PowerPoint vs. Gliffy

Posted on November 14, 2012 by murray12

Due to an overwhelming amount of printing inquiries at my school, I created a troubleshooting sign for my school using Powerpoint. Given the MET opportunity, I decided to recreate the same sign using Gliffy. After some initial trial and error with connecting the lines and bubbles, rather than just laying them on the page, I found Gliffy to be fairly intuitive and responsive. Best of all is that I just used the flow chart template that they offer, and there are several other templates to use: floorplan, venn diagram, entity-relationship, etc. So Gliffy offers a lot in terms of already created diagram template, unlike Powerpoint  for which you need to create or track them down. One thing that Gliffy did not offer was image copy and paste. Teaching elementary, I am used to adding lots of images so this is important. Gliffy allows you to upload images, but not the quick and easy copy and paste, like in Powerpoint. That’s my comparison of the two programs.

 

I would be very interested in your comparison. Which do you think looks better and would be more effective for elementary school students? (oh, and I do have a thick skin, so don’t worry)

 

PowerPoint_My Mac Wont Print

Posted in Making Connections, Rip.Mix.Feed., Technology, Text, Uncategorized | 3 Comments

A new landscape.

Posted on November 13, 2012 by inscho

In his attempt to examine the changing landscape of representation and communication, Gunther Kress’s (2005) article titled, “Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and Learning” raises many discussion points that are helpful for analyzing this field.  His primary method of analysis is to setup dichotomies that imply competition between them with examples that include: semiotic signifiers and signs, representation and communication, display and story, and books and websites.  While making these comparisons is useful, Kress tends to approach them from an either-or perspective in what I would suggest is a false dichotomy.  Whereas it is apparent that the landscape here is changing from textual modes of representation to visual ones (often accompanied by auditory ones), I will describe how the latter is not supplanting the former, but enhancing or remediating it.

Bolter (2001) reminds us that, “[r]emediation can be, perhaps always is, mutual: older technologies remediate newer ones out of both enthusiasm and apprehension” and so we must consider the possibility, even probability, that textual modes affect visual ones and result in a hybridized mode with a synergistic effect.  This is evident in the convergent appearance of websites, textbooks and magazines.  The sense of urgency that brings with it the “Scylla of nostalgia and pessimism and the Charybdis of unwarranted optimism” (Kress, 2005) arises out of the centuries and millennia over which the modern text media have been remediating, picture writing, hieroglyphics, papyrus scrolls, manuscripts and other early text media.  The remediation occurring in this late age of print (Bolter, 2001) is occurring over a few generations or less.

Turning to semiotics, on which he relies heavily, Bolter contrasts signifiers as symbols devoid of meaning in themselves and requiring interpretation with signs in which their meaning is clear and apparent.  He continues to describe words as signifiers that require interpretation as to their meanings intended by the author or enunciator.  While this description appears satisfactory (Martin & Ringham, 2006; Streeter, n.d.), he creates ambiguity in implying, however unintentionally, that images are akin to signs and then explains that in common sense, “meaning in language [i.e. text] is clear and reliable by contrast, with image for instance, which, in that same commonsense, is not solid or clear” before using obscure references to the 1992 Institute of Education prospectus and Simm’s 1946 book “The Boy Electrician” in an attempt to elucidate, which he fails terribly.

Where this unfortunate elucidation eventually leads is to a discussion of the relative power of the author and audience in different media, and more significantly the differences in the number of entry points often seen between multimodal websites and texts.  The importance of these differences comes from the greater utility of a resource accessible by more readers in more ways that are pertinent to their life-worlds, as readers of texts become visitors to “pages” (for lack of a better word).  This begins to get to the heart of the matter of the changing landscape: that multimodal pages, offer a variety of alternatives to and advantages over the fixed temporal organization of text, and Kress does well to list many of them.

Parallel to the alternatives and advantages offered by the multimodal, is the concept of the addition of tools to think with that the page designer has as well as of those available as a writer of text.  Postman (1992) describes how literate societies have additional tools for thinking beyond those of oral societies, and it follows then that the addition of images to the vernacular of a society’s literacy will also bring with it changes to the ways in which its members think.  As a result, page designers will need to critically examine their use of the different modes in their compositions so that they may intentionally leverage the affordances offered by their selected modes.  Arguably, the intent of any composition is to communicate and do so effectively; however, the choice of how and to what extent pages are designed might greatly affect the extent to which their message is represented and received.  By carefully leveraging the affordances of multimodal media, a greater level of depth and complexity, as well as specificity, in communication are possible.  But to neglect these is to obfuscate the message, as many have witnessed in poorly designed pages with flashing images, and quantities of unrelated text.

As multimodal design continues to increase its dominance over mono-modal text, the nostalgic can be assured that text is not moving to obscurity but simply succeeding its dominant role, as is evidenced by the popularity of Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games with a generation most accustomed to, and inundated by, the multimodal.  The unwarranted optimist warrants restraint in the knowing that visual literacy is a remediation of the textual as well as in the realization that just as poor writing is all too common, so is poor design.  The more studious will take advantage of new tools and opportunities afforded by the multimodal to add layers of depth, complexity and universality to their design to enhance representation and communication

 

References:

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

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

Martin, B., and Ringham, F., (2006).  Key terms in semiotics. London: Continuum.

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

Simms, J. W., (1946). The boy electrician. London: Harrap.

Streeter, T., (n.d.), Semiotic Terminology. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/semiotics_and_ads/terminology.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Print versus Image: The Development of Multimodal Communication

Posted on November 11, 2012 by jjmh

In “Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning,” Gunter Kress (2005) differentiates between the words ‘mode’ and ‘medium’ to describe the emergence multimodality in the 21st century. Kress (2005) believes that current semiotic transformations in the modes of representation focus on the significance of image over text; therefore, shifting the distribution of information from the book to the screen (Kress, p.6). Jay David Bolter parallels the discussion about the changing dynamics of visual and textual modes of representation in his chapter entitled: “The Breakout of the Visual” (Bolter, p. 47-76). Bolter and Kress look at several significant themes in the development of multimodal communication: the organizational principles and the authority of new media. Both authors agree that society is exploring multimodalities by disconnecting from the long existing influence of print and moving towards a new landscape where collective representations of knowledge can exist.

Image and print have had a long history of remediation. What we are faced with today is “a readjustment of the relation between text and image” and “the refashioning of prose itself in an attempt both to rival and to incorporate the visual image” (Bolter, p.48). Bolter (2001) describes this transition as being different from remediation in the sense that new technology is not entirely replacing the old; rather, visual and print media are being amalgamated in order to maintain cultural importance. When compared with a computer screen, the page of a printed book offers very few options for design features aside from the style and size of the font of the text. A web-based home page follows the different organizational affordances of hypertext. Visitors pursue different links and read various fragments of information to develop an interpretation of the author(s) meaning. Web pages are organized based on the assumption that visitors come to the site for a variety of reasons, carrying different social and cultural beliefs and have little awareness of who assembled the information presented. The organization principles of current web pages reflect the organization of the outside world and rely on the interests of popular culture. For example, the sequencing of information is no longer up to the author as information on a web page is presented simultaneous, allowing the reader to select information that is relevant to their interest. Modifications to how and where information is stored on the web reflect a desire to speed up the process of retrieval.

Since the creation of print, written words have held a certain authority over image by reinforcing the idea that “what was important would appear in alphabetic texts and might then be supplemented by graphics” (Bolter, p.48). Subsequent to invention of the printing press, mass production of the same text helped to reinforce the point of view of one author. The restrictions associated with accepting the perspective of one singular author is no longer recognized in a highly digitalized society. In Michael Wesch’s video, “Information R/evoltion,” a more current depiction of authorship is presented with his statement that “together, we create more information than experts.” It is evident that accessibility to the World Wide Web has contributed to the declining authority of the author. Early typographic cultures clearly defined the role of the author, whereas the focus of information today is immediacy and comprehensibility. While mainstream search engines serve as an entry points to any topic of interest, more authoritative search engines, such as Google Scholar serve to provide more reliable information.


Amid a revolution between old and new communicative forms, the computer screen is evolving by replacing text with more engaging graphics, while printed text is attempting to make changes to design and layout in order to compete with the power of the image. Bolter (2001) refers to this transition the “breakout of the visual” while Kress (2005) contemplates the “Gains and losses” or “New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning,” to explain the developments in new modes of information. The most relevant arguments in the literature are concerning the organization and authoritative transformation involved in digitalized text. Bolter (2001) explains that finding information on the web is not necessarily ‘true’ knowledge, especially for sites such as Wikipedia where information is arranged and edited collaboratively. Kress (2005) assures that traditional books will remain in existence; he predicts that this digital revolution will be short-lived as it is primarily a generational endeavour. The greater question of authority that we face currently is around how to monitor the quality of information. It seems that our focus on the immediacy has come at the cost of trustworthy information. With the emergence of websites that specialize in in-depth analysis, I predict a backlash against several forms of abbreviated information.

References:

Bolter, D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kress, G. (2005). “Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition. 22(1), 5-22. Retrieved, November 3, 2012 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.12.004

Wesch, M. (2007). Information R/evolution . Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4CV05HyAbM

Tagged | 1 Comment

Hypertext, a Hostile Takeover?

Posted on November 11, 2012 by kstackhouse

In his chapter “Hypertext and the Remediation of Print” Bolter (2001) contends that remediation is about redefining cultural perspectives (p.43).  The big question between hypertext and print becomes whether one is more real, authentic, and natural than the other (Bolter, 2001, p. 43).  Accustomed to the “Print Age” we are experiencing a transition to processed, electronic, and hypertext forms of writing.  According to Bolter (2001) this transition has been much more hostile than the transition from writing to print.  On the other hand though, he offers the argument that hypertext is actually a remediation of print rather than the end of print (p. 47).  This sounds contradictory to his previous claim that this transition is hostile.

Electronic Writing and Hypertext

Many aspects of hypertext are often taken for granted by those that have been immersed in electronic writing from the start of their literary development.  When we consider how hypertext allows for networks of communication, hyperlinks and a workable space we see that there is a change in the relationship between the author and the reader.  According to Bolter (2001) when reading online we experience “ordinary text, but they also function as places along a path” (Bolter, 2001, p. 28).  This provides a sense of space when reading hypertext compared to print.

Before the Internet, Nelson used the term “hypertext” to describe the connections between ideas and documents that make up literature (Bolter, 2001, p. 34).  Bush (1945) raised concerns regarding the amount of knowledge available and how it would be managed.  Bush (1945) considered a device he called the “memex” that would be used as an interactive way to store and access information.  The computer and the Internet have been used to realize the connections of the writing network.  Bolter (2001) describes hypertext as if a printed book has been separated into pieces.  The author is able to make meaning and connections between the smaller pieces (Bolter, 2001, p. 35).  Each connection represents “paths of meaning for the author and for the reader” (bolter, 2001, p. 35).  These paths along with the computer’s ability to manage the connections allow for writing that has order and is associative in nature (Bolter, 2001).

