EngComp 1552: Uses of Literacy

I recently stumbled upon this article about how chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed making pencil-like tools and using them in written communication. I found this of particular interest after reading the Baron article about writing “technologies” and how even something as simple as the pencil was once considered a huge advancements, even for humans.

Here is the link to the full article if you want to read and draw your own connections: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004230.html

In Denis Baron’s article on page 16 & 18, he refers to the pencil as an advanced communication technology. Obviously the pencil itself cannot be technology, but why does Baron refer to the pencil as a “technology?” Is he talking about the technology used to make the pencils? If written text was once considered “unnatural and untrustworthy”, why is it still used today?

Denis Baron continues to explain how the technology of the computer can be beneficial. Yes, it is fast and easier to write, but it is not the same as “writing.” Do you think with the excess usage of computers will decrease our usage of literacy?

I had the good fortune to read Carr’s article when it was first published in 2008. I would say that at that time I was on track to becoming something exactly like he describes in the article, a so-called “power browser” skimming over blog posts like a water skier hooked to a runaway boat with endless fuel. Then I guess I jumped too low over a shark and it got angry and bit off my leg.

This article was that shark.

I remember the disgust I felt at myself when I realized I’d let the interwebs dictate my reading style. One particular moment of shame came when I looked at my bookmark list and saw dozens of bookmarks of websites I had skimmed but never read, always planning to return later to fully digest.  That, of course, never happened.

I took my sad realizations to heart and immediately decided to make a drastic change. I stopped using the iGoogle feature, I cleaned out my bookmarks list, and I resolved not to visit my Google Reader page until I had cured what I deemed as a sickness. To this day I am  still “kicking” the internet. My reading habits are returned to their pre-blog levels, I find I can concentrate better on single tasks without being distracted, and I have no real desire to intermingle with the  multitude of useless memes that represent my generation’s contribution to the internet.

One of the biggest changes I noticed after this purging was my thinking. I think when teachers argue, “Johnny can’t write a coherent, well-structured essay,” she really should be saying, “Johnny can’t think a coherent, well-structured essay.” One can be the best, most expressive writer in the world, but if one’s writing is deficient in logicality–that is, the transitions betweens ideas and sentences–it will come out as a jumbled mess. The internet does not reward linear, logical thinking. It teaches us to scatter our brains, to move onto the next meal without even digesting the first. Translated to writing, this behavior results in a chain of related but unconnected ideas that never get tied together. Thus, if a student is to learn how to write “properly” (by which I mean in the traditional, formal sense), she must first be disabused of this mercurial mindset.

My first question, then, is how? I have written about my method. Do you think I was too drastic in pursuing this draconian scorched earth info-detox? Can one live in harmony with the internet, resist its alluring offer to increase brain productivity at the loss of depth and understanding while still harvesting the bounty of what the internet really offers? Or must one “chop off one’s nose to save one’s face” (not the usual idiom!)?

My second question is: What are you going to do? If you agree with Carr, if you feel these deleterious effects occurring in your brain and are loathe to have them continue, will you take action to prevent them from continuing? If so, how? If not, why the devil not!?

Nicholas Carr tells readers about his inability to read long articles or books. He attributed this to google/”the world wide web.” He also discusses how his literary friends feel the same way. These are people who used to read often and made careers out of writing and reading various texts.

My question is this: how does the internet affect those people who are not literary and don’t read books/articles often? Do they benefit from at least some type of literacy, or are there adverse effects?

In his article, Baron specifies ways in which writing differs from other forms of communication. He points out that while writing does not include the non-verbals, tones, pauses, etc. that direct speech consists of, it can trescend time (21). Is this idea of permanence enough to supercede the type of interaction that speech produces? Expand on this idea of what writing “misses out on”. How detrimental are the possible miscommunications that can occur with literacy due to the barrier it creates between writer and reader (think text messaging!)? Also, what this idea of transcending time do for a text? Do you think a text retains its original purpose 100 years later? Overall, what are the pros and cons of writing with Baron’s thoughts in mind?

Lecture halls are filled with the bright lights of laptops–many students choose to type instead of using a pen and a notebook. Passages of long readings are highlighted instead of annotated in the margins. Why do we do these things? Maybe typing is faster. Maybe students don’t have time to read the whole assignment; just skimming the “important” parts would be most productive when it comes time for discussions. As students, we are forced to enter this sort of technology-filled world to keep us on the fast track–we need to get the grade for the credits for the degree as fast and efficiently as possible.

But what are the psychological consequences of this type of lifestyle? Carr notes the decrease in his own attention span, the change in his thinking process. It’s an English major’s nightmare, right?–the belief that churning out lots of information is better than interpretation and close reading. How does this alter our own ABC’s of psychology: Affect, Behavior, and Cognition? How do we, as students, react to technology’s insistence of the algorithmic process of learning as opposed to an absorption of knowledge?

Any personal experiences with this in college? Are you one of those mentioned “pancake people” or have you ever felt more like a machine than an analytical thinker?

Oh my, I am so sorry for this late post. I sometimes lose track of what week it is.

Anyway, my question deals with the original “Why Johnny Can’t Write” article. The paper discusses the disappointing and even shockingly low linguistic competency of college students. Sheils writes, “Willy-nilly, the U.S. educational system is spawning a generation of semiliterates.” She continues to write that “Very little improvement in the writing skills of American students is likely unless the educational establishment recaptures the earlier conviction that the written language is important.”

Firstly, do you agree with Sheils’ opinion? Also, what do you think has caused our education system to stray from its original emphasis on reading and writing as a discipline and a diversion? Do you think that the recent weight placed on “teaching to the test” has caused students to forget how to write and think for non-test related purposes? What can be done to reverse the effects of the current U.S. Education system on students’ linguistic competency?

Since some of you have expressed an interest in alternative education methods, I thought it might be helpful and informative to share with everyone one of the most radical and innovative ways of conducting “school.” It’s called a free school, and the idea is simple: allow kids to do what they want, and they will learn. I won’t say too much about it, but I’d like to provide a link to an article and a documentary about one of the oldest free schools in the US, located in Albany, NY.

http://www.indypendent.org/2005/06/15/why-the-free-school-rules/ This is the article.
http://aeroeducation.org/2010/10/18/free-to-learn-a-radical-experiment-in-education-video/ This is the documentary (working as of Nov. 2)

I said in one of my previous posts that I would not want to be a teacher because I would be forced to assert my authority over a child. This is not the case in free school: children and adults are equals. I think I could teach without reservations (if you can even call it teaching) in a place like this.

(For those who watch the documentary) What do you find interesting about this school? What seems to work? What doesn’t work? Can you see yourself teaching in a school like this?

The comment made by James Knapton infuriated me. I think it highlights a serious deficiency in the adaptability of educators across America. He refers to kids talking and rapping with each other, devaluing the literacy mechanisms and word usage skills involved in modern rap. While I’ll admit that some of the club songs are horrible dribble of language, rap is an art form in synchronization and language. Also, I googled an image of the late professor and he appeared to be your stereotypical white English professor. He probably wore patches on the sleeves of his blazers. The face of education has changed drastically in the past 60 years. More students are entering Universities and attending public schools than ever before. More pressures are always being put on to graduate more students. The schools are under-funded and growing. The sea of students facing teachers is more multi-cultural and linguistic than previous generations. Shouldn’t the material offered to students for reading reflect those changes? Shouldn’t other cultures and values be upheld within the classroom? What does a student from Bolivia, South Africa or Mexico have in common with the teaching of a dead white man from a small Island across an ocean thousand of miles away? I’m not saying that Shakespeare was not brilliant. But I am saying that he is the white man’s pedestal of linguistic capabilities who doesn’t appeal to young learners. I can hear the groans echoing from my high school days when students would pul out their Shakespeare homework. Learning to write should stem from loving and enjoying to read. The more you read, the more you will want to write your own ideas down. But if the material offered to read isn’t ever reflexive of your understood background or personal history, why would you want to read it?

Bartlett’s article focuses primarily on the issue that “college has not been doing a good job of teaching students how to write”.  The question that surrounds this supposed problem is whether it is the job of colleges to teach writing (as implied by Bartlett), or if it instead simply needs to be facilitated.

Throughout the article prestigious schools express concern that their students “lack the skills to write lengthy, sophisticated research papers”. These universities seem to suggest that excellent writing can be taught simply be choosing the correct curriculum. But are writing skills actually missing from the abilities of these undergrads under the current system or  are students simply lacking the interest and effort necessary to produce a meaningful literacy due to the assigned writing projects?