ELPC: Journal Submissions...the sequel

New:

 - adjective - of recent origin, production or purachase etc; having but lately come or been brought into being (1)

Media: 

- noun - the means of communication, as radio, television, newspapers, magazines etc, that reach or influence people widely (1)

Literacy: 

 - noun - the quality or state of being literate, especially the ability to read and write. Possession of education. A person’s knowledge of a particular subject or field (1)

New Media Literacy: 

A repertoire of competences that enable people to analyze, evaluate and create messages in a variety of media modes, genres and forms (2)

1. Retrieved April 28th 2011, http://dictionary.reference.com/

2. Retrieved April 28th 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy

Source 1: E-literature for children

Source 1: E-Literature for children: Enhancing digital Literacy learning

Unsworth L, (2006). E-literature for children: Enhancing digital Literacy learning. London: Routledge

Thomas, A, (2006). Book Revew: E-learning for children: Enhancing digital Literacy learning, University of Sydney, Retrieved April 10th 2011, http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=elea&vol=3&issue=2&year=2006&article=11_Book_review_ELEA_3_2_web

Dan, Hyperlinks don’t split Narratives, they streamline it: Dan Blog, Retrieved April 10th 2011, http://article_dan.posterous.com/hyperlinks-dont-split-narrative-they-streamline-it

Poore M, March 2011, (Personal Communication)

I selected Source One for one particular reason. This book is a resource ahead of its time, referring to the role of the teacher and the activities of a multimodal classroom beyond this transition into the ‘digital era’. (Poore, 2011) The books synopsis indicates the effectiveness of “exciting new forms of digital narrative” (pp xi) in teaching early childhood literacy. Unsowrth’s focus? To inform and encourage teachers about the dialogue between traditional story books and their media counterparts, such as “CD-ROM versions of stories, computer games....fan-fiction communities.” (Thomas, 2006) Addressed specifically to a teaching audience, Unsworth also educates the reader on the changing nature of literature in a media classroom, and the “integral part played by the web in children’s experience.” (pp xi) The majority of this book references, “emerging digital narratives,” (pp 87) and is divided into examples of the different formats in which e-narratives are formulated, such as “reader alignment with the point of view of The Littlest Knight,” (pp 97) or “Animation scenes...of the The Little Prince,” (pp 64). Unsworth concludes with practical examples on how one might introduce media into units of work, not only to construct a more engaging and relevant classroom environment, but also to make use of the computer facilities that are currently so widely available. 

Chapter five of this book, “Hyperfiction for children and adolescents” (pp 87) was particularly confronting for me. As a twenty-something, well educated and relatively tech-savvy post-graduate, I was stumped by the term “hypertextual literature.” (pp 119) Unsworth acknowledges his understanding of these “multimedia electronic narratives” (pp 119) through the work of (Gee, 2003), stating that these new forms of literary narratives are not educationally praised because of their literary qualities, but rather the, “different narrative technique used to influence the ‘identification’ of readers with story book characters.” (pp 119)

“Links are a problem for stories. They may be used to reference, annotate, explicate and disambiguate, but they also divert attention, and sometimes they excise and replace information altogether.” (Dan Blog 2010)

Prior to reading Unsworth’s book, this quote would have represented my opinion on “multimedia electronic narratives”. (pp 119) If i were to apply the same theory to my reading of blogs, I am also quite easily distracted by various points of attention and the variety of media available in one spot. So wouldn’t it be fair to assume that this scenario would be exponentially more challenging for a five year old? Au-contraire. The compositional features, “analysis of story, literary devices, multimodality...interactivity” (Thomas, 2006) in hypertext environments, “subvert reader’s expectations.” (Thomas, 2006) Ultimately, they create new opportunities to enrich a students literature skills in more modern and engaging formats.

