\n\n“Don’t Think of the Technologies: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate”
\nGeorge Lakoff in Don’t Think of an Elephant<\/i>, suggests that we need to know our own values and reframe debates based on those values, not on others\u2019 conception of what we do. This presentation describes the values embedded within NCTE\u2019s successful and popular ReadWriteThink website and the practices that grow out of such values. ReadWriteThink is based on the premise that sustainable digital environments must focus not on the technologies themselves, but on the literacies and pedagogies they support. Accordingly, when people ask how to use software to teach, they are in turn asked how they already teach\u2013or aspire to teach. The advice they receive then emphasizes how technologies can support their current or future practice.\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/blockquote>\nOkay, I can use the "Don’t Think of the Technologies" part of the title; that
\nreally is the point. We have to focus on the literacy instruction, not the technologies
\nthat we’re using as part of the instruction. Sure "the medium is the message,"
\nbut we need to foreground on the message<\/i> part. And naturally we talk about
\nhow the medium shapes the message and vice-versa. But if asked what we teach,
\nwe focus on the message, the communication, rather than the medium, whatever
\nit may be—it’s always some technology.<\/p>\n So right, I can deal with the pre-colonic. The post-colonic though. Sigh. Okay,
\n"Know Your Values" works too. Our values lead us to focus on the literacy
\ninteraction, the message. Moreover, they focus our attention on whether and how
\nthe technologies fit the literacy interaction in question. Our values are what
\nends up focusing our efforts on the discrepancies among definitions of technology
\nin education. As dear Cindy explained:<\/p>\n \nThe prevailing cultural understanding of [technological literacy] as simple competence
\n with computers<\/i> serves to misdirect the energy put into the national
\n project to expand technological literacy—limiting the effectiveness
\n of literacy instruction as it occurs within schools and homes in this country
\n and hindering efforts to formulate increasingly complex and robust accounts
\n of technological literacy. (xx, Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First
\n Century<\/i>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Not only do we consider how these differences affect our teaching,but we
\n also ask students to pay attention to how these definitions shape their
\n interactions with the world around them. It’s oppositional in a way—to
\n focus on the ways that technology in education goes beyond simple "competence
\n with computers" we are better off focusing on the educational goals and
\n allowing the technology part of the equation to slip into place naturally.
\n It can be simpler to expand technological literacy by taking the focus
\n off the technology and attending to the literacy. That all feels okay to
\n me. I can come up with something that relates to that part of the title.<\/p>\n Where I run into the biggest trouble is the "Frame the Debate" part of
\n the title. What debate was I imagining that anyone needed to frame? To
\n be honest, I can’t tell you. I’m not sure who exactly it is that I’m debating.
\n I guess the debate is over how we talk about technology in education; but
\n who am I trying to convince of that position? Darned if I know. Maybe the
\n point is that it’s not a debate for us so much as the conversation. If
\n the "prevailing cultural understanding of [technological literacy] as simple competence
\n with computers<\/i>"—and I believe that it still is—then we
\n need to talk about technologies in education in ways that focus on the
\n cultural values that are in line with our own values. When we talk about
\n digital technology in the English language arts, composition, or literature
\n classroom, too often what others here is a discussion of competence with
\n those technologies rather than significant literacy education. There are many
\n ways that we talk about and identify what we teach:<\/p>\n\n- orality [but I think this one can’t be included if it’s to make sense?
\n hmm… I dunno]<\/li>\n - media literacy<\/li>\n
- visual literacy<\/li>\n
- film literacy<\/li>\n
- technology literacy<\/li>\n
- multimodal literacy<\/li>\n
- technological literacy<\/li>\n
- game literacy [???]<\/li>\n
- out-of-school literacy<\/li>\n
- adult literacy<\/li>\n
- computer literacy<\/li>\n
- multimedia literacy<\/li>\n
- cultural literacy<\/li>\n
- information literacy<\/li>\n
- adolescent literacy<\/li>\n
- young adult literacy<\/li>\n
- new literacy<\/li>\n
- multiliteracies<\/li>\n
- content area literacy [???]<\/li>\n
- early literacy [???]<\/li>\n
- emergent literacy [???]<\/li>\n
- aural literacy [???]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
And for us, the differences between these terms are meaningful and significant.
