The Evolution of Ekphrasis

Oukyo's Ghost

“Oukyo’s Ghost,” painted by Hounen Tsukioka in 1882, depicts another painter, Maruyama Oukyo, and his reaction to a painting. Tsukioka was expressing the power of image on the human psyche and the ability for text and image to “come alive” and interact with the viewer. This is an example of ekphrasis not only because it is a depiction of an artist by an artist and of a painting within a painting, but because it shows the 19th century shift in the genre of ekphrasis which began to use the reaction of the viewer as part of the description (Munsterburg, 2009). This shift or addition to the meaning of ekphrasis is an important one as it is one of the concepts that digital ekphrasis is founded upon: the interaction between the image and the viewer.

Early Ekphrasis

Plato

Ekphrasis, also or previously known as ecphrasis, claims its origins from the Greek language as “ex” and “phrazein,” the literal translation being “out” and “speak.” In ancient cultures, with few methods of publication, ekphrasis meant the verbal recollection or description of an object. One of the earliest recorded explanations of ekphrasis is in Plato’s (376 BC), Republic, Book X, where he uses the example of a bed and discusses the concept of “bedness” as an analogy for exphrasis. A bed is defined as an object and bedness refers to all the different forms a bed can take depending on the angle it is looked at and how it is reconstructed or replicated.

Plato philosophizes that there are three possible creators of a bed: 1) God, who created the one and only original bed which exists in nature (which can be understood to be the idea, the prototype or the original realization of a bed or the need of a bed), 2) the carpenter, the maker of the physical or the real bed, and 3) the painter, who superimposes an image of the real bed onto the canvas (or whatever is being drawn on). Through Plato’s analogy of bed and bedness, ekphrasis can be understood to be the imitation of a previously established creative idea or art form by its representation or re-creation as another art form.

Plato concludes his discussion of bedness and ekphrasis with the question: “Which is the art of painting designed to be– an imitation of things as they are, or as they appear– of appearance or of reality?” The question still echoes more than two millennia after Plato first pondered it. The answer may exist somewhere in our modern day multimedia, somewhere amongst real life captured in images, amongst the books and stories that have become films, amongst the song lyrics that have become music videos or amongst real people that have become avatars, human personalities represented as digital characters superimposed onto real-time, interactive virtual spaces. Or we may be further lost, needing more than ever to ask, are the images we see reality, or an imitation of reality?

Ekphrasis and Literature

The Picture of Dorian Gray

In ancient times, ekphrasis referred to art, mainly paintings and sculptures directly inspired from objects, people and situations in real life. Later, with the spread of print forms such as books, ekphrasis was mainly a concept that occurred in literature. Several examples of ekphrasis are found in Oscar Wilde’s (1890), The Picture of Dorian Gray. The narcissistic main character, Dorian Gray, possesses a magical self-portrait of himself. Wilde’s literal description of the painting, what it looks like and how it has supernatural powers to preserve human youth, is an example of literary ekphrasis: “This portrait would be to him the most magical of mirrors. As it had revealed to him his own body so it would reveal to him his own soul… he would keep the glamour of his boyhood. Not one blossom of his loveliness would ever fade. Not one pulse of his life would ever weaken. Like the gods of the Greeks…” (Wilde: 136). Literature practices ekphrasis when it is able to waken and involve our visual imagination through the mere written words on the page.

Another example of ekphrasis from this gothic horror story is through the description of Dorian’s lover, Sybil Vane. Sybil, who commits suicide when she believes Dorian no longer loves her, is compared to many of the tragic heroines of Shakespeare’s plays: “Sybil Vane represented to you all the heroines of romance, that she was Desdemona one night, and Ophelia the other; that if she died as Juliet, she came to life as Imogen… The girl never really lived, and so she has never really died… Mourn for Ophelia, if you like. Put ashes on your head because Cordelia was strangled. Cry out against Heaven because the daughter of Brabantio died. But don’t waste your tears over Sybil Vane. She was less real than they are” (Wilde: 132). As seen in Wilde’s writing, ekphrasis can exist in a fictitious character by description of another fictitious character. Wilde plays on the words of life and death though his characters and his characters’ impersonation of other characters, virtually inviting the readers to ask who is real and who is not.

Before the digital age, it can be seen that ekphrasis prominently existed as a literary description of an art form, or a literary imitation of another literary form. Literary ekphrasis reflected a time of plain literacy, meaning “a focus on letters” (Dobson and Willinksky: 15). Images were brought to Wilde’s readers not through images on paper, but through letters on paper. The shift from letter focus to digital focus, however, again shifted and expanded the meaning of ekphrasis.

Ekphrasis in the Digital Age

With the creation of multimedia forms, such as television and computers, the phenomena of ekphrasis exploded. With the breakout of visual media, the definition of ekphrasis expanded to include a visual representation of the literate form, essentially, reverse-ekphrasis. Reverse-ekphrasis, the representation of words into images, is likely more prominent in digital media than the previous definition of ekphrasis, the representation of images into words. Reverse-ekphrasis has become so prominent that it is simply considered ekphrasis itself, therefore, ekphrasis may be now be defined as the description or representation of any art or text form to any other art or text form.