Whilst this source targeted an age group below what I would expect to be teaching, and is not entirely relevant to my subject area (targeting the, “digital divide in the English classroom” (pp xi)) it managed to, once again, open my education into broader realms in a digital environment. Beyond this reading I am assured to investigate further online literary option that I could explore and instill in my classroom.

Source 2: Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project

Source Two: Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project

Prof. V.J. Manzo, Dr. Rick Dammers . (2010). http://www.imtcp.org. In IMTCP. Retrieved April 10th 2011.

vjmanzo. “IMTCP (Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project ) (2010) imtcp.org || eamir.org”. (September 5th 2010). Online Video Clip. Youtube. Accessed April 10th 2011.

The fifth source in my New Media Literacies investigation, is IMTCP, the Interactive Music Technology Curriculum Project (Manzo&Dammers, 2010). I have selected this as a source as it demonstrates Media technologies being integrated in mu subject area, and into the music curriculum. This was of particular interest to me. Whilst I always was aware ICT was available as a learning medium for music students, I never suspected it would influence the Music curriculum to a point of altering it, or revolutionize the fundamental learning pathways of potential musicians, composers and musicologists. 

IMTCP was a research project instigated in 2010 as a means to teach music subjects to “non-traditional music students” (Manzo&Dammers, 2010). The experiment required that  subjects learn musical concepts by “engaging with software-based musical instruments”. Students underwent observation for one week in which they learnt composition and harmony  theory, experienced practical based activities, and were called on to compose original musical scores. Subjects selected had either no formal music training or were not part of their schools music program.

Whilst the project was an interesting look at alternative, and probably more culturally attractive, methods in which we might teach music to non-inherently musical students, I found two basic flaws in its foundations. Primarily, subjects only underwent education in music which was, “culturally familiar” (Manzo&Dammers, 2010) to them. That is, Western Music. As a result, the ‘“lessons in chordal changes and harmonic direction”(vjmanzo, 2010) are only applicable in western music education, and more often than not, are only relevant to the past 20-30 years of composition. The second obstacle that would be faced by instituting this program, is the technological demand. iMacs, an instructor computer with projector, a USB midi controller, alternate controller interfaces, EAMIR software and Garageband were all necessities in order for the research to be carried out successfully. Instituting these in multiple socio-economic environments is simply not a feasible task. 

Source 3: A Language Revolution

Source Three: New Media Literacies: A Language Revolution

Katrina Woolsey. (2005). New Media Literacies: A Language Revolution. Retrieved April 10th 2011, from http://archive.nmc.org/summit/Language_Revolution.pdf.

Poore M, March 2011, (Personal Communication)

Source Three is a paper that provides an objective analysis, exclusive of the, “confusions with terminology...in the literature” (pp 2) regarding the evolution in communicative dimensions brought upon by new media, and how this media has, “fundamentally changed the nature of...thinking and human expression,” (pp 2). The third avenue that Woolsey explores in her thesis is that, arguably, “digital technologies have created....a language revolution,” (pp 2) as opposed to a media revolution. In the transition period in which we find ourselves, Woolsey states that their is no current framework, constant vocabulary or dimensions of classification available that allows us to, “identify, describe, encourage and evaluate,” these new media potentials. New Media Literacy is one buzz term she uses to describe this phenomena.

Woolsey makes a point in distinguishing the characteristics of what is termed, ‘Media Literacy’ (pp 3) and the traditional ‘oral and print literacy’ (pp 3). Quite importantly, she demonstrates the impact of Media studies in different curricula, and even when incorporated, it can be used in different ways. This includes teaching students to “read the messages of popular culture” (pp 3) to being instructed on how to create Media. She states that the “prevalant judgement” (pp 3) in most curricula is on oral and print Media traditions, of which personally provoked me to ponder if this concept is obsolete. 

What is intriguing about this paper is the positive approach to a “new language community” (pp 5) that is evolving. Woolsey describes these new environments as having the potential to be productive, as the casual and colloquial contexts produce a new literacy that is, “quite like spoken language,” and thus encourages, “human communication and imagination,” (pp 5) in a very new way. She also points out that the nature of these environments place less importance on memory (pp 2), as was done in traditional aural and written cultures, and greater importance on organization and catagorization. This is a, “new environment for human thinking, learning and communication.” (pp 2) In stating this, she encourages the reader to consider digital media not as, “new media” (pp 6) but rather as “traditional media” that has been “altered drastically.” (pp 6) I see this as an incredibly intelligent way to view the digital revolution we find ourselves in, as it considers the shift in literacy on a much grander time frame than what people usually consider. 

In my opinion, the objective and factual writing style of this paper made it fluent and engaging to read. The chronological layout of media trends supported Woolsey’s argument successfully and enforced her thesis thoroughly. One issue that I was conscious of in the reading however, was her constant collaboration of New media Literacies to particular schooling systems. She did not tackle the issue of the inevitable ‘digital divide’ (Poore, 2011) and thus the paper harbored a slightly utopian perspective to the implementation of ICT in a school environment. 

Source 4: iBrains

Source Four: Your iBrain. How Technology changes the way we think

Gary Small, Gigi Vorgan. (October 2008). Your iBrain: How technology changes the way we Think. In Scientific American. Retrieved 10th April 2011, from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=your-ibrain.

Doidge N, (2007), The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science, Viking Penguin: United States

Doidge N, (2010), Norman Doidge MD: The Brain That changes itself, Official Website, Retrieved April 10th 2011, from http://www.normandoidge.com/normandoidge/MAIN.html

Source Four is an article written by Gary Small and Gigi Vorgan. It take a neuro-scientific approach to the possible impact that ‘high technology’ is having on the evolution of our brains. The humorous opening paragraph in which Smalls prints, “Hey Lady! Wake up and smell the computer age!” sets the standard for the colloquial and baseless foundation for this article. That is not to say that it doesn’t offer many valid and rhetoric scientific questions. In fact, in conjunction with other neuroscience readings, it proved to be quite a provocative and stimulating paper. 

The article is built around the theory that exposure to high technology stimulates brain cell alteration. In brief, “digital technology is not only changing the way we live...it is profoundly altering our brains.” New methods of thinking, engaging and digital literacy results in our brain strengthening new neural pathways and weakening old ones. This concept of Neuroplasticity that Small and Vorgan are alluding in their argument, has become something of a buzz term recently. Thus in order to substantiate the ideas surfacing in this paper, I cross referenced these ideas with more credited publications. 

The Brain that changes itself (Doidge, 2007) also explores this new scientific phenomena of Neuroplasticity, and, “it’s implications for all human beings...not to mention human culture and human learning.” (Doidge, 2010). Doidge and Small both refer to the brains behavior of, “re-mapping, retooling and evolving,” (Small, 2008) in order to process the limitless information and communicative dimensions available. Small comments, “They’re not superhuman. They’re our 20-something co-workers, your children and your competition. Are you keeping up?” This statement reiterates that technological ‘presence’ appears to be altering the very nature of the environment in which we work and consequently how we adapt in this context. 

The article was concise and comical, however it lacked scientific reinforcement, which lead me to conclude that it was more of an opinion piece of writing. Through further investigation I found the information in the article to be accurate, but this only came after I outsourced scientific accreditation myself. The informal style of writing however, enticed me to ponder bigger questions. For example, what are the professional, social and political impacts of this new brain evolution? And what is the price of adapting? Whilst Small and Vorgan pose a lot of questions like this, they fail to answer them. Perhaps this is the purpose of the article, to make us think. And so I did.

How much of this digital environment do I really understand? How much will my students understand? By integrating technology in the classroom, will I be giving my students what they want and need? Are they learning, or possibly even evolving their brains less efficiently if I choose not to incorporate digital media in my classroom? In true Small and Vorgan style, I leave this questions lingering. 

