Week 6: Searching for Meaning in New Media & New Literacy Dialogues…

In my graduate school class on New Media and New Literacies, we are learning a lot about how the Internet is redefining the world.  The way we operate on a daily basis, for example, has completely changed.  I can contact friends and family around the globe in seconds on FaceTime.  Without ever having to leave my apartment, I can order food on Seamless, date on Friendster, meet people on Facebook or MySpace, and learn about new cultures and places through photo exchanges on Instagram.  The world has become a smaller, more accessible place. But that doesn't mean there aren't problems.  For example, the Internet definitely takes something away from traditional social relationships. When I'm out with friends, half of them are checking their phones instead of interacting with me, and many of them want to rush home so they can Netflix a movie, or head into a virtual world - like World of Warcraft - instead of remaining in the real world, with me.  One of the most frustrating issues I've come across is trying to find great online content.  Today, people have an outlet to do and say whatever they want, whenever they want, and however they want.  They can go in chatrooms or post Youtube videos and blogs and speak-out until their hearts are content about anything - without giving any thought to who their audience might be, or why someone would want to listen to them at all, and while this is great for freedom of expression, it makes it very difficult to find innovative and noteworthy content.

One of the Youtube videos I recently watched for my class was titled 'Networks, Power, and Democracy'.  I normally love Youtube videos because they're quick and fun, but almost from the start, I was left wondering why someone would willingly watch this particular video if not for a specific class assignment.  It consisted of a single camera on a woman named Saskia Sassen for nearly forty minutes, with no graphs, pictures or animations to break things up, and although she brought up a lot of grand ideas, what she was really trying to say was discussed in the first 4 minutes.  Her lecture was basically "If we have openness…as we have in network domains…and we have choice…do we get a more democratic outcome [online]?"  And her answer is quick.  Basically, she says we don't, and then she spends the next thirty-five minutes trying to prove her point.  What was so exasperating for me was that she had so much namedropping and jargon-filled explanations, but at the end of the day her point was simple: It's hard to have democracy online when there are real issues of ownership.  And yes - of course that's true! We don't 'Own the Internet', so how can it help us be more democratic when the government can shut it down whenever they want?  The Great thing about this video, however, was that it forced me to do a web search entitled 'Who controls the Internet,' so I could actually understand her issue.  I came across a great answer - one which exactly discussed her points in a clear and precise way - in a 3-page article on the website How Stuff Works.  It made her entire video seem static and dated, which made me sad because she obviously is very intelligent and had a lot of insight, but why should I care about her topic if she didn't care enough to make it interesting and keep me engaged - especially in an age when I can find something similar in seconds?

Another Youtube video I saw was 'Digital Youth, Social Movements, and Democracy in Brazil.' This idea was very cool, and the main speaker, Raquel Recuero, detailed her points in a concise and interesting Powerpoint within the first 20 minutes.  Her main purpose was to show how the Internet is changing the ways people learn, mobilize, interact and exist in Brazil and South America.  In her Powerpoint, she showed the good and the bad side of the Internet, and really touched on  operational, cultural, and critical ways the Internet affects her society.  I loved that, and I learned a lot about the South American digital revolution.  The problem is that her Powerpoint then led to a forty-minute group discussion that added very little to her original message.  Why is it that so many people who talk in a chatrooms, blogs or Youtube videos usually makes their presentations so long and rambling?  It just took away from her fresh and intelligent outlook and made me think, "there goes another great concept ruined because nobody thought to edit this down…"  

In a very similar vein, I read a blog called 'Weblogs and the Public Sphere' by Andrew O'Baoill, about how to increase the efficiency of weblogs as a public space.  Like the others, this at first seemed very promising, but ultimately, his very scholarly piece came down to this:  "Inclusivity, disregard of external rank, and rational debate of any topic are all necessary components of such a space."  Once again, there was so much jargon - along with over thirty sources referenced - and for what?  So he can tell me that its hard to get noticed when you first start a blog?  Or that search engines favors A-list bloggers who know what they're doing and have good contacts?  Or that it takes a huge time commitment to succeed as a blogger?  This is common sense!   He seems to want to create a world where weblogs are more universal as spaces for public debate, but that's Not common sense.  Why would I go on a blog that's not written well, especially when there is SO much content elsewhere on the Internet?  In fact, his article was so difficult to absorb, that instead, I found a Wikihow article called 'How to Be a Good Blogger' and you know what?  They had almost exactly the same information.  Sure, it might not have been a scholarly piece about how to make weblogs more universal spaces for public debate, but the Wikihow article was quick and fun and easy to read, with helpful diagrams as well, and if a blogger actually read that article and worked hard, they might just achieve what Andrew O'Baoill wants for everyone.  

