Assumptions
Make an Ass of U and Me
Institutions
of higher education make a number of assumptions about students. One such
assumption of great gravity, but that is often over looked, is the assumption
that all of our students have access to the basic technologies that they will
need to be successful at the university. Yes, many institutions have nearly
round the clock access to state-of-the-art computer labs and nearly all of the
students on such campuses have access to these electronic devices and software.
These technological offerings are certainly impressive but, although students may
have physical access to technology, they may not actually know what to do with
it. Without fairly sophisticated technological literacies, most students are
unable to use these technologies in meaningful ways (we’ll define this later in
the discussion). This flies in the face of common claims that our students are
all impressively technologically literate since they are videogame and texting
wizards. Luckily, scholars like Adam Banks encourage us, as educators, to
remember that not all students have equal access and literacy to academic technologies
and that we are desperately in need of “serious, thoughtful discussion about
race and the problem of access to computers, the Internet, and information
technologies” (Banks, 2006, p.13).
A
Review of Banks
For
Banks, access “requires an individual or group of people having the material of
any particular technology, along with the knowledge and experience and genuine
inclusion in the networks in which decisions are made about their design and
implementation that enables them to use –or reuse—them in ways that make sense
in their lives” (p.135). When he discusses the missed opportunities of the Digital
Divide from the late 1990’s in his chapter “Oakland, The Word, and the Divide:
How We All Missed the Moment,” Banks draws a clear parallel between the NCTE’s “Resolution
on Students’ Rights to their Own Language” to students’ rights to meaningful
engagement with technology. For him, discussions on language, such as the
Oakland School District’s appeal to include Ebonics as a legitimate language also
in the 1990’s all serve as a springboard for discussion surrounding the lack of
technological literacy that African Americans and rural poor tend to experience
in the United States in that language is a form of expressing power just as
meaningful literacy in various technological media also serves as a means to
power and change. Unfortunately, according to Banks, such conversations do not
frequently occur and, in the case of the late 1990’s, an essential opportunity
for such discussions was missed by nearly every writing educator of the time.
Focusing
on Technological Access in the Classroom
Banks
goes on to explain that “the rhetorical problems that dominate understanding of
race in our discipline are technological problems” (p.12) and his treatment of
this discussion is both fascinating and thorough in his book-length analysis of
this issue. For this class, however, perhaps a more immediately applicable
discussion of Banks’s scholarship lies in his concerns with using technology in
the classroom and the potential means with which we might assist our students
in developing literacy beyond material or experiential access. Banks’ primary
concern is that technology is either entirely not available to students or that
it is “dumbed down by skills only curricula [see his example on p.19]” (p.19)
and not used in meaningful ways to empower students to achieve transformational
access. In this way, teachers and administrators must be critically aware of
technological implementation in the classroom and we must be cautious of simply
importing technology into our pedagogies as a quick solution to a complex
problem.
Unfortunately, this careful consideration is
all too often the exception rather than the rule and technology is often
treated as a magical solution where throwing money at the problem of
technological illiteracy is thought to make the problem go away. This poorly
considered solution often leaves educational institutions with quickly outdated
technologies that are useless to both students and teachers in addition to
perpetuating despair and disillusionment with the constant pursuit of accessing
relevant technologies.
Scholars
like Cyndie Selfe, Gail Hawisher, Marilyn Cooper, Kathy Yancey, and Charles
Moran argue that implementation of technology into a classroom without careful
purpose and critical consideration often merely advance hegemonic classroom
roles. They, like Banks, argue that teachers must “make sure clearly
articulated pedagogical goals drive all technology decisions so that purchases,
training, and planning related to technologies related to technology
implementation remains relevant to the learning, social, political, and
economic needs of those we hope to serve” (Banks, p.20).
Despite
the careful implementation of technology by some educators, many teachers and
students still resist the implementation of technology as a new and
intimidating or unnecessary literacy and, as a result, students are not
assisted in the development of meaningful technological access. Banks argues
that “committing fully to integrating technologies in the classroom can put us
in touch with the natural awkwardness and adjustments that come with picking up
new skills and acquiring new discourses, and help us move beyond some of the
debilitating assumptions we made about all student writing, and especially that
of students from different linguistic traditions” (Banks, p.139). In this way,
Banks argues that our discomfort and struggles with technology are actually
natural and useful means of working through technology just as working through
linguistic differences enable us to embrace all types of student writing. Such
pedagogy requires that teachers accept and embrace their limitations and that
they even accept a level of discomfort as they “put themselves out there”
amongst the students in learning various technologies. Something that, I would
argue, is a valuable pedagogical and personal experience.
Meaningful,
Schmeaningful – What Does Meaningful Access Look Like?
At
this point, it is important to recognize that Banks defines “meaningful” access
as access that enacts social change. Of course, this is not necessarily the
same level of access that we all accept since we are not all activists and it
is unfair to ask our students to be (unless they want to). What IS important in
Banks’ discussion is that everyone should have the ability to experience such
access if they choose to. For me, it is essential that we attempt to introduce
students to levels of technology beyond their comfort level to develop in them
the critical thinking skills that make advanced technological literacy
possible. It is, of course, impossible to elevate students from material access
to transformative access over the course of one semester but it is possible to
build students’ technological confidence and knowledge to set them on the right
path.
The
Long and Short of It
If,
as Banks claims, technological literacy and access are key to social
transformation (something that I imagine David Parry would agree with), it
seems that the “burden of access is not only the responsibility of those
seeking it, but is a systemic burden as well” (Banks, p.21). If we want to
truly value various literacies and if we want our students to have the
opportunity to enact social change, then a well-considered technological
pedagogy seems like a logical place to start. It is not enough to simply
encourage students to use technology. We must, instead, provide them with
meaningful and challenging opportunities to embrace technology and, thus,
improve their technological comfort level. After all, as Banks points out, “just
as the right to vote alone does not ensure that people have access to the
local, state, or federal governments that are supposed to serve them, just as
school desegregation alone did not magically provide equal access to education,
a few computers and Internet connection alone will not mean that people in
rural communities, poor people and other people of color will wake up some fine
day and marvel that they now have equal access to technology and information” (Banks,
p.137).
Works Cited
Banks, A. (2006). Race,
rhetoric, and technology: Searching for higher ground. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Cooper,
Marilyn M. and Cynthia L. Selfe. "Computer Conferences and Learning:
Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse." College
English, 52.8 (Dec., 1990), 847-869. Print.
Hawisher,
Gail E. and Cynthia L. Selfe. "The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing
Class." College
Composition and Communication, 42.1 (Feb., 1991), 55-65. Print.
Moran, Charles and Cynthia L. Selfe. “Teaching
English across the Technology/Wealth Gap.” The
English Journal 88.6 (Jul., 1999), 48-55. Print.
Selfe,
Cynthia L. "Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not
Paying Attention." College Composition and Communication 50.3
(1999): 411-436. Print.
Yancey,
Kathleen Blake. "Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key." College Composition and
Communication. 56.2 (2004): 297-328. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment