shape shifting

I found myself nodding my head and occasionally saying "yeah" outloud while reading chapter 9 at the coffeehouse (understandable as it was written by one of the Gee brothers), luckily there are always some weirdos at coffeehouses. Today it was the girl reading and talking to herself.

Hello? Life has changed. People can’t expect to stay in the same job moving ever gradually up in the ladder their whole lives any more. The age of computer programming (in terms of the model of mind being like a computer with certain formulas and projected answers to slotted outcomes) is over--now we use rapidly evolving technology to enhance the person side of us rather than the other way around. "Identities today take work, a person is expected to craft them out of available social and cultural resources. A person is expected to take on new identities through life, dropping some, changing others, and taking on new ones." (166) We know narratives, story-telling, collaboration, authentic questions, critical thinking, all these things should be making up our classroom practices. And I think technology addresses all these things, but isn't being connected to education enough.

Gee examines particularly the identity-forming potential of current media, despite reluctance and inability to give true equitable experiences with all available technology in the classroom. This would scrape too hard the scab of traditional schooling. Jazus, we can't be letting the kids carry their Ipods and cell phones around willy-nilly! We can't let them chat or look at music videos online, are you crazy? There are no TAKS questions on that kind of thing. Plus, hell, they might enjoy it, and we can't have that. Plus who has the time or the desire to sit around and try to figure out ways to tie personal technology and communication to learning? Certainly not a grad student, that's for sure. Har.

Taking that idea a step further, Brian and I discussed during break once all the components of symbolic interactionism and self-fashioning available via....wait for it.....Myspace. My boyfriend claims to have contracted myspace from a public restroom somewhere in Oklahoma. It has that effect on you. Of course the space that is yours has its limitations (its trendiness being the first), there are only a fixed number of ways to express who you really are, but still, your username, your song, your pictures, your videos, your groups, your quote, your layout, who your top friends are (and in what order, and dammit you better be careful about that), which comments you approve/deny, the comments you leave others, the 'about me' section, the interests section, the blog, etc...all these things attempt to present a digital version of you. You form yourself. You shape your identity, and continue shaping. And of course it's a playground for pedophiles, phonies, porno-hopefuls, and other losers, but you gotta take the good with the bad. More importantly, you have to teach people how to use the tools. But did anyone teach our kids to do myspace stuff? No. That's my point. If there's something a kid latches onto, almost innately knowing how and liking to do things, we owe it to him to connect it to his classroom. Not in a dissecting, scientific, TEKS aligned way, but to consider it knowledge and not playing around. Kids LIKE using technology--they're not scared of it like my parents, or unable to use it in a meaningful way that will enhance their lives.

I'm starting to think that educational equity is tied to the amount of opportunities and experience (with an emphasis on exploration) we can give students, but opportunities are tied not only to economic resources but also to trust. Do we trust that students can benefit from multiple literacies? Trust goes back to underlying beliefs and values. Chapter 12 talks about the differences in search skill (in analyzing the experiences students of different SES attempting to conduct online research) being due to difference in symbolic capital, number of opportunities, prior academic experiences and families' economic realities, and calls for deliberate instructional practices by teachers who understand reproduction theory.

Here's why we really need to be teaching digital literacy:

"pure mind-stuff"

I realized lately how much our perceptions of writing, creating, connecting, etc, centered around the internet, and how they've changed, and how screwed we'd be if it shut down somehow. As I write this, my brain is working out ways to incorporate more information in various formats (pics, links, tags, vids) to make for a better blog. I've become obsessed with del.icio.us and don't know what I'd do without texting (I have unlimited texts with tmobile for $15 a month) and blogging. When encountering an unfamiliar reference, I've got Wiki on my drop-down. But I didn't know about all the cool stuff that you can do as Rheingold describes in Smart Mobs, and now I'm a little scared. I thought the cell phones that pinpoint your location were a little creepy. I hear you can also put a thing in your kid's car and track them around town like a damn dolphin. I recently received a text from a random number on April 20 encouraging me to celebrate 420. There's no doubt our tech-savvy is bursting with usefulness at the sacrifice of privacy. I actually feel a little sorry for Alec Baldwin these days, after his voicemail ranting became public property. Seems like we could do something about malaria in third world countries before perfecting real life gaydar, celebrity stalker alerts, and dating services that beep you when a potential mate is within striking distance.

