There and Back Again – Progressing for the sake of Progress?
As a teacher of Social Studies 8, one of the major themes we cover throughout the course of the year is the theme of “progress”. Through our investigation of the curriculum, one of the major questions we tackle revolves around continuity and change regarding the perception of “progress” throughout history. One of the perspectives we offer is that perhaps the modern idea of progress (that newer is always better) is a false one. You do not have to look far to see messages that “newer is better”, and we are lulled into the false dichotomy that our technology today leads to the betterment of society. Granted, the complexity of our technology no doubt becomes more intricate, but that does not necessarily mean it is more apt at fulfilling its purpose. Bolter addresses this very issue in Writing Space, Computers, Hypertext and the Remediation of Print, in which he cautions the idealization of technology, when he states that: “it is not the complexity of the device that matters so much as the technical or literate frame of mind” (Bolter, 2001). A key theme that emerges from this weeks readings were that frames of mind and technology are interconnected, with each shaping the other, sometimes in unexpected ways.
During the course of the readings for this week, one thing that stuck out to me was the brief history of the emergence of silent reading. As Ong explains, “printed text makes for rapid silent reading”, which also makes reading a solo endeavour (Ong, 1982). Previously, in manuscript cultures, reading was done in a group, in which one person would read aloud, and so the implications of this change were that societies tended to become more individually centered as opposed to communal. During my time at teachers college at UBC, one of my instructors read us a story entitled “The True Story of the Three Little Pigs”, the purpose of the story was to illustrate how bias and perspective shape the accounts of individuals, however, the lesson I learned was that human beings, no matter the age, like to be told stories. I believe this ties into Ong’s observations because although reading can be done individually, meaning is constructed, and especially when it comes to fictional work, and perhaps this is why reading in a group is a pleasurable interaction.
Another realization that I came to during the course of the reading was that I emphasize the authority of printed text far over digital sources that my students use. I teach grade 8, and so students are notorious for not using discernment when selecting sources (although this is something we are working on), but I believe it is also the cultural context in which I was raised that led me to value the authority of printed text. Culture and society play fundamental roles in how we allocate value in education. The development of print, which inexorably led to the creation of textbooks, created a society in which factual knowledge became highly valued, and the legacy of this development still runs strong today.
References:
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Routledge.
As I read your post I was reminded of a quote that Google attributes to American author of the frontiers, Willa Sibert Cather; “Men travel faster now, but I do not know if they go to better things.” I imagine she was referring to the advancement made in rail technology that, despite its speed and power, could not bring refinement of morals or actions to the sordid lives lived in frontier towns. Could it be that hypertext, digitalization, and ease of publishing have not improved upon all aspects of the scroll or the codex?
The frame of mind of the reader and writer are of paramount importance to our understanding of text as a medium of communication. Bolter, citing Ong, says, “the literate mind is simply another name for the collective decisions shared among writers and readers about how to exploit their materials in order to communicate.” Ong elaborates by telling us how manuscript cultures wrote primarily so that knowledge could be orated, even when reading to one’s self. He writes that, “written material was subsidiary to hearing in ways which strike us today as bizarre.” I find it fascinating that we no longer consider written words as primarily oral units and yet we still more or less vocalize words in our heads as we read them. Is this a necessity or just some remnant of a bygone era?
I think you hit upon an interesting facet of our scholarly society when you discuss how the written word has authority for us. Especially the book. I feel that physical publication is still an important benchmark for many authors, whereas “online only” publication is seen as less credible. Perhaps this attitude is just a vestige of a time when publication was a more laborious practice. The demanding nature of the process gave integrity to the endeavour. Perhaps this old fashioned attitude will erode the same way orality has.
There are a couple of things I would like to comment on with regards to your post.
First, I was raised during a time when the internet did not exist yet and research meant going to the card catalogue and flipping through all those index cards. Books were virtually the only source (the local library had micro fiche!). So, I see the value in the printed word. At the same time, I am currently teaching students who grew up with the internet being prevalent their entire lives. While many students read books for pleasure, many do not even consider looking at the printed book as a research tool. Perhaps it is our fault as we push them to use databases in our school libraries (we have so many that we purchase for our students to use). Generally, I add a stipulation to my research assignments where at least one print (physical) resource must be used. This at least gets them to try researching in books. They complain it’s hard and they don’t know how to find anything (it’s like they never heard of a table of contents or index before!). I sometimes feel like it’s an uphill battle to get a student to access a book!
Secondly, I wanted to speak to the value of reading aloud to students. I teach high school and every time I teach Shakespeare, we read out loud every word from every scene. I usually take the longest roles and then each student gets multiple opportunities to read. After a day or two, they are ‘fighting’ over who gets to read who. When I teach short stories, I usually read the first one to them. They love to listen and follow along. This past semester, I read the first chapter of The Pearl by John Steinbeck to them. They couldn’t read faster after that as they were intrigued through listening. So I wholeheartedly agree that there is great value in reading together aloud.
Here are a couple of places that trumpet the value of reading aloud:
http://www.readinghorizons.com/blog/post/2012/05/04/importance-of-reading-aloud-to-students-of-all-grades-and-levels.aspx
http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2013/05/14/why-reading-aloud-to-older-children-is-valuable/