Jewitt's chapter offers some fairly thorough descriptions of some of the ways that multimodal texts produced and viewed on the screen disturb traditional views of 'reading' and 'writing.' Per Jewitt, what does reading/writing at the turn of the 21st century entail? And given the reality that technologies and platforms have changed radically in the last 15 years, what entailments would you add to Jewitt's discussion?
Per Jewitt, reading and writing at the turn of the 21st century are multimodal but have always been this way. “Print-based reading and writing and are always have been multimodal” (Jewitt, 310). Jewitt goes on to say that being multimodal requires “the interpretation and design of visual marks, space, colour, font, or style and increasingly full of images” (Jewitt, 310). However, as Jewitt explains, in the 21st century, the heavy reliance on technology, especially computers, bring together a whole new range of configurations for people to create and dissect images. She describes this “semiotic relationship” of how technology changes the way we produce information and how we absorb information. For example Jewitt makes the argument in her passage about how “school literacy needs to be expanded to reflect the semiotic systems that young people use (Jewitt, 323). She argues how it is not computer that detour students from learning to read and write but rather how they are taught this technology provides help, and is not there to do the work for them. I would add to her argument other incentives for people to want to use technology to further their understanding of processing information and producing their own ideas. I think that there are plenty of arguments for why technology isn’t hurting the literacy of youth but there aren’t ways to compromise this and therefore it may not even be able to ever be proven due to the variance of hoe accessible and up to date technology is in different areas.
ReplyDeleteAs stated by Jewitt, “Print-based reading and writing are and always have been multimodal” (310). Particularly in reference to screen-based texts, she writes: “screen-based texts are complex multimodal ensembles of image, sound, animated movement, and other modes of representation and communication” (310). As such, a reader must engage in “multimodal semiotic analysis” – which is to say, writing must be understood in relation to the other modes at play. Jewitt saliently notes that “recognizing the multimodal character of texts, whether print-based or digital, impacts on conventional understanding of reading” (319). Reading, therefore, expands beyond just an engagement with word, and instead encompasses the “reading” of images and the interaction of modes. Jewitt places further emphasis on the impact of new technologies and how they have altered and reshaped writing. She states, “The resources of new technologies emphasize the visual potential of writing in ways that bring forth new configurations of image and writing on screen: font, bold, italic, color, layout, and beyond” (314). At one point, she even suggests that images – in many cases -- have become more dominant than words. This leads her to a belief that teaching a linguistic view of literacy and a linear view of reading to children is an erroneous practice that fails to acknowledge the multimodal character of screen-based texts and the importance of text design – something that I am inclined to agree with.
ReplyDeleteWith the heightened prominence of screen-based texts, reading and writing in the 21st century has become reliant on other modes like image, color and movement, as opposed to texts that are word- dominant. According to Jewitt, “Now, image overshadows word in a variety of texts on and off screen: there are more images on screen and images are increasingly given a designed prominence over written elements.” (310) Reading/writing no longer entails just comprehending words but also understanding other elements and how they relate to the text. Jewitt also explains that with changes in technology writing has begun to serve purposes other than being used solely for communication. Within the screen, writing has become an important part of visual elements (i.e. typeface, italics, and bolding) as well as developing a narrative across different forms of media. Another point she made was that “At times, writing on the screen becomes “fully visual”. By this I mean the “content” of the writing is “consumed” by its form.” (316) Advancement in technology has played a part meaning being lost within words in exchange for visual elements. She says “..the linguistic meaning of what is written is often illegible and transformed.” I definitely agree with this because on many webpages it is easy to lose the linguistic mode and meaning with the overuse of visual modes. I also agree with Jewitt’s point that both reading and writing are multimodal activities. Other modes can be “read” in a comparable way that words are understood and are able to convey multiple meanings.
ReplyDeleteJewitt defines both modern and past reading and writing as “multimodal activities” (319). This multimodality is present in both print and digital texts, but digital texts are set apart because of the “range and configurations of modes that digital technologies make available” (320). It felt as though Jewitt is arguing that digital texts are often so different than print texts because people expect a different kind of experience with digital texts. This differing experience manifests through the modes afforded by digital texts. A CD ROM novel remediation of Of Mice and Men is mentioned, and the point is raised that “a large amount of writing on screen is becoming a sign of convention or tradition… it can be seen as a kind of ‘resistance’ to the multimodal potential of new technologies” (316). This draws out the idea that digital texts often should be more than just remediated print texts because people have come to expect a unique modal experience from digital texts that print texts cannot afford. Jewitt’s own text is one that could benefit from the affordances of on-screen digital writing. For example, her description of a digital science text could be strengthened through digital writing. Where she has to spend several paragraphs of alphabetic texts describing how the elements of that digital text work, digital writing would allow her to record a screenshot video of the science text in action with a descriptive voiceover. This would help guarantee she was communicating clearly with readers because they could see exactly what she was referring to (video being a mode that print texts cannot use at all). I think the explosion of e-readers is something to take into account alongside Jewitt’s discussion. While on-screen texts often behave rather differently than print texts, many e-books adhere almost completely to their print counterparts.
ReplyDeleteWhile Jewitt makes the point that multimodality is not new, she provides the idea that both reading and writing practices have been remediated with new technologies (310). In regards to writing, Jewitt illustrates through various examples how "Writing is not always the central meaning making resources in applications for use in school English and Science." (310) This is regardless of the fact that those are areas that are traditionally linguistic in print. The new relationship between linguistic and visual is easy to see in the "Multimodal Science School" where the linguistic mode supplements the visual as labels of diagrams, and captions beneath images. We can also see it in English classes and the new way that texts are transformed on screens. Jewitt also goes beyond the combination of linguistic and visual to discuss the new "visualization of the word." (314) While aspects such as font, color, layout, etc. have been a part of certain professions and areas before, new technology has made them relevant to linguistics. In regards to reading Jewitt discuses the shift from print vs digital to print & digital, and I think that in the last fifteen years we really see this emphasized. Even in just considering out projects in class, we've becoming relatively effective at deciding what genre is better suited for different media. Reading has also changed (in a big way) with the fact that "the structure of many digital texts opens up options about where to start reading a text--what reading path to take." (322) A lot of design choices that have to be made for digital media involve trying to decide where the reader/viewers attention will go first because as readers we're learning that digital media is not always to be read linearly.
ReplyDeleteJewitt begins the article by stating that “new configurations of image and writing brought about by new technologies has had an impact on meaning making, reading and writing” (311). The relationship between image and writing changed both the shapes of knowledge and the practices of reading and writing. These new technologies emphasize the visual potential such as font, bold, italic, color and layout (314).
ReplyDeleteJewitt provides the example of the CD ROM Of Mice and Men. He sees the design of image and writing contributing to the text instead of distracting. It also reinforces the connection between the old and the new. “The multimodal resources available to readers are central to rethinking what reading is and what it might become in a blended, digital communicational environment” (320). Digital technologies present different potentials for reading than print texts.
In the Of Mice and Men CD ROM, a roster of characters is provided in different fonts and colors. This shows connections and representations of the characters that the printed text does not. Digital texts also open up options on where to start reading a text and the possible multiple interpretations. I agree with Jewitt’s discussion that the radical change of technology has changed traditional views of reading and writing.
The twenty first century has seen the culmination of the digital era. What use to be seen on a printed page can now be converted on screen and this has certainly changed the way in which people read and view texts. Although instead of arguing in favor of either form Jewitt touches on rather the evolution of human interaction with textual forms when they are presented on a screen. For her even print based reading has always been grounded in multimodal practices (310). There is always a visual aspect to the linguistic word, and spatial design on pages. The old illuminated manuscripts are good example of this because they were more known for their intricate designs on their page and forced the readers to view the traditional printed page in a different manner. However it was the digital forms which heightened these aspects to texts. In online applications sometimes the writing is no longer the main focus, but rather the visual or auditory features can be more beneficial to the viewer. Like in her example of the PlayStation she recognizes the multimodal nature of their interaction. The video characters are analyzed by their gestures, sounds, or design. The words help accompany the image. I think this idea can be extended to most other online forms in which the image has taken the most prominent role to the viewer (which before had only been a technique used for children’s texts (311)). There’s a need to recognize the new configuration between image and text that influence how someone views text online.
ReplyDeleteI think that with new digital forms and the more they grow in their multimodal practices the father from attempting print “sameness” has diminished and for good reason. I agree with her statement at the end that each generation’s idea of literacy is continually evolving, while our ways of testing it has still remained stagnant.
