Danielle’s Ong Commentary

Posted on October 2, 2011 by Danielle

I have chosen to write a commentary on Ong’s (1982) fourth chapter entitled Writing Restructures Consciousness because I am finding the history of writing fascinating and I wanted to explore the questions surrounding the human motivation to write as well as our motivation to create new technologies.

Ong briefly illustrates the history of writing and how this amazing technological innovation transformed and heightened human consciousness. This was a particularly eye-opening history lesson for me. I have often thought of writing as a technology but I have not considered how, unlike speech, writing is artificial – that it is governed by consciously contrived, artificial rules. While I agree with this to some extent, I would not go so far as to call it artificial. It is perhaps an extension of ourselves – a reproduction of our thoughts or speech. It could therefore be argued that speech is not truly speech unless it is heard. In the same way, writing is not truly writing unless it is seen (or touched in the case of Braille). Those who see Ong as a technological determinist would likely agree that writing is not an independent, self-controlling force that is completely removed from who we are as human beings. As Chandler (1995) points out, technology is shaped by society and “is subject to human control” (para . 29).

Ong also goes on to further define writing and differentiates very early writing with mere pictures or memory aids that do not in any way represent words through a code system. When a code or set of conventions is applied to a picture or memory aid (in order to represent the exact words the writer intends to convey to a reader), it becomes writing (Ong, 1982). This particular discussion once again raises the point that writing is only writing if it is seen by others. I think this point further illustrates the social nature of language. Codes and conventions need to be known to the reader in order for their particular writing sample to be considered writing. When the writer is not the reader, these codes and conventions are imperative. While I agree with Ong that a script is more than a mere memory aid, I would disagree that the memory aids exemplified here including drawings, notches on a stick or suspended cords do not constitute writing if only decipherable to a select number of people or the writer alone. Though these examples are far from those found in high literacy, and though language is meant to take place in a social context, namely as communication, I feel that writing as a language decipherable even to the writer alone should still be considered writing.

In Ong’s discussion of memory and written records, he illustrates how writing did not always inspire trust. Those who were able to give verbal accounts of an event were considered more reliable than a written account of the same event. Ong points out that in writing’s early days, texts could not be disputed. Only those present and able to verbally refute or prove a statement were considered trustworthy. What is particularly interesting is how witness testimony has evolved with the onset of literacy. Ong points out that thinking through one’s thoughts promotes dictation and while those thoughts may appear in writing as they would in a verbal testimony, they are deemed unreliable. In comparing our present situation with the oral cultures of the past, it is clear to see how the invention of writing and spread of literacy has in fact diminished our memories as Ong mentions earlier. It has not only diminished our memories but our confidence in the spoken word to the point where we do not trust what is said unless we “see it in writing”.

Ong has aptly exemplified at various points throughout his book that writing has diminished our memory capabilities. I think that this is part of the reason why many find writing to be an agonizing process. Ong mentions the agonizing process of writing enough times to make one think that he in fact shares this opinion, though I find reading his work to be the complete opposite of agonizing. He illustrates the roles that writers must design for their readers. He also mentions the important need to be clear and unambiguous to the point where the reader can see and hear what has been written. Creating an image or a sound through text is indeed agonizing when it is much more easily said or demonstrated in an oral context. Writing is a painstaking process where the writer must account for every detail of each word. Such exquisite circumspection, as Ong (1982, p.103) puts it, is the very reason that the book is often better than the movie.
 
References

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or media determinism [Online]. Retrieved from http://www.bos.org.rs/cepit/idrustvo/st/TechorMediaDeterminism

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

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Writing as a technology

Posted on October 2, 2011 by danishaw

The introduction of new technologies within a society often results in a critique of how such innovations will affect human consciousness.  Plato argues how the technology of writing influences one’s memory, does not represent reality, and ultimately weakens the mind.  Such arguments are presented in The Seventh Letter and Phaedrus which in turn, ironically, are recorded by way of text.

“The specific [writing] which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the resemblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.” (Plato, n.d.)

Unlike Plato, Ong (1982) seems to make a similar argument in his text; complicating our thoughts on the written word.  My understanding is that Ong believes print and writing isolates humans from one another creating multiple perspectives that do not resemble the truth.  I disagree with Ong, but I am slightly cautious because I have never experienced a predominantly oral culture.  I try to imagine if oral culture is more united and truthful than print culture, but I instantly begin to wonder if both cultures demonstrate complexities because human beings themselves seem to complicate language, stories and texts; despite being oral or print based.  If we take children for example before they are able to read or write, their oral stories are imaginative and creative and most importantly never are told the same way each time, consistently details change.  This theory can be applied to all human beings; language changes in all capacities oral or print—I do not believe one is any better than the other or more authentic.

I do believe print has the potential to isolate; however not always.  Print has created unity especially among groups in our postmodern world.  For example if we take a group from a  grade 10 class and ask them to read a text—the group than has a common thread to discuss, work through, connect and expand on.  The students who do not read the text and instead stare out the window become isolated from the group losing the only thread that connects each individual in the room to form the group.  Human society may have once been unified by oral culture, but nothing concerning contemporary society is unified or open.  We are a culture of individuality—this may have been brought about by way of technology innovations, but I am really not convinced.  However Ong seems very convicted, “The spoken word forms human beings into close-knit groups. When a speaker is addressing an audience, the members of the audience normally become a unity, with themselves and with the speaker. If the speaker asks the audience to read a handout provided for them, as each reader enters into his or her private reading world, the unity of the audience is shattered, to be re-established only when oral speech begins again. Writing and print isolate.” (Ong, 1982, p.73)   I believe that we have moved very far away from a unified model.

It is important to reflect on the influence of today’s technological innovations on the 21century learner.  Like those who were raised in a literate culture find it difficult to fully understand the influence of writing and text on an oral culture, I believe that some will find it difficult to comprehend the full effects of today’s technologies on human consciousness.  Today’s learner has been raised in a society whereby the World Wide Web has been commonplace, a great number of North American households have multiple cell phones, and social networking is perhaps the most prevalent communication means among teens and young adults.  Oral communication by way of face-to-face interaction is diminishing.  How will such tools affect human consciousness?  Will these tools “enrich the human psyche, enlarge the human spirit, and intensify its interior life”? (Ong, 1982, pg. 82).  Will such innovations lead to a greater degree of human isolation?

 

References

Ong, W. J. (1982) Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York, NY: Routledge.

Posted in Commentary 1 | Leave a comment

Commentary on Kevin Kelly’s “Scan this Book”

Posted on October 2, 2011 by Bridget

I chose to do a commentary on Kevin Kelly’s article entitled, “Scan This Book” in which he addresses the implications of Google’s plan to digitize all of the world’s books and house them in one searchable database. In the past, access to books was restricted to the elite class but this would create a library accessible to anyone in the world with who has the technology to do so (Kelly, 2006).

There are two major obstacles, according to Kelly, which make project difficult: the process of scanning and copyright laws. It is the latter of the two, which is the focus of his article.

The copyright laws were created in the US in 1710 (Influencing Public Policies) in order to protect the authors’ work for a reasonable period of time. Publishers then made cheap copies of the original, sold it to the masses and cultures became more educated. Since then the laws have been revised and duration of the copyright was expanded so no published works, will fall out of protection until 2019 (Kelly, 2006).

This is very restrictive and becomes more interesting as we look into the categories that the books fall.

1. Expired copyright: Anyone can print or copy. Represents 15% of all books.
2. Under copyright: cannot be copied.
3. “Orphaned Books”: the owner cannot be located but might be determined at a later date. Represents 75% of all books

It is the “orphaned books” which are creating the commotion since the question of who owns the copyright (individual or company) is not always clear and there is no central registry in which to check the data (Kelly, 2006). Publishers hesitate in using these works for fear that they might have to pay damages if the owner ever emerges (Public Knowledge). The Google Project plans to scan them and put them on Google’s internal computers to be indexed and searched. They would only show snippets (determined by the publishers) at a time with Google’s lawyers arguing that this was like quoting a book a quote and was “fair use”. Out of copyright books would be completely scanned and in print ones would show only parts.