Whenever something as revolutionary as the Internet comes along, there are thousands of voices that want to offer everything from analysis to evaluation.  What is the Internet?  How does it work?  Can it be used as a means for democracy and change?   In the past, scholars and serious authors wrote books and articles on topics like this - which would then be edited-down for audience and readability - but today, everyone has a voice and they can say…well, anything, and they can say it any way they want, and make it as long as they want, or as complicated as they want, and simply put it out in cyberspace for all the world to see.  As a former editor and current middle school ELA teacher, it's disheartening…Luckily for me, however, I live in the Internet Age, and if those videos or blogs aren't very interesting, or if they're too complicated for me to understand, I can always find something more relatable in seconds and put my mind at ease.  

Resources:

Sassen, Saskia. "Saskia Sassen: Networks, Power, and Democracy."  Online video clip.  Youtube.  26, June 2012.  Web.  18, February, 2015.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpw1GpHzAbc&feature=youtu.be

Connected Learning TV.  "Raquel Recuero - Digital Youth, Social Movements, and Democracy in Brazil." Online video clip. Connected Learning TV.  n.d. Web. 18, February, 2015

http://connectedlearning.tv/raquel-recuero-digital-youth-social-movements-and-democracy-brazil

O'Baoill, Andrew. n.d. "Into the Blogospher: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs: Weblogs and the Public Space." Web blog.  Retrieved from: 

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/weblogs_and_the_public_sphere.html

"How to Be a Good Blogger." WikiHow.  How Stuff Works.  n.d. Web.  20 February, 2015.  Web address:  http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Good-Blogger

Strickland, Jonathan. "Who owns the Internet?"  WikiHow.  How Stuff Works.  n.d. Web.  18, February, 2015. 

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet1.htm

Week 3: On Clarity in Digital Literacy

I try to be clear in everything I do.  I don't like confusion or jargon, so whether I'm talking to graduate level students, doctors, mega-geniuses or five-year old children, my language is usually easy to understand, and if it's not I'll pantomime, dance, or anything else to make things clear.  For example, I once drew random circles on the board - hundreds of them like bubbles with multiple shapes, sizes, colors and patters - to show the kids what intelligence is really like (which is vastly different than the 1-100 scenario most people think).  So...clarity is very important to me, and I believe it's very important to proponents of New Media and New Literacies in the digital age, because it's a complex subject with a very rich history that needs to be analyzed, evaluated and understood.      

     

In my current graduate class, New Media and New Literacies, there are some interesting ideas to absorb.   For example, in the book Reading Images by Kress & van Leeuwen, I've already learned quite a lot about symbols and symbolic language - why it exists, how to interpret it, and cool facts to know like how symbols were once language (in Ancient Mesopotamia) and how they're becoming language again (think emoji's for texting).  (P. 21) In their third chapter, I learned even more facts about how images are laid-out to denote completely different meanings, which I found fascinating.  We also watched a Ted Talk by Henry Jenkins on Youtube, which was all about how, throughout history, there are always new and revolutionary concepts which propel society forward and given a voice to a new, young age (like radio, Zines and now the Internet).  Last but not least, we were given a symbolic diagram by a man named Green, to try and make easier the many complexities of literacy as it relates to technology. 

     

