Response to Birkerts

The most difficult thing about doing these response assignments is trying to decide which “hat” I want to wear while I approach the material. I find myself reading certain ideas as a student, and then shifting to the role of teacher, reading things in a much different way. While reading the chapters from Birkerts, I not only bounced between those two identities, but in addition to that, I was just plain Stacey—avid reader.

It’s my fear of commitment that has caused me to respond to Birkerts’ chapter 8 touching on each of the three identities I just mentioned.

Stacey the Student

Birkerts raises a very interesting issue of the electronic age affecting our historical tradition. He states, “The underlying question, avoided by many, may be not only whether the tradition is relevant, but whether it might be too taxing for students to comprehend.” My initial reaction to that, as a student, is that I feel like what is expected of me, as opposed to students even 10 years ago, has dramatically decreased. What’s wrong with a student being taxed? I’m guilty of being a lazy thinker and often am surprised at how little is expected of me as a student, because educators don’t want to overload students.

The premise Birkerts points out is “…If electronic media are the one thing that the young are at ease with, why not exploit the fact?” As a student, I love the idea of my education conforming to what is familiar to me. Technology is modern and interactive and appeals in a very deliberate “what you see is what you get” kind of way. It changes as quickly as we are introduced to it that it leaves me with a no-commitment, fly by night, less appreciated view of what I’m learning. I feel less pressure to meet standards as I see accommodations being made all the time to suite today’s students. At what point did the education system feel so pressured to adapt itself for individuals, rather than individuals adapt to get through the system?

Are they (the system and the students) any better off while it has changed?

This is the perfect place to transition to:

Stacey the Teacher

Birkerts raises questions regarding Calabrese’s observation on the preconditioning of students, saying, “Should we suppose that American education will begin to tailor itself to the aptitudes of its students, presenting more and more of its materials in newly packaged forms? And what will happen when educators find that not very many of the old materials will “play”—that is, capture student enthusiasm? Is the what of learning to be determined by the how?”

As a teacher, there is extreme pressure to present material in such a way that engages the students. I often feel like the responsibility is solely my own and that the students EXPECT me to make things fun and exciting and to make the connections for them. Sometimes the thinking of “If they don’t care, why should I?” makes it’s way to my head. In high school and various post-secondary courses, I couldn’t imagine having anything other than the approach of: This is the material, this is what you should know by the end of the class, let’s get to it!

The first time education adapted to ME, I was exhilarated, delighted, and didn’t miss a day of class. I also became very disappointed when classes that followed weren’t like that. Having experienced both sides of the fence makes me want to be the kind of teacher that will adapt material where needed for the success of my classroom. But, is it simply the success of my classroom and less the success of the students? If I can see the expectations in education lowering as a student, I definitely feel that as a teacher. I agree with Birkerts in the grave affect it’s having in our classrooms. Technology does so much of the thinking for students. Birkerts says, “Many educators say that our students are less and less able to read, or analyze, or write with clarity and purpose. Who can blame the students? Everything they meet with the world around them gives the signal: That was then, and electronic communications are now.”

In my classroom, I’m amazed at the low functionality that some of the students are coming to college with. I wonder how they made it through their own high school commencement when they can’t read or write above an 8th grade level. What I struggle with is trying to discover how I can raise the standards? If they come in to my classroom at such low levels, having out of range expectations, which at one time were standard, serve no purpose. So, again, adaptation wins out. I feel like I’m beating a dead horse. What’s the answer? I really want to talk about this with someone. Any takers?

Stacey the Reader

Just the other day I was having a conversation with someone about online books. I love to read, but have an extremely difficult time reading large amounts and for extended time periods on the computer. I like the completeness that a book offers. In my trying to find the difference between hypertext and hypermedia last week, I recall reading the words “perpetually unfinished” in a piece. That is how I feel when reading hypertext. I think people take for granted the security that goes with reading in book form. For a number of reasons, I could be reading hypertext one day and try to access the same material several days later and it may not exist. Am I the only person frightened by this?

Birkerts says, “The print engagement is essentially private.” He also talks about the time aspect of turning the pages, etc. I think the scrolling and clicking of electronic medium are comparable to the page turning in hard copy.

I enjoy nothing more than sitting down with a book. I appreciate the portability and the security it provides.

I have to ask though, why is it not an option for both to exist in today’s society? Birkerts seems to have an “all or none” approach that makes me feel guilty for loving books as much as I love doing hypertext. Is it not possible for people to develop an appreciation for both? I suppose it’s all about balance. As a student, it’s impossible to rely entirely upon electronic media for my education. I know that and I really hope incoming students know that. As a teacher, if I instill the value of my appreciation of books to my students, they are at least exposed to it and hopefully capable of making an informed decision as to what they prefer. And as Stacey the reader, I yet again find myself riding the fence here. It’s not my computer I read while easing myself into the world on a Saturday morning. Nor is it books that I read when I am plagued by insomnia late at night.

Birkerts ended chapter 8 with a melodramatic, “…for language is the soul’s ozone layer and we thin it at our peril.”
Whether books or electronic media, I think language can survive the electronic revolution. It’s the people who use it that I’m worried about!