Categories
Reflections

An article to share = 540 Reflection

   Hi all! I was asked to write an article for the International Baccalaureate Organization’s (IBO) grassroots educational magazine in Hong Kong titled The International Inquirer. I work at an IBO school, in a bilingual environment and I teach the Primary Years Program (PYP). The article is a reflection on what we learned during the digital literacy exploration in 540 and I really tried to blend MET with my actual practice. I asked permission to share the article here and I was encouraged to. Way to go CopyLeft movement! My article is more generalized than my MET work, and it is written to inspire ed-tech integration. I would not have written it as well without help from this community and knowledge gained through this course. Thanks for inspiring me! During the copy process, some formatting changed and I can’t seem to fix it. The article is not supposed to be APA as the format for references is up to the editor, but I certainly aimed for APA throughout! Erin

A Concept-Driven Curriculum and Educational Technology Integration

In 2001, Mark Prensky, an influential voice in the field of educational technology, considered students in kindergarten-college, who were born into a technically advanced society, to be “Digital Natives”. Prensky’s (2001) Digital Natives were the first generation literate in the digital language of computers, the Internet and video games. Individuals born prior to the introduction of home computers and broadband are considered Digital Immigrants, and they speak “digital” with a strong accent (Prensky, 2001). Similar to Prensky, Don Tapscott (1998) considered  students born between 1977 and 1997 to be members of the Net Generation, a generation of critical thinkers who question the values contained in information. The Net Generation have “grown up digital” and in 2009, we are teaching the new Net Generation, some  members who are being raised by the first “Net Geners” (Tapscott, 2009). Curriculums will never catch up with the digital language this generation speaks unless there is a shift toward centering the learning experience on the individual and providing learners with the tools of new media to enhance interactivity and, importantly, constructivist connections (Tapscott,1998).

 

 Kids on PC teaching adults at a conference how to play a game(Kids and Computers, 2007)

 In 2007, cultural anthropologist Michael Wesch posted a video concerning this issue on YouTube. The video, A Vision of Students Today, emphasises how the educational system of the 20th century fails to meet the needs of the 21st century learner.  Web development never slowed down to let Digital Immigrants catch up. In 2004, Tim O’Reilly coined the phrase “Web 2.0” and the new Net Generation spoke another digital language dialect (Alexander, 2008). Educators inhabiting the world of the new Net Generation must revamp and extend their prior technology skills to address emergent multiliteracies in the Web 2.0 world (Alexander, 2008). An exploration of how the PYP could meet the needs of the new Net Generation learner through the educational design of a concept-driven curriculum opens up learning possibilities for student and teacher.

The concept driven curriculum in the PYP is a pedagogical approach to learning and teaching that supports inquiry based learning (IBO, 2009). The eight key concepts identified in the PYP (form, function, causation, change, connection, perspective, responsibility and reflection) support the transdisciplinary model of teaching and learning (IBO, 2009). Integrating educational technology opportunities, specifically Web 2.0 tools, into a concept driven curriculum is one way to enrich lines of inquiry (Alexander, 2006; Levy, 2008; Reid, 2007; Wesch, 2007).  Web 2.0 tools give educators the means to incorporate digital literacy opportunities into the inquiry process to help meet the transdisciplinary learning needs of the new Net Generation (Alexander, 2006; Bolter, 2001; Cameron, 2004; Prensky, 2008).

The selection of Web 2.0 tools is dependent on a number of factors, not all of which can be discussed here. For the sake of making reasonable recommendations, it is assumed that the digital divide in Hong Kong IB schools is not a severe restrictive concern. Students need access to a computer with a reliable Internet connection and teachers may require in-house technical support (Bates, 2000). It is also assumed that educational technology integration has been discussed at the administrative level and the school has a general atmosphere of culture change in favour of designing educational spaces with Web 2.0 technology. Staff enthusiasm for learning new Web 2.0 tools in an already stretched schedule is one indicator of this cultural change (Bates, 2000). It is recommended that the terms of service and privacy policies for Web 2.0 applications be analyzed with the school’s online student safety and intellectual property policies in mind (ISTE, 2008). Finally, grade level planning meetings concerning how concepts could be supported with specific technologies during the inquiry planning process would clarify the purpose of the Web 2.0 tool.

ICT

  (ICT Enhanced Interative Writing, 2009)

A number of Web 2.0 technologies are available to teachers and choosing a tool may seem daunting. However, it is up to the teacher to decide how the tool could be integrated to make concepts in the planner relevant to the student. Alexander (2006; 2008), in his discussion of multiliteracies, identifies four qualities of Web 2.0 tools which help students develop their digital literacy. They are considered by Alexander (2008) to be the creation of microcontent, social connectedness, openness and social filtering. The new Net Generation speaks this language and learns in this manner (Bolter, 2001; Anderson 2008). When choosing tools it is important to identify characteristics of the new Net Generation in order to inform educational design. These students desire faster interactions with information, multitasking, processing multiple data simultaneously,  informative graphics with a text backup, hyperlinking through materials rather than reading linearly,  networking with electronic communication devices, immediate and clear feedback or reward in return for efforts (Bolter, 2001; Cameron, 2004). Our students see technology as empowering and necessary (Bolter, 2001; Cameron, 2004).

 

Web 1.0_2.0_comic(“Ed-Tech 1.0 Meets 2.0”, Gillespie, 2009. Created on MakeBeliefsComix)

Digital storytelling and the emergent form of Web 2.0 digital storytelling is a tool popular with educators (Banaszewski, 2002; Benmayor, 2008; Meadows, 2003). Enthusiast, educator and Web 2.0 researcher Alan Levine has created an excellent resource for anyone interested in Web 2.0 digital storytelling at http://cogdogroo.wikispaces.com/StoryTools. Blogging and wikis have been popular for over a decade and both have been researched and found to be supportive of constructivist learning opportunities. Some recommended tools are Landmarks’ Class Blogmeister (http://www.classblogmeister.com/), Edublogs (http://edublogs.org/), Wikimedia’s Wikikids (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids) and PB Works (https://plans.pbworks.com/academic). For a snapshot of wikis in use, visit Educational Wikis (http://educationalwikis.wikispaces.com/Examples+of+educational+wikis).

Other excellent Web 2.0 tools to support digital literacy and inquiry are Kerpoof Studios (http://www.kerpoof.com/), M.I.T’s Scratch (http://scratch.mit.edu/), Make Beliefs Comix (http://www.makebeliefscomix.com/Comix/), Voice Thread (http://voicethread.com/) , Prezi (http://prezi.com/), Gliffy diagram software (http://www.gliffy.com/) , the Jing screen capture application (http://www.jingproject.com/) and the sound editor Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/). Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) is an excellent place for student and teacher to search for “copyleft” and reusable and web content. The above Web 2.0 tools are designed in English, but some lend themselves to bilingual content. Generally, they are tools which can be mixed and “remixed” with one another. For example, a wiki could have an embedded 2.0 digital story which is itself hyperlinked to a blog in order to meet the student’s digital literacy preference for nonlinear reading. In addition, the forums on the ibo.org online curriculum centre (OCC) are rich resources concerning the practical implementation of Web 2.0 tools. Several Ning (http://www.ning.com/) networks, wikis and TED (http://www.ted.com/) talks have been created by IB educators for IB educators.

