Attempting to Make Sense of NLG and Shipka

I actually think I've gotten a little rusty from not posting for awhile. With no other smooth transition, I'll just dive right in.

I found it amusing that the NLG in 1996 was worried that issues of literacies (intentionally plural) were not being sufficiently addressed on the eve of all the new technologies making their way into the classroom, society, and world whereas Shipka (2011)  in Chapter 1 asserts that composition as a discipline has been too conservative in its approach to composition. The NLG is so conscientious about creating a literacy theory of all-encompassing inclusion, that they create a handbook of terms to describe the pedagogical world that they see. When I first saw the "Designs of Meaning" clump of definition, I found it almost too theoretical and circular. I guess, to answer the question of where the NLG fits on the timeline, I think that they would have had a blast with Bolter and Grusin, and their circular remediation definition. The other definitions presented later, such as "Some Elements of Linguistic Design" made more intuitive sense as far as what the definitions meant. However, at the top of the article, this is what I write after reading: "My general impression: they overthought this definition and explanation business. But then again, now it [meaning literacy discourse] is maybe too automatic when issues are not sorted out...?"

Let me translate my code: from what I gathered, the NLG basically said that they wanted to make sure to include all different kinds of demographics of students in the technological changes that would be occurring in pedagogical strategies, and that inclusion needed to be as genuinely attempted as possible. Assuming I got the right message out of this reading, that message sounds like something I can both comprehend and stand by. However, the fact that the NLG overcompensated with theoretical definitions divulges that they weren't sure what the new regime of technology would bring, so they would try to think ahead through intellectualizing. Unlike some of the other articles we've read that discuss technological advancement, nothing that the NLG said sounded dated to me; however, their approach to discussing literacy through linguistic definitions indicated that their handle on what multiple literacies with new technologies would bring was a bit "clunky," to put it in high-falootin' language!

Yet, after reading Chapter 1 of Shipka, I think that she would have appreciated the complexity that the NLG bring to discussions of literacy, technology, and the intersection of these two entities, given her exploration of the ways in which composition theory both limits discussions of technology and writing. On pages 30-31 Shipka expresses concern that Handa, Selfe, Selfe, and Selber's discussions of "nontechnological environments" and assertions that "in this particular context technology (original emphasis) is meant to signal new (or the newest) technologies, in this case, computer technologies." After setting up this concern with definitions of technology, she claims, "I am equally concerned with how a narrow definition of technology fails to encourage richly nuanced, situated views of technology (original emphasis)." So Shipka's fear that technology is defined too narrowly reiterates the statement I made earlier: the NLG in 1996 worry more about inclusive definitions of literacy, technology, pedagogy, and linguistics than Shipka claims that the composition departments do in 2011. Despite this observation, I'm not really sure what this means. Could it be that as technological advance becomes more commonplace, it is easier to exclude and categorize "new" versus "old" technology, whereas when everything felt new, everything got included? I suppose if these labels and biases occur when defining types of technology, then Shipka's assertion about how definitions of literacy suffer also holds. After all, if a technology is now considered old, then everyone knows how to properly use it, right? And if everyone knows how to properly use it, we no longer need to talk about it, right? I guess these questions also loop back to my transcribed note on the NLG article: the NLG's desire to make complex definitions for their complex world feels more dated as rapid technological change becomes more commonplace, even though issues still surface.

Well, since that somehow managed to come together in the end, I better not disturb it. I think I'll go soak up some sun on my patio instead...