This model outraged some authors for a couple of reasons. First is that Google now had a virtual copy sitting on their server and second, Google made the assumption that they could scan first and ask questions later. The publishers also did not agree with the definition of “fair use” that suited Google. As a result, in 2006 Google was accused of copyright infringement and two years later settled out of court with $125 million to be paid to compensate authors and publishers for the use of their works (Settlement Reached Between Google and Authors Guild,AAP, 2008).

A comment from Kelly drew my attention. He states that, “While a few best-selling authors fear piracy, every author fears obscurity”. This is an interesting quote and I can see the truth in it. Copying a book (legally or illegally) means that what is written is important, engaging or both. The elatedness for being successful and then not reaping the financial benefits would be very frustrating, but is it worse than obscurity? Most artists create as a hobby but there are the lucky few who make it their livelihood. Robert Bateman is an example of a man who had a 20 year career as was an art/geography teacher before he became a full time artist (Artists for Kids).

Publishers will print books, which they deem are profitable: that’s their business. So, when Google announced their plan the publishers woke up. They saw that there could be some money made in books that they had been ignoring. Google put the publisher in a position of the unknown and essentially changed the business model. In the past authors and producers have relied on the sale of cheap mass produced copies. The new model is based on the intangible assets of digital bits where copies are no longer cheap but free (Kelly, 2006). This begs the question of the copyright. The author has the copyright but they also need to sign on with a publisher to make money off their creation. How much control do they have after that point? The publishers appear to have a lot of control and in the fate of the author in deciding when and what to print. A well-known example is the author of the Harry Potter series J.K. Rowling. She suffered twelve rejections from publishing houses before one finally accepts to publish. Even then, it was recommended that she keep her day job as she was unlikely to make and money I children’s books (J.K. Rowling). The rest of the story needs no telling.

You can also ask the question “Why would a person write if their material was handed away for free?” Kelly did answer this by comparing authors to scientist whose payment is to have their works quoted and cited by others. I don’t feel as though this is a fair comparison since scientists are in a different position. They are paid by grants, drug companies etc. While writing is expected of them their livelihood does not rely on it in the same way as it does for an author.

I can see both sides in the argument and I feel the uncertainty in the publisher’s desire to resist change. The technology of the computer has sped up the ability to create texts faster and copy them easily and for free. Manuscripts are no longer mailed and up until now, all of the technology favoured the authors. Now they face the same challenges that the music and video did a few years ago.

References

Artists for Kids. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2011, from Artists For Kids: http://www.artists4kids.com/artist.php?artist_id=BATEMAN

Influencing Public Policies. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2011, from ARL: Association of Research Libraries: http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml

J.K. Rowling. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2011, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling

Kelly, K. (2006, May 14). Scan This Book! . The New York Times Magazine , 43.
Public Knowledge. (n.d.). Retrieved September 30, 2011, from http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/ow

Settlement Reached Between Google and Authors Guild,AAP. (2008, 10 29). Retrieved September 25, 2011, from Poets and Writers: http://www.pw.org/print/501836?destination=content/settlement_reached_between_google_and_authors_guild_aap

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Commentary on Neil Postman’s Technopoly

Posted on October 1, 2011 by Juliana

In Postman’s Technopoly, he talks about the dangers of technology.  He talks about how while it may initially bring us convenience and efficiency, it also has the potential to bring many burdens with it.  He states that his “…defense is that a dissenting voice is sometimes needed to moderate the din made by the enthusiastic multitudes” (Postman, 1992, p. 5) and he wishes to stimulate a conversation to temper the enthusiasm of the technophiles (Postman, 1992).  His article is fraught with the dangers of technology and how they are constantly defining and redefining society.  While Postman may have the technological deterministic view that technology is the driver of change, in this commentary I take an opposing point of view and contend that it is the human factor that truly causes shifts in culture and society.

Technological determinism is a reductionist theory that states that technology is the primary driver of change in culture and society.   Technological determinism has many forms and can range from a hard extreme to a soft extreme.  The hard extreme suggests that technology is an autonomous agent of change that works independently of social constraints.  In this view of technological determinism, technology is so pervasive that no non-technology alternatives can be created or considered.  The soft view of technological determinism is that technology does drive social change, but it does respond to some social pressures (Smith & Marx, 1994; Chandler, 2008; Wikipedia, 2011).

There are many criticisms to the technological determinism point of view.  Smith and Marx state proponents of this theory are giving the term technology so much power, even though “it has no members or stated policies, nor does it initiate action” (Smith & Marx, 1994, p. xii).  Technology is simply a concept and a word, so how can it have so much impact on culture and society?  In addition, how can technology, which has been either created or programmed by human beings, have the power to affect human destiny (Smith & Marx, 1994)?  The creators and the users of the technology are what determine the changes that we see culturally or in society; the mere existence of a technology does not drive human destiny.

In Postman’s article, he states that “once technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do” (Postman, 1992, p. 7).  How can technology play out a hand, without a human being operating or interacting with it?  Technology does not stand on its own as it not only is created by humans, but it is also used by humans.  As technology’s use can impact society and civilization, it is important that we seek to understand this, but it is unlikely that technology on its own can operate to affect change (Mumford, 1934).

Furthermore, Postman states that “technology commandeers our most important terminology” (Postman, 1992, p. 8) and redefines specific words that we live by.  I challenge this notion by saying that it is not technology that redefines terms, but us.  While it may be true that technology may change the way we think about certain terms, it is still us who redefine the words and their meanings.  Moreover, as we are the creators and operators of technology, we are the ones who are constantly modifying and changing it to meet our needs. 

Postman (1992) also brings up how the technology conditions our minds to perceive things differently.  Specifically he states how the use of numbers changes how we rate, perceive and view things.  He suggests that the invention and application of numbers for things such as school marks and IQ creates a hierarchy of values (Postman, 1992).  While this may be true, again, it is the human who perceives the numbers that is creating the value.  The technology of numbers does nothing on its own, but when humans use and interact with it, that is when we see the change. 

Postman (1992) also speaks about the consequences of technology and how it changes our world.  There are consequences to incorporating technology into our lives, and while Postman may believe that these consequences are due to technology itself, I believe that the users or inventors of the technology play a more primary role.  Technology that gets accepted and incorporated into our daily lives is mediated by people more than the technology itself (Feenberg, 1995). 

In conclusion, while it may seem that technology is changing our culture and society, I believe that human beings are still the ones who are making the changes.  Technology does not stand on its own;  it is constantly being created, used and modified to suit our needs.  Technology does affect society, but it is us who determine how technology affects society.  While technology on its own is not good or bad, it is how we use it that gives it its value.  Humans mediate how technology is used, but technology on its own can do very little.  After all, a pen can’t write itself and a computer cannot turn itself on; it is the operator that is in control.

References:

Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html

Feenberg, A. (1995).  Alternative Modernity:  The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social theory. London:  The Regents of the University of California.

Mumford, L. (1934).  Technics and Civilization.   Chicago:  The University of ChicagoPress.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books.

Smith, M. R. & Marx, L. (1994).  Does technology drive history?:  the dilemma of technological determinism. USA:  Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wikipedia (2011).  Technological Determinism.  Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism

 

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Where literacy and technological determinism collide

Posted on October 1, 2011 by David Symonds

The steady upward climb of humanity from the rustic simplicity of prehistoric times towards the modern digital age has been long and arduous; fraught with peril and upheaval, power shifts and cultural extinctions, and an ever-increasing rate of technological innovation. In the past five thousand years, humans as a species have taken a giant leap forward, learning to wield perhaps our greatest innovation of all; a tool which freed communication from the ephemeral transiency of the here-and-now, and allowed thought and speech to be immortalized across time: the written word.

In the 1993 book Technopoly, author Neil Postman zeroes in on the written word as being a particularly powerful kind of technology. Postman is in many ways a classic technological determinist, believing that the technologies we invent and employ will shape the values of society in an inevitable cascading domino effect, over which we have little control: “But we may learn from Thamus the following” Postman writes, “that once a technology is admitted, it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is- that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open” (Postman, 1993, p.7). Unwilling to be boxed in or labeled a pure technophobe, he tempers the hard lean towards technological determinism with a somewhat hollow-sounding concession that “every technology is both a burden and a blessing:not either-or, but this-and-that” (p.4-5).

