In Elizabeth Daley’s article
“Expanding the Concept of Literacy” she suggests four arguments for this
expansion. These four arguments have been the base for the study held at the Institute
for Multimedia Literacy at The University of Southern California where Daley is
the Executive Director of the Annenberg Center for Communication and Dean of
the School of Cinema-Television.
The first argument Daley proposes is that the literacy in the
multimedia world, “language of the screen” as Daley puts it, has become the
current vernacular. The technologies that have come about since the primary
modes of print were developed have now become for most citizens the most common
way of receiving information and communicating with others.
The second argument supports the idea that the language of the
screen is capable of having complex meaning on its own without the help of text.
Daley discusses an interesting point that I have never put much thought into but
holds true, that at Universities today Schools of Cinema and Television are not
considered critical unlike the Departments of Physics and English. Daley’s
reasoning behind this is due the belief that print is still primary. Unlike
text however, multimedia can provide us with the same information but at the
same time engaging our emotional and aesthetic senses.
The third argument is that the multimedia language of the screen
enables many different thoughts that are different than those of texts. Daley
begins with stating that for the people of today to accept the language of
multimedia as coequal with text, this will require a challenging shift of ideas
but is long overdue. In her third argument she also touches upon montage. “Montage
permits an interaction between the creator and the receiver… It not only allows
but encourages the recombination of elements to create new meanings” Daley
states. The part that really stuck out to me in her third argument is how she described
the process behind multimedia as being “active, interactive, and often social,
allowing for many angles of view” which varies from text.
The fourth and last argument Daley proposes is that to be
literate in the 21st century is to be able to read and write both
text and the multimedia language of the screen. The four arguments made in this
article were very thought provoking but I also feel as though there may be also
be arguments to support the opposite side of this argument - that print will
always be the greater vernacular.
I think that we have to be careful when we enter the territory of saying that one thing is better than another. Like the article says, literacy of the screen provokes different responses than print. When your telling story, then engaging the emotional and aesthetic senses is more important and multimedia may be the way to go. But if your trying to teach, these things are not as important, and text would probably be better. This is also likely the reason universities focus more on text. You should base the form of communication on what you are trying to accomplish with it.
ReplyDeletePrint is definitely not going anywhere, but I'm also feeling that the article/author is trying to present an idea of not only literacy, but a new way of understanding information presented, no mater what form it's in. For example, there are those who may get more out of a digital print (blog post) than they would just reading a text. Or even yet, looking at a photograph and understanding an idea/concept solely based on the image.
ReplyDeleteI think people have their own preference whether it's on the screen or print. It's because both of them have their own way to send informations to our brain. However, I think understanding the information is the main point of this reading. Daley is trying to bring out the advantages of having literacy of the screen that sometimes some people don't realize. They just hold on the way they used to learn something since they were kids because they already used to it.
ReplyDelete