I didn’t think Eyman could get more annoying until now. Especially whenever he brings up new terms like “digital literacy” in his article, what the hell does he mean? I try to make an understanding of what he exclaims his ‘definition’, but he just rambles on about what isn’t correct. I can see why Eyman is doing this, he’s trying to keep the readers in the right track. But I think it would’ve been unanimously better if he were to put in the definition around the start of the page. Then he could describe about some of the wrong interpretations of ‘digital literacy’.
Foolish tangent aside, Eyman does great at debunking some of the claims from the authors he mentions. What I mean by this is that Eyman uses them as example to further go in depth on what ‘digital literacy’ could mean by highlighting aspects of the term (like “what does literacy mean?”). Eyman bringing up new phrases such as “electracy” was intimidating at first, but I got the gist of it afterwards. I’m not sure if this is just me but whenever I read more of Eyman’s article and explanations, it’s as if he gives a timeline of the development of English language. It’s so bizarre to know that our language has progressed so much that we’ve upgraded from visual/oral communications to utilizing tools to provide information.
Now Back to Hating Eyman
However, that doesn’t change my opinion about Eyman’s rambling- and it’s not just me that thinks this. In fact, I found a blog post from Jordan Johnson and doesn’t seem so joyful when reading Eyman’s article either. I like how Johnson doesn’t shy away from it either, he literally has a meme picture dedicated to Eyman (couldn’t help but chuckle). Plus, I’m just happy to not feel like the only person who doesn’t like the way Eyman writes.
Leave a Reply