One thing I was not aware of however was the depth of the back issues we had access to. I thought it would be a really cool idea to have a look at a journal from today and one of the earliest ones they had. So I have chosen two journals one from 2010 and one from 1963. Looking through a few articles I definitely noticed some differences.
This is a screen grab of an article in the 1963 journal. I skimmed through three separate ones and all three without fail followed this same pattern. No figures, no charts or graphs or data. no pictures, just words. Words, Words, Words. Words are nice and all, but I found these articles very hard to get through. Why is that? Is it because I am a of a generation that cannot focus without visual stimuli? I hope that's not the case, and I know its not entirely as I love to read, but it is interesting to compare this to a a screen grab of the an article in 2010.
Here we have pictures, just a few lines above this was a diagram and a chart, but here's the best part... still plenty of words! Loads of em! Long ones, short ones, etc. I enjoyed actually reading this article. Was it because I was engaged by not only the content but the digital and visual aspects of the article? Perhaps. This little experiment is not entirely pure as the writing style and content of are five decades apart making the recent journals much easier to relate too, but I wonder how I would handle the older articles with a few more images or diagrams?
One other observation I had before I wrap this up, is while the format and media within the article is evolving, albeit at an agonizingly slow pace, the content is the same. Educators 50 years ago face the same problems we face today. Student engagement, social class disparity, student proficiency levels, etc. Very interesting indeed if you ask me.
So true. I hear my mom talk about the new initiatives that "will be gone in 10 years" just to be recycled and called something newfangled in the future. I think the more aware of this we are, the better off our grasp on education becomes. The basics will always be there, but they are also constantly evolving and improving. After all, remember a time when a "big" cell phone was considered faux pas? Now, however....
ReplyDeleteAlas, you took such an interesting approach. Looking at articles that far apart in print date made me nod my head at your closing paragraph. Cool.
Seems my pictures are being difficult. I will try to rectify that later tonight.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this! Good read!
ReplyDeleteShane, you are correct that there is never an assigned prompt to the blog. It is merely a place for you to comment on what you are learning, reflect upon what you are discovering and reading and its theme should be educational. This blog entry is a prime example of what we are looking for.
ReplyDeleteI really value that you look far into the past to compare the articles in English Journal (and now that you are a member, you will have access should you want to use any of these in your research!)
This is a terrific example to demonstrate the changing notions of literacy, which is the subject of our course. Like "Teacher Kitty" stated "the basics will always be there, but they are also constantly evolving and improving." 50 years ago I don't think that there was much attention paid to visuals. Sure, there have always been charts and graphs, but I think the ability to do things like easily upload images or even take screen shots has made the availability even more accessible. That may be a part of why we tend to use more visuals today.
Also, if you need me to verify you to NCTE, please let me know.