Through the use of hyperlinking, electronic hypertext continues to provide challenges for the author and the reader.  When choosing to hyperlink the author must work to create meaningful connections or associations for the reader.  Bolter (2001) contends that hypertext is inclusive and consists of new elements that were not available to print.  Bolter (2001) adds that there is no responsibility on the part of the author or the reader as neither is responsible for how the connected pathways are followed.  In fact, since Bolter’s (2001) text was written, there are greater opportunities for the reader to participate in the pathways.  The use of hyperlinks and hypermedia has also redefined the relationship between words and images (Bolter, 2001).  When participating in the interactive space of hypertext the reader is able to respond to the work with his or her own hypertext and hypermedia.  While hypertext claims to be more interactive than print, Bolter (2001) recognizes that electronic writing and hypertext “must acknowledge both their connection with and their difference from print” (p. 45).

  The Relationship Between Print and Hypertext

If hypertext is a remediation of print as Bolter (2001) presents, in what ways does it accomplish this?  To begin hypertext is non-linear where print is considered to be a linear type of writing (Bolter, 2001).  There is structure in hypertext but also through its ability to provide associations through links and hypermedia it is dynamic where print is static (Bolter, 2001).  The reader is aware of their participation in the medium.  In print we are not meant to consider the font, style, and the page as we read the material.  We are to consider the thoughts of the author as they are being presented to us.  Bolter (2001) does not mention here though that print advertisements have relied on text features for years understanding that colour and font do have an impact on the reader that the author can use to their advantage.

Bolter (2001) goes on to say “hypertext uses the printed book as its object of remediation” (p. 45).  The book represents print and is no longer the standard for what the current literary culture desires; which makes hypertext the next step in the evolution of literary development.  Considering these changes, the claim that this remediation has been less respectful than the remediation of the manuscript is not fully presented.   Bolter (2001) does point out that print has to change to compete with hypertext.  The mimicked features of hypertext are even displayed in his own text when he uses a symbol (==> p. #) to create a print version of linking between ideas within his text.  Given the need to stay current one might be able to see Bolter’s (2001) claim that there is hostility between hypertext and print.  It must also be recognized that print is no longer separated from word processing thus print has to rely on the same technology that led to hypertext.  This could appear as jealousy or contempt on the part of print.  Meanwhile hypertext continues to progress possibly without even being fully aware of the pending feud.

Conclusion

When looking at the evolution of literacy it is clear to see that hypertext is a remediation of print as Bolter (2001) states.  While the print industry does struggle to compete with electronic hypertext and hypermedia it is difficult to see this as a hostile or malicious attack on print.  It would appear that this is just a natural process in the development of human thought and communication.  Similar to how the codex was impacted by the invention of print.  As print added new features and benefits to the literary form that preceded it so is the case with hypertext.

References

Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, (JULY 1945). Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/STS.035/www/PDFs/think.pdf

Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Technological vs Digital Literacy

Posted on November 11, 2012 by Kenton Hemsing

Ubiquitous access to learning material and information has changed how students learn in today’s schools. This access to new material and information has created a need for students and educators to adapt their literacy skills to accommodate not only the increased amount of information, but also account for determining and sorting relevant from irrelevant information (Mabrito & Medley, 2008, Para. 2).

Literacy is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) as:

“The quality, condition, or state of being literate; the ability to read and write. Also: the extent of this in a given community, region, period, etc.” (Literacy, OED, 2012)

This may be extended to include a definition spanning specific types of literacy to be:

“In extended use (usually with modifying word). The ability to ‘read’ a specified subject or medium; competence or knowledge in a particular area.” (Literacy, OED, 2012).

This supports the idea that students must currently master the digital medium to be considered digitally literate. This digital literacy is what will be needed by current students to be successful in the twenty first century.  

Mabrito and Medley (2008) describe how the new generation of learner has a different style of learning as a result of being raised with ubiquitous access to information and technology (para 2), they also found this technology immersion resulted in there being major differences in the manner in which younger students learn when compared to their instructors (para. 5). Mabrito and Medley (2008) go on to define this generation as the “Net Generation” (para. 1), and explain that these students are “a fundamentally different type of learner” (para. 1), and those in charge of their education must understand how to accommodate for this difference (para. 13). This means that as students become more digitally literate, educators must move to include digital literacy skills into both their teaching practices and classrooms to increase students’ success in the twenty-first century workplace.

To create a distinction between technologically literate and digital literacy, let us consider an example from Mabrito and Medley (2008).

“While many faculty members are technologically literate, routinely using computer resources in research and teacher, most did not grow up in the digital culture common to many of ther N-Gen Students. As a result, while N-Gens interact with the world through multimedia, online social networking, and routine multitasking, their professors tend to approach learning linearly, one task at a time and as an individual activity that is centred largely around printed text (Harman, Dzubian, and Brophy-Ellison 2007).” (para.4)

This distinction is a good example of the difference between someone being technologically literate (i.e. those that have appropriate skills and competence with using technology) and those that are digitally literate (i.e. those that can communicate, manipulate and function comfortably in an immersed digital environment).

Dobson and Willinsky (2009), address what it means to be digitally literate when they describe the use of the term digital as representing what is delivered through a literal digital environment as described and delivered as “binary strings of one and zeros” (para. 1). This includes anything through computer or internet devices that allow one to access digital resources.

