Teachnology: The Role of Teachers When Teaching with Technology

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Ashley Bayles

As technology changes, so do our lives. It is obvious technology changes the way we communicate, but it is also changing our culture in ways we might not realize. We are constantly making a bargain of some sort because for the gains we make with new technologies, there are usually losses that go along with them (O´Donnell, 1999). In the last 100 years, not too many changes have happened in secondary education, but new technologies are starting to force society to re-examine the purpose and goals of education. Further to this, Neil Postman challenges us to explore the ways digital technology ¨alter[s] our conception of learning and … undermines the old idea of school¨ and in doing so, highlights the changing role of teachers (1992, p. 6).

In the last few years it has become common to question the purpose of the modern education system, and yet few significant changes have actually been made.  As Thomas Kuhn would say, we in a ¨paradigm shift¨ and with the rate of technology change these days, it is impossible to predict when (or, if) the shift will actually end. We are trying to hold on to old values, but sometimes new technologies make it difficult to justify holding on. Postman discusses an important disconnect with regards to this paradigm shift:

On the one hand, there is the world of the printed word with its emphasis on logic, sequence, history, exposition, objectivity, detachment, and discipline. On the other, there is the world of television with its emphasis on imagery, narrative, presentness, simultaneity, intimacy, immediate gratification, and quick emotional response (1992, p.5).

This disconnect between the world of television, video games, and the internet and the world of our school system is what makes it harder and harder to justify just sticking to the ¨old idea of school¨ Postman refers to. How can we prepare students for the future if we aren´t even preparing them for the interactions they have with media on a daily basis? This is where technology comes into the picture.

The attempt to change this disconnect between the print-based classroom/educational system and the rich media-based world in which we live has been made in many schools through the incorporation of digital technology in the classroom. Many schools have started one to one programs, where every student has access to their own laptop or tablet during their classes. Now students have access to many forms of information, not just their textbooks. While this has many obvious benefits such as customization for different learning styles, speeds, and interests; there are also problems that one cannot ignore. According to Postman, one of these issues is that

in introducing the personal computer to the classroom, we shall be breaking a four-hundred-year-old truce between the gregariousness and openness fostered by orality and the introspection and isolation fostered by the printed word…Over four centuries, teachers, while emphasizing print, have allowed orality its place in the classroom, and have therefore achieved a kind of pedagogical peace between these two forms of learning, so that what is valuable in each can be maximized. Now comes the computer, carrying anew the banner of private learning and individual problem-solving (1992, pp. 5-6).

By bringing personal computers into the classroom, teachers are separating the community into separate screens. Class discussions have become print-based, rather than oral and at this point it is unclear what the consequences of this may be. Students become isolated from each other and while there are ways to use digital technology in collaborative oral activities such as podcasting and video production, the system itself is still print focused. End of school exams are still print-based and focused on reading, writing and arithmetic. It is unclear at this point if digital technology will allow teachers to continue to support the oral tradition unofficially, or if it will eventually eliminate all orality from schools. There is an argument that the computers allow students who are shy to participate in class more fully, but isn´t part of education to help students develop as individuals? Being able to talk to a group of peers without being shy is an important life skill; that is, unless society places more value on the printed word than orality. Education is trapped between two different worlds.

Another problem with this access to technology in the classroom is that it puts into the question the entire notion of knowledge and, in doing so, it challenges teachers´s roles and the role of education itself. What is the point of testing students on names and dates if they can find that information on a computer? Postman argues that ¨technology… redefines “freedom,” “truth,” “intelligence,” “fact,” “wisdom,” “memory,” “history”—all the words we live by¨ (1992, p.2) and if this is the case, then what becomes the purpose of education? If all one has to do is ¨google it¨, is it worth teaching in schools? Some would argue that this makes the role of teachers even more important (which is an area that Postman overlooks in his decidedly pessimistic view of technology) as now education is responsible for helping future generations deal with larger and larger amounts of informations and turning it into something meaningful. Is the information found on Google actually knowledge, or just information (PBS, 2013)? And what is the difference?

While teachers may no longer be the only authority in a classroom, that does not make them or their role any less valuable. Teachers are still responsible for educating students on how to be productive members of society, no matter what the culture dictates that to mean. The environment in which they work and the materials in which they use may constantly change, but their role will always exist and be important.

O’Donnell. (1999). From papyrus to cyberspace [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeforum.org

PBS Idea Channel. (2013,  August 21) Is Google Knowledge? [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCwLQrJz4Bo

Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Vintage Books.

The RSA. (2010, October 14). RSA Animate – Changing Education Paradigms [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Technology: Postman vs. a ‘Winner’

Posted on September 29, 2013 by laurenmacd

In “The Judgement of Thamus” from the book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Neil Postman presents a critical view of technological changes and advances. One area that he discusses is the many of the costs or problems that technological advances have caused to schooling. The focus of this commentary is to critique this view of technology use in schools presented by the author.

Postman (1992) writes that “The schools teach their children to operate computerized systems instead of teaching things that are more valuable to children.” (p.13) Teaching students how to use computer technology is extremely valuable to students in the 21st century now and for their future. Students learning with and through technology are able to communicate and collaborate with peers in other classrooms and schools globally. Computer technology provides students with tools to demonstrate their learning in a way that is meaningful to them and that best meets their learning needs and styles. Those with learning difficulties and challenges are able to participate in the classroom because of the many technological advances that exist, from specialized devices that help students to hear to iPads that will read a text or type what is spoken.  Technology also affords students an authentic learning opportunity, where they are able to use the tools of their everyday world in the classroom. Such tools and the skills students acquire by using them will be immensely valuable in the future as they enter the workforce.

