- On Husserl: I see the chapter “Designing for Social Futures” as a kind of rationale for this course and for university education in general. I’m really into Husserl’s concepts of a “lifeworld” bounded by horizons and of treating the lifeworld as something to be reflected on through the transcendental. Courses like Multimedia Theory, Document Design, and even undergraduate composition and technical communication courses are there so we can begin to reflect back on the lifeworld, essentially bracketing off and making explicit our basic assumptions toward language and media. In a sense, I think each article argues for this perspective.
- On English literacy:I haven’t decided what I think of this statement in “Designing for Social Futures”: “Today’s culture of English literacy, which has designed us and with which we design our futures, is very much reduced to the world of the concrete, the predictable, and the repetitive” (221). The authors argue that “our contemporary crisis of meaning and futures…is a question of the possibilities inherent in hybrid experimentation and re-creation…[and] is also a question of who’s in control of the change in communities” (222). Does multimedia create a pathway for more possibilities for experimentation than English literacy?
- On issues of access: The problem with multimedia granting more opportunities for agency in cultural change is that not everyone has equal access, which the authors of these pieces point out. It’s hard for me to say that multimedia gives students more opportunities for experimentation with language when, as an instructor, I have several students who are only marginally familiar with computer technology. Other students (and friends and colleagues) of mine live more of a “cyborg” lifestyle; they seem to always have one hand on the keyboard and their minds on the machine. The issue of access (which is addressed in “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies”) is really an issue of agency—then again, I guess it always has been. Even so, the gap between the haves and the have-nots seems to be wider when it comes to computer technology; because it is so powerful as an instrument of cultural change, those who have access to it immediately gain vast privilege over those who do not. Levels of access are also of crucial importance. The student with a computer at home is far ahead of the student who has to use a computer on campus to do work, and the student with Internet access at home is far ahead of the student who doesn’t. Even varying levels of computer knowledge affect an individual’s agency. For example, I don’t have Internet access at home, but I’m doing all my formatting (bold text, bulleted lists, etc.) in my blog post already by just entering the HTML tags in Word. In order to do that, I had to know the tags already.
- On design as meaning-making: One of the key ideas in these readings is that “Designing transforms knowledge by producing new constructions and representations of reality” (22). I think I can get along with that argument, but I doubt that most people who create multimedia are thinking of themselves as producing new representations of reality. Not exactly an easy thing to grasp. What are your thoughts?
That’s about it for now. I’m looking forward to hearing what you all have to say!
2 comments:
Jen,
I switched to Firefox and used my NMSU email address and was able to create a working blogspot. Yea. The new URL is judysmmblog.blogspot.com. I couldn't wait for blogger to okay the other one.
I think you pose a thought-provoking response to Cope and Kalantzis. Directly or indirectly, you touch on several concerns I have, including access, which verges on a sort of elitism (or privilege, as you say). My other concern is the confusion arising from lack of uniformity of terminology in the field of multi-literacies. For instance, does "multi-media" refer to web-based technology, all electronic media, or exactly what (as C&K note)? In addition, I find confusing the term "English literacy," which in my mind conjures up general ability to read print text in the English language. How will we (educators) refer to the opposite of multi-literacies? The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards uses print text, which I found to be somewhat confusing also, whereas photos are also a type printed text.
In regard to the question you pose about design as meaning making, I think the New London group is trying to take the concepts of Bloom's Taxonomy and make them circular, fluid, and interactive rather than hierarchical. Thus, their concept of redesigning seems to be roughly analogous to synthesis but capable of dynamic transformation. Perhaps that is too simplistic, but it helps me understand it. "Representations of reality" seems a bit esoteric, but I suppose that is what we are doing when we "make meaning."
I am going to try to access Mais' spot now. See you next week.
Jen-
I am glad to see you and Judith wrestling with access as a problem with multiliteracies. I was intrigued to see you reaching beyond physical and financial access to point out the importance of access to skills and conventions of certain spaces as an issue. Even if you have the physical tools to use such media, if you don't have familiarity with these modes it can be so time-consuming and frustrating that real emotional and time barriers appear. I like to think that more multimodal education is one answer to this problem, but it seems that issues with access are slow to be resolved.
I also was struck by the idea of new media/multi-media creating "new representations of reality." When I think to things like Facebook I doubt that designers consider themselves to be crafting or creating anything other than physical memories and markers of their real world experiences. Does it have something to do with the way we value life lived online? Is it less real than off-line reality?
Post a Comment