Source 5: Teachers teaching how to learn

Source Five: How Teachers Can Teach their students to learn

Kiewra K, (2002), Theory into Practice: Becoming a self-regulated learner, (pp 69-78), New York: WH Freeman 

Poore M, March 2011, (Personal Communication)

Poona J, NSW Department of education, (2003), Quality Teaching elements, (retrieved March 25th 2011), http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Schools/Education/Pedagogy/2006/SummaryofQuality-JanPoona.pdf

Information and knowledge is something we now have an abundance of thanks to Web 2.0. What students lack, is the ability to learn. Teaching a student to learn involves harnessing and facilitating their unique learning style. Thus my final source, Kenneth Kiewra's paper ‘How teachers can teach their students to learn,’ suggests that, “Classroom teachers can help students learn.” (pp 1) Whilst students may harbor the techniques that enable them to rote learn information, they lack the “deep understanding...deep knowledge” (Poona, 2003) of course material, rendering them, “deficient learners” (pp 1). He names the duty of the teacher to be a, “good strategy instructor” (pp 8) in order to produce an efficient learner.

An amalgamation of my four previous sources that I have investigated in order to deconstruct New Media Literacies in my own terms, invites me to assume that a change in communicative dimension, (Woolsey, 2005), an evolving media-dependent curriculum, (Manzo&Dammers, 2010), and a potentially endlessly plastic brain structure, (Doidge, 2007), would also result a new environment of learning strategies, potentials and problems for students. This paper by Kiewra doesn’t investigate how we may achieve this new technique to faciliatet our students in their ability to learn in a digital era. Instead it focuses on the role of the teacher in facilitating a students ability to learn, rather than transmitting information to them. This is a fundamental teaching philosophy, made even more prominent in a digital era in which we have an overwhelming abundance of knowledge ad information sources. 

SOAR, (select, organize, associate and regulate) are four empirically supported components of learning addressed by Kiewra, which he believes effectively facilitate a students learning. (pp 3) He investigated if these where more beneficial study methods than the, NORM' (pp 8) or conventional methods employed by college students. The purpose of these experiments was not to confirm or deny that college students are “deficient learners” (pp 1), but to prove the need for educators who will, 'present information effectively and....give students the means to learn.' (pp 8) 

A conundrum presented in the article however, were statements such as, 'Little is known about what students actually do with notes following lectures." (pp 6) Whilst these sweeping statements are incredibly general and subjective, they are also completely unsubstantiated. A ten second google search on my basic home computer indicates that there is an abundance of knowledge on such an issue. Statements like these compromise the validity of Kiewra's paper, as well as bringing to the attention of the reader, the outdated sources informing his knowledge and opinions. Whilst Kiewra draws upon a variety of sources to construct his thesis, they are drastically outdated, including only one from the 21st century. This indicates a major gap in the information relevant to this topic. Kiewra's argument for this paper might have 

been progressive and ground-breaking in 2002, but in 2011 it is almost entirely obsolete. 

The dated information of this paper also means that it doesn't address the issue of ICT in the classroom. Perhaps a revision of this paper today would result in very similar cognitive problems in our students, or potentially very different ones. 

As Kiewra states, a students ability in the classroom should extend to learning efficiently independently, and to strive to become better learners, rather than just, "studying noted ideas by rehearsing them one at a time." (pp 2) According to the paper, this duty lies in the hands of instructors who should strive to become, 'fishing teachers.' (pp 8) by, 'embedding strategy instruction within their subject matter courses,' (pp 1) and 'develop matrices and build models on their own.' (pp 8)

Whilst this source was fundamentally quite problematic, I still found it effective in my understanding of New Media Literacies. In this paper, Kiewra puts forth a basic teaching philosophy. A teacher is not a transmitter of information, they are a facilitator of learning. (Poore, 2011) In an era of digital media in which teachers have even less of a grasp of truthful information that their students may access, it seems even more obvious that our focus should therefore be in, “teaching students to learn,” rather than just teaching them facts.