How exhausting, right? Sometimes I just want to read the story on the side of my Starbucks cup, gag at the cheesiness of it, and move on with my day.
I wish Wysocki could walk me through her definition a little bit more. The irony is that I cannot understand what she means through text alone. New media technologies, she says, are ones "that break away from or ask us to think and act differently than print technologies" (19). But what does this mean?
What are we to consider about everything we read? Do I really need to focus on the layout of my textbook? Fine! Then I scold Wysocki (or her editors or the layout design person) for having an entire page of text (16) with no new paragraphs, no headings, and no pictures. It is not appealing to my brain. When I enter “materialities” into Dictionary.com am I supposed to ponder why the homepage is blue? Why is Thesaurus.com yellow? Does anybody actually READ greeting cards or just hope to see the green of a check or money on the inside? If a pop-up ad on the internet has noise, am I more likely to look at it or more likely to be aggravated beyond interest? Are these the type of questions I should be asking?
I feel as if these questions we are supposed to be asking ourselves any time we “read” something are moot—at least in the terms of teaching our students. They grew up with the attack of internet navigation, television advertisements, and smart phones. They can already “read” these things. They know television commercials are louder than the program they are watching to grab attention. They know Courier or Times New Roman are acceptable fonts for the classroom. (Why? Because Curlz is aesthetically displeasing to the eye, used only for advertising cheerleading tryouts. Trust me…I know…)
What bothers me about new media is that imagination and comprehension are neglected for other sensory appeals. Selfe says new media brings pathos back into a classroom. But words—and only words—can still have this effect. Because students are pelted by color and sound and attention/information overload every second of every day, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to keep the composition classroom mostly—not entirely—classical. Students don’t like reading and writing, and new media, in some forms, allows them to get away with that.
Right? RIGHT? Sigh. Someone help me see the light.
I tend to agree that neglecting print literacy, with which students struggle a great deal, for new media does in some way enable student's aversion to print, especially lengthy, difficult, and more rewarding/intelligent texts.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to students understanding why some fonts are okay for school assignments and others aren't, my experience says otherwise. The students to whom I've taught basic typography usually thought it was just an issue of authority: "teachers don't like fun typefaces," "teachers demand Times New Roman 12 pt.", or "You can change how the type works?" Students may have grown up with this stuff, but I've found that they are surprisingly ignorant about it. Wysocki addresses this when she discusses how the materiality of texts (and technologies) become invisible ("naturalized"); students use technologies without thinking about them, selecting typefaces solely because they "look cool."
That's an interesting critique--that new media can help students get away without classical reading or writing. I had noticed in the Selfe essay where she praises sound and video for helping students say things they "struggle to articulate with words." I'm struggling with how to react to this. My initial response is that, as writing teachers (if the emphasis is on writing), we should be trying to help students get better at saying difficult things in words, not telling them to give it up and find another means of expression. (I realize I'm playing fast and loose with Selfe's point here.) So I'm still a little stuck in these issues, too.
ReplyDeleteYou raised a number of good points, Ashley. I can especially relate to your comment about students already having a kind of new media literacy. I think this is true to an extent. Most 18-22 yr. olds do know their way around technology and new media, but there are some who don't. Class and economic boundaries certainly play a role in who is savvy and who is not. So what then, do we have "remedial" media classes for those who didn't come from a home with the latest upgrades?
ReplyDeleteI wish I could comment in curlz ;-).
ReplyDeleteI take Ashley's caveat to not overthink things. I agree that blue was probably not a tactical choice on the part of dictionary.com, though having dictionary, thesaurus and reference.com in different colors probably was to categorize them; like in a filing cabinet. I find myself asking whether some of our authors could be over-thinking it. But to John's point, I'm trying to be open to how different print or media may be acting on us in ways we do not realize.
We just need to look for its efficacy to make it concrete. If dictionary.com is more popular than another on-line dictionary amongst an age group, then I would ask "why" while considering its presentation in a holistic sense.
I share Amanda's skepticism. I think we can all agree that mastering a literacy is necessary in order to either employ it or to challenge its conventions. If students are more comfortable using multi-media to express themselves rather than print, sounds good, that is until the are challenged to describe themselves in writing and are not able to articulate themselves. An affidavit? A letter to the editor?
There may be a question of values hidden in this. Some prefer print for any number of reasons, print is not likely to go anywhere soon.
Call me heartless, but I'm still looking for the need for pathos in the classroom. I have a strong science background from undergrad and it is at times difficult for me to accept the insertion of an emotional appeal into any sort of academic setting. Like you, I struggle with the idea of substituting "sensory overload" material through new media, but classrooms are changing and instructors must adapt to these changes.
ReplyDelete