As promised, here's my extended rant about Schwarzenegger and the textbook ban. I'm surprised I haven't heard more about this in the news. I first came across the story nearly a month ago and it's been sitting in the blog queue since then. Good thing I read lots of heavy books because now I can flex some pretty impressive writing muscles.

Mr. Schwarzenegger announced the ban on textbooks in a classroom in Sacramento, holding up four large text books and joking: "I can use these for the (bicep) curls."

There's just something so wrong about that statement. Why Arnie? Why?

"Textbooks are outdated, in my my opinion," he said. "For so many years, we've been trying to teach exactly the same way. Our kids gets their information from the internet, downloaded onto their iPods, and in Twitter feeds to their cellphones... Basically kids are feeling as comfortable with their electronic devices as I was with my pencils and crayons. So why are California's school students still forced to lug around antiquated, heavy, expensive textbooks? (via Telegraph.co.uk)

Isn't anyone else concerned by this? Or at least the tiniest bit curious about the implications of banning textbooks in the classroom? Maybe it's just the wannabe academic in me, but this topic both depresses and intrigues me. I'm fascinated by the cognitive changes that have come about due to shifts in technology, particularly when it comes to reading. Compare reading a newspaper to an article online. The differences are not so subtle. Our eyes move across the text in new patterns, our level of concentration varies, our mind wanders. Reading text on a physical page versus reading text on a screen is very different. One does not simply replace the other. Like Neil Postman said, "technology giveth and technology taketh away." I wonder how much thought the Californians have given to this.

I decided that this topic warranted a bit more reading (I wanted some scholarly advice), so after a trip to Google Scholar I came upon this article from by Wendy Sutherland-Smith, Weaving the literacy Web, Changes in Reading from page to screen (The Reading Teacher, Newark: Apr 2002. Vol. 55, Iss. 7; pg. 662, 8 pgs). The abstract drew me in, Sutherland-Smith explores the unique reading strategies needed for the World Wide Web. She considers additions needed in the repertoire of teaching reading strategies when computers are the medium. Although written in 2002, the strategies she proposes are still relevant and probably still not as widely known as they should be. While I will quote extensively from the article, I do suggest that you click through and read it.

This textbook ban has more far-reaching implications that just being a cost-saving measure. It will have a significant impact on literacy (both positive and negative). According to the UNESCO position paper on The Plurality of Literacy and its implications for Policies and Programs 'literacy' is the ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning to enable an individual to achieve his or her goals, to develop his or her knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in the wider society. It's a no brainer that literacy is important. But as Sutherland-Smith states, "Clearly, literacy is not a static concept. Leu (1997) saw it as a "deictic" term, because "it's meaning is continually changing, dependent upon the technological context in which it occurs" (p.62). So what is meant when we talk about web literacy? Sutherland-Smith explains,

Web Literacy is a term for finding, scanning, digesting, and storing Internet information. It is "an ability to recognize and assess a wide range of rhetorical situations and an attentiveness to the information conveyed in the source's non-textual features" (Corapure et al. 1998, p.410). This understanding is significant, as it represents a "fundamental change" (Leu, 2000, p. 424) in thinking about being literate in the 21st Century. The speed and degree of change that Web literacy brings to teaching reading is an implementation challenge for us teachers. As Sorapure et al. pointed out, the web is a "vast, open , and uncategorized library, and one in which reference librarians are nowhere to be found" (p.410). The Internet can be an intimidating and difficult medium to manage, with its constant rapid changes, but technology skills are essential for survival in the 21st century. Therefore students and teachers must be competent and more important, comfortable with the medium... Web literacy demands an incorporation of key reading or navigation skills. These include accessing information, analysing information (including multimedia), and processing procedures to store or move text. While these skills appear to be the same as those used with print text, academic writers tend to agree that Web literacy involves expanding critical reading skills to incorporate evaluation of visual and nontextual features and a greater use of associative logic (see Bolter, 1991; Burbules, 1997; Charney, 1994; Leu, 1996; Reinking, 1998; Shetzer and Warschauer, 2000; Snyder, 1999).