It also seems the availability plus the instantaneousness (yes that's a word, I just created it) plus the sheer volume of information in our world is going to require a lot more discernment on the part of the sheep, I mean, people.

These words will be worth remembering when millions of people carry devices that invisibly probe and cloak, reach out, evaluate, interconnect, negotiate, exchange, and coordinate invisible acts of ad hoc cooperation that create wealth, democracy, education, surveillance, and weaponry from pure mind-stuff, the way the alchemy of inscribing ever-tinier patterns on purified sand invokes the same forces from the same place."

The discussion about threshold models of collection action and emergent behavior was also interesting--I used to talk to my 7th graders about the difference between a crowd and a mob before reading "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street." "Decades ago, computer scientists thought that someday there would be forms of 'artificial intelligence' ...they never thought in terms of computer-equipped humans as a kind of social intelligence." This certainly holds a lot of promise for anarchists and revolutionaries, all in their Palm Pilot.

Click here to read a fantastic online chat between a guy named Remy and Dell Customer Service. You won't regret it.

Query (especially for writing teachers)--is the pen mightier than the sword?


Simpsons episode about WOW

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign. blockin out the scenery, breakin my mind.

I am having a hard time reading Faigley's website, because it's a website. Too much textbooky type stuff to read and scroll through on a screen, although the pictures are nice. As portable as laptops are, I cannot underline things, flip to see how many pages I have left to read, or jot notes in the margin. It's interesting stuff, but it's not getting through to me as clearly as a neatly stapled packet. Anyone else? I guess the materiality does matter...

Speaking of which, the internet is apparently at risk of being clean-slated. See the newest link to your right for more details. I wonder if this is a step forward in the Digital Age or a step back. We evolve all the time. Just this morning I found this website, so who needs TV, really?

Ahead of its time:

Art in its various forms has been weighing heavily on my mind lately, between frequent discussions of Grindhouse, watching Entourage, trying to re-form my poetry habit, somehow getting signed up for the four posters-a-month club, and just trying to express myself in a way that is both effective and stylistically me. I wish I could paint or draw or do something artistic, although writing is definitely an art form as well, and I can make decent things out of clay...I'm working on a video for my final project about art in the form of graffiti. It's interesting to me because it's the only writing I can think of (besides slander I guess) that's automatically a crime. Berger's quote about the loss of authority over art that came with the means of reproduction reminded me of graffiti: "For the first time ever, images of art have become ephemeral, ubiquitous, insubstantial, available, valueless, free. They surround us in the same way as a language surrounds us. They have entered the mainstream of life over which they no longer, in themselves, have power." Aside from wanna-be gangsta tagging, the words themselves along with the surface they were painted, etched, or carved on create a meaning that's bigger and stronger than most textbooks I read. The message is short and powerful, sometimes incorrectly spelled, but contextualized in life. We all live the context, and I found that most of the messages in graffiti (found on this website and taken from all over the world) dealt with themes of love, politics, religion, the economy, etc...

non-sequitur:

In addition, Literacy in American Lives contains a chapter about the nature of early writing as secretive, rebellious. I think about notes passed back in forth in class, from my own schooldays. I once wrote the naughtiest words I knew on a chalkboard in the church basement (I don't know exactly why), knowing they'd be discovered and I'd probably go to hell for it.

I was excited to see that Faigley included information about Adbusters, I've used that site in conjunction with teaching a media awareness unit with high school kids. Other than the nonstop stupidity charade that is our current governmental regime, the hyper-consumerism of this country makes me itchy in unmentionable places. I always thought I could do well in advertising but never pursued it for the same reason I'm not a smarmy lawyer (not that all lawyers are bad, some of my best friends are lawyers): I don't think it's right to intentionally manipulate people and words, and people/words are obviously easily manipulated. Here's a few more pictures they didn't include:

I'll give you a moment to find your brain-sanitizer and acknowledge that reality is not as fun as the high-gloss air-brushed world we are continually fed.

Given what Siegel's article says about multimodality transformations and literacy, it makes sense that this is where we're at: we're a bunch of sign-reading mofos.