In the specific case of the effect of literacy on memory, however, Postman pulls no punches. In reference to The Judgement of Thamus he writes, “The error is not in his claim that writing will damage memory and create false wisdom. It is demonstrable that writing has had such an effect” (p.4). Certainly it can be contested that the mere ability to write things down may have affected our dependence on, if not our capacity for, memorization, but for a writer this must be a slippery position to maintain a grasp on. Indeed, memory may be what the written word is after all best at. Writing establishes the potential for memory to be preserved indefinitely, for what is known to never be forgotten.

The belief that writing fundamentally changes the human relationship to thought, memory, and communication is not restricted to the technological determinists’ camp, nor is such a transformation in thinking considered by all to be inherently bad. Walter Ong suggests in his 1982 book Orality and Literacy that indeed the ability to read and write changes our very relationship to words, “that the literate person can never fully recover a sense of what the word is to oral people” (p. 12). That is, once we have acquired literacy, we cannot go back. But why would we? Writing has carved out for humankind a new kind of vision – an ability to look back in order to move forward, and to preserve the ideas and words of the present in a way that would be (and in some cases still is) inconceivable in primarily oral cultures, and yet maintain the ability to build on those ideas and words as we move forward. Walter Ong reflects in his 1982 book Orality and Literacy that “when an oft-told oral story is not actually being told, all that exists of it is the potential in certain human beings to tell it” (p.11). This notion is powerful and terrible at once – primary orality by its very nature does not allow for a story to continue as it was. The written word and literacy spread among the masses, however, does not remove the power of the storyteller to tell; on the contrary, it allows for the story to live on in existence long after the storyteller has been forgotten.

James O’Donnell addressed Postman’s fears somewhat more delicately in a 1999 Cambridge forum, acknowledging the role of literacy both in the turbulant past behind us and the unknown future before us. He described the current state of humankind as being “poised between doom and Utopia”, a sentiment which may seem extreme, but is certainly not novel. Apocalyptic predictions, fantasyland rhetoric, and everything in between are part of every culture and pervade literature throughout history. In saying that we are poised between these two extremes, we may as well simply say that it is up to the individual to determine what future they see – or wish to pursue, a point which Postman fails to acknowledge fully. For even as our technologies and innovations impact us, so too do we have the ability to determine our own path and future.

The ability to determine ones own future is a form of power which literacy has a particular knack in providing. O’Donnell (1999) describes literacy as having a democratizing effect, redrawing the lines as it spreads between those who have power and those who do not. Even the technological determinist perspective concedes this point. “Those who have control over the workings of a particular technology accumulate power and inevitably form a kind of conspiracy against those who have no access to the specialized knowledge made available by the technology” (Postman, 1993, p. 9).

Where O’Donnell sees democratization and Postman sees conspiracy, Ong sees the evolution of the mind through literacy. If these three thinkers can agree on anything, it is the belief that literacy is an especially potent technology when it comes to reorganization of power structures, and furthermore that it is not only the technology itself which controls, but those who wield it. Literacy – the written word and the ability to understand it – stands above all else in its transformative power, because although it may change our minds, our memories, and our modes of communication, the written word does not forget the past, and will never relinquish its central role in the hearts and minds of those who shape our future.

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

Postman, N (1993). The Judgement of Thamus. In N. Postman. Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology (pp. 3-20). New York: Vintage.

O’Donnel, J., & Engell, J. (Speakers)(1999) From Papyrus to Cyberspace

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Cambridge Forums. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://media.elearning.ubc.ca/det/etec540/etec540-audio.html

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Commentary 1: Technology Second

Posted on October 1, 2011 by Garth

In James O’Donnell’s The Virtual Library: An Idea Whose Time has Passed O’Donnell brings up the idea that the most powerful way to use computers is not to find problems that computers can solve, but rather to look for a problem that needs solving, and then search out a technology that can help solve that problem (1994). While O’Donnell was talking about the danger of assuming that we need to have access to every written word
ever, guarding against any technology blindness is a good idea. The potential of new technologies to automatically fix all of our problems, or create them, has continuously drawn human’s attention away from individuals and towards the technology itself. This potential is what makes technology so blinding as it is easy to picture everyone benefiting from the new technology.

When Plato prophesied that literacy would alter the way we think, communicate, and remember he was incredibly accurate in many respects (Postman, 1992). His prejudice to the new technology of writing blinded him to the power of it. If he, instead, had a student that suddenly lost his ability to speak, Plato might ask the question of how to allow this student to share stories and communicate with the rest of society. This question would possibly open up the potential of literacy to Plato. Focusing on the individual, not the technology gives the appropriate technology incredible power.

Similar thinking is occurring in many schools today. Technology is brought into
classrooms without much thought on whom it is going to benefit, or how it is going to be used. Smartboards are present in most classrooms in Alberta and, depending on whom you ask, the potential of these Smartboards are not being met. While many administrators and parents are excited about the potential of this technology, many teachers and students use these boards as either expensive projectors, or distracting screensavers. This is not saying that Smartboards are bad, but rather they have not been matched to the correct group of students in many cases.

The closets of schools are often full of dusty old gadgets and software that was a
sure thing to help the next generation of struggling readers. Perhaps Read Write Gold is a good example of the next technology on this track. Because Read Write Gold is an incredibly powerful software program that helps struggling readers improve their literacy skills it has become an automatic resource for educators with struggling readers. Joy Zabala (2001) stresses the importance of considering the appropriate assistive technology last. When working with a student with some type of disability it is imperative that the student be considered first: who are they and what are their needs? Once the student has
been considered the environment needs to be looked at: where is this student when they haven these needs? Next thing to consider is what task is being considered: what does the student need to do that requires the use of the technology? After those three things are considered it is then appropriate to look at specific technologies. In the case of reading disabilities, the technology might often be Read Write Gold, but it might also be a pair of glasses.

The internet is a technology that has potentially blinded us. Virtually every bit
of information that exists can be accessed through the internet, making everyone a Jeopardy whiz. Web 2.0 has changed the way we communicate. Writing is more a conversation now than it ever has been. Yet, with all of the power that he internet provides most people, it remains an environment that is completely inaccessible to people with vision impairment or reading disabilities (Kreps and Adam, 2007). HTML is a revolutionary way for though and expression, (Bolter, 2001) and a powerful tool, but only for those that are able to use it.

Technology has grown immensely in its ability to make our life easier. There are more gadgets that make literacy available than can be easily counted. In order for
these gadgets to be truly effective they must not be obsessed over. Obsessing over people and their needs is the only way to unleash the true power of assistive technologies.

References

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

Kreps,
D., Adam, A. (2007). Failing the Disabled
Community: The Continuing Problem of Web Accessibility. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.

O’Donnell,
J. (1994) “The Virtual Library: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed.”
Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/virtual.html

Postman,
N., (1992). Technology: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Random House
Inc. New York, NY

Zabala, J. (2005).
Ready, SETT, go! Getting started with the SETT framework. Closing the Gap, 23, (6).
Retrieved from http://www.joyzabala.com/uploads/Zabala_CTG_Ready_SETT_.pdf

Posted in Commentary 1 | Leave a comment

Commentary 1: Developmental Theory and Cultural Literacies

Posted on October 1, 2011 by Mark Barrett

A child is born into the world without any understanding of oral or written literacy.  Much like literate cultures can trace their understandings back to an oral tradition, children are not naturally predisposed to the ability to read or write.  In this respect a child’s understanding of oral literacy before the printed word represents the evolution of humankind’s literacy evolution.

Two of the preeminent cultural-historical psychologists, Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget, help to illuminate childhood understanding of oral signs in their examinations of cultural mediation and developmental stages.  Vygotsky posits that development of a child through what Piaget identifies as the ‘the preoperational cognitive stage’ (age 2 – 7) is based largely on social interaction and the development of word meaning (Vygotsky, 1956).  This is part of what Vygotsky termed as ‘cultural mediation’.  Children actively construct their own knowledge through the meaning of verbal signs they interpret from significant people in their lives, particularly parents.  It is not until the late preoperational stage (age 7 – 11) where intellectual development is demonstrated through the use of logical and systematic manipulation of symbols, which are related to concrete objects (Piaget, 1977).

