Calculator of the Humanist
Image retrieved from http://www.typeitforkids.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/IMG_61021.jpg.
New Writing Spaces
As Bolter writes, each new technology or media that arises takes on the role of “fulfilling needs that could not be easily met by the dominant technology” (2001, 13%). Word processors, word processing software, speech- to- text and voice recognition software are all technologies that supplement literacy activities within the classroom setting. Foundational skills of reading printed texts and writing continue to be a focus within elementary classrooms. However, for students with disabilities, the crop of new technologies provide additional support in these activities that the dominant technology (printed text, paper and pencil) cannot. In other words, these supplementary supports become necessary for the struggling student to achieve and meet regular curricular outcomes. I believe that technology has provided alternate means for students to meet grade level learning outcomes when, in the past, those learning outcomes would have to been modified or changed entirely. I believe technology to support literacy is “refashioning the writing space” (Bolter, 2001, 13%) in classrooms by allowing learners to record their ideas using either oral or printed forms. New technology is allowing students to return to the “oral space of ancient culture” (Bolter, 2001, 13%) by recording student ideas visually and orally. Oral ideas can be recorded in text form through speech- to- text software. Thus, technology is providing multiple environments or means for students to share their ideas.
In fact, Bolter notes that one of the most difficult transitions from printed texts to digital technology is that technology “radically changes the ‘look and feel’ of writing and reading. (2001, 14%). I believe that this shift, aided by the multitude of methods to read and communicate learning, is actually beneficial for various learning styles and learning needs. In the past, students with learning disabilities or complex needs may have found it difficult to navigate the singular method of accessing printed texts. Struggling readers or writers had to painstakingly record their ideas or have their writing scribed by another individual. However, the “look and feel” of writing and reading is changing due to the multiple writing and reading platforms available to support various learning needs. The available arenas for writing and recording due to technology open up more avenues for readers and writers. In the end, multiple needs, learning styles and intelligences can be supported by the multitude of available writing spaces created through technology. These changes can only be viewed as a positive shift as they serve to supplement the printed text.
Likewise, these changing writing spaces affect readers in a positive way. Word processed documents can be accessed and modified so that the reader can more easily make notes about the written content. At the same time, collaborative writing spaces such as Google docs allow the reader to read and annotate the text so that the content is more meaningful. As well, the author is able to view these notes and this begins a two way dialogue that was never available before. The dynamic nature of digital texts and digital documents also allows the reader to increase font size and zoom in on difficult passages. These affordances positively support students with low vision or vision impairments. Although technology is changing the landscape of literacy, these changes support the development and learning needs or a diverse group of students.
References
Bolter, J.D.(2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext and the remediation of print. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thanks for a great post! It’s imperative for us to see that since learners (even ourselves) have so many different tools at our exposure, the “look and feel” (Bolter, 2001, 13%) of each individual’s writing may be as unique as they are. The days of all writing through the same medium day in and day out should be gone; while a similar space for sharing and publication should be uniform for the purpose of a course or classroom (just as in-person class time or meeting places are), the drafting and revision domain could be radically different for each writer. As you mentioned in your post, this might be according to a learning need, but it can also be for personal preference purposes as well. Thanks for your thoughts on this part of the module!
References:
Bolter, J.D. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext and the remediation of print. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum.