Multiliteracies in ELA Classrooms

Baron highlights how there is a problem with viewing Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) as either good or bad. I personally feel torn on this subject, and while I understand the need and place for proper grammar, I do not think at times it is of highest importance. Baron writes how in the mid twentieth century, “writing instructors were commonly advised to focus on content and de-emphasize mechanics” as some of the finest graduates could not spell properly nor could they use correct grammar.

I’m torn on this subject for two reasons. While I personally appreciate proper grammar, and generally feel quite irked when someone engages in a horrific display of linguistic murder, I also know that some of the brightest individuals I have ever met, cannot spell to save their lives. When it comes down to it, is proper grammar and spelling really a necessity, or is it something that has been drilled into our heads as required etiquette? I’ve met social workers, teachers, doctors, and other professionals who excel in their areas of work, but cannot connect the dots when it comes to linguistics. Sometimes I fear that as a society, we have grown too rigid in our definition of what we classify as intelligent, and may at times look down on individuals who do not display perfect grammar.

However, because we live in a society which values proper grammar, perhaps educators should place a greater emphasis on teaching kids how to write and spell properly. Baron explains how at times, teachers may “tolerate IM novelties in classroom written assignments” so as not to appear “out of touch with contemporary culture”. I do not see a problem with teachers allowing text lingo in certain assignments, however I do believe that if IM lingo is used too often, students may out of habit, forget how to write ascribing to proper grammar etiquette. If students become too comfortable with writing in abbreviations, they may find themselves struggling when the time comes to write a resume or a cover letter. It is great that teachers are making an effort to engage the culture rather than oppose it, but they must do so carefully and still keep in mind the best interest of their students. If our future society points towards the extinction of IM language, then our teachers must do their best to discourage its use. However, if we are headed towards a greater openness to language of all form and variation, then this diversity should not only be celebrated, but encouraged in all.

Works Cited

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

As someone who is very much unfamiliar with video games, today’s presentation, along with James Gee’s article, was quite eye opening.  Video games have acquired quite the negative image in our society and in the media, being demoted to something that steals adolescents’ time away from more productive activities.  Gee, however, proposes an interesting parallel between the characteristics of a good video game and an effective school curriculum.  He analyzes video games in a way that I have never considered before and offers valuable suggestions for ways in which we can improve our teaching, and in general, our approach to education.

I think that some of the most interesting points that Gee makes were in regards to identity and production.  It seems like a large part of the reason for people’s deep involvement and commitment to video games is the fact that they have developed a new identity through one of the characters in the game.  Gee suggests that if students were to take on different identities in different disciplines, it would be much more appealing and intriguing.  I had never thought of approaching the curriculum in this way before, and also wished that Gee provided some practical examples of helping students to become more active and immersed in the activities in the curriculum.

Gee also talks about the effectiveness of having players contribute to and influence the virtual worlds in video games, tying this to the way in which students must also be able to do the same with the curriculum in school.  This notion also ties in with the need for customization, leading students and gamers alike to feel like they have a sense of agency.   Students have to see themselves reflected in the curriculum to feel recognized and valued; by tying the content to their lives and their interests and giving them room for choice, the curriculum becomes something worthwhile to explore.  Gee’s analogy is an interesting way to approach teaching and certainly gives me a new perspective on the value of video games.

-Adrienne

Works Cited

Gee, J. (2005). Good Video Games and Good Learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85(2), 33-37.

Before the internet, and before blogs, those who wished to publish their written work needed to jump through many hoops before they would ever see their work publicized and consumed by a large readership. However, thanks to the availability and user-friendliness of blogs, anyone can be an author these days: all you need is a computer and internet connection, and something to say. One of the best things about blogging is how one is able to individually control all aspects of your work production: you don’t need a publisher, or an agent, or an editor to stamp your work as “worthy” of being shared. And this kind of control could be very empowering, especially if you are normally someone who is bashful about sharing your ideas aloud or having your work scrutinized by a third party.

Lankshear and Knobel state that the “quantum simplification of web publishing spawned a new mass generation of bloggers in a very short time” (2006). I find the language of this statement revealing: “spawned” pointing towards quick and prolific production, while the phrase “generation of bloggers” is interesting because it puts emphasis on the fact that these new bloggers most often fall within a certain age bracket, and that this generation is defined by the technology we use. Within this mass of bloggers, some have emerged as noteworthy, and some have climbed to fame despite their lack of formal education in journalism, creative writing, or other professional degrees. Granted, it isn’t easy to become a popular blogger, and success usually takes some talent. But the fact that amateurs are gaining access to a field of discourse they would never have been able to touch before could lead us to question the need for formal education. The gatekeepers to the world of publishing seem to have lost power with the rise of blogs.

