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3) in most curricula is on oral and print Media traditions, of which personally provoked me to ponder if this concept is obsolete.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.