An example of digital ekphrasis is in a digital space such as Second Life. Digital spaces such as Second Life are imitations of real life objects (such as money represented through Linden (the creator of the site) dollars), people (represented through animated characters or avatars) and experiences that happen in real life (such as human communication and relationships that develop through text, audio and visuals/gestures). Virtual reality is an example of life superimposed onto the screen as live, multi-sensory, interactive digital art. Although there are some examples of text to art ekphrasis in virtual reality spaces, the type of ekphrasis that happens here is more similar to the type of ekphrasis that happened in Plato’s day. Ekphrasis, by Plato’s definition over two thousand years ago, meant something directly from nature (a person, place, object or situation) that was transposed into an art form, such as a sculpture or a painting. Electronic art simulations take most of their elements directly from nature (from real life, not from text or literature) and from experiences that happen in real life (not from text to image translations, not from literature-based ekphrasis).

The metamorphoses of ekphrasis that occurred with the emergence of digital technology has brought the concept of ekphrasis full circle, back to imitations of things found in nature. There now exists two prominent types of ekphrasis: representations from nature or real life, and representations of other artificial art forms, such as paintings or literature. The emergence and dominance of digital technology forces change not only to the concept of ekphrasis, but also to the concept of literacy. Literacy no longer means the ability to read letters and words, but also the ability to read images. Does this, therefore, and necessarily, force change to the concept of education?

Ekphrasis and Education; Multimodality and Multiliteracies

Literacy is “a carefully restricted project– restricted to formalized, monolingual, monocultural, and rule-governed forms of language” (Cazden, et al.: 1). Literacy, and literacy pedagogy is monomodal. In a world that flows on multimodality, there is little practicality to educators and students limiting their learning to a monoliterate education. In order to function in a multimodal world, students must learn to become multiliterate. This requires being able to find and communicate meaning is a variety of modes instead of limiting oneself to a literary mode. Multimodality is made up of much more than a linguistic mode of meaning, it incorporates visual meaning, audio meaning, gestural meaning and spatial meaning (Cazden, et al.: 19). Teaching with multimodal means will not only prepare students who live and function in a multimodal world, it will allow students who come from a variety of learning strengths to function more successfully and enjoyably in a less monoliterate-biased learning space.

Basic and primal human communication, without any print or digital technology, is both visual and verbal, in essence, it has always been multimodal (Kress: 5). By the very nature of digital media being a form of visual and audio media, ekphrasis can be thought of as a naturally occurring phenomenon within electronic communication spaces. Examples of ekphrasis are “manifestations of natural signs” (Bolter: 57), of objects and things, such as a bed, that Plato described as “existing in nature.” Images are a more natural form of communication to us than print forms such as literature or text, and the breakout of visuals in multimedia shows us that there is a human desire to communicate visually, to return to what exists in nature. Perhaps the human inclination to get closer to what exists in nature is also our human inclination to get to the truth.

The breakout of visuals in media forms shows that communication has been remediated from the written form that existed before the digital age. To the dismay of the literate ages, categorized by the dominance of imageless print, the digital age is overtaking forms of communication, attempting to bring information sharing back to a more natural form. Educators who found their success through plain literacy may project a negativity to changes that seem to challenge the written word: “The elites will continue to use writing as their preferred mode, and hence, the page in its traditional form” (Kress: 18). Education, however, as one of the most important modes of communication, must be also be remediated.

Final answer?

There is a prominence of text to image ekphrasis because image appears to be a clearer or more truthful depiction than words alone. Surely, a photograph of a bed, or a video that is able to show all angles and the seemingly true-to-life form, shape and colour of the bed would be closer to the truth and much easier to understand than a written description of that bed. In returning to Plato’s question: “Which is the art of painting designed to be– an imitation of things as they are, or as they appear– of appearance or of reality?” Perhaps Plato’s truth-seeking question is not to be answered, but to be pondered upon eternally, as we go back and forth between text and image and immerse ourselves in ekphrastic and multimodal spaces. However, there is no doubt that the answer in facing this question is to be ready as a generation that is multiliterate and adapted to multimodality.

Pencil Vs Camera - 35

References

Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey.

Cazden, C., Cope, B., Fairclough, N., Gee, J. (1996). “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review: 66: 1, pp. 1-31.

Dobson, T. and Willinsky, J. (2009). “Digital Literacy.” In David Olson and Nancy Torrance (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kress, G. (2005). “Gains and Losses: New Forms of Text, Knowledge, and Learning.” Computers and Composition: 22, pp. 5-22.

Munsterburg, M. “Writing about Art: Ekphrasis.” Retrieved on November 20, 2010: http://www.writingaboutart.org/pages/ekphrasis.html

Plato (translated by Jowett, B.). Republic, Book X. Retrieved on November 20, 2010: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.11.x.html

Wilde, O. (2003). The Picture of Dorian Gray. London: Collector’s Library.

Tagged | Leave a comment

Rip.Mix.Feed – Resources

I decided to make a list of resources that I’ve found out about since I started this MET course this September. There are so many interesting new things I’ve learned to use but I don’t always remember where they are.  I have them on delicious but I can never remember my login information, this way I can have them all together, have a visual representation of them (as we all learned this is important), with comments about it – both public and private ( I can store the login information for each of these websites in the private comments! That way I won’t forget :D), and have easy access with specific lists.  Take a look at the slideshow from the following link (I can’t figure out how to embed it):

http://www.diigo.com/list/wongte/teaching-tools

Please let me know if you have any other suggestions for websites to add.

The music is called “Life’s Things” by mindthings in the Album Life’s Path. It is music with a Community Commons Copyright.

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | Tagged | 3 Comments

Rip, Mix, Feed – My spare time

Hi everyone,

For my rip, mix, feed, I decided to combine video, text  and pictures.  I used a video of a show that I did a while ago and some pictures that I already had.  I modified the pictures with Dumpr. I planned to use them to make a slide show in Animoto but I wasn’t happy with the effect.   The free version didn’t seem to let me upload video. So, instead, I used movie maker live.  After I finished, I uploaded my video onto you tube, and here it is.

YouTube Preview Image
Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | 2 Comments

Commentary #3: Print in Cyberspace

As I surf the Internet and search for different things, such as recipes, fashion advice, and so forth, I have noticed that the Internet has a plethora of websites with very similar layouts and web addresses.  The posts are in reverse chronological order and or somewhere in the address is either “blogspot” or “wordpress” or “tumblr”.  These are all indicative of blogs.  I have also noticed that more and more people are writing blogs.  The authors of these sites are diverse, ranging from adolescents to adults.  I have also noticed that within each of the posts, there are “tags”; words associated with the piece to aid in searches.  After reading Bryan Alexander’s articles, the use of tags is referred to as “folksonomies” (2008).  These pieces of writing are authored willingly without any advice by outside forces such as instructors, teachers, editors, or bosses but do they all mean?

Walter Ong mentions in Orality and Literacy that “print situates words in space” (2002, p.119) and that it “is consumer-oriented” (2002, p.120).  In the case of blogging, the words are situated in cyberspace and it is definitely consumer-oriented.  The consumer is the reader seeking advice, entertainment, or opinions.  The more a particular blog is read, the more likely the author will continue to write.  The more pieces written, the more it is read, and so on.  In other words, the reader searches the different tags placed on a blog entry or article then decides whether it is worth reading by looking at the other tags associated with it.  If the reader finds the entry is useful, he she will continue to read and follow the blog.  This is consumerism at its best as it because as more entries are written and added, the more the follower will read it.

Ong also writes about how print has driven the publication of dictionaries and the desire to create rules for “correctness” (2002).  Within the realm of writing in cyberspace, new terms are created and used, such as blogging, blogs, folksonomies, tags, tag clouds, and so on.  It has become a social activity more than anything else.  The interaction of writers via the Internet began with e-mail listservs, bulletin boards, and usernet groups making writing a very social activity (Alexander, 2008).  Currently, people are writing blogs, commenting on blogs, creating and editing wikis, posting on social network and media sites, and so on.  These methods with which individuals communicate with one another has therefore changed, there is more interaction versus letter writing or sending of telegraphs.  Individuals, particularly students, can collaborate and discuss ideas via social writing platforms (Alexander, 2006).  These platforms allow for content to be created by multiple participants and allow students to make connections and synthesize information differently.  Each contributor adds microcontent and allows the entries to evolve as corrections and modifications are made with the addition of comments.  The rules of writing has therefore changed with amount of writing that is taking place.  There are rules for commenting and producing blog entries; such as typing in all upper case font implies yelling and is considered as rude.  Other rules of writing have also changed.  Usually published writing is more formal with structure and is linear.  Now an entry or comment can be quite casual with the use of abbreviations, acronyms, or vernacular, such as “LOL”, “cuz”, “BTW”, and so forth.  Regarding the non-linear style of writing, one can find links to ideas, products, or other entries (Alexander, 2008).  The reader now has choices if something peaks his her interest and can explore it before finishing the entry.

Finally, Ong states that “print created a new sense of the private ownership of words” (2002, p.128).  Within cyberspace, there is the issue of intellectual property and ownership.  As long as words are written down, they now belong to someone.  The challenge is now to identify where the words and ideas originated; more time is spent determining the primary source.  It is part of the learning process for students to sift through the information and the ideas and assess a site’s credibility and decide who the ideas belong to (Alexander, 2008).  Writing in cyberspace can be a dangerous feat because the author may read something and be inspired to write an entry of their own but may not credit the original author for the inspiration.  This could be seen as plagiarism, appropriating another person’s words as one’s own (Ong, 2002).

It is now the role of educators to teach their students the skills needed to navigate through the plethora of information made available to them through Web 2.0.  Educators also need to modify and update their teaching strategies to address the new multiliteracies of students but it is also important to note that educators need to be aware of the new multiliteracies for themselves and be able to do what they want of their students as well.  Students have the abilities and the space to write for fun therefore educators could tap into this skill and provide the opportunities, in perhaps, a more academic setting.  We could be surprised by what the results are and what arises with these new writing opportunities.

References

Alexander, B. (2006) “Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?” Educause Review, 41(2), 34-44. Retrieved, November 11, 2010, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0621.pdf

Alexander, B. (2008)  “Web 2.0 and Emergent Multiliteracies.” Theory into practice. 47(2), 150-60. Retrieved, November 14, 2010, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405840801992371

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

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Rip.Mix.Feed with diigo

I tried to sneak the rip.mix.feed activity in amongst a few others, thinking that this time, I could just whip something together, have a little fun, and voila, Presto!  A beautiful little project thrown together with professional effect.  But no.  Once again I learn that I am still a newbie to all this stuff and that if I think it will take 1 hour, I should budget a good 5 – by which I mean 10.

At any rate, I set out thinking I should try something new (double time budget right there), so I randomly chose Webslides (it said it takes ‘minutes’) from the rip.mix.feed wiki site.  I was appreciating the flexibility of the MET program & reflecting on it for the breadth of experience it offers while also being incredibly flexible by mere factor of being online.  This served as inspiration for my story.

I wanted to use a variety of material, ripping from public sites, commons and from my own material.  To be fair, I felt my own material should still be ripped from the web, so I had to figure out how to get it all public – move some of my walls, so to speak, while keeping others intact.  That took some time, as did compiling my audio.  I wasn’t able to find a background music to accompany my voice under terms I was happy with with remaining time willing to invest at this time (sorry – you get to listen to just me).  Then, the audio file is imported in without the capability to line it up with the slides.  I did the best I could on this – again with time I felt was sensible to invest in this aspect of the project – going back and forth to edit and try to line things up, uploading & deleting and re-uploading as I went.  In the end, I don’t think it’s too bad.  This is what I got.

Time-permitting, I’ll try another with another tool.

(Alternate link:  http://slides.diigo.com/list/vschrader/ripmixfeedetec-540)

Posted in Rip.Mix.Feed | Tagged | 2 Comments

Commentary #3: A Response to Bryan Alexander’s “Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning?”

What exactly is ‘web 2.0’? Bryan Alexander’s discussion on the emergence of social media begins with a discussion around the attempt to define this term that has been pervasively used when discussing recent online developments. The author acknowledges rightly that there hasn’t been clear consensus even on what web 2.0 exactly means, as it is applied to a field that has been changing and evolving at such an incredibly rapid rate. While this rapid change has made this field difficult to assess and critically examine, Alexander’s article serves to instead provide practical examples of how some of these emerging tools are being employed in classroom environments. This field is so large, and varies to such a great degree between specific school environments that it can be difficult to effectively address, and Alexander’s article does not always sufficiently meet these challenges. Further, an article about social media that is almost five years old can quickly show its age when it focuses on specific tools and applications. Despite these concerns, Alexander’s article is useful when discussing pedagogical concerns, although it does help to frame these discussions in the theoretical rather than focusing on the specific tools mentioned.

Alexander’s discussion covers the bases by beginning with an overview of the history and evolving nature of web 2.0 and social media. His paper primarily focuses on examples of modern social media, but this historical overview does serve as useful background and helps the reader to understand why these developments have been important to education. One might take issue though with his assertion that “…social software does not indicate a sharp break with the old but, rather, the gradual emergence of a new type of practice” (Alexander, 2006, p.33). By making this statement, Alexander is implying that we have been engaged with some form of social media for an extended period of time, but this is simply not true. What he misses in his argument is the incredibly rapid spread of this new type of internet connectivity, and how this wide-spread adoption has changed both education as well as the typical learner profile. While there certainly still exists a digital divide, particularly between developed and lesser developed nations, the level of engagement with social media today is on a completely different scale than the level of engagement with older technologies that Alexander mentions, such as listservs. Social media has emerged from being a niche form of communication, to something that is now all pervasive, particularly amongst youth; hence its incredible importance in the modern classroom.

Throughout the article, Alexander creates a laundry list of social media applications, which, while providing useful examples for his discussion points, is perhaps not entirely useful due to the already mentioned evolutionary process of these sorts of sites. What saves Alexander’s article though is his reference back to implications for pedagogy. The specific tools employed may change and evolve, but the overall pedagogical strategies and specific examples of how these tools may be employed are what makes Alexander’s article a useful read.