What does this shift in understanding of visual symbols mean for thinking processes?  Ong touches on this in his 1982 work “Orality and Literacy” when he states that “without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does, not only when engaged in writing but normally even when it is composing its thoughts in oral form.  More than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness” (Ong, 1982)  If cultures can ‘learn’ to write as children do, perhaps the effects on cognitive processes of both the individual and collective can be regarded as similar.  Shaping understanding of the world primarily through oral or literary symbols has a profound effect on the very way in which we think; indeed this is the very argument Ong makes.  Oral tradition transmits the history and understandings of a cultural through generations via speeches and songs which often time take on particular rhyme schemes and patterns to assist in their memorization.  Similarly, children are often sung to, listening to songs such as nursery rhymes in their infancy and reciting them themselves in their youth.  A prime example of the convergence of song, literary symbol and language is the alphabet song.

This understanding of both culture and the child can further be connected by introducing  yet another psychologist, Jerome Bruner. He discusses how specific cultures have unique ways of learning, referring to them as ‘cultural amplifiers‘ (Bruner, 1966).  Language – both oral and written are examples of such amplifiers which can be unique to specific cultures.  Amplifiers are important because the highlight language not only in a communicative sense, but as a cultural artifact.  Thus language possesses dual purposes; both for the child in cultural mediation and for society as a general tool.

Preliterate understanding for children, however, is not limited to oral language.  Children in the aforementioned pre-operational stage are still very much visual learners, despite their inability to decipher text.  Visual cues, such as pictures and gestures, as well as auditory cues all contribute to a child’s understanding of culture.  This understanding of pictures as symbolic representations can be linked easily to preliterate cultures in the examples of cave paintings, right up to the cusp of the first literate cultures typified by the Egyptians and their hieroglyphics.

The evolution of culture from an oral to a literate one is generally supposed to be a positive one, much like the development of a child from one who only speaks and understands to one who can write.  In James Gleick’s 2011 work “The Information”, he discusses this evolution from an oral to literate culture by connecting it to the emergence of Aristotelean and Platonic logic; an advancement in cultural cognition to be sure (Gleick, 2011).  One might, however, argue that the movement from primarily oral communication, and the intimacy that involves, to the asynchronicity of written literacy actually represents a degeneration of communication.  Ong highlights many of the unique positives of an oral culture.  Among them include:

  • In oral culture, the words are everything; they are performance, they are meaning, and they are central to all understanding and memory.
  • Oral communication unites people in groups.
  • Verbal performances are artistic and have human value
  • Oral cultures tend to place more value on older members of society as storehouses of knowledge.
  • Oral narratives have a deep connection with the lived experience and therefore resonate with the audience. (Ong, 1982)

So does the evolution from an oral to literate culture genuinely mirror that of a child’s development from an auditory/visual orientation to a literate one?  It depends on whether one chooses to view it as a degeneration or evolution.  A technological determinist would argue that writing, as a technology drives the development of a culture in the positive direction.  A social determinist, on the other hand, would argue that social interactions, such as those between a child and parent, or an elder passing a story onto a subsequent generation, would likely be of more cultural value and certainly have more bearing on development.

Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. New York: Norton.

Gleick, J. (2011). The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood  Fourth Estate; First Edition

Piaget, J. (1977). Gruber, H.E.; Voneche, J.J.. eds. The essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1956/1987) The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 1 Problems of general psychology . New Y ork & London: Plenum Press.

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Paradox and Tension in Theories of Orality, Text and Technology

Posted on September 30, 2011 by HJDeW

Paradox is defined as contradiction or conflict with statements that are reasonable or possible. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)  Theories surrounding the nature of orality, text and technology is rife with paradox. It is through illuminating paradox that we become comfortable with the tension it creates. Paradoxical positions in how orality, text and technology are seen to relate to the human need for relationship and communication. Opposing viewpoints provide tension and opportunity to see and hear the issues from both sides of the ‘same coin’. Tensions exist in theories of how we relate to self, others, the world and the technologies we use.  Human relationship and communications are situated within social and cultural contexts.

Paradoxical positions are found throughout the readings presented here. The diverse positions of the Great Divide Theory and Continuity Theory (Chandler) are one example. The notions of interiority and exteriority are another of the paradoxical positions. (Ong, 1982) Tension is created in how technological forms of communication change our ways of thinking and being, and how we shape the technologies used. (Postman, Chandler)  An image of the competing, reciprocal and paradoxical positions is offered.

graphic organizer of tensions and paradox

Here is a visual representation of paradoxes found in the readings on orality, text and technology. Humans interact through visual and aural senses. Interactions are influenced by and connected to the head (thinking), heart (feelings and emotions) and hands (actions). The socio-cultural context filters and shapes human thought and expression. Views and uses also filter the external elements of relationship and communication from the internal human being. There is a reciprocal movement in the forms of communication and relationship to the elements of language, orality/ print/ media and technology.

Chandler, in his article Biases of the Ear and Eye, proposed that theories comparing modes of communication frequently refer to a paradox in experience and forms of society. The division is seen as a choice between ‘either/or’. I propose that it is the same thing viewed from opposite sides of the coin. Chandler outlined the elemental differences between the ‘Great Divide’ theories, as represented by Ong’s work, and the ‘Continuity’ theories that propose dynamic interactions between orality and literacy. (Chandler, p.2)  Although a distinct division between oral and text-based language and thinking is difficult to determine, differences do exist.

Ong (1982) outlined characteristics of oral thought and expression.  He related that, in a primary oral culture, thought and expression are based in sound, additive, aggregative, redundant, close to the human lifeworld, agonistic, empathic, participatory, homeostatic, situational, harmonizing and conservative. (Ong, p.37-49) In comparison, writing and text creates thought and expression described as being visual, mechanical, unresponsive, destructive of memory, dissecting, interiorized sound, objective, analytic, abstract, isolating, not grounded in the lifeworld or actions, and forming new ways of knowing. (Ong, p. 37-49) Ong proposed a visibly distinct separation between the two forms of thought and expression demarked by the onset of writing as a primary form of communication. This position is juxtaposed with Continuity theories. (Chandler, p.2)

Chandler details Continuity theory as a “continuum rather than a radical discontinuity between oral and literate modes”. (p. 2) The interrelationships of media, self and social context creates the nuances seen within thought and expression. The technical features of text determine the forms that thought and expression take. These forms include visual, recorded, technological, branchable, external and autonomous. (p. 6) This illustrates that the paradox inherent in this ‘thought and expression’ coin is the flip side of the same thing. Surrounding the divide vs. continuum sides of this coin is the relationship and impact of the lifeworld and socio-cultural context.

Another paradox illuminates interiorization as compared to exteriorization of thought and expression. Both Postman and Ong outline this in writings. “Deeply embedded habits of thought” (Postman, p. 12) are changed by the technology being used (writing, computers). In Postman’s example, Thamus sounds a warning that writers “will come to rely on external signs instead of their own internal resources” (Postman, p. 12). This is reflected in the statement “language is not merely a vehicle of thought but also the driver”. The paradox is that language and thought are both interior and exterior of the mind. Ong postulated that concepts of interiority and exteriority are “existentially grounded concepts based on experiences of one’s own body ….. both inside me …. and outside me.” (Ong 1982, p.72) With thought and expression being exteriorized through the use of technology Ong determined that “technology, properly interiorized’ does not degrade human life but … enhances it.” (p. 82) This highlights the paradox of thought and expression as being shaped by the internal and external, as well as surrounded by the relationships within and outside the self.

Paradox is outlined in the diverse yet connected views that technology is shaping us and that we are shaping technology. Postman presented the notion that new technologies alter structures and characteristics of thinking. They change the way we think about and think with symbols. (Postman, p. 20) These changes impact our relationship and communication with others. Chandler outlined that within technological affordances there is an “ecology of processes of mediation …. in which we both use a medium and can be subtly influenced by our use of it.” (Chandler, p. 6) Ong determined that “writing has transformed human consciousness.” (p. 77) The paradox inherent in this ‘shape and be shaped’ discourse is that “new technology is not merely used to convey the critique: in fact it brought the critique into existence” (Ong 1982, p. 79) Hence this paradox illuminates the reciprocal interactions with language, text and technology and brings to light the critical importance of our context, views and uses.

