Digital technology has changed the world of literacy inside the classroom and all other aspects of life within the last ten years. We have witnessed the development of social networking communities like MySpace and Face book. We have spent time chatting by typing first over IM, now through Gmail or Facebook. For the first time, people are more concerned about the volume of music they have rather than the sound quality to play on their mp3 players like the iPod. Phones like the iphone or Blackberry Storm have given us the opportunity to surf the web with ease and check our email every two minutes. Skype, one of the free services, has offered communication with distant people using video conferencing and voice chat. These are just some examples of technologies that have been successfully integrated into the fabric of society, but there are many more. As we adjust to these technologies in our roles as users and teachers, our students are growing up situated as consumers and devours of the same resources.
One thing that all of these technologies have in common is that they are social tools. The tools require that we interact with other people in some way, in order for the tools to work. This social requirement establishes definite implications on the ways we interact socially. The changes in interactions produce a rapid transformation in social literacies.
In “Instant messaging, Literacies, and Social Identities,” Cynthia Lewis examines the relationship of instant messaging and social identities. At the surface of instant messaging, we see many reading and writing strategies at work including: “decoding, encoding, interpretation, and analysis,” yet if you delve deeper there are literary practices there for discovery as well. One important distinction that Lewis makes is the difference between literacy events and literacy practices. Literacy events are “any event[s] involving a written text”, while literacy practices are “what can be inferred from observable literacy events as embedded within broader social and cultural norms” (Lewis and Fabos, 2005). I think that the act of instant messaging has elements of both literacy events and practices.
Instant messaging is available on almost all of the technological gadgets mentioned above. It can involve pictures, video, voice capabilities, as well as the expected reading and writing making it multimodal. Allan Luke makes the argument that IM “blurs the distinction between speech and writing” (Lewis and Fabos, 2005). This seems like it would be obvious because it is a form of talk. However, in their research Lewis and Fabos found that just like there are important aspects of speech that are not talking (eye contact, voice, body language) there are also important codes to look for in IM. These codes are part of the meaning making of instant messages. As users found that sarcasm cannot be read through IM, ways to convey sarcasm were developed. These codes are not explicitly taught in the instant messaging world, but users learn them through experience and analyzing the interactions they participate in during these literacy practices. This is part of blending both speech and writing to create a new literacy. While instant messaging has changed social communication, it has not impacted more formal areas of communication in big ways yet.
Are we moving toward a less formal style of communication in the business world or education world? Will instant messaging become more acceptable in the office as a way of communication? Libraries, including Columbia University, are already using IM to reach out to more patrons who have reference questions. Students can IM the library staff who will respond by pushing websites onto the patrons’ computers and chatting about how to search databases or Internet based resources. These uses show how IM is used as a resource, to engage and transform a system of use in the same purpose of “literacy…designing and redesigning social futures” (Lewis and Fabos, 2005). As students who are masters of instant messaging that have grown up with IM as a natural form of communication, go into the job force, I believe that we will see more uses developed and accepted within the workplace. That means that instant messaging with need to hold a more prevalent position in the school world as well.
Lewis points out that, “the reading and writing instruction common to most classrooms may be inadequate to prepare students for a wide range of reading and writing purposes and practices” (Lewis and Fabos, 2005). The implications for our lives lead us to ponder what the ramifications of the spreading use of IM in areas other than informal social communication are and will be in the classroom. In order to produce students who are capable of the “multiple modes of representation-- multiplicity, performativity, flexibility, and adaptability,” norms of school communication and study will have to change. Even if the practice of instant messaging is not introduced into the classroom, it should be acknowledged as a viable literacy practice because, “through metadiscussions of literacy practices in and out of school, students can…analyze the features of the semiotic systems with which they interact across contexts” (Lewis and Fabos, 2005).
As a librarian and teacher, I find that using small groups or partners as working buddies usually assists in creating a new level of comprehension in the group. The social benefits of bouncing ideas off one another, discussing, and changing are advantageous to the group as well. It is interesting to think about being partners with a child in a different class or school even for an integrated project. For older students, it could easily integrate their instant messaging skills allowing that literacy practiced to be “counted” in the classroom, although it is usually discourage because instant messaging often occurs between students during teaching times or other inappropriate moments of the school day. I have questions about whether instant messaging is a safe venue to talk to students outside of school, even for homework questions. Would students use IM as a venue to change the words of teachers? Conversations can be saved and printed, which would be one way a teacher could protect himself/herself from claims of wrongdoing; however, I do not know how many teachers would remember to save all conversations. Another issue of using IM within schools is access.
It should be recognized that there are many people without access to these technologies. In order to experience many of these technologies, up-to-date computers, Internet access, and certain brands of cell phones and mp3 players are required. The topic of access brings up questions about the availability inside of and out of school for most students. Many schools cannot afford computers for every student. Even those who have enough computers often have access to IM sites banned. However, as James Gee writes in the foreword for Lewis's Literary Practices as Social Acts: Power, Status and Cultural Norms in the Classroom, "We cannot separate literacy from trust, values, access, and affiliation" (Gee, 2001);therefore, we strive to continue devising new ways to learn and teach literacy to whomever we are reaching at that moment.
Fabos, B. and Lewis, C. (2005) Instant messaging, literacies, and social
Identities. Reading Research Quarterly (pg. 475-500)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment