Next Thursday, please bring your printed field notes for us to devote time to your case study!
Blog questions:
Multimodality and assessment
Stornaiuolo, A., Hull, G., & Nelson, M. (2009). Mobile Texts and migrant
audiences: Rethinking literacy and assessment in a new media age. Language
Arts, 82 (5), 382-92.
- In this article, the authors argue that young people growing up in a
digitally mediated educational milieu have “wide-ranging opportunities to
choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others (pp. 383 of
original text).” Does this argument seem somewhat naïve or romanticized in
that these very same young people face far greater constraints, where
identity construction is concerned, i.e., available selves, vis-à-vis their
more affluent white counterparts?
- The authors argue for a re-conceptualization of the current
measurements, which seek to gauge young people’s cognitive
abilities/capabilities. More specifically, they argue for assessments that
take into account poor, marginalized students’ multimodal,
culturally-informed, pre-existent identities. If these types of
measurements are enacted, what if any, effect do you feel they will have on
the lives of young people whose lived experiences mirror the students
highlighted in this paper?
Stein, Pippa. (2004). Representation, rights, and resources: Multimodal
pedagogies in the language and literacy classroom. In Bonny Norton &
Kelleen Toohey (Eds.), Critical pedagogies and language learning (95-115).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- The author argues that: “Classrooms are semiotic [meaning-making]
spaces in which multimodal texts are constantly being produced and
transformed by human beings who are the agents of their own meaning-making
(pp. 98 of original text).” Do you agree with this line of thinking? More
to the point—are students truly “agents of their own meaning-making” or are
they identities, in fact, informed and (re)configured by the institutions
and structures that they are enmeshed within? (This doesn’t have to be an
“either/or” argument.)
- Do you agree with Stein’s argument that language is limited? What
does she mean by this? Please explain.
1) In Stornaiuolo, Hull, & Nelson's 'Mobile Texts and Migrant Audiences: Rethinking Literacy and Assessment in a New Media Age,' the authors argue that young people growing up in a digitally mediated educational milieu have "wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others." Unfortunately, this fails to take into account how constraining digitally mediated education can be. For example, the piece mentions a student named Alana who changes her profile avatar many times over the course of the study. From Disney princesses to football stars to slain rappers, Alana is ultimately only able to define herself with a two-dimensional 720-pixel digital image that is most likely already online. This ultimately restricts her ability to represent herself as it omits other media. Furthermore, it's dependence on the culture at large forces those who meet her online to be familiar with Disney characters, Reggie Bush, or Tupac Shakur in order to understand how she chooses to represent herself.
ReplyDelete4) In Pippa Stein's 'Representation, Rights, and Resources: Multimodal
Pedagogies in the Language and Literacy Classroom,' the author argues that language is limited. What Stein may mean by this is that language is entirely representational and subjective. For example, the word "red," may elicit an infinite number of ideas in one's mind's eye as to what "red" is, but there is no objective idea of "red." Language is a limited medium because it tries to condense the subjective and the personal into the objective and universal, and much is lost in this compression. Language is limited by one's own experience and reference point, or lack thereof. For example, as stated in my field notes, a student at SMDP was having tremendous difficulty understanding the concept of his spelling word, "thin." One reason he may have been struggling was he had no reference point for the idea of "thinness," from his home life.
1. It does seem somewhat naïve to suggest that students who grow up in a diverse (technological, digital) world are better able to represent themselves. The students whom the article’s authors are researching come from disadvantaged backgrounds that need to stay in afterschool programs because their parents might not have the time to take care of them. The author’s judgments are based on a few students in programs like DUSTY, which means that they might not be applicable to all. Also, because these students are representing themselves through an online network, their identity is only available to those who also have access to that online network. For example, Alana represents herself through a few profile pictures that might not mean anything to other students who do not identity with such figures, especially students in other countries.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that teachers and educators should evaluate their students on wider measurements rather than just those standardized measurements that are imposed by state governments. Students who have been known to do poorly on standardized tests like the SATs will, I believe, benefit because they will no longer be judged and scored solely on how well they do on a biased standardized test that is meant to measure how well students take a test. Students who have felt marginalized will be able to express their lives and knowledge through ways that they feel comfortable and can succeed in doing so. However, there are also some issues that can result in the new measurements. Many of these students come from backgrounds that can be depressing, violent, etc. and so creating new measurements can make it seem that is it okay for them (the students) to live in household like that because they will be better able to express them. At the same time it can be a positive thing because educators will be able to help the students in such situations.
Lorna Porter
ReplyDelete2. The authors, Stornaiuolo et. all argue that the current measurements used to gauge young people’s abilities need to be rethought and altered to account for the lives and identities formulated outside the classroom due to economic and social circumstances. I agree that such measurements should be created, because they will serve to bolster the self-confidence in identity for young people who have experienced circumstances similar to that of the students in this paper. Current measurements are culturally tied to white, middle to upper class upbringings, and as such, can destroy the self-confidence of a marginalized student, as well as make their upbringing seem not as valuable. By bringing into measurement different cultural expression, language expression, and economic experiences, it takes out the element of discrimination and allows for more comfortable expression and can improve confidence in one’s self. Rather then acting as a discouraging mechanism, these measurements can allow for teachers and faculty members to become aware and alter their teaching to try and bring in each student and address specific needs to create the best chances for success.
4. Stein argues that classrooms are spaces in which students who are their own “agents of meaning-making” take the texts and learning materials and create their own meaning from them. I feel that there is no black or white answer here, but rather that students come into the classroom as independent, free-thinking minds with the power to view and transform the education material and atmosphere, but also that the classroom contains within in it the power to transform and influence the student. The identity of a young adult is not fully formed, and I would even argue that our identity as a human is never truly formed, but is constantly informed and changed by the structures and institutions around us. The classroom is an even more dramatic version of such, as the relationship between teacher and student, student and peer, student and textbook, and student and the self is constantly pushing the student to question his or her own values and change them. In some cases, the institutions of the public school system can have a more dramatic impact, and can either foster a child’s passion, or destroy confidence. On the other hand, I believe that we all are gifted with unique passions, thoughts, and values that have developed outside the classroom through our interactions, self-exploration, and natural being that make us “agents of our own meaning-making”, and if one brings this into the classroom, it can complement the semiotic nature of a classroom and allow for growth.
1.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see how this argument could be seen as naive or romanticized since these young people may face far greater identity construction constraints, I think that is actually part of the argument: A lot of these children do have to deal with extreme constraints on their identity construction, and these digitally mediated education models allowed these students to break away from some of these constraints to a certain degree. As the article shows, the students are free to express themselves as they choose. One example is of the student Ismael who chooses to identify himself as a “hacker” through the way he writes to other students in the Kidnet program. Other students could identify and express themselves as Artists, like Bakhti. So, while these students may face great identity constraints in their environment or living situation, digital mediated education is a great tool to help these people break out from these holdings.
2
I’m a bit split on whether or not I agree that the measurements should take these certain identity criteria into account. While I can see why it would be important and beneficial to make these assessments that take into account the different backgrounds of the student, I think it would be pretty hard to make a standardized test that accurately measured the ability of the student with these ideas in consideration. However, I think I will lean toward their enactment. I think that if they are enacted, the young people that do have live poor, or marginalized lives will have a much better chance at having their intelligence/ability more fairly assessed. As we know, many of the current standardized tests are somewhat biased when taking into account these circumstances of identity. Perhaps by enacting these new assessments, the test will be more balanced and allow for more knowledge to be recognized as opposed to the students simple ability to rehash ideas learned in school, or their ability to take a test.
1. The argument that youth growing up in digital media have “wide-ranging” opportunities to express themselves seems to go a bit too far. This argument holds that with the increased media more means to express oneself are present, and thus a better sense of self is available for the education of youth. The argument is valid in that it associates the increased media with a better sense of self; it would be difficult to question this logic. However, the argument is attacked in whether there is increased media available to students. I will further elaborate.
