[This is cross-posted as a (lengthy :) ) comment to Digitality or Why ‘Literacy’ is Dead on Christopher Parson's Blog, Talking Creatively About Education 2.0]
Chris ponders:
"How does one conceptualize education in a contemporary environment?"
I'm going to answer that main question by answering some other questions...
Question 1:
"When a student is taught how to upload videos to YouTube, or how to create a ‘mash-up’, are they really being ‘educated’, or are they learning a set of useful skills?"
It depends how this is taught and why. The first step is definitely skill-based - in order to use any technology comfortably (including pen and paper) one needs to be skilled in using it, so that the technical process or methodology does not get in the way of the thought process. Once the technical skill is acquired however, it remains merely a useful skill unless we delve into why we are doing it.
For example. In my classes last year I had a number of students with difficulties concerning print - both in reading and writing. One student in particular has very little access to the printed word due to a deep case of dyslexia coupled with a lot of moving around and changing of schools as a younger boy. As a consequence, it was not 'diagnosed' and therefore not 'treated' (and there we have the medical terms for disease when all it is is a different way of learning...). This boy is 16 years old and has not learned appropriate strategies for communication as a dyslexic learner, up until this year he was being asked to struggle with pen and paper writing and asked to read text that was decidely immature for him (babyish) because it was of a lower level. I felt this to be insulting. And he did as well, apparently, since he spent most of the first 2 weeks of school skateboarding...not at school but at the park. So I taught him some useful skills, like uploading pictures and working with video, audio, and text to speech software. And then I taught him how to use those skills to enhance how he communicates and how he makes sense of the world. For example, I organized a special day for him with a skateboarder I know (see here:
http://leadingfromtheheart.org/2008/01/13/a-day-at-the-parkliterally/ )
Not all of how he processed the day is on the web. He wanted to keep his experiences, as well as his experiments with new technology, a bit private. He wrote some simple, very basic questions to Marc (the skateboarder) as part of the post-day experience. He was able to write them legibly by using an at&t natural voice reader that read his writing so he could hear any errors and fix them. Marc responded to his questions with a long letter that my student NEVER would have attempted reading had he not had had the text reader. I had taken pictures of his day with Marc and, because he had learned how to upload images, he was able to document his day using Photo Story where he narrated his day instead of writing about it. In this way he could communicate his experience to and from the world in ways he couldn't before he learned the nifty skills.
That's one example.
Question 2:
"The concern that I have is that literacy was born from an ordering philosophical position - literacy campaigns were designed around the need to order media in particular ways - whereas it seems to me that contemporary ‘literacies’ aim to provide exposure to, rather than an understanding of, new environments that students find themselves in."
You are making an assumption here. Students are already exposed to these environments, I don't need to expose them to it. I need to teach them both how to use the tools properly and appropriately and how to critically analyze the environments they are in. In fact, the edubloggers I read on a daily basis are not necessarily concerned with teaching students nifty skills (thought sometimes that can be fun and valid in itself) but how to use the skills for sense-making and how to make appropriate decisions for when the skills need to be used.
Question, er, statement 3:
"The most obvious response (which I don’t buy, but that’s another post entirely) is that students aren’t able to grasp broad epistemologies, and our teachers aren’t capable of explaining it. I think that this is blatantly false (students aren’t dumb, and teachers aren’t inept fools), but lets suppose that the position is as fair as I’m told it is."
Who told you this Chris? I'm glad you don't buy it. A major part of school reforms in Quebec and in other areas has to do with incorporating metacognition into learning, so that students need to be encouraged, nay, taught how to think about thinking, how to think about what and why they make the decisions they make about learning. Granted, it is not an easy process, and teachers are struggling with how to do this effectively and how to assess and report on it, yet it is made easier via the diverse tools available to us.
So, how does one conceptualize education today?
The focus needs to be on sense-making. Knowledge is out there. It is no longer the property of the teacher until she or he shares it with students. It would be unfair not to acknowledge the roles that digital tools play in literacy. And so, I agree with what you write "...teachers should focus on why we use particular environments for particular things." Definitely.
I am really enjoying our latest conversations on literacy, Chris. You are inspiring me to think more deeply about something I care about very much and I hope this continues. I also hope that others join in.
Thanks,
Tracy
Recent Comments