Our students are memory stick carrying members of the new Net Generation, a generation defining emergent multiliteracies. In a knowledge society, our learners need liberal arts skills to be integrated with information technology (Bates, 2000).  It is the educator’s responsibility to integrate tools with meaningful relevance to our 21st century students in order to help them reach their greatest potential when navigating a concept based inquiry. Today’s students live Web 2.0 digital lives and a growing number of teachers are beginning to explore and develop new ways of teaching with these technologies and practices (Alexander, 2008). It is the intention of this article to provide inspiration for IB teachers to integrate Web 2.0 tools in order to help students construct knowledge necessary for a meaningful understanding of concepts.

 

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32-44. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf.

Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 150-160. doi: 10.1080/00405840801992371

            Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beetham,H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). An introduction to rethinking pedagogy for a digital age. In H. Bentham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age. (pp 1-10). London:Routeledge

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

Cameron, D. (2004). The net generation goes to university? Journalism Education Association Conference , Griffith University. Available online from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/28/08/25.pdf

International Baccalaureate Organization. (2009). The IB primary years programme. Available online from http://www.ibo.org/pyp/

International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE]. (2008). ISTE’s Educational Technology Standards for Teachers. Available online from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForTeachers/2008Standards/NETS_for_Teachers_2008.htm

Lamb, B. (2007). Dr. Mashup or, why educators should learn to stop worrying and love the remix. EDUCAUSE Review, 42(4). 12-24.

Levy, P. (2008). Inquiry in the Web 2.0 environment: Tools for students for ‘design for learning’? Learning Through Enquiry Alliance Conference 2008. Available online from http://www.slideshare.net/cilass.slideshare/nquiry-in-the-web-20-environment-tools-for-students-for-design-for-learning

Reid, P. (2007). Inquiry based learning with Web 2.0. Educational Computing Association of Western Australia 2007 Conference Proceedings. Available online from http://www.slideshare.net/paulreid/inquiry-b-lweb20-ss

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. Available online from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Prensky, M. (2006). “Don’t bother me mom-I’m learning!” St. Paul, Minnesota: Paragon House

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. NY, New York: McGraw-Hill

Tapscott, D. (2009 ) . Grown up digital. NY, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Wesch, M. (2007). A vision of students today, video. Available online from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o

Image References

Kids and Computers. January 13, 2007. Flickr upload by shapeshift. Available online November 25, 2009, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/shapeshift/355874159/

Owen, H. (2009). The ICT Enhanced Iterative Writing Process \’;//.[Electronic Version]. Retrieved from www.flickr.com/photos/24289877@NO2/3638995407

Gillespie, E. (2009). Ed-tech 1.0 meets 2.0. Created on MakeBeliefsComix , GNU license

Categories
Commentary 3

Commentary 3: Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracy Skills

Commentary #3: Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracy Skills

Erin Gillespie

ETEC 540

November 27, 2009

Recently, I attended a literacy skills planning meeting. Various curricular text types were explained including procedural text, expositional text, descriptive text, persuasive text and narrative text. The literacy committee recommended that students and teachers use the Internet to increase exposure to the curricular text types and the skills inherent in each. Several suggestions involved Web 2.0 applications, such as blogging, collaborative document creation and wiki editing.  Interestingly, the committee did not consider Web 2.0 itself as embodying an emergent form of multiliteracy skills. In digitally advanced nations, members of society read and write in Web 2.0. Why was this form of emergent multiliteracy overlooked by my curricular designers when we all share the vision of preparing students for the  future with “real world” skills? Web 2.0’s emergent multiliteracies are meaningful and deserve a place in curriculum design.

In the article Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?, Bryan Alexander (2006) describes Web 2.0 applications and common practices within the concept. The major qualities of Web 2.0 are considered by Alexander (2006) to be content blocks called “microcontent”, openness, folksonomic metadata and social software. Alexander (2006) describes how services like social bookmarking, blogging and RSS feeds reflect the qualities of Web 2.0.  He concludes that Web 2.0’s services, which are emergent and therefore risky, may not be considered highly in the field of education.  In 2008, Alexander extends his argument with Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies. Concerning the status of Web 2.0 in the field of education, Alexander (2008) posits a more optimistic opinion.   He describes the “archival instinct” of the Web and states that many pedagogical possibilities of Web 2.0 are explored by teachers and students (Alexander, 2008). The implication of increased value of Web 2.0’s emergent multiliteracies in education further strengthens the argument that this genre requires serious consideration by teachers and curriculum design teams.

Alexander (2008) describes Web 2.0 as being composed of social connection, microcontent, social filtering and openness, similar to his theory in 2006. Instructors must understand these qualities to identify pedagogical possibilities of emergent multiliteracies. Social connection is fostered by Web applications that literally connect people based on the variables of interest or personality (Alexander, 2008).  Alexander (2008) lists a number of examples, such as blogs, FaceBook and Flickr to clarify. Microcontent is considered by Alexander (2008) to be small in size and to require a short investment in learning time. Alexander’s (2008) implication is clear in that microcontent makes Web authoring, and publishing, accessible and realistic in terms of time investment for teacher and student. Social filtering is the process of relating information between primary and secondary sources of Web content. Alexander (2008) considers it “the wisdom of the crowd”, and social filtering is evident in folksonomies created through tagging. Finally, Alexander’s (2006, 2008) fourth quality of “openness” for Web 2.0 content  refers to any content posted on the Web for a global audience to see and use. Considering the literary text types I must teach this year, none seem as dynamic and exciting as the genre of emergent multiliteracies of Web 2.0.

To consolidate my teaching style with Web 2.0 multiliteracy, I must always keep in mind pedagogical possibilities related to Alexander’s (2008) four qualities: microcontent, openness, social filtering and social connection. On a practical level, how could a teacher reach the professional satisfaction of exposing students to this emergent text type in a meaningful way? One popular technique when teaching text types is to take advantage of the traditional method of storytelling. I have taught narrative text and descriptive text through storytelling.  A challenging thought is how to use storytelling to teach emergent Web 2.0 multiliteracies! However, the emergent genre of Web 2.0 storytelling, as described by Alexander and Levine (2008), supports Alexander’s (2006, 2008) theory of Web 2.0 multiliteracies and pedagogical needs.  

Alexander & Levine (2008) argue that Web 2.0 has changed the genre of digital storytelling by blending digital storytelling with Alexander’s (2006;2008) Web 2.0 qualities. Expensive desk top publishing programs are being replaced by free Web 2.0 tools, effectively shifting the pedagogical focus from mastering a tool to telling a story with a tool (Alexander & Levine, 2008).  Web 2.0 digital storytelling is considered to be fiction or non-fiction with possible blurred boundaries, and is broad in scope (Alexander & Levine, 2008). The most significant difference between digital storytelling and Web 2.0 storytelling is the singular, linear flow of the former and the multidirectional flow of the latter (Alexander & Levine, 2008). With Web 2.0 qualities of social connectedness and openness, stories can virtually go in any direction, well beyond a linear form. Curriculum designers must recognize and design for these emergent qualities before advising teachers to use Web 2.0 tools to support literacy skills.

The emergent multiliteracies of Web 2.0 have meaningful literacy skills which should be included in curricular design. For example, Alexander and Levine (2008) note that content redesign is out of the hand of the primary creator with Web 2.0 storytelling. This implies that one challenge will be in teaching students about the consequences of openness and social filtering. In other words, an emerging skill embedded in Web 2.0 multiliteracy is Web 2.0 content analysis. The proposition by Alexander and Levine (2008) that there is a Web 2.0 storytelling genre exemplifies the need for continued research and increased pedagogical recognition concerning emergent multiliteracies. The revelation that each emergent Web 2.0 literacy genre may have its own set of multiliteracy skills should make every curricular designer and practitioner in digitally advanced educational environments sit up and take notice.

References

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE Review, 41(2), 32-44. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf.

Alexander, B. (2008). Web 2.0 and emergent multiliteracies. Theory into Practice, 47(2), 150-160. doi: 10.1080/00405840801992371

Alexander, B., & Levine, A. (2008). Web 2.0 storytelling: Emergence of a new genre. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(6), 40-56. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/Web20StorytellingEmergenceofaN/163262

Categories
Discussion

Oldest Bible now in digital….

In the December, 2009 edition of National Geographic, I came across an article by A.R. Williams detailing how the oldest known New Testament is now available online at http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ . According to Williams, the virtual version lets you see additions that were made and corrections that were overwritten. I tried it out and it is truly realistic. It took scholars, including the British Library, over four years to digitize! Amazing. The tools at http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx really give you the feeling that you are flipping through the ancient codex.

Categories
Uncategorized

ReMix Featuring the Muppets

The Muppet ReMix (Same as embedded video posted below)

This might date me a bit, but nothing was better than sitting down and watching The Muppet Show. Those two critics in the balcony, Statler and Waldorf,  put Simon Cowell to shame.

For some brilliant commentary on Internet culture by Statler and Waldorf, view https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDj7bjAv2s , and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pCW0bd-gH0.

Enjoy the ReMix below
.

[Posted November 23, 2009 to YouTube by The Muppet’s Studio ]

I thought it was great how Kermit tried video conferencing to discuss the upcoming show with the cast and his stage manager Scooter. What a way to relate to parents who are newish to technology yet entertain the kids at the same time!

Categories
Rip.Mix.Feed. Uncategorized

Kerpoof!

I am now officially a huge Kerpoof fan. I read the terms of service and agreed to it. I checked the privacy policy and online safety measures and considered them better than other social networks. One feature I thought was great was the use of a teacher’s e-mail address to create student accounts and class lists, as a level of security. Student’s personal info is not required as they do not need to create their account: The teacher creates accounts and can give students code names. In addition, the teacher can monitor student work and reset passwords if need be. Teachers can search the community for lesson plans and learn how to use the tools very easily. Beyond these details, Kerpoof is FUN!

I learned how to make a movie and how to do a drawing in under 30 minutes. I would link my movie, which really lacked direction and a plot, but Kerpoof stopped me due to text content. I didn’t use any inappropriate words, but perhaps Kerpoof had a high filter for safety reasons. Perhaps you should thank Kerpoof for refusing me a link as my movie consisted of a dog, a snail and a penguin hanging out at the park! Not quite Academy material….The site is designed for children (very graphical with fun links) and there are some great lessons banked for teachers on art, social studies and writing!

Visit and play/learn at http://www.kerpoof.com/teach

Categories
Rip.Mix.Feed.

Rip/Mix/Feed

First of all, this activity is really FUN! Just following the links suggested on the Rip/Feed/Mix wiki page had me totally involved and entertained for over two hours. I’m a big fan of http://cogdogroo.wikispaces.com and I was initially going to do this activity with Roxio Photo Story. However, I used that tool in my own wiki posting for 540, and I thought I’d try a new one.

I wandered over to http://search.creativecommons.org/ and somehow found a link to http://bighugelabs.com/ and once there, Mosaic Maker seemed perfect. I had to create a free account, which is tied in to my Yahoo account, which is then tied in to Flickr. Interesting path of convergence on Web 2.0! There was an option to sign up using Facebook, but I thought Yahoo was more secure. Using Mosaic Maker, I linked to Flickr and searched Creative Commons images that were free to adapt, remix and reuse. I wanted to make a mosaic that reflected the computeras a communication tool. I saved the images in my Flickr favourites, and then Mosaic Maker searched my Flickr favourites to create the mosaic. Pretty simple, yet highly networked!

Computers and Communication
Computers and Communication

BigHugeLabs encouraged me to include the html code from the images, in order to give credit to the people who uploaded to Flickr. Here are the references automatically created by Mosaic Maker:

1. Informatics 2005/2006 Creative Commons photo-patchwork, 2. Computer History Museum, 3. Silicon Gallies – Next Generation Glass Tile Pendant – Black Laptop Computer Key – CTRL ALT DELETE Necklace, 4. Computer Testing, 5. die computer die 2.22.07, 6. Computers, B&W, 7. Build Your Own Z80 Computer, 8. Predicting the Computer of 2004 in 1954, 9. Apple: Keep Your Lawyers Off My Computer, 10. Computer History Museum, 11. Computer Graveyard, 12. Controlling a Computer with Eyes

Categories
Commentary 2

Commentary #2

Commentary #2

Writing Spaces: Hypertext and the Remediation of Print Re-examined

Erin Gillespie

ETEC 540

November 15, 2009

 

The debate surrounding the future of text is never more exciting than when considering the relationship between print and hypertext.  It is in the middle ground that the debate over what is the future of text, hypertext or print, is nicely packaged and tagged as “both” by Bolter (2001) due to one process: remediation. Bolter (2001) contends that interactivity and the merging of text and graphics are strategies inherent in electronic writing that create a more authentic experience for the reader, yet they are dependent on the knowledge of print. In chapter three of Writing Space, Bolter (2001) presents hypertext as the remediation of print, not as its replacement.

