What {I remember from what} I would have {ugh} Twittered:

1) I overheard a woman angrily crying on a cell phone. She said, "This is what you always do! You're doing it right now!" Time and space were hers through the technology she was crying into. Fights in the third space.

2) Announced my engagement through Facebook. So much easier than calling people! Horrible? Maybe. No one got told first though!

3) Read about Snark, by D. Denby. If you have thirty minutes read the whole book, but don't give up good reading time for it if you haven't got it. Internet = convenience for faceless, meaningless attacks without conviction.

4) Bloggers and Unions Join Forces to Push Democrats to Left

I get all a'twitter (If only McLuhan could have had an iPhone)

So I have to admit, as constraining as I find Twitter to be, I love its novelty, how it forces clarity (or highlights a lack thereof), and the kind of compulsion it can become.

With Twitter, you can stay hyper–connected to your friends and always know what they’re doing. Or, you can stop following them any time. You can even set quiet times on Twitter so you’re not interrupted.

Twitter puts you in control and becomes a modern antidote to information overload.

The only aspect Twitter can control though is your reception; you alone are responsible for your impulse control. Just peek at the reasons to use to Twitter:

Why [use the service]? Because even basic updates are meaningful to family members, friends, or colleagues—especially when they’re timely.

• Eating soup? Research shows that moms want to know.
• Running late to a meeting? Your co–workers might find that useful.
• Partying? Your friends may want to join you.

I eat soup all the time! Sometimes I eat really good soup! Soup my friends like too! Well, I'll never have to eat soup in secrecy again. I know I'm being flippant, but I completely enjoy the fact that Twitter takes itself in such great stride that it includes "Eating soup?" under basic, but meaningful updates. Twitter can control when my friends get these meaningful newsflashes, but who can control my thumbs when I find something to be meaningful?

In all seriousness, the reason I started on Twitter is that I have a few times this week been dying to post things that I saw as I saw them. I felt paralyzed by my fear I'd forget. I thought, I should type this out in a note to myself, or I should text myself, or "Gee, we'd use Twitter!" Not once did I trust that I'd remember these instances on my own (nor did I once actually record these instances, either), and I began to think about myself and the effects of the new electronic media.

Take for example, my phone. It covers e-mail, internet, texting, phone, notes/to-do list, music, audiobooks, games, radio, weather, GPS, and clock and calendar. In this way, the technology enhances my ability to get things done and it carries my personal media. The news, music, my calendar and more are all amplified through this medium. But at what loss? What media have been reduced? Books and planners. Music players. Navigation system. Sometimes, maybe even the personal computer, as I've been known to sit at my desk at work and read my email on my phone as I sit in front of my Dell.

I may not have lost a modality, in the traditional way in which a radio replaces the visual, but I've lost a sense of patience I think. My phone makes a sound, I need to see what it is. I use different sounds to signify different things, so I know before I even see my phone that I have a text message, e-mail, or call from a specific person with a specific ring tone. Have I been prepped by previous technologies and their immediacy (from the ringing phone to the friendly "You've Got Mail!") to seek out a singular device that can fulfill my technological and communicative needs? What has my phone returned to the forefront of my life? My connections with others, my need for instant gratification, the visual of a website when I'm sitting in a doctor's office waiting room, audio when I'm on a train. But my consciousness of what is being sent to me is increased simply by being notified, am I really more conscious? I don't remember that I've read an e-mail because I've read it so quickly and didn't have time to respond. I'm no more conscious of my friend's birthday when I know that my Facebook application will tell me when it is coming and I can let that small fact slip out of my mind after I write something on her wall. I'm much less conscious of the environment around me, physically if I'm going to trip over myself while texting between train transfers, and emotionally in public settings while I'm writing to a long lost friend or angry family member.

Well, this is where my mind went a few times when I sat on the train, walked by Union Square, read the newspaper this week and thought "I don't have time to a blog fair justice this week, I just want to write up something about . . . " Similarly, there are times when I really can't imagine engaging my mom when I get from work, but I would love for her to know I'm still getting my soup.

[Finally, Twitter. Verb? I'd hate to think so, but it pains me even more to know that my repeated use of the phrase "use Twitter's services" most likely read pretty awkwardly. I can't quite accept it just yet. I'm sorry.]

Which is often glossed over . . .

Crystal's mention of the etymological roots of CC (as carbon copy), followed by the phrase "which is often glossed over as courtesy copy" really stuck with me. When the archaeologists review my mother's office, they will find the artifact "carbon paper," the predecessor to "carbonless copy paper," and something that has no need in a world without type writers or high demand for handwritten forms. Teachers scoff at the warnings to use a ballpoint pen when completing Individualized Education Plans "in triplicate" because now they are 1) typed, 2) printed and 3) photocopied.

And as much as we try to gloss over the roots of the CC and BCC lines in our email headers, we are still very much stuck in the tenets of formal letter writing. When an email header identifies the date, the sender and the recipient, why are we so concerned with greetings and salutations? Are these stylistic artifacts harder to gloss over?

I work at The Academy of Innovative Technology, a new small public school in Brooklyn. We have access to two computer labs and the SMARTBoards were installed this week. There is a traveling computer cart, and each classroom has one computer. This is technology, though its innovation is still subject to question. The true innovation lies with how its instruction centers around teaching to specialist certificate programs, as it is a Career and Technical Education (CTE) school, but at the end of the day, people want to "see" technology in lesson planning and physical spaces. Reading in the Barton that writing is a form that REQUIRES technology repositioned the concept of technology for me momentarily.

This pause brings to mind ideas that question access and affordance, but more deeply, causes me to question the practical uses of technology. What is the purpose of technology in the classroom? Is simply typing an assignment in a word processing document an effective use of technology? Typed papers always look so great, but is this the best use of technology we can muster in the educational system?

Recently when choosing a reading assessment, I was asked to select one that "used technology." Is this the best qualifier for instructional decisions? Thinking of all of the technology, or implements and instruments, that can be used for a test, are pencil-and-paper exams, scantron bubbles, or computer-based programs necessarily better than a portfolio or oral report, or do they feel more "advanced" in their use of technology?

I suppose I have many questions as I read through these texts, and I'm refocusing a lot of what I do every day through this new lens. What I wanted to do most was go through a day and list the times I've read, hoping to note the "technology" I've used. This is a rough idea, though I'm sure the list is endless:

• Time - Alarm Clock
• Weather Ticker - Television News
• Notice in Elevator - Printed Paper
• Coffee Menu - Printed Sign
• Metro (News Paper) - Printed Text
• Time - Digital Sign in Subway
• Advertisement - Printed Signs in Subway
• Email - iPhone
• Email - Desktop
• Assessment Information - Website, Desktop
• Student Scores - Excel Spreadsheet, Printed
• Student Work - Pen/Pencil on Paper
• Pattern Book - Printed Pages, Bound Text
• Text Message - iPhone
• Desk Clearing - Printed Papers
• Computer Menus - Word, Excel, Photoshop, Firefox, Internet Explorer

Responses from 02.02.09 Class

Models of Literacy
1 Discuss Brian Street’s argument regarding two models of literacy that have been prevalent in educative contexts: the autonomous model and the ideological model. Come up with some traditional examples of ways in which the autonomous model has been applied in different contexts and for different groups attaining literacy. What are the consequences of the autonomous model? How would an ideological model describe these same contexts?

By different pathways, we all came to the idea of Dewey's school house and experiential learning. Another point we all expressed made it clear we knew that Street's ideological model does not run parallel, or as an alternative, to the autonomous model. In fact, in the same way that literacy can be divorced from the other factors of society, an autonomous or skills-based model cannot be instructed in a vacuum. It almost is as if the ideology of a society (its taboos and totems, what is given privilege or held in a lower regard) can not be stripped from the language and the power entrenched within it. It is clear then that these ideals cannot be taken from the instruction and use of literacy and related skills either.

Literacy is experiential, and experiences are shaped in many way the structures and ideologies of society. The style of speaking, the types of text read, the mannerisms that demonstrate listening, and the ways and reasons to write. These skills can only be taught if they are matched to the student's readiness, which is often a product of their life and educational experiences. Additionally, experiences and ideologies shape the opportunities for transference of literacy skills, which reinforce the rightness or wrongness of the literary act. The ideological model speaks to access to literacy events to learning, practicing and engaging skills.

2 Baron does not raise issues of power/control (i.e., an important factor within an ideological model of literacy) in describing different forms (genres) of online communication. Can you predict some issues of power underlying these forms that may arise later in the book?

The issues of affordance and access for me go beyond the material means of participating in dialogue. It is as if the issue is black or white: does the child have access to a form of technology. There are shades of grey in between having and not having that are crucial, and when ignored, paint a picture that those that have have equally.

The expectations of what should be had by whom are influenced by the ideologies of society. The use of the same tools can be seen differently when used by different people, or different models of similar devices can be viewed with bias as well. The student in school using video editing software may be seen as a model to his peers, while a twentysomething editing videos for YouTube may be seen as a less than admirable. Three colleagues checking their work email on a Treo, Blackberry or iPhone may face quite different responses based solely on the expected use of their devices. Even the quality of the same tools can be unequal: it is common for an urban public school in a low socioeconomic neighborhood to have second-hand or previous generation tools.

Are these no less issues of affordances because there is access? There are socioeconomic and sociopolitical ideologies at the heart of issues of what is afforded to society's members. Access must be weighed by more than a dividing line.

Features of online communication: a start
3 I suggest that another way of comparing different forms (or different genres) of online communication is through the lenses of interactivity (more engaging and dynamic) and retrievability (ability to re-visit what has already been communicated in order to reflect and respond). We could apply these aspects of language to the examination of these genres and then consider the educational consequences of their use.

Teachers enjoy making marks and maintaining content for second and third glances, which would highlight the merits of retrievability when using technology for educational purposes. There is a sense that fleeting moments are not quite as educational, which may be understood as not as easily graded, stored in a binder, or revisted at parent-teacher conferences. One topic discussed in our group specifically was the benefit to record-keeping through technology, both in keeping grades and tracking email. However, these are not the educational acts, but rather means of interpreting, reflecting upon, revisiting or assessing these acts.

Perhaps moving towards options that are less retrievable may be part of the shift towards assessment and learning that can be deeper than traditional projects and assignments. While the first incorporation of online communication had come in the form of using the internet as a means of transporting traditionally read and written content, as in emailing assignments, recorded voices, and discussion boards, there is room for integration of more. Interactivity will follow first with availability, and then, if the expectations of online commmunication and its educational uses can shift, beyond retrievability.

Domestication and Publication

The presence of the technology in our lives and dialogue is easily understood through the term domestication. I see how we are harnessing and putting to work the technology before us in the same way we would a car (example from text) or an animal (example from original context of word). I think there's more up in the air regarding the power we have over these technologies as compared to the power we have over an ox or horse, and in this way, even how we make these things our own has evolved.  As a teacher at a technology school, I dread the internet going down, or even being slow, my printer running out of ink, the web filter blocking a tutorial video (or the score of the Mets game), or not have the requisite attachments and wires to show that DVD around which my entire lesson has been planned. I wonder if its just human nature that leads us to call this relationship domestication of these technologies, especially when computer literacy seems to be mastery that does not require knowledge beyond using a smattering of programs and sites with user-friendly interfaces.

Such feelings of ease and control have led to the abundance of authorship on the internet.  Baron addresses accessibility to internet and telephone is almost a given in this country, and notes that one does not even need to purchase a domain name publish.  The information then enters the World Wide Web and is available for all to see, unchecked for its validity, content or mechanics.  (Look, I'm doing it right now!)

I feel like this is where the ideas and arguments surrounding literacies spin out of control.  

Should the power to publish be placed directly into the hands of the people?  Will such dissemination of the ideas and language break down the standards of what is valid, correct and meaningful? Who am I to question what is in fact valid, correct or meaningful?  Will ubiquitous samples of poor language make us forget what good language actually is?  The "ice tea" or "iced tea" example stings.  It reminds me of people who misspeak or misspell idiomatic expressions because they have only heard them spoken, which divorces them from their correct pronunciation, the visual of the words spelled out in writing, and the actually meaning or roots of the phrases.  

 

Though Google attempts to correct me with two suggestions for "recieve" when I enter it as a search, I am given 486,000,000 English pages with the word "recieve" (and in .14 seconds!).   Is this what it means to say that we've eliminated the publisher, or copyeditor for that matter.

I can search for sites on how to build a bomb, lively debate on whether or not Hitler is still alive, and even me (The Amazon.com review for a book on German feminism is mine, but it's on the second page of the search, as if anyone gets past the first on a Google search these days.  It was part of my BA, and a professor's attempt to draw us into writing in a way that was relevant to today's history readers.  Hmm.).  Are these pieces of information necessary in the marketplace of ideas?  I suppose while we can debate their relevance, we cannot deny their presence or their effects.  I think it's the latter that is most important anyway.  I will keep reading.

Reluctance to New Literacies (or "Is it bad I want my diary back?")

I think about the tools and spaces of writing and literacy, especially on the first day of class. I always seem to have a new binder or clean sheets of paper.  I mean, that special first day of class newness always appealed to me.  I think I understand resistance to recognizing literacies because I remember how long it took me to get away from seeing a fresh document window in the same way I would view the first sheet of paper in an unused notebook.  This page and first post are not the start of a book that is bound and read with turned pages.  This first entry will be sent deeper down onto the page and even pushed onto a second page.  The first entry. The second page.  This still does not quite compute.

As for the idea of new literacies, I don't feel the same kind of connectedness to previously written books to be read because they already seem to be disconnected from their authors.  They are mass produced, not actually written in someone's hand, and simply convey the text.  Reading the same text in a book, online as a webpage, in graphic novel form with pictures, is still reading for me. 

Before someone points out that I'm speaking in constructs (in that book and text are unanimous, and that they serve as the conveyance of information), I suppose I should reexamine what I consider the definition and purpose of text in the age of "new" literacies.  As a reading specialist and teacher, I immediately hear the droning voice and the purpose of reading, which imply the purpose of writing, namely to entertain or to inform.  Is this "standard" my maxim only because it's never been questioned?  Perhaps before I try to wrap my mind around the purpose of reading, I should identify things to be read.  

As a reading teacher, I offer my students lists of "things to read" when demonstrating that reading is everywhere:

Subway ads

The ESPN Bottom Line

Cereal Boxes

Forms

Magazines

Tests and assignments

Comic books

Letters and notes

Email

Dictionaries, texts and references

Text messages

Nutrition facts

Medicine bottles

Clothing labels, tags, directions

I see which of these would be "new" literacy forms, and feel that I have been accepting of the promotion of these types of literacy, but I wonder if they require a distinct skill set that I have not encouraged in my instruction.  It's not simply the presentation of the form of literacy that is important.  It's equally important to provide a mean of accessing the literacy, which may go beyond the simple phonemic properties and textural structures which are the majority of what I've studied of literacy so far.