Communication and Changes in Language
Previous research has addressed the topic of internet usage or ‘screen’ time as an element of increasing interest in and influence on today’s society (Perrin & Duggan, 2015: screen time statistics; Hooghe & Oser, 2015: effects on social capital). What the effects of increased internet/social media usage are within our everyday lives, as well as what this might mean for education, can be examined in terms of experience. From the perspective of personal experience, whether within a cultural/community context, or the personal world-interaction experience of an individual, recognizing from which perspective current students are approaching learning and education must include an examination of the connections between human-human, human-machine interactions and language. Without supporting essentialist notions, there is something to consider in terms of the demographic of learners mainly in their specific purpose of technology communications use as well as access to these technologies. “The changing technological an organizational shape of working life provides some with access to lifestyles of unprecedented affluence, while excluding others in ways that are increasingly related to the outcomes of education and training. It may well be that we have to rethink what we are teaching, and in particular, what new learning needs literacy pedagogy might now address.” (61). Today’s students reflect current society’s views and practices concerning communication, but students of all ages are affected within this system, not just youth.
As discussed by The New London Group (1996), many instructional approaches and methods are disconnected with how students connect to the world around them, and therefore, how they connect to and approach learning. Even the structure of language as symbol systems has been altered and perceived differently as a result of socially influenced and constructed online environments, whether termed the general ‘internet’ or social media technologies or otherwise. As mentioned by the NLG, “Literacy pedagogy…has been [a] carefully restricted project – restricted to formalized, monolingual, monocultural, and rule-governed forms of language.” (NLG, p.61). Language itself has changed within the past century, including shortened or abbreviated languages of Morse code or telegrams (shortened language), postcards (entertainment and descriptive language), or the dramatic, emotional, and coercive language of film and television. Each one of the alterations and developments of language use reflects the socially determined perspectives and ideas concerning communication. Instructors of today’s students need to recognize this shift in language and communication systems, as society has determined the ‘new language’ of current communication/interaction, and approach literacy pedagogy from this ‘altered language’ context.
The ‘multiliteracies’ term as defined by NLG presents the variations in language itself, highlighting the issue of “[w]hen the proximity of cultural and linguistic diversity is one of the key facts of our time, the very nature of language learning has changed…When technologies of meaning are changing so rapidly, there cannot be one set of standards or skills that constitute the ends of literacy learning, however taught.” (64). There are possibilities in online communications that allow for more opportunity for ‘multilitracy’ approaches to literacy learning, but not one method overall.
Another aspect of literacy pedagogy is presented in discussions concerning social media communications: “What has changed with the emergence of new tools for mediating sociality is the scale and persistence of possible publicity.” (Boyd, 2009, p.22). How we form identity is based on public communications, such as social media, and the language of these environments. This also presents difficulties concerning “The process of learning to read social cues and react accordingly is core to being socialized into a society…In mediated environments, bodies are not immediately visible and the skills people need to interpret situations and manage impressions are different.” (Boyd, p.12). Instructor methods and literacy pedagogy needs to consider these aspects of communication.
References
Boyd, D. (2009). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. Retrieved from:
http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf
Hooghe, M. & Oser, J. (2015). Internet, television and social capital: the effect of ‘screen time’ on social capital. Information, communication & society, 18(10), 1175-1199. Retrieved from:
http://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1022568
Perrin, A. & Duggan, M. (2015). Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015. Pew Research Center, Report, July 2015. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/
The New London Group. A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.
http://hepgjournals.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdf/10.17763/haer.66.1.17370n67v22j160u
Rochelle,
You’ve provided a very insightful overview of how technology and social media have influenced various aspects of communication and interpretation of the world around us. I was drawn to the point you made about social cues, and how virtual communication removes the aspect of physical presence and body language from such exchanges. Interestingly, a UCLA psychology study found that sixth graders who had refrained from using digital media of any sort for five days were better able to identify the emotions of photographed individuals, when compared to their counterparts who had continued with regular screen-time habits (Wolpert, 2014). These findings highlight differentiation of self-expression and recognition of social cues, as we go back and forth between virtual and real-life presence.
Although we have essentially developed social cues for self-expression, specific to the often public interactions that take place via the internet and social media platforms, we still need to consider whether or not the use of text, photographs, and even videos truly replaces the value of emotional response as it manifests itself in bodily actions. Face-to-face interactions typically involve a reflective mechanism of sorts. We feed off of one another’s’ body language, facial expressions, etc. in order to determine the tone and direction of conversation. Without this simultaneous and ongoing feedback, we are more likely to overlook the potential for our words to be misconstrued and our message to clash with the overall tone of discussion.
For instance, a message posted using a personal Twitter account, thus confined to limited characters and void of physical expression, opens the author and their words up to boundless interpretation by any number of people. As discussed by Boyd (2009), one key component of networked publics such as social media, is the presence of an invisible audience. Depending on the privacy settings we place on our profiles, many of those viewing our content may be acquaintances or complete strangers. In a setting such as this, we aren’t able to clarify our tone, nor are we able to gage the appropriateness of our words, until they are met with replies after the fact. Furthermore, our message does not cease to exist after we publicize it at the time of our choosing, meaning many people within our own and peripheral networks will be viewing our words out of context (Boyd, 2009). On one hand, this mechanism certainly opens up the floor for discussion and exploration of a number of perspectives on any given topic. However, this also opens the door for misunderstandings and unintended conflict. We have all witnessed and heard of instances where content posted on social media has received backlash, sometimes due to widespread misinterpretation. Of course, there are also instances where completely inappropriate comments are made online, and the backlash is well-deserved, but this is an issue that would undoubtedly deserve a post of its own!
References
Boyd, D. (2009). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. Retrieved from:
http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf
Wolpert, S. (2014). In our digital world, are young people losing the ability to read emotions? UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved from http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/in-our-digital-world-are-young-people-losing-the-ability-to-read-emotions
Hey Natalie,
Thanks for your response, you have some interesting aspects to add to this topic. The issue of context that you mentioned was a really great one. When people read something that has been written within a certain context, there is always a good chance the message will be misinterpreted. There is much less of a risk in face-to-face communication, but with a large part of the population communicating almost completely online/text/social media, there is much room for error.