Saturday, September 24, 2016

Can We Predict the Future? -Response to Motoko Rich's "Literacy Debate-Online, R U Really Reading"



Motoko Rich’s 2008 article “Literacy Debate-Online, R U Really Reading”, over-viewed the contributions and hindrances of literacy development as the shift to online media becomes increasingly prevalent.  With this movement away from traditional text, questions arise of what literacy means and more importantly what it will mean for the adults that our children will become. 
Pictorial paintings of ancient people were standardized and communicated a message, therefore dubbed an early writing system.  Considering the history of written text, how different is a drawing of a smile, from the letters s-m-i-l-e, from the symbol  :) ?  All of these examples allow for communication, even though each requires a different decoding processes.  Online communication and texting shorthand is thought to be inhibiting students’ progress in school.  Others argue that, like bilingual students, children are able to switch between formal language and social texting.  In my personal experience, I have found that my simplistic texting grammar and lack of attention to spelling, do show up in my formal writing and require an extra step of careful editing.  This, however, is not unlike the extra attention I must give when working in another language.  As an adult learner of the online shorthand, I may be less skilled at switching between the two written text forms.  Nadia, the young woman mentioned in Rich’s article, may be better equip to switch from the grammatical errors she encounters on fanfiction.net to the formal writing she will need to be published (Rich, 2008).
Regardless of the literacy outcome, the majority of young children are growing up with increasing access to technology (Rich, 2008).  As Carol Jago from the National Council of Teachers of English stated, “Kids are smart.  When they want to do something.  Schools don’t have to get involved.” (Rich, 2008).  It seems unproductive for teachers to try to determine the technology that will be prevalent and relevant in the coming years.  We cannot predict the future.  In 30 years the “contemplation and concentration” that Nicholas Carr wrote he was losing from reading on the web, may not be important for the changed world of 2046 (Rich, 2008).  If the majority of children grow up with the quick switching, “30 second digital mode” as Ken Pugh (Rich, 2008) noted, they are highly likely to sustain these habits and skills into their adulthood.  Thus, slowly changing the skill requirements and standards that the workforce demands of employees of future generations.  Long term focus, thoroughness, and memory may well be replaced with the ability to multitask, engage and decipher articles and commentary among a global population.  
Knowing that our students will need different technological skills than we can provide and knowing that they will be able to readily acquire these skills on their own, what is the role of the teacher in preparing these children for adulthood?  Foremost, schools should provide an opportunity for students to experience what they cannot access in their daily life.  This is everything from a safe place to spend time, access to information, adequate nutrition, ability to exercise, a platform to express themselves, a building of community understanding, and an environment to learn social skills through face-to-face interaction.  I feel passionately that as teacher, we need to ensure we are meeting these in-person social needs before we wonder if there is a new “app” that could engage our young children better than a personal interaction can. 
Rich presented the case of Hunter, a boy with dyslexia.   Reading traditional text for a person with dyslexia requires more effort to discern the text than other readers.  With the use of online search functions and visuals, Hunter is able to gain knowledge that had previously been a daunting task in traditional texts.  One may argue that he has gained the knowledge despite not reading the full text.  Others argue he is not prepared for higher learning because he had not built the stamina to keep up with the reading potential of his peers.  Empowering Hunter to gain and utilize knowledge is exceedingly better than making him feel inadequate and unfit for higher education.  Society needs many types of individuals, preventing someone like Hunter from entering professional workforce because of his slower reading skills would be detrimental.  People who struggle with dyslexia are often highly intelligent and are able to expertly put their skills to use in spatial orientated careers.  In this case, giving Hunter access to information, was eased by new medias.  Encouraging all students to approach this way of researching and writing would be equally as detrimental as giving Hunter a 1000-page book with minuscule font.  Many students gain a significant amount of information, personal and emotional development from reading a book cover to cover.   What seems to be essential, is addressing the student body as individuals rather than as a standard student type.
The teenagers in Rich’s article reported their preference for online interaction because of its social aspect and instant communication.  One student mentioned that books provide only a one-way engagement.  To me, this sounds like we are failing to provide platforms for student to discuss books and opportunities to collaborate in social learning.  The classroom is an ideal environment for this to happen in real time.  If children are wrapped in rigorous academic standards and have eyes constantly to the screen, it is not shocking that they are not finding an opportunity to discuss and manipulate text with their peers.  We can work to increase engagement and make our classrooms more accessible for social learning.
Zachary Sims, a graduating high school senior, noted his ability to read, compare, and determine value and validity of hundreds of online articles (Rich, 2008).  He is able to sift through the misinformation to draw a conclusion.  Obtaining this many perspectives from traditional texts would be very difficult, even more so for young students in isolated communities.  But as Rich noted, many internet users are unable to sort the hoaxes from the facts.  I have often heard grade school students reporting fiction as truth.   Stating they saw on television or online, therefore it is correct.  Despite multiple discussion, these children were not yet able to grasp that false information is just as easy to post as highly researched information.  Personally, I think it is reckless to give open internet access to children who do not yet have the life experience or brain development to decipher critically.   As educators, our job is to provide alternate outlets for their curious minds to explore and experience until they have practiced and are ready to critically think. 
In conclusion, we must be aware that society will advance and change regardless of our desire to be at the cutting edge of new technologies and media.  We should definitely be aware of the tools and resource available and offer them to our students when necessary and appropriate.  We should focus on the timeless skills that all students need, the ability to care for themselves and others and to contribute to society.

Rich, M. (2008, July 27). Literacy Debate: Online, R U Really Reading? Retrieved September 24,    2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/books/27reading.html?_r=0

No comments:

Post a Comment