I'm going to be honest here: this post is going to be more of a rant than anything. If I can remember I'll try to cite a bit, but mostly I'm going to be riffing off the general vibe, especially from the kadjer piece.
I've brought this up before, in Tracey's class a few weeks ago during the new literacies posting, but it's something that genuinely bothers me. In this case, it starts immediately in the article as a sort of cautionary tale: the principal claiming his teacher "gets" tech with kids, only to see them using laptops in such an absurd way they'd be better off with notebooks.
As far as I am concerned, much of the computer use in/around classroom activities isn't too far off from this, no matter what is claimed. And it's really a matter of understanding language/culture. That is, there is a definitely online culture. The people who get it, get it. The people who don't try to accommodate the culture into their own understandings. It...it just doesn't work.
In the case of 5481, we read a short article (guy's last name was Gee, forget his first name) who advocated using video games as a teaching tool. OK. He's running off of a false premise in not recognizing video games as skinner boxes (i've said it a hundred times and i'm sure i'm not alone), but his general idea was sound enough. it's certainly a game attempt to make his materials relevant to his students, and i won't fault him for that. but he was so out of touch with the entire jargon-structure and even the ethos behind gaming that i just know it would fall flat with him.
And there's a similar attitude at work in this week's readings. Please note: I DO NOT VIEW THEIR EVERY ARGUMENT AS INVALID. I definitely don't want to be misunderstood, as if i'm ignoring everything they say as somehow worthless. I just think that they're doomed to fail, because they don't understand the beast, as it were.
Now, in the case of the Kadjer article, I won't claim that the recommendations on using blogs are invalid. They're not. But they're entirely based on a mode of communication incompatible, in many ways, with blogs and netiquette in general.
I guess the best way I can describe it is this: we have a mutually accepted code of conduct in a mode of writing. Let's use journals as an example, because it's handy for the purposes of this. We have a general variety of tones, a general type of "respect" that we, as journal-writers, by nature afford to the reader. These aren't instinctive by a long shot. They're learned behaviours and they're subtle. They're based on very old principles of communication tied into cultural norms. As an emotional example, something like sarcasm takes a radically deferential tone in something like a journal. To this day I have to continually look at my print writing when i'm doing a first-person view, and try to figure out where my net-ingrained sense of hyperbole and sarcasm is causing misconceptions. and in my speech? fugedduboutit.
Net writing is different. Net writing is based on its own culture. I ask you this: if by some fluke you're one of 50 americans who gets letters in the mail, compare the language and tone to an e-mail. NOW, if the person writing the e-mail is someone with an online life, they're going to be radically different in a dozen different ways. some will be superficial, some will seemingly affect the very tone. those without that online life, those who accommodated their view of this kind of personal writing into e-mail, will have messages very similar to an actual letter. very little emotion, very precise language, etc.
Email's just different than print writing. "printing it out" doesn't change it. you need to remember: the idea of an internet with rules is new. the net was built by geeks like me...except they were smarter and had patience to deal with hardware. while print etiquette is built on a certain "code of conduct", netiquette has its own structure, and it shows its face in different senses depending on the format. im's are different from texts, texts are different form email, et al. it's all built on the old internet, the one built by those geeks. geeks are generally aggressive, rude, and sarcastic. i don't mean this as an insult, nor do i mean it as a universal. geeks are also problem-solvers, and we take any sort of "rule" as an invitation to bend/break/move around it. communication on the net is built upon this kind of aggression and subversion. most kids these days with internet access live in it and are versed in the rules. it's why this message is laden with a lack of punctuation, is occasionally sarcastic, and is filled with rhetorical fallacies i wouldn't dare approach in an actual print format.
Wanna know why hacking exists? because it's a puzzle to solve. screw "legal", it doesn't apply. the fact that rl society is attempting to impose law and order on it does not, for now, mean that those laws will be followed.
and teachers, such as we see here, are attempting to put their rules onto it. i do NOT mean this negatively. i just mean that their students are more well-versed in the conduct than they are, generally speaking, and they know how to operate it. so well-meaning teachers such as those in the kadjer article throwing out assignment blogs are wasting their time. they're trying to put a shiny hat on a journaling technique, and their intentions are admirable. but they should stick to journaling with a notebook unless they're versed enough to make an online assignment actually different. look at my post here. i'm REALLY trying to make this non-internet in tone. not sure how successful i am. based on lack of capitalization and complete lack of pronouns in otherwise complete sentences, i'd bet it's more net than print. and if this were an actual paper, it wouldn't look anything like this. I'd also use punctuation more.
My reason is simple: the language and deference for online writing by this teacher, as an example, is antithetical to what the students already operate on when online. the article, like the gee article from a few weeks ago, is the modern equivalent of saying "golly look at this here television-box, it's newfangled. we need to get that into class." yes. the intention is admirable. but the language and mode of thinking is outdated. can you teach a student when the student knows more about the medium than you?
another fairly superficial example: raise your hands if you know what it is to be trolled. or rickrolled. either/or. similarties between the two.
again, again, again - it is admirable. he's trying to spur interest by introducing a fun piece of equipment that the students want to use. but they use it differently. it's also admirable for administrators to mandate their teachers keep up to date on it. but if the very mode of thinking is still set to pre-internet, it's only going to go so far. i don't mean this universally, obviously. my cooperating teacher's great with it in a lot of ways, and he also has a view i share on it: it's all part of a toolbox. use what's needed where it's needed.
my link for the week:
it's a recent "blog" post with imbedded video asking, "is the internet really an amplified for youth deviance, bad behaviour, and risk?"
My answer: no, and you're comparing apples to oranges.
No comments:
Post a Comment