If I ramble please forgive...
First reading: Kress and Jewitt – Introduction in Multimodal Literacy, 2003, and Jewitt – Re-thinking Assessment: multimodality, literacy, and computer-mediated learning, 2003
Second Reading: Power of Multimodality Hull & Nelson (2004) and Learning with Media Kozma (1991).
(Loosely from Kress and Jewitt) I think I am still stuck on design and educational relationships to making good citizens or whatever it is that education is supposed to do. As defined on page 17: "Design refers to how people make use of the resources that are available at a given moment in a specific communicational environment to realise their interests as makers of a message/text." And educationalgoal-wise "The desired goal, whether of education systems, of learning theories, as well as of many institutions, is to produce competence as rules in social individuals in relation to the set of practices that are at issue...in an era of profound and rapid change, neither the goal of competence nor the (imagined) reality behind the goal are any longer serviceable or sustainable." They go on to say that design naturally incorporates the aims of competence and critique. So, in the age of computer technology, if we are of certain priviledge we have access to many resources that allow us a wide variety of ways in which to create meaning and messages. Is design the most appropriate word for this ability? Does the word matter, perhaps not. It seems though, that despite the technologies that we have at hand, which exist for whatever reason (maybe to allow us these sort of opportunities, maybe as Ellul points out because we have the ability and desire to create things regardless of their potential purposes) we are inhibited from using the technology to the greatest benefit of ourselves and others, i.e. innovative ways of using things, because we have an outdated or even modern understanding of why things exist (e.g. person A learns to computer for surfing the web and checking email or using AIM, their perception of the uses of the computer over time then become attached to a very limited number of functions that the computer has). I guess what I am interested in exploring is...questions on this bent that examine how we have the 'design' potential to communicate and make meaning in so many different ways yet we self limit that exploration...do students really all need to be on the same page regarding every issue? could students' minds be opened in such a way that they harness something like a cell phone and use it to construct meaning and or communicate a message and thereby learn from it?
Othertopics-wise:
Perhaps in 1983 it wasn't self evident that a particular media does have a large effect on the way in which something is learned when Clark called for a moratorium on media/learning studies. I for one, am glad that the academic world didn't head that extremely blind thesis. A quick search online, though, reveals that this debate has not been laid to rest, with Clark still contending that people don't really get what he's saying. If you would like to read Richard Clark's comments on this topic as recently discussed in an academic conference it is an interesting response. This blog has some insight on the issue as well. In some ways, and acknowledging my extremely limited ability to say anything of meaning on this topic, it appears to be sort of a knee jerk reaction to McLuhanites or something of that nature. But I have not read Clark, only summaries. I found the Lyfe-N-Rhyme multimedia piece to be a good case in point that the media does effect what is learned. As Hull and Nelson pointed out, much of what was communicated through the piece would have been very different given a different medium...and that the whole does in fact communicate a different type of meaning than any of its parts or if something very similar had been said in a different way. The entire DUSTY project, I find to be very fascinating on many different levels. Socially, educationally, wow. I guess what all this leaves me wondering about is how to most effectively harness multimedia and multimodal learning while still teaching the massive amounts of information that needs to be taught to middle and high school students. Seems extremely problematic. Too bad we can't download all the basic information into our heads and then focus on more interesting things, like critically interpreting, deconstructing and understanding said information.
4 comments:
Letmebeign htos comment by remindign you that I know nothign about htis topic what-so-ever! Ah..that said...letmeblab.
I was thinking about your comments on design. It made me poder the idea wthat design is HOW we use an given set or materials (as in the definition you initially offered). Later you commented on ability...I think you are right....design is not about ability (as in talent or availability)... it is about HOW materials are used. Seems true to me tho that the increase in technology and its disparate availably does complicate things tho.
I was really excited to see that DUSTY after school project. Made me wonder.... is this stuff largely relegated to after school and if so WHY? It seems so crucial to emotional development (there is the therapist speaking) as well as to skill devleopment and just plain "learning" etc.
Never heard of Richard Clark. I read the links you posted. Sounds like some pretty intense research. Too bad it seems like the points he raised (whatever they are all about) seem to have been debated for 10 years instead of truly advanced.... but maybe I misunderstood.
I particlularly liked this part of what he said:
We need to examine the extraordinary economic benefits we can expect from different media. Governments and industry should support ecologically valid studies of the savings in time and money available if we deliver training, education and other types of performance supports through newer (and more established) media. We do not need to argue for learning benefits from media in order to realize their extraordinary potential. At the same time, we need to be investing much more in the study of methods that influence cognitive processes that characterize complex learning and problem solving. Separating these two questions will liberate the development of both media and instructional design.
ahhh ... yes, and speaking of design and one's technological resources....please excuse my lousy keyboard (and subsequent typos, especially in the beginning of the previous comment)...I should have a new keyboard soon.
thanks for reading my long thingy thing carol...good points regarding issues of design in how materials are used...you just made me think of something you said a while ago regarding afterschool programs...esp after fallout with our involvment in the Hub, something to the extent that a program like DUSTY or the Hub can't exist a religious sphere...we threw around the idea in class that perhaps the paper we read on DUSTY was as much a defense of the project as a valid and meaningful learning environment as it was an exploration of multimodal learning...seems like whatever realm you are in doing such things someone doesn't think its valid or valuable...too bad eh? and WHY is it that this stuff is only seen as an afterschool activity and not an integral part of education or life learning development? i don't know...interesting.
I think I will start with the response to Carol S., perhaps it is the "problem of content" as defined by Gee that stands in the way of projects like the ones created at DUSTY from being included as a regular part of the school curriculum. Though, I could imagine Lyfe-N-Rhyme as a project in an English class.
The question that your musings on design raises for me is can and do people go beyond the affordances of a given technology to design a message? Hard to imagine, though some surely do and this relates to the development of new technologies. The rest of us though are constrained by the affordances. The question of interest to everyone is how do these affordances and constraints affect thinking, learning, and communication?
One other thought regards the notion of parsimony. It seems to me that people learn just what they need to learn with any given technology in order to accomplish what they wish to accomplish with it. In other words, they take a parsimonious approach to learning software. The simplest route to accomplishing the task is taken and they will learn what they need to learn "just in time" to accomplish the desired goal. This idea connects to the first, in the sense that if a student sees no point - no just in time or long term reason - for learning content, she will not learn it. Presenting content in a class for the sake of learning it to satisfy the teacher, one's parents, or other societal agents, just isn't compelling enough of a reason for some students to learn it.
The design issue then becomes one of creating a learning environment that inspires the 'need to know ' in students.
Post a Comment