ReplyDeleteThere is undoubtedly increased media currently than even a few years ago, and this trend appears to continue. However there can be increased media without access to it. That is, it could be the case that students in Oakland are surrounded by increased digital media, but without the financial means to have the computer to access youtube or participate in the online class oriented forum. The argument should is relevant not to merely having increased media more that it is increased media access to youth. If youth have more access to digital media, then the rest of the argument falls into place: these kids will have more ways of expressing oneself, and thus will have a better overall sense of self and identity in relation to others in the world.
In this sense, the argument does not necessarily seem naïve more that it is not well specified. In itself, increased media does not imply students’ better sense of self. It is the students having more digital means of expression, which does not necessarily correlate with mere increased media, that brings the result that this paper wants.
This distinction or clarification becomes important because many of the students just so surrounded by digital media do not have the means to access and express themselves through this media as others do. Any assessment of reading and writing that “reward[s] those children who share the linguistic and cultural background of the test-makers” (385) continues the inequity involved. It continues the way in which despite increased social media outlets, many students in disadvantaged environments cannot actually use these outlets due to socioeconomic reasons. This is the sense in which the argument seems romanticized, because it overlooks the disadvantaged circumstances of many students that play a big role in the reasoning of the argument.
2. If the proposed kinds of measurements are enacted, the efforts could possibly be huge. That is, if disadvantaged students were able to be evaluated in a way that allows them to be more fairly represent their “pre-existent identities,” it would allow these students that work incredibly hard to effectually bring about their own success. They would not be held back by socioeconomic disadvantage. The whole premise behind disadvantage would likely disappear.
That is, the way that disadvantaged students are disadvantaged, which often is the inability to relate to standardized tests, would be alleviated and hopefully solved. This disconnect between the disadvantaged unable to relate to the test as the more affluent counterpart would be less severe. The stakes itself for being disadvantaged, that is, the real meat of the issue, would be addressed. Since students are evaluated by standardized tests, which play a significant role in
their academic future endeavors, forming a more fair measurement of evaluating students would help allow disadvantaged students to access higher social capital.
This change, the hope goes, would give these students a beacon of hope, a worthwhileness to their efforts, and a reason to apply themselves to education and social mobility. Moreover, students could more easily involve “multimodal learning,” the “interplay of process and product, and everyday literacy contexts” (386) so to gain the “newly available means of thinking, representing, and communicating offered” today.
3) Semiotic studies go beyond the breadth of a classroom environment when annexed to roles of pedagogy. Stein draws her concept of meaning making from “historical, sociocultural, and linguistic contexts” (96). Stein also outlines the assumption of pedagogy as a semiotic activity within relations of culture, history, and power; all of which saunter under an umbrella of differences. After reading this piece, I am more inclined to somewhat agree with the author. I only somewhat agree because of all the variables at play that simply can’t be confined to an educational discourse. However, the classroom is where semiotics are most prevalent, especially in a multimodal capacity where learners and teachers interpret each other’s symbols. And there’s history behind those symbols that serve to underpin their significance. Sure, students are agents of their own meaning making, but so too are the teachers with this notion of institutional imposition on one’s semiotic excursion being subjective. That is, different cultures foster certain expectations that can severely hinder the shaping of material that they’re presented. According to Kryss, “the very materiality of the stuff, what it is like as material, what any one culture has done with it, how a culture has shaped it, has deep effects on what people may do with it.” Essentially, the possibility of meaning making does exist and the relationships between teachers and students are best served to enact the potential within the symbols they exchange.
ReplyDelete4) Stein’s “Assumption 5: Language is limited” focuses on silence as the participants’ rightful aptitude in multimodal pedagogy. Drawing on oppressed South African taboos, the author explains the importance of society as it applies to literacy in the classroom. The driving force behind silence is its sociocultural weight and the underlying, civil concomitance. Stein argues that “language, itself, as a mode of communication is subject to constraints around what is unthinkable and unsayable within the context of existing cultural forms.” She adds: “In areas culturally demarcated by silence, other semiotic modes are recruited for the exploration of experience and feeling that language cannot express” (108). Silence is important to convey a feeling of acknowledgement of one’s issues or emotions. In a multimodal literacy context, language can only go so far; it’s the silence that serves as “a mode that is participatory, affirmative, and productive rather an oppositional and resistant” (109). Language is limited to talk and words—authentic communication. Whereas the correct use of silence carries with it rhythm and variation and has the ability to challenge the teacher much in the same vein that they challenge the student.