What's fascinating about all this is that I can now look at something like Green's graphical representation of literacy and technology (for example) and make some really cool inferences.  For those unfamiliar, his representation uses three interconnected circles, with a rectangle placed in the middle of them, obscuring some of the circles' perfect forms.  Because I've read chapter 2 in Reading Images, I can infer that Green used circles because they represent "an organic and natural order." (P. 55).  Circles denote something old and overriding, grand and endless.  Rectangles, on the other hand "dominate the shape of our cities, buildings and roads," (P. 54) so they are like man-made building blocks.  From this I can infer Green might have cut the rectangle through the circles because rectangles are human ideas looming in a world of natural communication.  However, what Green is trying to say in his diagram confuses me.  After reading chapter 3 of Reading Images, I began to realize that Green could have done so much more to get his meaning across (adding pictures to aid his meaning, maybe having smaller and larger circles to denote varying importance - anything), and yet that never happened.  Do his three circles represent: (1) Literacy Practices (reading, writing, etc.), (2) Literacy Techniques (how we teach literacy) and (3) Evolution of Literacy (how it evolves through time and critique)?  Does the rectangle portion of his diagram denote the Process of Communication (how we - as humans - learn and analyze information)?  I just don't know.  It was very frustrating because I'm sure Green created a diagram to be clear, but without any context - annotations, a paper, symbols or a video, his point was lost on me.  (I even looked-up a video called '3-Dimensions of Literacy' to figure it out. It didn't help, but such a cool clip on the 3-Dimensions of Reading and Writing Skills in the Common Core came up, on Youtube by Paul France, 2014.  And it relates to B. Green because I think Green's diagram was published in the Australian Journal of Education in 1988, with an article titled 'Subject specific literacy and school learning: A focus on Writing').*

     

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Henry Jenkins did a Ted Talk that I loved: it was all about how technology throughout the ages has mobilized citizenship, but today, "our schools are locking out many of these practices…our schools are turning down Wikipedia, shutting off Youtube, blocking social network sites…"  (TEDxNYED, Jenkins, 2010).  Jenkins had a very clear message.  He talked about changing culture in the Internet Age and ended with a very compelling question: "shouldn't we bring it [technology] into our classrooms?"  My one issue with Jenkins is that although his discussion was powerful and clear, he ended with a big challenge to schools that he never even tried to address in his video. I love Internet - especially in my public school.  My kids hacked my computer so I can always get on Youtube and find great videos or images to aid in my lesson, but of course I don't want the kids to be going on Youtue without guidance, or on Wikipedia or any social networking sites, alone. There's a very good reason schools have blocked these sites. Wikipedia is too complicated for 6th grade students who don't even know how to cross-check other sites for accuracy.   If I let them go on Youtube, they'd be watching celebrity videos instead of movies on Ancient Egypt or Rome, and if I allowed them to go on any social networking sites they'd be sending Instagrams and talking to friends all day without any oversight.  

Computer access in schools is a very complex issue with no easy answers.  Let me offer a symbolic representation:  I would probably start with a tiny little circle at the bottom of my page with two people talking inside.  On top of the circle, and connected to it, would be a slightly larger circle.  Inside would be a picture of an early civilization.  Above that - again in ever-widening circles - would be an early language, then a printing press, a magazine, a radio, television, all in larger and larger circles until we get to the internet, the largest of all and dominating the entire page.  Shown in that way, I think it would be very clear that the internet is a massive and unwieldy beast that has taken over all other forms of communication.  Jenkins is right - this new and amazing technology should be allowed in schools - but I'd want some parameters…

     

All my griping aside, let me say this: the new skills I'm learning from this class are many - how to view the world differently (through symbols and signs), how to navigate the complex technological world of the Internet (I created my first blog!), and the many different perspectives on these topics which come in the form of books, articles, videos and diagrams.  Through it all, however, I just want to be clear - because knowledge is a prize I covet.  A man named Richard Lanham once claimed: "literacy has extended its semantic reach from meaning 'the ability to read and write' to now meaning 'the ability to understand information however presented.'" (Academia.edu, Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies).  This is a very powerful statement - and a very scary one - but it's also extremely clear, and from it, I was able to visualize the mammoth sway that digital technology has over our planet, and the problems we're all currently facing as we try to figure out what it means.   

Resources

*"The Three Diagrams of Literacy: A Diagram," downloaded 1/30/15 at: http://read6350secondaryreading.wikispaces.com/file/view/READ+6350+chart.pdf

Kress, Gunther & van Leeuwen, Theo (2006). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. New York: Routledge.  

Green, B.  "Graphical representation of GREEN's approach to literacy." Moodle room Image.  Downloaded from https://moodle.esc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=821667

Jenkins, Henry. "TEDxNYED - Henry Jenkins - 03/06/10." Online video clip. 

Youtube.  Uploaded on April 13th, 2010.  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCLKa0XRlw.  January 29th, 2015.  

Lankshear, Colin & Knobel, Michele. "Digital Literacy and Digital Literacies: Policy, Pedagogy and Research Considerations for Education."  Academia.edu (italicize!).

http://www.academia.edu/3011377/Digital_literacy_and_digital_literacies

Web.  31, January, 2015.