After reading all of the commentaries 1 and 2 and up to last night the commentary 3that had been posted I have several conclusions to share. Bolter 2001 mentions “analytical reflection” (p.193) and this has been evident in many of the commentaries that I have read. As teachers many of us have accepted that technology must be part of our future curriculum, but not without reservations. We are worried about teacher training, adequate access to technology for everybody, not just the privileged few, critical thinking skills and finally assessment.

            We have voiced our fears and some have shared their knowledge and skills with those of us who are just beginning on this journey. We have formed connections, some of which, I hope will last for a long time. Bolter (2001) says that “writing unifies the mind”, but I think writing these posts have unified many of our thoughts.  He further states that “Electronic communication is increasingly the medium through which we form and maintain our affiliations” and I hope that our blogs and wikis will prove this is correct.

          This is a formal goodbye, but I hope to meet many of you again someday whether online or in person. Thank you for all of your knowledge and wisdom.

            The New London group (1996) caught my attention with the words “a multiplicity of discourses” (p.2). These words made me reflect upon how often university discourses target a restricted audience and of how sometimes we cater only for the privileged elite in our academic world. Mabrito and Medley (2008) ask us to reflect on a question that I believe is crucial for university professors “Are educators rising to the challenge of teaching these students? Some evidence suggests that they are not. The most significant problem may be that since most faculty members do not fit the profile of the Net Generation, they most likely do not share the same learning styles as their students.” (p.2).

            In my experience most college and university professors tend to be more mature as they have often had other work experience before becoming professors. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many current professors do indeed lack, not only technological skills, but more importantly the knowledge of how to incorporate multiliteracies in to their curriculum and equally important how to evaluate the results from the students.  Prensky (2001 compares these professors to immigrants arriving in a new country and he explains “our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language.”(p.2).These words may sound harsh, but this is our reality, especially for those of us in developing countries.

            I believe that before we can adapt our university curriculum to include multiliteracies we must first investigate how wide the gap is. One aspect that I think must be taken into consideration is as Mabrito and Medley (2008) advise us “Learning how to teach the wired student requires a two-pronged effort: to understand how N-Gen student understand and process texts and to create a pedagogy that leverages the learning skills of this type of learner.” (p.4). As educators we have a responsibility to analyse, understand and then implement what we consider to be the most beneficial aspects of multiliteracies. Another element that I think is important is as Dobson and Willinsky (2009) comment “we must consider expertise with the medium, content-area expertise, learning styles and preferences,” (p.6).Whether we agree or disagree with the particular theories of Gardner, Dunne and Dunne or the other experts in learning styles and preferences, we cannot ignore the fact that not all students learn in the same way.   Neither can we ignore, as the New London group (1996) mention, that “Schools have always played a critical role in determining students’ life opportunities. Schools regulate access to orders of discourse – the relationship of discourses in a particular social space – to symbolic capital – symbolic meanings that have currency in access to employment, political power, and cultural recognition.” (p.9)

            In order that universities are prepared to use multiliteracies in their curriculum they must first analyse the technological abilities of their professors and students and notwithstanding the needs of the society in which they live. Barnes et al (2007) explain that many students “are frequent users of electronic tools, Net Geners typically lack information literacy skills, and their critical thinking skills are often weak (Oblinger and Oblinger 2005). They may be digital natives, but they do not necessarily understand how their use of technology affects their literacy or habits of learning.” (p.2). Bolter (2001) also expresses his concerns about how “traditional views of literature and authorship have been undermined not only by the work of academic theorist but also by the uses to which both popular culture and the academic community are putting new electronic technologies of communication” (p.165). While Postman (1993) warns us that “It is only now beginning to be understood that cultures may also suffer grievously from information glut,  information without meaning, information without control mechanisms.” (p.70). These concerns should be addressed by educators and theorists before major curriculum changes are implemented.