Along with the new medium of blogging, then, comes the responsibility to contribute in acceptable ways. Sometimes the problem with the amateur author isn’t WHAT they say, but HOW they say it. Bloggers with many followers could have a lot of power: bloggers have the ability to “mobilise massively at short notice to challenge an opinion or state of affairs and achieve a result” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). As I stated in our seminar, the writer of The Oatmeal (Matthew Inman), an online comic and blog, famously rallied his readers to donate money in order to insult FunnyJunk, a website that was posting The Oatmeal’s comics without permission. The battle between the two sides had consequences that departed from the world of the web and bled into the physical world. Inman, an amateur author who found huge success in his online comics, had no trouble at all getting thousands of people to donate a large sum of money to support his cause. Had Inman been dishonest, he might have kept the money for himself; instead, he followed through and donated the sum to the charities he indicated he would support.

I believe that as teachers, then, we need to think about teaching our students how to interact online, and ask them to consider the full implications of their online actions. We have been told about the dangers of leaving a bad digital footprint, but I think that more emphasis needs to be put on interacting respectfully online, even if one is anonymous. Digital footprint aside, the internet can go from being a community to being a mob in no time, and oftentimes, the mob, disguised by usernames and avatars, can do irreversible and real damage.

References:

Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (2006)/ Blogging as Participation: The Active Sociality of a New Literacy. American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, U.S. April 11, 2006. Available: http://reocities.com/c.lankshear/bloggingparticipation.pdf

One of the topics of discussion this past week was whether texting and instant messaging are in fact abominations of the English language and have no place in schools or whether they are valuable forms of literacy. While I don’t think the articles by Carrington and Baron intended to completely disregard instant messaging culture, they made it very clear that this type of literacy is not the dominant form and should not be the dominant form. I would argue, however, that texting, messaging and even some form of e-mails are already the dominant way of communicating for young adults and adolescents. Baron references a traditional ideology stating, “if some traditionalists are correct, we must take swift action now, before these children are reduced to marginal literacy” (pg. 29). I do not feel that the author agrees with this sentiment entirely but there still is anxiety surrounding the possible loss of traditional literacy. There is also the suggestion that adolescent literature, which consists of these instant forms of communication and perhaps the genre of YA fiction, is not formal enough (pg. 31).

My question then is who makes the rules about language? Who says a text is not formal enough and why does it have to be formal? We know that language is always changing with new words being created daily. Some of them fall into habit (twerking, irregardless, selfie etc.) and some don’t. Not one person, or small group of people, control the use or misuse of English. Today perhaps more so than any other time in history, evolution of language is happening at a faster and more prolific pace simply because of the tools of instant communication we have so readily available to us. Those who are afraid of this change in language should be reminded of the changes English has undergone throughout its history. We are very far away from English as it was spoken in Shakespeare’s time and we will continue to evolve in the near future.

Finally, to return to the idea that texting is already the dominant form of written language for many young individuals my point is confirmed by the fear that “recreational use of texting may ultimately lead to addictions and a lowering of an individual’s ability to shift between text types according to social context—that increasing mastery and use of text ipso facto lead to withering skills around other text forms embraced within the parameters of Standard English (Carrington pg. 167) If we are concerned with individuals becoming addicted to this form of writing does that not mean that it is heavily influencing young minds and is a dominant force in their consciousness? I do know young individuals that struggle with the difference between conversational register and formal register just like many young people did before the instant messaging revolution. This does not mean that the bright minds of the next generation will confuse texting with academic work.

Resources:
Carrington, V. (2005). Txting: The end of civilization (again)? Cambridge Journal of Education, 35(2), 161-175. doi:10.1080/03057640500146799

Baron, N. (2005). Instant messaging and the future of language. NEW YORK: ACM. doi:10.1145/1070838.1070860

I find just as I am finishing my E-Portfolio I am finalizing my concepts on what I should include in my teaching philosophy. I found this article particularly appealing as it comments on that the “new arrangements seem to need to demand an education for a period of fluidity, of instability” (138). I find my own beliefs in teaching English are grounded in my hope that future citizens learn not necessarily thematic investigations into texts, but instead the ability to this logically and creatively on their own. The world is only constant in that it is continually changing and students need to be able to think flexibly. The ways students interact with each other is changing seemingly by the month, “in new communicational webs” (143).

A part of our own understanding of how our students communicate is rooted in the realization that they will always be finding new means. It is near impossible for us as teachers to stay ahead of the curve of our student’s technologies. Instead, I see it as imperative that students learn how to adapt to any textual resources that they come into contact with. Kress articulates a difference of exposure results between two siblings and how their perceptions of the media can be so different (143). I find this to be a perfect example of how different even two of our students can be from each other. It is not important then for us to be “hip”, using Instagram, Snapchat or Tumblr to try and keep up with our students, but to instead present to them a variety of literacies and allow them to adapt them to their needs. Honestly I can’t imagine myself in my 50’s caring about what the new fads and technologies are. What will be necessary at whatever time will be an ability to teach students to understand materials presented to them and to clearly articulate and defend their ideas.

Kress goes into detail that the structure of education in the past does not fit well with what our students need today (134). I find this particularly invigorating, as I agree that the old molds and factory processing of students is not our future. What I find disheartening though is our very own teacher education program should so reflect exactly what we should be moving away from. We have a strict order of what is required of us, a rigorous schedule, and (nearly ritualistic in their repetitiveness) reflections. Interestingly enough, what we praise is not what we practice.

Kress, Gunther. “A Curriculum for the Future.” Cambridge Journal of Education 30.1 (2000): 133-45.

Yesterday’s discussion of texting and what it is doing to the “younger generation” is something that I find highly interesting and thought provoking. Some of the discussion that was brought up in class was highly enlightening and made me rethink things that I had previously thought and felt about texting. I had never thought as texting or “text talk” as something that was negative to a student’s development, or as something that would bring about negative outcomes to the English classroom.

After watching John McWhorter’s TED talk presentation and his use of the “fingered speech”, which might not be the best term for it as I can think of, however I really like the concept that he is going for. His presentation and discussion of the fact that the English written language is undergoing a complete overhaul of writing, as we know it, is a point that struck a chord for me. This sentiment has intrigued me because thinking of text as written speech is completely what it is and it highlights a completely different point of view to take into consideration.

Text is by no means the downfall of my generation, nor generations to come. As John McWhorter puts it, we are becoming bildialect through the usage of texting, which means that this is an exciting time and one in which there is a huge shift from writing as a means of expressing one’s ideas professionally into a means of communicating quickly via writing through a phone.

Overall, I firmly believe that this discussion is necessary to have and to bring to light: texting is not the downfall of our generation, nor will it ever be. It is an evolution that is need of particular attention and not something to be feared.  This class discussion is exciting and providing a platform in which the actual inquisitive discussion is happening and not merely nay saying because it is the belief that some believe should be put forward.

“Good Video Games and Good Learning” by James Paul Gee.

The author mentions several great points linking video games with active and effective learning. Playing a video game encompasses so many different literacies which can be linked to learning. One of the strategies that James Paul Gee mentions in his article is that in playing a video game, we take on a different role, which he argues that we should be encouraging students to do in the classroom. Have them role-play as scientists in the lab; as writers in the English classroom; as artists in the studio. This type of hands-on approach is what will yield better results in assignments.

The interaction we see in games is something that would translate well in the classroom. Gamers become more fully invested in the game, as it is their character, their work, their story they’ve worked through, and so they are more apt to be willing to see the game through to the end. We need to instill this brand of ownership on our students so that a greater sense of pride will be felt in their work.

Another great strategy that Gee mentions is that video games incorporate a great deal of creation as well. You are essentially writing your own story when you play a role-playing game, as gamers tap into their creative side in constructing their own characters and stories. As Gee mentions in the article, “Customized curricula in school should not just be about self-pacing, but about

real intersections between the curriculum and the learner’s interests, desires, and styles.” (Gee, 35). The student should have a say in some of the direction the curriculum is heading.

While Gee noted many great facets that show we as educators can actually learn from video game producers, there are a few other examples he left out. One is that these games often include a map for the user to follow, which is a literacy in itself. The cardinal directions must be followed to orient your character to the next objective. Some maps are often modelled after cities, to scale, which is obviously very useful as gamers can get to drive, run, or web-swing New York City as is the case in Spider-Man 2.

Something else to consider is that these games also aid students in grasping the English language, as there is often dialogue to follow or instructions to read. Critical thinking is also prevalent in these games, as is paying close attention to the narrative being presented in the game. As Gee writes, “players need to think of how each action taken might affect their future actions and the actions of the other players playing against them as they move their civilizations through the ages. In our complex society, such complex system thinking is crucial for everyone” (Gee, 36).

The issue of including games in the classroom usually begins and ends with “they can be beneficial if used appropriately and with pertinence to subject matter.” But perhaps there is more to the argument. Perhaps we ought to be learning lessons from the gaming world as to how to better engage our students critically.

Reference:

Gee, J. (2005). Good Video Games and Good Learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum,85 (2), 33-37.

James Paul Gee’ article, Good Video Games and Good Learning focuses on the learning principles incorporated by video games serving a challenging and educational purpose. He proposes that “challenge and learning are a large part of what makes good video games motivating and entertaining”. It is an interesting concept, considering some of the opinions floating around Canadian education today. Just last week the topic of discussion in my inquiry class (EDUC 452) centered around the fact that 40 is the new 50 in regards to student performance. Students, who are now coming close to meeting the 50% passing requirement, are pushed through to the next level without being required to complete the necessary work.

Is it possible that these same students who hate challenge and learning in the classroom, are then heading home and spending hours being challenged and vigorously learning on a different platform? Gee points out how some of the criticism aimed at video games claims that “what you learn when you learn to play a video game is just how to play the game” but he argues that along with playing the game, the player inhabits its surroundings and engages with sixteen various learning principles.  I find this article very interesting and it challenges a lot of the preconceived notions I hold about video games. I seldom played video games as a child, and when I did the occasional time at a friend’s house, I’d always feel guilty that I was not playing outside or better yet, doing something more productive with my time. I would walk away from a two hour game of Mario-Kart or Super-Mario, feeling as though I had wasted too much time playing around with video games and had now successfully contributed to the rotting of my brain. Looking back now, I had no concrete evidence to back up my reasoning and my sentiments towards video games had arisen out of what others had told me or what I had seen on the news.

In taking a look at the fifteen principles present in good games, I now see video games presented from an entirely different angle. Previously, I had thought that a person’s interaction with the game was a purely responsive one, without any initiative or truly intellectual engagement on part of the player.

References:

Gee, J. (2005). Good Video Games and Good Learning. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 85 (2), 33-37.

I was intrigued while reading the Gee article on gaming and education because I did not have a lot of experience with games. The extent that I had personally engaged in games was with Spyro or The Sims when I was younger; at first I did not think that these or any other “fun” games had any connectedness to education. This article really did prompt me to look at gaming in a new way, beginning with the line “keep in mind that a game such as Full Spectrum Warrior is a game when I buy it off the rack, but it is a serious learning tool when a soldier “plays” the professional-training version.” (p. 34) In this sense gaming could quickly become, at the very least, an introduction to multiple different occupations. While there are things that have taken the form and made fun of it, such as Goat Simulator (where yes, you play as a goat, doing goat-like things), there are also titles such as Surgeon Simulator or Train Simulator that attempt to mirror actual occupations. I can definitely see life-based simulation type games being used in the future in a class such a Planning during career exploration. They may be used for serious study or training, as mentioned in the above quote from Gee, or perhaps just to peak interest in possible routes students could go – for instance, when I was younger and thought being a landscaper would be cool, my favourite part of The Sims was designing the yards for my Sim’s house.

Gee also makes the connection between creating new environments or scenarios within games and having input in their classroom curriculum. While at first I was at a loss at how he made this connection, perhaps this creation/production aspect might manifest itself in choosing assignments. For instance, for a final project the teacher may give the students a set of four choices to select from, or the choice to create their own; just as in video games, students are either working within a set of parameters in order to create, or making their own scenario and following through on where that takes them. Gee’s discussion of agency correlates to this, as it gives students a sense of “ownership over what they are doing,” (p. 36) something that I’m sure we have all learned the importance of. After fighting some losing battles during my practicum with students who, even after being given these options for final projects, still did not care enough to do them, applying the principles Gee lays out may not always work. However, the article has helped me make some very strong connections between education and gaming, and I think that at the rate society seems to be going, these connections are going to become both more apparent and more important as time goes on.

Work Cited:

Gee, James Paul. “Good Video Games and Good Learning.” Phi Kappa Phi Forum 85.2 (2005): 33-37. Web. 14 July 2014.