Paradox exists in our understanding of orality, text and technology when viewing the discordant positions of division vs. continuity, interiority vs. exteriority, and shaping vs. being shaped, as they relate to human communication and relationships. Clarity and comfort can come from living in these tensions when we see and hear differing viewpoints of the same ideas.

References:

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye: “Great Divide” Theories, Phonocentrism, Graphocentrism & Logocentrism [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from:http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2011). Paradox. Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox

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

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

VUE software downloaded from http://vue.tufts.edu/download/index.cfm

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Technological Invasion: Is it adding, subtracting, or overpowering our thoughts and actions?

Posted on September 30, 2011 by Everton Walker

One cannot dispute the fact that technology is at the center of global affairs and is causing panic, excitement, intrigue, and fear among others across the world. These emotions span many languages and transcend all geographical boundaries. With this rapid advancement and a clear uncertainty of where and when it will end, Postman’s article “The Judgment of Thamus” zooms in on how new technologies are transforming cultures and dramatically altering the way humans operate. Such is the nature of this take-over that Postman termed this phenomenon as “Technopoly”, vividly presenting how culture is being surrendered to technology. After close analysis, I think the arguments presented are valid and therefore I am in agreement.

The infusion of new technologies in our daily activities is certainly changing the global landscape and just not merely adding and subtracting; more of an ecological impact rather than just mathematical (Postman, 1992). What makes the colonization of our thoughts and actions disastrous is that it is manifesting itself unnoticed. According to Postman (1992), it is not always clear in the early stage of a technology intrusion into a culture who will gain or lose most; because the changes are subtle, mysterious and unpredictable. I certainly endorse this view even though I am seeing clearly who the eventual loser will be. The fact that many persons are caught up in the technological euphoria, they are overwhelmed and partially blind to the undermining effects and impending disaster that awaits our present and future generations.

New technologies have captured our most valued asset; our cognitive faculty, and therefore have us operating as devices with external hard-drives or attached thinking gadgets. For the shortsighted individuals, this invasion of culture is termed as progress and development; but how can the regression of one’s thinking capacity and ability to operate independently with confidence be considered as progress? During my daily interactions with students and colleagues alike, the ecological impact of technology is always evident. The ability to make basic calculations and solve simple problems is slowly eroding as the dependence on technology has far outweighed the urge to think and activate one’s cognitive structure.

If this is the road we intend to travel, what will become of our children and the future generations? Are we planning to have a set of brainless machine driven thinkers taking charge of the world we are trying so hard to build? It would be sad if one turns a blind eye to the inevitable. As a result of new technologies, some students are no longer able to use pens or pencils to produce a composition or any written piece. They are unable to spell and construct proper independent sentences and paragraphs as a machine does that for them. According to Gallaghar et al (2003), new technologies pose real danger to students and as a result, a great deal can and should be done to protect them from these machines and applications.

Education, whether formal or informal, by its very nature is a moral activity in which choices are made to direct the path of learning to socially valued goals (Pea, 1985). It is obvious that humans are social beings and learn a great deal from social settings. For centuries humans have been maintaining a sense of community and togetherness through direct interaction. Sadly, new technologies are altering the nature of community; that is, the arena in which thoughts develop (Postman, 1992). If such an institution is being altered, isn’t this a clear indication of self destruction manifesting itself ? The intrusion of new technology, is not adding to or subtracting from this ideology; but is changing and revamping the socialization process in and out of the classroom. This has resulted in the creation of virtual spaces where persons no longer see it fit to interact with their kind, but instead find more pleasure in electronic gadgets or merely sitting around a screen and text. Do you remember the days when students would go to school, interact in classrooms and on the games-field during break? Though not on a frightening scale yet, this is changing. Online learning is slowly but surely eroding this past-time as students are now privy to stay in the comfort of their home and take classes. Is it that we are progressing in a regressive manner?

Gersten (1995) surmises that computers are but another in a set of educational innovations that have largely ignored the cultures of schools. With the belief that computers will automatically solve our educational woes, computers have been forced on schools in a top-down fashion thus ignoring the various demands and routines of a teacher’s day (Cuban, 1986). In addition, this lack of sensitivity to the realities and routines of classroom learning has resulted in a revolution that has been temporarily derailed ( p.22). It is no wonder why some educators are so fearful of these new technologies and tend to avoid them at all cost.

Also, as it relates to oral cultures, people who are apart of them have every reason to be fearful of what new technologies have done and what they will do in the future. Oral cultures are dependent on the use of words to represent sounds due to the lack of graphic representations (Ong, 1982). As a result, the cognitive structure and to a greater extent the memory is of utmost significance. However, with the invasion of new technologies and the accompanying sophistications, these cultures are becoming a thing of the past as there is now no need to rely on the memory as a machine can do that; destroying in a short period what took centuries to develop and perfect. This is just like cutting down a 200 year-old tree in 10 minutes.

Additionally, new technologies in some instances are leaving persons without a choice as old ways of doing things are being totally replaced without any form of consultation as to what percentage of the potential users are in a situation to afford the technologies or trained to use the technologies. This takes me to the banking service where the act of composing print has been wiped out by machines even though many persons cannot use the technology. It’s not a matter of choice; it’s more like take it or leave it. It’s no wonder Postman’s (1992) article emphasizes the notion that “new technologies alter the structure of our interest: the things we think about, the character of our symbols: the things we think with and also the arena in which thoughts are developed. Therefore, if all these critical features of of human development are being eroded, isn’t it clear that it is not a matter of adding or subtracting; but rather, a total frightening change?

References

Gallagher, B. (2005). New Technology: Helping or Harming Children? Vol. 14: 367– 373 .DOI: 10.1002/car.923 .

Howell, R. (1996). Technological Aids for Inclusive Classrooms: Theory to Practice. (35) 1.

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

Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.

Pea, R. D. ( 1986). Beyond Amplification: Using the Computer to Reorganize Mental Functioning. New York: Center for Children and Technology.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage books.

Posted in Commentary 1 | Leave a comment

Commentary #1: Determined by technology or determined by our actions

Posted on September 29, 2011 by Angela Novoa

Postman’s article, The Judgement of Thamus (Postman, 1993), illustrates how new technologies alter our conception of reality. This transformation is an ecological change. The intrusion of a new technology involves an entire culture and context. It is not possible to control the effects of the imposition/integration of a new technology to a limited sphere of human activity. New technologies alter the character of our symbols and the nature of community, which is the space where our thoughts emerge, develop and deliver.

The interference of a new technology in a culture has benefits and drawbacks (Postman, 1993). This idea has also been proposed by Barry Jones (1995), who sustain that transformations imposed by new technologies has equal rates of positive and negative effects according to the way it is used. In this emergence of benefits and drawbacks, it is not always clear who gains most and who loses most.

According to Postman, within the integration of any technology there is an ideological bias to understand what is real. Murphy & Potts (2003) argue that technologies may be used in a number of ways; it is the way in which technologies are used what alter us. Technological change implies a transformation of our conception of reality. Today we are challenged to know how computers are altering our conception of learning, and how, in combination with other technologies the old idea of school is transforming. The digitalization of our culture brings huge amount of information processed and manipulated in a short rate of time, and the speed and flexibility in which this data is compressed and distributed through information networks (Murphy & Potts 2003). If the latter applies to every aspect of our lives, it applies to our conception of education. Postman reflections regarding to the transformation of our world-view due to changing technologies lead me to conclude that it is the use that we give to a new technology what will alter our way of thinking. Therefore, we are constantly challenged to discover how we will alter our way of living. As educators we should try to be conscious about the way in which these changes will alter our conception about education.

On his chapter, Some Psychodinamics of Orality, Ong (1982) defines oral cultures by describing how they are structured in speech, thought, memory and lifestyle. According to Ong (1982) primary oral cultures conceive words as sounds because they do not have any visual representation for them. As words are sounds and have no visual component, they cannot think of words as signs. As sounds, words exist only when they are going out of existence. Oral memory, then, is tightly engaged to the body, to gestures and “other bodily activities such as rocking back and forth or dancing” (Ong, 1982, p. 67). Oral communities conceive language as a mode of action. They limit words to sounds and develop forms of expressions and thinking that differ from those of literate cultures. Oral cultures can only recall through communication mnemonics and formulas (e.g. proverbs), verbatim, songs, and oral poetry. They always engage memory with the body. Literate cultures recall ideas by writing them down and later finding them on text.

Oral lifestyle is related to more communal and externalized ways of living. They tell the stories of heroes to activate and preserve knowledge. Through the spoken word, sound unifies humans into groups. This interiorizing force not only unifies a community but also relates their ways of living to the sacral.

Ong’s statements about oral communities and their differences on their way of thinking and expressing from literate cultures made me wonder how these transformations are going to take place in the future. According to Ong (1982), text has changed our way of thinking and our relation with information and knowledge. It seems that new technologies cause profound changes in how society interacts and exists. But I think it is not the technology but the way in which we use it what alter our way of thinking and, perhaps, living (Murphy & Potts, 2003). According to Angela Thomas (2007) new generations of learners are using digital as well as print-based literacies to play agentive roles in diverse aspects of human life (e.g., learning spaces, social networking) transforming into active members of a new writing community. Therefore, new literacies and narratives are demanding educators to critically engage with and develop activities around media that are central to students’ life.

New technologies are increasingly and rapidly emerging in the world. This fact makes me wonder if these changes are provoking a constant transformation of our way of thinking and living to the point that we will not be able to handle. One example of this is relate to the way in which we publish text. Virtual libraries and eBooks are emerging in today’s market. Printed books and issues related to Intellectual Property (IP) might be at stake. James O’Donnell argues that virtual library comes forward because it promises a future where users can have access to large amount of information at any place and time. We are facing a stage of transformation were these institutions are at risk. The forms of organization of knowledge in electronic media sharply disresemble those traditional codex books. The community related to the traditional libraries (were there where more readers than publishers) is growing: there will be as many publishers as readers. Postman (1993) sustains that all technologies bring both benefits and drawbacks. According to O’Donnell we must think critically about the emergence of these new forms of writing and publishing. We must think about how to rate and classify the amount of content that can be published and who is really qualified to publish. According Murphy & Potts (2003) technological change challenges different issues such as IP and authorship. For reasons like this, we must keep wondering and thinking critically on the effects of these changes and our actions in our society.

References

Jones, B. (1995). Sleepers, Wake! Technology and the Future of Work Australia: Oxford University Press.

Murphy & Potts (2003), Culture and Technology. New York: Palgrave Macmillann

O’Donnell, J. The Virtual Library, An Idea Whose Time Has Passed. Retrieved 12 September 2011, from http://web.archive.org/web/20070204034556/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/virtual.html

Postman, N (1993). The Judgement of Thamus.  In N. Postman. Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology (pp. 3-20). New York: Vintage.

Thomas, A (2007). Blurring and Breaking through the Boundaries of Narrative, Literacy, and Identity in Adolescent Fan Fiction. In: Knobel, M. Lankshear, C (eds). A new literacies Sampler. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ecology of Orality

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Jasmeet Virk

The gradual shift from orality to literacy has been much discussed and marveled at. It is fascinating to see how orality dominated the human culture for so long and then was over taken by literacy. Now many call orality primitive and pre-logical and believe it to be inferior. Ong calls literacy the “ruthless reducer of sound to space” (p.99) and although he suggests that orality and literacy are both necessary for evolution of consciousness (p.175), his work implies literacy’s dominance. So where does orality stand in the literate world?

In his book, Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology, while contemplating the ravages of technology on the literate world, Postman gives an example of the effects of removing a caterpillar from its habitat and suggests that “one significant change generates total change.” (p. 18). These comments prompted me to examine the state of orality from an ecological perspective. For this I chose to apply the ecological metaphor used by Zhao and Frank’s (2003) to orality and literacy. Zhao and Frank endeavored to explain the invasion of technology in the world of education from an ecological point of view in their study. The premise of their discussion was that in when in ecosystems an invasive species takes over; the preexisting species need to make adaptations to ensure their own survival.

In their study about inadequate use of technology at school by teachers, Zhao and Frank examined the rapid invasion of the Great Lake ecosystem by the zebra mussels. Many factors like speedy maturation, high rate of fertility have allowed the zebra mussels, an invasive species, to make a niche for itself in the Great Lakes. Many native species of plants and animals in the Great Lake ecosystem either perished or had to adjust to the changes in their habitat. In their paper Zhao and Frank posit that teachers, the keynote species in the school ecosystem need to adapt to technology, the invasive species, in order to survive.

In applying this analogy to orality and the literacy intrusion, orality seems to be the keystone species whose habitat was invaded by the invasive species of literacy. Literacy has created a niche for itself by providing its users the realization of fuller, interior, human potentials (Ong, 1982). In such a situation orality needs to make some adaptation to survive in the same environment where literacy has established a stronghold or, go extinct.

Orality does seem to make changes and for that reason we still see its “residue” as Ong puts it, in literacy. To coexist, species need to develop reciprocal altruism. Zhao and Frank describe this as “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Orality and literacy have developed such a symbiotic relationship. Many oral habits and traditions like rhetoric, formulas, and mnemonics have been retained in the literate society from the primary oral culture. Literacy uses orality to become active and dynamic, while orality uses literacy to find permanence and space.

Zhao and Frank also discuss the need for the keystone species to evolve and adapt to ensure their survival. They are implying the need for teacher to engage in professional development to learn about technology. In regards to the ecosystem of orality and literacy, their comments made me think of Ong’s “secondary orality”. Ong states that orality exists in the present time but is not exactly like the old orality. Orality still fosters communal sense, concentrates on the present moment, and can be formulaic (p.134), but he says it is not old orality. “Orality has come more into its own” by capitalizing on the affordances provided by technology. Radio, television, telephones, and web 2.0 applications have revitalized orality. In fact orality in its new persona has generated a sense of group, which could not even have been fathomed in its former avatar. In the present time a new form of orality has sprung up. It appears that orality did make a valuable niche for itself in its ecosystem. But in its second coming, orality will not be able to become the keystone species again since the technologies that have helped orality resurface are dependent on literacy.

Every technology is created to fill in some void. Literacy was created to overcome the gaps of orality. Now orality is being used again to fill in the vacuum created by over dependency on literacy. The prudent human always retains the goodness of the past and embellishes it with innovation of the present. Such practicality has ensured successful coexistence of orality and literacy.

Reference:

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books

Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing the Word. New York: Routledge

Zhao, Y. & Frank, K. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools:
An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 40, No.
4 pp. 807-840 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3699409

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Commentary 1: Is Rote Learning Valuable Today?

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Steph

Rote Learning
Photo posted on Flickr by Terr-Bo

The main purpose of rote learning is to memorize information such as basic math skills, dates, poetry, spelling words etc. As we become more dependent on mobile devices it seems like there is less of a need to rely on memorization since knowledge is stored at our fingertips. Technology allows us to “free the mind for more original, more abstract thought” (Ong, 2002, p. 24). This begs the question, “Is there a place for rote learning and memorization in our current education system?”

I believe rote learning should not be a primary source of learning in the classroom. Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive objectives lists memorizing under knowledge which is the lowest level in the cognitive domain (as cited by Issacs, 1996). Evaluation is listed as the highest cognitive level, described as “making judgements about the value of materials or methods” Issacs, 1996, p. 2). Evaluation shares many of the same values as the popular learning theory called constructivism. Constructivist learning is active, contextual, meaningful, self-directed, inquiry-based and social (Driscoll, 2005). Learning activities that highlight constructivist learning and Bloom’s highest level of taxonomy would include analysis of real life situations that require students to investigate a topic in order to make an informed decision. For example, a high school class may seek to answer and support the question, “Should the government cut NASA funding?”

Current research is divided on what type of learning is retained longer, memorization or in-depth evaluation. A recent study (Fata-Hartley, 2011) of 75 college students taking an introductory cell and molecular biology course found that students were able to recall the concepts taught through cooperative learning and problem solving tasks more so than the concepts they were simply told “to know”. However, Hummel (2010) found that rote learning of English vocabulary was more effective than active and contextual translation in 191 second language learners.

Educators need to determine what type of learning is best for their context. Some students may prefer or learn better from rote learning so it is up to the teacher to tailor his/her lessons to his/her students’ learning styles. Certain learning tasks may lend themselves more towards rote learning like the periodic table or the alphabet. Students who have learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder or behaviour issues may not be able to function in an open, collaborative environment where they are expected to pursue their own learning goals.  Abadzi (2006) posits that constructivism may not be suitable to students in the third world due to the lack of resources and time. Jonassen, Mayes & McAleese (as cited in Tynjala, 1999, p. 366) suggest that the constructive approach to learning is most appropriate for advanced learners, that is, university students and adults.

Those who indeed benefit from constructivist learning still need to be cautious about depending completely on technology for facts and formulas. What happens if one’s laptop, ipad, phone etc. breaks down? Students should be able to recall factual information even if they usually turn to technology for answers. What about the digital divide? If we do away with rote learning in school, students who can not afford computers and/or hand held devices will be at an even greater disadvantage. Or, what if you simply forgot your phone (with calculator) when you need it?

As society progresses, we can not avoid the influence of technology on our daily life Sparrow, Liu and Wegner (2011) found that today’s students often memorize where and how to find information on the Internet or computer hard drive rather than the information itself. In their study, memory recall of trivia decreased when participants were told they would have access to a computer to look up the answer. Considering these results, educators need to emphasize what is important for students to memorize and what is not. Furthermore, educators need to teach students how to discriminate between accurate and unreliable resources available to them because of the prevalence of Internet use for information searches.

The debate over the ability of technology to act as an external memory storage is not new. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Theuth presented his invention of writing to the God Thamus as an achievement that “will improve both the wisdom and the memory of the Egyptians” (as cited by Postman, 1992, p. 4). To which Thamus disagreed, “Those who acquire it will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful; they will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of by their own internal resources” (as cited by Postman, 1992, p. 4). In fact, both Thamus and Theuth are correct. Modern technology, like writing in Plato’s Phaedrus, has the potential to both aid and hinder our thought processes. The accessibility of information through technology should be used as a support system to our daily life, freeing us to focus on more complex constructivist problem solving. However, we should still practice rote learning so that we can function without technology if needed. Our goal, as educators, is to integrate new and old teaching philosophies and technologies in the best ways that suit the needs of our students.

References

Abadzi, H. (2006). Efficient learning for the poor: Insights from the frontier of cognitive neuroscience. Retrieved from: http://books.google.com/booksid=kn62phyvFpwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Constructivism. In Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 384-407). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

Fata-Hartley, C. (2011). Resisting rote: The importance of active learning for all course learning objectives. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(3). Retrieved from: http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product_detail.aspx?id=10.2505/4/jcst11_040_03_36

Hummel, K. (2010). Translation and short-term L2 vocabulary retention: Hindrance or help? Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 61–74. doi: 10.1177/1362168809346497

Issacs, G. (1996). Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Retrieved from: http://www.tedi.uq.edu.au/downloads/bloom.pdf

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

Postman, N. (1992). The judgement of Thamus. In Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology (Chapter 1). Retrieved from: https://www.vista.ubc.ca/webct/RelativeResourceManager/Template/Imported_Resources/etec540demo_det_course_20070517151759/pdfs/postman-thamus.pdf

Sparrow, B., Liu, D., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Retrieved from: http://twileshare.com/uploads/Science- 2011-Sparrow-776-8.pdf

Tynjala, P. (1999). Towards expert knowledge? A comparison between a constructivist and a traditional learning environment in the university. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 357- 442. doi=10.1.1.58.2038

Posted in Commentary 1 | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reflection – module 2

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Steph

How might an understanding of the possible differences in the thought processes exhibited in oral and literate cultures inform teaching practices at all levels (especially the practices used in teaching young children who are preliterate, as well as adults who have not yet attained basic literacy)?

Ong (2002) did not consider non-literate groups like preliterate children or illiterate adults living in a literate society when he described the differences in memory, thought, language etc. between oral and literate cultures. Children who are preliterate are capable of abstract thought and theorizing (Chandler, 2000) as long as it is presented to them at a level that they can understand. Older children and adults are able to think more deeply about abstract concepts but I think this is more due to development than literacy. Piaget said children begin to reason and think logically at 11 during the formal operational stage (Campbell, 2006). Not only do children mature naturally into these higher thought processes but teachers and parents help them to develop.

References

Campbell, R. (2006). Jean Piaget’s genetic epistemology:
Appreciation and critique. Retrieved from: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/piaget.html

Chandler, D. (2000). Biases of the ear and eye. Retrieved from: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.html

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

Posted in Reflections | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Commentary 1 – Thought Processes

Posted on September 28, 2011 by Julie S

To answer the question, What effects has writing had on human thought processes? I went back to investigate the emergence of the concept of the environmental impact on human cognition. Nell (1999) postulates that this idea emerged in Marxist thought, progressed through Vygotsky’s cultural historical activity theory and the zone of proximinal development, and is evidenced in the resulting work of Luria’s cross cultural cognitive development studies in neuropsychology.

Ong cites the findings of Luria’s research to describe the inability of pre-literate cultures to form abstract categorization and goes further to argue that formal logical reasoning and articulated self-analysis also stem from literacy. Nell (1999) points to the foundational idea that cognition is the product of the ‘material circumstances of life.’ (Nell, 1999, p.46).

To find that thought processes have changed does not equate to that change necessarily equating to progress. Similar to the literacy induced changes at the time of the Bolshevic Revolution, Canadians experienced culture altering impacts resulting from the Indian residential school phenomenon. While the residential school phenomenon was more complex than the literacy and language aspect, as documented in painful personal accounts like Theodore Fontaine’s memoir, Broken Circle, The Dark Legacy of Indian Residential Schools, it raises the question: what have we lost for all that we have gained?

Indeed, what have we lost with these changes in human thought processes, and with this capacity for abstraction? A quote from one of Luria’s test subjects, in trying to understand the abstraction of another test subject, is cause for reflection:
“Probably, he’s got a lot of firewood, but if we’ll be left without firewood, we won’t be able to do anything. Even if we have tools, we still need wood.”

–       Nell citing Luria, 1999, p.49

To me, this quote illustrates how abstraction isn’t always a good thing. A contemporary reverse example of Luria’s test subject may be seen in Al Gore’s (2006) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore makes a counter point to the value of abstraction by showing a scale with earth on one side and money on the other to illustrate the choice one essentially makes when choosing corporate profit over the expense of environmental policy. I think that it is quite likely that Luria’s test subject would have been just as confused at environmental policy decision makers, he might have said:

“Probably, he’s got a lot of fresh water, but if we’ll be left without fresh water, we won’t be able to do anything. Even if we have money, we still need fresh water.”

This quandary, will technology bring with it good or ill, is not new. Plato illustrates the question in Phaedrus, in the parable of the god Theuth, inventor of letters, who prophesies that letters will make Egyptians wiser and give them better memories, whereas Thamus argues that contrarily it will make the Egyptians forgetful and that letters will be an aid to reminisce rather than true memory because the words will be separated from context and substance. In other words Thamus argues that abstraction is a problem.

In reading Ong I had the sense that the concept of abstraction comes with literacy but in the quote from Nell, citing Luria, he points to language not literacy. Nell (1999) describes Luria’s belief that “…the acquisition of language changes the child’s environment and thus the structure of consciousness.” (Nell, 1999. P.48).

Did the first level of abstraction come with language, from forming words as symbols to represent both the tangible and intangible? I did not find that Ong sufficiently explored the abstraction and complexity of how humans expressed emotions and feelings. He focuses on the more concrete objects. This video clip from the film Waking Life has a good illustration of the abstraction of words with respect to the intangible.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oRQLoluXvY]

I think this scene nicely illustrates Ong’s reference to the ‘oral aural’ (Ong, 1982, p.73). I think the clip goes beyond Ong’s description to illustrate how words are inert but it is how the sender and receiver each interpret them. Reading Ong I was left with the impression that oral communities did not have abstract thought so I liked the way that this clip visualized the process of coming up with words for intangible feelings such as love that existed long before literacy.

