I feel the same way. In 511 I thought that we are the ones who choose how to use technology. I believed technology is simply a tool.

During “Culture and Technology” last term I read an article by Petrina who gave an example of technological determinism that hit home with me. It was about how we pass each other on sidewalks, like cars would on the street. I hadn’t thought about the habits I formed due to the influence of technology. I am not an extreme tech. determinist but I realize that I don’t control the technology in my life either.

For this week’s post I uploaded a word document and a prezi describing common Web 2.0 tools I’ve used in the past year. I learned about most of these tools from MET courses and fellow METers. It took less time for me to write the document than do the prezi because I never used prezi before. I found I kept having to simplify the prezi over and over so it would be concise and easy to follow. I’d like to know if you think the document and the prezi convey the same message.

I agree with Bolter (2002) and Kress (2005) that we are witnessing a decline in textual modes of representation due to a rise of visual mode of representation. I like to think that visual media complements text instead of controls it.

Visual media can be used in school to engage students in what they’re learning. Generally, I think teachers don’t make enough use of other media. It seems like students become competent using visual media long before most teachers even consider using them in their classes. Teachers should be leading the way. I agree with Kress (2005) that educators tend to be set in their ways and see the move away from traditional writing and reading as negative. I think teachers need to be told that it is ok to embrace the visual and use it to motivate our students to write. For example, my students often write double the amount of sentences using storybird.com compared to writing in their journals. I hope that more sites like this will be created in the future to spark more interest in writing.

Kress (2005) suggests that the online user brings meaning to web pages he/she is reading because he/she can choose different paths afforded by the site. In the classroom, teachers using these sites would be planning more project-based, open ended lessons because every student would be making sense of the information in a unique way. Typical worksheets that a teacher might use for a text book lesson won’t work with this type of medium because not everyone would be reading the same information at the same time. Assessment would also have to change to suit the learning task.

Bolter. J.D. (2001). Writing Spaces. Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Routledge: New York.

Kress, G. (2005). Gains And Lossess: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition, 22, 5-22.

Do the conceptions of digital literacy or multiliteracies offered in the two articles you read this week provide you with specific insights into the ways in which educators should work with new media with their students?

Even though students in schools today are digital natives, they still need just as much guidance through using tech as they did with print.  All students need to be taught how to think critically about what they are reading especially in an online environment where anyone can write almost anything.  “To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed, and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information” (ALA as cited by Dobson and Willinksy, 2009).

Dobson and Willinksy note research on print texts which shows that students with low content knowledge benefit more from using well-structured and coherent resources.  I think the same could be applied to learning with hypermedia.  I believe concepts or tools that are just being introduced to students should be done with more overt instruction before they attempt situated practice learning tasks.

In regards to teaching with technology in my class, I would like to try blogging which allows students to “readily see and comment on each other’s work” which Bruce, Micheals and Watson-Gegeo (as cited by Dobson & Willinsky, 2009) said improved student writing.  I’d also like to introduce more lessons based in situated practice like reaching out to experts when engaging in authentic tasks.  For example, we could contact native French speakers with Skype to practise oral French.  This experience would also raise student awareness of another culture, preparing my students to work in a diverse online world when they’re older.

I found it interesting that Dobson and Willinksy cited research by Luke and Luke that showed that “adolescents competence with new technologies—is often inappropriately reconstrued as incompetence with print-based literacies.”  From my experience in the MET program, many secondary teachers have said that teen’s writing skills have declined in recent years.  Perhaps this observation isn’t only because of an increase in digital literacy but other factors as well.

Dobson, T. M.,& Willinsky, J. (2009) Digital literacy. Draft chapter for the Cambridge Handbook on Literacy.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92.

I am going to attempt to compare Wikipedia to Xanadu but would appreciate your help because I found the readings hard to get through.

In both Xanadu and Wikipedia, the user can edit and create documents. However, I think the user has more control over Wikipedia than Xanadu. Xanadu tracks changes made to text so people can understand where the current line of thought originated. All versions of a document are preserved in Xanadu. This reminds me of Wikipedia’s history page. On Wikipedia’s history page, you can click on a date when a change was made to bring up the old version. In both Wikipedia and Xanadu, you can compare previous revisions to a document side by side. Documents in Xanadu can be annotated. This makes me think of Wikipedia’s discussion page where users can discuss revisions.

Wikipedia and Xanadu both use hypertext to provide links to an array of content within a closed system but Wikipedia often has links that don’t work. One of Xanadu’s goals was to have non-breaking links to permanently stored documents which can’t be removed from the system. I think the nature of Xanadu’s links is different than what the web currently allows. Nelson (1999) talks about having thousands of overlapping links on the same body of content called transclusions. Therefore, links are infinite instead of today’s one way connection.

 I often see articles in Wikipedia without proper references. Xanadu proposes a system of copyright called transcopyright (Nelson, 1997 as cited by Nelson, 1999) where the “quote is connected to the original work so that readers can locate the context from which an excerpt was drawn” (Denning, 1998 as cited by Nelson, 1999). This system also includes giving credit and possibly monetary compensation to the original author of works included in any derivatives such as mash-ups.

Here is a video of Ted Nelson talking about the difference between the Internet and Xanadu.

 Nelson, Theodore. (1999). “Xanalogical structure, needed now more than ever: Parallel documents, deep links to content, deep versioning and deep re-use.” Available: http://www.cs.brown.edu/memex/ACM_HypertextTestbed/papers/60.html

I often question if word processing is used adequately in schools. In my own class, I teach typing skills here and there but mainly use our computer time for more exciting applications. When working on activities other than typing, I don’t check to see if my students are using the “pecking” method or proper typing technique. Am I doing my students a disservice by not demanding they use proper technique at all times? In B.C., there is no separate elementary curriculum for learning with technology so I don’t know if students are ever expected to perfect their typing form. I imagine that bad habits would be too hard to change by the time they take typing classes in high school. Maybe typing should be regarded like writing as students are expected to perfect letter formation in kindergarten and grade one.

I don’t ask my students to type out good copies of projects or assignments because it would take forever due to their lack of keyboard and word processing knowledge. I see students in the upper elementary grades typing their assignments. I wonder if these students simply copy their handwritten good copy to the computer instead of using the advantages of the word processor? Bolton (2001) lists some of these advantages as replacing words (maybe with the thesaurus option) and reorganizing ideas by cutting and pasting. Editing with a word processor is much easier than erasing and rewriting. Should we be using a word processor for typing rough copies at all times?

Using a word processor regularly for stories and essays would be many primary teacher’s worst nightmare. However, maybe it wouldn’t be so bad if we made a big effort to teach students how to use it? As it stands now, once a week in the computer lab would not be enough to help my young students make the transition.

Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the scroll as a technology for writing? Consider storage, transportation of documents, aesthetics, suitability for different structures of argument, and ease of use for both readers and writers

Writing was not considered practical or economical at the time of the scroll. Writing often required many rolls and was only done on one side of the scroll. Grout (2002) said that physical limitations of the scroll “tended to define the divisions of literature” because one piece of work often required many rolls. The need to constantly wind and unwind the scroll took a lot of time compared to turning the pages of a codex. This action also caused abrasion (Grout, 2002). It was difficult to find information on the scroll because there was no index and the titulus (title) would tend to fall off. Handwriting at the time of the scroll was very decorative like calligraphy (Ong, 2002). Writing took a long period of time which was sometimes only able to be interpreted by the author (Ong, 2002). This is an extreme contrast to print culture where page layout was well structured and legible, making silent reading easier (Ong, 2002).

Reading was a social activity with the scroll. It was embedded in an oral culture where mnemonics, aggregation, and epithets were transferred to writing. Therefore, written grammar was still closely tied to the spoken word even though it did revolutionize communication. (Bolter, 2001). “Writing on papyrus remediated oral communication by involving the eye as well as the ear and so giving the words a different claim to reality” (Bolter, 2001, p. 23). Because reading took place in public, the written word was more up for debate than in print, for example, which was thought of to be finalized (Ong, 2002). Scroll writing was done by experts who were educated in working with materials like rags, ink and papyrus. Therefore, literacy was not common amongst the masses.

Bolter, J. (2001). Writing space. New York: Routledge.

Grout, J. (Ed.). (2002). Scroll and codex. In Encyclopaedia Romana. Retrieved from: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/notaepage.html

Ong, Walter. (2002.) Orality and literacy. New York: Routledge.

Is rote learning of any use in literate cultures with easy and affordable access to various methods of information storage?

The main purpose of rote learning is to memorize information such as basic math skills, dates poetry, spelling words etc. As we become more dependent on mobile technology, it seems like there is less need to rely on memorization for accessing information. This begs the question, “Should we still be teaching rote learning in school?”

I believe rote learning should not be a primary source of learning in the classroom. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive behaviours lists memorizing under knowledge which is the lowest level in the cognitive domain. Constructivism, a popular learning theory in the field of education, values critical thinking which is the highest cognitive domain of Bloom’s taxonomy. 21rst century learning favours constructivism over traditional methods, such as rote learning.

Rote learning should not be completely eliminated from the school system either. What happens if one’s personal technology breaks down? Students should be able to call on their memory to provide factual information even if they usually turn to technology for answers. Also, students need to know basic facts in order to solve more complex problems. It would be a waste of time to always turn to technology during problem solving instead of recalling this information from memory.

Referring to writing, Thamus said, “Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful” (as cited by Postman, 1992, p.4). If alive today, Thamus would say the Internet, mobile phones, ipads etc. hinder brain functions as well. I believe these technologies support our problem solving and thinking but should not be depended upon as the sole source of information. Rote learning still has a place in our schools. Our goal, as educators, is to integrate new and old teaching philosophies and technologies in the best ways that suit the needs of our students.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New york: Vintage books.

When I think of text, I think of the power of the written word. For example, text has been used to bring about change with letter campaigns as well to spread knowledge and culture across time and space. To me, text has more of a lasting effect than speech because the latter can be forgotten or remembered differently. The Internet has sparked a revival of text as people use it to share themselves intimately with others in blogs, tweets, email, forums etc.

A recent example of the power of text is Google’s 2010 Superbowl commercial embedded below. This advertisement cost $3 million to air and is nothing but text. The ad was one of the most remembered after the Superbowl as found by Sands Research, a neuromarketing group. Text can be very compelling when it is used to tell a story we can all relate to. The following video has over 6 million hits on youtube:

Parisian Love

Reference

Sands Research (2010). Sands research announces results of neuromarketing study ranking effectiveness of 2010 super bowl commercials. Retrieved from: http://www.sandsresearch.com/PressRelease_SB2010.aspx