Building on Bolter’s (2001) concept of remediation from print (p. 45) and applying it to technology, we can see that technological literacy has been remediated by societal pressures into what is now considered digital literacy. In other words, it is no longer suitable for one to simply be technologically literate to be successful; we must now move beyond and be digitally literate to interact within current society. Digital literacy requires that learners must become fluent in digital communication, understanding, filtering and manipulation to become successful in the future.

The introduction of technology in society and schools has helped to change learning from a highly individualized task to a collaborative endeavour. This can be seen from the introduction of the printing press, all the way to the introduction of the tablet computer and personal wireless devices. As learning environments have changed to include a large amount of technology, we have seen the physical environment change. Computers sit on desks that once held papers and textbooks, projectors hang from the ceilings and some classrooms have interactive whiteboards that allows the instructors and students to manipulate the computer it is connected to. These technological advances have remediated the learning environment by instituting items and procedures that closely shadow societal norms, that is, one that is technology filled and comfortable for students and educators. However; does the inclusion of these devices ensure that students and instructors are developing digital literacy?

Digital technologies, a subset of all technologies, deal with specific digital inputs and outputs (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009, para. 1). These digital technologies help to represent how older technology has been remediated, as described by Bolter (2001), by societal demands (p. 24). This remediation of technologies has led to the development and integration of digital technologies such as smartphones, MP3s, mass digital storage devices as well as digital media players. These items have quickly become the societal, and therefore the educational, norm for students. This has led to a change from an environment simply rich in technology to an environment suited for digital engagement and immersion. A truly digital learning environment, in contrast to simply a technological one, offers students the opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to their current needs (Mabrito & Medley, 2008, para. 17).

Returning to Mabrito and Medley (2008), we can see that digital media immersion is developing young people’s social identity (para. 7). As the demand for students to be digitally literate in methods of interacting, communicating and learning online becomes more desired in regular society, students will need to continue to develop this digital literacy. Digital literacy goes much further beyond simple technological literacy. It includes how one interacts in an environment saturated with media and technology, as well as the societal and social contexts created by this technological and digital immersion.  

 

 

References:

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

Dobson, T. & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy. The Cambridge Handbook on Literacy.

Literacy, n. (2012) OED Online. Oxford University Press. 10 November 2012 <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/109054?redirectedFrom=literacy>.

Mabrito, M. & Medley, R. (2008). Why professor Johnny can’t read: Understanding the net generation texts. Innovate 4(6).

 

Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Diversity and Education: The TCF Story

Posted on November 11, 2012 by sheza

The article, “A Pedagogy of Mutiliteracies: Designing Social Futures” by The New London Group begins with an analysis of the spheres of our working, public and private lives and how these changing realities are redefining the concept of literacy pedagogy.

The concept of multiliteracies is explored as a focus on “modes of representation much broader than language alone” (New London Group 1996).  The idea that “mere literacy” can no longer negotiate the diversified and globalized contexts in which we live is a fact that has opened the door to integrated modes of meaning-making that include textual, visual, audio, spatial, behavioural etc. (New London Group 1996). Another understanding of the term multiliteracies explored by the authors refers to the multiple Englishes, languages, and communication patterns that are part and parcel of a diverse society. These factors are the reason it is necessary to revisit our understanding of literacy pedagogy and reshape its meaning to encompass multiliteracies.

The article focuses on the concept of Design to forward the pedagogy of the multiliteracies agenda. “The idea of Design is one that recognizes the different Available Designs of meaning, located as they are in different cultural contexts” (New London Group 1996). Linguistic Design, Visual Design, Audio Design, Gestural Design, Spatial Design and Multimodal Design form a metalanguage of multiliteracies that “accounts for the infinite variability of different forms of meaning-making in relation to the cultures, subcultures, or the layers of an individual’s identity that these forms serve” (New London Group 1996). Given the diversity of society today, with its interrelations and pluralism, new meaning is produced of by this cultural dynamism, which can be understood as the Redesigned. We are each creators of Design in this respect, as creative and responsible makers of meaning, each designing our social futures (New London Group 1996).

As I read this article, the visions for work, citizenship and lifeworlds explored by the authors resonated with me. I felt empowered by the idea that perhaps the world can change by implementing a metalanguage to communicate across cultures. This ideal made me think about the work of a non-governmental organization called The Citizens Foundation (TCF) in Pakistan, which I have volunteered with since 2007. TCF’s vision is one that embraces diversity in the sense that the authors discuss in their article. The organization raises funds globally to open and maintain schools in rural areas of Pakistan in order to bridge the socio-economic divide in society that is at the basis of Fast Capitalism. It does so by creating an opportunity for the less privileged classes in Pakistani society to earn an education that is of the same quality as the best private education in Pakistan. Being a poor student does not mean poor education – an idea that is at the basis of the authors’ discussion on public lives. In that section the authors give the example of societies in Los Angeles, Sarajevo, Kabul, Belfast and Beirut – “the absence of a working, arbitrating state has left governance in the hands of gangs, bands, paramilitary organizations and ethnonationalist political factions” (New London Group 1996). Public education in Pakistan is largely nonexistent; with schools that are not schools at all, but cattle pens with teachers that are on government salaries but never come (Kristof 2011).  However, groups like the Taliban have capitalized on this weakness and even they see education as a tool for change – the literacy pedagogy that they teach though, is one that does not embrace diversity, but calls for an end to it (Kristoff 2011). The geopolitics of the nation has left no hope for the education of those who are not members of the middle class (Kristoff 2011).

