The first readings of both Carpenter and Kress for this block confused me more than anything else, but the second readings were a bit more fruitful, as is often the case for me for some reason. So this summary has taken a while as I’ve gone over them again (this is where I would rely on a discussion forum as I’ve often found that if I don’t get a paper staight away then someone else’s interpretation of it could help me understand).
While I was reading Carpenter, I started thinking about students’ tech skills- it has widely been assumed that students are fairly tech saavy. In my uni I didn’t have much interaction with students until the last six months. Before that I had dealt mostly with academics who in general needed a bit of upskilling. I was surprised with the students though- they weren’t as saavy as I would have thought. Outside of the basics required for MySpace/Facebook/mobile phone usage (navigating the web, uploading photos etc.) they hadn’t really embraced Web 2. In a previous unit, digital game-based learning, I read that one of the leaders in the field (J.P. Gee) believes that players of digital games learn that to explore areas in the digital domain contains little or no risks compared to the real world, therefore they are less inhibited and willing to ‘play’ – he argues that this is a skill that when combined with the social element of sharing information, is transferred to and can be beneficial for learning. I haven’t seen this in action yet though!
I agree with Carpenter in that distinctons between literacies (academic and popular) are ‘eroded’ within the digital realm. Should this also include work-related activity? It is complicated to try to comprehend the breadth of this- but effective digital texts are common to both fields.Carpenter argues (as did Gee) that students (and also academics, workers?) need guidance in this area of common ground- it was a good point to highlight how maintaining a myspace page is in effect a type of critical theory- if we can get students to realise this they will be empowered (as a sidenote- this critical theory is obviously still in its early stages-I noticed recently on a friends facebook wall that his friend (both of them in their early 20’s) had posted her bank account details- no., sort code etc. for all to see. It’s also been in the press a lot lately also about the sexting phenomenon worldwide- still a lot of room for digital awareness).
The Kress paper did make me think about the changing nature of the written/ spoken/ printed word, but his ideas don’t sit too well with me in general. Is there really a revolution occurring? Granted the ‘image’ is more prominant these days. (I’m not sure ‘image’ is the best word for what he describes, I prefer to think of it as ‘overall picture’ if that’s any different!) The screen is probably the default medium, affording us more flexibility than the book, and the role of author is turned on it’s head in some circumstances. Design is now more important, giving readers/viewers/visitors control over their experience, allowing them to interpret what they experience as they see fit. But I’m not convinced that the image is as superior to words/language as suggested. Isn’t language a tool that we have developed over a long time, refined it, continue to evolve it and use it in innovative ways (slang, word play etc.)? So aren’t we quite skilled in the use of language as a result and its development is at a mature stage? I think that the quality of the mode of expression depends on the talent and ability of the speaker/artist/interpreter, so I’m not sure if one mode is better than another. Personally I don’t like screens. I have never been able to read at length from one. As a result I’ve become an expert headline reader- I know everything that’s happening in the world from various newsites, but very little detail about the events. I can appreciate that a well designed website should need only a glance for me to know where to find relevent information, but the physicality of sitting at a desk and looking at something that I find uncomfortable deters me from reading more. Maybe I can appreciate the image-driven future if I buy a Kindle (reluctant to fork out for one at the moment though).
A well designed visual/ website etc. is nice to encounter – you can dip in where you like and get what you want out of it. But the viewer having control isn’t always necessary, sometimes guidance can be handy. I don’t mind being swept away in the words of Gabriel Garcia Marquez for example- even though I am ‘forced’ to start reading at the top left of each page and am at the mercy of his words which are grounded in representations of some chosen salient entities delivered in a predefined order. But these words are empty anyway according to Kress unless I fill them with meaning. But how static are words anyway? I’ve had play this week with my Google Wave account which may make all the social web stuff happen live- when real time is added what will happen?
I found the paper on transliteracies really interesting too. Maybe there is a ‘move towards a unifying ecology of all literacies’ as she says, an all-encompasing esperanto. Does make me think, as is suggested, what is reading, writing, literacy, and what do we use communication for, and what patterns will emerge in the future as we can communicate instantly with the world now.
Lifestream feeds were a little less for Wk 3 &4, as I found the readings to go very slow. I think I need a handle on the weeks material before I can go looking around the web for relevent stuff. Making the artifact was benefical as it summarised for me some of the topics touched on so far, and it was good to go over these again. I’ve tended to leave in delicious links that I think might be useful to other course partipants too, even if they are not directly related to the material for the week.