week five: somewhere in the middle

I have completely mixed feelings about technology. That might be obvious--I'm writing on a blog titled "paper & pencil" after all--but it's definitely something I think about, and struggle with, whenever the ideas of educational philosophy and technology come into contact and conversation. Why the struggle? Because I sit somewhere in the middle between wanting to live on a open-field farm with a rusty mailbox--or maybe an old dial phone--as my only mode of communication with the outside world (also, in this dream-life I wake up at 4 am, do satisfying chores, garden, cook from scratch, live sustainably, write and create, and spend most of my time outside), and absolutely loving the instant access to information, communication, culture, and basically whatever the hell I want that technology affords in my present life (and for some reason I associate city-dwelling, which I do adore and can't truly imagine leaving, with this side of the paradigm).

But, oh yes, this isn't about me. The ultimate question is, what's best (or maybe what's real, or most relevant) for my students?

I really enjoyed reading the Jenkins white paper (which, by the way, is: "An authoritative report or guide that often addresses problems and how to solve them. White papers are used to educate readers and help people make decisions." Thank you Wikipedia). The three concerns--participation, transparency, and ethics--encompass the most significant of the issues surrounding technology and education. And maybe now I should take a look at my vocabulary, because I loved what Jenkins said about how a computer is often "discussed as a magic black box with the potential to create a learning revolution (in the positive version) or a black hole that consumes resources that might better be devoted to traditional classroom activities (in the more critical version)" (p. 7). I've seen both happen, and calling all of this "technology" negates the place of the user, the person. And of course, a computer "does nothing in the absence of a user" (p. 7-8). So I think that calling this a debate about "digital literacies," even though it's just a simple word switch, makes a difference here.

What stood out to me throughout the article was the call for students to be both critical consumers and creators. That resonates with me--it fits into my philosophy. Jenkins answered some of my questions when he said that:

...we do not want to see media literacy treated as an add-on subject. Rather, we should view its introduction as a paradigm shift, one that, like multiculturalism or globalization, reshapes how we teach every existing subject. Media change is affecting every aspect of our contemporary experience, and as a consequence, every school discipline needs to take responsibility for helping students to master the skills and knowledge they need to function in a hypermediated environment. (p. 57)

I hadn't thought all that much about media from this perspective, as a shift in paradigm rather than an add-on to curriculum and lessons. But this is the way to think about it, because our students live in a world where media is life, and it's our job to help them become skilled and critical thinkers and participators in that world. I'm in. I'm on board--I know it will be a challenge in a myriad of ways, but I'm convinced that digital literacies are as important as anything else we strive to teach in our classes.

But...I still have questions. And because Jenkins himself said that questions are okay, and that the puzzling of them is sometimes more beneficial than finding concrete answers, I'll just leave here some of my final, questiony thoughts.

• Sometimes I find myself resisting certain aspects of digital literacies, like online role-play, because I question the authenticity of those relationships, and what students actually learn about communication when they are sitting in front of a computer screen vs. having a conversation with a person--learning to read body language, facial cues, etc. There's an important difference, one that is only learned with practice.

• How much can we actually learn about other people and cultures in an online environment? Jenkins argues that through online role-play, gaming, or communities like facebook, students can "acquire skills in understanding multiple perspectives, respecting and even embracing diversity of views, understanding a variety of social norms, and negotiating between conflicting opinions" (p. 53). I question the depth of this learning. In any online environment you're comfortable and in control--even if there's conflict, you can disengage. How much discomfort (which is the beginning of understanding and empathy) can be created in a virtual reality? I think we as teachers just need to be sure this never takes the place of actual, real experiences with diversity in our students' lives.

• Does the fancyness of technology ever overshadow the beauty of slowness...or the alternate route? I thought of this when reading the Harry Potter example. Yes, Amazon.com is fast and efficient and ships things to your door. And cuts out the middle man. But what about that middle man? What about the community that vanishes completely the moment you stop going to your local bookstore, or your grocery store when you get food delivered...or any other choice you make for efficiency first? Think about the organic movement--mass farming and pesticides haven't done much good for our food and nutrition, but at first (and I guess still to lots of people) it seemed like the quick and easy way. We talk about process, right? It's why we take road trips, and write by hand, and buy real books, and take the time to speak with one another.
  

Are you as frustrated as I am that I can't seem to reconcile my thoughts? Time to take my dog for a walk in the snow.

LINK

The Connected Classroom Blog

The Connected Classroom Wiki

Two great resources for incorporating digital literacies into a constructivist classroom. And they're even in the form of our favorite web 2.0 tools! God I love wikis.