Bolter’s (2001) remediation walks a fine line between enthusiasts of new electronic writing and the old guard of traditional print. He argues soundly that hypertext remediates print because it is historically connected to print, while at the same time the two are easily distinguishable from each other (Bolter, 2001). According to Bolter (2001), electronic writing affords movement amongst visual space and conceptual space, and these spaces are different from the space in a book, yet knowledge of a book helps us recognize these affordances.  To optimize our experience when writing electronically, we depend on our former knowledge of print (Bolter, 2001). In other words, hypertext does not stand alone, uninfluenced by the history of print technology. Bolter (2001) argues that this fact is what makes electronic hypertext, ironically, new: Our dependency on and confrontation with our knowledge of the printed book when processing hypertext.  

Remediation may be difficult to apply to the field of text in a few generations, a possibility Bolter (2001) does not explore in chapter three of Writing Space. It is interesting to consider this extreme, and contrast it with Bolter’s (2001) middle ground theory by examining the field of education from an ecological point of view.  One way to re-examine the argument surrounding print and hypertext is to consider Darwin’s theory of evolution. Complex organisms evolve from simplistic organisms over time in an undirected progression of modification (Futuyma, 2005). Continuing with this theory, Darwin’s  natural selection suggests that a member of a species develops a functional advantage and over time, the advantaged members of the species survive to better compete for resources (Futuyma, 2005).

Consider print the simplistic organism: the reader and writer have one entry and exit point and information is linear and fixed, according to Bolter (2001). Less simplistic is hypertext, which can be read from a variety of entry points, is fluid and associative (Bolter, 2001). If we continue with this metaphor, the advantaged members of the species of text will be hypertext if we evolve to value fluidity and associative characteristics in text. Considering the popularity of hypertext and the flow of microcontent in Web 2.0 applications as described by Alexander (2006) and the speed of Jenkin’s (2004) media convergence, this direction in evolution is not unrealistic. Hypertext may survive in the place of print. However, the survival of a species is still dependent on the balance of its ecosystem, an in this metaphor the ecosystem is the student.

It is not illogical to apply an ecological perspective to the pedagogy of a school when discussing the adaptation hypertext. In an examination of factors that affect the use of technology in schools, Zhao and Frank (2003) used an ecological perspective and found it to be an effective analytical framework.  Zhao and Frank’s (2003) framework considers students as the ecosystem, computers a living species, teachers as members of a keystone (the most important) species and external educational innovations as the invasion of an exotic species. It is fair to consider hypertext an external educational innovation in this framework due to its very recent introduction to the field of education and thus, the student. Print, on the other hand, would be a species comfortably functioning in the ecosystem as a textbook. Consider again Bolter’s (2001) contention that hypertext is distinct from yet dependent on print. As an invading exotic species, hypertext is initially dependent on the pre-existing species of print for survival in the ecosystem. Students need to know how to read and how to write text in order to understand hypertext.

However, Bolter’s (2001) theory of remediation holds true only if the ecosystem, or student, is dependent on the species of printed text prior to the introduction of the exotic species of hypertext. However, Bolter (2001) does not look further ahead than remediation. It is possible that in the future, students will be introduced to hypertext prior to developing a dependency on print knowledge. Currently, hypertext is functioning as the exotic, invading species for Tapscott’s (2004) Net Generation and Prensky’s (2001) Digital Natives. However, these same students will produce the Net Generation 2.0.  As parents of the Net Generation 2.0, they will function as Zhao and Frank’s (2003) keystone species, a species already adapted to survive with hypertext. In chapter three, concerning remediation and hypertext, Bolter (2001) argues that print is the tradition that hypertext depends on. However, Bolter (2001) did not consider hypertext as being dependent on previous versions of hypertext. Bolter’s (2001)remediation does not project far enough into the future. The ecosystem, as Net Generation 2.0 students, will remain balanced as the functional advantages of hypertext ensure survival of this exotic species through displacement of the disadvantaged species, traditional print. Remediation of print may lead to the extinction of a dependency on print itself.

 

References

Alexander, B (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? EDUCAUSE, Review, 41(2), 33-44. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf

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

Futuyma, D. J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

Jenkins, H. (2004) The cultural logic of media convergence. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(1), 33-43. doi: 10.1177/1367877904040603

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizion, 9 (5), 1-6. Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf

Tapscott, D. (2004). The net generation and the school. Custom course materials ETEC 532 (pp. #2). Kelowna, B.C: University of British Columbia Okanagan, Bookstore. (Reprinted from Milken Family Foundation, http://www.mff.org/edtech/article.taf?_function=detail&Content_uid1=109).

Zhao, Y., & Frank, K.A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807-840. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3699409.pdf

Categories
Discussion

PBS:Digital Nation

I found an interesting transcript of an interview involving Mark Prensky and Mark Bauerlein on the topic of education and technology.  The interview took place on June 25, 2009 and is posted on PBS’ Frontline: Digital Nation link. It’s interesting beyond the topic  (respecting youth culture, gaming to learn, integrating ed-tech) and on the level of “why isn’t this a sound file”? Something to ponder!

Click to PBS Frontline: Digital Nation

Categories
Research Paper

Yatate: The Writing Technology of the Samurai

 Please follow my wiki here.  For a background and visual reference to my essay, I recommend you view my short yatate presentation:

 

 

 

 

Yatate: The Writing Technology of the Samurai

 

 

Erin Gillespie

ETEC 540

November 1, 2009

 The study of Japanese history often evokes images of samurai, yet samurai are not often associated with the study of writing technology. The use of ancient Chinese writing technology led to an invention by the samurai that revolutionized writing in Japan. Although documentation is difficult to come by, it is argued that the samurai greatly contributed to Japanese literacy through the use of a portable writing technology initially invented for the battle field.

 Trade with the Tang Dynasty of China in 784 AD introduced education through Chinese writing technology to Japan (Andressen, 2001; Bernard, 1999; Kato, 1997; Kwo, 1981). The writing technology was known as “the four precious things of the study” and consisted of a brush, ink, paper and an ink stone (Wang, 1930). The animal hair brush was 21 cm long with a bamboo or wooden handle (Kwo, 1981). Ink was a solid mixture of lampblack, animal fats and vegetable oils, which when rubbed on an ink stone (suzuri) with water, produced an even black ink (Wang, 1930). Directly related to this writing technology are Japan’s first literary achievements and the establishment of schools for the children of nobility in 712 (Kanzaki, 1996; Kato, 1997). During its initial development, Japanese literacy and writing technology was mainly the domain of courtiers and Buddhist priests (Andressen, 2001). There was no significant change in the technology of writing in Japan until the Kamakura period.

During Kamakura (1185-1333), the samurai emerged as warriors assigned to protect their generals (shogunate) and aristocratic families, indicating a shift to feudalism from imperialism (Andressen, 2001). However, the impact the samurai had on the spread of literacy and education is often overlooked. The displaced cultural elite spread court culture and literacy to shogunate and samurai warriors (Andressen, 2001). Political conflicts and civil wars led to literature that centered on military exploits, impermanence and transience (Jewel, 1998). Children of the samurai received formal schooling and lessons in literacy during this period (Yamazumi, 1987). The clan general, Yoritomo, was officially proclaimed shogun by the emperor in 1192 and, once legitimized, was able to learn cultural values from the former court elite (Andressen, 2001).

According to the The British Museum, literate Japanese used a personal calligraphy writing box consisting of the brush (fude), ink stick(sumi), ink stone (suzuri) and a water dropper until 1868 (The British Museum, 2009). This was not the only technology used, as corroborated by Mr. Tsuchida, curator of the Japan Stationary Museum (e-mail, October 25, 2009). During the first half of the Kamakura period a new writing technology was invented and used by the samurai and displaced the ancient writing box (Stutler, 2009; Tsuchida, e-mail, October 25, 2009).

 The new technology was portable, making it a more convenient option, and was called yatate, or “arrow stand” (Stutler, 2009). The name yatate is inherited from the samurai’s older form of carrying small suzuri or a calligraphy set inside their arrow stands (Stutler, 2009). The classic 1183 AD story Heike Monogatari describes the Genji samurai Kiso Yoshinaka as carrying a suzuri in his arrow stand and writing for his lord (Marshall, 2009). The yatate replaced the traditional writing set to become the first portable self-contained writing technology in Japan around 1185 (Marshall, 2009; Stutler, 2009). Although there is no documentation, the yatate is believed to be invented by the samurai and they were the only people allowed to carry and use yatate until the Edo period (Stutler, 2009).

It is possible samurai warriors played a large role in the spread of literacy with their yatate. It is well documented that they produced a great number of novels (Kato, 1997). The samurai supported the development of art and literature and continued to formally school their children (Andressen, 2001; Deal, 2007). Samurai warriors initially wrote using calligraphy sets to report details of battles, tax payments and land transactions to their lords and generals, known as shoguns (Marshall, 2009). It is logical that carrying a traditional calligraphy box set was cumbersome and time consuming to assemble in the field. It is highly likely that a warrior was inspired to create a more portable and efficient writing technology to efficiently carry out his duties. The documented respect for literacy by the samurai implies a love of writing which also may have inspired the portable yatate’s design.

The invention of the yatate by the samurai indicates that a desire and need for a writing technology more suited to mobility. The oldest type of yatate looked like a long block of wood, and folded out like a Japanese fan (Marshall, 2009; Stutler, 2009). When the lid slid to the side, a brush and ink retainer opened to reveal a piece of cotton or raw silk soaked in liquid ink (Marshall, 2009; Stutler, 2009). This was a revolutionary invention at the time as a dependable, efficient and portable writing instrument! The brush could be dipped in the saturated cloth without risk of ink spillage and the entire device was light weight and extremely portable. If the ink on the cloth dried out, moistening the cloth will refresh the ink.

A great battle in 1333 ushered in a civil war which ended in victory for the Tokugawa shoguns (Andressen, 2001). At this time, the yatate changed in design possibly due to the demand for a greater ink supply and a growth in popularity (Stutler, 2009).  The portability of the yatate may have increased the number of written records during conflict, which then led to the change in ink design. It is possible that the yatate may have been more powerful than the sword during war, as samurai could quickly record the transaction of territories. The unification of Japan under Tokugawa shoguns in 1600 ushered in the Edo period and marked a transition of the yatate from technology of the samurai to the civilian.

During the Edo period (1603-1867), the yatate resembled a dipper with had a larger ink retainer and a long, thin hollow handle where one could store a brush and in some models, a slim knife (Stutler, 2009). It is not well documented, but the samurai passed the yatate on to merchants and commoners during Edo which is evidenced in woodblock prints showing commoners carrying yatate. Only the samurai were allowed to carry swords and the slim knife in the yatate intended for scraping ink may have been a commoner’s weapon of self defence (Stutler, 2009).

Citizens of Edo period were only permitted to travel on religious pilgrimages and yatate were used to record a pilgrimage, spread word of Shintoism or to sketch images from the journey (Stutler, 2009). Documented proof in a print by Katsushika Hokusai (1760-1849) shows a traveller carrying yatate.  Edo civilization flourished and it is tempting to consider how the merchant class may have expanded their immediate territory through use of the portable yatate.

The yatate clearly transformed the way people dressed. Commoners fastened yatate to the kimono sash (obi) by a cord or decorative button (netsuke) or, more commonly, tucked the yatate under the sash (Stutler, 2009). Hokusai’s woodblock print shows the yatate tucked in at the back, indicating the yatate were removed from the sash when used. The change in dressing is a strong indication that the yatate was a popular writing technology used daily by men and women and one which made literacy accessible. There is little data to suggest children used yatate. However, formal education continued and the government established tens of thousands of schools for the children of samurai and of commoners (Deal, 2007; Yamazumi, 1987).

The yatate’s growth in popularity from the samurai to commoners may be directly related to the emergence of a formidable literary population who wrote novels, poetry and prose until late in the Tokugawa era. The Edo period saw the samurai and townspeople exercise a greater cultural influence through writing (Kato, 1997). Japan’s cultural center moved to Edo (modern day Tokyo) and a great number of “gesaku”, or frivolous written works, indicate the popularity of writing (Jewel, 1998).  Masterpieces of Edo literature were created with yatate, including sketches by travelling artists (Stutler, 2009). A portable writing technology may have been instrumental in the popularity and accessibility of literacy during this time. By the middle of the 18th century, most authors were samurai, merchants or peasants (Jewel, 1998; Kato, 1997). It is noted that two of these types of authors are documented as using yatate in art, implying the writing technology influenced the literary and artistic world.

During Meiji (1868-1912), the Tokugawa shogunate and the samurai were abolished and a constitutional monarchy established (Andressen, 2001). Japan’s literacy rate at this time is estimated at forty percent (Easterlin, 2000). This high rate may have been influenced by the formal schooling efforts of the samurai and possibly their yatate. Emperor Meiji opened Japan’s doors to international trade and rapid modernization (Andressen, 2001). The yatate, perhaps the samurai’s strongest and most secretive weapon was to be replaced by the Western fountain pen.

