- Email: [email protected]
Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention by Cynthia L. Selfe, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999
Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
Book review
Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention by Cynthia L. Selfe, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999 Joan King∗ DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA
Pay attention and develop a perspective regarding technology before humans become slaves to technology! A political conspiracy, preying on schoolteachers and well-intentioned parents, which subverts educational goals to train children to be cogs in the machine of a global high-tech economy, is already alive and well funded in America.
Above, my imagined quote for the jacket cover of Cynthia L. Selfe’s Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention would likely place it the section for the science fiction books, rather than the rhetoric and composition books at Barnes & Noble. Yet, as Selfe traces the development of and contributions to notions of technological literacy in the U.S. consciousness over the past two decades, her account is frighteningly realistic. She details the ideological landscape that has formed “official” definitions of literacy, now including technology skills, both giving rise to and resulting from major federal initiatives sold as “literacy projects.” Her thorough and compelling discussion of the Technology Literacy Challenge, an official, federally sponsored literacy project started in 1996, reveals the powerful economic and political forces driving such initiatives. She offers sage advice directly to teachers of composition, advice that is also relevant for educators, parents, and technology workers, to recognize and think critically about the relationship of technology and literacy. Literacy is an elusive and powerful term with as many definitions as there are rhetorical theorists. James Paul Gee (1997) defines literacy as “control of secondary uses of language (i.e. uses of language in secondary discourses). . . thus there are as many applications of literacy as there are discourses” (p. 8). Many theorists emphasize the importance of social and cultural aspects of literacy. For example, Judit Kadar-Fulop (1988) defines literacy as, among ∗
Email address: [email protected] (J. King).
8755-4615/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 8 7 5 5 - 4 6 1 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 3 - X
106
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
other things, “the acquisition of values attached to the written code” (p. 36). Nevertheless, identifiable and specific notions of “what literacy is” exist in our society. A person’s level of literacy can directly affect his or her ability to succeed in society—from students’ abilities to read at standard levels, to comprehending and completing job applications. Selfe explores factors, including “official” definitions of literacy from government or school administrators that allow such a collective and visible definition to exist. Specifically, she argues that the “official” or government sanctioned definition of literacy has changed over the past two decades to include basic competence with computers. She quotes one such definition issued by the Department of Education in Michigan: “A literate individual is one who communicates skillfully and effectively through printed, visual, auditory, and technological media in the home, school, community and workplace” (p. 79). Selfe argues that the development of the link between technology and literacy merits close analysis because it has resulted in “an agenda for technological literacy that requires the investment of all segments of American society. This agenda sustains an increasingly vigorous domestic computer sector and helps create and extend the world market for American technology” (p. xxi). As many have observed, literacy has always been associated with technology—from stone tablets to parchment scrolls to hand-held computers. The skills and knowledge for recording, saving, accessing, and interpreting information and communication have required the use of tools. And access to the latest tools has always been limited to a powerful, privileged segment of the world’s population. Yet no other literacy tool has enjoyed such widespread adoption— given the relatively staggering cost of acquisition and equally daunting learning curve—as the personal computer. Selfe observes that technological skills have somehow become a “natural” part of literacy. It has become a “common sense” requirement in the budgets and psyches of all schools regardless of age or literacy levels. Selfe quotes a former education official from California who commented on the ideological force associated with technological literacy: “The nearest thing I can draw a parallel to is a theological discussion. There’s so much an element of faith here that demanding evidence is almost a sign of heresy” (p. 126). Selfe warns that such a naturalistic view of technology prevents effective evaluation of it at all levels while it reinforces the hegemonic culture that has the most access to and control of technology resources. Adoption of computer and networking technology in U.S. education has been not only subsidized, it has been mandated by large-scale government projects such as the National Information Infrastructure, the Global Information Infrastructure and the Technology Literacy Challenge. Selfe attributes this phenomenon in part to some fundamental beliefs that permeate dominant U.S. society, specifically that “science + technology + democracy (+capitalism) + education = progress + literate citizenry” (p. 123). Most in the United States believe and support the notion that unfettered capitalism in a democracy fosters advances in science and technology, achieved through educating its citizens, that will allow future generations to enjoy a better quality of life and an even higher rate of literacy. Government initiatives throughout the 1990s acted aggressively on these premises. Selfe argues that governments acted too aggressively and too conveniently for the kick-start it provided for the domestic economy. She writes: Touted as an educational effort designed to improve citizens’ literacy levels and thus their opportunities for future prosperity, the project was targeted at producing a continuing supply of educated workers who had the skills necessary
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
107
to design and manufacture increasingly sophisticated technological goods and could offer specialized services in international arenas (p. 138). These initiatives privileged the economic goals of providing a skilled employee and consumer base for the computer industry over humanistic goals and literacy for all citizens. With such a simplified and narrow aspect of literacy targeted with the trillions of dollars of federal, state, and private funds allocated to initiatives of the technological literacy agenda over the last decade, Selfe’s assessment of the efforts as failures disappoints, but does not surprise us. She writes, Thus the national project to expand technological literacy has not served to reduce illiteracy or the persistent social problems that exacerbate illiteracy. Rather it has simply changed the official criteria for the labels of both “literate” and “illiterate” while retaining the basic ratio of individuals in both groups (p. 137).
The population that falls under the revised label of illiterate looks a lot like the population under the old label—with disproportionate representations of poor people and people of color. Only now the inequities for these groups, now, are even more pronounced and there are more women included. Selfe asserts that some of the same literacy inequities that prompted educators to embrace technology are exacerbated, rather than leveled, by computers. Schools that serve poor and minority populations have fewer computers per student and fewer teachers trained to integrate computers in the classroom, yet more hurdles to networking computers (such as building repair). Additionally, the parents’ role in technological literacy has become increasingly more important. Many children start using computers at home when they are as young as three or four years old. For these children, some technology skills are acquired as part of what Gee (1988) calls their “primary discourse,” (p. 7) enabling them to advance more quickly with technology training and meta-knowledge (if available) in the classroom. Selfe cites studies that show that poor and minority children are less likely than middle-class, upper-class and white children to have access to a computer at home. Additionally, white children who do not have computers at home are more likely than children of color to be accessing computers from other sources such as a library or friend. Those students who do not have access to computers will need to acquire basic skills and meta-knowledge upon reaching the classroom. Thus, the tendency to classify those students whose primary discourses are least aligned with the dominant discourse as “remedial” is likely to be repeated with technological training in classrooms. This classification will reinforce links between literacy, racism, and poverty. Given the stakes, the importance of paying attention to the link between literacy and technology cannot be overstated. Selfe chastises humanities teachers who have gladly allowed traditional divisions between arts and sciences—specifically, between language arts and computer sciences—to excuse them from integrating technology with their pedagogical goals. Decisions regarding technology purchases remain hugely influenced (often solely influenced) by the “technical experts” in an organization who have the incentive to invest in software and hardware that will cause the least amount of disruption to existing systems or that will require the least amount of maintenance or custom development. Technical and financial requirements are privileged over end-user requirements if end-user requirements are considered at all. Thus, schools invest in software applications or programs that even if used consistently and correctly
108
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