            Professors also need to take into account how they will evaluate multilteracy tasks, as I have seen that many professors incorporate new technology and multiliteracies into their programmes, but frequently continue to use the traditional written examinations to grade their students work. Dobson and Willinsky mention that “Hayles (2003), cautions against judging e-literature, which is still in the incunabular phase, against the standard set by print genres developed over half a millennium. A more appropriate course of action would be to develop models of reading and aesthetic response that account for the diversity of contemporary literature, both print and digital” (p.9).

            Tapscott (1998) quoted his colleague Phil Courneyeur as saying “The biggest impediments to learning are social not informational. Teachers need to have the expertise, the motivation, and the time to address the social and psychological roadblocks to learning. (p. 154). Barnes et al (2007) “educators can use technology and multimedia in appropriate ways to incorporate autonomous learning activities while also ensuring that sufficient classroom time is devoted to fostering information literacy and higher-order critical thinking skills.” (p.5) Whereas Gee is quoted by Gallo Stampino (2008) as saying that “learning technologies such as games have the potential to be exploited as tools to get us started in different semiotic domains and to acquire literacies which depart from the traditional concept associated with print texts. The recognition of multiliteracies and multiple approaches to understanding may result in a redefinition of how topics are introduced in the classroom but it also generates a challenge for assessment.”

            Kalantzis et al (2002) recommend that there are four important domains to consider, “Situated Practice”, “Overt instruction”, “Critical Framing”, “Transformed Practice” and that each of them should have be assessed according to their nature. In other words a teacher could evaluate an activity in “Situated Practice”, such as a film clip, by means of a rubric grading the degree of decoding or comprehension a student showed. Whereas, a “Critical Framing” activity would be graded on the student’s ability to make links to other materials or to make predictions based on the material seen. There is no one way to assess or grade multiliteracies and it is this diversity of grading, which although it can be so rewarding, may well be the cause of future dissention at a university level. University professors, on the whole, come from a long tradition of standardized assessments and I believe some of them will resist the change into more flexible grading schemes.    

References.

Barnes, K. Marateo, R. and Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate 3 (4). Retrieved the 20th of November, 2009 from:  http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=382

Bolter, J. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, N.J. USA.

Dobson T, Willinsky J. Digital Literacy. In: Olson D, Torrance N, editors. Cambridge Handbook on Literacy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2009. Retrieved the 13th of November, 2009 from:  http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy.pdf

Gallo Stampino, V. (2008). Multiples Approaches to Understanding. Retrieved the          20th of November, 2009 from:   http://design.test.olt.ubc.ca/Multiples_Approaches_to_Understanding

Kalantzis M. Cope,B. and Fehring, H. (2002) PEN: Multiliteracies: Teaching and Learning in the New Communications Environment.

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/14/19.pdf

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. First Vintage Books. New York, USA.

Prensky, M. (2001 ) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. From On the Horizon. MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5 Retrieved the 12th of November, 2009 from: http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Mabrito, M. and Medley, R. Why Professor Johnny Can’t Read:

            Understanding the Net Generation’s Texts. Retrieved the 11th of November, 2009 from: http://www.innovateonline.info/pdf/vol4_issue6/Why_Professor_Johnny_Can’t_Read-__Understanding_the_Net_Generation’s_Texts.pdf

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing Up Digital. The Rise of the Net Generation. McGraw-Hill. New York, USA

I made this blog for fun. I was inspired by Catherine who checked out my university blogs, (which I will fix in the vacations), but this blog is going to be a place where I can be myself. I have been told that I am technologically challenged, but I will not let that hold me back. I will follow the example of the little turtle (very slow and very determined), I will make many errors, I will require infinite patience, but I will get there in the end.

