Conclusion
New technologies and
literacies have historically spawned great concern over threats to previous
institutions. But just like those institutions past, the coming ones are formed
out of the confluence of social practice situated in particular kairotic
exigencies. Particular contexts develop out of need or demand, and we negotiate
through the ecology of disparate power, resources, and interests to come into a
new situation. The positive here is that we have agency in shaping those
situations together through the sum of our social practices. In a time of
prolific textual production, writing teachers are perfectly positioned to help
students develop the critical consciousness necessary for shaping the most just
system possible. And this is the aim upon which I base my understanding of
critical digital literacy education as an ethical charge.
As I have shown, however, the
specific texts and processes that serve as the raw materials out of which we
shape the current moment have the capacity to muddy our fulfillment of this
task. In my analysis of "Consider the Source," I have raised ethical questions
in the categories of identity, humor, and fair use–just a few of the
possible ethical challenges I could have named. These problems and more will
continue to emerge in classrooms that encourage students to produce multimodal
work for public distribution. That said, I would like to offer some reflections
that shape a pedagogy I feel will best serve teachers and students who take on
this work.
Digital literacy education
has been positioned as a social good by scholars in the fields of rhetoric and
composition, literacy, and education since the early 1990's, and that early
hyper-optimism has since been tempered and critiqued toward more realistic
assessments based in actual practice. In some ways, we need to tailor our
digital pedagogy to account for and help shape ways that students already
use digital media for their own ends. As Bertrand
Bruce (2002)
describes:
If we conceive literacy practices as a set of activities
around texts, including understanding and composing, but also the whole complex
of social relations and actions related to making and communicating meaning,
then literacy becomes inextricable from community, and from the ways in which
communities and society change. It is likewise inseparable from the material
means by which knowledge is negotiated, synthesized, and used. (Bruce, 2002, p.
3)
As educators, we have a
specific role in both preparing students to continue developing their digital
literacies and in helping them understand the direct ways in which those
literacies actively impact the social world. These duel obligations are
facilitated when we adopt a pedagogy of both play and dialogue.
In my analysis of humor in
"Consider the Source," I pose the question: how do we decide when to use our
full teacherly authority as evaluators and as administrators of virtual class
spaces, and when to respect our students' rights to learn-through-play and to
take informed risks? It is important to note that in many cases, learning and
risk-taking might never emerge if we do not allow space for creative play. A
decade ago, Albert
Rouzie (2001)
revealed the power of play in online writing spaces. Contradicting teacher
evaluations of playful synchronous discussion as distracting, out of control,
or a waste of time, Rouzie reflects that "play... is a major dialectical
force in an evolving, somewhat chaotic system of interaction" (2001, p. 265).
Play in digital literacy work, similarly, can bring about the unwieldy ethical
challenges that open a space for the "meta-communion unattainable through the
merely serious" (Rouzie, 2001, p. 255). If students are never given
the opportunity to freely make what they will, we may never reach the
place to openly discuss the problems that can arise therein, in the relatively
safe and educational environment of the writing classroom. Students may
otherwise be left to face these risks on their own when exigencies are
compelling and consequences can be dire.
Like Rouzie, James
Paul Gee (2004)
advocates the value of play in formal educational environments. He reinforces
the challenge of teaching digital literacies in an academic space, describing
the situation as one in which:
Many children are exposed to language and other symbols
connected to modern technologies and media (e.g. the Internet, video games,
text messaging) that seem more compelling and motivating than school language.
These forms of language are, in come cases, complex and fairly technical, so
the issue is not just that academic language is technical or complex. These new
technologies and media may well recruit forms of thinking, interacting, and
valuing that are quite different from–and again, more compelling and
motivating than–those children find in today's schools. (Gee, 2004, p. 37)
Advocating the
literacy-learning affordances of video games, Gee continues that games can be "...constructed to
allow for moral dialogue and reflection. But here such dialogue and reflection
take place inside the situations that have triggered them, not detached from
them" (2004, p. 56). In other words, play in the classroom can serve students
as they come to feel more drawn to the educational experience, and as problems
that arise out of that enriched environment can be addressed pedagogically in a
"sandbox" environment whose real-world consequences are relatively lessened
(Gee, 2004, p.66). Additionally, making room for play in digital environments
can stimulate reception of and attachment to the more traditional academic
literacies and outcomes that are so often decontextualized from immediate needs
in students' daily lives. Opening up space for play lets us enjoy learning and
take chances that can result in even deeper discovery.
