Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 9/30
New Learning Chapter 5: Learner Personalities
This chapter of New Learning focuses on learner differences. This chapter specifically outlines the potential impacts of ignoring the varied backgrounds and differences of learners. The common ways of dealing with differences are differential exclusion and assimilation. Another option is “to grant differences some degree of formal recognition” (137). The text champions inclusiveness as the better way to appreciate the diversity in communities today. The authors make a point to emphasize that learners bring knowledge and experience with them to the classroom. Their everyday experiences or “lifeworld” comes with them to class. The lifeworld includes the things that one knows through living; it is unconscious learning. Education’s goal and challenge is “to engage with and extend learners’ lifeworld experiences” (138). There are three dimensions to lifeworld difference: material, corporeal, and symbolic. Material conditions refer to “differences of social class, geographical locale and family,” corporeal refers to “differences of age, race, sex and sexuality, and physical and mental capabilities,” symbolic refers to differences “of culture or ethnicity, language, gender, affinity and persona” (139). It is important to understand these dimensions of difference because “one of the keys to success or failure in formal learning is the distance between lifeworld experience and the culture and discourse of formal learning (education)” (138).
From here the the text provides a historical overview of how these dimensions have been treated in the modern past, recent times, and potential future of New Learning. This historical overview highlights the ways in which each time period dealt with difference. The modern past started with exclusion and pushed for assimilation. People in this area lacked access to resources or were placed in separate institutions. If they gained access, they were expected to assimilate to the ideas/norms of the majority. In recent times, there was a move towards recognizing difference. Differences were recognized, but there was no action taken to “redress” these differences. New Learning moves further by “developing strategies for inclusion in which corporeal differences do not create disadvantage” (183). Inclusion is favored for its ability to utilize differences to make things more productive.
New London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66.1 (1996): 60-92. PDF.
The New London Group argues, “the multiplicity of communications channels and increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in the world today call for a much broader view of literacy than portrayed by traditional language-based approaches.” (60). The authors take a similar approach to what was outlined in New Learning chapter 5 that inclusion of differences can make for a more productive society. The negotiation and discussion of difference provides a productive space to work and collaborate. The authors begin by defining education’s mission as “to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life” (61). The authors are working towards an inclusive pedagogy. In order to do this, they have to address differences. They note that the anxiety about differences and how to address differences has led to a variety of movements and countermovements (political correctness, back-to-basics, etc). Because of the world’s changing landscape, the authors agreed that “there was not a singular, canonical English that could or should be taught anymore” (63). The authors identified that significant changes are taking place in our working lives, public lives, and private lives. We are not in the age of “fast capitalism” with a “declined in public pluralism” and an “invasion of private space.” The authors are pushing for a literacy curriculum that addresses the multiliteracies that are inherent in today’s communication and in students’ linguistic and cultural background. They advocate for a pedagogy of multiliteracies focused around design. They encourage students to identify the available designs, to go through the process of designing, and to redesign by reconstructing and renegotiating their identifies and thus society. To address these changes, the New Learning Group presents a 4 part pedagogy: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice. Situated practice reminded me of meeting students where they are. It involves building on the “lifeworld” experiences of the studies by helping them to make meaning and connections in real world situations. Overt instruction encourage instructors and students to use the language of design (metalanguage-“a language for talking about language, images, texts, and meaning-making interactions”). Critical framing focuses on students critically analyzing social, political, cultural, context of texts. Transformed practice refers to students being able to transform meanings to design new meanings. The authors present that “designing restores human agency and cultural dynamos to the process of meaning making” (91).
DeVoss, Danielle Nicole, Ellen Cushman, and Jeffrey T. Grabill. “Infrastructure and Composing: The When of New-Media Writing.” College Composition and Communication 57.1 (2005): 14-44. Print.
This has been my favorite reading so far. The popular words this term seem to be infrastructure and interface. I think in both cases, these significant areas become invisible. We forget to consider their impact and influence. In this article, the authors focus on the institutional infrastructures that are needed to support new-media composing. They argue for the need to examine “materiality of such media” in addition to “issues of policy, definition, and ideology.” (16). Furthermore, the authors note the need for these areas to be examined by teachers, administrators, and students. The authors posit infrastructural analysis as a tool to examine and explore the infrastructure issues that impact composing with new media. The authors note that much work has been done to explore issues of access, race, gender, and class in regards to new media. However, standards, policies, and institutional locations have not been explored. The authors note that a lot of attention is paid to “the what and the why of new media without paying attention to the when of new-media composing” (15). They identify infrastructure as something that emerges. The authors identify instances when the infrastructure did not support the class design and curriculum. There was a disconnect between the instructor/students, IT, and administrators. The infrastructure, which includes all aspects of the composing process, did not provided adequate access or support. Composing in new media requires the acknowledgement of the infrastructure, which includes “an understanding of the deliverables to be produced” and “the audiences’ system and platform requirements for file formats, memory allocation, and hardware” (35). The infrastructure is a part of the process and students need to understand it in order to adequately address issues that may arise. Without this understanding students are limited in their ability to compose in new media spaces, specifically they “will fail to anticipate and actively participate in the emergence of such infrastructures, thereby limiting—rhetorically, technically, and institutionally, what is possible for [them] to write and learn” (37).
Reflection
The common thread for me this week was differences. The New Learning chapter and the New London group article both emphasized the importance of doing more than recognizing differences. They both encouraged utilizing differences in order to improve learning and collaboration. This is nice to read. However, my concern (as pointed out in previous week) is that this is impossible. I enjoyed that the New London group acknowledged that people/students have multiple and overlapping identities. I like that education was centered on utilizing diversity as a resource for learning. This article, like the New Learning text, seems so idealistic to me. Is this even possible? What would it look like? How would it scale? How is this type of learning accessed? Do we get rid of grades and focus on “learning”?
This chapter of New Learning focuses on learner differences. This chapter specifically outlines the potential impacts of ignoring the varied backgrounds and differences of learners. The common ways of dealing with differences are differential exclusion and assimilation. Another option is “to grant differences some degree of formal recognition” (137). The text champions inclusiveness as the better way to appreciate the diversity in communities today. The authors make a point to emphasize that learners bring knowledge and experience with them to the classroom. Their everyday experiences or “lifeworld” comes with them to class. The lifeworld includes the things that one knows through living; it is unconscious learning. Education’s goal and challenge is “to engage with and extend learners’ lifeworld experiences” (138). There are three dimensions to lifeworld difference: material, corporeal, and symbolic. Material conditions refer to “differences of social class, geographical locale and family,” corporeal refers to “differences of age, race, sex and sexuality, and physical and mental capabilities,” symbolic refers to differences “of culture or ethnicity, language, gender, affinity and persona” (139). It is important to understand these dimensions of difference because “one of the keys to success or failure in formal learning is the distance between lifeworld experience and the culture and discourse of formal learning (education)” (138).
From here the the text provides a historical overview of how these dimensions have been treated in the modern past, recent times, and potential future of New Learning. This historical overview highlights the ways in which each time period dealt with difference. The modern past started with exclusion and pushed for assimilation. People in this area lacked access to resources or were placed in separate institutions. If they gained access, they were expected to assimilate to the ideas/norms of the majority. In recent times, there was a move towards recognizing difference. Differences were recognized, but there was no action taken to “redress” these differences. New Learning moves further by “developing strategies for inclusion in which corporeal differences do not create disadvantage” (183). Inclusion is favored for its ability to utilize differences to make things more productive.
New London Group. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 66.1 (1996): 60-92. PDF.
The New London Group argues, “the multiplicity of communications channels and increasing cultural and linguistic diversity in the world today call for a much broader view of literacy than portrayed by traditional language-based approaches.” (60). The authors take a similar approach to what was outlined in New Learning chapter 5 that inclusion of differences can make for a more productive society. The negotiation and discussion of difference provides a productive space to work and collaborate. The authors begin by defining education’s mission as “to ensure that all students benefit from learning in ways that allow them to participate fully in public, community, and economic life” (61). The authors are working towards an inclusive pedagogy. In order to do this, they have to address differences. They note that the anxiety about differences and how to address differences has led to a variety of movements and countermovements (political correctness, back-to-basics, etc). Because of the world’s changing landscape, the authors agreed that “there was not a singular, canonical English that could or should be taught anymore” (63). The authors identified that significant changes are taking place in our working lives, public lives, and private lives. We are not in the age of “fast capitalism” with a “declined in public pluralism” and an “invasion of private space.” The authors are pushing for a literacy curriculum that addresses the multiliteracies that are inherent in today’s communication and in students’ linguistic and cultural background. They advocate for a pedagogy of multiliteracies focused around design. They encourage students to identify the available designs, to go through the process of designing, and to redesign by reconstructing and renegotiating their identifies and thus society. To address these changes, the New Learning Group presents a 4 part pedagogy: situated practice, overt instruction, critical framing, and transformed practice. Situated practice reminded me of meeting students where they are. It involves building on the “lifeworld” experiences of the studies by helping them to make meaning and connections in real world situations. Overt instruction encourage instructors and students to use the language of design (metalanguage-“a language for talking about language, images, texts, and meaning-making interactions”). Critical framing focuses on students critically analyzing social, political, cultural, context of texts. Transformed practice refers to students being able to transform meanings to design new meanings. The authors present that “designing restores human agency and cultural dynamos to the process of meaning making” (91).
DeVoss, Danielle Nicole, Ellen Cushman, and Jeffrey T. Grabill. “Infrastructure and Composing: The When of New-Media Writing.” College Composition and Communication 57.1 (2005): 14-44. Print.
This has been my favorite reading so far. The popular words this term seem to be infrastructure and interface. I think in both cases, these significant areas become invisible. We forget to consider their impact and influence. In this article, the authors focus on the institutional infrastructures that are needed to support new-media composing. They argue for the need to examine “materiality of such media” in addition to “issues of policy, definition, and ideology.” (16). Furthermore, the authors note the need for these areas to be examined by teachers, administrators, and students. The authors posit infrastructural analysis as a tool to examine and explore the infrastructure issues that impact composing with new media. The authors note that much work has been done to explore issues of access, race, gender, and class in regards to new media. However, standards, policies, and institutional locations have not been explored. The authors note that a lot of attention is paid to “the what and the why of new media without paying attention to the when of new-media composing” (15). They identify infrastructure as something that emerges. The authors identify instances when the infrastructure did not support the class design and curriculum. There was a disconnect between the instructor/students, IT, and administrators. The infrastructure, which includes all aspects of the composing process, did not provided adequate access or support. Composing in new media requires the acknowledgement of the infrastructure, which includes “an understanding of the deliverables to be produced” and “the audiences’ system and platform requirements for file formats, memory allocation, and hardware” (35). The infrastructure is a part of the process and students need to understand it in order to adequately address issues that may arise. Without this understanding students are limited in their ability to compose in new media spaces, specifically they “will fail to anticipate and actively participate in the emergence of such infrastructures, thereby limiting—rhetorically, technically, and institutionally, what is possible for [them] to write and learn” (37).
Reflection
The common thread for me this week was differences. The New Learning chapter and the New London group article both emphasized the importance of doing more than recognizing differences. They both encouraged utilizing differences in order to improve learning and collaboration. This is nice to read. However, my concern (as pointed out in previous week) is that this is impossible. I enjoyed that the New London group acknowledged that people/students have multiple and overlapping identities. I like that education was centered on utilizing diversity as a resource for learning. This article, like the New Learning text, seems so idealistic to me. Is this even possible? What would it look like? How would it scale? How is this type of learning accessed? Do we get rid of grades and focus on “learning”?
| Previous page on path | Chvonne Parker Bio, page 10 of 24 | Next page on path |
Discussion of "Chvonne's Reading and Thinking Notes 9/30"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...