"The distinctive contribution of the approach to literacy as social practice lies in the ways in which it involves careful and sensitive attention to what people do with texts, how they make sense of them and use them to further their own purposes in their own learning lives" (Gillen and Barton, 2010, p. 9).
The first thing that comes to mind when I read this quote is, "This is so relevant to my own life!" It is funny that it specifically addresses texts, because my feelings about text messages has greatly changed over the last ten years. When I was 15 and starting dating my husband (then boyfriend) it would drive me insane whenever he would text me. I hated it. I would have so much rather have gotten a phone call. I thought it was so rude and inconsiderate to send me short messages instead of the decency to share time with me over the phone. These days, ten years and a child later, I love the short messages that I receive throughout the day. It shows me that he is thinking about me. But, since we are both working we don't exactly have time to just drop what we are doing and have a nice long chat in the middle of the day.
I think it is very easy to misinterpret a text because you are missing out on their tone of voice and body language. More times than not I find myself asking if my husband is upset about something by the "sound" of his texts; which 99% of the time he isn't.
I think that texting has become a more preferred and common form of communication over speaking in person or on the phone. I think that with the evolution of cell phones and the availability of texting that dozens of new terminology and acronyms have surfaced. So, yes we have all "learned" that LOL means 'laughing out loud' but is this useful for "them to further their own purposes in their own learning lives," I am not so sure. My experience in the classroom has shown that since cellphones have been allowed into schools and texting more popular than ever; that students are carrying over their texting language onto their English assignments. It makes me worried about their ability to write in a professional manner. But, looking at it in the light of this class as a "New Literacy" I guess it isn't 'bad' unless we label it so. Who says that "l8r" cannot be an acceptable form of the word "later"? Why is LOL unacceptable for a school paper, but ASAP is?
In Chapter 10: The "New Literacy Studies" from Literacies: Social, Cultural and Historical Perspectives by Lankshear and Knobel it mentions, "(new literacies) it does not follow from the fact that so-called new technologies are being used in literacy education that new literacies are being engaged with. Still less does it imply that learners are developing, critiquing, analyzing, or even becoming technically proficient with new literacies" (p.189). So, sure we are using these new technologies in the classroom to help familiarize ourselves and our students with the "new literacies" but it isn't necessarily making students more apt to make advances in such a field. It is part of their everyday lives so much that they aren't thinking any deeper about it, they are just using it for what its worth.I think that it is definitely a social practice AND a type of new literacy. I think that our society has made them one in the same. Everyone is expected to have a cell phone, internet, facebook, twitter, an e-mail, skype etc. etc. etc. For what purpose? To be connected to people that we hardly know? And to become less connected to the people we do know. Because, we would rather send them a happy birthday text message or facebook post than call them on the phone and have a legitimate conversation. Maybe not everyone; but I know that most of the people who wish me happy birthday on facebook are more aquantencies than friends. So whats the point?
I hope this isn't too rambling, but the topic is interconnected to many others in a direct way.
--Nicole
Nice post and I think you hint at the idea that every mode has affordances (possibilities) and limitations. It is amazing to think of how interpersonal communication has changed over the past decade and, even wilder, to think about how it might change in the next decade.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note how much of this new technology s taken for granted by students. In many cases, it is the teachers who are not as up to date on using new technologies in the classroom. Lankshear and Knobel make reference to an article by John Barlow that I found interesting. People can be grouped as either "newcomers" or "insiders" in regards to technology. Most insiders grew up with technology, and therefore are very familiar with, and can adapt to new technologies. Newcomers lack the resources, history, or familiarity with new technologies (Knobel & Lankshear, 2011). The authors go on to point out that many schools are more aligned with an outsider or newcomers idea of new technolgies.
ReplyDeleteKnobel, M. & Lankshear, C. (2011). Literacies: Social, cultural, and historical
perspectives. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
So, how do you think teachers might overcome this digital divide? If they take a new literacies stance, based in Vygotsky's ideas of sociocultural learning, they can look to their students to help them understand. I wonder, though, how many "experts" are willing to acknowledge they don't know something in the face of those they are supposed to know more than?
DeleteI am so glad I am not the only one that is worried about the new cryptic / acronym texting language is going to take over our future language! Although I know that my statement is more of a figurative one, but truly our future generation is faced with a challenge in the foundations of education. I am worried that the digital literacy world will take precedence. With advancements in technology, I understand that there will always be challenges to overcome however, I feel that we need to depend on the educators to teach the our traditional written language through multimodal means. For me, this satisfies the need for quick communication and information dissemination, yet preserves the written word.
ReplyDeleteNicole,
ReplyDelete"I think it is very easy to misinterpret a text because you are missing out on their tone of voice and body language." This is 100% true. In a schema theory it is shown that more than 1 interpretation is possible. This also ties into close reading and the importance of tone, mood, syntax, and the overall message. Having an audio can definitely help with this problem.