would not help students to improve writing skills. This situation is exacerbated by directives to use technology without sufficient training for teachers on how to use it effectively. As a result, time-starved teachers mandated to use computers often seek the least painful ways of integrating computers in their classrooms. Often, technology use in composition classes consists of posting assignments and announcements to a Web site rather than distributing them physically. This can require more time and effort for students and teachers without providing a relevant pedagogical gain. Technology is a tool to facilitate the achievement of essentially non-technical goals. As Gee asserted, reading cannot be learned outside of a discourse. Technology cannot be learned outside of a discourse or a set of educational goals either. Skills or knowledge acquired regarding strictly how to use applications to achieve one’s goals becomes obsolete as new applications become available, new standards are achieved, or one’s goals evolve beyond what the application can support. As evidenced by the lack of job opportunities for Y2K specialists and Fortran programmers, the acquisition of specific technologies and programming languages helps one achieve short-term goals. The most valuable skill in a high-tech industry, or in almost any industry for that matter, is to be able to learn quickly how to use available tools to solve problems. The cost of struggling with poorly designed, short-lived applications is dear. Educators and parents must feel empowered to reject using technology where the learning curve outweighs the benefits of use. Like many scholars struggling to provide effective literacy and composition theories for teaching the diverse populations of U.S. schools, Selfe ultimately insists on the importance of consciousness and inclusion. She advocates a critical technological literacy that prepares students to consider the social and cultural factors involved in using technology—from curriculum and classes that are replaced by technology initiatives to the rising class of technologically “illiterate” whose economic mobility is limited. Educators, parents, and students must resist simplistic definitions of literacy as well as naturalistic assumptions of technology and its role in education. Students and teachers must learn to evaluate not only the costs and benefits of using technology, but the effectiveness and usability of applications available to them. We must value multiple literacies, one of which is critical technological literacy, that enable us to be conscious of the effects of technology on human life. Most important, we must remain focused on humanistic goals when considering educational funding and literacy efforts, rather than privileging economic goals disguised as educational initiatives. In our quest to continually improve our quality of life and our version of “the American dream,” we must not allow technology to dictate it to us nor to deny universal access to all citizens.
Joan King is an information architect and experienced designer of commercial Web sites. She recently completed a master’s degree in writing with a concentration in pedagogy and composition from DePaul University in Chicago. Her research interests include emerging forms of online rhetoric and the role of technology in learning. She can be reached at.
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
109
References Gee, James Paul. (1997). What is literacy? In Candace Mitchell & Kathleen Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–10). New York: Bergin. Kadar-Fulop, Judit. (1988). Culture, writing, and curriculum. In Allan C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 25–50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Selfe, Cynthia L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Book review
Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention by Cynthia L. Selfe, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999 Joan King∗ DePaul University, Chicago, IL, USA
Pay attention and develop a perspective regarding technology before humans become slaves to technology! A political conspiracy, preying on schoolteachers and well-intentioned parents, which subverts educational goals to train children to be cogs in the machine of a global high-tech economy, is already alive and well funded in America.
Above, my imagined quote for the jacket cover of Cynthia L. Selfe’s Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention would likely place it the section for the science fiction books, rather than the rhetoric and composition books at Barnes & Noble. Yet, as Selfe traces the development of and contributions to notions of technological literacy in the U.S. consciousness over the past two decades, her account is frighteningly realistic. She details the ideological landscape that has formed “official” definitions of literacy, now including technology skills, both giving rise to and resulting from major federal initiatives sold as “literacy projects.” Her thorough and compelling discussion of the Technology Literacy Challenge, an official, federally sponsored literacy project started in 1996, reveals the powerful economic and political forces driving such initiatives. She offers sage advice directly to teachers of composition, advice that is also relevant for educators, parents, and technology workers, to recognize and think critically about the relationship of technology and literacy. Literacy is an elusive and powerful term with as many definitions as there are rhetorical theorists. James Paul Gee (1997) defines literacy as “control of secondary uses of language (i.e. uses of language in secondary discourses). . . thus there are as many applications of literacy as there are discourses” (p. 8). Many theorists emphasize the importance of social and cultural aspects of literacy. For example, Judit Kadar-Fulop (1988) defines literacy as, among ∗
Email address: [email protected] (J. King).
8755-4615/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 8 7 5 5 - 4 6 1 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 3 - X
106
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
other things, “the acquisition of values attached to the written code” (p. 36). Nevertheless, identifiable and specific notions of “what literacy is” exist in our society. A person’s level of literacy can directly affect his or her ability to succeed in society—from students’ abilities to read at standard levels, to comprehending and completing job applications. Selfe explores factors, including “official” definitions of literacy from government or school administrators that allow such a collective and visible definition to exist. Specifically, she argues that the “official” or government sanctioned definition of literacy has changed over the past two decades to include basic competence with computers. She quotes one such definition issued by the Department of Education in Michigan: “A literate individual is one who communicates skillfully and effectively through printed, visual, auditory, and technological media in the home, school, community and workplace” (p. 79). Selfe argues that the development of the link between technology and literacy merits close analysis because it has resulted in “an agenda for technological literacy that requires the investment of all segments of American society. This agenda sustains an increasingly vigorous domestic computer sector and helps create and extend the world market for American technology” (p. xxi). As many have observed, literacy has always been associated with technology—from stone tablets to parchment scrolls to hand-held computers. The skills and knowledge for recording, saving, accessing, and interpreting information and communication have required the use of tools. And access to the latest tools has always been limited to a powerful, privileged segment of the world’s population. Yet no other literacy tool has enjoyed such widespread adoption— given the relatively staggering cost of acquisition and equally daunting learning curve—as the personal computer. Selfe observes that technological skills have somehow become a “natural” part of literacy. It has become a “common sense” requirement in the budgets and psyches of all schools regardless of age or literacy levels. Selfe quotes a former education official from California who commented on the ideological force associated with technological literacy: “The nearest thing I can draw a parallel to is a theological discussion. There’s so much an element of faith here that demanding evidence is almost a sign of heresy” (p. 126). Selfe warns that such a naturalistic view of technology prevents effective evaluation of it at all levels while it reinforces the hegemonic culture that has the most access to and control of technology resources. Adoption of computer and networking technology in U.S. education has been not only subsidized, it has been mandated by large-scale government projects such as the National Information Infrastructure, the Global Information Infrastructure and the Technology Literacy Challenge. Selfe attributes this phenomenon in part to some fundamental beliefs that permeate dominant U.S. society, specifically that “science + technology + democracy (+capitalism) + education = progress + literate citizenry” (p. 123). Most in the United States believe and support the notion that unfettered capitalism in a democracy fosters advances in science and technology, achieved through educating its citizens, that will allow future generations to enjoy a better quality of life and an even higher rate of literacy. Government initiatives throughout the 1990s acted aggressively on these premises. Selfe argues that governments acted too aggressively and too conveniently for the kick-start it provided for the domestic economy. She writes: Touted as an educational effort designed to improve citizens’ literacy levels and thus their opportunities for future prosperity, the project was targeted at producing a continuing supply of educated workers who had the skills necessary
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
107
to design and manufacture increasingly sophisticated technological goods and could offer specialized services in international arenas (p. 138). These initiatives privileged the economic goals of providing a skilled employee and consumer base for the computer industry over humanistic goals and literacy for all citizens. With such a simplified and narrow aspect of literacy targeted with the trillions of dollars of federal, state, and private funds allocated to initiatives of the technological literacy agenda over the last decade, Selfe’s assessment of the efforts as failures disappoints, but does not surprise us. She writes, Thus the national project to expand technological literacy has not served to reduce illiteracy or the persistent social problems that exacerbate illiteracy. Rather it has simply changed the official criteria for the labels of both “literate” and “illiterate” while retaining the basic ratio of individuals in both groups (p. 137).
The population that falls under the revised label of illiterate looks a lot like the population under the old label—with disproportionate representations of poor people and people of color. Only now the inequities for these groups, now, are even more pronounced and there are more women included. Selfe asserts that some of the same literacy inequities that prompted educators to embrace technology are exacerbated, rather than leveled, by computers. Schools that serve poor and minority populations have fewer computers per student and fewer teachers trained to integrate computers in the classroom, yet more hurdles to networking computers (such as building repair). Additionally, the parents’ role in technological literacy has become increasingly more important. Many children start using computers at home when they are as young as three or four years old. For these children, some technology skills are acquired as part of what Gee (1988) calls their “primary discourse,” (p. 7) enabling them to advance more quickly with technology training and meta-knowledge (if available) in the classroom. Selfe cites studies that show that poor and minority children are less likely than middle-class, upper-class and white children to have access to a computer at home. Additionally, white children who do not have computers at home are more likely than children of color to be accessing computers from other sources such as a library or friend. Those students who do not have access to computers will need to acquire basic skills and meta-knowledge upon reaching the classroom. Thus, the tendency to classify those students whose primary discourses are least aligned with the dominant discourse as “remedial” is likely to be repeated with technological training in classrooms. This classification will reinforce links between literacy, racism, and poverty. Given the stakes, the importance of paying attention to the link between literacy and technology cannot be overstated. Selfe chastises humanities teachers who have gladly allowed traditional divisions between arts and sciences—specifically, between language arts and computer sciences—to excuse them from integrating technology with their pedagogical goals. Decisions regarding technology purchases remain hugely influenced (often solely influenced) by the “technical experts” in an organization who have the incentive to invest in software and hardware that will cause the least amount of disruption to existing systems or that will require the least amount of maintenance or custom development. Technical and financial requirements are privileged over end-user requirements if end-user requirements are considered at all. Thus, schools invest in software applications or programs that even if used consistently and correctly
108
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
would not help students to improve writing skills. This situation is exacerbated by directives to use technology without sufficient training for teachers on how to use it effectively. As a result, time-starved teachers mandated to use computers often seek the least painful ways of integrating computers in their classrooms. Often, technology use in composition classes consists of posting assignments and announcements to a Web site rather than distributing them physically. This can require more time and effort for students and teachers without providing a relevant pedagogical gain. Technology is a tool to facilitate the achievement of essentially non-technical goals. As Gee asserted, reading cannot be learned outside of a discourse. Technology cannot be learned outside of a discourse or a set of educational goals either. Skills or knowledge acquired regarding strictly how to use applications to achieve one’s goals becomes obsolete as new applications become available, new standards are achieved, or one’s goals evolve beyond what the application can support. As evidenced by the lack of job opportunities for Y2K specialists and Fortran programmers, the acquisition of specific technologies and programming languages helps one achieve short-term goals. The most valuable skill in a high-tech industry, or in almost any industry for that matter, is to be able to learn quickly how to use available tools to solve problems. The cost of struggling with poorly designed, short-lived applications is dear. Educators and parents must feel empowered to reject using technology where the learning curve outweighs the benefits of use. Like many scholars struggling to provide effective literacy and composition theories for teaching the diverse populations of U.S. schools, Selfe ultimately insists on the importance of consciousness and inclusion. She advocates a critical technological literacy that prepares students to consider the social and cultural factors involved in using technology—from curriculum and classes that are replaced by technology initiatives to the rising class of technologically “illiterate” whose economic mobility is limited. Educators, parents, and students must resist simplistic definitions of literacy as well as naturalistic assumptions of technology and its role in education. Students and teachers must learn to evaluate not only the costs and benefits of using technology, but the effectiveness and usability of applications available to them. We must value multiple literacies, one of which is critical technological literacy, that enable us to be conscious of the effects of technology on human life. Most important, we must remain focused on humanistic goals when considering educational funding and literacy efforts, rather than privileging economic goals disguised as educational initiatives. In our quest to continually improve our quality of life and our version of “the American dream,” we must not allow technology to dictate it to us nor to deny universal access to all citizens.
Joan King is an information architect and experienced designer of commercial Web sites. She recently completed a master’s degree in writing with a concentration in pedagogy and composition from DePaul University in Chicago. Her research interests include emerging forms of online rhetoric and the role of technology in learning. She can be reached at
Book review / Computers and Composition 19 (2002) 105–109
109
References Gee, James Paul. (1997). What is literacy? In Candace Mitchell & Kathleen Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–10). New York: Bergin. Kadar-Fulop, Judit. (1988). Culture, writing, and curriculum. In Allan C. Purves (Ed.), Writing across languages and cultures: Issues in contrastive rhetoric (pp. 25–50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Selfe, Cynthia L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.