places—infiltrating, disjointing and displacing local life?” (p. 148; Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 343). She also poses the question of how to fragment activity systems (one method for understanding context) into units of analysis. Thus, Kell attempted to break up Noma’s experiences and contexts into four strips or steps.

First, she used her words in a meeting to express the problems she was having with a poorly built home she had been given; problematically she was never really heard or valued at these points. Second, she wrote a ten page narrative explaining the injustices she was experiencing by the poor facilities. She read this story aloud to friends and neighbors. Thirdly, she was allowed to read her story at the meeting where she had previously tried to express her concern. From there she was allowed to represent herself at the national meeting. It seems as if through her story she received recognition and value. Kell suggested that because Noma was disabled, she had not been seen as having anything valid to say. With the power of written language in her hands, people listened. Lastly, the national organization responded by rebuilding her house. Noma’s story is one of particular interest in the power that came with her ability to use written language “locally” to “displace” restricting assumptions and disregard she encountered from those making decisions regarding her home.

Technology and the Phone

I'm sitting at my computer entering registration information for students enrolling in a summer enrichment program.
It is interesting to me to see the patterns in the information on the registration forms. How many mothers have kept their last names, who is listed as an emergancy contact, how many phone numbers are listed, etc.

Traditionally you might have had a home phone. I remember my mother-in-law talking about being on an army base and being able to pick up the phone, talk directly to the operator, and the operator could tract down her mother on the base. I also remember my own mother talking about learning to "chat" long distance because initially she only used it for short news since it was expensive. I know my first year teaching I was in a Title I school teaching 4th grade and many of the children had never touched a phone. Their parents had cell phones and the students weren't allowed to use them.

So what I am seeing in these registration forms is that sometimes you may have a home number and then work and cell phone numbers for both mom and dad, and sometimes there is obviously no land line and they solely use cell phones. Additionally, many people (myself included) may have a local number but have left their cell phone numbers based out of a previous area code. I even have at least one application where mom and dad have different area codes. This doesn't even consider communication services via the Internet.

I wonder what this all says about how we communicate and the transitivity of people.

webblogs

I was pretty interested in the different typologies of blogs -figure 4.2- and how the evolution of the blog world has created so much more of a relevant (and realisitc) distribution of writing/thoughts on the net- it seems so much more authentic than academic journals when people post more frequently and are engaged in conversations that are dialectic and force the ideas of the conversations in more thoughot provoking spheres..

Digital Divide

I know in class we have talked about the have and have-nots of technology.
In one of my other classes the instructor provided a link to Digital Divide.org that addresses the issue.

Digital Literacy

Marsh (pg. 19-38) Young Children’s Digital Literacy:
I thought that there were some interesting themes running through the writing. The development of Children’s Digital Literacy has some parallel to development of skills; including issues of time spent and parental involvement. I understand from the article that there has not been much study of digital literacy with young children, but I think I personally have some questions I would like to see addressed in relation to young children:
1. What was the role of pretending to use media compared to actual use of electronic media with young children?
2. There were questions about parent involvement and development of independent media use; yet what are the differences of in development of digital literacy depending on who (parent or child) directs the use?
3. How is digital literacy development influenced by the presence of older siblings?

Finally, I thought there was an important identity question in relation to all ages. Marsh mentions that digital identity revolves around consumption and less obviously production (pg. 34-35). I wondered what level of consciousness of consumption and production influenced online identity.

Alvermann, (pg. 39-56) Ned & Kevin’s emails:
The email discussion in the Ned & Kevin case study has interesting implications for education and in particular for the varying roles/ positions of power between students and teachers, teachers and parents, etc. in using email. I also thought the question of “valued literacy practices” for specific ages and for all ages was interesting.
There were two areas that I wished Alvermann would have explored further in the discussion of the case study:
I wondered why Alvermann was challenging or setting out to change the models of youth in research. It was not addressed whether this was something that grew out of the larger research study, a movement within the field, or some other influence was present.
I think there were important issues about the cultural or shared perspective between Ned and Kevin that were not addressed. The degree of overlap in shared “language” between the correspondents would seem to make a difference in the communication. My curiosity in this area may go back to my feeling that current students do not have a strong sense of “audience” when writing communication because of the speed of correspondence with technology.

Knobel & Lankshear, (pg. 72-94) Weblogs:
It was interesting to read about the history and evolution of blogs. I thought the first paragraph of the reading was particularly interesting.
The idea of what makes “powerful writing” is interesting in the context of such a readily accessible “literature” as blogs. Would you define powerful writing by the number of comments? Number of visitors to the page? The readers’ experience?
I thought it was interesting that Knobel & Lankshear said that blogs should have a purpose and a definite point-of-view. I wondered whether there were more recent versions of blogs that would change or add more criteria to their list of blog characteristics. I also wondered how you can factor in private blogs…ones where you must be invited via email to be able to read the blog.
Finally, I thought that their discussion of the “shadow” that education blogs are compared to other blogs had interesting implications for education. How should education blogs be? Who should direct them? How can they be meaningful to students and yet still educational and safe for students?

Avatar Worlds

It just so happens that in one of my other classes there was a link to a website about avatars and virtual worlds. It had information on "The Palace" which is the place Thomas studied several youth and their preferred avatars.
Basically it sounds like it is a sort of "glorified" chat space and that it has a huge range of what you can do with the avatars. However, it may just be a huge range compared to what is available in other programs. There may still be limitations on how the avatar can look.

Here is the link to Virtual Worlds Review.

Angela Thomas, Youth Online Chapters 4-7

I think one of the major issues brought out in Thomas’s research is the differences between teen exploration of identity online and that of adults. An online, somewhat anonymous presence becomes a place to reflect on the self…in place of experimentation at home in front of a mirror. The online reflection is a much more social, yet still perceived as safe, place to experiment than behind a shut door at home. My question is that, as adults who have not grown-up immersed in technology as some youth of today, can we really understand how youth view/use their online presence?

I was struck by how rich and multi-sensory the online presence of the youth was; even in text based online worlds. Thomas says, “A social theory of learning, then, is connected with learning and knowing within social participatory experiences” (page 95). The examples that Thomas gives are certainly socially based. There are definitely balances of power online that would not be available to youth solely in the real world. I was interested in how the youth regulated aspects of their worlds; such as helping someone to fit in, defining rules for their interactions, and monitoring content experienced. I found it interesting to see how the youth regulated their “worlds” either successfully (Elianna, Tianna and Jandalf) or unsuccessfully (Kayle). How might this influence how the youths’ self-concept forms?

I found this discussion about “the edited self” to be interesting. An online identity can mirror oneself, emphasize portions of oneself, or allow the self to do things that would not be acceptable in real life. Thomas gives examples of Tiana being able to realize and find people via the Internet who have similar interests as herself. Thomas even gives examples of school culture alienating some participants. However, she also mentions that Tiana and Jandalf have “a healthy set of offline activities” (page 171). These offline activities may also serve to aid in identity formation. I wonder for youth who spend most of their leisure time online, how their online activities differ from those with a more balanced online versus offline time. Also, Thomas indicates that some researchers are concerned about online activities replacing real life activities. Is this similar, or different, from the argument of a bias toward paper texts versus online texts?

Additionally, on page 114 she discusses the conscience production of self through words and online text. Many of the participants mention that, “Everything’s generally easier” (page 115) online. Are there opportunities for youth to form such conscience productions of self in the real world? How does the ability to “backspace” and the possibility of review influence how youth see themselves?

Another issue I found interesting in the reading is that Thomas mentions that these are activities for youth who have availability of the technology and leisure time to explore it. Does this have significance beyond indicating “have” versus “have not” cultures?

There were a few areas where I wish Thomas might have included more information or done more exploring.

• One area is in explaining “the palace” models. While I am familiar with role playing games, fan fiction, chat rooms, message boards, and some other online presences, I am not familiar with this reference and to truly understand the context in which these youth are creating avatars and identities I think that we need to know the context of the virtual world.
• Thomas (on page 148) discusses “out of character” chat but does not indicate whether she places more or less emphasis or weight on role playing versus out of character chat. Are they the same weight?
• Another area is that of the avatar creation limitations. Thomas comments briefly on the lack of “fat” avatar models. To my knowledge there are very few, very recent games that allow a participant to create “fat” avatars. Applications are allowing for greater choice in how an avatar looks, yet there are still limitations. She mentions the differences in gaze of the avatars and hints at possible meanings behind the differences in gaze. My question is whether youth read the same meaning into the avatars’ gaze? Additionally, I do not feel that Thomas full explored the influence on visual online identities related to the limitations inherent in creating avatars.
• Finally, Thomas only briefly makes reference to one participant’s screen name. In most cases each person involved in an online application must create a screen name that is acceptable to the rules of the application and is unique. In many cases this screen name may represent multiple avatars within the application. It is possible that the screen name chosen may say a great deal about the self-concept of the person creating the avatars.

Here are some links related to the readings:

Gathering of Elves and Middle Earth Insanity. Both are asynchronus role playing message boards.