I do think Arnie was right about one thing (or at least I agree with the sentiment he was trying to convey), the way we access the majority of our information has changed and continues to change. Although where he gets this idea that kids are the ones on Twitter I'm not quite sure... and maybe the iPod Touch is more ubiquitious in California, but I don't think that kids are accessing the majority of the information they access online through their mp3 payers, nor do I think its a reasonable comparison to parallel pencils and crayons to electronic devices. Nevertheless, I do think it's important that we adjust to those shifts in information access. But we need to keep in mind that technology is not neutral, and we shouldn't just cast aside the old ways of doing things in favour of some glossy new 'improvement'. Surely that's common sense. However, as Sutherland-Smith continues, when it comes to technology in education some advocate an even more extreme approach.

Many writers oppose using technology in classrooms and advocate a critical approach to the issue of technology. Birkets (1994) and Postman (1995) believed that the advent of computer technology will lead to an impoverishment of the English language. They contended that poor concentration skills in dealing with lengthy and deep textual reading, poor writing skills, and a superficial understanding of issues, due to the lack of depth in reading, will result from Technology in English teaching classrooms. Stoll (1995, p.26) added that he "rarely finds prose that's articulate and create" from the "mediocre writing and poorly thought-out arguments" of Internet-based writing. Leu (1996), whilst supporting the advent of digital literacy, advocated that we keep the concerns of Birkerts (1994) and Stoll (1995) in mind, or "we may become familiar with much but understand little" (p.163).

Having written about Postman before, it's not secret that I am a fan of his views about how technology is affecting society. However, I'd like to put it forward that I am not against the integration of technology in the classroom. Quite the contrary really, I'm a big proponent of it. However, it needs to be done properly. I've worked in a setting where new and exciting technology had been introduced to students without the majority of the teachers having any understanding of how to properly use the tools or integrate them into the curriculum. It was maddening to see how both the students and teachers were struggling to use the tools effectively. Although there were a select few who managed to use the tool to their advantage, for the majority, due to the lack of appropriate instruction (for both teachers and students), the technology proved to be more of a hindrance to any real progress (albeit a flashy and exciting one). I don't think the teachers were to blame for this (many didn't have any choice about whether or not the technology would be used in the classroom, they were told it had to integrated but then not given appropriate direction how to do so). It was more a fundamental problem with the way this particular program was rolled out. It was almost as if the technology came first and then a problem was sought out for that technology to solve. But that's a backwards approach.

More from Sutherland-Smith,

As a teacher operating in both print-based and technology mediated classrooms, I
consider it crucial to institute that critical evaluation of the manner in which technology is used in the classroom. This means not only evaluating reading and writing products or technology programs, but also investigating whether technology is being used simply because it is technology (see also Lankshear, Snyder & Green, 2000). It is, however, implausible that the impact that the Internet is having on society and education can be ignored. In fact, "the Web has already entered our classrooms as we debate its value and its effects." (Sorapure et al. 1998, p.412), and we, as teachers, must weave the expanding web of technology into our classroom
practice.

...a critical perspective must be maintained as to the purposes and appropriateness of technology in our classrooms, as teachers we are required to assist our students with new Web text reading strategies. In addition, we need to become "technology critics as well as technology users" (Selfe & Selfe, 1994, p.484) in order to effectively implement education policy for our students.

I think what bothers me most about this textbook ban is the seeming lack of critical perspective. When the "problem" that is being solved with the ban of textbooks/introduction of tecnology in the classroom is the state of the Californian economy, it is difficult for me to believe that the state of education is really being taken into consideration. As if technology will somehow save California from bankruptcy. Doesn't it seem that any money that is saved will be at the expense of the students? What's the point of introducting a new technology in a classroom if the teachers and students aren't given the appropriate support? It's not as simple of replacing a book with an electronic version. Where is the money for improved infrastructure, will there be enough computers for all of the students? What about the digital divide - not everyone has a personal computer. What about the implications of reading from the internet? Do all teachers have the knowledge/training/understanding to provide students with appropriate strategies for how to read and learn from online material? It's not an even swap. Switching mediums opens up a whole new world of possibilities and challenges. It's sort of like stuffing a square peg into a round hole. In the words of the philosopher Derek Zoolander, "How can we be expected to teach children to learn how to read if they can't even fit inside the building?"

Every so often I go through these periods of intense verbosity. If I open my mouth to breathe, it is likely that a word or six might slip out. I used to attribute this affliction to sitting quiet and serene all day, vocally isolated in my cube, unable to talk about the things I want to talk about. So, of course, at times like these I tend to write instead. Of course I have to hold off until appropriate times - when I have some sort of union sanctioned break - but when those moments come I dive into the pool of words in my mind and swim furiously through them, slicing through sentences, kicking up a frothy mess of ideas behind me. I think I frighten some people with my verbal onslaught. Not everyone knows what would be an appropriate response. And there is of course no appropriate response. I will keep on writing, I will continue talking, I will be continually processing. I'm not going to pretend to be something I am not.

I read a great article the other day by Sam Anderson in New York Magazine entitled, In Defense of Distraction. One of my dear and darling friends had shared the article on Facebook with a tongue-in-cheek sort of comment asking for a summary of this 8 page piece on how we have short attention spans and don't read long articles anymore. My interest was of course piqued and I was not disappointed. I'm constantly battling my inner demons when it comes to social media and the pull I feel between real life and online interactions. Are new communications technologies hindering our real work or providing new opportunities for both personal and professional growth? Are we being distracted to the point that everything we do is trivial? I liked Anderson's perspective on this challenge of distraction, particularly his introduction.

It's just too late to retreat to a quieter time. Our jobs depend on connectivity. Our pleasure cycles - no trivial matter - are increasingly tied to it. Information rains down faster and thicker every day, and there are plenty of non-moronic reasons for it to do so. The question, now, is how successfully can we adapt.

I like to think I'm a discerning individual. I don't read all of the links that people post on facebook, I may not read every RSS feed that pops up in Google Reader throughout the day. This is no different than my selection of what magazines to read, what tv shows or films I choose to watch, or what I choose to take photographs of. What I do is inherently my choice - and I choose to do things that I feel are of some value to me. I like to create links between the things I am doing, the information I am digesting. I would hope that other people think this way too, because these linkages are fascinating. A teacher of mine once said, everything is interconnected, a statement that has stayed with me for the past ten years. Everything is interconnected is sort of like my pair of rose coloured glasses through which I view the world. I take conversations and connect them with books or articles I've read, videos I've watched. Perhaps this type of thinking is a result of growing up with technology (as John Seeley Brown describes as multi-processors who think in a hyperlinked fashion (not linear)). However, as much as I am willing to attribute the way I think to the technologies I grew up using, I think that my eagerness to draw links between things has always been a part of me. I've always been prone to distraction. Distraction - that is - the ease of which I will take off on some tangent of thought, is part of my creative process. As Anderson writes,

The most famous moment in all of Proust, the moment that launches the entire monumental project, is a moment of pure distraction: when the narrator, Marcel, eats a spoonful of tea-soaked madeline and finds himself instantly transported back to the world of his childhood. Proust makes it clear that conscious focus could never have yielded such profound magic: Marcel has to abandon constraints of what he calls "voluntary memory" - the kind of narrow, purpose-driven attention that Adderall say, might have allowed him to harness - in order to get to the deeper truths available only by distraction. That famous cookie is a kind of hyperlink: a little blip that launches an associative cascade of a million other subjects. This sort of free-associative wandering is essential to the creative process; one moment of judicious unmindfulness can inspire thousands of hours of mindfulness.

