Some Thoughts on Willinsky’s In Democracy and Education

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Dan

In Democracy and Education: The Missing Link May Be Ours, John Willinsky (2002) makes the case for free and open access to scholarly research in education. Under the current paradigm, publishers, whose revenue is in the billions of dollars (Stevenson, 2010, para. 3), control most academic and scientific research publication. Interestingly, Willinksy predicates his case not on financial grounds, but on the grounds that open access can better serve democracy through the creation of an informed public.

Most criticism directed at the academic publishing industry today is based on the high subscription fees charged to universities and the proposition that researchers are unable to access their own published works without a subscription (Stevenson, 2010). It should also be noted that the authors and reviewers of academic papers are typically not paid for their work. Instead, they earn prestige in their field, which can play a role in gaining tenure and winning research grants (Opal, 2013).

Despite the current furor over the control and economics of academic publishing, Willinsky believes that by developing tools to improve public access to educational research, the public will become informed stakeholders in shaping education policy and directing future research. It is only through open access to research and ideas, that Dewey’s aims in education and democracy can be furthered.

Willinsky’s assertion that open access can benefit the general public simply by the virtue of being open can be illustrated with the case of Jack Andraka. After the death of a family friend, 14-year-old Andraka was curious to understand pancreatic cancer and so he chose to make it the subject of a school science fair (Andraka, 2013). His attempts to access scientific research were often thwarted by expensive article fees (and a mother unwilling to continuously pay for articles Andraka purchased, downloaded, and then tossed into the recycling bin). With a little clever problem-solving, Andraka managed to access journal articles for free, often by emailing the authors directly. His hard work paid off. Through his efforts and a little help from a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, Andraka invented an early test for pancreatic cancer and won a $75 000 scholarship from the Intel Science Fair (Bleier, 2013).

Despite the challenges posed by the current scholarly publishing system, Andraka was successful because he never gave up. He was not deterred by expensive journal articles and managed to outwit the current system and access articles for free. With open access, students, who may not be as bold or determined to succeed as Andraka, will be able to access the research they need. Indeed, this is the point that Willinsky makes. Willinsky asserts that we must test the idea that open access to research will have a beneficial impact on society’s “participation in civic and educational forums” (Willinsky, 2002, p. 13). Clearly, in Andraka’s case, it could have made his efforts easier—and less expensive for his mother.

Of course, all this assumes that the individual is capable of understanding the research as published. Certainly, Andraka is singular among his peers. Few teenagers are inclined to seek out academic papers to help them understand real world problems. Scholarly papers are not typically written for the general public, let alone teenagers. The audience for research is usually other researchers. Willinsky (2002) touches upon this briefly by stating that open access may encourage “faculty and students to give greater thought to writing for this expanded audience” (Willinsky, 2002, p. 8).

While Willinsky’s position is admirable, and according to Dewey, moral (Willinsky, 2002, p.6), the crux of the problem—how to bring about meaningful change to the world of academic publishing in order to accomplish his vision—is not addressed. Part of the problem lies in the prestige that comes with publication in an established journal. Unless publication to open access databases carry an equivalent amount of cachet as the more reputable journals, many authors will still default to the dominant traditional system of publishing. Willinsky acknowledges this. Any new system of publishing will need to be “sensitive to the career aspirations of contributors” (Willinsky, 2002, p. 13).

Willinsky, and those who believe as he does, are up against an entrenched business model and the culture of academic research and publishing. Neither will be easily changed. Yet, Willinsky draws inspiration from traditional news media corporations and their struggle for relevancy in the Internet age. Willinsky considers the “disenchantment with the press as democracy’s great hope” (Willinsky, 2002, p. 11).

The Internet and its ability to democratize the sharing of knowledge has brought about much change and upheaval in our traditional knowledge-governing institutions. This process is still in its infancy and the results of Willinsky’s grand experiment to bring about change in public forums through the open access of knowledge and research has yet to reach fruition. This change will not come easy. As long as their are economic interests at stake—in this case, the billions of dollars in revenue generated through academic publishing—the road to open access will be long and arduous.

References

Andraka, J. (2013, February 18). Why science journal paywalls have to go. PLOS Blogs: The Student Blog. Retrieved from: http://blogs.plos.org/thestudentblog/2013/02/18/why-science-journal-paywalls-have-to-go/

Bleier, E. (2013, January 29). Jack andraka, 15, develops early ‘dip stick’ test for pancreatic cancer. Opposing Views. Retrieved from: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/health/conditions/cancer/jack-andraka-15-develops-early-dip-stick-test-pancreatic-cancer#

Opal, P. (2013, March 26). Don’t let the dream of open access journals die. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/dont-let-the-dream-of-open-access-journals-die/274371/

Stevenson, A. (2010, November 29). The economic case for open access in academic publishing. Ars Technica. Retrieved from: http://arstechnica.com/science/2010/11/the-economic-case-for-open-access-in-academic-publishing/

Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 1-21. Retrieved from: http://knowledgepublic.pbworks.com/f/WillinskyHER.pdf

Tagged | 1 Comment

Posted on September 29, 2013 by andrewclemon

Postman as soothsayer

After reading the first chapter of Technopoly many readers may view Neil Postman (1992) as a technophobe. He decries the use of computers in education, claims technology redefines words like “freedom” and “history” and that those who are competent with new technologies are granted “undeserved authority and prestige” (no page number listed). Some may claim that Postman has been wrong on all accounts, asserting that computers have improved education, technology has increased the amount of freedom for almost all affected, and that if a person has gained competence in a particular area then they are probably deserving of some sort of authority. A more through examination of Postman’s claims are needed to determine whether he is eerily prescient or truly a technophobe.

Postman (1992) believes that the use of computers in education will only teach “children to operate computerized systems instead of things that are more valuable to children” (no page number listed). He feels that computers are teaching students to operate computers instead of providing them with a quality education. While this view may seem far fetched in 2013, it is possible that there is some validity to Postman’s claim. Lei and Zhou (2007) found that the more time students spent on computers (while in school) the less they gain. The authors noted that there was a certain amount of time (approximately 3 hours or more) that resulted in negative gains for students (as measured by their GPA). It may seem unlikely that students would be spending more than 3 hours on a computer in school, but most school districts are encouraging their schools to invest more in technology and having students spend more time online. Students are also likely to spend some of their leisure time on a computer, resulting in the average student probably spending far more than 3 hours in front of a computer screen. Harter and Harter (2004) also found that, contrary to what some educators believe, the use of technology in class does not increase student scores.

