Multiliteracies in ELA Classrooms

The two articles for this week raised a lot of questions for me and were really interesting to read through.  I was somewhat surprised that while both articles were published in 2005, we seem to still have the same anxieties and intense reactions to the effect of txting on what we deem “standard” or “normal” English.  It clearly remains a controversial and heated issue today.

I really liked how Victoria Carrington (2005) pointed out the need for literacy educators to rethink what it means to be literate in today’s society, remembering that “the ultimate purpose of literacy lies outside the classroom” (p. 171).  She believes that students will need to be competent and be able to manipulate a variety of genres indifferent contexts, which means that educators need to be prepared to incorporate and recognize a multitude of literacies in an educational context.  I think my struggle with this is how it’s meant to look, at a practical level, in the classroom.  While I understand the importance and value of developing a strong grasp of multiple literacies, I find it difficult to imagine the role and function of new literacies, such as txting, in the classroom.

I must admit that, while working on the first media project (translating Macbeth into tweets), I was quite unfamiliar with Twitter (and with most social media, for that matter.  #socialmediahermit), and had to really pause and think about how I would go about composing a hashtag.  While I understood it’s basic premise and purpose, I felt like it had changed over the course of time to have a different function.  In class, Teresa mentioned possibly discussing with students the rhetorical function of hashtags; perhaps this is a way in which we can incorporate new genres in a way that is analytical and thoughtful, and encourages students to think critically about the form and function of a language.

Whichever way we choose to widen the literary horizons of our students, I agreed with Naomi S. Baron (2005), who states that txting may be “[n]o harm, but only if these same teachers ensure their students develop a solid grasp of traditional writing conventions as well” (p.31).  I suppose incorporating new forms of language does not necessarily discount more traditional forms, but as Carrington argues, we need to have more conversations about how these different forms of language will interact with each other and possibly co-exist.  It seems that txting is just one of the ways in which language has progressed, but as such a prominent mode of communication, deserves more discussion and exploration into its role and function in our society and how it can help develop a more multi-faceted literacy program in our schools.

Works cited

Baron, N.S. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 30-31.

Carrington, V. (2005). Txting: the end of civilization (again)? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 161-175.

Adrienne

Our group’s presentation on adaptation led to some interesting class discussion. One point worth considering is that of authorship. Some link authorship more tightly with ownership. For these, the process and product of adaptation might be more touchy—the notion of honouring the original text is important, which is to say the new adapted material must uphold a particular artistic standard. It somehow must be “true” to the original. I’m curious what drives these feelings of loyalty toward novelists, screenwriters and directors.

The negative reaction to Van Sant’s Psycho is a curious one. Having seen many film adaptations, the criticism I’m accustomed to reading often outlines how the new film fails to capture the spirit of the former. Key details were missing; the performances lacklustre; the director somehow missed the point. In these instances, the places of deviation are problematic for the critic. And yet when a skilled craftsman remakes a classic, honouring it so carefully and particularly that the outcome is a virtual replica, critics don’t like that either. They snivel, “What was the point?” A loose adaptation is dubious and a facsimile futile. My conclusion here is that when source material is considered a masterpiece, there is simply no winning. The emotional attachment to the former is too powerful for the critic to use an objective eye.

The piece by Bortolotti and Hutcheon is useful because it potentially liberates us from that challenging position. Adaptation is central to who we are as a species; we continuously evolve— socially, mentally, even physically. Our narratives evolve too; they adapt and survive. Written work, film and television continue to be produced at a dizzying rate. Clearly we have an insatiable appetite for stories despite the fact that identical scenarios and similar plot lines are revisited over and over again. When our position is less emotional, we allow ourselves to study work for what it is and not what it was. As teachers, it seems this is a better place to be to help students engage with the growing body of material around them. Those that disagree with this point might consider the usefulness of their position as well as what drives it.

Johnnie

Naomi S. Baron’s article “Instant Messaging and the Future of Language” combats the notion that computer-mediated communication (CMC) is leading to the downfall of language and linguistic competency. Baron argues that language has been constantly adapting and changing over time. CMC is merely an adaptation of language that caters to the currently popular trend of using informal speech and communication. CMC is not as simplistic as many people believe it to be. Instead, it is a complex system that can be modified to reflect one’s personality and experiences. Several contractions, shorthand phrases and even IM specific terms have spawned from society’s rampant usage of CMC. CMC holds similar properties to other kinds of informal language as it does not adhere to strict guidelines and rules. While this makes CMC harder to control, it provides CMC with a wider range of linguistic diversity. Baron states that “it is hardly surprising to find many [adolescents] experimenting with a new linguistic medium (such as IM) to complement the identity construction they achieve through speech, clothing or hair style” (P. 30). She even likens this attitude to the constant usage of “like” or “totally” used by adolescents in the past. People can use CMC as a means to reflect who they are and what they are capable of without worrying as much about making minor grammatical mistakes.

