“Classroom Remix” (Callahan & King)

I really enjoyed this article.  I think Callahan and King did a good job of presenting the issues underlying integrating technology into the classroom.  The actual unit/project of study wasn’t explained very clearly and I would like to know more about what as being produced by these students, but it was thought-provoking as well.  The techno-literacy remix is students using PowerPoint to interpret (as opposed to analyze) poetry, and as such they are encouraged to incorporate visuals, sound, and all the other effects that PowerPoint affords.  I can’t really envision what this would be, but I was interested to see that while one of the poems for interpretation should be one the student’s had written, “Mr. Crane clearly indicates to the students that poetry composed on a PowerPoint slide is not the same as poetry composed in their journals… (and) seems more comfortable with using PowerPoint as an interpretive tool, rather than as a digital production or composition tool. In his mind, the word must precede the image, and the image is only supportive in value.”  Rather than embracing the “challenge to consider composition elements,” and “skills needed to command” a new media world, such assignments are relegated to the background, perceived as “‘add-ons” and ‘distractions’ from the serious work of classrooms.”  I appreciated the authors’ nod to the “positioning of this study in a creative writing program within an arts-based high school.”  I would already be one to decry the “notion of hierarchy in English education” which, “in the current climate of budget cuts,” is reinforced as the arts are cut, but I think that pushing digital design into that undervalued realm could be detrimental to our students’ success.

I was also glad to see Callahan and King acknowledge the “exhasperating lack of ‘fit’ when the student (or teacher) merely tried to translate from one medium to another.”  As I’ve mentioned before, I think this is an extremely counterproductive way to incorporate technology into the curriculum, and I was pleased to see it brought up, however briefly, in this article.  Their attention to the “remixing” of classroom hierarchies was also refreshing.  Teachers position their students as experts and ask authentic questions, as we’ve seen in other readings, and Callahan and King further note that “students typically did not wait for the teachers to invite collaboration; they took initiative to consult with each other quiet frequently.”  That “the classroom hierarchies, consisting of those who ‘do school’ well and those who do not, were challenged and remixed by this project,” was another valuable point that I don’t think we’ve spent as much time explicitly considering.  in our other classes, we’ve considered learning styles and differentiated instruction.  Here is a chance for “inclusion students, who have certain kinds of learning disabilities” to really come alive; “because it wasn’t merely linguistic…There was so much hands-on, visual, auditory, tactile stuff, kinesthetic—the sense of movement and sound,” there was room for these students to “really engage with their own poems, and poetry of others, in ways that they never did, when it was just in a book.”  Using technology is a great way to provide entry points for students who are easily deterred by print-based work.  As for the students who traditionally do well, but are very concrete and didn’t take immediately to this project, I wouldn’t be too worried about them.  I think it’s equally important for these students to have practice with other mediums, and to have to confront frustrations.