While the scene in the film Waking Life takes into account the interactivity between the speaker and the hearer it does not illustrate the associated bodily gestures that are an embedded part of oral communications as described well by Ong’s (1982) description of gestures such as ‘rocking back and forth or dancing” (p.67). Here we can visualize how the abstract might be communicated in an oral culture not by words alone but by the associated non-verbal communications. This goes much beyond the oral aural. An active vs. passive communication.

Ong argues that this creates community because it cannot be separated from community or environment which would necessarily lead to community centric thought as opposed to the individualistic literacy. We have now moved beyond the form of literacy available at the time of Ong’s (1982) writing. The question now arises, with web 2.0 technologies, now that we have progressed to a literacy that is more social, how is this dynamic literacy impacting human thought processes? One no longer has to engage in solitary writing. Literacy has become more communal as evidenced in online chat rooms. Are we moving back away from the abstraction to more contextualization?

References

Fontaine, T. (2010). Broken Circle: The Dark Legacy of Indian Residential Schools, A Memoir. Toronto: Heritage House Publishing Company.

Gore, A. (2006). An Inconvenient Truth. Director Guggenheim, Davis – Director. Distributor: Paramount Classics.

Nell, V. (1999). Luria in Uzbekistan: The Vicissitudes of Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology. Neuropsychology Review. Vol. 9, No. 1. Pg. 45-52. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025643004782

Retrieved online September 26, 2011 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025643004782

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

Plato (2008). Phaedrus. Accessed online, September 12, 2011, at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1636/1636-h/1636-h.htm

Waking Life. (2001). Director Richard Linklater. Studio: Thousand Words. Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures.

Posted in Commentary 1 | Leave a comment

Leonora Zefi – Introduction

Posted on September 27, 2011 by Leonora Zefi

My name is Leonora Zefi. This is my sixth MET course. I am keenly interested in exploring the role of text and technology in education and specifically in online teaching and learning. In my daily work, I often hear comments such as “we need courses that are not text heavy” and, “focus on highly interactive content”. Reviewing all the contributions and comments so far I am already convinced that this is going to be a fascinating learning journey.

I chose this image http://www.flickr.com/photos/60271743@N06/5499425921 because  not only does it accurately represent the myriad of communication tools available to us but it also signifies the challenges and complexities associated with those tools.

Looking forward to learning with you.

Leonora

Posted in Introductions | Tagged | Leave a comment

Initial Text Thoughts

Posted on September 25, 2011 by kimprobable

At the beginning of Module 1 I wrote my initial thoughts on, “What is text?”. I naively wrote that text is the representational recording of language and influences cultures. Of course this view is influenced by my background as a teacher and someone who uses text everyday.

I was intrigued by the exercise of looking up the terms text and technology in the Oxford English Dictionary Online. I had no idea the etymology of the two words were so closely related and that they were root words for so many other words. I had never taken the time to explore these meaning and this exercise expanded my original narrow view of text. I had no idea!

The meaning of the word text is so complex that I am glad that I have a whole term to wrap my head around its meaning, develop further insight through our readings and synthesize my learning.

I chose to include this poem Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll as a representation of text. The reason I chose this poem is to represent where I am in my learning. Although I am a little disoriented, I am sure it will all make sense.

Jabberwocky



‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wave;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.



“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!

The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun

The frumious Bandersnatch!

“

He took his vorpal sword in hand:

Long time the manxome foe he sought–

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.



And as in uffish thought he stood,

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!



One, two! One, two! and through and through

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.



“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?

Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
“
He chortled in his joy.



‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

Posted in Text | 1 Comment

Technology is Ever Changing

Posted on September 25, 2011 by kimprobable

Dilbert Comic Strip December 23, 2010

As we discussed the Cambridge Forum audio recording, did you realize that the host did not describe it as a podcast but an audio recording? I found that fascinating. Just as technology has shaped our lives, it has also shaped our vocabulary. That was one of my a-ha moments this week. I began to think about all of the words that have been added to the dictionary to describe technology, how we use technology and interact with each other using technology. “I just sent him a text.”, “Don’t text while driving.”,”Do you tweet?”, “I just unfriended her.”

I love this Dilbert cartoon. When I first saw it in December of 2010, I laughed so hard I cried. It is so true. It is difficult to expound experience with technology as it is a moving target. Once you have learned something it has changed and is potentially outdated. The only way to have experience with technology is to be willing to learn and share that willingness to learn with others. I believe that is the key to using technology in education.

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Technology as Social Need

Posted on September 24, 2011 by Jennifer Stieda

Which came first - chicken or egg?“Wherever we start in such a chain of cause and effect, we can identify an interaction between technical qualities and social constructions – an interaction so intimate that it is hard to see where the technical ends and the social begins.”  – Bolter (2001).

Is it possible to know which came first?  Does common social necessity give birth to new technology?  Or does new technology lead people into new social spaces as espoused in technological determinism?  I’m a fence-sitter and cannot see either side clearly which is, apparently, Bolter’s opinion as well.  Of no doubt, however, is the inevitability of change via technology.  I’m curious to see how close we get to Kurzweil’s Technological Singularity in my lifetime (Kurzweil, 2005)!

References:

Bolter, J.D. (2001).  Writing space:  Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print.  (2nd Ed.)  New York, NY:Routledge.

Kurzweil, R. (2005).  The singularity is near:  When humans transcend biology. New York, NY:Viking.

 

Posted in Technology | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Technology is everything

Posted on September 18, 2011 by David Symonds

In my search for clarification about the meaning of the word “technology”, I came across this quote from Max Frisch: “Technology … the knack of so arranging the world that we don’t have to experience it.”

This quote struck me as particularly abrasive – its sweeping negativity about technology assumes that technology is tedious, unnecessary, and elitist. It suggests that our attempts to improve, develop, and invent are futile and ironically doomed to fail even if they succeed, by shutting us off from what is “real.”

I would, instead suggest that the purposes and goals of technology are much more varied and much more nuanced than Frisch’s snarky characterization. For one thing, I’ve had great difficulty trying to select a specific meaning for technology – finding that it can (and does) mean everything from art to knowledge to tools to techniques.

One definition of technology which I liked was, “the total knowledge and skills available to any human society for industry, art, science, etc” (World English Dictionary). I tend to restrict my definition of what is and is not technology to simply tools and objects – computers, chairs, pencils, knives, clothespins, etc., but this definition focuses entirely on knowledge and skill; what we know is technology as well. Our techniques and practices have been developed, honed, molded, tested, and re-formulated just as much as any physical object or tool we might use to achieve a task.

If we strip away all of the technology from the way we live, we go back much further than it would first appear. Without our knowledge, skills, and tools we would find ourselves crouched in the forest, naked and searching for food. Or as Frisch would say, “experiencing the world.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Nailing it down with text

Posted on September 18, 2011 by David Symonds

Hello, my name is ...?

I’ve been having mind-popping revelations as I read through the Ong (1982) text, but to focus on one particular statement, “Chirographic and typographic folk tend to think of names as labels, written or printed tags imaginatively affixed to an object named. Oral folk have no sense of a name as a tag, for they have no idea of a name as something that can be seen. Written or printed representations of words can be labels; real, spoken words cannot be” (p.33).

I chose the image above in relationship to this quote because I am a tremendously visual person – when I read this quote about naming and labeling, I was stunned to realize that indeed, when I meet someone and am told their name I do immediately visualize textually what their name “looks like.” I don’t even feel as though I know someone’s name until I know how to spell it. Lindsey? Lindsay? Lindsee? I wondered how my understanding of others’ might change if names didn’t function as labels or tags. This is still an idea I have trouble wrapping my head around.

In terms of meaning, to me, text is organization. It helps to identify, label, clarify, and expound. Text is focus. It slows things down for careful review. I can write, edit, re-read, re-edit, and dissect a text – things which make me feel comfortable and safe and clear about meaning. Text is refuge. Text is knowing what’s true or what I think is true. Text means I know your name.

For many of you, I know your name only as text, and know you only from the text you dispense as ambassadors for your thoughts. Which is kind of bizarre to think about!

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

Posted in Text | Tagged , , | 2 Comments