A Happy Turtle

http://claremaro.wordpress.com/

            Young people have become used to finding all that they are searching for literally at their fingertips. They no longer need to physically go to the library and search the stacks for the information they require, all they have to do is surf the net. Kress (2005) declares that “In particular, it seems evident to many commentators that writing is giving way, is being displaced by image in many instances of communication where previously it had held sway.” Kress (2005, p.5) expresses his belief that this change reflects social and political changes that are taking place and that he thinks that we as teachers cannot ignore. Young people are more passive in many ways than previous generations. They prefer the impact of the visual instead of interpreting print. Bolter (2001) also appears to see the visual finally usurping the role of print as he tells us that “the history of Western prose might be understood as a series of strategies for controlling the visual and the sensory” (p.48). Kress (2005) agrees that writing and images do not have the same purposes and that in his opinion “speech and writing are themselves composed of such diverse phenomena as to make it difficult to regard each as a unified, homogeneous resource” (p.12).

            This leads me to think that as educators we must be aware of the different ways in which print and visuals impact our students and that it is our responsibility to actively show students how to work with multimodal sites, rather than just allow students to passively accept information presented in this format. Reading is a skill which must be encouraged as it engages the reader in an active interpretation of what is presented. The reader reacts to the words whether to agree or to disagree with the author. Images do not require a specific training and yet they can be more invasive and if the viewer does not know how to interpret what he or she sees, then there is a danger that he or she will passively accept (consciously or unconsciously) whatever underlying idea is presented. Bolter (2001) warns of this change when he states that “The image therefore slips out of the control of the word and makes its own claim to presenting the authentic and the real. It becomes hard to imagine how traditional prose could successfully compete with the dynamic and heterogeneous visual experience.” (p.70) Students react to the visual impact and rarely question what they see, words require analysis, images evoke feelings.

            Another worrying aspect is that images can have hidden messages that young people are not aware of. Harmon (1995) explains that “Like all forms of media, subliminals are taking new shape in the digital age.” There have been many fears about the uses of subliminals in media advertising  and Harmon tells us that we now should be aware of how they are being used on computers today. This sounds alarmist, but as Kress (2005) explains “In spatially organized representation, the elements that are chosen for representation are simultaneously present, and it is their spatial arrangement that is used to make (one kind of) meaning” (p.13). These images and their physical arrangement can evoke unconscious responses.  Many of our biggest companies have long been aware of the power of the visual and employ top psychologists to help design images that will have a powerful impact of their audience. Evans and Hall (2004) explain that “The symbolic power of the image to signify is in no sense restricted to the conscious level and cannot always easily be expressed in words. In fact, this may be one of the ways in which the so called power of the image differs from that of the linguistic sign. What is often said about the ‘power of the image’ is indeed that its impact is immediate and powerful even when its precise meaning remains, as it were, vague, suspended – numinous.”(p.311) 

            It is now common for teachers to send students to investigate topics on the Internet as we are aware that students find it easier to access information online rather than to search for information in print form. My concern is when and how are students taught to filter and to critically examine the information they discover. Kress says that “Semiotics does not deal with learning; just as pedagogy or psychology do not deal with signs. However, the process described here is in my view a description of the processes of learning: transformative engagement in the world, transformation constantly of the self in that engagement, transformation of the resources for representation outwardly and inwardly “(P.20-21). Solitary and passive students are most at risk in my experience as they do not have the skills to critically examine what they discover nor do they have the social support to orient them.

            We are aware that they are drawn to sites which offer exciting images and colourful packaging, but how are we as educators responding to these changes? Many teachers incorporate the new changes in technology into their classes as they appear, but do we really change the way we think and teach or do we merely incorporate new technology into our existing classroom plans? I believe that we cannot ignore multimodality.  Kress (2005) exhorts us to accept that “Reading has to be rethought given that the commonsense of what reading is was developed in the era of the unquestioned dominance of writing, in constellation with the unquestioned dominance of the medium of the book.” (p.17). If our goal is to educate our students; then we as teachers must first educate ourselves. Senmali (2001) explains that “A reconceptualized vision of new literacies education would include an explicit effort to enable students to acquire the ability to understand how visual media work to produce meanings.” We must learn about the advantages and dangers inherent in multimodality and its uses and then design courses which will equip our students with the skills they need to handle critically what they see, rather than be manipulated by the information they discover. 

References

Bolter, J. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, N.J. USA.

Evans, J. and Hall, S. (2004). Visual Culture – The Reader.  Sage Publications. New Delhi, India. Retrieved the 10^th of November, 2009 from: http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=l209XFHIzrIC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=power+of+the+image%2Bunconscious&source=bl&ots=wpNdolyeEy&sig=P8ooas8pKTXHXC1JniyKXO9IjvE&hl=es&ei=o-H6SvTiOorcnAeR_IH6DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=power%20of%20the%20image%2Bunconscious&f=false

Harmon, A. (1995) Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, USA. Retrieved the 6^th of November, 2009 from: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-01/news/mn-52095_1_subliminal-message

Kress, G. (2005). “Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition. 22(1), 5-22. Retrieved the 4^th of November, 2009 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004

Semali, L. (2001). Defining new literacies in curricular practice. Reading Online, 5(4). Retrieved the 13th of November, 2009 from: http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=semali1/index.html

Theatre scripts and plays have had an important role since ancient history. This influence has continued throughout modern history, especially the way in which they have combined orality and literacy and adapted to or incorporated each new technology as it has appeared. Ong mentions several times the importance of theatre and drama, which, since the Greeks, “was composed as a written text and in the west was the first verbal genre, and for centuries was the only verbal genre to be controlled completely by writing” (2002, p.139). Hornbrook also mentions that “Although theatrical events have been a part of human culture since antiquity, prior to the twentieth century, drama was confined to sporadic and occasional bacchanals, festivals, rituals, celebrations and theatre performances,” (1998, p.151) whereas, Cimolino assures us that, “Theatre is one of the surest signs of democracy. Its roots are to be found not in despotism, but rather in ancient democratic Greece, which created the debating forum in order to engender lively thought among a free people” (2006).
I believe that while literature has been revered for the impact which it has on academic minds, it is the play and theatre which have the ability to reach out to all of us. Worthen explains “Our understanding of language and knowledge have been forever altered by the impact of print; yet the Western stage remains an important sight for the transformation of writing into the embodied discourses of action, movement and speech” (2003, p.2). Literature is for the elite, whereas plays and theatre have always been for the common man. A play can be dissected by intellectuals, but once it is performed it “is an important device for communities to collectively share stories, to participate in political dialogue, and to break down the increasing exclusion of marginalized groups” (Van Erven. 2000, p.2)
In academic research there is a distinction made between drama in which a play can be analysed in a similar way to literature and theatre, which is considered to be a non academic pursuit. Fortier states that “despite the assimilation of drama into literary studies and despite the attempt to see theatre as non-verbal literature, literary theory ignores those who have made the most profound contributions to a specific theory of theatre: drama and theatre belong to literary theory but theatre theorists do not.” (1997, p.4). In many universities this distinction is made, as it is considered that an academic study of a play in drama can be graded quantitatively, whereas a theatre production can only be graded qualitatively. A possible reason for academics to view theatre as a lesser art is given to us by Ong when he explains that “Analytic explicatory thought has grown out of oral wisdom only gradually, and perhaps is still divesting itself of oral residue” (2002, p.169). In practical terms a student who decides to study drama in an English university is required to study the same number of theoretical hours as a literature student, plus an equal number of practical hours, not counting rehearsals and performances, in order to receive the same number of credits. Another explanation for this discrimination between oral performance and the written script could be that academic life has been gradually setting itself apart from the common people. Van Erven explains that “Community theatre is an important device for communities to collectively share stories, to participate in political dialogue, and to break down the increasing exclusion of marginalized groups.”(2000, p.2)
Hornbrook relates that there have been four major changes in the way that we communicate: spoken language, written language, the printed book and finally electronic forms of communication. He also explains that the “Examination of the contrasts between oral, manuscript, literate, and finally, electronic cultures can generate insights into the biases and proclivities of a culture dominated by one form of communication or another. Interestingly, these moments of transition coincide with pre-eminent periods in theatre history” (1998, p.152). He agrees with Ong that the written script or play has existed since the Greeks, became prolific from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, became a weapon for social change in the twentieth century challenging the social norms of this period and finally its role may well be changing as “Antithetically, naturalistic drama, in the theatre and on television, denies inventive experience to its spectators, ensuring that they are further silenced in an age in which participation and active engagement are not easily come by” (1998, p160).