Beautiful. I couldn't agree more. I felt somehow vindicated after reading this. As if all my thoughtful wanderings were somehow justified. And so I will continue. Currently I'm processing a fascinating lecture and accompanying paper by the Elizabeth Coleman, President of Bennington College in Vermont, about reforming higher education through a new blend of liberal arts. And how did I get here? Free-associative wandering with some help from the internet but directed by recent conversations I've been having with friends and coworkers. Oh the delights of distraction. Now I've got something else to put my words towards.

documentary © Raffaella Loro

On Friday, after a delightful lunch with my chum-of-all-chums, I rushed to the downtown university campus for a lecture on mediated gossip that was being given as part of the University of Alberta's Communications and Technology Research Symposium. The visiting scholar, Professor Leopoldina Fortunati, from the University of Udine, was to speak about reflections on mediated gossip, particularly, how the use of ICTs (information and communication technologies) has modified one particular register of communication: gossip.

The lecture wasn't exactly what I thought it would be. Although interesting, did not really provide me with the level of depth about how information and communication technologies actually mediate gossip. That's the problem with relatively short lectures... there is much time spent covering the background information about a particular study or subject - and not enough time and depth exploring the real topic. But that disconnect may also be a result of an incorrect description of the scholar's presentation, we're promised more than is actually intended to be delivered due to time constraints or the efforts of the event organizers to make a talk 'fit' both thematically and within an allotted time slot. I've been to a few lectures in the past where the presentation given did not necessarily correlate with the description that had been released to the public. However, despite this minor discrepancy the lecture did still provide me with some points for discussion.

A few months back I wrote a short post about how I sometimes feel that the real me is a hybrid of my physical self and my online self. I was immediately reminded of this post when Dr. Fortunati spoke about the social presentation of self as a combination of the front-stage self and the back-stage self. Basically, we present different parts of our personality depending on our social sphere. We maintain a series of different social spheres with varying levels of proximity. So, if a person is part of a social circle that is closer to us we reveal more about ourselves and so on. Basically we have different types of relationships with people from our various social circles. Our family knows certain things about us, our friends know something different, our coworkers something different once again. There may be some overlapping information (imagine a Venn diagram representing the different social circles we interact with), but generally we try to keep these circles separate and distinct. Our relationships with other people within these groups is based on what we know and what we don't know about each other. This weave of information gives a relationship its tone, amplitude, and depth. However, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a distinction between these social circles in a world where information, both personal and professional, becomes increasingly available on the internet. This blurring of the lines creates a discontinuity of self and makes it difficult for others to decode what what we communicate. Take for instance the overused example of an employer coming across something online about a potential employee and that information changing their perception of that individual. Then of course there is the example of meeting someone new, befriending them on facebook, and through their profile and other assorted links discovering all sorts of information about that individual that you would have never have known before (or at least not known that quickly). So what does this have to do with gossip you might ask... well plenty, if you think of all this information that we share online about ourselves to be gossip - and not necessarily gossip of the malicious kind. Gossip, according to Fortunati, is a communicative game with a strong dimension of amusement and entertainment (but the game can be cruel). Gossip may not advance true knowledge, but it does enhance common thinking and social cohesion. As information and communication technology has developed, particularly in the explosion of social media in the past few years, we have begun to shift our socializing to the digital sphere. We continue to gossip about ourselves, but now we face the challenge of how to deal with increased access to gossip as well as the impact of longevity.

There were a few other key points that I found to be of interest, in particular Fortunati's comment how in a world where neighbours and acquaintances are part of an anonymous crowd, people are turning to their neighbour substitutes. These substitutes could be celebrities, random strangers online, or the profiles of individuals we once knew or people that we've had fleeting contact with in the physical world but have befriended online. This comment is worthy of a post all on its own, but I'm tired and don't think I have it in me to write anymore today. Maybe another day... I don't even know if anyone reads this gossip rag. Say hello in the comments if you do. You can remain anonymous - maybe you can just indicate if we actually know each other in the real world. That would be an interesting experiment...

Update: Just discovered that there is a PDF version of Fortunati's paper that was the basis for her presentation. I'll have to read it.

Following a suggestion from one of the blogs I read, I listened to a couple interesting documentaries on BBC today about the school system in Finland as well as the quality of education at Westminster School and Harvard University.