One large stumbling point in any such discussions around using emerging social media tools in the classroom is the issue of universal access. Particularly in public schools, technological resources can often be scarce, and it cannot be assumed that teachers will have regular access to computers. Further, these tools need to come with adequate training and support, areas that often are forgotten by school boards rushing to spend grant money on hardware. Alexander’s article makes no mention of these realities, and it does make one wonder if those in research bodies such as his appreciate the plight of classroom teachers grappling with learning new technologies, scrounging to book common computer labs, and dealing with machines that have no dedicated on-site technological support. Until these sorts of issues are resolved, any discussion around which tools can be used in which way are largely irrelevant.

All discussions around social media are difficult to frame, as it is a landscape that is constantly changing. Still, one needs to acknowledge how these changes have impacted upon learners, rather than focusing largely on specific tools. Many of today’s learners do not find novelty in web 2.0 applications, as they have grow up with these technologies. Further, any practical discussion around web 2.0 and social networking also needs to address the elephant in the room, that being the issue of providing effective access to hardware and training and support in using these devices. Until it is made a priority, schools are limited in the funding that they can allocate to technology, and this will often mean that even the best intentions will not translate into practical classroom applications.

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

Tagged | Leave a comment

Commentary #2 Digital Literacies

There has been much debate of late with regards to digital literacy and how it is, or is not, going to ‘replace’ more traditional forms of literacy and print, i.e. traditional books. The obvious two camps are there, those traditionalists who love their books and see the advancement of technology into this realm as something very negative and damaging to literacy in general, and those who favour progression in this area and see technology as opening doors to those who would have previously limited access. This debate takes me back to the Neil Postman article (Technopoly) read earlier in this course and I find many parallels in the thinking. Teresa Dobson and John Willinsky, in their article Digital Literacy, attempt to look at the two very different views and I find myself trying to locate a middle ground, of sorts.

One of the big discussions in this article has to do with the ‘divide’ in terms of socio-economic status of those able to access traditional print information, as well as newer, more current digital forms. This is not the only divide however, as Dobson and Willinsky also discuss the divide between gender, as well as the divide amongst various classes within both developed and developing nations. Indeed, even though we have access to much more information on the whole, there remains a seemingly ceaseless divide in one way or another. That said, the divide has certainly decreased substantially as access to the Internet and digital libraries continues to grow.

Dobson and Willinsky also discuss not only the access developing nations have to current text via digital libraries, but also that developing nations are able to share and contribute their own research and literacy to the world of academia and, indeed, the world in general. People in many of these countries are able to contribute and be a part of a world of text that they were previously not privy to, and this in itself is absolutely wonderful.

In keeping with the discussion of both developing and developed nations being able to both contribute, it is also noted that not just traditional ‘academics’ are able to contribute. Blogs, Wikis and the like have allowed for amateur writers to share their opinions and experiences via the World Wide Web and even to collaborate with others who may traditionally seem worlds apart. While this has led to wonderful learning experiences in classrooms, and educators are still working to figure out how to best harness this new power of discussion, Dobson and Willinsky remind us that this also brings about new worries and issues with ownership and intellectual rights to property. I know that our school, like many others, purchases subscriptions to software to help teachers identify if student work is their own or if it is copied heavily from online sources. Unfortunately, like any new technology, it can be used both positively as well as negatively. I personally feel the good outweighs the ‘bad’ considerably in this respect.

The notion that digital literacies are, or will be, replacing more traditional forms of print literacy is briefly touched upon. This is a small part of a very large and common debate at present with the development of digital copies of print literacies coming more available and affordable with developments of e-readers. Schools and universities are looking at digital textbooks, which would incorporate more hyperlinks and interactive aspects for the content, but these have yet to be fully adopted yet, the same as any new technology or development. Some argue that digital literacies are not replacing traditional print, but rather augmenting or moving in a different and new direction. Can the two co-exist? That is still to be seen but at the moment, they certainly can and are.

An interesting point was made by Dobson and Willinsky with regards to hypertext and whether it makes any difference to improving comprehension and motivation in reading. While the idea of being able to click or tap links to further material or information sounds like a wonderful idea, Dobson and Willinsky argue that the links are put there by the author and not the reader, thus the links may be meaningless in the end. I have to admit that personally I had never thought of it that way. I had been looking forward to more interactive textbooks and other reading materials and had not thought about the negative aspects of the hyperlinks.

We are still in a very young state with regards to new digital literacies and how they can be effectively incorporated into classrooms. We work with Wikis and Blogs with our students, which has opened the door to further collaboration on a global scale, but has also opened the door to perhaps a more informal style of writing. Is this something we are worried about? Are we, and should we be worried about downgrading our students’ writing styles and abilities? Personally I do not think so. There will continue to be room and a need for formal writing, such as research papers and formal essays, but in terms of everyday writing for information and learning, our writing should be acceptable as a more informal style. If it is about getting and sharing the information and learning, the style that it is in is not important. When that information is to be presented in a more formal language or manner, then those skills are important. Is there not room for both? We worry about text messaging and students losing the ability to write formally, but perhaps we are more worried about our own traditional views of what that is supposed to look like.

