H817 Block 2 Activities 23 and 24: Literacy RULES O.K!
Saturday, 9 Apr 2016, 17:05
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Steve Bamlett, Saturday, 9 Apr 2016, 17:14
I made a decision based on completing to my own satisfaction
the reading, reflection and reflective note-taking for Activity 23 that I could
not easily engage on Activity 24 without clarifying the issues that arose for
me from the project.
First, ‘literacies’ appears to be the name of an ‘objective’
set of enabling skills across different domains of action. However, these
skills in fact blend internal and external constructs (objects and processes) that,
contingent to different contexts, mediate success or failure in communication
within those contexts.
Some of those ‘external’ contexts are, in fact in whole or
part, ‘constructions’ that originate in ideological constructs in social and/or
individual cognition. They partake of interacting internal, external and shared
constructions, sometimes given an externalised or ‘institutional’ shape, in
order to frame the ‘realities’ we perceive in the external world. Similarly
some external constructs become internalised as constructs that are owned as ‘personal’.
The upshot of all this is that sets of enabling skills are necessarily
never ‘objective’ or ‘foundational’ truths that must be held universally. They,
at the very least, as described by Ross (2016), require metaphysical inquiry (relating
to ontology, epistemology and the distinction between them) of their basic
concepts and processes. Without such inquiry, ‘descriptions’ of capability,
competence or literacy remain a set of arbitrary rules. The function of such
rules is to regulate in a way that potentially ‘closes’ rather than ‘opens’
their assumptions to query of any kind.
These are particularly important when ‘literacies’ describe
normative prescriptions for social interaction (etiquette and netiquette in
some versions of the skill set). All regulation of this kind, although based in
negotiation between the perspectives of very different stakeholders in any
issue, can (and often do) fall into a means of excluding from consideration the perspectives of stakeholders with
a weaker power-base for action, sometimes by sanction. We need look for example
at the ‘negotiations’ which led to the ‘postcolonial’ situation in South Africa
for instance, where only the widely perceived illegitimacy and consequent inefficacy and overthrow of violent
state sanctions, could lead to a significant voice to black Africans in the light of these oppressive measures.
Hence, we read that we must be involved in communities:
Respecting
community norms when expressing opinions in web discussions.
We need to know here what respect means and be wary that it should
not mean the eradication of the kind of ‘conflictual’ tension or disruption
that leads to change from the status quo. After all, the ‘status quo’ is the
name of ‘community norms’ which pretend to a universal applicability and social
justice they may not possess. The ‘status quo’ may be the name of
institutionalised inequality and oppression.
Hence, I think this task can’t be done as easily as it is
suggested in the rubric for Activity 24. Given that this rubric tends towards a
‘shared’ perspective of comparison and mutual exchange of commentary, it in
effect institutionalises judgements about competence criteria at the level of
the individual – and of an individual bathed in the liquor of ‘authority’, the ‘teacher’.
My own feeling is that the basic skill set is:
Negotiate within the group how to describe the
pattern of distribution of skills and knowledge within it.
Negotiate within your group which of those
skills and knowledge can be shared and how: does everyone need an equal
competence in each and all or can particular inequalities be seen as in the
interests of the group. Decide what criteria would signify an unjust
distribution of enablement to skills and knowledge within the group as a whole?
Negotiate how we should show respect to each
other in a manner that takes into account differences which we define our
identity.
Negotiate how to challenge and commend others
and how to accept challenge and commendation from others.
Negotiate how outcomes of the process will be
recorded.
Negotiate how the fairness of the process will
be monitored?
Negotiate how the achieved outcomes of group
interaction will be reviewed and under what conditions.
Ross, J.
(2016) ‘Speculative method in digital education research’ in Learning, Media and Technology.
Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1160927 (Accessed 07/04/2016).
H817 Block 2 Activities 23 and 24: Literacy RULES O.K!
I made a decision based on completing to my own satisfaction the reading, reflection and reflective note-taking for Activity 23 that I could not easily engage on Activity 24 without clarifying the issues that arose for me from the project.
First, ‘literacies’ appears to be the name of an ‘objective’ set of enabling skills across different domains of action. However, these skills in fact blend internal and external constructs (objects and processes) that, contingent to different contexts, mediate success or failure in communication within those contexts.
Some of those ‘external’ contexts are, in fact in whole or part, ‘constructions’ that originate in ideological constructs in social and/or individual cognition. They partake of interacting internal, external and shared constructions, sometimes given an externalised or ‘institutional’ shape, in order to frame the ‘realities’ we perceive in the external world. Similarly some external constructs become internalised as constructs that are owned as ‘personal’.
The upshot of all this is that sets of enabling skills are necessarily never ‘objective’ or ‘foundational’ truths that must be held universally. They, at the very least, as described by Ross (2016), require metaphysical inquiry (relating to ontology, epistemology and the distinction between them) of their basic concepts and processes. Without such inquiry, ‘descriptions’ of capability, competence or literacy remain a set of arbitrary rules. The function of such rules is to regulate in a way that potentially ‘closes’ rather than ‘opens’ their assumptions to query of any kind.
These are particularly important when ‘literacies’ describe normative prescriptions for social interaction (etiquette and netiquette in some versions of the skill set). All regulation of this kind, although based in negotiation between the perspectives of very different stakeholders in any issue, can (and often do) fall into a means of excluding from consideration the perspectives of stakeholders with a weaker power-base for action, sometimes by sanction. We need look for example at the ‘negotiations’ which led to the ‘postcolonial’ situation in South Africa for instance, where only the widely perceived illegitimacy and consequent inefficacy and overthrow of violent state sanctions, could lead to a significant voice to black Africans in the light of these oppressive measures.
Hence, we read that we must be involved in communities:
Respecting community norms when expressing opinions in web discussions.
We need to know here what respect means and be wary that it should not mean the eradication of the kind of ‘conflictual’ tension or disruption that leads to change from the status quo. After all, the ‘status quo’ is the name of ‘community norms’ which pretend to a universal applicability and social justice they may not possess. The ‘status quo’ may be the name of institutionalised inequality and oppression.
Hence, I think this task can’t be done as easily as it is suggested in the rubric for Activity 24. Given that this rubric tends towards a ‘shared’ perspective of comparison and mutual exchange of commentary, it in effect institutionalises judgements about competence criteria at the level of the individual – and of an individual bathed in the liquor of ‘authority’, the ‘teacher’.
My own feeling is that the basic skill set is:
Ross, J. (2016) ‘Speculative method in digital education research’ in Learning, Media and Technology. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1160927 (Accessed 07/04/2016).