  References

 Andressen, C. (2001). A short history of Japan: From Samurai to Sony. New South Wales, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Bernard, H. R. (1999). Languages and scripts in contact: Historical perspectives. In D.A. Wagner, R. L. Venezky & B.V. Street (Eds.), Literacy: An international handbook (pp. 22-28). Westview Press. Available Online 12, October, 2009, from http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/languages%20in%20contact.pdf

Deal, W. E. (2007). Handbook to life in medieval and early modern Japan. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Easterlin, R. A. (2000). The worldwide standard of living since 1800. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (1), 7-26. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2647048?seq=13

Jewel, M. (1998). Japanese literary history. Retrieved from http://www.jlit.net/literary_history/index.html

Kanzaki, M. (1996). History of Japan’s literature. Retrieved from http://www.kanzaki.com/jinfo/jliterature.html

Kato, S. (1997). A history of Japanese literature: From the man’yoshu to modern times. Surrey, Richmond: Curzon Press Ltd.

Kwo, D.W. (1981). Chinese brushwork in calligraphy and painting: Its history, aesthetics and techniques. Mincola, NY: Dover Publications Inc.

Marshall, K. (2009). Tokohan: Antique Japanese yatate. Retrieved from http://www.tokohan.com/Japanese_Antique_Information/Japanese_Antique_Yatate.html

Stutler, R. (2009). Tokyo fountain pen scene: What is yatate? Retrieved from http://www.stutler.cc/pens/yatate/index.html

The British Museum. (2009). Explore/Highlights: The writing box. Retrieved from http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/asia/w/writing-box.aspx

Wang, C. C. (1930). Notes on Chinese ink. Metropolitan Museum Studies, 3(1), 114-133. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1522772?seq=1

Yamazumi, M. (1987). A brief history of Japanese education. Tokyo: Iwanami.

Categories
Discussion

Xanadu and Ted Nelson

I found a great site by Ted Nelson called “Ted Nelson’s Computer Paradigm Expressed as One-Liners”. It examines the cultural ramifications of the web and hypertext with a bit of humour. You can visit it here: http://www.xanadu.com.au/ted/TN/WRITINGS/TCOMPARADIGM/tedCompOneLiners.html

A gem under the section titled Two Cheers for the World Wide Web: “The Web is the minimal concession to hypertext that a sequence-and-hierarchy chauvinist could possibly make” (Nelson, 1999)

Reference

Nelson, T. (1999). Ted Nelson’s computer paradigm expressed as one-liners. Available Online 29, October, 2009, from http://www.xanadu.com.au/ted/TN/WRITINGS/TCOMPARADIGM/tedCompOneLiners.html

Categories
Discussion

Archimedes palimpsest

Archimedes palimpsest was thought to be lost, but it was actually recovered 1000 years later! A palimpsest is defined as “a manuscript written on parchment that has another text written over it, leaving two (or more) layers of visible writing.” (NOVA, 2003).

Archimedes was considered the greatest mathematician in Greek history. His priceless (actually valued at approximately 2 million dollars at auction) palimpsest was traced by NOVA  (2003) and makes for an interesting story related to ancient text and the development of writing technologies. Here is an excerpt:

“circa 1000
A scribe working in Constantinople handwrites a copy of the Archimedes treatises, including their accompanying diagrams and calculations, onto parchment, which is assembled into a book.

circa 1200
A Christian monk handwrites prayers in Greek over the Archimedes text, turning the old mathematical text into a new prayer book. The book is now a palimpsest, a manuscript with a layer of text written over an earlier scraped- or washed-off text”. (NOVA, 2003)

I remembered that Richard Clement  (1997) wrote about the practice of scraping off still-wet ink in Medieval and Renaissance Book Production: Manuscript Books. It is interesting to see an actual example of a 1000 year old text that survived this process! The link has some great images and additional links you may be interested in.

By the way, I found this site by using the Librarian’s Internet Index. I hope it helps some classmates with their research. I also tried to hyperlink in this post, but my links led to a 404 Error message. Ah well, the old fashioned digital literacy method of “cut and paste into your browser ” will work for the links. I posted them below. Erin

References

Clement, R. (1997). Medieval and renaissance book production: Manuscript books. Available online 16, October, 2009, from http://www.the-orb.net/encyclop/culture/books/medbook1.html

Librarian’s internet index. (2009). Available online 16, October, 2009, from http://www.lii.org/

NOVA. (2003). Infinite secrets: The Archimede’s palimpsest. Available online 15, October, 2009 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html

Categories
Reflections Uncategorized

Reflecting on Spaces in Modules 1 and 2….

I’d like to take some time to reflect on our spaces in ETEC 540. During Module 1, we were introduced to our Vista course space (forums, mail, chat…), Flickr and our Community Weblog. During Module 2 we added to our Orality and Literacy wiki pages and we were encouraged to create pages. We also have our Textology Weblog, which I’ve commented on, but haven’t posted to yet. So far so good, but I have to remind myself this is my 9th MET course. I am now fairly literate in reading and writing in these new spaces. This is a long way away from my 2007 self, who was a little lost in ETEC 510.

In ETEC 510 we had to navigate Vista (tricky your first time!) and edit a class wiki (what’s a wiki?) and I was petrified! I spent one hour with our in-school “techie” just learning to post to the wiki and I remember my heart racing as I thought about what I might do “wrong”. Later MET classes introduced me to social bookmarking, creating my own wiki (!), creating my own Moodle (!!) and creating my own blog (!!!). It was a sharp learning curve for someone who read the class outlines concerning MET technology know-how and thought “Yes, I can e-mail with attachments, I’ll be fine!”  🙂

I can’t believe how quickly I have improved my literacy! I can use a WYSIWYG editor in a relaxed manner, a tool which once frightened me with all its buttons and options. I admit, I did have a little palpitation during my ETEC 540 wiki edit, but I knew I could revert to the old page if something went terribly wrong. Another “new spaces” skill!

I know I am at the beginning of understanding this development from an academic point of view. However, I feel that the various readings in 540 relate to my experience. Two years ago I was literate, but not digitally literate. Now I can  draw parallels between  digital literacy and orality, specifically in knowledge community development and creating a sense of  a cohesive “group”. Now I can navigate new spaces of literacy. Now I know these spaces exist and there are other people in them!

I just wanted to share my growth with the class because somebody out there is new to these writing and reading spaces. I want them to know we’ve all been there and by Module 3, navigating these spaces will be old hat.  I’m left wondering, along with you no doubt, what the next big literacy space will be.

I’ll leave you with a great clip “Learning to Change-Changing to Learn” concerning K-12 students and teachers and the shift from traditional reading and writing spaces to the changing spaces we’re being exposed to in ETEC 540 . My favourite quote: “We have a classroom system when we could have a community system”. Enjoy!

 See you in the forums, or the wiki, or the blog, or on delicious or Flickr….Erin

Categories
Commentary 1

Technological Determinism, Reductionism and The Great Divide: A Commentary on W.J. Ong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technological Determinism, Reductionism and The Great Divide: A Commentary on W.J. Ong

 

 Erin Gillespie

ETEC 540

University of British Columbia

October 3, 2009

 

 

     In his text, Orality and Literacy, Walter J. Ong (2002) posits the technology of writing changed the human thought process. For Ong (2002), oral and literate societies are distinctly separated, as exemplified in his introduction to chapter four:

…functionally literate human beings really are: beings whose thought processes do not grow out of simply natural powers but out of these powers as structured, directly or indirectly, by the technology of writing. Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does…More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness. (Ong, 2002, p. 77).

            Ong (2002) argues a binary account or a “Great Divide” theory, where oral and literate societies think in significantly different ways due to the introduction of one technology: writing (Chandler, 1994). His binary account of oral vs. literate society suggests significant differences in information processing between oral and literate societies (Chandler, 1994). Ong (2002) supports his theory with academic research where available and his arguments are convincing. Interestingly, he does not include conflicting research which may suggest a continuum between oral and literate societies. Instead, his clear-cut analysis has a generalizing binary effect driven by technological determinism which requires careful consideration.

            Technological determinism is a framework that is influential on theories of culture and technology (Murphie & Potts, 2003). The term refers to technology as an independent agent of social change which shapes society in an autonomous fashion (Murphie & Potts, 2003). Ong (2002) states writing is a technology and “technologies are not mere exterior aids but also interior transformations of consciousness, and never more than when they affect the word.” (p. 81). Ong (2002) argues the technology of writing determines our behaviour because it changed how we think. However, by postulating a “Great Divide” between oral and literate cultures, Ong (2002) is guilty of reductionism and over generalizing between cultures.

            Ong’s (2002) generalizations across cultures and radically different societies when discussing the features of oral and literate societies weaken his “Great Divide” stance. In his essay “Technological or Media Determinism”, Chandler (1995) claims technological determinism involves reductionism, where complexity of the whole is reduced to the effects of one part on another. Chandler (1995) warns of the pitfalls of generalizing too widely in the area of technological determinism, noting convincing evidence is difficult to cite concerning the relationship between technology and social change.

      In his analysis, Ong (2002) exemplified reductionism by reducing changes, across all cultures, in information processing to the introduction of writing. Ong (2002) does not examine how the introduction of writing may have affected different cultures in different ways. For example, the medieval book of hours included illustrations and text, implying the introduction of writing did not usher in a total cultural transformation in thought (The British Library Board, n.d.). The detailed illustrations provide both oral and literate societies with the same information and provide historical evidence that the two societies coexisted within the same culture. It is fair to say writing affected cultures in different areas in different ways, but Ong (2002) overlooks this.  Ong (2002) itemizes the cultural effects due to the shift from orality to literacy, including artificial memory, analytical thought and abstraction (Murphie & Potts, 2003). However, Ong (2002) simply reduces the change to the introduction of one technology: writing. He fails to investigate other social factors that may have affected human thought such as economics, religion, politics, warfare or education.

      Ong (2002) does not examine how information processing may differ between oral cultures themselves or how thought patterns may differ within the same oral or literate culture in relation to variables other than writing. He instead critiques oral societies by claiming literate people have freer minds because they can store knowledge in written text leading to “more original, more abstract thought” (Ong, 2002, p. 24). Ong (2002) does not include convincing empirical research to support his claim that literacy changes the way we process information. However, Wolf (2008) published results of a scientific historical analysis which supports Ong’s (2002) theory of changes in evolutionary brain pathways in relation to literacy. Wolf’s (2008) research includes studies where brain imaging scans of literate people differ from non-literate and she examines how literate brains process information differently than the brains of dyslexic individuals. Wolf’s (2008) research does lend credibility to Ong’s (2002) claims.

      It would be a mistake to interpret Ong (2002) as completely dismissing the effects of orality in literate societies, despite his technologically deterministic “Great Divide” and his cultural generalizations. His theory of secondary orality implies that our communication methods and our use of language are still affected by primary orality. Considering continuity between orality and literacy, Chandler (1994) includes Ong in a discussion of phonocentrism, an interpretive bias where speech is rated higher than writing in general.  Chandler (1994) points out how Ong (2002) considers speech natural and real, and writing as artificial and dead. Ong (2002) recognizes how characteristics of orality are still apparent in various forms of communication in secondary orality. For example, both primary and secondary orality generate a strong group sense: A “true audience” listening to a speech and today’s global village are both “group-minded” (Ong, 2002, p. 134).

      Ong’s (2002) theory has strong implications for academics and educators should be aware of how any technology can open new kinds of thinking. Despite weaknesses in Ong’s (2002) technological deterministic binary division of oral and literate societies, he does not deny the effects of primary orality on secondary orality. His theory also encourages further research into the field of linguistics and cognitive processing, as demonstrated by Wolf (2008).

 

 

References

 

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the ear and eye: “Great divide” theories, phonocentrism, graphocentrism & logocentrism. Available online 28, September, 2009, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media determinism. Available online 28, September, 2009, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/

Murphie, A., & Potts, J. (2003). Culture and technology. New York, New York: Palgrave-MacMillan

Ong, W. J.  (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, New York: Routledge.

The British Library Board. (n.d.). Scenes from medieval life: A book of hours. Available online 2, October, 2009, from http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/medieval/golfbook/bookofhours.html

Wolf, M. (2008). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York, New York: Harper Collins.

Categories
Uncategorized

Twilight of the Books…is the end near?

I read an interesting article in the New Yorker concerning the history and future of reading for pleasure. Ong and his theory of secondary orality are discussed in the article, but the work of Maryanne Wolf caught my eye (or my mind?). Here is an excerpt of  a section which made me think of this week’s readings and Ong’s theory that literate minds would not think as they do were it not for the technology of writing:

 “The act of reading is not natural,” Maryanne Wolf writes in “Proust and the Squid” (Harper; $25.95), an account of the history and biology of reading. Humans started reading far too recently for any of our genes to code for it specifically. We can do it only because the brain’s plasticity enables the repurposing of circuitry that originally evolved for other tasks—distinguishing at a glance a garter snake from a haricot vert, say.” (Crain, 2007,¶8)

If this is true, what are the long-term effects of such repurposing? Will we lose the ability to recognize garter snakes?  😉

I am of the opinion that the brain did not “rewire” to adapt to reading, but instead grew (created new connections, new synapses) from literacy. I suppose this could be what Wolf considers “repurposing”, and I admit I have not read her book. However, I don’t think our brain is rerouted resources from one area to another. I think our brains slowly formed new and effective pathways of thought.  What do you think?

