Wrapping up months of study and discussion in a page or two? That’s a challenge.

Digression: I tell people fairly often that my mother was a philosopher. I’m quite proud of her, actually. She was offered a full fellowship in philosophy at the University of Chicago as a woman from a non-wealthy background, in the 1950s. And turned them down to become a lawyer.

Anyway, the philosophical orientation she bequeathed makes me think about the “underpinnings” of a subject more than most people. In this case, I am moved to question the basis of the course. There’s the concept of “reification” in philosophy, literally “making real.” In particular, philosophy would encourage one to start by questioning existence: Are there new media? And is “new literacy” a real thing?

No. They’re not real, at least in the way that a chair or an atom are real. They’re just concepts. Now philosophy says to ask if they’re useful concepts.

I’d argue that “New Media” is a useful concept. The experience of, say, blogging is different enough from the experience of reading and writing letters or magazine articles that considering it separately and analyzing those differences is worthwhile.

Does the existence of new media imply that we should speak of “new literacy”? Honestly, I’m dubious. Anyone who is “old literate” can read a blog. Anyone who reads text messages can read (for instance) a car’s owner manual, and anyone who can deliver a platform lecture (as I sometimes do) can follow a YouTube how-to video (as I sometimes do).

Does that make this course irrelevant? No. I’m not questioning that new technology exists and that newer tech is constantly appearing. And I certainly don’t question that skill with new media is both useful and often lacking. I suppose what I’m doing is arguing that the terminology is not helpful.

Similarly, I really enjoyed Crystal’s work on Internet language, even while denying its premise. He documented changes to English usage in this are well … but it isn’t a new language, it’s one of many, many ways English has changed for centuries.

Speaking of terminology: while writing the final paper, I decided to change terminology about myself. Prensky defined my generation as “digital immigrants,” but I grew up along with networked communications. My generation was the first to use online services, the first to use the Internet, the first to have cellular phones. I’m redefining us as “digital pioneers” instead of immigrants.

So, having criticized the entire basis of the course, what did I get out of it? Well, not unimportantly, I got an insight into and background in the current state of the field, an awareness of how educators and academics treat the subject. I familiarized myself with a fraction of the literature on the subject(s). And critically, I believe that I found areas that I plan to study further. A course like this is meant to be a beginning, not an ending.

Thank you all.