\n The challenge is that they are often meaningful and significant ONLY to
\n us. To the many people we encounter outside our discipline, these words
\n can be confusing. How well does the average family member understand the
\n difference between technological literacy, computer literacy, and multimodal
\n literacy? For that matter, would our colleagues who spend more time with
\n literature be able to explain such terms? <\/p>\n I guess this is all the "debate"—how we talk about our work
\n to the general public. <\/p>\n I guess my argument is that we have to focus on literacy, and expanding the
\n definition of literacy<\/i> itself, rather than sub-dividing literacy and
\n adding descriptors that tap so many differing areas, we should focus on unifying
\n and expanding. I think. I dunno. <\/p>\n Hell, all that to just get through the title. So the abstract itself then.
\n You know I never write this way. Why the hell am I having to think things
\n through this way now? This is totally silly. But the abstract. <\/p>\n \n\nGeorge Lakoff
\nin Don’t Think of an Elephant<\/i>, suggests that we need to know our own values
\nand reframe debates based on those values, not on others’ conception
\n of what we do. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n Surely I’ve dealt with that sentence. Next part. <\/p>\n \n\nThis presentation describes the values embedded within NCTE’s
\n successful and popular ReadWriteThink website and the practices that grow
\n out of such values. ReadWriteThink is based on the premise that sustainable
\n digital environments must focus not on the technologies themselves, but on
\n the literacies and pedagogies they support.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n Hmm. I should be able to do that part in my sleep. But the part that is problematic
\n for me is the "sustainable digital environments" piece. Well, the
\n word sustainable<\/i> in particular. I don’t have a handy argument for the
\n reason that focusing on literacy leads to sustainability. Maybe the argument
\n is simply that technology in education has to go beyond simple competence
\n with computers. Whether we are talking to colleagues, students, families, administrators,
\n or the general public, the focus must be on the education that takes place
\n in the spaces rather than on the technologies in those spaces. It just feels
\n like such a wishy-washy argument. I need to read up on sustainability, but I
\n really don’t have much time left. Hell. I’ll come back to this, but let’s
\n get through the abstract. Next part…<\/p>\n\n\n Accordingly, when people ask
\n how to use software to teach, they are in turn asked how they already teach—or
\n aspire to teach. The advice they receive then emphasizes how technologies
\n can support their current or future practice.\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n Now I know what I said that part originally, and it sounds good, which is how
\n it got into the collaborative version of the abstract. I’m not totally sure
\n how it connects to ReadWriteThink however. It came from my rambling about
\n when I was at Daedalus. When teachers using the software (or thinking about
\n using the software) wanted to talk about how to use it in the classroom,
\n I always turned the conversation back to what they were already doing. Tell
\n me what you’re already teaching, tell me what you value pedagogically, and
\n I’ll tell you how to tap digital technologies. Don’t start with the technology.
\n Start with the pedagogical goals. But how do I connect any of that to ReadWriteThink?
\n No one is asking me how to do any of this for ReadWriteThink. Maybe I have
\n to pretend or conjecture here. I wish I could make those two sentences go
\n away.<\/p>\n I’m not sure where any of this leaves me. A lot of rambling and I still don’t
\n know completely what I am doing. Damn it all anyway. Maybe if I publish this
\n and reread, I’ll be able to figure it out. Or maybe I"ll skip the rereading
\n and go deal with the laundry instead. There’s just too much to do if I’m
\n to get in the car anytime soon. Bleh. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Regardless of whether I end up in Lubbock, and more on those roadblocks later, I have to come up with this presentation for the session; but the damned thing is making me crazy. I can’t figure out what the hell I’m trying to say. Maybe I’m in that stupid place that we all end up […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-personal-journal"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pqzI8-ac","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.tengrrl.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
|