TCF’s role in the education of Pakistan’s less privileged starts there. Their 2006 Annual Report, called “Embracing Diversity” begins:

“It is our dream that the children of this nation get an opportunity in life.

An opportunity to realize their potential, to prove their worth and above all, to become better human beings.

Education can ensure a better quality of life for all children and a better world for all people.

At TCF, we aim to get children off the streets and into schools, ensure that they stay in school and are equipped with the basic tools they need to succeed in life” (The Citizens Foundation 2006).

This is the very idea behind literacy pedagogy and the metalanguage of multiliteracies.  Pakistan is a kaleidoscope of people. The land on which it was formed has been host to civilizations dating back five thousand years. Its cities flourished before Babylon. Today, Pakistan is a medley of diverse ethnicities and cultures formed through legacies of Persians, Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Huns, Mongols and the British advancing through its land. Its people and culture bear deep imprints of its momentous past and dynamic antiquity. When Pakistan was created in 1947, its people took positive steps towards consolidating the unification of their pluralistic society and bring about its progress, however, the country’s turbulent history and current political situation is proof that such tasks are never easy.

TCF’s belief is that education will bring about tolerance of diversity and help achieve much needed harmony in Pakistan. Now, every morning, 115,000 children enter the gates of 830 TCF Schools (The Citizens Foundation nd). Regardless of ethnicity, caste, race, beliefs or ideologies they all come together in the single-minded pursuit of education.

This education is quality education that is communicated in a metalanguage that negotiates a place for these children in the country’s local spheres of work, public and private life as well a place for them on the world map. These students are offered with opportunities to continue their education at universities around the world through scholarship and mentor programs that cross the boundaries of language, culture and caste (The Citizens Foundation nd). The curriculum taught at TCF schools does indeed teach English but also hygiene and other essential life skills through multimodal avenues to ensure success. TCF schools are equipped with laboratories, computer rooms, libraries and art studios. Engaging in such multiliteracies does indeed give these children a chance to Design their own social futures.

 

References:

Kristoff, Nicholas D. 2011. “A Girl, a School and Hope.” The New York Times. November 11, 2011. Retrieved November 9, 2012 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/opinion/11kristof.html

The Citizens Foundation. 2006. “Embracing Diversity.” TCF Annual Report 2006. Retrived November 9, 2012 from: http://www.tcf.org/ePanel/Resources/DownloadFiles/Publications/Category/1/60/AN2006.pdf

The Citizens Foundation. No date. “About TCF.” Retrieved November 9, 2012 from: http://www.tcf.org.pk/TCFStory.aspx

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

Tagged | 3 Comments

As We May Think

Posted on November 11, 2012 by Adam Matthews

With the end of the war, many scientists were losing their jobs in war-time efforts. As We May Think is a call for the enhancement of knowledge delivery systems, a peace-time ideal; something to enhance humanity as opposed to destroying it.  “A record, if it is to be used in science, must be continuously extended, it must be stored, and above all it must be consulted.” (Bush, 1945) These words are the core of Bush’s message. Without access, knowledge cannot be used. Science was progressing at a pace beyond the capabilities of information delivery systems. Traditional publishing was inadequate to keep up with the heightened production of scientific research. Bush wanted to see a revolution in information sharing and expanded on how it may come.

The continuous extension of knowledge, is seen today most graphically in Wikis. These collaborative, constantly updated pages are a great source of up to date information. With the rapid changing pace of science and technology in the 40s, Bush saw it necessary to have the most current information available to all. Information from 3 weeks ago may no longer be relevant in some fields. Twitter and other forms of social media allow news to be reported as it happens from multiple points of view. This constant barrage of information requires a great deal of filtering. Everyone’s phone is a publishing tool. Information can be obtained as events unfold. This can lead to discrepancies amongst sources. What is the most recent information may not be the most accurate.

In science, to prove your capabilities and theories, you need to keep an accurate record. Every detail must be recorded in order for your research to withstand the scrutiny of your peers. An experiment that is not adequately described is impossible to recreate and thus, unable to be tested. Bush describes future recording tools and speaks of the power of images. He welcomed the breakout of the visual as described by Bolter (2001). Images take up space and the compression of large files into smaller is introduced through microfilm. (Bush, 1945) Today’s compression is digital and keeps file sizes down for speed of transfer.

Text is not always the best way to display information yet it was the easiest, cheapest way to publish information. Distribution of journals, was therefore an expensive, slow process. Current publication costs are essentially zero as all you need to distribute your research is bandwidth. Most papers that have ever been published are available online. The peer review process is still highly regarded and most journals hide their content behind pay walls to cover costs.  Increasingly, journals are being published as free documents able to be accessed by unknown colleagues all over the world. Counter to Bush’s predictions they have remained largely text based but educational materials on the internet have made good use of increased storage and bandwidth.

All the data in the world is meaningless unless it can be accessed. The current state of search as driven by computers has moved far beyond card catalogues. Obtaining information from the journals was a slow and tedious process in need of a modern makeover. The “ineptitude of getting at the record,” was another way in which machines could take over to save time. (Bush, 1945) From computational knowledge algorithms like Wolfram|Alpha to keyword matching sites like Google, the process of information recovery is much faster. Current internet technologies crowd source and use tags, ratings and popularity to find the best match. A sort of amateur peer-review system is built into the current search methodologies.

The mountain of information grows faster with each day. The ease of publishing online extends to everyone, not only traditional or reputable publishing houses. The quickand easy self-publishing boom has increased the availability of garbage but has also increased competition. With the current social nature of the internet, amateurs are training and innovating in order to provide the most highly rated service. Almost all how-to materials on the internet incorporate images if not video. Increasingly the most up to date troubleshooting or technology tips are available as free, on-demand videos. TED Talks is one academically acceptable access point to current, reviewed research. On the whole, academics has fallen behind modern innovations with journals today appearing very much the same as they did in the past.

With all this processing power and information sharing capability, we are at a turning point in education. The more mundane, repetitive processes, like calculations and basic search are increasingly relegated to machines. (Bush, 1945) Education trends are adapting to technologies. The goal of education is to enable our students to become critical thinkers. With an abundance of information, we rely on machines to store the majority of data. Current technology cannot be trusted to filter out all the inaccuracies and so we need to focus on ways to separate valid from invalid. Teachers not only alter the content of their lessons but how lessons are being delivered. Kahn has championed the flipped classroom. Students get information outside of the classroom and the teacher is able to focus on application and exploration of the knowledge.  (Thompson. 2011) We are more able to focus on the skills of information manipulation than to worry about the process of information storage and retrieval.

Bush laid out a very successful theory for how knowledge would be accessed in the future. The internet has made current research available to almost anyone in the world. This is necessary in science as progress depends on access to relevant information. The biggest accomplishment is enabling access to the world’s best minds for the masses. The benefits of increased information sharing are great but also bring about information overload. Educational practices are changing in order to increase our content filters. Many of Bush’s solutions are effective today and we should heed his cautions. We cannot trust everything our machines of limitless knowledge tell us.

References:

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

Bush, V. (1945). As We May Think

Thompson, C. (2011). How Khan Academy Is Changing the Rules of Education. Wired Magazine, 1-5.

Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Multimodal Modes of Representation in Education: Supporting the Diversity of Learning Styles

Posted on November 11, 2012 by Johanne Brochu

            In today’s century, as we discuss digital literacy, internet literacy, media literacy, and even television literacy (Rosen, 2009); it is clear that literacy is developing new accents that have become difficult to define in a few words.  Rosen (2009) stated that “if we expect our children to be competent citizens, compete in the workplace, and lead productive lives, educators and parents need to plant the seeds of media literacy early in the educational arena” (p. 177).  The iGeneration (Rosen, 2009) can access information instantly so educators have to find new ways to interact with their digital native students (Prensky, 2010). 

Multimodal Modes of Representation and Digital Literacy

             Visual modes of representation were used since the age of primary oral cultures (Ong, 2002).  However, we are now using visual modes of representation within other modes of representation to present information and to communicate better.  In the early primary oral cultures, written forms of communication, often just visuals (e.g., hieroglyphs), were used to keep valuable information.  Indeed, since our developed societies are becoming more literate, the textual modes of representation may be more utilized; but combined with the visual modes of representation it certainly enforced messages.           

            Despite their use, multimodal modes of representation can be seen as a revolution.  Hence, Kress (2005) suggested that their use has caused two kinds of revolution; “of the modes of representation on the one hand, from the centrality of writing to the increasing significance of image; and of the media of dissemination on the other, from the centrality of the medium of the book to the medium of the screen” (p. 6).  In fact, in order for people to better understand the world, “the medium of the screen” has been used in multiple forms over the last century and is now part of our contemporary cultures.  

            Therefore, multimodal modes of representation found in digital technologies have extended our view of literacy.  Dobson and Willinsky (2009) stated that the uses of computer and word processing as well as the rise of Internet and hypertext have ensured “the emergence of digital literacy” (p. 2).  Likewise, using multimodal modes of representation in education signifies that, with the diversity of needs and learning styles, more students will be reached; hence, it should enable them to enter the workforce more successfully.

 Students’ Diversity of Needs and Learning Styles: A Reality in Education

             Further, some individuals are more at ease with “the immediacy of the picture to the mediation of the code in our search of a tangible, ‘real’ reference that would render the sing transparent” (Bolter, 2001, p. 57).  In addition, Bolter (2001) suggested that viewers examining a picture will determine its significance without having any written text by it (p. 59).       

             Interestingly, over the years, I have noticed that the visual modes of representation had an effect on some students’ interest at reading a text, or, for instance, at participating in a discussion forum.  In particular, it was noticeable how boys responded to visual modes of representation in contrast with girls.  Hence, it was evident enough to change and use multimodal modes of representation like pictures, videos and hyperlinks along with the reflection questions.  Indeed, boys’ participation changed instantaneously; really, “a significant digital divide in regards to gender” (Dobson & Willinsky, 2009, p. 13) was observed in relation with how at ease males can be with computers compared to females.

           Nevertheless the fact that learning styles differ within the student’s population, and perhaps within genders, learning for some students with special needs can mostly occur with the help of visual modes of representation.  There is still a lot to be investigated in this area but it is encouraging seeing that some students can now access knowledge according to their capacity and/or potential by using the proper digital technology, a fact that would not have been possible with print texts or textual modes of representation alone.

 Living Life With Technology

Living Life with technology

 Photo retrieved from http://www.flickr.com/photos/21468527@N07/2085259044/

The 21st Century Working Place

            As the 21st century working place is largely looking for digital skilled employees who can collaborate and exchange ideas on a daily basis using digital technologies, it is critical that educators reshape their pedagogy, “a pedagogy that opens possibilities for greater access” (The New London Group, 1996, p. 72) and where no one should be left behind.

            Even though the working place is not always accessible to all, it is the parents and the educators’ responsibility to provide students the digital skills they need in order to enter the workforce; for instance, by enforcing placements in the working place where students can develop and reinforce their abilities.  Hence, schools have the obligation to prepare all students for the working life; digital technologies should help students with particular needs (e.g., students whose condition might impair them physically) enter that world. 

            Furthermore, the New London Group (1996) has discussed the necessity “to consider the implications of what we do in relation to a productive working life” (p. 66) but the group has not mentioned anything about the diversity of people living in our communities.  From literate to less or non literate, there is a wide range of people; how can all students reach the successful lives they deserve?  How can we be more aware of ‘differences’, be willing to eliminate the barriers between them, be open-minded?  Thus, this is an issue for which more research should be conducted; perhaps people’s conscientiousness in that regards is not there yet.

Conclusion

            Finally, students need to engage with school; even though they love learning they do not necessarily like school (Wesch, 2008).  For this reason alone, educators have to find new ways of interacting with digital natives.  Consequently, developing students’ digital skills will help them getting into the 21st century’s workforce, as some skills are expected from them; and schools are the best place to teach them.  Moreover, the use of digital technologies and multimodal modes of representation will help assisting educators with the diversity of their students’ learning styles, and, also, those with special needs; it should help preparing them for a successful life.

References

Bolter, J. D. (2001). Writing Space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Chapter 3 (pp. 47-76). NY: Routledge.

Dobson, T. & Willinsky, J. (2009). Digital literacy. Retrieved from http://pkp.sfu.ca/files/Digital Literacy.pdf

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

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

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn.  Chapter 7 (pp. 149-177). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. Retrieved from http://newlearningonline.com/~newlearn/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/multiliteracies_her_vol_66_1996.pdf

Wesch, M. (2008). A vision of students today. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/10/1-vision-of-today-what-teachers-must-do/

Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hypertext: A Natural Shift

Posted on November 11, 2012 by awernicke

The online world is structured in a much different way than how a traditional printed book is structured. This results in a changed perception and interpretation of information. In “Chapter 3: Hypertext and the Remediation of Print” from Bolter’s Writing Space, the ideas of hypertext are discussed. Hypertext is remediating, or refashioning, printed text. With this change in the presentation and access to information, learning and understanding information is also changing. Hypertext is flexible and it tailors to our associative ways of thinking. We must incorporate teaching methods to adapt to this new associative learning.

Hypertext and Remediation

Bolter (2001) proposes that the World Wide Web is remediating, or revising, the linear way of reading a printed book or scroll. The shift from one medium to another is a “remediation” of the previous technology.  New technologies may supplement or replace established technologies based on cultural requirements.  As the need for restructured electronic writing has arisen, the dominant linear book has become remediated. Hypertext is the software system that allows extensive cross-referencing between related sections of text and associated graphic material (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012).  Bolter describes hypertext as a network of interconnected writings (2001).  When someone accesses the Internet today, they can constantly shift from one page to another through the linkages in the hypertext, creating multiple reading paths, much different from the linearity of the printed book.

For hundreds of years, footnotes were used in books as a means to obtain more information about a particular topic. In order to do so, the reader would have to go to the bottom of the page or the back of the book to find more information. Even by doing this, there may not have been adequate information for the reader resulting in the reader then having to do tedious research in order to gather more information.  The difference between a footnote and hypertext link is that with hypertext, you can click on phrases or graphics and get a related new page instantly (Bolter, 2001). The new page then has access to many more linked phrases. This allows the reader to access seemingly endless amounts of information in just moments. The accessibility of a vast amount of information has an incredible effect on human thinking.

New Pathways to Find Information

Bolter claims that supporters of hypertext argue that hypertext reflects the nature of the human mind itself (2001). Vannevar Bush (1945) explained that humans think in more associative ways rather than through linear and hierarchical manners.  He states that the human mind operates by association. “With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain” (Section 6, para. 2). Associative thinking is not new. We have made many connections and thought in non-linear ways for thousands of years. Printed books may have been limiting our minds into a linear structure that inhibited our potential to discover many pathways of information at the tip of our fingers. From this plenitude of information that hypertextual environments enable, we have the ability to form new connections and form knowledge in a meaningful, experiential way. We choose our own pathways to collect data and make our own, deeper understanding. We can access graphics, videos, personal blogs and much more. We are discovering and creating knowledge in a non-linear way.

Implications for Teaching

With associative thinking, hypertext has created a new generation of learners. Students are constantly accessing many web pages and sources of information. As Bolter describes how humans are changing with the remediating technology of hypertext, teachers need to be able to understand the implications of hypertext in order to help their students. They should assess and assist the capacity for their students to connect what they are learning in a meaningful way instead of sifting through information too quickly. Instead of only using one resource in schools, such as a single textbook in a class, teachers need to apply more media and different resources. Students need to be trained to use hypertext while attaining important knowledge and meaning from their sources. When students are required to write, they should be given ample opportunities to display their information in many creative ways such as concept maps, wikis, open-source software, and different interactive web pages. Just as a printed textbook should not be the only source of information for a student, the traditional essay should not be the only means of expressing information for a student.

As humans adapt to new forms of technology remediating older forms of technology, our minds go through a shift in thinking. Sometimes the newer technologies are more appropriate for our particular thinking patterns. In the case of the hypertextual online environment, more natural ways of thinking may be activated. Bolter sees remediation as an attempt to redefine cultural values (2001). If we, as a culture, perceive a hypertextual environment for learning as an important medium, then we will continue to use and adapt to this. For practical teaching strategies, more research needs to be done in the area of information processing and attention spans for our ever-changing student learning environment. Our abilities to remember the vast amount of information that hypertext has allowed us to access could be changing rapidly.

References

Bush, V. (1945). As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, 176(1), 101-108. Available: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194507/bush

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

“hypertext, n” (2012). In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypertext?q=hypertext

Tagged | 1 Comment

Visual to Textual to Visual: Modes of Representation

Posted on November 11, 2012 by tavenia

Tara Avenia

Visuals Remediating Text

     Bolter (2001) begins the fourth chapter in Writing Space “The Break out of the Visual” with an assertion: “Hypertext” Bolter claims, “seldom exists as pure text without any graphics” (p.47). With this statement Bolter may be implying that pure text has existed and can exist without visuals. What is pure text? The Oxford English Dictionary (2012) defines “pure” as a verb. When translated, “pure” means “to cleanse; to refine; [and] to remove impurities from” (“pure”, 2012). “Text,” a noun, is defined as “the wording of anything written or printed” (“text”, 2012). Bolter may be suggesting that “pure text” is anything written that has been cleansed of impurities.  He embellishes a little in his effort to distinguish hypertext from the text that has preceded it. As can be inferred from Bolter’s later claim that “…older technologies remediate newer ones,” (p.48) and that in this late age of print there is a “mutual remediation” (p.56) that shall continue between prose and digital media. This commentary will argue that pure text has always been visual and that technology has aided text to return to the visual state of its conception.

Pure Text is Visual

     Bolter (2001) contends that “we are living in a visual culture” (p.47). He cites Gombrich, the author of Image and the Eye in his support, stating that “we are entering a historical epoch in which the image will take over from the written word” (Bolter, 2001, p.47). Perhaps it is better said that the written word has remediated from the image, implying that the image is not taking over, but is instead taking back. Writing is thought to have been invented independently at three different times in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and along the Fertile Crescent (Woodard, 2001). Only the earliest of these three writing systems, the Mesopotamian cuneiform script, invented in present-day Iraq in the fourth millennium BC can be traced over a 10,000 year period to the present-day alphabet (Schmandt-Besserat, 2001).

     The Mesopotamian text evolved over a period of six millennia from inscriptions on clay tokens in 8000 BC to the earliest rendition of the alphabet in 1500 BC (Schmandt-Besserat, 2001). Schmandt-Besserat (2001) defends that the first signs of writing, shown in Figure 1, was a pictograph system made up of symbols etched into clay tablets via a stamp or a freehand stylus.

Figure 1: “A Pictographic Tablet featuring an account of 33 measures of oil, from Godin Tepe, Iran (Courtesy Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto)”; as cited in (Schmandt-Besserat,  2001, p.16621).

Logography, as Schmandt-Besserat explains, is a system of easily drawn pictures that represent words and similar sounds. Logographs replaced the token and tablet system in Mesopotamia around 3000 BC. According to Schmandt-Besserat, the logographic inscriptions were used to record personal names, as is demonstrated in Figure 2, and represent a shift from a purely visual text to a hybrid writing system with aural and visual characteristics.

Figure 2: Logography,”Name and title of Puabi carved on a seal recovered in the Royal Cemetery of Ur (U10939) (Source: Amiet 1980)”; as cited in (Schmandt-Besserat,  2001, p.16622).

Even the Roman alphabet which is highly associated as purely textual began as a logographic system of picture-writing. As Schmandt-Besserat maintains the alphabet was invented around 1500 BC as a system of 22 symbols that each stood for a single sound and was predominantly visual.

Figure 3: “Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet (source: Roaf 1990)”; as cited in (Schmandt-Besserat,  2001, p.16623).

It is a well documented among linguistic scholars that the earliest forms of writing were all logographic, made up of pictures, symbols and images to represent consonants and much later vowels (Edgerton, 1952; Schmandt-Besserat, 2001; Woodard, 2001). It is not just in the previous two centuries as Bolter has suggested, that “the desire to capture the world in the word has been gradually supplemented by the more easily gratified desire to see the world through visual technologies” (p.58). The word has in fact been visual since its genesis in the fourth millennia BC.

The Remediation of Visual Text

     The writing system of the twenty-first century is moving through a process of visual remediation following an evolutionary path that has evolved from the picture-writing systems of the past. In other words, due to the return of visual modes of representation, not simply the rise of visual modes of depiction, textual modes of representation are declining. As Bolter (2001) posits, “the attempt to make words do what pictures do might be taken to mean that pictures are primary and words secondary” (p.56). The remediation of visual text in the present day has made communication more effective, efficient and places greater emphasis on the image and the icon. As Bolter attests, “the treatment of text as an image becomes even more popular and more culturally compelling with the rise of digital media, because of the ease with which images and words can be combined (p.52). “Text”, Bolter concedes “…becomes a pictorial experience” (p.52).

References

Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. [2nd Ed.]. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Edgerton, W. F. (1952). On the theory of writing. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 11(4), 297-290. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/542690

Pure, v. (2012). In The Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/154844?rskey=M6KIAz&result=7&isAdvanced=false

Text, n.1. (2012). In The Oxford English Dictionary Online. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/200002?rskey=8Mp69s&result=1&isAdvanced=false

Schmandt-Besserat, D. (2001). Evolution of writing. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (16619-16625). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03096-5

Woodard, R. D. (2001). Writing systems. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (16633 – 16640). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03021-7

Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments