The Setup

In this paper, I will look at these two books in light of these two points: 1) the main idea of the book; and, 2) how the book relates to our discussions and understanding of literacy. Finally, I will discuss briefly the questions and concerns that came up in my mind when reading these books. First, I would like to explore a working definition of literacy.

Literacy: What Does It Mean?

I believe it is safe to say that literacy does not merely mean reading and writing. From what I have learned in this course, the term literacy means much more. First of all, literacy is something that is situated socially. It does include reading and writing, but literacy also looks at how the social parameters and practices of a community shape and teach reading and writing and, I will add, speaking. Everyone has experienced literacy events and practices in his or her lifetime, whatever form they may take. For an African-American community, it may be the call-response event of a church service. And for a white, middle-class person, it may be writing a letter to the editor of a local paper, although both are neither exclusive of their respective community; these are generalities. The point is that both are literacy events, both are constructed socially and both take very different communicative forms. Therefore, I believe a person who can move in and out of different literacy events and practices to be literate. They understand that there are different ways of doing and if they cannot fully participate, they can understand what is taking place and can make choices to respect and learn from these different practices. In light of this definition, let us look at the two books I have chosen and how, if at all, they can shed light onto this definition and study of literacy.

Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology

In his book, Hypertext, George Landow presents to us his understanding of hypertext’s relationship to education. Landow has much experience in teaching with this medium and is considered to be an expert in this type of technology and how it is used for educational purposes. This book looks at the beginnings of the concept of hypertext (circa 1940's) and how our modern technology has come to realize such an important tool. Through chosen links in a document, situated on a computer, a web of information can be produced with hypertext. Landow brings in many theories from respected scholars in the fields of linguistics and literary theory to support his notion of the importance and effect of hypertext on critical learnng. He argues that Barthes, Bakhtin, Derrida, and Foucault conceive text in terms of the network. Foucault takes it a step further in his book The Order of Things. He says that "it is this network that defines the conditions that make a controversy or problem possible, and that bears the historicity of knowledge" (Landow-75). From discussing the inevitable creation of this technology, Landow looks at the educational implications. "Electronic linking shifts the boundaries between one text and another as well as between the author and the reader and between the teacher and the student" (Landow 33).

Just as we have discussed in class and have learned in our readings how the choice of teaching style, sensitivity to the "other," choice of types of materials presented in class and the types of assignments given can impact and conflict with existing literacy practices for the student, we can see how this type of technology that Landow is discussing needs to be understood. In my readings of Paulo Friere and John Clifford, I see that term "literate" is stretched even further to include a sort of critical thinking. This critical thinking can be fostered in hypertext technology. Because a student has so much information available to her, this critical literacy that Clifford purposes might be achieved. A student can see the links or connections to sometimes separated subjects, either physically or politically. Then, given the nature of Hypertext and expanded uses of it like Landow's Intermedia (Landow 83), students can offer commentary on how and why these things are linked, thus giving them time for critically analyzing and reflecting on their choices. Information and knowledge becomes relevant and whole to the learner.

This scenario is all wonderful, but it does bring to mind our conversations in class concerning who holds the "power" in deciding what is relevant to the student or individual. Yes, hypertext de-centers the information and allows much autonomy in the selection of information and hopefully, the information will mean more to the student. But, who chooses the links? This question is important to me. The rhetorical strategy of deciding what is linked to what and what isn't needs to be addressed more. These political moves also bring up the question concerning our accepted canon of literature. In our (dominant) culture, we have an understood canon. Landow discusses how this new technology may impact our canon (Landow 149). But how will this interaction affect literacy? If being literate means to understand a particular culture, including the written and oral manifestations of it, how will this technology impact becoming literate, if everyone has the opportunity to choose their own path of knowledge? I do not see these choices as a negative, although I am sure it would only make many people like E.D. Hirsch and Alan Bloom quite uneasy. I think it would only expand our notion of what being literate is.

Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses

James Gee's book looks at literacy and language and tries to bring the two areas of study together through critical and social theory. I found this book to be quite valuable for me in entering into the conversation of social linguistics. Gee gives background information concerning language from the time of Plato to the present. Then, he takes that background information and discusses language and how we use it or intend to use it. From here, he discusses an important topic: discourse communities. Although we have been talking about discourse communities and what it means to be a part of one in this program for quite some time, it was interesting to see his view of a discourse community and what constitutes one. Then he talks about literacy and discourse communities and how they impact and shape each other.

His understanding of language and the function of linguistics in the study of language and how we communicate as social beings provided a backdrop to what we have been studying about literacy. Sometimes within his commentary on discourse communities, I felt confused, wondering where exactly literacy comes into play. So, to me it seems that according to what we have seen in this class, literacy is the backbone of a discourse community. The different discourse communities are what one moves in and out of (see above, definition of literacy). According to his definition of discourse communities, Gee states that when one is literate, one can not be only partially in a community, neither can one be merely "functionally literate" (Gee 155). He supports this notion by talking about the two ways we function in language: acquisition and learning. There must be a balance. "Acquisition is good for performance, learning is good for meta-level knowledge" (Gee 146). According to Gee, you can't have one without the other when becoming part of a discourse community.

He also talks about the social aspect of communication and how all acts of communication are social (Gee 97). We have explored this aspect in many readings and it has shown us an expanded view of literacy. The way in which we construct our language implies much about our social and cultural view. In light of our reading from Keith Walters and his essay on "Language, Logic and Literacy," we must become hyperliterate. We must look at these social and cultural views and how they manifest themselves in our language. I believe language has a profound impact on culture. If we as educators begin to explore and become hypercritical of our language, I think it will have a profound impact on our culture.

Both of these texts have a wealth of knowledge in them. I found it difficult to bring out the points I felt to be most important concerning our discussion of literacy and keep the information to a manageable length. As I was reading these books, many ideas concerning further research came to mind. Hopefully, one of these ideas will begin to shape my thesis.

I will discuss a couple of these and give justification for their existence in literacy theory and hypertext theory.

The first area I would like to look at is the concept of the portfolio as an assessment tool.

We have seen that a portfolio is a good way in which to assess someone's literacy because the construction of the portfolio involves many parts and practices. Because of the nature of hypertext and its ability to link many different bits of information and work that has been created on the computer, it would be interesting to see how that could be used as an appropriate assessment tool for a class utilizing hypertext as an instructional tool. Of course there would be a defense of the portfolio which would allow the students to analyze why they chose the different areas to be linked. The student would also be required to analyze the rhetorical moves she made in choosing the links.

Another possible topic for research in regards to hypertext theory would be the rhetoric of hypertext and how different choices for different links would impact on the student's ability to understand the material. It is true that hypertext is a very flexible technology, but someone must make the decisions about links (Landow 128). We need to look at how those decisions are made and structured. Finally, I would like to look at the students' reactions to being introduced to educational hypertext systems. Many of the readings I have done concerning hypertext have been from the instructor's point of view. An ethnographic account of how students deal with this new technology, how they adapt and truly use it, would be very valuable to the instructor.

Gee, James. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses, London: Falmer,

1990.

Landow, George P. Hypertext, The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and

Technology, Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1992.