Comments

1. Hi Paul,

   You raise some good questions but I'm not sure that the Annual Meeting is the place for critical review of work.  The conference setting and opportunity to share with colleagues from accross the country is an invitation to showcase and celebrate.  How many folks are willing to engage in public flagellation?  Of course, I know that's not what you mean, but I believe that is how many people would interpret it.  When you go public, you present your best face -cover the warts and put on the finery.

   The other issue that you raised for me is the question of how valuable all forms of technology may be.  I grow weary of yet another Power Point, a skill that I have not yet acquired, but for those who have mastered the power point program it is an accomplishment.  Hopefully, like the child learning to put a puzzle together or build with blocks, folks will grow weary of the same old thing and begin to explore and branch out.  So, what pushes the child to add a different shape block or ask for another puzzle?  We need some time to feel comfortable in our mastery.  

   You say digital storytelling is easy and it's not about writing but I disagree.  It's not easy for everyone and why isn't it about writing?  You have to select your theme and organize your materials (words, images, music) just as you would when composing.  If the writing is stuck at a particular level (may not be the appropriate word) than don't we need to ask ourselves what we do to move it beyond?

   Why does writing have to be published?  Why do we have to blog publicly?  What are the real distinctions in the language of blogs, wikis, email, etc?  Does it matter that I write with a wordprocessor or paper and pen?  Are the distinctions great enough to take into consideration when designing instruction?  I think I know or guess your answer to some of these questions.   For people, like myself, who haven't been using the various media for very long, it is difficult to see, never mind understand, the importance of these distinctions.

   Lastly, I think we do need to be reflective and critical, but those in the forefront need to be cautious about criticizing those who are just getting on board.  It's not a question of not evaluating our work or pusing ouselves to the next level.  It's a question of alienating those who may want to get on board but are still too unsure.  Maybe the meek will end up left behind anyway and the pioneers will have to forge ahead, but don't we want some company. (And I'm not including myself in among the pioneers when I say we.)  I thought about all the sites that did technology presentations and why NYC wasn't asked to do more.  We certainly have teachers who can show work they are doing with technology in their classes.  But I began to get the sense, maybe not valid, that we are too different from most other sites in many ways not just in our approach to technology.  So what do we really have to teach a site where holding a monthly workshop in learning new software is a major innovation for a region?  Or, where learning digital storytelling means the difference between some technology in the classroom and none?  

   I need to stop here because I'm losing the thread of what I'm trying to say.  I would need to let this sit, reread and revise this after coming back to it in a few days, and maybe my sense of where I am going will be clearer.  Does that happen in a blog? 

   Felicia George on Tuesday, 28 November 2006, 22:04 UTC #

2. Hi Paul

   I know this is an old video post but I just came upon it, and I want to say I appreciate your reflections and think a lot of what you say is correct -- many teachers are happy just to say, we are using technology, and not doing enough deep reflection on whether or not such things are changing writing. For example, the Writing in a Digital Age session did not really reflect a change in writing, in my opinion, just different publishing interfaces. The audience changes, perhaps, but not the composition process.

   So how does tech change composition?

   Here is one idea: I was thinking of some ways to use multiple video frames that could intersect different narrative lines or connections. Just think of the planning -- the thinking -- that would have to go into such a project, and what it would mean to pull it off -- or even the attempt to pull it off -- it's the thinking that goes the multiple frame compositions. (Remember my Blink poem project -- the eyeballs? That was what I was trying to get at, I think).

   Anyway, I appreciate your ability to articulate your concerns and worries, and your questioning of us as teachers. We need to be more critical of ourselves. Language, genre, audience, etc, are all viable avenues for critical inquiry, and how many of us are really doing that with technology? Not many. Not me, at least, not on any official level.

   Peace, my friend,

   Kevin

    

    

    

    

    

   Kevin Hodgson on Thursday, 28 December 2006, 20:07 UTC #