Return-Path: <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f6OH3Qf02103; Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 13:03:26 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <v03007807b783776e3f9b@[128.192.78.60]> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: David Reinking <dreinkin@coe.uga.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-technology@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-TECHNOLOGY:1936] Re: Opening questions for David Reinking X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Status: O Content-Length: 7714 Lines: 143 Dear Steve (and others on the list), You raise some very good questions and issues. Some of them even open up cans of worms, but more in the sense of pleasure and anticipation that I remember when I was a boy going fishing. Before I share some of my thinking and my own questions in response, I want to say I appreciate the honorific "Professor Reinking," but I'd prefer "David" which is more consistent with the stance and role I want to play in this discussion. First, I couldn't agree more that conceptions of literacy need to evolve and change in relation to digital forms of communication. That this evolution is beginning to happen is evidenced by the introduction of terms such as "representational literacy," "visual literacy," "new literacies" (e.g., see Hagood 2000), "media- and multimedia literacies," and my own use of the descriptor "post-typographic" to indicate the extensive transformations of literacy that digital media imply. However, the investment that many have in conventional print based literacy is not easily replaced and neither are the assumptions that have been associated with conventional literacy. Your example of plagiarism, along with the related concepts of copyright and intellectual property, is a good case in point. I'd make two points in relation to that example. First, I think we have to realize that our beliefs and assumptions about plagiarism (as well as a host of other values and assumptions related to print) didn't come down the mountain with Moses. Plagiarism, at least in some forms and instances, have historically been not only tolerated, but valued. Plagiarism presumes that ideas are in some sense subordinate to the ways of articulating them in written language and likewise presumes that there are lots of original ideas that arise from and that can be attributable to individuals. Both notions are debatable and are not necessarily held in non-print or non-western cultures. And, at least some writers (e.g., Eisenstein, 1983) have attributed these beliefs to the rise of print culture in the West and more generally to the technologies of writing associated with print. The confrontation between the longstanding typographic and the new post typographic worlds can be seen clearly in relation to the issue of plagiarism, because digital technologies invite stances towards texts, reading, and writing that undermine the assumptions that sustain the concept of plagiarism. Digital texts tend to focus on clarifying meanings in a collaborative dialogue that also more clearly exposes the fact that few of us have truly original ideas in solitary. Then too, as you point out, there is the practical limitation of "policing" plagiarism in a digital environment. Interestingly, I've heard about technological solutions to this problem. One of our doctoral students told me about a service that can rapidly compare a student's written work to documents on the web to see if there is too close of a match. But, viewing technology in this way reflects our tendency to save the old literacy rather than examine it and perhaps embrace a new literacy that might suggest a re-examination and perhaps reformulation of concepts such as plagiarism. So, in answer to your question, I think an emerging literacy awareness is "filtering and selecting" information but more for the sake of finding the most relevant, useful, and convincing information from diverse, readily available sources, not, I hope, from the standpoint of deciding what information might be used ethically in a legal sense. In fact, I'd rather turn the question around 180 degrees: When is it ethically justifiable to deny people access to and dissemination of potentially useful information? There are a lot of unexamined assumptions related to these issues. I've written more extensively about them in the following source: Reinking, D. (1996). Reclaiming a scholarly ethic: Deconstructing "intellectual property" in a post-typographic world. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K.A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st Century: Research and practice (pp. 461-470). Forty fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference. The most relevant issue I think is that today as someone has pointed out, finding the information you need is like trying to take a sip of water from a fire hose. One dimension of helping people become literate in a post-typographic world means helping them contend with that reality. E-books are another interesting topic that you allude to. In a chapter I am writing on the future of the book I point out that currently it is difficult to define exactly what or where a book is. Like you, I wonder if a book that reads itself aloud is a book or a performance. Or, even wilder is the work being done with electronic inks that theoretically allow for paper-like surfaces that can be bound together in a book form but that has all the capabilities of digital media. That is, eventually we might all have a device that looks like a book but that can become any book almost instantaneously and that includes all of the interactivity and accessibility of a digital device. If so, where is the book? The device or some arbitrary unit of its ever-changing contents? Might such "books" be a crutch, you ask? Maybe so, but only from the standpoint of conventional literacy. That is, if our goals is to maintain and promote conventional reading based on the printed book, I suppose e-books might be considered a crutch, but then again these same kind of arguments were advanced with hand-held calculators and with spell checkers--concerns that seem to be unfounded. In fact, it is reasonable to think that e-book reading now might actually be a gateway to enhancing more conventional literacy. In the future it might even be a moot issue if digital reading becomes more the everyday norm. You also asked, "How will it [use of e-books and other digital texts] affect the overall state of literacy and education? I think eventually they will turn literacy and education up side down, but not easily or anytime soon. I think that much of the reason that computer technologies aren't integrated more into literacy instruction in particular and education in general is not for the usual reasons: acquiring hardware and software, teacher training, etc. Instead, it's because the capabilities of digital texts are inherently at odds with traditional notions of literacy, of schooling, of teaching, of learning, etc. Seymour Papert said that schools treat computers much like the body's white blood cells treat an invading virus. To truly make use of the capabilities of electronic texts would mean turning our backs on many of the pedagogies with which we have become familiar and it would mean shooting some sacred cows. Well, I'm feeling a sense of frustration because I've only scratched the surface of some of the very important and heavy issues you've raised. And, I'm writing very much in a stream of consciousness mode that is consistent with this medium. But, I'm going to stop here hoping that you and others will react. Look forward to that. David References Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The printing revolution in early modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Hagood, M. C. (2000). New times, new millennium, new literacies. Reading Research and Instruction, 39, 311-328. ******************************* David Reinking Professor & Department Head Editor: Journal of Literacy Research University of Georgia Department of Reading Education 309 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 706-542-4623 voice 706-542-3817 fax *******************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:31:20 EST