1. In the article, Stein suggests that students absorb material and are left to interpret it in a variety of ways. Every student enters an academic setting with a unique viewpoint and skill set that is predetermined by his or her personal background. However, the article also suggests that the material presented to students in an academic setting has the power to change these fixed ideas. In a sense, this notion encompasses the exact purpose of learning. As a student goes through the different stages of their academic career, as they move through grades and add new layers of information to their realm of knowledge, their interpretations are likely to change. The way they view the world will morph to represent the different institutions they encounter. The problem with language is that it attempts to condense all these varying viewpoints of students into a single word or meaning.
ReplyDelete2. In the educational world today, students are given opportunities to develop an image by means of digital media resources. They are able to predetermine the way people view them by controlling the information they make available through varying social network sources. However, to an extent, this image is still limiting to what is available through the internet. While a young person may alternate pictures appearing on their profile between that of Michael Jordan and a historical figure, these individual images don’t actually represent the student. They only suggest that the student idolizes old-time basketball stars and enjoys learning about history. It doesn’t offer any real insight into the child’s being. However, on the contraire, these digital education outlets allow students to break through social constraints and stereotypes and present to their peers an image that represents what they see themselves as being.
Question 1
ReplyDeleteThe notion that young people growing up in a digitally mediated educational milieu have “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others” is certainly a naïve idea. There is an inherent aspect of human beings that cannot be captured by a website. No number of pictures, videos, or words can substitute for a face to face conversation with a human being. I have heard a statistic that over half of the information you convey to people is in your body language. An online representation of a human being will never be able to convey body language. As a result, over fifty percent of information I would normally learn about a human is lost in translation. Also, tone is impossible to really portray in any digital conversation. Anyone who has ever attempted an intimate or important conversation over text will tell you that it’s impossible. Tone is pivotal in conveying meaning and the lack thereof in digital conversations leaves a vast grey area for interpretation.
Question 3
There is some truth to the statement that “Classrooms are semiotic [meaning-making] spaces in which multimodal texts are constantly being produced and transformed by human beings who are the agents of their own meaning-making.” To large extent, human beings are the simple product of their surroundings. I believe the goal of the classroom should be to create students who are the agents of their own meaning making. Until a human being has their beliefs challenged or shaken in a real way, one has no reason to question what they have been told. Some humans never have to question the beliefs of the institutions in which they find themselves. Typically, in this case, they fail to gain a global view of the world around them. Most humans will have their beliefs shaken and challenged at some point. This is typically the beginning of what one may call, “growing up” or “coming of age.” How an individual chooses to deal with this realization dictates a vast majority of the rest of their life. The classroom should be designed to help humans grapple with this issue when the time comes and become agents of their own meaning making.
1)
ReplyDeleteI do not think that this argument presented in this article is naïve or romanticized. While youth from more urban areas do in fact face greater constraints in their daily life than there “more affluent white counterparts”, the internet and networking sites like Kidnet and DUSTY, offer a unique environment in which they can express themselves in a different way and to different people then they might in their real lives. Ismael gets to be a “hacker” and use very casual language, while Lana is more formal upon her expression on Kidnet. They get to be who they want to be and their relations in their real lives are exempt. They are able to break out of these communities, which might look down upon certain interests, hobbies, or dictions in speech and create their own personas with less social influences then they have in their real lives.
2)
I think that students from these less privileged backgrounds should not be assessed in a different way. If these new measurements were enacted, less-privileged children would fall further behind, and this lack of a grade-level proficiency that they may experience may be justified. While they may not be receiving as good of an education, or have as supportive of a home life than there “more affluent white counterparts”, they should all be held to the same grade standards. I think that upon assessing, extraneous factors like poverty level, and SES, should be taken in account, but by assessing certain children in different ways, they are essentially being held to different standards and these more lenient policies might affect them in the long run. At SMDP, the school seems to hold the students to different measurements of success, then normal grade level standards. While the children can get away with this now, by the time the children finish elementary school, and are not proficient readers and writers, this different form of measurements will prove faulty.
1. In this digitally mediated educational milieu, young people have multimodal modes to represent themselves in relation with others rather than traditional written and spoken literacy. This new media literacy may enable them to live with their global partners in this global world. However, we should not romanticize their available wide-ranging opportunities. These chances are not always helpful for them to build up their identities. In a sense, they may have more constraints in accordance with more available opportunities, because media-based literacy does not necessarily guarantee free opportunities for them to represent themselves. While they may have more opportunities to do it, they may proportionately have more constraints in their identity construction, which is closely related to and constrained by their learning conditions. They should have a wider range of communicative tools available, thereby making meaning and multimodal self-presentation possible. Digital multimodality and connectivity are necessary for their identity construction and self-presentation. But underprivileged poor young people have more constraints in their opportunities. So, teachers should take these constraints in their assessment as well as their teaching.
ReplyDelete4. Yes, I agree with Stein's argument that language is limited. I also agree with her fundamental argument that "literacy is an activity in which human beings create, use, and transform signs"(98). Literacy is not limited to spoken and written language, but extended to include other multimodal semiotic signs by which one can make self-presentation. But the choice of mode is limited by social constraints imposed by dominant culture. For example, a particular society with particular culture demands its members to limit their language use, sometimes demanding silence. As an example to show the limit of language as a means of communication, Stein refers to HIV/AIDS. In many black families in South Africa, the name of the disease may not be mentioned through language, but expressed in the form of hand gesture. This alternative semiotic code can express by gesture what is unspeakable through language. So, unlike mainstream language and literacy theories, the theory of multimodal communication shows the paradigm shift from language-centered pedagogy to multimodal one in both learning and assessment.
2. Overall, I think enacting new methods for measuring literacy proficiency would benefit not just marginalized students, but all students; however, we might see the most drastic effect in the lives of marginalized students. Many of the students that participate in the DUSTY afterschool program are children from urban neighborhoods that lack resources. Additionally, many of the participants of this program come from ethnic backgrounds with different cultural aspects than mainstream, westernized America. The authors suggest that we can “design performance-based measures tied to the resources children already use for everyday purposes” and “assess something that children are already engaged with.” (p. 915 of reader). Incorporating activities and resources that students use daily gives meaning to the practice of literacy, and true proficiency and understanding is only relevant in this context. Often times, marginalized students suffer in the classroom because they fail to see the relevance of the material or the assessment. Using relevant materials and processes will give a clearer picture of an individual’s grasp on literacy. We may see improved “scores” when we change the way we measure literacy proficiency, and this could certainly boost the confidence of the students in question, perhaps leading to greater proficiency in the future.
ReplyDelete3. I am not sure I agree that classrooms are the space where meaning-making occurs most of the time, if at all. The classroom institution rarely allows true identity construction, because its ultimate goal is to teach a set of facts and neutral skills rather than to develop the critical thinking abilities of its students. If we are speaking of other spaces though, I think it varies greatly. Students can be agents of their own meaning-making, even if this includes incorporating symbols created by others. Their identities are informed by the institutions and structures that make up their environments, but informed is not the same as dictated. We all use elements of our environment to fashion ourselves, but the combination of elements we choose is unique. As the Castlemont student Michaela stated in the excerpt from a conversation about dance moves (discussed this past week in lecture), “We put our swag all over it.” She admits that maybe they do use moves from other types of dance, but their end product is nothing like any of the individual types of dance from which they borrowed moves. In this way, their identities are informed by something else, but the way they put them together is all their own.
Question #1: Hull
ReplyDeleteIt is true that there are many different opportunities for young people to express themselves, especially in what forms they are going to express themselves. Now they can even express themselves by putting a profile picture in Facebook where everyone else can see and comment on the picture. However, there are greater constraints with the increasing use of technology in today’s world. Since one’s information has become more easily accessible to everyone (e.g. social networking site), young people need to express themselves in the ways they maybe accepted by the imagined audiences, the people that they think will look at their expression of themselves. For example, if I have a group of friends who like certain kind of music, I will try to express myself through that music; I will use that music as a part of my identity so my friends will accept me as a part of the group.