Even throughout everyday conversation, people are creating new terms or shorthand expressions that are specific to their social groups. Language is constantly being modified and created to allow people more outlets to express themselves and their ideas in creative ways. The constant evolution of language is something that people must embrace and learn to understand rather than something that should be dismissed as strange and evil. People can even explore language in more in depth ways by investigating how different kinds of languages interact with one another.

While CMC veers away from academic speech towards a more informal style, it does not hinder students’ academic proficiency. Baron states that ultimately, instant messaging creates “no harm, but only if … teachers ensure their students develop a solid grasp of traditional writing conventions as well” (p.31). CMC and traditional language can work in tandem as long as people can easily differentiate when and how to use each type of language. By exposing students to various kinds of language, they can have even more opportunities to break down and understand language, and can gain access to skills that pure academic writing could not provide them with.

– Justin Bailey

Reference

Baron, N.S. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. Communications of the ACM, 46(7), 30-31.

This video speaks for itself:
http://youtu.be/rqevO_zrxsA

Sorry this is a little late…

Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon’s article “On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and “Success”: Biologically” is a very interesting and different perspective on adaptation theory.  I found it very engaging and thought provoking, though I did not follow (or like) the homology to biology nearly as much as I did the ideas of adaptation.  To start with, as they stated, it is a “common determination to judge an adaptation’s success only in relation to its faithfulness or closeness to the ‘original’ or ‘source’ text” (Bortolotti 444).  The pair of authors clearly do not agree with this (nor do I).  As noted, humans have been adapting stories for as long as we have been telling stories.  We naturally adapt stories, whether from one medium or form to another or within the same from/medium but for new or different audiences.  What we cannot do is judge a text or work based on how “true” it was too the original because, if we are going to be serious here, there are not a lot of TRULY original tales.  That is not a bad thing; I’m just saying, we really cannot write outside of the human experience because, duh, we are human, and the human experience, though not super limited, has really, truly be done to death in the last couple thousand years.  To write anything you adapt from your own experience and from the collective experience of being a part of the human race and all the cultural, genetic, social etc. heritage that goes with that.

But back, to adaptations on a more coherent and logical level: films.  Adaptations are more and more common these days in Hollywood.  I constantly hear this: Hollywood has no new ideas left, and well that is far from the truth, there are A LOT of adoptions going on in the popular media sphere at this moment, but a large part of this has to do with one undeniable fact: people like adaptations.  So we may think to ourselves: Okay, so my favourite book is being made into a movie (it was called On the Road, and yes, it wasn’t great but not because it was an adaptation but because it was literally only people getting ‘effed up and experimenting sexually); it’s probably going to suck, but I am going to check it out to see how someone else interpreted something that I already love. Now all cannot be winners (see On the Road comment), but we still go see them, right?  We are the ones shelling out money for them and make it possible for them to exist. Adaptations are never going to be the exact same as the original so on a literal level they will always fail as being “true” to the original.   And it is debatable what the “spirit of a text” is as we bring our own experiences to the viewing/reading/participation with the text. No  two people interpret texts (even straight forward ones) the same so how could we ever agree if something was “true” to the original? Of course, I am not saying EVERYTHING is good because it’s all subjective and someone may love this because of blah blah blah… That is NOT what I am saying. We cannot deny that there IS bad art (even if people like it), but we should judge things on their own merit as art or text or whatever and NOT on what they are adapted from.  The relationships between texts, adaptations, originals, etc. IS super interesting, but it is not fair to judge anything on a extremely subjective “true” “spirit” of the original because, as noted above, nothing is really original anymore.  Thanks for listening to my rant.

LLED 368 PDF

My first media project can be found on the following web link: https://blogs.ubc.ca/markwesterl/

The rationale is forthcoming.

BJORN

Our project and explanation are attached.

Dalyce, Leona, Naz and George.

Video

Project 1

For our first media project we created a graphic novel adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Masque of the Red Death.”

Media Project 1 Writeup

The Masque of the Red Death – Graphic Novel

For our media project, we decided to paraphrase Macbeth Act 2, Scene 3 into tweets. See rationale and presentation attached.

Campbell, Coleman, Law, Lee, Solis – Media Project 1

Campbell, Coleman, Law, Lee, Solis – Macbeth and Twitter Presentation