Rush explains that in the past theatre began as a celebration of public events in which most of the populace took part. Political, religious and cultural aspects were all incorporated into performances and unlike modern audiences the spectators did not “perceive a great difference between participating in a ritual where issues of belief are paramount, and attending a theatrical performance where suspension of disbelief is at issue.”(1994, p.3) The main ontological difference appears to have been the way in which the actors performed. Cimolino proclaims “Shakespeare’s work is eternal, universal … It tells stories of people like you and me — in our diversity, across time and origin and experience, we share a common humanity. And Shakespeare’s genius was that he seemed to predict the challenges that future societies would face.”(2006). Cartwight tells us that “English drama at the beginning of the sixteenth century was allegorical, didactic, and moralistic; but by the end of the century theatre was censured as emotional and even immoral.” (1999, p.3) Censure has always existed, but the written play has confronted many taboos both in print and in performance. Ibsen was one of the most controversial, modern playwrights. Tans tells us that “A Doll’s House, which many consider the first true feminist play, was banned in England for a time. Despite resistance to his work, Ibsen continued to raise awareness for women’s rights” (2007, p.93) It was not until well into the twentieth century that Ibsen’s plays were accepted and yet he had a profound influence on other playwrights as Tans mentions “Ibsen found support among his artistic peers, such as the Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950), who was influenced by Ibsen’s example to examine social concerns in his own work.”(2007, p.93) Ibsen is an example of how plays, allow us to step out of ourselves and to look at life from someone else’s point of view. Literature tends to be a solitary activity, whereas plays and their public performances allow a playwright’s message to have a much more direct impact on society.
Modern playwrights such as Willy Russell tackle universal social issues such as class stigma. His most famous play Educating Rita started out as a working script which he read to drama students at his ex college in Liverpool to get their feedback. Willy Russell then honed his work and it was then performed at a local theatre where it met with great success as it related so well to local social issues. However, the play was so successful that it gained national attention, from there it caught the attention of the film industry and finally it ended up as an international film. This example shows the power of a play not to be original, (Pygmalion has almost the same plot) but to be in touch with fundamental human issues which have existed and will continue to exist across generations. His plays are written for the everyman instead of the academic elite.
In recent years many education authorities have cut their budgets for the arts in schools. As these subjects are considered less academic it has been felt that children and their education will not be seriously affected. However, there are studies which show that the opposite is true. Catterall in the book “Critical Links” edited by Deasy comments on the work of Goodman and tells us that “dramatic play is a vehicle whereby children can both practice and learn about literary skills and begin to develop “storying skills” which might be used in story writing” (2002, p.37)
Hornbrook warns us that “Now, most of us witness, via television, what would have amounted to several lifetimes of drama for previous generations.”(1998, p.151) This may be true and the play may change its appearance, but I believe it is unlikely that it will disappear. Prenki and Selman explain that “Theatre can say the unsayable. This capacity is perhaps its most central asset. Whether at the individual, group, or public level, theatre gives us ways to express: our dilemmas; our political views, whether conservative or radical; our insights, however tentative; our problems, shortcomings, fears, intentions, complaints, angers, commitments.” (2000, p.101) Theatre, drama and the written play have always been an important part of our lives. They have lived in a constant flux of change and will continue to do so in the future. The recent advances in technology will assure that there will be major upheavals in the way that plays will be written and performed. Oddey and White state that, “it will be shown that the central characteristics of the mediated stage lie in the conceptualization and design of the coalescence between actuality and virtuality, between materiality and immateriality and between physicality and virtuality.” (2006, p.157). Yomiuri (2008) gives us a concrete example of what can be expected in the future in his write up in the “The Yomiuri Shimbun” of how “Robotic technology will enter unfamiliar territory Tuesday when two humanoid robots make their stage acting debut alongside human performers in a play at Osaka University.”