Question #2: Pippa
Human beings are able to do their own meaning making in understanding texts in the classroom, but at the same time informed and reconfigured institutions and structures they are in also affects their understanding of the texts. Usually, the informed institutions build up the basic foundation of knowledge, and from there on, the students will have the skill to understand the texts. Without the information from the institutions, they are not able to understand and interpret the texts; therefore, their final understanding of the whole texts is the combination of the two. One cannot be independently making their own meaning, especially in the classroom environment. For example, in the classroom, teacher and tutors hold important position in providing skills for students to make them derive their own meaning making skill. A student will need to understand English standard grammar to be able to interpret the story of Romeo and Juliet, and the teacher will be the one responsible in teaching them of English standard grammar. The proportion of how much informed institutions affect one’s own meaning making also strongly related with age. The older the students are, they will rely on their own meaning making skill even more. They will analyze their own situation first before they turn to well informed institutions. But when the students are in elementary school, they need guidance from informed institutions because they have not gotten the skill they need.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePippa Stein
ReplyDelete3. I definitely believe that students are the controllers of their own multimodal literacy and communication, but they are highly influenced by their history and past experiences as well. Students use everything to communicate, “the visual, gestural, speech, writing and sound are all modes through or in which representation occurs.” As teachers try more and more to integrate multimodal literacy in the classroom, students are able to use more of their own literacy techniques to convey understanding and opinions towards them. While students definitely are “agents of their own meaning-making”, constantly creating and reformulating their own opinions, they are also highly influenced by their individual pasts and environments. The article explains that, “each individual has a particular representational history that includes the specific encounters and practices in meaning making that the individual has been exposed to in countless ways in the social world.” Students draw on these individual representational histories to formulate opinions and participate in multimodal literacy in the classroom. A student’s opinion on an issue in the classroom can be changed dramatically depending on their neighborhood, school, economic class, etc. Students do make their own meaning, but their environments and educational institutions do play a big role in their interpretation of multimodal texts.
4. Steins argument that language is limited focuses mainly on South Africa and the issue of social suffering and silence. Stein discusses women’s silence regarding abuse, silence in relation to boys and girls sexuality, and silence on the HIV pandemic. Language can be limited as a result of “tension and fear”. Stein advocates for a silence that, “respects human beings rights… in the context of the power exercised by teachers in placing learners under obligation to speak.” Students should be given the choice on whether or not to speak. I agree that language can be limited and that some people have experienced suffering or pain that “exists beyond language.” Multimodal literacy should understand, recognize, and include silence.
1. I think this argument is somewhat misleading. Yes, young people growing up in today’s age have “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in a relationship with others,” but this does not necessarily mean their identity construction needs are met. More choices does not always equate to a problem being solved. Just because young people have “drawing, animations, blogs, photo-sharing, music mixing, homemade video clips, or electronic bulletin boards” available to them does not mean these can substitute for real-world interactions like spending time with friends or family. Writing a blog or sharing photos or sharing video clips can only go so far in helping a person relate to others, especially when the media shared is culture-specific (for instance, TV characters). I think there is much value to be gained in connecting with other people online to learn about different cultures and express your own. However, I do not think these online communications are suitable replacements for real-life, face-to-face interaction in constructing one’s identity. I think that real-life, face-to-face interactions are still the primary means for identity construction, and as such, less affluent young people still face far greater constraints despite the introduction of new ways of communication.
ReplyDelete2. I think what the authors argue for is noble. Poor, marginalized students are definitely at disadvantage compared to affluent white students in taking standardized tests. As such, standardized tests do not properly gauge the former type of student’s cognitive abilities/capabilities. If students were graded in the context of their backgrounds, this would provide a more accurate measure of their abilities, as they would be free to express themselves in their own language, culture, and experiences. This would make students more comfortable as well, as their identity at home and their identity at school would be compatible, rather than in conflict. This would lead to students being more confident in their answers, and likely more interested in the material. However, whenever I envision a test that takes into account the background of a student, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical. It seems to me that when we take a student’s background into account through asking open-ended, rather than single-answer questions, we also introduce bias when grading a student. For instance, if we were to implement one of the author’s examples, “explain the design process of a digital artifact,” it seems impossible to avoid the bias of the grader who is grading the student. Thus, I think that what the authors hope for is noble—an assessment scheme that takes into account students’ multimodal identities would, indeed, positively impact the lives of many young people. However, implementations of such a solution introduce bias from graders and thus we are back at square one.
1.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading Steins text I can say that I agree that language is limited. For the most part, it is the culture and tradition of different areas of the world that make language a limited factor—“ language, itself, as a mode of communication is subject to constraints around what is unthinkable and unsayable within the context of existing cultural forms.” A good example Stein used was the notion of the ill-fated HIV/AIDS disease. In areas such as South Africa, they consider this disease to be “ unsayable” and use hand signals to indicate a passing of a member from this disease rather than spoken language. In contrast, the westernized cultures sees HIV/AIDS as a “sayable” topic that should be spoken for. I think Stein is trying to make a point that people use and interpret language and silence in different ways; in the case for HIV, it is hard to get everyone in the world on the same page of its meaning, when many different cultures view the concept differently through the use of language or silence. Another example stein mentions is the inability to use language to express violence and suffering. When people have suffered from violence, there are no words to describe all the pain they have been through. In this sense, language cannot fully grasp the “arc of human experience.” I think stein brought about this example to show that aside from the interpretational issues seen in the HIV/AIDS example, there are many cases when using language cant even justify what we want to get across. In this sense, language it limited and cant be used.
4.
Having multi-mediated education can have two extremes: beneficial and unfortunate. The benefit to having media is that students can better express themselves through different uses of literacy—which often leads to expanding their creativity and thoughts, which is a plus. The downside to using media is getting sucked in to the social networks and use of avatars to “create” an image that does not reflect the student accurately. As a kid grows up its important to have them learn about their surroundings and try to identify themselves as independent individuals; which is what school, real friendships and experiences are meant to do. By using media, the student is merely creating a cyber identification that can lead to different interpretations of them (and most often, not the correct ones). Media offers limited ways to “get” someone’s identity or personality but can never expose the real person. Often times the avatar or image students put up could categorize them in a certain way. With that said I feel that the statement reflected in this text is somewhat naïve in that using media could potentially do more damage than good.
1. I think that this idea does seem somewhat naïve, because it is not like the profiles that students make are 100% representative of who they are. The student may want to represent themselves different than who they are in real life. This could cause even more problems in trying to establish an identity. Digital media is not going to be the best way for students to represent themselves. For example in the reading, the authors discuss how Alana changes the images on her profile in “light of others’ responses.”(389) This makes me think that these types of profiles may not really let students feel fully comfortable with their identity, because they may be changing things on their profile, because of what others think about certain parts of their identity.
ReplyDelete2. I think that students may appreciate people not just taking standardized tests into account and looking at other factors that contribute to their everyday lives. Not everyone is an amazing test taker and there are other ways to express one’s abilities/capabilities. Looking at the “rich cultural and semiotic resources kids bring with them,” (390) could further help teachers engage with their students and learn from them. Since, so much is stressed on just standardized tests, I think that by students knowing that teachers/educators have an understanding of their situations and experiences might foster a more comfortable learning environment. This idea of “multiliteracies framework” could help students have more room to be creative and not constrained by having to meet “single standards and targets.” (385)
1. I believe that the argument fails to address certain limitations that identity construction in the form of media entails. When the authors claim, “wide-ranging opportunities to choose how to represent themselves in relationship with others,” the portion of the sentence that stands out to me is the fact that the creation of their identity is restricted to their relationship with others. Only in the context of comparing and contrasting their self-identities to those of others can these individuals try to form a proper understanding of their sense of selves. Similarly, the perception of the assumed identity of the individual, such as Kanye West or Dora the Explora, is based on the contingency that the other individual interpreting the identity is familiar with that identity, or knows who these individuals are. With the facilitated medium of the internet, and the notion of metropolitanism, it is more likely that people encountering different ideas and individuals that represent identity will be unfamiliar with the people and ideas they come across because they will encounter so many different people from areas all over the world.
ReplyDelete3. I agree that students create their own meanings, but only to the extent that their interpretation of the meaning fits in well with the prescribed definition presented to them by their academic institutions, peers, and others. In other words, I think that students are as free to their own interpretations, but their surroundings and peers heavily influence the personal meanings they come up with. A certain sense of self-identity and meaning is both directly and indirectly presented to these individuals in many contexts of their socialization. In a way, it is their own perception, but that meaning is an alteration of what they encounter in their daily activities and interactions with others.
1.
ReplyDeleteYes, it most certainly it is true that children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have fewer options online than their affluent white counterparts. Trivially, by inspection of sites like Facebook, where actual pictures of the user are mandatory to be taken seriously, real life characteristics are important. When you see someone using an illustration or a picture of something other then themselves it telegraphs that they have something to hide. Also, on Youtube, for example, expensive video equipment and software certainly helps to get the user's point across. I recall a video of a young white male, maybe 14 years old, who had a rap video posted on youtube; it was professionally shot and as such had clear 1080p footage of him, including stylized closeups and smooth editing. His musical performance was pretty awful in my opinion, but he still had tons of views. Aside from anecdotes, it's still pretty easy to understand how it could be more difficult for someone to join, say, an online photography community without a digital camera and photoshop. Still further hampering the user is the fact that much of the traditional, mainstream internet is steeped in the homebound traditions and literacies of the white middle class, so it could be argued that usage of the internet proceeds naturally from their home environment. An example of this would be a forum where the user is represented only by a username or other identifying mark. In these situations the user's words most represent the individual, and as the mainstream language of the internet is white middle class english, those people accustomed to it have an inherent advantage.
2.
If these types of measurements were enacted, there would be major effects on the entire social system we live in. Firstly, the changes would have to be completely vertically integrated; coaching a student with these types of measurements to get them into a college or job position where it's not what is desired would be disastrous. For this reason I feel that some basic universal literacy must be established in school so that everyone of the same community can be on the same page. I do agree that in these times the focusing on quantitative standardized tests and accountability of such in school can do more harm than good. Such narrow focus limits the student's creativity and delineates their focus to mere drills. Also, sometimes the student's home condition is not safe, not good for the student intellectually. To assess the student based on a flawed pre-concieved identity would have to serve only the purpose of identifying the student's cognitive capabilities. The curricula would still have to form a basis from which the student could create his own identity. Overall, if such measurements were to be enacted, it simply takes the power of test taking and changes it from being in the hands of standardized test-takers to being solely the teacher's discretion (as who else knows the students well enough to make such an assessment?). In this environment being the teacher's pet would trump all, a conditioning that is not necessarily a winning move in society, where those who act by their own will are often rewarded more (business owners, those who lead). A last point of interest to contend with is the thought that digital media evolves at such a rapid pace that standardization of it is nearly impossible, new computer hardware exams must be written up every year, for example.
1.Through social media, students have the opportunity to create profiles through which they can construct their own identities. These features on the social networking site described by the authors, a couple of the tools that students can use to define their own identities is through their self introductions and profile pictures. I think that through these tools, students do have a wide range of opportunities to represent themselves because through tools like this, students have the ability to control everything that an acquaintance might use to form a first impression of them. On the opposite end, even the ways that students choose to define themselves can be misconstrued. For example, with the student who chose the image of Christina Aguilara, even though for that student, this image represented her dual goals of being a nurse and supermodel, for strangers without that background information, her profile picture may simply represent an attempt to associate herself with a sexualized female image.
ReplyDelete2.If these measures were enacted, I think this new way of measuring student abilities would provide students with more confidence by defining students’ intelligence beyond the scope of their standardized test taking ability. Even though I think a portfolio based or similar version of assessment would be a more comprehensive way of evaluation, I do not think that this way of assessment is very politically feasible due to the amount of resources this type of assessment would require.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete