The Hawisher and Hawke article was extremely interesting. It was more than just a simple discussion on the evolution of technology; it gave us the ability to take a peek inside the lives of two women a generation apart and examine how technology has changed the meaning of literacy. In their introductory remarks, the authors opine that "if students cannot write on the screen - if they cannot design, author, analyze, and interpret material on the Web and in other digital environments - they may be incapable of functioning effectively as literate citizens in a growing number of social spheres" (p. 642). So is this the end of the world for those who may choose to be old-school in their views of literacy and not bother with becoming tech-savvy? I realize that this is not the point of the article, but I could not help but be drawn to this statement because of the number of people I deal with on a weekly basis from all age groups who have no interest at all in computers. I personally believe that it is important for everyone to embrace the progression of technology and become savvy in all areas of basic literacy. But at the same time, I can understand why some folks choose to be a simplistic as possible when it comes to this.
The stories of Melissa and Brittany were very compelling, mostly because I learned a great deal about how individuals from different generations have absorbed technology and made it a central tenet of the personal and professional lives. I was born in between these two ladies and saw similarities in how they've assimilated technology into their lives with my own experiences, but also have noted some differences. For example, computers had become pretty well mainstream by the time I started elementary school so I cannot recall not using computers. This is a key difference between myself and Melissa, who had grown up before this time. On the other hand, I remember the days before the internet, like Melissa, but unlike Brittany, who grew up using e-mail and online chat as a regular part of daily life. So it was really intriguing for me to read about how different these two individuals are, but also how much they really have in common. One of the conclusions the authors drew from their study is that literacies have lifespans: "they overlap and compete with pre-existing forms; they accumulate, especially, perhaps, in periods of transition; they also eventually fade away" (p. 665). This idea certainly seems very likely as it pertains to technology, but will print forms (such as books) ever really fade away? My personal belief is no, but their relative importance seems to be rivaled by the internet and other digital resources.
Another idea that popped into my head while reading the article is this: Even though two individuals grow up and become educated in different generations, I believe it is possible for them to gain the same amount of knowledge on a particular subject. For instance, I believe that Melissa and Brittany can ultimately be equally as knowledgable about technology and literacy, but can they have the same level of understanding? It would seem to me that Melissa, who grew up seeing the evolution of technology first hand, could possibly have a greater understanding of it because of this; whereas Brittany was born into it and doesn't know a world without technology. Does this fact actually give Melissa the upper hand from an historical perspective? History does seem to be a strong underlying factor in this study, even though the main focus was elsewhere.
I enjoyed your tie-in with history in the last paragraph. You raise some great questions. Having studied art and music history, where it is so important to factor in the historical context of a piece, this idea is very intriguing to me. The article does briefly mention some historical contexts, like the Apollo missions and the Cuban Missle crisis, but it would be interesting to study how these events shaped the people's views on the technology that was developed because of them. Perhaps Melissa does have a greater resepect for the technology having known what it was born of?
ReplyDeleteNeil:
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point in your opening paragraph about the finality of the authors' introductory remarks. As I say in my blog about this article, although there's a Brave New World coming, it's coming more gradually and more in fits and starts than scholars sometimes might have patience for. Maybe this is what you're referring to when you say that some folks choose to be simplistic as possible about this.
Although everyone should embrace the progression of technology and become savvy in it as you say (like we're attempting in this course), we cannot abandon the traditional facets of where literacy comes from - reading real live books, writing correspondence, and boisterous debate (in person) with those we know and love. Technology cannot replicate these things and they make up a big part of who we are. Literacy comes from our interaction with others as much as it comes from quiet reflection on our own.
To add to your final points about the same level of "understanding," I wonder if beyond their college experience how this might evolve because of their varied "uses" of certain technologies. While it doesn't seem like email is going away any time soon, if one person has a desk job and the other travels with a job-issued Blackberry, wouldn't their understanding of email differ? I think this is something we will get to in later readings that are more specific to the workplace.
ReplyDelete"So is this the end of the world for those who may choose to be old-school in their views of literacy and not bother with becoming tech-savvy?"
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this portion of your post because I feel it does indeed ring true. Some people are old school when it comes to literacy and some are not in the sense that they are tech savvy. I think it has to do with what generation a person is raised in that decides how technologically advanced they are going to be.