Remediation Ramblings

I want to return to Mishra and Koehler once more before discussing remediation, hypermediacy, and immediacy.  In the first part of their article, they contend that

"Over time, these technologies achieve a transparency of perception (Bruce & Hogan, 1998); they become commonplace and, in most cases, are not even considered to be technologies" (p. 61).  

In other words, certain technologies have become so ingrained in our daily practices that we have been trained to overlook their interfaces.  Think about it this way:  in a lot of earlier posts, many of you discussed how technologies should not always be a component of lesson plans--what we fail to realize, however, is that technologies are always used in some fashion--some are just more transparent than others (i.e. the pencil and paper we don't necessarily see as technology because we have used them for ages--thus, they just go with writing and communication).  And, we see past the interface of the paper and pencil--with those technologies, writing feels "natural", "more intimate", and for many "the correct way of writing--the tried and true method".  But why?  Why is the paper and pencil considered a more genuine, or natural, writing technology whereas the monitor and keyboard seem less natural, more foreign?  And--just to play devil's advocate--where do we do most of our writing today?  Wouldn't it seem that digital writing is more "natural" to us given our prolific use of digital technologies?   Something for you all to chew on....

Furthermore, Mishra and Koehler assert that we ask the wrong questions when incorporating technologies into the classroom.  Whereas most of us naturally think of the "how" questions (for evidence of this, look at last week's postings--most of them focus on the how), we need to retrain ourselves to more so think of the "why".  In other words, why did I use edmodo as the platform for this class?  What does it offer that perhaps something like Blackboard or even Ning couldn't provide?  How does such a platform alter the layout and feel of the course (and, thus, our engagements with the course)?  How would it have been different if the course were face-to-face?  Could we still have the same course?  


So, in a way, I constructed this course to be rooted in hypermediacy.  You are constantly reminded of (i.e. hyper aware) the medium (the social networking/communicating site) as you write, upload, and connect.  The medium is in your face--as Marshall McLuhan stated, "The medium is the message."  Sometimes, that can be uncomfortable for teachers--the medium should be stable, not changing (why we see many teachers run from technologies--because they are always changing, always moving).  When we remove the stability of a medium, we have to think differently about how we communicate, the messages we send, and how our audience will receive them.  It makes things harder.  It makes things less stable.  And it can truly be intimidating for teachers and students of all levels (ask me how many emails I received about the first project--some of you were really scared about the openness, and I get it).


Okay, so why did I have you learn about hypermediacy, immediacy, and remediation?  (Nope, not answering that one for you;).)  What can we do with this knowledge as we move into teaching students how to interpret, analyze, and communicate with and through a multitude of "texts"?  What do these things have to do with teaching students in the 21st century?  Chew on this as well.....


So, remediation--the movement of messages between and among different media.  Here's an example of remediation that should help you a bit.

Harry Potter

Harry Potter started as a book, a medium that allows us to get lost in characters, plot lines, excitement, and magic.  When we read Harry Potter, are we aware that we are reading words on the page, or do the words transform into a story?  Based on its immense following, I would argue that the book is indeed more than words, and that we often forget we are reading (in other words, we get lost in the book, we forget the medium and just enjoy the ride).  We, in many ways, can see the reading of a text such as Harry Potter as transparent, immediate.  But then, we change the page, or we lose our place in the book, or we get our book soaked in coffee, forever giving the book pages that slightly crunchy/crackling feeling.  We fluctuate between the immediacy of the story and the hypermediacy of the medium.  And what does this fluctuation do to our engagement/perception/interaction with the text?  Chew on that....

Then Harry Potter became something else.  It shifted from a story typed onto pages to a visually-based text.  When Harry Potter movies came out, Harry Potter became Daniel Radcliffe, and we were provided with a digitally composed compilation of events.  Our interaction as audience members changed:  we no longer had control to flip the pages (or even read the end)--we sat, watched, and passively consumed the cinematographic adaption.  In other words, we could not engage with the medium as we could the books--the film was meant to be immensely transparent, immediate, and we as audience members were to feel as if we were flies on the wall--that what we saw was real.  But then, is this truly the case?  The special effects of each film make us hyper aware that we are indeed watching a film--not just reading the books.  So, in a sense, the film adaptations were simultaneously more immediate and hypermediate than the books.  And, again, the shift in medium calls us to interact, to behave, differently with it.  We are a different type of audience when we watch the film versus when we read the books, but what are those differences?

Then, something else happened.....

And we interacted with the Harry Potter tale in ways unknown before this point.  We were literally thrust into the story--we had become characters in this world.  In a sense, we became part of the medium in that we constructed our stories, our tales.  We had control, we had access, and there was no medium standing between the story and our engagement.  And, it inevitably, made us more fond of, more invested, in this:

*********************************************************************************




Going back to the why versus the how questions (remember all the way at the beginning of this ramble):  remediation is more so an understanding, or exploration, of the reasons why texts like Harry Potter are shaped into myriad mediums than the how.  Although we need to understand how a text is remediated by tracing its shifts in media, we need to focus on why such shifts come about?  Why were they created in the first place?  How do these remediated versions alter the ways by which we understand the Harry Potter story/empire?  (Okay, I know that's a how question, but I think you get my point)? Why was the Harry Potter series remediated into all of these different forms (I know there are a multitude of Harry Potter remediations--I just chose these three to illustrate my point)?  


We need to think about these questions before we ask how we can use such concepts in the classroom.  So, that's what you will be doing for the next assignment.  You will chose a text (can't be Harry Potter) and trace its shifts in media (i.e. it's remediation) and examine what such shifts offer us/our interactions with it/etc..  

Here are the guidelines for this assignment:  You must trace the text through five different remediations.  You must present this assignment in something other than a MS Word traditional essay.  You cannot use the same medium you used for your digital narrative.  You must ask your questions now--I will not answer any questions the day before this assignment is due.  You must focus on the why.


Put your name below to let me know you've read this blog.  Also, place any questions as a comment--you will ALL have questions, so we will use this site as a venue for asking and answering those.


DO NOT WAIT TO DO THIS PROJECT--IT IS DIFFICULT, YOUR BRAINS WILL HURT, AND YOU WILL MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE TO REREAD BOLTER AND GRUSIN FOR HELP.  WAITING IS NOT AN OPTION.