Technology And The Literacy Club—"the Promise And Threat"

By Author: Adela
Total Articles: 74
Comment this article

In his Chapter 6, Smith explores both the "promise and threat of computers in language education," as his title explains, but he also admits that from 1988, he cannot yet fathom how this dynamic would manifest itself. Here, if we are committed to building learning communities that value collaboration Thomas Sabo Bracelets as we and our students explore literacy, we must consider those promises and threats.

If our commitment is to critical literacy and to challenging text, traditional commitments to artificial silence must not persist fully, using technology to help us move beyond the "walls within schools that inhibit collaboration" Smith acknowledges, instead of falling victim to the walls that technology is already building in our classrooms between students and authentic experiences with literacy. First, what are the promises? Technology in the 21st century in the form of personal computers and the Internet (and even cell phones) offers a wealth of opportunities for establishing a commitment to community and process in literacy classrooms. Briefly, consider ...
... these promises:

Process writing and writing to learn are made much more manageable when students have access to word-processing and communication technologies. Students, however, must have keyboarding and basic computer management skills. One caveat is that access to technology can increase the gap that already exists among students because of relative affluence. Teachers must monitor and address any gaps that are created or extended due to access to the technology that is being allowed or required in a classroom.

Word-processing programs that include "track changes" and "comment" features greatly enhance peer conferencing and student/teacher conferencing while students draft original writing or work through challenging reading experiences. Word processors also can alleviate some of the time and energy teachers spend on surface features since most word-processing programs alert writers to potential concerns about conventional grammar, mechanics, and usage; in most cases, students need to be encouraged to consider the flags raised by word-processing programs, but the writer is ultimately responsible for deciding what conventions to follow or subvert.

Online word-processing and collaboration opportunities are possibly even more promising than traditional word-processing programs. For example, Google Docs allows students and teachers to draft documents and to collaborate through the online program. This program saves drafts automatically (including keeping a record of when the drafts are revised) and allows writers to share Thomas Sabo Charms and revise both in succession and in real time. As with traditional word-processing programs, these online drafting opportunities must be monitored for creating inequity; many students may have access to the Internet at home while others have access only in school.