Jewitt gives many examples of media multimodality media that have recently adapted new textual meanings. For example he repeatedly mentions the video game Ico and analyzes how different texts- written and spoken are used in the game. He emphasizes how the modes of these texts display meaning to the player of the game. For instance, the subtitles in the game are written in a made-up language, so the player does not base his/her virtual activity on this. Instead, the game character/avatar’s speech is what signals good or bad game movements. It is changes like these that “disturb” traditional functions of reading and writing.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Jewitt analyses the different between print textbooks and digital textbooks. The 21st century has made digital textbooks like those on CDs more popular, and it seems as though the visual and written elements have changed in this medium. He describes how there is a larger visual presence on the CD form versus the print textbook. The paragraphs on the screen-based text (CD) are smaller and placed over a screen-filled image. It is adaptions like these that have been introduced with 21st century technology, and I believe texts will continue to change “traditional” designs. For instance, advertising is no longer limited to print or radio. Advertisements cover all media in new ways such as Internet sidebar, promoted tweets and paid Facebook posts. And these advertisements are multimodal in order to fit the screen or attract an audience. Also, computer and TV reading have changed our way of reading and society’s attention span with things like think social media platforms. These should account for the change in traditional texts.
Per Jewitt, reading/writing at the turn of our 21st century now involve more modes than they had before due to the changes in technology and the advent of the personal computer and the internet. Now readers and writers are working more with image than they were before computers. Jewitt said at one point in the essay that he believes readers in our era focus more on colors and images than they do on writing.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the explosion of social media that has occurred since Jewitt wrote this, I would expound upon that and work that into his writing about how we compose and consume differently now. I agree with what Jewitt said about how we aren’t to argue over whether print or digital/old or new media are the best, it should be which are best for the occasion and how should we write according to our situation. In a tweet, you would not and could not write verbose messages so you are forced to think more briefly and efficiently. Similarly, when you are used to reading short messages it becomes less likely in the same time span that you will want to read a very long message in that medium, thusly reading and writing are both changed by new technology.
In "Multimodality, 'Reading' and 'Writing' for the 21st Centuy," Jewitt approaches the changing technological landscape and its impact on writing in a manner similar to Kress. The overall theme of the chapter is that multimodality has fundamentally changed our understanding of writing. As Jewitt states, "Screen-based texts are complex multimodal ensembles of image, sound, animated movement, and other modes of representation and communication. Writing is one mode in this ensemble and its meaning therefore needs to be understood in relation to the other modes it is nestled alongside."
ReplyDeleteShe goes on to explain how in the game Ico, visuals are extremely useful in helping the player grasp the nature of the characters. We understand the "impenetrable" and "inaccessible" quality of one of the main characters, Yorda in two ways: First of all, she is visually represented as faded and ethereal. There is also a written, but not spoken, pictorial text in a fictional language unreadable to the player. In the game Kingdom Hearts, the characters with the greatest role in advancing the story utilize the most modes of communication, both auditory and textual. According to Jewitt, one way that multimodal texts even more fundamentally redefine the idea of writing is through the use of fonts intended to help convey the text's meaning, which makes the text "'fully visual'" and "'consumed' by its form."
However, she does point out certain imperfections in the functioning of multimodality. For instance, she gives the example of students who failed to understand a CD-ROM from the Multimedia Science School, interpreting an image as belonging to the background/overlay, when in reality it was meant to be understood separately, with the background essentially a decoration. The students were overly reliant on the visual mode and did not pay enough attention to the textual mode, which could have helped explain the visuals.
Nevertheless, Jewitt takes an enthusiastic approach to multimodality, and recommends that the way students learn be reshaped in order to accommodate newer technological developments. In a world where the ability to use technology is becoming increasingly important for everyday life, I could not agree more.
Jewitt explains in the text that, “Print-based reading and writing are and always have been multimodal.” So reading and writing of the 21st century will be looked at as multimodal, which Jewitt is saying that there is not much of a change. When analyzing a piece of text, one must look at it as not just words on the page but he elaborates that it is important to assess and bring attention to all of the elements such as, “visual marks, space, colour, and font or style and increasingly image, and other modes of representation and communication.” Which all directly coincide with the modes that we talked about earlier in the semester: visual, spatial, aural, linguistic and gestural. Jewitt makes an interesting point on how affordances are brought into light when concerned with writing and the new technologies that have developed over the years. I think it is actually kind of amusing how Jewitt then goes into saying that there are “screens that look page-like and pages that look screen-like.” The point that I would like to add onto this is that even though new technologies have been invented and people seem to embrace the new and write with these new tools and have new and different layouts than before, sometimes we still have our “screen like pages” of technology look like the old pages that we are used to. Some entailments to this observation would be that as authors we are trying to combine the old and the new in a way. Depending on what kind of text you are authoring for whatever type of medium, that becomes a big deal on how each of the modes are working with each other to put together a cohesive layout. This reminds me of an actual example that was passed around in class. The MIT Magazine that had a “table of contents” sidebar on each page, in the form of what looked like a website layout with tabs. So even though this was a print magazine, it took some form of a web screen.
ReplyDeleteJewitt says that print-based reading and writing are and always have been multimodal because they require the interpretation and design of visual marks, space, color, font/style, image, etc. They say that a multimodal approach means seeing these elements as more than decorations, and even giving them the ability to function with commands while creating a text. Jewitt discusses how writing can function to label, and that the audience’s reading and interpretation can be more individual as more modes are combined, such as in the Ico game and the CD ROM Of Mice and Men. There is some discussion of how different characters interact as multimodal clues and how their functionality is different depending on the level at which they are programmed to interact with the player.
ReplyDeleteJewitt says that the potential of new technologies blur the boundaries between visual and written in ways that recast modes and the relationships between them. I believe that in the time since this was published we've entered an age of extreme interactivity with and personalization of the 'texts' we consume, and as such I believe that Jewitt's messages are still relevant but somewhat lacking in a response to this new situation.
According to Multimodality, Reading and “Writing” for the 21st Century, Jewitt offers her unique perspective on reading and writing in the 21st century today. She argues that in order for schools to keep up with the 21st century technologies, they must “expand to reflect the semiotic systems that young people use” (Jewitt 323). Jewitt continues to make the claim that technologies have always been multimodal, and whether or not they develop through time they still require the “interpretation and design of visual marks, space, color, font or style, and, increasingly image, and other modes of representation and communication” (Jewitt 310). In today’s era there are more images now on the screen and they are “increasingly given a designed prominence over written elements” (Jewitt 311). These new resources emphasize the visual potential of writing and place new configurations of image and writing on screen which include font, bold, italic, color, layout, and more.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, new technology erases the boundaries between the visual and the written ways that “recast modes” along with the relationships between them. This aspect is complicated by the new technologies correlated with the screen along with the developing “three-dimensional, flexible, and transparent screens” (Jewitt 314). The content from writing on screens is consumed by its form and becomes fully visual. Writing is progressing on screen and is becoming a sign of convention or tradition (Jewitt 316). Also, this new range and configurations of modes from digital technologies make different potentials available for reading print texts as the new technologies blend with old ones (Jewitt 320). The old traditional writing continues to impact student’s handwriting and spelling. Although it is influenced by the old elements concerning reading and writing, in today’s era we must rethink what it means to be literate (Jewitt 323). I fully agree with Jewitt’s argument and the only thing that I would add is that matter how drastic the change, to still hold on to the old technologies and remember that all the technologies and platforms are being reconfigured in order to develop your understanding and contribute your ideas.
I like what Jewitt has to say on multimodality; a few things in particular. One of these is when she writes, "this relationship [between images and words] serves to produce or indicate coherence" (310). This quote comes after a short paragraph indicating the different modes present within particular texts. She describes works of English as often being primarily linguistic whereas science may be more visual. But with either, the use of both linguistic and visual could be effective. Jewitt also seems to focus a good bit on technology's effect on multimodality. She writes, "the potential of new technologies blur the boundaries between the visual and the written in ways that 'recast modes' and the relationships between them" (314). She goes on to use the CD ROM version of Of Mice and Men as an example for this. She describes how typography is used on the CD, particularly for descriptions of the main characters within the story. The manner in which their names and descriptions are written does not follow basic type, but rather utilizes a variety of different unique fonts. These character biographies serve to educate students on their place within the novel and relationships with other characters. This could have surely been done with just the linguistic mode, but this way makes it more interactive and engaging for students. Another key point which mentioning is that Jewitt argues that writing's always been multimodal, something we have often discussed in class.
ReplyDeleteWhile Jewitt does not believe multimodality is an idea that is new to the twenty-first century, she does describe in detail how technology has affected it. Jewitt describes the video game, Ico and how it’s usage of multimodality changes the perspective of the characters, such as how easily understood they are as well as how much text there is. Jewitt also goes into detail about the Of Mice and Men CD-ROM. She describes how the page is overcome by the visual mode as opposed to text, even though it is simply a book on CD. Jewitt describes how the usage of images as opposed to text can make it difficult for the reader to focus on the message of the text, even though the images were originally intended to further the text. While it is very obvious fifteen years later that children are completely dependent on the visual mode as opposed to reading text. Even people at my age, twenty, are more likely to opt out of reading a book, or even listening to a book, for a movie. This is also reflected in the desire of these generations for more image dependent media than text dependent. As a generation raised on computers it makes perfect sense for them to be accustomed to wanting their media simplified, however it is obviously a drain on the culture and intelligence of society that people would prefer there media to minimize linguistics.
ReplyDeleteJewitt's piece about reading and writing in the 21st century does acknowledge that the use of multimodality is not a new concept to writers. She does, however, believe that with new-age technology "It takes a considerable amount of work to maintain writing as the dominant mode onscreen" (316). Multimodality may not be a new concept but it is becoming increasingly varied and can prove to be distracting.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main points Jewitt makes is how images conflict with basic writing. She says "Until recently the dominance of image over word was a feature of texts designed for young children. Now, image overshadows word in a variety of texts, on screen and off screen" (311). She then states, "In my view it is increasingly the case that readers, especially young readers and computer literate readers, privilege image and color over writing when reading a multimodal text" (321).
I personally think that being a writer entails a lot more work now than it did in previous centuries. Writers have so many more options and design choices when they go digital, and it forces writers to also become scientists and designers.
Reading and writing now entails a mix of old style as well as new style. It is not limited to what is considered a traditional way to read and write. It has expanded and is now “multimodal.” Images, colors, movements, and even noise are important when it comes to reading and writing. Jewitt uses the example of the Of Mice and Men CD ROM. The visual highlights or writes two of the character’s names in red, a different color than the rest of the text. This sets the characters apart. I think visual aids such as these are not really a distraction but allow for readers, or visual learners, to make certain and necessary distinctions that will help them as they continue to read.
ReplyDeleteI think reading and writing have drastically changed and will continue to change as technology develops. I think a benefit of this is that children are seeing this at a younger age and are able to develop their reading and writing skills in different ways. While some children prefer reading a book as a form of learning, others can use technology to their benefit. This also benefits adults as well. Adults are able to expand their knowledge simply by picking up their phones and open an app that contains the daily news or select a particular article from online. Also, e-books have largely changed the way people read. I think e-books not only promote the books themselves but allow other to discover new novels and up and coming authors.
The reading concentrated not just on reading and writing in the twenty-first century, but mostly on the relationship between the two. Jewitt believes that the idea of multimodality and how it is reflected in reading and writing is not necessarily a new one. Throughout the piece, she discusses reading and writing as a visual and linguistic experience, thus incorporating the multiple modes at play. Being two different modes, each brings a different element to a piece. Jewitt expands on this collaboration and further discusses the images and words interact, exhibiting coherence.
ReplyDeleteJewitt goes into great detail about a multimodal example of a video game. She explains the role of each mode and how it contributes to the experience and understanding of the game. It is this notion that the presence of many modes in a text is purposeful and informative that she builds upon to discuss the role of reading and writing in the twenty-first century. According to Jewitt, technology users of this century are familiar with utilizing each mode to enhance a text.
Reading and Writing also play a great role in the digital world. The typography is adjusted and manipulated to convey the intended message. Font and color are changed and positions on graphics are also adjusted to suggest different meaning through texts. This was discussed in detail when she mentioned the CD-ROM for Of Mice and Men.
What Hewitt has to say for the most part is correct. It is neither the technology of the user that is at fault for shallow work. The technology is simply there. The user just does not always utilize it correctly. We are a society obsessed with instant gratification. When we can't just Google it, we produce insufficient work and even when we can it I'd not completely original. We aren't focusing on what we have access to, we are focusing and how quickly we can get it. What can be expanded on is the cultural impact on work and how this culture that is relatively new has caused connections in our brain to no function as well because of how new it is. We have all the information we just don't know how to use it.
ReplyDelete