I think there is room for both in our schools and I welcome the addition of digital literacies.

References

Dobson, T. and Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy.  The Cambridge Handbook on     Literacy.  Retrieved at http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy.pdf

Posted in Commentary 2 | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bolter – The Possibility of a Respectful Remediation?

Introduction

In Writing Space, Bolter’s discussion of the use of ‘remediation’ is an ongoing theme. He applies it to many different situations from culture, graphic design to the printing process. However, upon closer examination of the ideas of ‘Remediation’ in his work, he defines it as a process of “refashioning space, a shift where the newer medium takes the place of an older one” (p.23). He further suggests that it is possible for “respectful remediation” even though throughout most of his work the examples he illustrates seem hostile of each other. With the ideas of “homage and rivalry” which are embedded in the idea of remediation, is it possible to have respectful remediation when these ideas are contradictory in nature? Upon closer look at several of Bolter’s examples, it launches a re-examination in Writing Space. Is it possible to see the “respectful” quality in most examples throughout history or is it simply a hostile relationship where the existence of one simply displaces the other without a possible of co-existence?

Case Studies

Bolter’s discussion of how print remediated medieval works and the process of illuminating texts is a case in question. The homage paid by print to the illustrations of blend and image is significant but the success of print demolished the existence of illuminated books. The accessibility, portability and the mass distribution potential of the printed word sent the time-consuming process of illustrating texts into the past. The illuminated book did not even have an opportunity at rivalry. The speed and affordability of the printed book made the illuminated book a luxury to produce and have. The remediation here is aggressive and the nature of the ‘refashioning’ has made the illuminated book present only in the rare book collections of today.

Although the printed book cannot remediate the same sense of culture and experience as the illuminated could with it’s physical features and characteristics, the advantages of the printed generated a new sense of individualized and private reading which was not possible before. The illuminated text brought the image and text together and “pictures have been decorative, explanatory and allegorical” (p.66) whereas as print widened this separation by generating a “space that is simple and clean” (p.67). In some ways print pays homage to the illuminated text but it cannot simulate its entire existence completely. Since the previous medium was completely replaced, can Bolter still apply ‘remediation’? Perhaps, upon a closer look the content or knowledge has been remediated but the physical form and experience has undoubtedly been replaced and transformed and went beyond the idea of being redone in a different manner. The method in which print has refashioned medieval worldview and ways of knowing undoubtedly made a change in the way people perceived their method of expression and worldview. The dynamics between print and medieval demonstrates how the advantages of one medium can overcome another simply because of the practical attitudes of society towards technology, the faster the better, the smaller the better and the cheaper the better.

The idea of how print reigned until recent developments in digital media is another valuable exploration of the dynamics between a new medium and its predecessor. Bolter discusses the refashioning from the desire of a printed encyclopedia to the creations of an electronic encyclopedia down to the popularity of the World Wide Web as a place that “housed” all our knowledge. This discussion demonstrates the different phases of remediation. From the beginnings of a traditional library as a culturally and religiously important space to the digital hybrids, once again the new medium is establishing it’s own role within our realities. As Bolter states, “the physical libraries continue to fulfill a variety of institutional and cultural purposes”, and this has encouraged and allowed the coexistence of the digital and the traditional space (p.93).

This relationship can be argued as being less hostile and more ‘respectful’ in terms of remediation. The digital library has not yet displaced the traditional and both exist in one space in the form of ‘hybrids’. As “they both pay homage to print and offer new electronic services”, both mediums are mutually dependent of each other. Perhaps the digital library seeks to replace the old medium but the rivalry is healthily present and the competition is still in progress. Unlike the Illuminated book and print, these hybrids of library space offer a place of ‘respectable remediation’. The value of the physical space cannot be completely replaced by the digital world and the physical space cannot be void of technological advances in data storage efficiency.

Conclusion

At the culmination of his book Writing Space, Bolter illustrates an example of “respectful remediation” with his own example of his book website. As he cleverly mentions “it does not seek to render the printed version unnecessary” (p.214) by having the availability of certain chapters online. He has emphasized “homage” on his website and eliminated “rivalry” hence the co-existence. The person of interest is himself and the authority of remediation lies within him. This is one of the key ideas within ‘respectful remediation’. Whether or not the person who is the authority is the same person of interest on both ends of the medium tug-of-war and benefiting can change the way the direction refashioning can take place. For the medieval era, it was different, hence the collapse of the illuminated book. For the library era, it is still remotely similar, hence the coexistence. For Bolter himself, it is exactly the same hence the success of ‘respectful remediation’.

