Final Reflection
I think the knowledge I have gained throughout my work and my reading in this course can be summarized into two basic understandings: first, that I have a responsibility to my students teach what Yancey terms “digital” literacy (89); second, that I have responsibility to myself (and my students as well) to fulfill this responsibility calmly and gradually, so that use of technology is conscientiously applied for teaching English, not just for the use of technology itself.

I have a responsibility to incorporate technology into my teaching, because it is/will be required of students in the real world application of their language skills (and of everything else they might have gained from their education). To avoid teaching digital literacy (not only its interpretation, but also how to use it) would be to deprive students of an aspect of education which “signifies literacy, power, and knowledge,” because “literacy and technology [are both] social practices.” (Kinzer and Leander 47). At this point, and more so as technology continues to increasingly permeate our lives, leaving out hypertext literacy (at the very least, and as just one example of technology in the classroom), would mean limiting their students’ literacy skills—teaching them to read, but without all the letters.

A second, equally important, reason why I consider it a responsibility to incorporate technology into English teaching is that I (and most teachers) actually expect technology to be used for English class, just not in the classroom. The truth is we require students to use technology for the work they do outside the class, so that they can then bring it into the class (e.g. typed texts, which obviously require the use of a word processor; research papers, which today necessarily require the use of the internet). However, many of us have continued to avoid a conscientious practice of teaching with technology inside the classroom. By keeping technology “outside” the classroom (i.e. for students to use themselves and then bring its products to class), we are acting out a farce: expecting a proficient use of technology for the study of our field, without acknowledging it and, therefore, without having to teach or exercise it.

Many teachers believe (or hope) that students will learn how to use technology for their subject in Technology class, but as we have repeatedly read and discussed in this class, the advent of digital text requires teachers “to rethink definitions of literacy to incorporate the authoring and communicative functions that have become widely used and available.” (Kinzer and Leander 548) That is to say, the teaching of literacy has expanded, so that we must consider all the new technological texts not only in themselves, but also as influences which act to modify print text.

My experience in this course has demonstrated to me that I will need to consider the technology I use for teaching as part of my content. Its use is time-consuming and requires training. As Kajder, points out, students need to be empowered to use digital tools before they are required to do so for academic purposes: Just because our students are able to cruise through the Internet with speed and what looks like skill doesn’t mean they know what they are doing.” (Kajder 49) Considering technology as part of the content of a Composition or Literature class is, in many ways, very appropriate because these are fields which study language, and hypertexts, like other technological tools, are excellent and obvious models of how language is dialogic in nature, and how it is multiple in meaning. On the other hand, this expanded role of the English teacher definitely increases and complicates her task, because every assignment requires previous training (sometimes extensive) on how to use, sort through, and apply this technology appropriately. In addition, all the different paths which students can take with these tools need to be individually considered and assessed (adding work, although Kajder claims it becomes easier because she receives the type of work she was hoping for). As if this weren’t already enough, in addition to the traditional roles they play, in order to teach effectively with technology, English teachers must become instructional designers, resource managers, and communication specialists. (Kajder 10)

Although multiplicity of meanings is inherent to all texts, as Bahktin explained, this becomes visually evident in digital text, in a way which it’s not in print: “Hypermedia reading practices have at least as much to do with the multiple relations between images as they do with the paths among segments of print text.” (K & L 549) The writer and the reader both make conscious choices regarding which links to provide and follow, the order in which to read, which images to click on, what to consider authoritative connections, which images mean what in themselves, and how that changes when used in different locations, etc. All of these elements offer a unique opportunity to “see” the dialogic nature of literacy played out, almost like a map, for the observer. Kinzer and Leander quote Jay Lemke when they assert that “from a semiotic perspective...a central problem [in hypertexts] is that meanings are not fixed and additive but multiplicative.” (549) My intention is to create exercises which take advantage of the multiplicity of meaning and the dialogic nature of the hypertext—exercises which use it as a model and which allow students to more easily understand the dialectical nature of solid academic writing, whether digital or print.

The different technological tools we have seen in this course have offered me insight into how I might do this. Although my joint final project (with Janet) does not focus on writing as dialogic, because we are not both in the same theoretical line, I think we have been able to create a tool which takes advantage of technology, enhances a writing assignment, allows it to lead to something that would not have been possible without the technology. This is another understanding I take away from this course:

Finally, the other major understanding I take from this course was stated in our first class and has been repeated in the underlying theme of all our readings (for and against the tools we’ve seen): the use of technology in the classroom should “enrich, extend, and empower student understanding.” (Kajder 5) That is to say, it should be used when it makes the task better, or allows us to do something we could not have done without the technology. There is no point in simply using it so we can say that we do. Fully understanding this gives me an unexpected sense of calm—it will take time in my future practice to create meaningful, relevant work which incorporates or relies on technological tools. I will take this time, increase my use gradually, reflectively, and conscientiously. It cannot happen all of a sudden, and that is alright: what matters is that I, and my students, use technology for the construction of knowledge and for the making of new meaning.