(There is a nice discussion citing Ong and secondary orality in the article too!) Erin

Crain, C. (2007). Twilight of the books. The New Yorker. Available online 29, September, 2009, from http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2007/12/24/071224crat_atlarge_crain?printable=true

Categories
Discussion

Module 1 Reflections

First of all, I am very impressed with our knowledge community! I’ve read several postings, commented on a few and generally felt inspired by my classmates. The theories of distributed knowledge and constructivism are at play in our community. By sharing their insights, my classmates have provided me with fresh perspectives on difficult issues. I think the community weblog and our introductory web project are  interesting and valuable ways to begin a course focused on “the changing spaces of reading and writing”. A community blog is exciting, challenging (eek, posting an avatar and resizing it!) and effective. I actually started a Class Blogmeister based on this format for my grade four students!

My feelings toward the intentional disorientation on this weblog is one of relief. I like the fact I have to sit back and think about how to connect posts and how to use the available tools to make the most of linking thoughts together (tag searches, searching by name…etc). I think some benefits of disorientation are forcing a student to challenge old thought patterns, reaching more learners (like me!) and displaying/creating knowledge in a new way to create new learning connections. One disadvantage may be some students may feel frustrated or intimidated navigating such an environment and thus, be less motivated to engage in the learning oportunities.

Defining text and technology at the beginning of my MET studies would have been as simple as looking them up in the dictionary. However, given the opportunity to analyze the terms and engage in discussion about them (and to reacquaint myself with the history of Webster’s Dictionary)  simplicity is now out the window.

Some of you may have noticed I posted my concept of text and technology a little early. I was not devaluing the importance of our class discussions, but instead I posted early simply because I printed out the module and mixed up the pages. I posted my terms before my introduction!

Now, reflecting on this, I see how some text for me must be in print, in my hands, when it’s “important”. Yet, I also see how our digital module had the same important text organized in a more efficient manner. I discussed the concept of printed materials with several classmates and was relieved to find that other students behaved the same way.

I also discussed anticipated changes in relation to text and technology. The emergence of YouTube as a return to orality, the concept of hyperlinking as an emergent textual form and issues surrounding the educational acceptance of digital literacy. Postman (1992) reminds us that there is a power struggle inherent in any society that adapts technology. However, I now feel philosophically closer to O’Donnell and Engell in “Papyrus to Cyberspace”,  from the Cambridge Forum(1999) broadcast, on the grounds of finding a societal balance for the costs and benefits of new technology. For example, I now see YouTube as democratizing and balanced as it does not seek to replace text as it provides people a space to speak from.

At the end of Module 1, I’d like to return to our modular reading (in Module 1 of 540), where we are reminded that we are in a “post-print” society. I love the concept of “post-print”, whether I read it or say it aloud! “I am a member of a post-print society”, very impressive. I now see how writing itself is a technology and I’m excited to learn how “post-print” society adapts to our socially created drive for text representation. Clearly we’re adapting as I’m engaged in a rich discussion for my e-learning class using a community weblog! Erin

References

Cambridge Forum. (1999). From Papyrus to Cyberspace.  Available from ETEC 540 Module 1.

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

Categories
Introductions

Keyboard From Stone Age

Keyboard From Stone Age, originally uploaded by elka_cz.

I have selected this image for several reasons.
I think this image evokes feelings of where we have travelled through the democratization of print. The keyboard literally opened pathyways to new knowledge essential for increased knowledge creation. The Internet is wonderful, but knowledge would have been shared with great difficulty were it not for the keyboard!

My name is Erin Gillespie. I am an elementary teacher currently teaching grade 4 (age 9) in Hong Kong at an international school. This is my 9th MET course and the reason I entered the MET program! I can use a keyboard, but now I prefer touch screens with icons.

When I was teaching in Japan (1998-2008), I heard about a course from UBC that had won an award, which led me to an article written by Teresa Dobson entitled “Technologies of Text: Reflections on Teaching, Learning, and Writing with/in Digital Environments” (JCACS, Fall 2005, Vol 3, Issue 1). I was hooked and I searched out the author, which led me to 540 and to the MET program at the end of 2007.

Reflecting on my journey into MET, the image I chose and our readings this week, I feel humanity has come through many ages (the Stone Age, the Bronze Age..etc) and I’m happy to recognize that I am a contributing member of the Information Age.

Erin Gillespie

Image courtesy of Elka Cz (2006): Keyboard from Stone Age

Categories
Technology

Technology=System

Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan.
Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan.

What is technology? 

Currently, for me the term “technology” refers to a system in society. It is too difficult for me to consider technology a simple tool. Technology is just as much the ability to use a tool as it is to be the tool. Technology can function within its own system independently (mechanized production) or it may require other elements to function as a system (a human programs a machine).

I chose the image of Akihabara, the electric city, in Tokyo, Japan to translate visually what the term technology means to me. I lived in Tokyo for 10 years and I often went to “Akiba”. Akihabara functions as the system I’m trying to describe in words. Every aspect of it the city is related to the creation, use, improvement and distribution of electronics. It’s one of the most futuristic places in Tokyo and often made me feel like humans were in service to the machines, but in a positive way. I am not stating that electronic=technology, but I am (hopefully) showing the importance of the system and drawing attention to the way society is shaped by and shapes technologies.

Please watch the tour of Akihabara embedded below if you are interested in walking the streets to get a better idea of how the system I’m describing actually functions.  (Erin Gillespie)

YouTube Preview Image

 

References

Jmho. (2007). Akiba denkigai. Wikimedia Commons. Available online 10, September, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Akiba_denkigai.jpg

YouTube. (2009) Akihabara electric city Tokyo. Genki Japan.net. Available online 10, September, 2009 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSeO0c4Q4Ac

Categories
Text

What is text?

 

 

Scrabble
Scrabble

What is text? At the beginning of this course, text for me is the act of putting in a form of writing another form of communication. For example, text can be printed, inscribed or typed to communicate a message.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Online (OED) text is “The wording of anything written or printed; the structure formed by the words in their order; the very words, phrases, and sentences as written.”, literally that which is woven. Interestingly, there is an area in academic study called “text mining” and according to Hearst (2003) it involves computers discovering unknown text-based  information by extracting what is known and creating new connections to produce new knowledge. This led me to consider text as a system of creating such links, to slowly weave together ideas in society.

I selected this image to represent text to me as a form of expression that is open to new connections and evokes a sense of woven words. The image is based on the popular game Scrabble, where words are connected until the board is filled in an elaborate pattern of text. When I saw the image, I instantly read the words, searching for a meaning.

My name is Erin Gillespie and it is a pleasure to be in 540 with you. I teach grade four at an international primary school and I prefer texting to phone calls.  

References

Hearst, M. (2003). What is text mining? Available online 10, September, 2009, from http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hearst/text-mining.html

Ho, A. (unknown).  Aran Scrabble Layout.  Wikimedia Commons. Available online 10, September, 2009, from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aran_Scrabble_layout.JPG

Oxford English Dictionary Online. (2009).  Available online 10, September, 2009, from http://dictionary.oed.com/

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported.