It is without question that with every new frontier of written medium, there will be contention and debate surrounding the pros and cons of the remediation. Some may embrace the changes that come with a new medium as they may serve to be more convenient and accessible within that particular time and context. Others may challenge the remediation with the fear that the predecessor will be forever lost or destroyed.
These conflicting views are never more present than now with the way electronic technology has infiltrated nearly every part of our lives. Despite the endless possibilities of electronic technology, it still faces resistance. For some, these burgeoning possibilities could mean the decimation of an entire industry, while for others it can open new doors. The digitization of news articles for example, looms over the heads of the dying newspaper industry. The surge in popularity of e-books and open educational resources online also points at the potential obsoletion of print books. However, the decline of print media does not solely stem from digitization. Its decline began with the arrival of television and also the explosion of options available for readers on the Internet. Not only do these new mediums bring the news to the consumer in a faster and more reliable manner, but they also present themselves in a visually more aesthetic style to readers. Readers do not have to deal with large, cumbersome papers splattered with static, black and white ink. What is offered by online news for instance, is a combination of audio, visual and interactive features, which can be appealing to both young and old readers. The way one reader consumes the news today may be starkly different from the way the next reader does with all the customizable options and features. Essentially, the “fixity and permanence” of print is fighting an uphill battle with the dynamic nature of computer mediated texts (Bolter, 2001, p.13). As Bolter posits, the “new medium [tries] to convince us that it offers greater immediacy than its predecessors” (2001, p.19).
The implications in the struggle between digital text and print text has no doubt begun to make its presence in my school’s library. There is push by some teachers, including the librarian and admin to digitize a number of books currently sitting on our shelves. Yet, there is defiance from other educators who also make valid points: print eases spatial memorization, allows for annotations on pages, and is free from distractions. Our students are digital natives. They have grown up acquiring knowledge in ways that are substantially different from their teachers. Students no longer need to flip through the index or table of contents to find their answers within a 500 page encyclopedia. With a simple click of a search button, our students can access a world of information. It is critical that teachers keep up with these changes, and equip students with the tools that are ‘customized’ for their learning styles.
On a similar note, Ong (1982) underlines how the medium of print can influence the way it is consumed as well as the way it is written. Large printed texts, for instance are much easier to read than manuscript texts. Its “greater legibility ultimately makes for rapid, silent reading” (Ong 1982, p.120). It is less of an investment in time to produce print, thus removing the need for abbreviations evident in medieval manuscripts. In the same way that print has transformed reading and writing since manuscripts, computers and the Internet too can be argued to be molding the English language. As posited by Favilla (2017), “language shifts and proliferates due to chance and external factors.” The way we talk in a text or on social media opens the doors to more nuanced causal expressions. The efficiency in the way we communicate through emails for instance has greatly influenced our slang and commonplace abbreviations. This is not to argue that teachers should accept more colloquial styles of writing, but rather we need acknowledge that the value and ideas behind this newer style of writing should not be wholly ignored.
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Favilla, E. (2017, December 7). How the internet changed the way we write – and what to do about it. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/booksblog/2017/dec/07/internet-online-news-social-media-changes-language
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and Literacy. Chapters 4 and 5 (pp. 117-155).
Zale Darnel
June 24, 2018 — 6:56 pm
Great post Kimseto
The title got my attention right away, but some of the point you made really resonate.
The part about “computers and the Internet too can be argued to be molding the English language” is so true and evident in the work that student turn in. My post this week focused on something similar in the fact that digital writing is effecting spelling.
However, it’s that part about your schools library that really got my attention. You stated that “There is push by some teachers, including the librarian and admin to digitize a number of books currently sitting on our shelves.” I would argue that Libraries are no longer Libraries, the transition is being made to shift them to Learning commons because the need for print based books is greatly diminished. Old library’s used to be a store of knowledge, places where you would find information and books such as encyclopaedias. That is no longer the case with information so easily available through digital sources. Now library’s focus primarily on being a learning commons space where fiction is the book of choice.
There is a lot of information on the shift to Learning Commons on the British Columbia Teacher Librarian Association page. https://bctla.ca/resources/library-learning-commons/
By no means do I think books will all be digital, as I too also still value the educational value of printed books, but I do think that there is a place for digital, audio and other media books in a learning Commons and I do think that the traditional library may not be dead but is dying.
Zale
michael yates
June 25, 2018 — 10:21 pm
I’ll bring my iPad to videotape the recycling of books to a more appropriate use! I find paper to be cumbersome and dangerous (papercuts can be very nasty!). So converting to digital should be pushed as a health and safety concern.
In all seriousness I don’t see paper books ever being completely phased out, there will always be those that love the feel of a book and they will not allow it to die. Besides, currently the printing industry is strong enough to have printed books and digital books almost cost the same amount, I wonder when printed books are significantly more expensive will those resisting the change in medium still support it? If an eBook cost 3 dollars, and the printed book was 30 would people still desire that printed book? I guess only time will tell.
Great post, very thorough!
Katie Cox
June 30, 2018 — 9:25 am
Thanks for your great post! Your opening statement about how every new type of written medium means debate surrounding its pros and cons brought me back to Module 1 and the Cambridge forum: No matter what the technological innovation is, there will always be those who believe the new technology will be the doom of us all and those who believe it means a new utopia. However, history has shown that these two opposites occur much less often and it’s “usually a muddle of losses and gains” (O’Donnell, 1999).
Like O’Donnell (1999) discusses, there are both loss and gain with any new tech and it’s important to balance the costs and benefits. I think you’ve done a great job of this in your post.
What stood out to me from Bolter’s (2001) chapter on Writing as Technology was how the properties of each kind of writing favour different forms of expression and limit others. For example, he says books favour more linear writing and the Web is more associative. But what about how we read these kinds of texts? I sometimes feel that I remember things better when I read it in a book or in print, however, I have no empirical evidence to back this up. It’s just a “feeling”, but one which a lot of people seem to share. Is this because of the linear thought processes that books entail? Does the Web offer too many divergent trains of thought that it’s hard to remember everything? Or as you say, is it simply too easy to become distracted when reading digital text?
Thanks again for your post! It gave me lots to think about.
References
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
O’Donnell, James J. (Presenter). (1999). Cambridge Forum [Radio broadcast]. Cambridge, MA: Public Radio