References
Cartwright, K. (1999) Theatre and Humanism: English Drama in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge University Press. New York, USA. Retrieved the 10th of October 2009 from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10064309&ppg=3

Cimolino, A. (July 4, 2006). Theatre defines us.(Comment)(Column). Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada), A15. Retrieved October 17th, 2009, from Global Issues In Context via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gic/start.do?prodId=GIC

Deasy, R. Editor (2002) Critical Links: Learning in the Arts and Student Academic and Social Development. Retrieved October 21st, 2009 from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/d0/52.pdf

Fortier, M. (1997) Theatre Theory:An Introduction. Routledge London, England. Retrieved the 7th of October 2009 from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10057267&ppg=12

Hornbrook, D. (Editor). (1998) On the Subject of Drama. Routledge
London, England. Retrieved the 14th of October 2009 from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10070831&ppg=164

Oddey, A. and White, C. Editors. ( 2006) Potentials of Spaces : The Theory and Practice of Scenography and Performance. Intellect Books. Bristol, England. Retrieved October 29th, 2009, from Global Issues In Context via Gale: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10158462&ppg=158

Ong,W. (1982) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Methuen. London, England.

Prenki.T. and Selman.J. Editors. ( 2000) Popular Theatre in Political Culture. Intellect Books. Bristol, England. Retrieved October 29th, 2009, from Global Issues In Context via Gale: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10019962&ppg=135

Rush. R. (1994) Greek Tragic Theatre. Routledge. Florence, USA . Retrieved the 7th of October, 2009 from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10100177&ppg=14

Tran, L. (2007). Art, Drama/Performance. In F. Malti-Douglas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Culture Society History, Vol. 1(pp. 92-96). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from Global Issues In Context via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gic/start.do?prodId=GIC

Van Erven, E. 2000. Community Theatre : Global Perspectives. Routledge
London. England. Retrieved the 27th of September 2009 from:
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/Doc?id=10053887&ppg=2

Worthen. W. 2003. Shakespeare and the Force of Modern Performance. Cambridge University Press. New York. USA. Retrieved the 27th of September 2009 from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/urse/docDetail.action?docID=10063475&p00=theatre%20%20literacy

Yomiuri. S. (2008) “Robot actors to make stage debut in Japanese play.” Global Issues In Context. Gale.Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved October 29th, 2009, from Global Issues In Context via Gale: http://find.galegroup.com/gic/start.do?prodId=GIC

            Ong provides us with some very convincing arguments that there is a marked difference between the thought processes of a purely oral society compared to a literate society. One cannot deny that his examples of the work A. R. Luria appear to show very conclusively that the oral speaker thinks in more lifeworld terms, meanwhile the literate or even semi-literate man is capable of more abstract thinking processes. Ong clearly states that “Literate users of a grapholect such as standard English have access to vocabularies hundreds of times larger than any oral language can manage” (p. 14).On the whole I find myself in agreement with him. However, I have several in laws who are illiterate and when we have problems it is often due to misunderstandings because I have used language in a different way than they do.

            Therefore, I find myself left with doubts about the validity of some of his arguments. I wonder if it is really possible for a literate person to know what questions to ask an illiterate person in order to determine their thought processes. I can empathize if I have this skill, but I have been literate all my life. I have had access as Ong quotes Finnegan as saying to “The new way to store knowledge … in the written text. This freed the mind for more original, more abstract thought” (Ong, p. 24).Is it possible to be objective if I have so much more language to command? I believe that as teachers we need to look at orality and literacy at all levels of education. I train teachers from kinder to high school. It is important for kinder teachers to realise how important their use of language is. Children entering kinder garden are being exposed, often for the first time, to new language and new voices. Ong (p.71) explains how one can become immersed in sound. Children love repeated sounds and the use of onomatopoeia and alliteration is crucial for keeping their attention. Small children develop language skills when language is introduced in an additive and aggregative way.

            I think almost all teachers would agree that storytelling and giving new information using story telling techniques is a standard practice. However, when we come to older children the reverse is true. Mexico, in particular, is a very sociable and oral culture. However, in the secondary and high school, children until recently, were expected to increase their knowledge by almost exclusively literate means. Whereas, in primary school they were encouraged to vocalise their thoughts, now they are expected to listen to the teacher, read their textbook or investigate on their computers and finally to produce a written document or answer a written exam. Oral skills are not encouraged and children are told to not waste their time talking. It would appear that these teachers believe that “Writing heightens consciousness. Alienation from a natural milieu can be good for us and indeed is in many ways essential for full human life” (Ong, p. 81).  Some teachers have tried to change the heavily weighted literary elements of their teaching method by getting their students to present their investigation to the group. Unfortunately, in my opinion, this has not been very successful; as most students read their presentation and some adolescents find it a traumatising experience to be singled out to speak in front of the group.

            I became aware of these drawbacks about a few years ago and I have tried to adapt my curriculum accordingly. I see no reason why students have to read alone or in silence. I encourage my students to read aloud in groups and to each other. I find this allows them to stop and discuss relevant points, take notes (written or pictorial) or ask for help if a concept is not clear. I give them options on how to present their knowledge, either, mental or conceptual maps, written summaries, pictorial representations or in oral form. Most of my students come from families were reading is not a common pastime and very few of them read for pleasure. Ong states that “High literacy fosters truly written composition” (p. 94) and I find myself in agreement to some extent. Nevertheless, if a culture does not have very developed literary skills, I believe that it is necessary to find some intermediate path between orality and literacy and from the results I have encountered in my classroom I think that combining orality and literacy is one method that is effective.   

 Ong, W. (2002). Orality and Literacy.  New York: Routledge.

Words fascinate me and I love discovering where they come from. I had a little problem with text, as I remember my grandfather telling me of how in Ireland people were renowned for weaving tales and so weaving and woven were common words for me related to oral storytelling. I had never related them with the written word before, however on reflection it does make sense. Technology was more of a challenge. I had never considered the anthropological definition of technology as “a body of knowledge”. It seems so all encompassing. This would mean therefore that any new knowledge we have could be considered as technology and from there I must accept that all technology will cause changes whether we make them consciously or not.  

Web Site

Definition of technology  Dictionary.com retrieved on the 14th of September 2009 from

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technology

Mayan writing at Palenque, originally uploaded by scrappymoduinne.

I chose this picture as I have been fascinated since I was a small child with the different ways in which human beings communicate with each other. I used to spend hours looking at Egyptian hieroglyphics, trying to imagine what messages could be discovered, if I only knew how to interpret them. From hieroglyphics I moved on to books and by the age of three I learned to read. I think I learned so quickly because words seemed easy after hieroglyphics and I hated having to wait for an adult to read to me. When I moved to Mexico and came across Mayan writing it brought back so many memories from my childhood. Next I moved to Oaxaca and discovered that a lot of the people I met spoke an indigenous language, but did not know how to write it. Writing in their own language has never been necessary for them, as they can write in Spanish or a foreign language such as English, if they need to.
My name is Clare Marie Roche, I am from Liverpool, England and I have been living in Oaxaca, Mexico for the last eighteen years. I am a widow and I have two daughters and a granddaughter, all of whom speak Spanish as their first language. I have been working at a small, private university for the last fourteen years. I am looking forward to working with all of you.