Entry 4

            I really enjoyed today’s readings. They got at the heart of one of the main issues I had after the first day of class and getting a crash course in digital literacy, technological pedagogies, etc. (topics I hadn’t had exposure to previously); mainly: what do we do about teaching students to use technology and use it well when it is not as ubiquitous or accessible than the traditional pen and paper method is. I appreciated seeing that this is an issue that Rhet/Comp and Digital Literacy scholars have been considering from the get go (or at least what I imagine was fairly early into the field’s development…this article is from 1999, which in my understand makings sense to thinking seriously about computers and technology being staples in home and at school).

            One of the core issues in the Selfe and Faigley article were, clearly, that technology literacy in the classroom is becoming required at the same time computers themselves are not (let alone affordable or accessible), and that is creating an enormous divide between the educational realities and future prospects of students. And while both Selfe and Faigley are critical of the political underpinnings of digital literacy infiltrating the classroom (Selfe going into more of a political history of technology attitudes in the country, especially under the Clinton administration, and Faigley going into more of an economic history of computer usage, wealth division, and corporate practices and budgets), they both seem to fundamentally agree with the motivations behind those political mandates: Technology will provide teachers new resources, students new ways to learn, and children better opportunities in the job market as adults.

            I thought Selfe’s article did a good job articulating the role of Composition teachers in providing digital literacy, as I wasn’t quite sure where to place them in the grand scheme of things, particularly given the fact that I did grow up with computers at school from the time I was a kindergartner. It seemed a given that you wrote on Word and you used PowerPoint as a visual aid…strange as it may be to admit, it was hard for me to imagine why English teachers had a difficult time trying to figure out where technology placed in their classrooms. The emphasis Selfe gave on teachers making their students think about “who gets to use technology and what does it mean” rather than just “you have to use technology to show what you mean” provided a great model for me to proceed forward with idea about digital pedagogies and computer literacy from. I thought Selfe also did a great breakdown of socioeconomic forces in her paper, given the small amount of space it took up. Faigley also made a great analysis not only of availability but of access when he breaks down internet usage demographics (39-40).

            One thing I was curious about was what I read as a difference in computer literacy among teachers themselves. Selfe opens with a description of the majority of her colleagues being quite uncomfortable with the idea of technology in the classroom, but doesn’t elaborate on if this is because they are unskilled with the equipment themselves, or if they just don’t have ideas about how they’d use it in their pedagogy. I got a different feeling from Faigley though. He didn’t mention teacher apprehension to use technology so much as accessibility to it, or perhaps a resistance to the political nature of it. I was curious if this was a case of different opinions, or if something got lost in my translation of the pieces—even though they are ten years younger than our previous pieces, it’s still somewhat hard for me to place myself in the mindset of those for whom computers were entirely new, probably entirely un-intuitive, and who were having to learn how to use them somewhat independently, instead of playing around on MS Paint on lunch break in first grade. I admit that this culture difference (weird as it is to call it that) could entirely be the cause of my confusion here.

            One of the other seemingly contradictory elements of the readings for me was how a critical awareness might remedy the problems. Yes, I think it’s entirely important for privileged students to be made aware of their privilege and made to think critically about it. The critical thinking Selfe describes is absolutely necessary in my opinion. However, I’m not sure how this will then translate to a solution, as she seems to believe it will. She writes, “In technology-rich communication facilities, students and teachers can develop a more critically-informed sense of technology by actively confronting and addressing technology issues in contexts that matter—contexts that involve real people…engaged in a range of daily practices…within their various lived experiences and in light of their own goals” (433). Here, I wonder if this almost makes the core of the problem Selfe examines worse. By encouraging those who already have technology to use it as voraciously as possible, isn’t it possible that that widens the gap even more? And also, by immersing these students in critical thinking and problem solving, that seems to put them directly in a college-bound path. While obviously these are desirable (and necessary) qualities in K-12 education, the fact remains that it does achieve some of what Selfe criticizes as leading to technological illiteracy in the first place. Is this just a continuum then, or is there a solution? What do we do for the students who deserve this education as well but don’t have the resources? “Give them the resources” is obviously not a real solution when one examines the budgets Selfe outlines on 417-18.

            As far as the guidelines set forth by the CCCC, I think this is a good model to apply in my classroom, albeit a bit vague. In particular, I’m not sure how exactly the CCCC expects me to incorporate Assumption 3 (“include much hands-on use of technologies;”). What is much? To what extent does “hands-on” mean? Does that require me to teach them software, or to go to more in-depth “hands-on” experience, like coding or creating a website? What if my students are at a range in terms of previous experience, and some could really use a crash course in programs like Word, while others are proficient enough to go on to explore means of multimodality at more complex levels? Does that then still fall on me, or does that then extend to other programs at the University? I’m also unsure what “prepare students to be reflective practitioners” entails. Is this the critical awareness and engagement Selfe was describing? Or is there some other metacognitive task I should be assigning to my students?

            Overall, I think these readings did a great job of bringing to the forefront the social elements of technology. I think it’s all too easy for many people to think of technology as cold and distant from the people who create and use it, when in really, it is in many ways both a construct and shaper of society.