Multiliteracies in ELA Classrooms

The articles on instant messaging, texting, email, and other forms of informal electronic communication raised some interesting questions about the language we as English teachers are supposed to teach. For the purposes of simplicity, I will refer in this blog post to “texting” or “texting language” to mean any abbreviated and/or condensed form of communicating often found in digital spaces.

One of the major questions concerned in these two articles is: Is texting language degrading “standard” English? Though they were written around 2005, sentiments seem to have changed very little since then, and texting language is still associated with teenagers and young adults in an often criticizing way. Texting is still thought of as dangerous to students’ ability to master academic and professional English, with fears of lol’s and omg’s littering an essay or a cover letter. I definitely ran into that fearful attitude at my practicum school as teachers worried about what this language meant for their students’ futures, especially those with weaker English skills to begin with.

This notion of the degradation of some sort of “standard” English reminded me of something we worked on for our second Inquiry Seminar. On our “Inquiry into Writing” blog, Ceilidh posted an interesting video on African-American Vernacular English (Ebonics) under her section on writing and culture. The video shows a school that treats Ebonics as a distinct dialect with its own features and grammatical rules. Teachers teach students the differences between Ebonics and “standard” English in a way that does not devalue students’ home culture, unlike the typical viewpoint that sees Ebonics as an incorrect or lowly version of English.

Hence, the question of whether texting language is degrading “standard” English is quite similar to the questioning of the value of Ebonics. In both cases, there is a direct comparison between and value claim about the “nonstandard” and “standard” forms of English.

The backlash against any non-standard form of English, especially forms that considerably break the conventions, invites us to think critically about who the gatekeepers of this knowledge are, and who benefits from the maintenance of some sort of “standardized” English, and who loses? Also, to what extent can language accommodate change over time, and what changes are permissible?

And most importantly, is our role as teachers to teach our students how to switch registers while still upholding this “standard” English? If yes, perhaps we can learn how better to go about this by learning from other situations, such as the teaching of Ebonics in a way that still values students’ background knowledge.

To view Ceilidh’s piece from our old blog, click here.

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

I decided to experiment with the activity we completed in class today on the UBC Wiki space. Here’s what I created:

http://wiki.ubc.ca/Sandbox:E-LiteratureExperiment

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.

The write up for my multimedia project: gunita 368 MM1

And you can see my poem here.

I remember when i was going through elementary and secondary education, that the most valued ideas were ideas written on paper, that most things online are evil, and that film, television, music, any other medium of presentation was purely for entertainment. Nothing could bring critical thought to the table if it was not in print form. However, I did love watching adaptations of my favourite books come to life in the movie theatre. I think I remember the first one I ever watched in the theatre – Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. It caused my heart great joy to see it on the big screen. However, I was deeply saddened when many of the tasks that Harry, Ron, and Hermione have to go through in order to get the Philosopher’s Stone. Overall though, I was thoroughly impressed that through the magic of cinema they were able to depict a world that blew and stretched my imagination even further. I kept wanting to watch these movies because of it.

This idea of adaptation and how Bortolotti and Hutcheon express their ideas on treating the adaptation as an original work in and of itself is quite curious. I totally agree with this idea for many reasons. First, this idea of what a “text” is in British Columbia is a pretty ambiguous term. Teachers use film and television in the classroom in order to use the time for marking or to give the students a break from intense course work – as a form of reward for finishing the unit for the most part. Rarely have I seen teachers use film as a method of critical thinking. The only instance I have seen film used as such was in a Philosophy 12 class at my practicum school. His rationale behind it was that films reflect current philosophies, textbooks reflect past philosophies. Ultimately, he wanted his students to be aware of who they were as individuals.

Secondly, as teachers, we always teach our students how to compare and contrast and even synthesize two or more texts in an essay. Bortolotti and Hutcheon advise their readers that adaptations should be treated originally because of this. We should be able to engage in critical thinking not only with the text that we see on the page, but the text that we see performed. This distinction between the two is rather curious. During my practicum, my SA was concerned with the final project that I assigned my English 11E class. I told my students to create an adaptation of Act V in Othello in whatever way they could as long as it doesn’t take away from what the original text is saying. I had projects ranging from so many different genres – Hitchcock thriller, The Avengers, a really bad kung fu dubbed movie, a dark socialite world in high school, and a simple modern day application. All these projects ended up being amazing and it turned out that my SA had reservations about the project because he wasn’t open to the idea of adaptations as, in his view, they often strayed away from the original or were never as good as, case in point, the fidelity discourse.

– Kevin

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

During our presentation yesterday on adaptations, Teresa brought up the idea that the “original” text may not always depend on chronology; rather, it may simply refer to the text that an individual experiences first, and forms an attachment to. There is an example of this in the reading, when Bortolotti and Hutcheon discuss the adaptations of the narrative of Romeo and Juliet. When people compare film adaptations of Romeo and Juliet to the “original text”, they almost always compare it to Shakespeare’s play, which as we know is not the “original” text but an adaptation in itself. Shakespeare’s version, because of its popularity and its status, is what most people consider to be the source text of this narrative; it is therefore what people (even those who perhaps have not read the play but are still aware of it through collective cultural knowledge) have an attachment to. People measure their subsequent experiences of this narrative against their experience of the play, engaging in a fidelity discourse that is not in fact directed towards the “original” text.

I would like to once again explore this phenomenon in the experience of music. As I mentioned in class, music lends itself to this type of reverse fidelity discourse because of the expansive nature of genre and sub-genre within the medium. Covers are a common form of adaptation in music, and because covers often cross-genres in radical and profound ways, new audiences are often exposed to songs from genres that they may never have been interested in before. This sometimes leads listeners to hear cover songs before their “original” counterparts, and also increases their chances of attachment towards the adapted piece, as it falls into a genre that they most likely (having sought it out) prefer and relate to. Hearing the “original” piece, after forming this attachment, may not satisfy the listener; they may find themselves sensitive to the perceived shortcomings of the “original” as compared against the covered version. The listener therefore engages in the same type of critique as those engaged in fidelity discourse over texts such as Romeo and Juliet, but in a reversed order.

The two above examples illustrate some of the limits to the usefulness of fidelity discourse; because it revolves around the concept of “proximity to the original” it leaves itself vulnerable to individual or even collective interpretation of what the “original” text is; if someone hears “Hurt” as covered by Johnny Cash before they hear “Hurt” as originally performed by Nine Inch Nails, they will carry a personal attachment to Cash’s version of the song, whether technically “original” or not. In a similar way, it seems to be the pervasive belief that Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is the “original”, rendering the other source texts negligible to the larger cultural perception. When I consider this limitation, I feel more inclined to follow the suggested critical strategies of Bortolotti and Hutcheon concerning adaptation.

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.