The supporters of technology in education claim that students are entering a different world, a world where the need for knowledge has been superseded by the need for critical thought. It is argued that with the amount of information now available to students it is more important to teach them how to sift through this information instead of teaching them information. While critical thought has an important place in learning, it is not an education. If this were true, then critical thought would have become the focus of education when the first library opened its doors. Instead, the need for students to learn something other than critical thought has endured. Postman (1992) notes that print stresses individualized learning and competition; computers have taken this to a whole new level. In many school districts “individualized learning” is a buzzword, used to imply that students will be learning what they want and when they want. How this will affect education and society remains to be seen.

Another claim made by technophiles is that technology has increased the amount of freedom for nearly everyone on earth. They point to the access most of the population has to an incredible amount of information via the internet. Postman (1992) wonders who will really gain greater power and freedom with the onslaught of technology, and whose power and freedom will be reduced as a result. Students are more likely to rely on the internet for information than their teachers, so while students have gained power the teacher has lost it. The teacher has also lost power as a result of technology in another way; as school districts increase the number of online courses they offer they are able to reduce the number of teachers needed for facilitation. One teacher may not have been able to teach one hundred students in a classroom setting, but they are asked to in an online setting. The term “teaching” is used loosely here, however, as the online teacher often ends up marking much more than teaching. Students are directed to “canned” courses (courses that are already set up online and need little to no outside help to deliver content) and their only interaction with the teacher is when they submit their assignments.

Postman (1992) states that those who become skilled in the use or knowledge of a new technology become an “elite group” with “undeserved authority and prestige” (no page number listed). He believes that these groups form a conspiracy against those who do not posses this knowledge and will wield power over them. Some may claim that these elite groups have earned their skill or knowledge and thus are deserving of their authority. Postman, however, worries that this is just another way to separate winners and losers.

Although technology has been championed as a cure-all ready to solve the woes of education, the environment, healthcare, and the economy, Postman (1992) believes it may affect our world negatively. He is concerned that concepts like knowledge and freedom are being irretrievably altered (and not for the better). Postman notes how teachers are rapidly becoming the “losers”, cheering on their own demise without even realizing it. There is a power shift occurring and teachers are the ones losing power; where this balance of power is shifting is still unknown. Although Postman may seem like a technophobe, it can be argued that he has shown remarkable foresight. Nowhere is this more evident than when he wonders if the computer will “raise egocentrism to a virtue” (no page number listed).

Now how is it he knew about Twitter 14 years before it came into existence?

Harter, C. & Harter, J. (2004). Teaching with Technology: Does Access to Computer Technology Increase Student Achievement? Eastern Economic Journal, 30, 507 – 514.

Lei, J. & Zhao, Y. (2007). Technology uses and student achievement: A longitudinal study. Computers and Education, 49, 284 – 296.

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books

Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

The Library of Alexandria

Posted on September 29, 2013 by troymoore

As a librarian, I am continuously forced to go through a process known as weeding. Old books, which are outdated (encyclopaedias have a lifespan of five years), are removed from shelves due to space issues. That space used to be taken and given to new books. However, the physical space of my library has shrunk over the last five years to make the area needed for a new computer lab. In years past, this would not have happened. Libraries were protected places, a place where information was gathered and disseminated. The library of the 21st century looks much different. The current library is, thanks to technology, a virtual library, a true modern Library of Alexandria.

The idea of a virtual library is not new. As O’Donnell (1994) points out, the idea has existed for over 1500 years. The letter of Aristeas to Xenocrates discusses the first virtual library. Simply put, a virtual library is a collection of all information, with instant access to that knowledge. In 1945, Vannevar Bush hypothesized, after the bombing of Hiroshima, a future of information gathering and recollection. He believed microphotography would revolutionize the recording of information. In addition Bush created the ‘memex’, which was was a “device in which an individual stores all his books, records, and communications.” (121) He did not know it at the time, but he was talking about the personal computer, or the key to the virtual library. In the article, Bush (1945) uses the example of a bow and arrow. Using the memex, the user could search library books, diagrams, and the new idea of microphotography on the bow and arrow. Sound familiar? A simple Google search can do that today. In fact, as of this typing, a Google search of bow and arrow brought up over 17 million results. Bush also discussed the possibility of using thought and voice to access the information on the memex. Although, for years that would have been considered science fiction, that technology exists today (http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/brain-controlled-gadgets/). The virtual library has been a pipe dream for years, but could now be a reality.

Kelly (2006) points out in Scan this Book, that a virtual library is possible and that in 2004, Google undertook the Googlebooks Project. The goal is to scan or digitize every book. Google entered into agreement with five major libraries, including: Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, the University of Michigan and the New York Public Library. Between the five libraries, over 10 million titles would be scanned. According to Kelly the ultimate goal could be a library which contains absolutely everything. One-tenth of all movies are already digitized, and over a 1,000,000 books a year are being digitized. The Library of Alexandria, at its height, contained approximately 70% of all the written work known to man. Kelly (2006) states there are machines scanning books at the rate of 1,000 pages per hour. Although many subscribe (no pun intended) to what Google is trying to do, there are many issues that surround the project. The biggest elephant in the room is copyright. As Kelly (2006) rightfully points out, many are angered that Google is scanning then asking for permission. Much like the old adage, it is better to beg forgiveness, than ask for permission. Especially when the fact that only 15% of books are within the public domain, Google may have trouble creating the virtual library.

Google book project to be

Even with permission, the question must be asked why is Google doing this? Now the simple answer could be for the betterment of people, especially people who have limited access to text. Yet, Google is one of the biggest companies in the world. They did not become that by being stupid. If they possessed the virtual library and had the means to catalogue and search it, it would be a treasure trove of information. Sites, seeking information, would need to filter through Google sites, driving up their traffic and ability to sell ads. There would be tremendous potential for selling memberships or access to the virtual library. In addition, so many projects could be developed from that resource, including translators (which Google already possesses), search engines (which Google already is, but the potential for a secondary one, much like Google Scholar), and copyright rules. Microsoft and Amazon have created similar ideas and that also begets the question of sharing information with one another, if not, no could ever claim to have the virtual library.

Issues abound which will never allow a true virtual library to exist, but many of these problems can be combated. Brand and Sanders’ (1999) article, Escaping the Digital Dark Age outlines one major problem with the advent of the virtual library, the loss of data. Even though his article is a bit dated, it does raise some good points about how data is lost. Brand and Sanders (1999) states the half-life of data is approximately 5 years. This is due in large part to technology advancement. Floppy disks were once the only way to save data, now are obsolete. The same can be held true for reel to reel data tapes. Brand outlines how much data MIT has lost through the years, however, much like the Library of Alexandria, books can be damaged and lost as well. Moreover, with the increase of storage capabilities, and the ability to store data ‘in the cloud.’ Data seems to be better protected than ever before.

Another potential problem is translation and understanding. As O’Donnell (1998) clearly defines, text is changing, 128 characters has now lead to 256 characters, and further lead to programs which run over 35,000 characters, due to accents and symbols. If the virtual library was to exist more characters would be needed. Hieroglyphics would need characters, Mandarin would as well, as well as ancient Sanskrit, etc. Fortunately, this problem is not a big one, as technology will be able to handle this, especially, if a universal platform was adopted.

One final problem is as Grafton (2007) points out is equity. The virtual library favours the wealthy. Naturally, developed countries have more access to not only books,but virtual books as well. Countries without access or with filters in place may not have the same access, which defeats the purpose of the virtual library, equitable access. Moreover, the presence of so much text from, developed, Westernized countries could also force their culture on less developed countries. This already occurs today, so should not be a deterrent for a virtual library.

“the Internet will not bring us a universal library” (Grafton 2007). Maybe not, but from a librarians’ perspective, we are closer now than we have been since the Library of Alexandria was lost.

References

Brand, S. & Sanders, T. (1999). Escaping the digital dark age. Library Journal. 124 (2), 46-48.
Grafton, A. (2007, November 5). Future reading: Digitation and its discontents. The New Yorker. Retrieved from http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_fact_grafton?currentPage=all
Kelly, K. (2006, May 14). Scan this book! The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/magazine/14publishing.html?pagewanted=all
O’Donnell, J. J. (1998). Avatars of the word. From papyrus to cyberspace. (pgs. 44-49). Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
O’Donnell, J. J. (1994). The virtual library: An idea whose time has passed. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20070204034556/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/virtual.html

Library Word Cloud via Wordle

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Library of Alexandria

Technological Determinism in The Judgement of Thamus

Posted on September 29, 2013 by grants

In this commentary, I will examine Neil Postman’s “The Judgement of Thamus” with reference to aspects of technological determinism as outlined in Daniel Chandler’s “Technological or Media Determinism”. Although I’m not a staunch technology optimist, especially during a week when my smart classroom malfunctioned and both departmental printers broke down, I find Postman overly negative in his views of technology and its impacts on society.

Postman begins the chapter with the story of King Thamus of Egypt and god Theuth, inventor of written text, as he believes the story contains several principles to inform how we should think about a technological society. First, Thamus cautions Theuth that the person who discovers an art is not the best judge of its effects on those who practice it. This indicates a belief in what Chandler (1995) terms technological autonomy, the notion that technology is self-controlling and independent from society.

Thamus goes on to criticize Theuth’s invention of writing, believing it will encourage literates to rely on external symbols rather than internal memory, leading them to possess mere information, not knowledge. Therefore, they will seem to be wise, but will in reality be ignorant due to poor instruction using the new technology. This is indicative of the linear thinking Chandler (1995) states is typical of technological determinism – the belief that the introduction of a new technology is the sole cause of change. I find this close-minded thinking on Postman’s part. Through the analogy of the Thamus story, he indicates his belief that instruction with new technology is poor instruction and methods which differ from the traditional are to be discouraged.

Postman (1992) believes Thamus is in error when he says writing will be only a burden to society, stating instead that every technology is both a burden and a blessing. He says this, yet the overall tone of the chapter is negative, describing proponents of technology “who see only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what they will undo” (1992, p. 2). He accuses the “zealots” of this, but is guilty of the opposite view, focusing on what technology may undo, and underplaying potential benefits.

He justifies his stance by claiming a dissenting voice is required to counter balance the masses of technology enthusiasts. Certainly, calm, impartial thinking must prevail while assessing the benefits and potential pitfalls of technology, but what is to be gained by being consistently pessimistic? As cited in Chandler (1995, p. 10), Postman doesn’t believe the effects of technology are inevitable, but insists they are unpredictable. This is a much more balanced stance from which negative effects of technology can be identified or predicted, ensuring the blessing of the technology is as intended and the burden reduced or eradicated. However, while he admits it’s an error to focus on the burdens and lauds Thamus for arguing both for and against each of Theuth’s inventions, Postman is incapable of the same impartiality throughout most of the chapter.

Postman states that “every culture must negotiate with technology” (1992, p. 2). The choice of the word “negotiate” again demonstrates Postman’s belief in technical autonomy, as does the assertion that technology is “autonomous, in the manner of a robot that no longer obeys its master.” (as cited in Chandler, 1995, p. 10). Chandler also cites Postman’s most striking depiction of technological autonomy, the “Frankenstein Syndrome”, which purports that man invents a machine for one purpose, but it independently takes on unexpected functions. Although I agree that technology has altered our behaviours and ways of thinking, it is a gross overstatement to equate this phenomenon to a monstrous predator inflicted on society.

This mindset is a reverse instance of what Chandler (1995) terms techno-evolution, in which change is seen as synonymous with progress. Instead, Postman assumes that new technology-related habits are automatically negative. This is indicative of a pervasive view that technology-mediated changes in ways of thinking and acting are automatically negative and harmful. Postman’s chapter would be more informative and insightful if it focused on how new technology is different from traditional methods and how these affordances can be exploited to improve teaching and learning.

Postman does not believe in the neutrality of technology, warning that that once society accepts a technology, it will determinedly fulfill its intention (1992). It is up to society, he states, to be mindful and wary of this purpose. His wording makes this sound ominous, but it needn’t be. Will advantageous technology not prevail if consumers adopt beneficial technology and reject that which is not useful?

Postman correctly points out that the introduction of new technology adds words to a language and changes the meaning of existing ones. However, I disagree that these changes are “insidious and dangerous” (1992, p. 4). Instead, they illustrate the natural evolution of language. As society and cultures change, so too does the language used to express current concepts and prevalent technology. Therefore, I feel Postman’s examples weaken his point. Yes, the telegraph, press, and television changed the definition of “information”. Therefore, these past examples can inform how the computer is altering the definition once again and how society can prepare for, adjust to, and benefit from these changes.

Postman illustrates several additional aspects of technological determinism as outlined by Chandler. First, he rightfully asserts that the benefits and drawbacks of technology are unequally distributed and that “almost nothing they need happens to the losers” (1992, p. 6). He then goes on to list a variety of societal woes he believes are the fault of technology, illustrating a main tenant of technological determinism which dictates that technology is the sole cause of societal change.

Second, he suggests that television may make teachers obsolete due to the change in dominance from print to visual media. Clearly, this did not happen, yet the same warning has been issued regarding the computer and other educational technology. Postman’s logic is reductionist in thinking and indicates a belief that technology is predominantly made up of machines and tools and that altering these tools will single-handedly cause widespread societal change.

Finally, Postman again attributes technology the potential for mass change by purporting that new technologies alter what we mean by “knowing” and “truth”. While I believe this to be a plausible assertion, I don’t feel that his example of assigning number grades illustrated the point well, as numbers are not a usually considered tools or technology. His point would be better made if he illustrated how emerging technology changes how we gain knowledge and assess its validity and truthfulness.

References

Chandler, D. (1995).Technological or Media Determinism. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet03.html

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

Tagged , | 2 Comments

Commentary 1 “I Have Spoken”

Posted on September 29, 2013 by neil

In his essay “I Have Spoken” Hochbruck talks about the use of oral traditions in written texts.  He discusses how using the standard rhetorical closing formula of “I Have Spoken” brings to mind some notion of orality and authenticity to the reader and the problems with this.

The use of oral forms in English literary works has been problematic.  They can be seen in two ways according to the author.  Either as a contribution to the colonialism that is helping to bring about the end of many oral traditions, or as a way of continuing them (Hochbruck, 1996).  The use of English, or another colonial language, which is often not the first language of indigenous authors, can mean that already some authenticity is lost.  Using the language of the colonizers perpetuates the idea that the colonizing power is somehow better and that the colonized peoples should conform to their way of thinking and expressing themselves.  On the other hand it is still important for the indigenous peoples to express themselves, if that means using a language which is a language of oppression but also allows a great deal more people to access and gain information about their culture, then that can be seen as a good thing.

Hochbruck notes that when oral traditions are included in written texts much of the subtleties of the original are dumbed down or simply left out.  Transcribers also rework the original to work with pre-existing literary devices (Hochbruck, 1996).  This can effectively neuter the original meaning or even re-purpose it to reinforce the cultural norms of the colonizing culture.  However, he argues at the end the essay that the use of orality in literary works should not be abandoned but rather more deeply explored and understood.

The author goes on to discuss the widely held belief that a culture is either in an oral or literate stage is much too superficial of a viewpoint.  Oral and written traditions can co-exist and even feed each other, for example the case of an oral performance that follows written rules.  The two forms are not mutually exclusive.  However in many written works the inclusion of oral tradition serves to clarify and differentiate, for the reader, the identity of the origin of the information (Hochbruck, 1996).  The reader then brings in their cultural norms in the interpretation of this text, although it is both text and something more than text at the same time.

According to Hochbruck there are no easily seen distinctions between oral and written text, except for the medium and our own minds.  This distinction is recognized in scholarly circles as evidenced by the great divide theories.  These theories are based on the assumption that there is some sort of:

“dichotomy between different kinds of society or human experience: ‘primitive’ vs. ‘civilized’, ‘simple’ vs. ‘advanced’, ‘traditional’ vs. ‘modern’, ‘concrete’ vs. ‘scientific’, ‘oral’ vs. ‘visual’, or ‘pre-literate’ vs. ‘literate’. Such pairings are often also regarded as virtually interchangeable: so that modernity equals advanced equals civilization equals literacy equals rationality and so on.” (Chandler, 2000)

This whole idea that the oral and written are somehow divided feeds into our need to separate both our cultures and ourselves.  To prove to ourselves, and others, that our society is unique and somehow better.  It is an underlying assumption for much of western thought; as a result it finds its way into many facets of our daily lives without us thinking about it too deeply.  This is exactly what the Hochbruck is trying to say.  We should continue to use orality because it brings the issue to our attention, we can use this to start a discussion about our underlying assumptions and by doing so come to a greater understanding of how we see and interact with the world.

To see just how deep these assumptions are we need to look no farther than the planning documents for the teaching of English put together by the Ministry of Education in British Columbia.  It was not until 2011 that the Ministry included three new courses that focused on English for First Peoples.  Prior to this there were no options for First Nations people to get a culturally relevant education in the English language.

While oral language is important in the study of English, the focus is entirely different in English 10, 11 and 12 and English 10, 11 and 12 First Peoples.   The Ministry explains that

“the emphasis on oral language and on the study of oral texts is particularly important in EFP 12. The maintenance of oral tradition is considered critical in virtually all First Peoples cultures, and effective implementation of English 12 First Peoples will include a study of oral tradition and will allow students to experience oral texts first-hand. In this way, students will come to fully appreciate the significance of a living oral tradition.” (British Columbia Ministry of Education).

Although late in entering the curriculum this acknowledgement that oral traditions are important in First Nations cultures is very important.  It is a shame that this emphasis does not cross over into the regular English curriculum.  Our dependency on the written word, and our almost blind acceptance of its validity, are taking away something from our use and enjoyment of the English language.  There is much to learn from other cultures, Hochbruck says as much, but we can only learn after we start the conversation.  Without looking at our basic assumptions about language and knowledge we will never come to a deep understanding of other cultures.

 

References:

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2010). English 12 First Peoples. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/pdfs/english_language_arts/2010efp1011.pdf

Chandler, Daniel. (2000). “Biases of the Ear and Eye” Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral1.html

Hochbruck, W. (1996). `I have spoken’: Fictional `orality’ in indigenous fiction. College Literature, 23(2), 132.

Tagged | Comments Off on Commentary 1 “I Have Spoken”

The Balance Between Ways of Communicating

Posted on September 29, 2013 by rebeccaharrison

Biakolo argues convincingly in his paper “On the Theoretical Foundations of Orality and Literacy,” (1999), that Ong (1982), and others were less than fair in using Plato as their measuring stick for those in a literate Greek culture. He does this by pointing out that there would be many others who would have lacked either exposure or ability compared to Plato. He cautions against the generality and comparative quality of many studies; this generalization can be avoided if we consider cultural values and also individual differences, as he recommends. Specifically, Biakolo’s work becomes applicable when you look at the classroom or individual level.  As our education system advances, we are seeing a push into personalized learning, which is being facilitated through our ever-expanding technological developments (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 2013). As technology develops, the authority and value placed on print has become dispersed between alternative ways of communicating. These alternatives are allowing individuals to express themselves in a variety of modes, which allow the average individual to communicate in the way they require. Instead of accepting one way of communicating without including others, we must move towards an understanding of communication and learning on a continuum between orality and where we are today with modern technology.

If popular belief is that written language is more valuable than orality, something that Biakolo (1999), identifies as a common trait in his findings on the theoretical research behind orality and literacy, then our education systems will be influenced by these beliefs. In turn the education system will place significant time and value in written output. This becomes particularly apparent when these values are instutionalized in our school systems. In our western culture schools frequently require students to write to demonstrate their understanding of concepts. If we look at the whole education system, the top certification is a Doctorate which requires an incredible ability to use the written word. By requiring this written ability of students, we alienate a group of individuals based on a societal viewpoint. These individuals may be more competent than others in their ability to understand concepts but because of studies like those identified in Biakolo’s (1999) work, literate ways of communicating information are justified as more developed or scientific. Chandler (1994), also points out that investigating oral and literate cultures as opposites poses problems such as placing value on literate cultures or having false beliefs about oral cultures. Another misconception that can be dangerous, is that as we move from an oral to literate society we completely remove the values of orality in favour of written equivalents.

