IM: What's The Fuss???

I remember when I used to talk on the phone for HOURS!! I would be on the phone late into the middle of the night when I had to be in the house and even when I was doing homework. I remember keeping the line open with my best friend and we would talk back and forth as we did our school work. I even remember when we were finally able to have a 3-way conversation, WOW, we thought that was something! (Now I know I am really dating myself, but...)

SO, what is the big fuss about IM? IM is the NEW (not anymore) form of social exchange just like the telephone was for our generation, only BETTER!! IM "allows users to manage multiple simultaneous exchanges and also track their buddies' appearances and disappearances" (Lewis & Fabos, Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities, p 473) Now I don't have to call someone to see if they are home and available, I just keep my computer on and see the instant my friends are available. It is this instantaneous experience that is relevant to this generation. We all know that the internet and computers have changed this world into needing immediate feedback, better feedback, faster and faster. IM is just another way to derive immediate feedback from and about our friends.

What is exciting to researchers and some educators is how "IM motivates young people to engage in decoding, encoding, interpretation, and analysis, among other literacy processes," (Lewis & Fabos, Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities, p 473). The response in my school district, however, has been to block any access to IM. Not only does the district block access to IM, but to any form of collaborative exchange among people. The Language Arts teachers especially, but many other teachers as well, feel that IM is the downfall of human literacy. I, on the other hand, feel that is an evolved form of literacy and continue to frustrate many teachers with whom I have contact.

I believe that why IM and other technologies seem so threatening to some educators is that the "differences between print and digital technologies...indicates the need for educators to rethink what is means to teach and learn..."(Alvermann, 2002; Kellner, 2002). As the researchers have said "...online reading and writing practices may have been shaped by their print practices, thus providing through regular IM activity more experiences with the reading and writing processes and skills valued in school". "IM is multimodal at its core in that it blurs the distinction between speech and writing." (Lewis & Fabos, Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities, p 475) This "change" in teaching and learning is what is so frightening to some educators that they are willing to try and stop the emergence of new technologies, but are unable to accomplish this because evolution marches on.

Much of the research that has been available points to the fact that participating in IM activity actually helps to create a more literate learner. The researchers found that,"Abby had to be able to scan across windows, spatially, to do the work of this kind of writing. She had to read and write quickly across surfaces, delving deeper only when a particular conversational thread kept surfacing, and thus demanding a more developed response. Making on-the-spot decisions about where to focus one's attention is critical to managing the flow across messages. This is an act most of us are accustomed to performing in conversation, but on that the IM user must master in writing." (Lewis & Fabos, Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities, p 486) Looking at these findings, one understands that indeed there are differences in digital literacies as opposed to offline reading and writing.

When one is involved in IM activity, "...the need to fluidly shift performances from audience to audience is unique to the dyadic yet nearly simultaneous nature of IM". "Writers in digital environments frequently address and are addressed by multiple audiences simultaneously." (Lewis & Fabos, Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities, p 493-494) When actively involved in IM a person may be interactive in many conversations at the same time and needs to respond appropriately to each. Therefore as the researchers describe about Abby,"she is able to shift her performances almost simultaneously; performing "sympathetic conspirator"..., "casual acquaintance"...and "flirtatious friend"...". (Lewis & Fabos, Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities, p 493)

The only rational response to all of the above research seems to be that educators should be embracing these new technologies and learning to use them to their advantage, rather than blocking and forbidding their use. I, for one, will continue to fight for their integration into our school curriculums.