Postman also puts forward the notion that the introduction of computers to the classroom will change the current balance of orality and literacy that exists.  Learning he believes, will become more solitary and less communal. (Postman, 1992) Yet despite all the technology that is present in the classroom, there is still a strong place for orality.  Oral language activities continue to have a place in the classroom, with students telling stories and recounting exciting news in their lives. Classroom discussions, peer collaboration on work assignments, speeches, presentations, and drama are all present in today’s classrooms. All of the things that bring together the classroom in a community have not been lost.  Such balance still exists in the classroom.

In his discussion of the television, Postman (1992) outlines how students have been conditioned by its immediate gratification. He writes that television has produced children who, cannot or will not learn, cannot organize thoughts into writing or listen longer than a few minutes. The same can be said now with influx of computers, smartphones, and tablets in society. I know this has been the topic of conversation on many occasions in my staffroom and I am confident mine is not the only one.  I believe that what Postman has noted is the result of a teaching style that does not acknowledge the changes in students and continues to teach from a traditional teacher centered perspective. Prensky (2001) states that students today are “digital natives” and we, the teachers, are “digital immigrants”. He goes on to say that we are teaching in a way that does not match the world of our students. Thus we need to alter the way we teach to match the world of our learners with such technological devices playing a role in students’ learning.

According to Postman (1992), technological change is ecological. “One significant change generates total change…A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything.” (p.23) Our views on school and schooling must thus be re-evaluated and altered because of the technological changes and prominent role that technology plays in our students lives. Classrooms and in fact the education system is currently experiencing many changes. Teachers are changing the way they teach, from the old, traditional teacher -centered model to one which is student-centered and constructivist. They are incorporating authentic activities, using the technologies they have at their disposal, and creating blended learning environments and flipped classrooms.

Perhaps I am one of the ‘winners’ that Postman (1992) describes who enthusiastically praises the benefits of computers and technological change, and exalts  how life is better, more efficient and organized because of them, and ignores the costs. I would call myself a realist. I acknowledge that there are costs to technological changes, for example we no longer commit things to memory, but instead ‘google’ the answer. Yet, as a teacher in the 21st century, I cannot sit with my head in the sand and ignore the changes around me by teaching in a traditional manner. I need to acknowledge the changes brought on by technology and incorporate them in to my teaching so that I can best equip my students on how to use technology in a respectful and responsible way so that they can be productive and responsible global citizens in the 21st century. Technology engages students in learning, helps to support their academic achievement, opens their minds to the world around them, allows them to demonstrate their learning and creativity, and supports collaboration with others.  It is has a place in the classroom. It is valuable and deserves my support.

References

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

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6

Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Posted on September 29, 2013 by chulme8

In “Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the World,” Walter Ong (1982) distinguishes the differences between oral and literate cultures.  In his contrast of the two cultures, he analyzes them as distinct entities, separate from each other.  In this formal commentary, I will highlight viewpoints presented by Ong (1982) and suggest that the two cultures can be viewed as fluid and their principles connected in thought.

Ong (2008) states, “oral peoples commonly think of names (one kind of words) as conveying power over things” (p.32).  The so-called perceived power is subjective and differs from person to person.  One person’s representation of something will never be exactly the same because of how we construct meaning.  Ong (2008) posits, “without writing, words have no visual presence, even when the objects they represent are visual” (p.31).  However, knowledge is formed from one’s own experiences and through accessing prior knowledge. Von Glasersfeld (2008) states, “to assess the truth of your knowledge you have to know what you come to know before you come to know it” (p.37).  The first time a concept is introduced; the information gets processed, which allows a person to form his or her own meaning in a greater context.  The acquisition of knowledge is manifested differently for each individual.  Although you cannot “look up something” in a primary oral culture, there is still a conceivable meaning of what is being said based on one’s own experience and connection.  There is a mistaken assumption that, in order to communicate, the representations associated with the words that are used must be the same for all communicators (Von Glasersfeld, 2008).  I do agree that words also acquire their meanings through gestures, vocal inflections and facial expressions (Ong, 2008).  Statements peppered with a hint of sarcasm can be more easily identified in an oral culture whereas in a writing culture, the tones of such words are to be determined by the reader.  A written message can “sound” rude or offensive, however, the “sound” is perceived in the readers own head as the message is read.

For Ong (2008), the way to recall something you previously thought about is to think in mnemonic patterns, and relying heavily on rhythm and repetitions.  This implies that you are the sole bearer of information and you would be dependent on your own memory recall.  You are forced to consciously compartmentalize your thoughts so they can be accessed easily.  Rather than having the onus on you to retrieve important information, an aspect of the written culture allows for the information to be at your fingertips and readily viewed.  Ong (2008) states, “Oral communication unites people in groups” (pg.67), however, memory recall is an individual task, not a collaborative one.  Oral cultures are also isolating in terms of time in space.  Oral cultures unite people in the present; however, they isolate people from the past and future.  Oral cultures rely on the transfer of thoughts from one to another.  If this is the case, there is no room for creativity.  There would be no autonomy of thought and imagination would be nonexistent.  One could question, is what I know a true fact, or do I think it is true because I heard it from someone?

Although “there is no way to write ‘naturally’”, writing has enhanced human thought processes (Ong, 1982, pg.81).  Writing diaries and journals allow unedited thoughts to flow freely onto paper.  It’s simply the transfer of everything you’re thinking, into a form that allows for reflection, elaboration and publication.  Writing allows humans to process and store information and this ability changes over time as a result of maturation and experience (Lutz and Huitt, 2003).

As the world evolves and technology advances, there is more information to process and remember.  Since “oral cultures know few statistics or facts divorced from human or quasi-human activity”, there is no inundation of unnecessary information (Ong, 1982, pg.42).  This allows for a static culture that doesn’t open itself up to other definitions of what may be considered human or quasi-human activities.  Perhaps, the oral culture evolved into a literate one in order to compensate for newly acquired knowledge.  A literate culture evolves to keep up with change and growth.  If “writing is a technology”, then the technology of writing actually enhances thought and allows for greater storage of more complex ideas (Ong 1982, pg.80).  Instead of memorizing word-for-word only important information, one can memorize where to find the written version of a vast amount of information.  The actual location is memorized.  As humans gain language skills, their ability to store and recall more complex events increases (Lutz and Huitt, 2003).

In order to survive, humans must adapt.  Oral cultures have adapted to literate cultures.  Ong provides a thorough distinction of the two cultures.  Literate cultures should be seen as a manifestation of oral cultures instead of separate entities.

 

Lutz, S. & Huitt, W. (2003). Information processing and memory: Theory and applications. Educational Psychology Interactive, 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/papers/infoproc.pdf

Ong, Walter. (1982). Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the World. London: Methuen.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (2008). Learning as constructive activity. AntiMatters, 2(3), 33-49.

Tagged | Comments Off on

What libraries may come are yet untold…

Posted on September 29, 2013 by fotopasion

BumppoJedi

O’Donnell envisions a virtual library that “will be just like the past only better and faster” (1994) because of the technological possibilities of our time. However, he is also careful to point out that the “virtual library” (i.e. a universal one) is a fantasy with a history nearly as old as the book: such a library would be misprized simply due to the overwhelming freshet of data. He cautions that we must “place a remarkable high social value on our links to the past”; in light of the virtual library this challenge is to ensure that what the technology (in this case a virtual library) does is valuable to our society. High on the list of values is how exclusive, not how inclusive is a library. He provides the paradigm of large research libraries realizing (and much surprised) that there is little overlap when they coordinate their acquisitions strategies. Exclusivity is paramount.

Kelly, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach and views the virtual library as the ultimate repository of human knowledge where all created works are public commons because it is “where human creations naturally belong and were originally intended to reside” (2006). His extreme views are that technology will change the library and the book for the intent “to seed the bookless developing world with easily available texts.” This technological determinism reveals the hubris behind his views because if the “bookless” have no codices, how then can they afford an electronic book reader, let alone access the internet, which is the gateway and the backbone to such a library?

Furthermore if this virtual library is to be so inclusive how will it accommodate future changes in file and system formats? Brand suggests emulators may provide a solution (1999); however, emulators have their limits, as anyone who has tried one on a Nexus or iOS tablet can attest. Kelly also fails to see the conflicting approaches of companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon in scanning old and “orphaned” books in “ways that they think will generate income,” (Grafton, 2007); herein, lies a bigger problem to the universal library he envisions that has nothing to do with the copyright debate: these three commercial outfits do not work together, nor are they prepared to relinquish the books they scan to each other, nor will they reveal the coding they use to digitize the works. This is hardly a universal approach.

And no one has ever discussed kids’ pop-up books or books that smell (Grafton, 2007), and books that have texture or other unique features, like pullout maps, tabs, grooved indices, holograms, decoder glasses, stickers, and physical shapes and sizes that are impossible to digitize inside a rectangular screen! If anything, digitizing, while having affordances of its own, will never be able to do certain things that are possible with a codex, including pressing flowers under the weight of several massive tomes!

Although his views are extreme (Nikon, by the way still makes film cameras), Kelly had one particular idea that has come to pass. Within his vision of a virtual library (and he fails to mentions that it is mainly texts for adults in this virtual library of his) texts will not stand in isolation; rather, they will mesh with each other through metadata, allowing readers to cross-reference ideas, words, and other information in a way that no codex can. Amazon is currently doing this through its X-ray program. However, not all e-books and their readers are coded to handle this type of meta-data, even those found on Amazon! Add to this approach the rapid change in technology, and within five years (O’Donnell, 1998) the metadata may no longer be readable by future devices.

This is precisely what O’Donnell discusses in “The Instability of Text”. According to Wikipedia there are approximately sixty-four (64) different file formats related to text, and every e-book publisher out there uses only a handful of them. This complexity is mind-boggling, and gives more credence to O’Donnell’s vision of the future being like the past, just better and faster. In some ways it is like the automobile; current cars are better (in terms of safety and convenience) and faster than a Model T, yet both still use four tires and an engine!

Grafton appears to have the most balanced approach. Like O’Donnell, Grafton submits to the coming virtual library, but he cautions it will be a mosaic, a “patchwork of interfaces and databases, some open to anyone with a computer and Wi-Fi, others closed to those without access or money” (2007). This also agrees with the exclusivity proposed by O’Donnell. This is what we are presently witnessing in the world of journals, periodicals, and newspapers. Access to cutting edge knowledge is restricted to those who can afford it.

Within this patchwork another problem arises: preservation of knowledge. As a digital culture the internet has a “memory” of about two months (Brand, 1999). Articles not archived, collected, copied, and stored as soon as they are published have little chance of being retrieved from their original source, especially if that source disappears. Of course back in 1999 no one envisioned crawlers and bots and websites like the WayBack Machine or Google Books handling this seemingly overwhelming task to preserve knowledge. However, as great as these solutions are, what are we to do with all this data? Some of it is scholarly, some of it is garbage, and some of it is obsolete. Librarians and libraries will still have a role to play in separating the chaff from the wheat, both in print and online.

Also, it’s been qualitatively proven that reading on a screen is not the same as reading a codex (Rosen 2008); add to that variable our diminishing attention spans and all this knowledge preservation “may recede ever more rapidly from our collective attention” (Grafton, 2007). Our digital culture is nascent, and has not yet formed “the habit of long-term thinking that supports preservation [online]” (Brand, 1999). Given the fractal approach to digitizing and preserving all this information, as well as the different affordances of digital and physical books, then it is doubtful we’ll be able to turn in our lifetime the online freshet of data into a landmark on our civilization as the Library of Alexandria was in the ancient world. Surprisingly museums are still around, even though so many of the artwork they house has been digitized. The library of the future may just be like the ones of the past, only better and faster.

Amazon.com Help: Reading Enhancements . (n.d.). Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200729910

Brand, Stewart; Sanders, Terry. Escaping the Digital Dark Age. Library Journal 124. 2 (Feb 1, 1999): 46-48.

Grafton, A. (2007, Nov 5). Future reading: Digitation and its discontents. The New Yorker. Retrieved Sept. 25, 2013 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 Sept. 25, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/magazine/14publishing.html?pagewanted=all

O’Donnell, James J. Avatars of the Word. From Papyrus to Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1998. 44-49.

O’Donnell, James J. The virtual library: An idea whose time has passed. Retrieved Sept. 25, 2013 from http://web.archive.org/web/20070204034556/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/virtual.html

Rosen, C. (n.d.). The New Atlantis » People of the Screen . The New Atlantis – A Journal of Technology & Society . Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/people-of-the-screen

List of file formats – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_formats

photo credit: J.S. Velasquez (flickr). In his vision of the virtual library O’Donnell suggests the future librarian would be a cross between Natty Bumppo and a Jedi Knight. The photo pays homage to this idea.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What libraries may come are yet untold…

Collaboration Of Conscience

Posted on September 29, 2013 by steve1

It is difficult to imagine a world without text. The written word is imbedded in every aspect of our lives as we rely on text to participate in natural and virtual environments. In Orality & Literacy (1982), Walter Ong provides perspective on the intricacies of orality in societies that were precursors to the literate world we live in. Ong (1982) describes early oral environments and asks the reader to try and imagine a world where nothing was “looked up” and there was no presence of a written word to acquire knowledge. The chapter that investigates orality explains the temporary existence of sound and the importance of memory structures and systems needed to pass information throughout oral cultures. In chapter 4, Ong (1982) declares that literate humans thought processes are structured and influenced by the technology of writing and that writing has drastically transformed human conscience.

Ong’s book Orality and Literacy (1982) provides insightful dialogue surrounding oral cultures and their transition into the text driven world. I agree with the majority of Ong’s beliefs surrounding oral and literate cultures. However, I do not agree with his dichotomist view of orality and literacy. I believe that text, writing, and orality can and should braid together to heighten knowledge as we collaborate within our environments.

Ong speaks to some key themes that make oral cultures unique. I believe that collaboration is a fundamental part of learning and there is nothing more powerful than what we gain from face to face conversation with others. Ong (1982) confirms that sustained thought in oral societies is tied to communication. In oral societies face to face communication is the only way to communicate and because of this, oral societies are able to develop environments that value traditions passed orally from generation to generation. Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of orality are the concepts of beat, rhythm, and repetition. These elements are directly related to language and music. Ong (1982) confirms that oral thought is rhythmic and that rhythm and gesture are inherent in spoken language. Beat and rhythm are fundamentally important in music. Genres like Rap and Hip Hop would not exist without these key elements. Ong also confirms the importance of redundancy in oral cultures. He insists that words are gone the second they are spoken and as a result redundancy and repetition must be used to memorize and keep thoughts from vanishing (Ong, 1982). It is this type of repetition that helps us remember songs that move us and in conjunction with beat and rhythm music becomes ingrained in our memory.

In chapter 4, Ong’s argument is clear as he insists that more than any other invention, writing has changed and fundamentally affected human conscience (Ong, 1982). While this is true, a considerable flaw in the writing process is that It is not collaborative. Writing forces us into solitude. As I write this commentary, I am sitting at a table with two colleges. We are all writing for this course, and as we “work together” at the same table, each of us is engaged with the text developing on our own computer screens. There is no face to face collaboration developing on any level. Ong’s view of the alphabet is also interesting and very poignant. Ong (1982) states that our alphabet is the most adaptable writing system we know of and that it is easy for everybody to learn. Some may view this as a positive but I see it as a flaw. I believe that the alphabet in some situations forces its simplicity on to cultures that have rich and elaborate text imbedded within them. Just because something is easy to learn does not make it more valuable than something that takes time, effort, and patience.

Ong believes that writing has altered our conscience to such an extent that orality and text are disconnected polar opposites. I agree that orality and literacy are very different. Oral cultures debate, learn, collaborate, connect, and trust. Text itemizes and dehumanizes. However, I believe that oral traditions and the written word should happily co-exist and that this paring can accomplish the inconceivable. In an interview from 1990, Steve Jobs was asked to comment on technology. He states “We humans are tool builders. . . we can fashion tools that can amplify these inherent abilities we have to spectacular magnitudes.” (Jobs, 1990). Job’s view is important because it tells us that the tools and technologies we create, when used in conjunction with the words and ideas we develop, can work together to expand and develop societies in unrivaled ways. Scholars agree that conversation has always been the most important form of learning (O’Donnell, 1999). However, conversation on its own is not enough. Because our connected world is so vast, we need to employ some form of text and writing to help us consolidate the knowledge we acquire. Yes the written word makes our learning less personal but writing gives us the ability to store our abundance of knowledge in ways that work best for us.

Walter Ong has an interesting view of orality and the influence written text has on our conscience. Oral cultures have a deep connection with others, the environment and the world they are surrounded by. In contrast, writing has dehumanized us. However, I believe that we should use text as a tool but only in conjunction with a strong foundation in the fundamental principles of orality. In today’s society, we need text and orality to work together more than ever.

References

Jobs, S. (2012, Feburary 19). Steve jobs lost interview 1990 – A must watch for any entrepreneur [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nMD6sjAe8I

O’Donnell. (1999). From papyrus to cyberspace [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeforum.org

Ong, W.J. (2012). Orality and literacy. London and New York: Routledge.

Tagged , | Comments Off on Collaboration Of Conscience

Where You Came From Determines Where You Will Go

Posted on September 29, 2013 by cluciak

My grandparents grew up in a time when oral storytelling preserved memories, before television and long before the computer generation. Their way of processing information was very different from the way their parents culture would have processed information years before and the way I process information today yet we would all be considered to be a part of a literate culture because, in one form or another, technology (writing) was present.

In Orality and Literacy (Methuen, 1980) Walter Ong determines that people from an oral culture process information differently then people from a literate culture. In order to examine this theory further we must first understand the difference between oral and literate cultures according to Ong.

In an oral culture, cultural materials and traditions are passed on orally from one generation to the next. In a literate culture, cultural materials and traditions are passed along in the form of writing (Ong, Pg. 39).

With Ong’s Orality and Literacy in mind, the following question will be examined in this commentary; how might an understanding of possible differences in communication practices in oral and literate cultures inform teaching practices at all levels?
Chandler refers to technological determinism, interpreting communications technologies as the basis of society in the past, present and even the future. This determinism provides insight into the way students, young and old, learn today. How they communicate, which devices (oral or written) that they use will contribute to teaching practices as lesson plans are created with student understanding in mind.

How someone has learned, or is learning, to communicate is very important to how they take in and process information. What a culture inherits and grows up with has a significant impact on how they learn and process information around them as well as how they keep a “written” record. Their prior knowledge has a direct connection to their current knowledge.

Ong refers to the act of storytelling when he states that, “Sustained thought in an oral culture is tied to communication.” (Pg. 34) Storytellers add their own nuances and embellishments to oral storytelling depending on the audience they are sharing with. In turn, the audience will tell the same story one hundred different ways depending on how they heard the story and how it connected with them.
Students do the same in today’s classrooms. They take in the oral instructions given to them and complete the task based on what they heard and how they understood it given their prior knowledge. Reflection becomes an important component to both learning and instruction as teachers reflect on how the lesson was received and completed while students reflect on what they know, need to know and how this affected the outcome of their learning.

Ong refers to the power of sound when speaking of a primary oral culture. People that live in or come from an oral culture view words as powerful sounds that carry meaning and magic to the world as they see it.

What’s in a name? In oral cultures, names allow people to have power over what they name. (Ong, Pg. 33) They give the “thing” meaning and purpose by giving it a name. Students, pre-literate or basic literate, begin to use writing by naming different things (i.e.: mom, dad, dog, book). Their prior knowledge of these items assists with the process. Often a student is able to orally state what an item is before learning to write the name of that item. The intertwining of oral and literate cultures enables a student to move from speaking a name to writing, or labeling, an item or thing. Ong is careful to point out that the spoken word cannot be a label whereas the written word can be (Pg. 33).

Some of my grade 4/5 students can’t write a sentence with a piece of paper and a pencil but they can orally tell me what they are learning and how. This knowledge of these students informs my teaching practice so that I may put the tools in place necessary for student success. With current technology this may look like the use of an iPad with the Dragon Dictation application so that students can speak what they want to write.

Ong believes that we know what we can recall. In other words, we know what we know. “Writing establishes in the text a ‘line’ of continuity outside the mind.” (Ong, Pg. 39) In a literate culture, people can refer back to the written word. In an oral culture this opportunity does not exist. So how do people from an oral culture recall information that has never been written down as record?
Mnemonic patterns are an essential tool for recall in an oral culture. Very simply, Ong states that in order to remember something that was learnt orally, one must think “memorable thoughts.” (Pg. 34) This information is important to teaching practices at any level because it speaks to the fact that students will retain more if the information they are learning is meaningful and authentic to them.
Personalized learning encompasses this concept. Prior knowledge is personal knowledge. Meaningful prior knowledge produces memorable thoughts for students to draw from to make connections in their learning. What culture a student comes from can be connected to learning styles, for example: visual or auditory, kinesthetic or tactile. If we examine the earliest forms of writing created on stone with symbols, we can assume that this culture of people were very tactile, visual learners. This is the means they chose to communicate. This is what they knew.

An understanding of possible differences in communication practices in oral and literate cultures informs teaching practices because it lets educators know where students have come from, where they are going and how they are going to get there. Meaningful and authentic learning cannot happen without this knowledge.

References:
Chandler, D. (1995). Technological or Media Determinism [Online]. Retrieved, 8 August, 2009 from http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tecdet.html

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Where You Came From Determines Where You Will Go

Open Access to Educational Research

Posted on September 29, 2013 by bruchu

In this paper I will be reviewing the article “Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours,” written by J. Willinsky (2002). Willinsky’s (2002) thesis is that turning education research into a more accessible public resource can further the connection between democracy and education (Willinsky, 2002, p.369). I will argue that many of the arguments that Willinsky (2002) makes since publishing his article have already taken place and that the greatest impact that increased accessibility to educational research has been for developing countries and increased rigor in the peer-review process.

While Willinsky’s argument that increasing accessibility to educational research will help democratize the world, certainly his suggestions for change are instead modest and achievable. Principally, Willinsky (2002) is arguing to give greater accessibility to educational research in the following four specific ways (Willinsky, 2002, p.370):

  1. online systems providing open access
  2. access to indexing
  3. research support tools, data-mining
  4. open forums to discuss issues

The changes that Willinsky (2002) proposes above are most probably already completed given the fact that the article was published in the fall of 2002. The evolution of online research databases since 2002 such as EBSCOHost and Google Scholar have essentially provided free and open access to almost any research topic one could ever imagine. These tools have gone a long way to providing access to indexing, full-text search, and online accessibility from any computer with Internet access.

Most online databases offer practical usability and offer numerous search facilities. Many online databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar are accessed for free. The keyword search with Google Scholar offers optimal update frequency and includes online articles recently published; other databases can proving ratings of articles by number of citations as an index of importance for sorting. Many online database such as Google Scholar also offer a citation analysis mechanism whereby users can chain through the cited articles.

Perhaps Willinsky’s (2002) most convincing argument for open access to research is in allowing access to countries that have traditionally not been included in the higher educational domain. Willinsky’s (2002) states, “the gap between haves and have-nots is just as much a matter of access to well-organized sources of knowledge” (Willinksky, 2002, pp380). Certainly by providing open and free access to all educational research across the globe, this will allow for greater participation and greater awareness from those countries which have traditionally been denied such access, countries that are attempting to improve their standard of living through higher education.

With increased access to broadband Internet, access to online databases such as EBSCOHost and Google Scholar have become commonplace in developing countries and therefore access to the most recent and relevant research is available whenever it is needed. A specific example of this is when the academic publishing company John Wiley & Sons made over 12,000 books available online via the Research4Life initiatives (Nakweya, 2013). The initiative was setup to enable accessibility to electronic books at no cost to developing countries and to aid researchers in several African countries with information on agriculture and the environment.

The second most convincing of Willinsky’s arguments for open access to research is the improvements it would have to the peer-review process. Willinsky argues that open access to educational research “adds to the rigor and reliability of peer review processes” (Willinksky, 2002, pp385). Not only would it help in the peer review process, in fact it will simplify it to a great degree because by having greater access across the globe, experts can collaborate on research much more easily, thus making the peer-review process more efficient and more rigorous.

The traditional peer review process involved anonymous reviews, but by moving towards a more open peer review model, where the names of the peer-reviewers are published, a more transparent system can be established whereby accountability is emphasized. With the speed at which online communication takes place now, there are some online journals that are bypassing the peer review process altogether and opting instead to publish articles and offer readers the opportunity to comment on the article. This gives the researcher and author a chance to re-edit the article and re-publish with documented edits made. Such a review process would mean that articles would remain in various stages of publishing phases but ultimately result in drastically improved reliability of journal articles and increased turnaround time for publishing.

Since the rise of social media, it would be interesting to know what Willinsky’s thoughts would be on the new world of social media. How the use of open networks for researchers to publish and peer review their research works on a global scale. Social networks like Ning and Facebook have become ubiquitous with educational networks and the use of Twitter has furthered the use of collaboration amongst researchers. It would seem that 11 years after the publishing of Willinsky’s article, the world has moved towards a more open, and democratic model of educational research awaiting newer challenges ahead.

References

Nakweya, G. (2013). Developing countries to get access to 12,000 online research books. SciDevWeb Website. Retrieved from http://www.scidev.net/global/news/developing-countries-to-get-access-to-12-000-online-research-books-2.html

Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.

Tagged | Comments Off on Open Access to Educational Research

Socrates: Writing vs. Memory

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Janet AuCoin LeBlanc

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates calls into question the propriety and impropriety of writing. Throughout his discussion with a colleague, Socrates insists that writing destroys memory and weakens the mind (Ong, 2002). To support his theory, Socrates recounts a story in which two Egyptian gods, Theuth and Thamus, debate the merit of introducing ‘letters’, or writing, to the people. Theuth argues that the ‘letters’ “…will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is specific both for the memory and for the wit.”(Plato, n.d.). In response, Thamus states that ‘letters’ “… will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls…” (Plato, n.d.). Thamus believed that the people would become dependent on the written word and cease to use their own memories. He also believed the written word would lead people to become “hearers of many things”, appear as though they were all-knowing, but to actually be learners of nothing. With the extension of the written word into both mass-produced print and digital formats, and observation of our tech-reliant society, it appears that Thamus’ beliefs may have had an element of truth.

According to Nicholas Carr (2010), ‘Socrates was right.’ Once people had acquired the means to write and read their thoughts and the thoughts of others, they relied less upon the contents of their own memories (Carr, 2010). Writing affords us a way to preserve knowledge, information, ideas, and histories. The written word allows for the re-examination of information, and the organization of thoughts, whether they are to-do lists or academic essays. With the invention of letter and printing presses, the increased availability and distribution of books and journals provided supplements to what Carr calls ‘the brain’s biological storehouse.'(Carr, 2010) Writing lists provides us with a means of remembering exactly what is to be done. The mass production and distribution of information through various mediums such as writing, printing, computer and the Internet has developed a culture in which people are “hearers of many things.” We can access any piece of information through the internet to learn more about a topic. We can experience many adventures through fictional novels and converse with a diverse, global community. We are hearers of many things, and we are also learners of many things as well. What Socrates did not foresee was the written word providing more people a ‘greater and more diverse supply of facts, opinions, ideas, and stories’ than ever before. As such, Carr argues that ‘both the method and the culture of deep reading encouraged the commitment of printed information to memory.'(Carr, 2010) Hieronimo Squarciafico, also believed that an ‘abundance of books makes men less studious’(Ong, 2002). Ong (2002) believed that books and the internet are destroyers of memory, enfeebling the mind by relieving it of too much work. He felt that people believed to be wise would no longer be considered as such and would seek wisdom from the tools of the written word. With global access to information, anyone , not just academic scholars, could seek knowledge and process it at their own pace. The introduction of new storage items such as audiotapes, videotapes, copiers, calculators and computers expanded the range of ‘artificial memory’. Computers and the internet were no longer viewed as supplements to our mental storehouses, but rather a replacement option to personal memory and that they are well on their way to taking over our inner memories (Carr, 2010). As Carr writes in the first chapter of his book, The Shallows, “I can feel it….someone, or something has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going…. but it’s changing. (Carr, 2010)” Many of us can attest to this changing as we don’t think the way we used to. Recalling phone numbers and knowing the date without our cell phones, or computers is a challenge for most.

Ong (2002) states that writing restructures consciousness, thought processes, and that “writing is interiorized technology” which has “shaped and powered the intellectual activity of modern man.” Sparrow, Liu and Wegner (2011) conducted a research study examining memory and use of computer and the Internet. The results suggest that when subjects are aware that of the fact that information is available via print and technology, they often only memorize where to access information as opposed to memorizing the information itself. By using writing as a tool to support memory, by having the ability to re-read text for clarification, or for frequent study, our brains are free to concentrate on higher level thinking, synthesizing data and extending understanding. In the 1970’s, objections were made over the use of calculators in the classroom. studies showed that with calculators, students were free to gain deeper understandings of their exercises. The internet, or Web, is just the opposite. It puts more pressure on our memories and is in essence “a technology of forgetfulness (Carr, 2010).”
While it is true that our memories have certainly been altered, they are adapting and using writing as a supportive tool. Now, people work at thinking smarter, not harder, extending us beyond being a growing group of ‘hearers of many things,’ but we have also become true thinkers and learners. Socrates did deliver an element of truth and it holds true that even the strongest memories may need a little help now and then.

” …he will write them down as memorials to be treasured against the forgetfulness of old age, by himself, or by any other old man who is treading the same path.”

Plato, through Socrates

References

Carr, N. G. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton.

Ong, Walter J.. (2002). Orality and Literacy. Routledge. Retrieved 27 September 2013, from

Plato. (n.d.). Phaedrus. (Jowett, B, Trans.). Retrieved September 21, 2013 from https://connect.ubc.ca/bbcswebdav/pid-1529328-dt-content-rid-5277723_1/courses/CL.UBC.ETEC.540.64A.2013W1.28753/module02/m2-phaedrus.html

Sparrow, B., Liu, J. and Wegner, D. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertip. Science 333,776. DOI: 10.1126/science.1207745.

Tagged | Comments Off on Socrates: Writing vs. Memory

A Commentary on A History of Writing Chapter 1: Origin and Development of Writing

Posted on September 29, 2013 by kgreenhalf

The first chapter of Albertine Guar’s A History of Writing (1992) is titled Origin and development of writing. In this chapter Guar addresses what writing is and who needs it. The development of writing is broken into three main sections; Idea transmission, language and writing, and the process of writing. We live today in the age of information technology where the storage, preservation and, ultimately, the dissemination of knowledge, depends no longer on the actual process of writing. Computers store information the way information was once stored in the human brain. Guar proposes the idea that all writing is information storage, and thus all writing is of equal value. In today’s digital environment, we have created a changing form of writing that not only depends on technology to store information. We require technology in order to access and comprehend the information.

The multitudes of different writing forms are simplified in this chapter by explaining that basically, all forms of writing fall under two categories; either thought writing or sound writing. Thought writing transmits an idea directly whether it is in the form of a drawing or symbol, it conveys the idea in any language. Sound writing undertakes the somewhat unnatural process of an idea being translated first into the sounds of a particular word or sentence in a particular language, and then those sounds have to be made visible in the form. The visual signs have to be translated back into the sounds of the same language, and from this the word, the sentence and the original idea have to be reconstructed in the mind of the reader (Gaur, 1992, p. 15). There are notably advantages and disadvantages in both thought writing and sound writing. The biggest advantage thought writing has is that it can be independent of language, however; the disadvantage comes when you start to recognize the staggering number of symbols needed to communicate different ideas. Sound writing consists of complex abstract inscriptions, limited to a particular language. Phonetic symbols can be managed to as little as 26 representations in order to convey just about any idea or form of information. This means that sound writing becomes more cost-effective and efficient over time.

Guar talks of the development of writing in terms of its function in a particular society. “Each society stores the information essential to its survival, the information which enables it to function effectively. There is in fact no essential difference between prehistoric rock paintings, memory aids (mnemonic devices), winter counts, tallies, knotted cords, pictographic, syllabic and consonantal scripts, or the alphabet. There are no primitive scripts, no forerunners of writing, no transitional scripts as such (terms frequently used in books dealing with the history of writing), but only societies at a particular level of economic and social development using certain forms of information storage. If a form of information storage fulfills its purpose as far as a particular society is concerned, then it is (for this particular society) ‘proper’ writing.” (Gaur, 1992, p. 14) When it comes to our current society and digital age, I think about how co-dependent our language is with computer technology. Our writing is no longer inscribed in stone or on ink and paper. It is stored as 1s and 0s on magnetic disks and transistors all over the world. I started to think of the use of handheld smart phones, and the growing technology of something called QR codes standing for Quick Response Codes.

QRCodeImage generated September 28, 2013, from http://qrcode.kaywa.com/

The images are reminiscent of an ancient hieroglyph only no human has the capacity to read and comprehend these images without the use of technology. The QR code system was invented in 1994 by Toyota’s subsidiary, Denso Wave. Its purpose was to track vehicles during manufacture; it was designed to allow high-speed component scanning. It has since become one of the most popular types of two-dimensional barcodes. (Wikipedia, 2013) These codes are commonly used in advertising to link people to a website or provide someone with information or directions to a location. This universal code consists of black square dots arranged in a square grid on a white background, which can be read by an imaging device (such as a camera) and processed until the image can be appropriately interpreted. This is an example of our writing system evolving to accommodate our fast paced, global, digital society. These evolving forms of writing seem to create a new category of writing not thought writing or sound writing, but perhaps it could be labeled techno-writing; a form of writing entirely dependent on machines for creation and interpretation? The skill set required to understand how to use technology to interpret these symbols is something that for many of us is essential to function effectively in society.

The concept of idea transmission is explained in-depth in Origin and development of writing (Gaur, 1992). Ideas can be transmitted visually or in various forms, patterns or designs. Objects and symbols can be used to communicate warnings, indicate direction, or used to recall an event, place or person. The idea of picture-writing and idea transmission dates back to our earliest findings of ancient cave paintings and primitive societies. Picture writing is still very much a part of our everyday life. We see and use picture writing everyday with road signs, railway crossings, wet floors, restroom locations, etc. Today, as new technology is diminishing the importance of writing we are starting to see that picture writing is once again becoming a favored form of communication. In 1972, Pioneer 10, an unmanned spacecraft was launched into space carrying a form of universal picture writing. Pioneer 10 carries a plaque with a message to any intelligent life it might encounter on its journey. The Pioneer plaque includes diagrams of Earth’s location and drawings of a man and a woman.

Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http://www.space.com/17651-pioneer-10.html

Gaur’s opinion that all writing is information storage infers that the primary goal of all writing is the preservation of knowledge. Knowledge is not limited to being expressed through the medium of language, which is precisely why we are seeing an evolving system of information storage with today’s modern technologies. The human experience has been stored for millennia starting with cave walls and stone tablets, to paper scrolls and leather bound books, and now streamed through the airwaves as modulations of frequency representing 1s and 0s.

Today, there is more information storage taking place then could ever have been imagined mere decades ago. The Internet grows exponentially storing billions of ideas and preserving knowledge; at least for the time being. But how long will the hard drives and flash memory last? What would happen to the information if our modern-day society collapsed? Will we be able to keep up with the colossal amount of knowledge being preserved and will we be able to pass it on for millennia? Writing will continue to evolve and be stored on new material as technologies change. It would be naïve to imagine that our ways of storing information will continue to be in the form of writing we all know and are comfortable with today.

References

Free QR Code Generator & Design QR Codes, Coupons, Tracking, Analytic. (n.d.). Free QR Code Generator & Design QR Codes, Coupons, Tracking, Analytic. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http://qrcode.kaywa.com/

Gaur, A. (1992). Origin and development of writing. A history of writing (pp. 13-35). New York: Scribner.

Howell, E. (2012, September 18).  Pioneer 10, the Pioneer Plaque & the Pioneer Anomaly | Space.com .  Space and NASA News – Universe and Deep Space Information | Space.com . Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http://www.space.com/17651-pioneer-10.html

QR code – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (n.d.). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code

Keith Greenhalf

Tagged | 1 Comment

Memorize this?

Posted on September 28, 2013 by kgill

“What is the purpose of memorizing information when I can easily retrieve that material using a textbook or search engine, such as Google?” I have come across many students asking this question and I am not entirely sure how to answer it, since I sometimes find myself constructing similar inquiries. I suppose it boils down to having the ability to differentiate the content that needs to be memorized versus the content that one can go on in life without memorizing. However, how can we, as learners and educators, make this decision? What content is worth memorizing? This formal commentary focuses on the viewpoints of Ong (1982) in “Chapter 3: Some Psychodynamics of Orality,” specifically around the notions of text and memorization in education.

In “Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the World,” Ong (1982) analyzes the differences between oral and literature cultures. When educators are familiar with these differences, it can help them better understand their students and the methods that will best help them learn, especially those that are illiterate. For example, students that have not developed basic literacy skills have a difficult time recalling and memorizing information. This makes written cues a better method to help these students learn, in comparison to rote memorization (Ong, 1982). However, textual representations alone do not aid in an illiterate students’ learning, since the content any reader is viewing on a “page are not real words but coded symbols” (Ong, 1982, p.74). Ong’s viewpoints of words being coded symbols apply greatly to ELL (English Language Learners), since letters would look like symbols when they have no meaning attached to them. Thus, utilizing cues that have a combination of words and pictures help these students, as it allows them to “construct meaning about both fiction and nonfiction text” (Manning, 2004, p.91). Viewing the pictures first allows illiterate students to access their prior knowledge and apply it to the text, eventually attaching meaning to those “coded symbols” (Manning, 2004). I have personally tried this with ELL students and it has worked out very well since these students require both text and visuals to help them understand and recognize words. However, there are cases where memorizing content is helpful to the learner.

For the students that are familiar with the English language, memorizing information can prove to be useful. Since there is a vast amount of information students are exposed to, one must first decide how to digest that content. Ong (1982) suggests to “think memorable thoughts” (p.34), where memorable thoughts refer to information that is worth memorizing, as it helps in recalling information. Thus, students who ask questions around the purpose of “memorizing everything” make a valid point, since not everything needs to be memorized, as it makes it more difficult to recall (Ong, 1982). Educators must decipher the content worth memorizing versus the content that can be found through the use of sources, such as search engines. For example, in a mathematics classroom, educators must decide whether or not memorizing multiplication facts fall under “memorable thoughts.” Robert E & Knowles (2010) argue that students who have their multiplication facts memorized are able to develop a better understanding of the entire concept of multiplication problems, in comparison to those students who use calculators. As educators, we should guide students and provide them with the skills to understand and filter content (Robert E & Knowles, 2010). This allows them to recall “memorable thoughts,” such as multiplication facts, and activates their critical thinking and higher-order thinking skills (Robert E & Knowles, 2010).

It is important to note that memorizing information does not mean that it will stay stored in the brain forever. As Ong (1982) mentions, when information is memorized but not used, it slowly becomes forgotten. Many students can attest to this given their experiences. For example, when students have learned a new word or concept, they may have a difficult time recalling that information if they have not made connections or used that information. This is why it is important for educators to ensure that when they are trying to ask students to retain information, it is information they need to know rather than information they can look up on sources like the Internet (Robert E & Knowles, 2010). Living in the digital age, we have access to an enormous amount of information at our finger tips. Once they have learned the skills to locate information, students can easily use search engines to find the answers to factual questions. Search engines such as Google, can be described as a form of transactive memory, where individuals share information, decreasing the onus to memorize it (Sparrow, Liu and Wegner, 2011). However, memorizing information can be useful to learning as it helps students utilize that information and think about it critically, in comparison to them reading it on the Internet, where they may not be able to understand the significance of the material (Robert E & Knowles, 2010).

To answer the ongoing question that many students ask, “Why must we memorize the content? Why can’t we use the Internet or other sources to locate it?” the answer would simply be: it depends. It depends on what the content is. Is it something they need to know in order to build on their current knowledge? Or is the content simply dates and times that one can locate using a search engine? Who is learning this content? Is it an English language learner? Educators should focus on the larger picture and be able to make that decision.

Mahoney Robert E, & Knowles, C. C. (2010). Do students need to memorize facts in the digital age? Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(5), 6-7.

Maryann Manning. (2004). Visual cues. Teaching Pre K – 8,34(6), 91.

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

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6043), 776-778. doi:10.1126/science.1207745

Tagged | Comments Off on Memorize this?