There are many individuals who are more able to learn and share information based on oral transmission. Most educators would agree that different students learn different ways and yet, because of the societal value on literacy, we see those who learn this way as being somehow deficient. Often these students are given special education plans, and provided with alternative work. Instead a focus on personalized learning with a balanced value system for oral and literate and post-literate abilities would allow all students to demonstrate and acquire knowledge.

There is something to be said for retaining alternative forms of containing and expressing information and knowledge. Currently, we are seeing a generation with a shortened attention span (Postman, 1992), and an ability to move beyond written text and express themselves in a variety of formats. While this new way of knowing and introducing information should be part of formalized education, it should not replace all forms of expression. An individual who has oral, written and computer competencies will most certainly be more able to be successful than one who is only competent in one area of communication or learning.

Biakolo (1999), mentions Chafe’s (in Biakolo, 1999), work on “‘idea units’” (p.55), and the notion that writing, because of its speed relative to thought processing, allows the writer to better formulate their thoughts and concepts. Adversely, speaking is considered a more impulsive act, with less time for the speaker to reflect and organize their ideas. In this period of transition, the question might be whether individuals who type or record their images to share information are perhaps less able to reflect because of the instant quality of their content sharing. The problem with overarching theories such as the Chafe’s theory about “idea units” are that they focus on individuals who are like Plato, with a strong ability in the area of literacy and only relate to one culture’s method of transmission. In some oral cultures, there is often more thought and time given in responding. Individuals in these cultures will take their time to organize their thoughts into logical and complex order, much like an eloquent writer. Not only does this occur in these cultures, taking time before a response is also a desired trait. Someone who speaks too quickly, without thought, is given less credence than someone who measures their words. Additionally, those who find writing difficult may only offer a simplistic answer to a question, because the act of writing is challenging, something which Chandler (1994), touches on in his article.

There are necessary transitions that the whole society must make when incorporating a new technology, but individuals who are illiterate can survive in a literate culture by adapting some of their skills and oral cultures may include some aspects of written values. In the same way, as we transition into a new technology and way of interaction and communication, it is possible and perhaps even imperative for us to retain values of the previous communication that we participated in as a society. As Postman says we must, “negotiate with technology” (1992, “Judgement of Thamus”) and not accept it without thought for what we also might lose, or who we might alienate.

This paper by Biakolo (1999), questions whether investigating oral vs. literate cultures is possible. With the advent of pervasive technology and our rapidly changing communication style, it is important for us to investigate the continuum of development from an oral to literate to post-literate society as this investigation will allow us to design learning environments which are most effective for students without assigning values to the way in which they learn or represent content. By removing the value that we place on certain modes of communication we can begin to see what our society as a whole, not just those who exhibit specific traits of communication, is possible of doing and creating.

References

Biakolo, E. A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu

British Columbia Ministry of Education (2013). Personalized learning: interactive discussion guide. Retrieved from http://www.personalizedlearningbc.ca/#/1

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

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

Postman (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Balance Between Ways of Communicating

Commentary on the Psychodynamics of Orality Chap. 3

Posted on September 29, 2013 by ween28

In the introduction to Walter Ong’s text on “Orality and Literacy” (1982) he indicates to the reader that hindsight is twenty-twenty when deconstructing history. The author explores the idea that we, as a culture, had no understanding of how orality and literacy were changing until the electronic age. In order to understand where we are now, Ong delves in to the past.

In chapter three, “Some Psychodynamics of Orality”, Ong is careful to establish that illiterate does not mean a lack of intelligence, but is simply the absence of writing in a culture. Oral cultures, as he prefers to refer to them, have different psychodynamics, not inferior ones. He makes a poetic point that “sound only exists as it is going out of existence.” (1982, pp. 32) Sound doesn’t last, it is dynamic and exists only as an action. It cannot be frozen and examined. In oral cultures, names hold great power, as in Egyptian mythology, using the true name of a god gave the user the power to command said god.

Ong spends a good deal of time in this chapter on how exactly oral recall works. Rhythm, rhymes and mnemonic aids help with oral recall as can be seen in holy texts and epic poems. Repetition, as well as making personal connections raises the level of significance to the listener and improves retention. However, because oral cultures live very much in the present facts that may not seem relevant are lost. He cites a few examples of the indigenous people’s oral recall of genealogy differing from European records. (1982, pp. 48) In these instances the oral genealogy was considered more relevant and present than past written records. Ong implies that this is an inherent flaw with oral cultures, but could it be that is simply a cultural difference in values? Literate cultures value written records more highly because they offer greater detail and precision. Oral cultures exist in the present and, therefore, their traditions reflect a society’s present cultural values. (1982, pp. 48) In short, they don’t hold on to the past, except where it would add value to the present. One cannot blame oral cultures for placing more value in the know technology that serves them, rather than on the unknown technology that does not.

Ong uses these points to illustrate how oral cultures are less static than literate cultures with recorded history. Orality allows the teller to create the most relevant version to the present rather than honouring the accuracy of the past. Is this so vastly different from textbooks being rewritten to reflect new ideologies? What about living texts, such as Wikipedia that can be altered or changed as new information emerges? Is writing really more permanent or accurate, especially in the emerging digital age, or is it just perceived to be more credible? I would argue that the rewriting of history occurs regardless of literacy. With literate cultures there is simply more evidence left behind of the past and how the present state of affairs has come to be. As anthropologists, there is value in knowing and understanding this evolution as it can provide insight in to the future, but for a culture that lives predominately in the present and is focused on day to day survival, history would hold little value.

Ong explains that oral intelligences and literate intelligences are of different types and styles that are deeply rooted in culture. (1982, pp. 56) In oral cultures knowledge is tied to situations and applications rather than abstract categories. He illustrates this by using the example of geometric figures being identified by subjects as specific objects, like a shovel or sun rather than square and circle. (1982, 51-52) There would be no need to categories objects as abstract geometric shapes as it serves no practical, usable purpose in their daily life. Abstract knowledge is a luxury saved for literate cultures that do not need to hold it in their memory but can store that knowledge outside of themselves.

This brings us to oral memorization. As explored earlier in the chapter, mnemonic aids, rhyme and rhythm all assist in retention. In order to maximize retention, a story needs to be made the teller’s own by building a connection to it. Ong implies that this is only a feature of oral cultures but this is not the case. Adrienne Grear’s Reading Power program, which is wide use in schools today, cites “connection” as one of the key powers in reading comprehension. In Postman’s Technopoly, King Thamus condemns writing for killing memory and real learning. While his point of view can be understood, it is not writing alone that is to blame but the complacency of the reader. Reading Power advocates making the practice of reading an active process of interpreting information rather than simply receiving it, therefore, assimilating a story in to one ’s self to improve retention is applicable in both oral and literate contexts.

Ong is concern with the stability of oral memorization and the changes that occur. He notes variation in such epics as the Illiad, noting these changes as flaws in oral memorization. But is that truly the goal? Where is the artistry in verbatim repetition? Perhaps precise oral reproduction is not what oral cultures are trying to achieve and that is not what should be measured. Ong is concerned that oral memorization is “subject to variation from direct social pressures.” (1982, pp. 66) Considering that these oral cultures live in the present and pass on information that is relevant to their present goals, variations as a result of them are not a flaw but a naturally occurring update.

According to “Orality and Literacy”, oral communication is seen as unifying or connecting groups, while reading isolates the reader because it is a solitary event.(1982, pp. 67) While it is easy to see how that can be true, it presents only one point of view. What if you read the book allowed or participate in a book club discussion? Remaining isolated is a choice and not an affliction of reading. Technology has changed the dynamic and perspective on orality and literacy. In 1982 when Ong published his work, did he envision video blogs, TED Talks and YouTube? Oral culture is making a resurgence in an unforeseen way. Even the categorizing of information that Ong wrote of is being redefined by Twitter and the use of hashtags (#) in our vocabulary. (See Jimmy Fallon’s #hashtag Late Night spoof) A comparison of oral cultures and literate cultures is anthropologically interesting, we must be careful to not exalt literacy over orality. Educators use both, accommodate all and remain versatile enough to adapt and assimilate new fads in to their teaching to build better connections with their students, for example: #YOLO, and other common acronyms such as FML and ROFLMAO. Language, whether written or spoken is an ever evolving creature but, as with oral cultures, we live and use it in the present to communicate and reflect current social norms.

Gear, A. (2006) Reading Power: Teaching Students to think while they read. Canada, Pembrooke Publishers

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

Jimmy Fallon’s #hashtag spoof:

Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Judgement of Postman: The benefits and drawbacks of technological innovations

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Amanda Bourdon

Postman introduces his book, Technopoly with chapter one, The Judgement of Thamus, in which he attacks American media and television. Postman’s main argument in this chapter is that new technologies alter the structure of our interests including the things we think about and the things we think with. He believes that this alters the nature of community and the arena in which thoughts develop (Postman, 1992, 6). Postman uses the legend of King Thamus, who rejected the invention of writing because it would inevitably damage memory and create false wisdom (Postman, 1992, 1), as an example of why it is imperative for the leaders of a society to consider not only at the benefits that a new technology may bring, but also the drawbacks. Postman makes the argument that new technology is a double edged sword, being both a burden and a blessing. He points out that the major downfall of King Thamus’ criticism of the invention of writing was his inability to acknowledge the benefits that the technology could bring to the society. Thamus solely focused on the negative aspects of the invention; Yet like Thamus, in this chapter, Postman (1992, 2) admittedly only focuses the negative impacts that technologies can have, suggesting that, “a dissenting voice is sometimes needed to moderate the din made by the enthusiastic multitudes.” His warning is clear, but by neglecting to consider the positive impact that technological innovations can have on society, Postman’s arguments represent an unbalanced viewpoint, with much left to be considered. While being aware of how new technological innovations affect people and societies is important, and furthermore, the negative aspects of these innovations are usually masked or ignored in the interests of the ‘winner,’ other possibilities need to be considered. Perhaps we are not necessarily overpowered by our technologies as Postman suggests, but rather that our acceptance of a particular, anti-cultural ideology leaves us no basis for the dominion we should have over our tools and that this is the problem (Nartonis, 1993, 69). While Postman does a good job of alerting us to some of the basic questions raised by the role of technology in modern society, he does not do a good job of preparing his readers to solve these problems (Nartonis,1993, 68), which weakens his arguments.

Postman also stresses the importance of moving into the future with our “eyes wide open” to the possible effects of new technologies. He believes that this will allow us to more clearly see the possible harm that a new technology could cause. However, Postman (1992, 4) also admits that it is not always clear who will gain most from a technology’s intrusion into a culture. This is why it is important to look at both the positive and negative aspects of any new technology innovation. Furthermore, the question that he does not dare to open up is, how will having this knowledge make a difference? Postman shows us how technology imposes its values on us, how it restructures people and the world, and how we have willingly surrendered our freedom to the control of the technologies we have, thus showing us that today’s technologies are out of our control, and instead control us (Laan, 2004, 145-146). Postman tells us that we need to negotiate with technology, but even his advocate, Laan (2004, 146) asks, “what can we do to free ourselves and take back control of our technology?” This is a question of grand importance that Postman avoids completely in this chapter. Nartonis (1993, 68) argues, it is the choices that we make and the values we employ that determine what role technology will have in society and in our individual lives and Postman avoids this important point. As both individuals, and a collective society, we do have choices in regards to the implementation of technologies within our personal lives. Postman does not give enough credit to the reasoning behind these choices we make.

Postman states that the benefits and deficits of a new technology are not distributed equally, and emphasizes that the impact of new technologies on education are serious. He states that, “in the long run television may bring a gradual end to the careers of school teachers, since school was an invention of the printing press and must stand or fall on the issue of how much importance the printed world has (Postman, 1992, 3). It is evident that technological innovations have altered the American education system, including what and how students learn, as well as their ability to process information. However, Postman does not consider that, as technological innovations grow within the education sector, the availability of education becomes more widespread and teacher’s roles may not diminish, but rather change form and function. Postman looks at the spread of computer technology in schools. He argues that schools teach children how to operate computers instead of teaching more valuable things (Postman, 1992, 4). Again he fails to explain what school children should be learning. Postman believes that questions such as “will students learn math better through computer or books?” are not important because they direct us away from serious social intellectual and institutional crises that new media foster (1992, 5). He argues that what we need to consider about the computer is nothing about its efficiency as a teaching tool, but rather in what ways it is altering our conception of learning and how, in conjunction with television, it undermines the old idea of school. My final commentary on this chapter questions why the ‘old idea of school’ so important to him. As society develops, ideas of school and other institutions are constantly changing. The main difficulty that Postman has with these changes, is the possibility that they don’t actually undermine old ideas, but develop upon them. As we gain knowledge and tools that help us build stronger houses, should we continue to use original ones to prevent undermining their once prominent role in society?

References

Narcosis, D. (1993). An Answer to Neil Postman’s Technopoly. Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc., Vol. 13, pp. 67-70, 1993. Retrieved September 17th from: http://bst.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/13/2/67

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books. Retrieved September 17th 2013 from: http://csis.pace.edu/~dwyer/Fall2005/CIS101/CourseDocs/Postman.pdf

Ross, Susan M. (2009). Postman, Media Ecology, and Education: From Teaching as a Subversive Activity through Amusing Ourselves to Death to Technopoly. The Review of Communication (9, 2: 146-156) Retrieved September 17th from: http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdf/10.1080/15358590802326435

van der Laan, J. M. (2004). Neil Postman and the Critique of Technology (In Memory of Neil Postman Who Died on October 5, 2003). Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, (24,2: 145-150). Retrieved September 17th 2013 from:
http://bst.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/24/2/145.full.pdf+html

Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Commentary 1 – Orality and Literacy – Lisa Nevoral

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Lisa Nevoral

Introduction

Walter Ong’s Orality and Literacy brings forward a compelling argument how writing has played a large role in shaping human consciousness (1982).  He writes in a “matter of fact” and authoritative manner, which makes the reader feel that what he has written uses common sense and is self-evident.  On the other hand, his views are too simplistic and create dichotomies and I am going to show how his work could be deemed technologically deterministic.

The one major theme I obtained from this book was that writing was a technology.  In the most simplistic sense, I thought of technology as a tool (ie. hammer) or an electronic device that I can use (ie. computer), but I had never thought of writing as a technology.  Our culture is so immersed in literacy that it seems impossible to separate oneself from it or to think of it as “artificial” as Ong thought (1982, p. 82)

Technological Determinism

Technological determinism is a phrase used to describe the belief that technology is the main reason for social change (Chandler, 1995).  In other words, a technology determines human behaviour.  In addition, many technological determinists reduce complex reasons as to why a social change may occur to one part of the whole reason.  This is called reductionism and Chandler (1995) relates this type of thinking to mono-casual explanations of change, where there is a ‘cause’ and ‘effect’.  As well, technological determinists view technology as autonomous; it is regarded as independent of society, out of human control and as Chandler defines it “[changes] under its own momentum and ‘blindly’ [shapes] society” (1995).

Technological determinism about literacy often leads to “Great Divide” theories.  These theories suggest differences between non-literate and literate societies, especially in regards to human consciousness or thinking (Chandler, 1994).  These theories produce binary explanations and opposing ideas of oral and literate cultures.

Technological Determinism and Orality and Literacy

Chandler (1995) suggests that a reader can spot deterministic language by referencing the following:

“The assumptions of technological determinism can usually be easily in spotted frequent references to the ‘impact’ of technological ‘revolutions’ which ‘led to’ or ‘brought about’, ‘inevitable’, ‘far-reaching’, ‘effects’, or ‘consequences’ or assertions about what ‘will be’ happening ‘sooner than we think’ ‘whether we like it or not’. This sort of language gives such writing an animated, visionary, prophetic tone which many people find inspiring and convincing.”

One such passage from Orality and Literacy (Ong, p. 77) displays this type of language:

“Without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does… More than any other single invention, writing has transformed the human consciousness.”

This passage alone fulfils Chandler’s ideas of the use of deterministic language within a written work.  Ong wrote in a convincing manner (“the literate mind would not or could not think as it does”) and states the impact this one technology has had on society (writing and the transformation of human consciousness).

Ong’s theory on oral and literate cultures is considered a “Great Divide” theory.  There are many instances within his work that Ong uses language to compare oral cultures and literate cultures that are polar opposites.  Such examples include Ong referring to spoken words as “subjective, in context, natural, pre-logical, etc…” whereas written words are “objective, abstract, artificial, logical, etc…” (1982).   As well, the main premise of his book, thought processes between oral cultures and literate cultures are very different, causes even more polarization.

This polarization can be seen as Ong attempts to state different characteristics between oral and literate cultures to help convince readers that writing has led to a shift in human thought processes.  For example, he states that for oral cultures to store memories, they needed to use language that is mnemonic, rhythmic, and narrative in style and knowledge gets passed on by personal participation in conversations.  Due to this, oral cultures’ memories are very much in present time and personal.  Literate cultures, on the other hand, are able to store memories externally (as text) which can be objective and impersonal.  This leads to thoughts that are abstract, analytical, and definitional (Biokolo, 1999, p. 45).

Ong truly believes that writing has changed human consciousness but as Biokolo states “it is not logically admissible, and equally empirically impossible, to explain the entire direction and shape of society on the basis of a single technological term (p. 48).”

 Technology Determinism and Education

Technological determinism can be seen in education.  One example is that technology is viewed by many to be the solution of a number of pedagogical problems (Pedersen, 2001).  This in itself is technological determinism.  Just because an educator uses technology does not mean they change their pedagogy; this takes hours of work, professional development, technical development, and support to take root.  “Best practices” must continually be recreated and honed.  Using technology in classes should be built on experience, knowledge, and discussion, not “accidental” use of technology, as can be seen in many classrooms (Pedersen, 2001).  As well, one does not need to use technology to bring forth improved changes in pedagogy.

Another area where technological determinism can be seen in education is with e-learning.  On one side, some are concerned about the loss of academic freedom, which they think comes from the movement to commercialized education.  It is thought that the use of technology in education is “creating a rising capitalistic climate that includes political- economic interests such as commodification, commercialization, and corporatization of education” (Kanuka, n.d. pg. 6).  On the other hand, there can be a positive side to technological determinism in regards to e-learning.  There is an opinion that the e-learning communication tools (ie. asynchronous text-based discussion forums, emails, blogs,  etc…) improves complex problem solving abilities, forms argument formation capabilities, increases written communication skills, and allows for opportunities of reflective deliberation which leads to higher levels of learning (Kanuka, n.d.).  This is still a form of technological determinism since it is the technology that is providing the platform for higher levels of learning.

What’s the answer?

Technological determinism keeps emphasis on simple cause and effect proclamations.  There may be a multitude of reasons why a society has changed, which could include demographic, identity, cultural, economic, religious, political, warfare, or educational factors.  “Great Divide” theories dismiss the complexity and view societal and cultural changes in a simplistic light.  “Technological determinism does have a certain logic or correlation, but it does not imply causation” (Warschauer, 2004).

Instead of the view of how technology changes society, maybe one should be asking what relevant groups or circumstances directed changes in technology (Pannabecker, n.d. p. 2).  For example, what circumstances led to writing being initially created, what need was there to promote writing, and who were the people that led writing into becoming a wide spread phenomenon?

Technology does have an impact on society, but the introduction of a new technology does not automatically bring about certain results.  One cannot deny that writing has had some influence and consequences for society, but there is a need to “examine the sociocultural milieu into which information technology is introduced to see how the technology amplifies certain characteristics (or not)” (Murray, 2000, p.44).

References

Biokolo, E. (1999). On the Theoretical Foundations of Orality and Literacy. Research in African Literatures30.2, 42-65 Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/journals/research_in_african_literatures/v030/30.biakolo.html

Chandler, D. (1994). Biases of the Ear and Eye. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/litoral/litoral.html

Chandler, D. (1995).Technological or Media Determinism. Retrieved from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet03.html

Kanuka, H. (n.d.) UNDERSTANDING E-LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES-IN-PRACTICE THROUGH PHILOSOPHIES IN-PRACTICE. Retrieved from http://ustpaul.ca/uploadfiles/DistanceEducation/UNDERSTANDING_E_learning.pdf

Ong, W. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York, NY: Routledge

Pannabecker, J.R. (n.d.). Technological Impacts and Determinism in Technology Education: Alternate Metaphors from Social Constructivism. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v3n1/pannabecker

Pedersen, J. (2001). Technological determinism and school. Journal of Educational Inquiry. Volume 2(1), 61-65. Retrieved from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/EDEQ/article/view/565/435

Warschauer, M. (2004). Technological change and the future of CALL. 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/future-of-CALL.pdf

 

Tagged , , | Comments Off on Commentary 1 – Orality and Literacy – Lisa Nevoral

The Transformation Continues

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Kim Wagner
YouTube Preview Image

References:

Biakolo, E.A. (1999). On the theoretical foundations of orality and literacy. Research in African Literatures, 30(2), 42-65. [journal]

Brandt, D. (2003).  Changing Literacy.  Teachers College Record, 105(2), 245-260. [journal]

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.) (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. London:  Routledge.  [journal]

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009).  “Multiliteracies”: New Literacies, New Learning.  Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195. [journal]

Hargis, D. E. (1970). THE RHAPSODE. Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 56(4), 388. [journal]

New London Group. (1996).   A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures.    Educational Review, 66(1), 60-92. [journal]

Ong, W.J. (1982). Orality and Literacy: 30th Anniversary Edition (2012). Forwarded by J. Hartley.  London & New York: Routledge. [print]

Postman, N.  (1999).  Technopoly:  The surrender of culture to technology.  New York: Vintage Books. [print]

Images:

Брокгауз и Ефрон.  (n.d.). Old Greece map.jpg  (circa 1900). Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_Greece_map.jpg [wiki]

adamr. (2012, Feb 12).  Tablet Computer With Books.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Computers_g62-Tablet_Computer_And_Book_p73134.html [website]

Ambro.  (2012, Sep 23).  Teenagers Reading Sms.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/On_The_Phone_g371-Teenagers_Reading_Sms_p103344.html [website]

Clare Bloomfield. (2012, Jan 27).  Grumpy Child.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Children_g112-Grumpy_Child_p70716.html [website]

ddpavumba. (2013, Sep 25).  Higher Education.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/higher-education-photo-p204352 [website]

Dana smk.  (2009, Apr 23).  Writing_tools.jpg.  Wikimedia Commons.  Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Writing_tools.jpg [wiki]

Digitalart. Abstract Power Button.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from

flickr. (n.d.).  Prof. Emevwo Biakolo.jpg.  Retrieved September 25, 2013 from http://www.flickr.com/photos/81746158@N06/7696320654/in/photolist-cJ6DZG-cJ6GsG-cJ6DfN-dgjNFL-dgjNFy-dgWyN1-dgWyM7-g8Fe6A-g3UtQt/ [website]

hyena reality.  (2013, May 28).  Ghost Girl on Glass.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from  http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/ghost-girl-on-glass-photo-p172286 [website]

hyena reality.  (2013, Sep 10).  Technology Abstract Background Design.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from  http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/ghost-girl-on-glass-photo-p172286 [website]

imagerymajestic.  (2012, Jul 6).  Man Working On Laptop At Home.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from  http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Computing_g368-Man_Working_On_Laptop_At_Home_p90685.html [website]

Industry Canada.  (n.d.).  Northern College.jpg.  Retrieved September 26, 2013 from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/696.nsf/eng/00840.html  [government website]

jannoon028.  (2012, Apr 18).  Modern Laptop.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from  http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Computers_g62-Modern_Laptop_p80421.html [website]

Jastrow. (2006, Oct 18).  Homer Musei Capitolini MC557.jpg. Wikimedia Commons.  Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Homer_Musei_Capitolini_MC557.jpg [wiki]

MR LIGHTMAN.  (2012, May 27).  Brain Design By Cogs And Gears. Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from  http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Ideas_and_Decision_M_g409-Brain_Design_By_Cogs_And_Gears_p84288.html  [website]

The New Yorker.  (n.d.).  Iliad [image].  Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/Homer-Iliad.jpg [website]

photostock.  (2011, Apr 18).  Young Couples Relaxing In Park And Reading Books.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Friends_g364-Young_Couples_Relaxing_In_Park_And_Reading_Books_p38167.html  [website]

Rötzsch, Jens.  (2009, May 4).  BMS classrooms.jpg. Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BMS_classrooms.jpg [wiki]

saiko.  (2007, Jul 12).  Platon et Aristote par Della Robbia detail.jpg. Wikimedia Commons.  Retrieved September 22, 2013 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Platon_et_Aristote_par_Della_Robbia_d%C3%A9tail.jpg [wiki]

stockimages.  (2012, Oct 26).  School Boy Wearing Eyeglass Stock Photo.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Learning_g376-School_Boy_Wearing_Eyeglass_p108544.html [website]

Tomisti.  (2007, Mar 12).  Socrates and Plato.jpg.  Wikimedia Commons.  Retrieved September 20, 2013 from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Socrates_and_Plato.jpg [wiki]

think4photop.  (2013, Jan 14).  Cave Painting in Punyee Island.  Freedigitalphotos.net.  Retrieved on September 25, 2013 from http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/Asia_g241-Cave_Painting_In_Punyee_Island_Phang_Nga_Thailand_p133130.html [website]

touchstone.  (2011, May 16). No.png.  Open Clip Art.  Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://openclipart.org/detail/127843/no-by-touchstone [public domain clipart]

Wikipedia.  (n.d.).  Walter Ong.jpg.  Retrieved September 24, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_J._Ong [wiki]

Wikipedia.  (n.d.).  Technopoly.jpg.  Retrieved September 26, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly [wiki]

Sounds:

Timbre. (2010, Jul 15). remix of 54047_guitarguy1985_buzzer_Variants#3.wav . Free Sound.  Retrieved September 25, 2013 from http://www.freesound.org/people/Timbre/sounds/101354/ [website]

Tsyolin.  (2012, Apr 7).  Tsyolin Befriends Wooden Toaster – WoodenOverture . YouTube.  Retrieved September 25, 2013 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Jfctt1b8o  [website]

Wagner, K. (2013).  Narration (created in Audacity).

zagi2.  (2013, Jul 8).  fanfare announcement.wav.  Free Sound.  Retrieved September 25, 2013 from http://www.freesound.org/people/zagi2/sounds/193934/ [website]

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments