Yancey et al., "Device. Display. Read."
Yancey, Kathleen Blake, Jacob Craig, Matt Davis, and Michael Spooner. “Device. Display.
Read: The Design of Reading and Writing and the Difference Display Makes.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan, Howard Tinberg, and Sheridan Blau, National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 33-56.
In this chapter, Yancey et al. examine the ways in which texts might vary according to display and device as a way of better understanding how such variations affect both the texts themselves and our reading practices. In so doing, they take up the question of what these differences in our reading practices might mean in the writing classroom, and how instructors can help students to navigate reading in the “current multimedia landscape” (33). Yancey et al. situate their discussion among other scholarship that seeks to articulate the differences between reading in print and on screen, including James Sosnoski’s notion of “hyper-readers” and Naomi Baron’s “reading on the prowl.” However, using the New York Times’ “Snowfall” as an example, they make the argument that reading such an immersive, multimodal text is more oriented to our experiencing the text in multiple, overlapping ways. However, different devices and displays might alter the content of these kinds of texts, including changing the font, removing images, and changing the background. Accordingly, the authors press us to consider the relationship between form and content. If students access assigned reading from a variety of devices (mobile, tablet, laptop, etc.), it is possible that they are each experiencing the same text differently. In response, they call for instructors to invite their students to critically examine their reading preferences to determine the effects of those preferences, thus making a more informed decision about how they might meaningfully engage with the course material. While Yancey et al. do not directly address OWI, their attention to the materiality of reading on screen has significant implications for online courses. Much like Rodrigo’s “OWI on the Go,” this chapter articulates the value of testing the display and capabilities of various devices, positioning this testing as a kind of literacy skill. As more students enroll in online writing courses, considering the potential differences that displays and devices make will be essential for developing accessible course materials and helping students to engage with them meaningfully.
Read: The Design of Reading and Writing and the Difference Display Makes.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan, Howard Tinberg, and Sheridan Blau, National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 33-56.
In this chapter, Yancey et al. examine the ways in which texts might vary according to display and device as a way of better understanding how such variations affect both the texts themselves and our reading practices. In so doing, they take up the question of what these differences in our reading practices might mean in the writing classroom, and how instructors can help students to navigate reading in the “current multimedia landscape” (33). Yancey et al. situate their discussion among other scholarship that seeks to articulate the differences between reading in print and on screen, including James Sosnoski’s notion of “hyper-readers” and Naomi Baron’s “reading on the prowl.” However, using the New York Times’ “Snowfall” as an example, they make the argument that reading such an immersive, multimodal text is more oriented to our experiencing the text in multiple, overlapping ways. However, different devices and displays might alter the content of these kinds of texts, including changing the font, removing images, and changing the background. Accordingly, the authors press us to consider the relationship between form and content. If students access assigned reading from a variety of devices (mobile, tablet, laptop, etc.), it is possible that they are each experiencing the same text differently. In response, they call for instructors to invite their students to critically examine their reading preferences to determine the effects of those preferences, thus making a more informed decision about how they might meaningfully engage with the course material. While Yancey et al. do not directly address OWI, their attention to the materiality of reading on screen has significant implications for online courses. Much like Rodrigo’s “OWI on the Go,” this chapter articulates the value of testing the display and capabilities of various devices, positioning this testing as a kind of literacy skill. As more students enroll in online writing courses, considering the potential differences that displays and devices make will be essential for developing accessible course materials and helping students to engage with them meaningfully.
Comments
Post a Comment