And yet, I do not want to
minimize the very real ethical problems related to identity, humor, and fair
use that I describe above. In the case of "Consider the Source," student play
risks copyright infringement charges, illicit substance use investigations,
libel charges, denial of future job opportunities, and more. A pedagogy of play
in digital literacy education is only ethically responsible if it is
accompanied by a pedagogy of dialogue that brings these issues to the
forefront, provides resources for learning more about potential risks, gives
students a voice in developing classroom discourse about dangerous practices,
and essentially, positions the writing teacher as facilitator and co-learner.
Digital compositions are an
iconic platform from which students can trace through their own composing
processes the profound global linkages informing our economic, political,
and ideological landscape. And those digital literacies in action, publicly
circulated, in turn help reshape that same landscape. We are teaching and
learning in a moment of deep complexity. As writing teachers, we must be
rhetorical and strategic in building our pedagogies out of the resources and
exigencies of that complexity in an ethically-motivated effort to help
construct the moments to come. We must be what Byron
Hawk (2007)
calls "co-responsible," recognizing that:
In the context of composition pedagogy, teachers need to
build smarter environments in which their students work. [...]These
environments are constellations of architectures, technologies, texts, bodies,
histories, heuristics, enactments, and desires that produce the conditions of
possibility for emergence, for inventions. Heuristics, then, cannot be reduced
to generic, mental strategies that function unproblematically in any given
classroom situation. They are enacted in particular contexts and through
particular methods that reveal or conceal elements of a situation and enable or
limit the way students interact with and live in that distributed environment.
Attending to this level of specificity in our classrooms is ultimately a
fundamentally ethical act that should no longer haunt our pedagogical practice.
(p. 249)
Hawk further argues that we must "design the
occasions of our classrooms to foster the potential for emergent, inventive
moments rather than uncritically apply generic heuristics or processes" (2007,
p. 252). In "Righteous Remix," I
attempted to occasion for students the project of learning and
developing traditional print-based academic modes in combination with digital
literacies in the act of public intervention in a global problem through
localization.
We are teaching in a
difficult global, political moment. It can be compelling in moments of doubt
and fear to cling to the familiar, historically-valued, traditional goals of
classroom practices. But, as Gee (2004) offers, "The other [option] is to fight
the neoliberal agenda and make schools sites for creativity, deep thinking, and
the formation of whole people: sites in which all children can gain portfolios
suitable for success,... and gain the ability to critique and transform social
formations in the service of creating better worlds for all" (p. 110). Jenkins, Clinton,
Purushotma, Robison and Weigel (2006) connect this social, political possibility with
play when they articulate that:
Empowerment comes from making meaningful decisions within a
real civic context: we learn the skills of citizenship by becoming political
actors and gradually coming to understand the choices we make in political
terms. Today's children learn through play the skills they will apply to more
serious tasks later. The challenge is how to connect decisions in the context
of our everyday lives with the decisions made at local, state, or national
levels. The step from watching television news and acting politically seems
greater than the transition from being a political actor in a game world to
acting politically in the "real world." (p. 10)
I raise my voice with this
brave chorus, and encourage writing teachers (all teachers, really) to
recognize the benefit of co-learning and co-teaching with our students the
literacy practices that are an economic advantage in the information economy,
but an ethical necessity in the shaping of a more socially just future for all.
References
Adler-Kassner,
L. (2008). The activist WPA:
Changing stories about writers and writing. Logan, UT: Utah University
Press.
Apple,
M. (Ed.). (2010). Global
crises, social justice, and education [Kindle version]. Retrieved from
Amazon.com
Aufderheider, P. (2011, August 21). The common sense of the fair-use doctrine. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Common-Sense-of-the/128756/
Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Bruce,
B. (2002). Diversity and
critical social engagement: How changing technologies enable new modes of
literacy in changing circumstances. In D. E. Alverman (Ed.), Adolescents and
literacy in a digital world (pp. 1-18). New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang.
Worried about how he'd look on YouTube, NJ donut shop
employee clobbers thief. (2007, December 12). Associated Press.
Clinton, H. R. (2010, January). Remarks on Internet freedom. Speech
presented at The Newseum, Washington, D.C. Transcript retrieved from http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm
de
Certeau, M. (1984). The
practice of everyday life (S. Rendall, Trans.). University of California
Press, Berkeley.
DeVoss,
D. N., Cushman, E., & Grabill, J. (2005). Infrastructure and composing: The when of new-media
writing. College Composition and Communication, 57(1),14-44.
Fanon,
F. (2004). The wretched of
the earth (R. Philcox, Trans.). New York: Grove, 2004.
Glanz, J. &
Markoff, J. (2011, June 12). U.S.
underwrites Internet detour around censors. The New York Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/world/12internet.html?pagewanted=all
Gee,
J. P. (2003).
What video games have to teach us about language and literacy. New York,
NY: Macmillan.
Gee,
J. P. (2004). Situated
language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. Routledge.
Gilyard,
K. (2008). Composition and
Cornel West: Notes toward a deep democracy. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University.
Grove,
S. & Padania, S.
(2010, September 21). Your ideas on human rights and free expression on
YouTube. Broadcasting Ourselves: The Official YouTube Blog. Retrieved
from http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/09/your-ideas-on-human-rights-and-free.html
Hardt,
M. & Negri, A. (2000).
Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hardt,
M. & Negri, A.
(2004). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. New York:
Penguin Press.
Hardt,
M. & Negri, A.
(2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge: Belknap, 2009.
Hardt,
M. & Negri, A. (2011, February 24). Arabs are democracy's new pioneers. The
Guardian. Retrieved from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/24/arabs-democracy-latin-america
Hawisher,
G. & Selfe, C.
(2004). Becoming literate in the information age: Cultural ecologies and the
literacies of technology. College Composition and Communication, 55(4),
642-692.
Hawk,
B. (2007). A counter-history
of composition: Toward methodologies of complexity. Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press.
Hesford,
W., & Schell, E.
(2008). Introduction: Configurations of transnationality: Locating feminist
rhetorics. College English, 70(5), 461-470.
Jenkins,
H., Clinton,
K., Purushotma, R., Robison, A., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the challenges of
participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago: The
MacArthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.digitallearning.macfound.org
Johnson-Eilola,
J. (2005). Datacloud: Toward
a new theory of online work. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Kincheloe,
J. (2008). Critical pedagogy
primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Lessig, L. (2008). Remix: Making art and commerce
thrive in the hybrid economy. New York, NY: Penguin.
"President Obama on the situation in Egypt: 'All governments must maintain power
through consent, not coercion.'" The White House, Washington D.C. 28
January 2011. Whitehouse.gov. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Readings, B. (1996). The University in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Ridolfo, J., &
DeVoss, D. N. (2009). Composing for
recomposition: Rhetorical velocity and delivery. Kairos, 13.2. Retrieved
from: http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/13.2/topoi/ridolfo_devoss/intro.html
Ritter,
K. (2009). Before
Shaughnessy: Basic writing at Yale and Harvard. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Rouzie,
A. (2001). Conversation and
carrying-on: Play, conflict, and serio-ludic discourse in synchronous computer
conferencing. College Composition and Communication, 53(2),
251-299.
Sassen,
S. (2006). Territory,
authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Selber,
S. (2004) Reimagining the
functional side of computer literacy. College Composition and Communication,
55(3), 470–503.
U.S. Department of
Commerce, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration. (2011). Digital literacy
initiative fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.digitalliteracy.gov/sites/digitalliteracy.gov/files/Digital_Literacy_Fact_Sheet_051311.pdf
Welch,
N. (2008). Living room.
Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook, Heinemann.
Wilson, R. (2011, October 2). Syracuse's
slide: As chancellor focuses on the 'public good,' Syracuse's reputation
slides. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://chronicle.com/article/Syracuses-Slide/129238/
___________