The second chapter of New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning, dove deep into a greater understanding of Discourse. I am not sure I completely understood the talk about anticipation. A football reference was mentioned concerning how players learn to anticipate where is the ball is going, or even how other players are going to react. It seemed like there was a tie to this and the development of each individuals Discourse. Even after reading this a few times, I am a bit fuzzy on the overall reference. According to Lankshear and Michele Nobel, there is a “…degree of innovation and variation…” (2011, p.35) in regards to bloggers. For my purposes as a blogger, am I supposed to be thinking about my teacher, my fellow classmates or myself? I want to get an A in the class but how can I anticipate what my teacher is looking for? These questions do not always necessarily have concrete answers.
The topic of interpretation arose and challenged me to think how this book relates to this class. From articulation to interpretation or in this case from words on a blog to interpretation, we as students are supposed to do simple tasks that promote engaging and interactions with the class. I am using my “non-observable” Discourse traits (i.e feelings, knowledge, values) to form idea’s based on framework to complete small projects each week. This is almost throwing everything about “school” (in the standardized idea of the word) out the window. My interpretation of what the teacher is looking for is going to be most likely be different than everyone else’s. How do you define this class? It is week two, I might still be lost but I am will never stop questioning this class.
With any group there should be some sort of rules or set norms in order to function properly. Lankshear and Nobel stated that “…Discourses are the stuff of meaning and meaningfulness; they constitute the ‘shape’ and ‘order’ of the world” (2011, 45). I found this to be a powerful sentence. If Discourse (capital D) is meant to refer to an individual’s own personal thoughts and beliefs, this sentence is reiterating (according to my interpretation) everyone has their own world. This is an almost philosophic idea that we all exist in our own worlds governed by our own rules. This idea for example, coincides with morality (or each individual’s interpretation) of what is right or wrong. Collectively whether they recognize it or not, every person holds with them their own beliefs.
This chapter raised many questions about the “meaning” of literacy. Although I do not consider myself as a “religious” person, chapter two sparked a memory from the past. The word “hermeneutics” means the science of interpretation (especially of the Scriptures). An article I once read, went into great detail about how something as simple as a book or in this case the Bible could be interpreted. This book could be viewed as the Word of God, a historical document, a connection to the past, or simply just folklore (http://www.religioustolerance.org). Looking back at being raised Roman Catholic, there were several times I questioned things in school. The word interpretation always came up and I was told to not take things so literally. For example, Noah did not build an ark and collect animals, it was a metaphor. Maybe there is more to learn from an ambiguous subject because there is a deeper level to Discourse that is immeasurable. What is meaningful to one person could mean nothing to someone else, it is all perception.
I look forward to reading chapter three to better understand the tie into technology that this book is linked to.
New Literacies: Everyday Practices and Social Learning by Colin Lankshear and Michele Nobel. McGraw-Hill Education 2011.