Texting for Toddlers-when is too young?

So I'm working on my paper on texting for toddlers. I mentioned several articles on gadgets for toddlers and young children and the launch of the new leapfrog texting device in past posts. The NY Times wrote an article in June of 2008 which listed Piaget's stages in the context of technological devices.

What's interesting is when you think of literacy Barton mentioned the social, psychological and historical. Barton argued that they needed to be interwoven to get an overview of what is involved with literacy and I agree if you consider culture as part of the social and historical aspects of literacy, which I think Barton would agree with. **Here it would be interesting to get your comments on my reading of Barton** Barton outlined his approach under eight headings (2007, p. 34-5) grouped within social, psychological and historical categories. I mention Barton and literacy because all of the discussions around toddlers and texting seem to focus heavily on the psychological with some mention of the social and historical aspects.

I really resonated with the comments in the NY Times June 2008 article regarding children mimicing their parents when they use technology. I watched a toddler "play" with her parents cell phone today and it was interesting in that she played with the cell phone in much the same way I see children play with parents other devices. The toddler could have been playing with her Mom's makeup case or her book.

Well enough for this post. Thanks for reading.

Text, Visuals, Context and Cultural Understanding

Comic Book Superheroes Unleashed on History Channel

In one of my courses yesterday we reviewed Multimodal Literacy through the lens of manga and comic books. We were to bring artifacts to class and the above link was my artifact. A discussion ensued whether text or visuals required more background information to process, i.e. did you need an awareness of the "society" or "culture" to understand what was happening with both text and visuals and which was easier to understand outside of "context." Well as a group we didn't come to any conclusions but this does have some real implications when you think of mobile devices and communities of practice. Is a knowledge of the community an integral part of the practice of "learning" how to use a mobile device and once learned using that mobile device to learn other things like math or language.

Freedom presumes a need to be free

So I received an email regarding and updated syllabus being posted for a class and after ten minutes grew frustrated as the "Syllabus" link still on the left hand navigation bar under forum continued to take you to the version posted on January 13th whereas the "Syllabus" link on the top navigation bar had the updated version of the syllabus listed under discussion.

I mention this not merely to vent my frustration but also to highlight or rather ponder freedom presumes a need to be free, or in its most extreme case bondage or imprisonment. Tools meant to make us free automatically presume that such a need exists, and with the whole "blogging for class" phenomenon sweeping academia the presumption of bondage is not universal.

The challenges with "tools" especially for literacy lies not just in the "tools" but in assessing "literacy." You need first to know in what ways or even if someone needs to be free before you start providing them "freedomtools." Literacy can be defined in so many ways so it then gets down to intent. Ebonics is fine on the block but if your "intent" is to get a job or have a career in a certain industry you need to ascertain the correct "literacy" for that industry. Freedom is directly tied with bondage and I guess the issue is to whom or what are you bounded to?

Okay so this has turned into a vent, but it has also served as tool for freedom as I was all bound up by frustration and now I feel a little bit better.