These are all indicative of the realities of technology and the financial profits that are involved. The economy of remediation is something that cannot be underestimated. Asking the key question of who is profiting from the remediation can determine the longevity of a certain medium, and who has the knowledge of such technology can impact the penetration rate into our world today. By realizing how much technology is not politically or economically neutral, it can provide a valuable insight on the process of remediation and the tiny fraction of the possibility of the relationship being ‘respectful’ is worth entertaining.

Commentary 2

Works Cited

Bolter, J. (2009). Writing Space. New Jersey, Routledge.

Posted in Commentary 2 | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Multiliteracy Pedagogy in Policing

INTRODUCTION:

The police organization that I work for serves a diverse and rapidly growing community of over one million people.

The organization has experienced significant growth and maturation in recent years, to meet the needs of its community, and changing social dynamics. This involves entirely new communities being built, with new police facilities and a huge influx of new employees. The high levels of ethnicity within the community require a police service that is representative of the community and one that is able to deal with language and cultural differences.

In a paper published in the Harvard Educational Review, The New London Group discusses “A Pedogogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” One of the tenets of this paper is that “Multiliteracies overcomes the limitations of traditional approaches by emphasizing how negotiating the multiple linguistic and cultural difference in our society is central to the pragmatics of the working, civic, and private lives of students.” (pp. 1)

Educational programs that are designed a police organization’s needs, can help build stronger leaders, create a more effective workforce, improve the service we provide the community, and improve the end result for our stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to apply the theories of Multiliteracies to the ongoing training for police officers to assess the effectiveness of this approach in this context.

ANALYSIS:

According to the New London Group, if it were possible to define generally the mission of education, one could say that its fundamental purpose is to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community and economic life (pp. 1) This is definitely true in policing. In many ways, the ongoing educating of police officers can be viewed as a type of school. Police officers start off as recruits, who need to learn a great deal about the profession that lies ahead of them – from how to write their first traffic ticket to how to engage in a life-or-death situation. Throughout the course of their careers, police officers must continue to learn and update their skills to match a constantly changing and unstable environment, technology and equipment.

Pedagogy is a teaching and learning relationship that creates the potential for building learning conditions leading to full and equitable social participation (pp. 1) Police organizations live in an environment of constant change. In my organization’s case, there is massive growth, both within the organization and our client base and geographic boundaries. There is also changing social dynamics and attitudes, crime rates, laws, governments, etc. It is crucial, therefore, to have trust amidst dynamic change and to develop resilience to thrive in change. Positive change requires letting go of old patterns and taking a fresh approach.

Recruits are in the unenviable position of having to acquire a huge amount of knowledge and a large number of skills in a very short period of time. Recruits have several months of training at the police college and then they are with a “coach” officer for several months after that. Then, they are put out in the field in a sink or swim situation. This may prove to be particularly difficult for the members of our workforce who are New Canadians and/or those for which English is a second language. I completely agree with New London Group’s assertion that “effective citizenship and productive work now require that we interact effectively using multiple languages, multiple Englishes, and communication patterns that more frequently cross cultural, community and national boundaries.” (pp. 4)

Police officers deal with many issues in the course of their day – including complex criminal investigations, emotionally charged situations, medical and emergency situations, and more violence than ever before. For these reasons, it is imperative that the training police officers receive is ongoing, and of high quality. As the New London group will attest, “as educators, we have a greater responsibility to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life.” (pp. 6)

The obvious question that arises is how can a pedagogy of multiliteracies improve the way that our officers are trained. If our officers are trained in such a way that they are able to figure out differences in patterns of meaning from one context to another with regard to cultural, gender, life experience, languages – then they will be able to apply their training better in a cross-cultural environment. This training needs to be multimodal, integrating oral, visual, audio, gestural, and behavioural meaning into the program.

The New London Group argue that “the multiplicity of communications channels and increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in contemporary society calls for a ‘much broader view of literacy than portrayed by traditional language-based approaches’.” (pp.12) This holds true in the context of police training. This ‘broader view’ points the way towards the need for education designed with a goal of decoding new modes of information. New London proposes a metalanguage that supports language and other semiotic systems to “identify and explain difference between texts, and relate these to the contexts of culture and situation in which they seem to work.” (pp. 16) Police work is an exacting profession. The police are asked to control crime, maintain order, and provide an intricate array of services, from responding to emergency 911 calls to regulating the flow of traffic. On occasion, they must perform remarkable feats of criminal investigation, control rowdy crowds and violent offenders, and put their lives on the line. In the midst of all this excitement, officers are also required to write complex reports and interact with members of the public while problem-solving. In this regard, officers are continually immersed in situated practice (one of the four components of pedagogy scenarios where they must be capable of playing multiple and different roles based on their backgrounds and experience. Consequently, a pivotal part of an officers’ training involves a coach officer to mentor and guide their learning process. The other three components of pedagogy are equally as important as situated practice. These include overt instruction, critical framing and transformed practice.

REFERENCES:

The New London Group (1996). “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures”. Harvard Educational Review 66(1), pp. 60-92

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Ups and Downs of Hypertext in the Classroom

Bolter- Chapter 3
Commentary#2
Hypertext and the Remediation of Print

I like to think of myself as a strong reader with a fairly good understanding of technology. When faced with the question of having a book in my hand or reading on a screen – nine times out of ten I would choose to have a book in my hand. Hypertext is non-linear, one must navigate through different layers to find the information they are looking for and troll through many documents. Personally, hypertext still takes significantly longer to read and make sense of then picking up a book and reading chapter through chapter. However, we are thrown into a world of hypertext and I think as a critical reader, I can gather a deeper understanding from this type of writing then the typical, linear book. As a teacher, I must broaden my horizons around hypertext so I am better able to provide the essential skills of finding information for my students. There is fear however, being a digital immigrant – that my digital native students may perhaps have a better understanding of hypertext then myself. This commentary will look at the challenges and merits of hypertext through the eyes of an educator.

Hypertext has opened the door for students to make connections and create deeper meaning from their readings at a rapid rate. In Chapter 3 of Bolter’s book he addresses the important issue of information overload. “In the late age of print, however, we are concerned not that there is too much in our minds to get down on paper, but rather that there is too much information held in electronic media for our minds to assimilate.” (Bolter, 2001,p.33) As an educator, the mass amount of information available presents a large challenge and a gift to teaching. Students must be explicitly taught about how to read hypertext, sort through the pertinent information and create meaning and connections from reliable sources. Currently, I am exploring how to teach these skills and am finding that many students have an innate understanding that I don’t have. They have all grown up in the digital age and many of them have the natural ability to navigate hypertext. Above I spoke about the availability of information is as a gift to teaching. Gone are the days of answering boring comprehension questions out of a text book. Reading through hypertext gives students a strong context and easier access to create connections. Learning is more focused on the process and the ability to problem solve then just answering a question correctly today. They are exposed to a unique visual piece that is not as advanced in print.The associative nature of hypertext often takes students along a path of visual and text features.

Although I believe that students learn and comprehend at a deeper level reading hypertext; some research tells a different story. The Dobson and Willinsky article Digital Literacy looks at just that. ” Dillon (1996), however, has pointed out that these notions are seriously flawed: first, there is no definitive evidence supporting the hypothesis that facilitating associative thinking might improve comprehension” (Dobson & Willinsky, p.7) I disagree with Dillon’s claim. First, when students search for information through hypertext they create their own personal connections to the text and are able to draw them between different texts they have researched. How can this not lead to deeper comprehension? The evidence is in the classroom discussion and quality of work they turn in. Teachers are constantly working with students to create connections to what they read- be it a book or digital text. These connections help students digest the information in a way that is personal and relevant to their lives. Learning happens through associative links.

As Bolter points out hypertext remediates print. The fear of hypertext is that it could create a decline in student writing or writing may be oversimplified. Teachers often speak about the impact of media, email, text messages and the internet on students writing ability. These tools are often used for informal communication that is reflected in classroom work As educators, we expect creative, well written compositions that are free of abbreviations and the like. Hypertext relies heavily of visual components to complement or even provide the message to readers. Bolter refers to this as reverse ekphrasis remediation. Ekphrasis refers to using words to paint a picture – hypertext does the opposite and replaces the written word with an image. Perhaps it is us who must adjust of expectations and what we believe writing should look like. Will students writing continue to be oversimplified with the increased exposure to hypertext or will it enhance student performance in the areas of reading and writing?

In conclusion, I have realized that I must push forward and engage with hypertext as much as possible to fulfil my role as a teacher. We can’t expect kids to learn the same way that we did as the 21st century learner attends school in the information age. I wonder if there will ever be a day when I prefer to read hypertext over the traditional book or if it will be a gradual process I do without thinking. One day, I will look back at this commentary and think about the days when I thought hypertext was a challenge to understand. As hypertext continues to remediate print it will evolve into the new “book” and become the common medium for reading just as the codex remediated the papyrus roll. Although it presents challenges, the benefits of hypertext far outweigh the negatives. I believe hypertext will continue to challenge students to a deeper level of thinking and comprehension through its associative links contrary to what some research says. The future of literacy is exciting!

References
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Dobson, T. and Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy (draft). The Cambridge Handbook on Literacy. Retrieved: November 10,2010 http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital%20Literacy.pdf

Englebart, Douglas. (1963). “A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man’s intellect.” In Hawerton, P.W. and Weeks, D.C. (Eds), Vistas in information handling, Volume I: The augmentation of man’s intellect by machine. Washington, DC: Spartan Books. Available (as “Augmentation of human intellect: A conceptual framework”):
Retrieved:November10,2010
http://web.archive.org/web/20080331110322/http://www.bootstrap.org/augdocs/friedewald030402/augmentinghumanintellect/ahi62index.html

Posted in Commentary 2 | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments